The "bigs" are reading Shakespeare this year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9797617/Shakespeare-and-Wordsworth-boost-the-brain-new-research-reveals.html
-Jen
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Prolife article for my filing cabinet
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/01/7679/
The Real Reason to Criticize Roe
by Daniel K. Williams
January 24th, 2013
Pro-lifers need to better understand the history of the pro-life movement and what Roe did to it.
On the fortieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, it has suddenly become fashionable in certain circles to suggest that the controversial Supreme Court decision was actually a blessing in disguise for pro-lifers, because it breathed new life into a fledgling right-to-life movement and put the abortion rights movement permanently on the defensive. Pro-choice activists have been “losing ever since” Roe, a Time magazine cover story proclaimed this month. Jon Shields pushed this argument even further in the January issue of First Things, declaring that Roe “crippled the pro-choice and energized the pro-life movement, creating one of the largest campaigns of moral suasion in American history.”
Unfortunately, most pro-lifers are unprepared to respond to claims like these, because for years pro-lifers have not really understood what Roe did. They have too often accepted the myth that neither legal abortion nor an organized pro-life movement existed prior to Roe. Although they have denounced Roe vociferously, they have justified doing so with the erroneous argument that Roe was the primary cause of the nation’s high rate of legal abortion, as though legal abortion did not exist in the United States before 1973.
Actually, Roe did not introduce legal abortion to the United States; it did something even worse. Prior to Roe, legal abortion existed, but so did a large, vigorous pro-life movement, and that movement was beginning to win the public debate on abortion. Roe deprived the pro-life movement of its legal victories and allowed abortion to become more available to poor and minority women. It subverted the democratic process and led to a partisan polarization that only grew worse with time. Perhaps worst of all, it nullified the pro-life movement’s constitutional arguments and enshrined in case law a constitutional interpretation that deprived the unborn of any constitutional rights.
Contrary to popular belief, legal abortion was widely available in the United States prior to Roe. Legal abortion for limited reasons had been introduced in Colorado and California in 1967. Abortion on demand (that is, legal abortion for any reason) was introduced to the United States in 1970, three years before Roe, when New York and three other states began permitting unrestricted abortions up to the twentieth or twenty-fourth week of pregnancy. Because New York and California’s abortion laws lacked a residency requirement, some abortion providers began offering travel packages for women to fly to New York or Los Angeles to terminate their pregnancies. Hundreds of thousands of American women did so; in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade, there were 586,760 legal abortions performed in the United States.
But prior to Roe, there was also a large, well-organized pro-life movement that was beginning to turn back the tide against abortion legalization. After losing numerous state legislative debates over abortion policy between 1967 and 1970, pro-lifers reorganized, and beginning in 1971, they experienced a string of uninterrupted legislative victories. By using fetal photographs to convince the public of the evils of abortion, and by making Protestants, Jews, and women the spokespersons for their movement in order to avoid charges of sectarianism or chauvinism, pro-lifers gained a hearing for their cause.
In the spring of 1971, pro-lifers defeated abortion legalization bills in all twenty-five of the state legislatures that considered them. The next year, their record was almost as successful: Only one state liberalized its abortion law, and it did so only under court order. Pro-lifers were equally successful at the ballot box. When Michigan and North Dakota introduced voter initiatives to legalize abortion in 1972, pro-lifers defeated both measures by wide margins. By the end of 1972, pro-lifers thought that they were probably within only one year of repealing New York’s permissive abortion law, and the director of Planned Parenthood’s Western Region division worried that pro-lifers would soon make abortion illegal in California too. “In the West we view ’73 as a difficult year for abortion,” he confided to a colleague in the summer of 1972.
Roe stopped a victorious pro-life movement in its tracks and deprived it of its gains through the democratic process. It forced dozens of states to legalize the procedure against the will of their citizens. When Roe was issued, only nineteen states had adopted liberalized abortion laws, and only four of those states had laws on the books that allowed abortion on demand. Roe required every state to allow abortion on demand.
In 1973, the first year after the Roe decision was issued, there were approximately 750,000 legal abortions performed in the United States—a 28-percent increase over the previous year. By 1980, after abortion clinics had been built across the nation, the annual abortion rate had doubled to 1.5 million.
Roe also made abortion more available to poor women, as the number of clinics quickly expanded after the decision. State and federal governments also funded abortions for poor women through Medicaid, prior to the Hyde Amendment. This availability led to higher abortion rates among poor and minority women. By 2008, 55 percent of the country’s legal abortions were performed on black or Hispanic women, while only 36 percent were performed on non-Hispanic whites. Forty-two percent of women who obtained abortions in 2008 were living below the poverty line. In 1973, by contrast, 75 percent of the women who obtained legal abortions were white. Many pro-lifers view this shift of abortion services to the poor and minorities as a sign that society has refused to offer substantive solutions to the problems that impoverished women face, and has instead simply encouraged them to terminate their pregnancies.
But what really made Roe an egregious decision, in the view of pro-lifers, was that it deprived a class of people of their constitutional rights by declaring them non-persons, something they thought the Supreme Court had not done since Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857. Prior to Roe, pro-life lawyers had found a receptive audience in some state and federal courts for their argument that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ due process clauses protected fetal life, and that the legalization of abortion on demand was therefore unconstitutional. As the Fifth Amendment states, under the Constitution no person can “be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” If fetuses were human persons, then their lives were constitutionally protected.
Pro-life lawyers believed that case law supported their argument that fetuses were indeed human persons, and that they therefore enjoyed the constitutionally protected right to life. Already, they pointed out, several courts had recognized fetal personhood in prenatal damage cases. In Smith v. Brennan (1960), for instance, the New Jersey state supreme court declared that because “medical authority recognizes that an unborn child is a distinct biological entity from the time of conception,” parents of an unborn child whose life was terminated in an accident had the right to sue for compensation for the loss of their child’s life. Similarly, in O’Neill v. Morse (1971), the Michigan state supreme court declared that the fetus was a “person” with an existence separate from the mother, and that “the phenomenon of birth is not the beginning of life; it is merely a change in the form of life.”
If fetuses were declared to be persons for the sake of prenatal damage claims, then the law could not deprive them of personhood in abortion cases, pro-life lawyers argued. Some courts accepted this argument. In 1967, for instance, the New Jersey state supreme court ruled in Gleitman v. Cosgrove that fetal birth defects caused by rubella did not constitute grounds for an abortion, because “the right to life is inalienable in our society.”
But the legal tide began turning against the pro-life movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s because of courts’ increasingly broad interpretations of the “right to privacy.” In 1965 the Supreme Court declared in Griswold v. Connecticut that the right to privacy gave married couples the right to use birth control without state interference. Citing that ruling, the California state supreme court declared in People v. Belous (1969) that “the fundamental right of the woman to choose whether to bear children” made restrictive abortion laws unconstitutional. Other state supreme courts adopted Belous’s reasoning. In 1972, courts in Florida, New Jersey, and other states struck down restrictive abortion laws.
Roe codified this new interpretation of the right to privacy in constitutional case law and prevented pro-life lawyers from ever again gaining a legal hearing for their argument that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect fetal life. By a vote of seven members, the Court deprived the unborn of the most basic rights of personhood and made it legal to terminate their existence. “The horrible truth is, the Court’s decision put our nation officially in favor of killing by law,” pro-life activist J. P. McFadden declared in National Review.
When the Supreme Court rejected their constitutional argument, pro-lifers dedicated their efforts to passing a Human Life Amendment (HLA) that would enshrine the protection of the fetus’s right to life in the Constitution. When the HLA failed to pass in Congress, after more than a decade of repeated attempts to bring it to a floor vote, pro-lifers began a campaign to reverse Roe by changing the composition of the Supreme Court. That campaign polarized the nation’s political parties, making each judicial nomination a battleground over abortion. After working for thirty years to change the composition of the Supreme Court, pro-lifers have not yet been able to find the five judicial votes needed to reverse Roe.
If Roe is overturned someday, its reversal will not end legal abortion in the United States, nor will it likely have an immediate impact on the abortion rate, because the states that are the largest providers of abortion have already signaled that they will continue to permit unrestricted abortion in the event that Roe is overturned. Nor would Roe’s reversal end the nation’s debate over abortion; in fact, Jon Shields is probably right to argue that the reversal would result in a pro-choice backlash.
Yet if Roe is reversed, no state legislature or lower court will ever again have to accept abortion as a sacrosanct constitutional right, and pro-lifers will once again have the freedom to argue, without fear of contempt or ridicule, that the Constitution protects the right to life of the unborn child. Roe cut off public discussion of these questions; the reversal of Roe would open it up again.
Surely all pro-lifers can agree that Roe is a travesty of justice against the unborn child's right to life. Still, they need to make the right criticism of Roe.The decision neither started legal abortion nor hurt pro-choice momentum, but instead set back a trajectory of pro-life progress that is still reviving after forty years.
The Real Reason to Criticize Roe
by Daniel K. Williams
January 24th, 2013
Pro-lifers need to better understand the history of the pro-life movement and what Roe did to it.
On the fortieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, it has suddenly become fashionable in certain circles to suggest that the controversial Supreme Court decision was actually a blessing in disguise for pro-lifers, because it breathed new life into a fledgling right-to-life movement and put the abortion rights movement permanently on the defensive. Pro-choice activists have been “losing ever since” Roe, a Time magazine cover story proclaimed this month. Jon Shields pushed this argument even further in the January issue of First Things, declaring that Roe “crippled the pro-choice and energized the pro-life movement, creating one of the largest campaigns of moral suasion in American history.”
Unfortunately, most pro-lifers are unprepared to respond to claims like these, because for years pro-lifers have not really understood what Roe did. They have too often accepted the myth that neither legal abortion nor an organized pro-life movement existed prior to Roe. Although they have denounced Roe vociferously, they have justified doing so with the erroneous argument that Roe was the primary cause of the nation’s high rate of legal abortion, as though legal abortion did not exist in the United States before 1973.
Actually, Roe did not introduce legal abortion to the United States; it did something even worse. Prior to Roe, legal abortion existed, but so did a large, vigorous pro-life movement, and that movement was beginning to win the public debate on abortion. Roe deprived the pro-life movement of its legal victories and allowed abortion to become more available to poor and minority women. It subverted the democratic process and led to a partisan polarization that only grew worse with time. Perhaps worst of all, it nullified the pro-life movement’s constitutional arguments and enshrined in case law a constitutional interpretation that deprived the unborn of any constitutional rights.
Contrary to popular belief, legal abortion was widely available in the United States prior to Roe. Legal abortion for limited reasons had been introduced in Colorado and California in 1967. Abortion on demand (that is, legal abortion for any reason) was introduced to the United States in 1970, three years before Roe, when New York and three other states began permitting unrestricted abortions up to the twentieth or twenty-fourth week of pregnancy. Because New York and California’s abortion laws lacked a residency requirement, some abortion providers began offering travel packages for women to fly to New York or Los Angeles to terminate their pregnancies. Hundreds of thousands of American women did so; in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade, there were 586,760 legal abortions performed in the United States.
But prior to Roe, there was also a large, well-organized pro-life movement that was beginning to turn back the tide against abortion legalization. After losing numerous state legislative debates over abortion policy between 1967 and 1970, pro-lifers reorganized, and beginning in 1971, they experienced a string of uninterrupted legislative victories. By using fetal photographs to convince the public of the evils of abortion, and by making Protestants, Jews, and women the spokespersons for their movement in order to avoid charges of sectarianism or chauvinism, pro-lifers gained a hearing for their cause.
In the spring of 1971, pro-lifers defeated abortion legalization bills in all twenty-five of the state legislatures that considered them. The next year, their record was almost as successful: Only one state liberalized its abortion law, and it did so only under court order. Pro-lifers were equally successful at the ballot box. When Michigan and North Dakota introduced voter initiatives to legalize abortion in 1972, pro-lifers defeated both measures by wide margins. By the end of 1972, pro-lifers thought that they were probably within only one year of repealing New York’s permissive abortion law, and the director of Planned Parenthood’s Western Region division worried that pro-lifers would soon make abortion illegal in California too. “In the West we view ’73 as a difficult year for abortion,” he confided to a colleague in the summer of 1972.
Roe stopped a victorious pro-life movement in its tracks and deprived it of its gains through the democratic process. It forced dozens of states to legalize the procedure against the will of their citizens. When Roe was issued, only nineteen states had adopted liberalized abortion laws, and only four of those states had laws on the books that allowed abortion on demand. Roe required every state to allow abortion on demand.
In 1973, the first year after the Roe decision was issued, there were approximately 750,000 legal abortions performed in the United States—a 28-percent increase over the previous year. By 1980, after abortion clinics had been built across the nation, the annual abortion rate had doubled to 1.5 million.
Roe also made abortion more available to poor women, as the number of clinics quickly expanded after the decision. State and federal governments also funded abortions for poor women through Medicaid, prior to the Hyde Amendment. This availability led to higher abortion rates among poor and minority women. By 2008, 55 percent of the country’s legal abortions were performed on black or Hispanic women, while only 36 percent were performed on non-Hispanic whites. Forty-two percent of women who obtained abortions in 2008 were living below the poverty line. In 1973, by contrast, 75 percent of the women who obtained legal abortions were white. Many pro-lifers view this shift of abortion services to the poor and minorities as a sign that society has refused to offer substantive solutions to the problems that impoverished women face, and has instead simply encouraged them to terminate their pregnancies.
But what really made Roe an egregious decision, in the view of pro-lifers, was that it deprived a class of people of their constitutional rights by declaring them non-persons, something they thought the Supreme Court had not done since Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857. Prior to Roe, pro-life lawyers had found a receptive audience in some state and federal courts for their argument that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ due process clauses protected fetal life, and that the legalization of abortion on demand was therefore unconstitutional. As the Fifth Amendment states, under the Constitution no person can “be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” If fetuses were human persons, then their lives were constitutionally protected.
Pro-life lawyers believed that case law supported their argument that fetuses were indeed human persons, and that they therefore enjoyed the constitutionally protected right to life. Already, they pointed out, several courts had recognized fetal personhood in prenatal damage cases. In Smith v. Brennan (1960), for instance, the New Jersey state supreme court declared that because “medical authority recognizes that an unborn child is a distinct biological entity from the time of conception,” parents of an unborn child whose life was terminated in an accident had the right to sue for compensation for the loss of their child’s life. Similarly, in O’Neill v. Morse (1971), the Michigan state supreme court declared that the fetus was a “person” with an existence separate from the mother, and that “the phenomenon of birth is not the beginning of life; it is merely a change in the form of life.”
If fetuses were declared to be persons for the sake of prenatal damage claims, then the law could not deprive them of personhood in abortion cases, pro-life lawyers argued. Some courts accepted this argument. In 1967, for instance, the New Jersey state supreme court ruled in Gleitman v. Cosgrove that fetal birth defects caused by rubella did not constitute grounds for an abortion, because “the right to life is inalienable in our society.”
But the legal tide began turning against the pro-life movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s because of courts’ increasingly broad interpretations of the “right to privacy.” In 1965 the Supreme Court declared in Griswold v. Connecticut that the right to privacy gave married couples the right to use birth control without state interference. Citing that ruling, the California state supreme court declared in People v. Belous (1969) that “the fundamental right of the woman to choose whether to bear children” made restrictive abortion laws unconstitutional. Other state supreme courts adopted Belous’s reasoning. In 1972, courts in Florida, New Jersey, and other states struck down restrictive abortion laws.
Roe codified this new interpretation of the right to privacy in constitutional case law and prevented pro-life lawyers from ever again gaining a legal hearing for their argument that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect fetal life. By a vote of seven members, the Court deprived the unborn of the most basic rights of personhood and made it legal to terminate their existence. “The horrible truth is, the Court’s decision put our nation officially in favor of killing by law,” pro-life activist J. P. McFadden declared in National Review.
When the Supreme Court rejected their constitutional argument, pro-lifers dedicated their efforts to passing a Human Life Amendment (HLA) that would enshrine the protection of the fetus’s right to life in the Constitution. When the HLA failed to pass in Congress, after more than a decade of repeated attempts to bring it to a floor vote, pro-lifers began a campaign to reverse Roe by changing the composition of the Supreme Court. That campaign polarized the nation’s political parties, making each judicial nomination a battleground over abortion. After working for thirty years to change the composition of the Supreme Court, pro-lifers have not yet been able to find the five judicial votes needed to reverse Roe.
If Roe is overturned someday, its reversal will not end legal abortion in the United States, nor will it likely have an immediate impact on the abortion rate, because the states that are the largest providers of abortion have already signaled that they will continue to permit unrestricted abortion in the event that Roe is overturned. Nor would Roe’s reversal end the nation’s debate over abortion; in fact, Jon Shields is probably right to argue that the reversal would result in a pro-choice backlash.
Yet if Roe is reversed, no state legislature or lower court will ever again have to accept abortion as a sacrosanct constitutional right, and pro-lifers will once again have the freedom to argue, without fear of contempt or ridicule, that the Constitution protects the right to life of the unborn child. Roe cut off public discussion of these questions; the reversal of Roe would open it up again.
Surely all pro-lifers can agree that Roe is a travesty of justice against the unborn child's right to life. Still, they need to make the right criticism of Roe.The decision neither started legal abortion nor hurt pro-choice momentum, but instead set back a trajectory of pro-life progress that is still reviving after forty years.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Balance
When I read something like this:
http://higherupandfurtherin.blogspot.com/2013/01/group-studies-being-educated-on-things.html?m=1
I am so thankful that I homeschool. We can get so focused on pragmatics that we lose sight that we are moulding souls. People are not just producers; they are thinking, feeling, creating beings.
Take time for all extra-curricular. I don't mean playing video games & watching movies, though those can have a small place in your life. I mean the things which add depth & texture to life; music, art, literature, handicrafts (knitting, woodworking), exercise, nature & animals. And remember, you are raising children, not producers.
-Jen
http://higherupandfurtherin.blogspot.com/2013/01/group-studies-being-educated-on-things.html?m=1
I am so thankful that I homeschool. We can get so focused on pragmatics that we lose sight that we are moulding souls. People are not just producers; they are thinking, feeling, creating beings.
Take time for all extra-curricular. I don't mean playing video games & watching movies, though those can have a small place in your life. I mean the things which add depth & texture to life; music, art, literature, handicrafts (knitting, woodworking), exercise, nature & animals. And remember, you are raising children, not producers.
-Jen
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Name change for my blog
A few weeks ago, as I was leaving a local grocery store with my kids, a woman started yelling at me. As she got more and more worked up, she started throwing out labels like "religious" & "crazy." I did not know where this attack came from, until she pointed at my van, which happens to sport it's fair share of pro-life bumper stickers. Ahhh....
Insert a conversation a few days later on a social media site where I told someone I couldn't adopt their cat, as I have three already, or I'd become "that crazy cat lady"... as I thought about it, the two thoughts started to merge.
I suppose I am a bit "different." I have six kids whom I school at home. I am pro-life and "religious." I have a lot of animals (two dogs, three cats, two guppies, and a flock of chickens). Maybe I really was "that crazy religious lady." Anyway, for now, I'm embracing my individuality.
Maybe I will change the name again as I change the way I feel about things.
Insert a conversation a few days later on a social media site where I told someone I couldn't adopt their cat, as I have three already, or I'd become "that crazy cat lady"... as I thought about it, the two thoughts started to merge.
I suppose I am a bit "different." I have six kids whom I school at home. I am pro-life and "religious." I have a lot of animals (two dogs, three cats, two guppies, and a flock of chickens). Maybe I really was "that crazy religious lady." Anyway, for now, I'm embracing my individuality.
Maybe I will change the name again as I change the way I feel about things.
On reading good books
These two articles were something of interest to me:
http://www.higherupandfurtherin.blogspot.com/2012/10/what-about-hard-books-and-uninterested.html
http://www.higherupandfurtherin.blogspot.com/2012/11/tips-on-getting-children-interested-in.html
http://www.higherupandfurtherin.blogspot.com/2012/10/what-about-hard-books-and-uninterested.html
http://www.higherupandfurtherin.blogspot.com/2012/11/tips-on-getting-children-interested-in.html
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Meditations on the Art of Waiting
We've been reading this book during Advent.
http://www.ignatius.com/Products/CLJ-P/come-lord-jesus.aspx
It is wonderful. Every reading speaks to me! I cannot recommend it enough.
http://www.ignatius.com/Products/CLJ-P/come-lord-jesus.aspx
It is wonderful. Every reading speaks to me! I cannot recommend it enough.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
A Vocation to Holiness through Motherhood
My friend Caroline, over at Catholic Sunshine http://caroline-catholicsunshine.blogspot.com/ had this to say today:
This perfectly sums up my view of my vocation as a mother.
"Earlier today I changed my 10 month old's diaper, dressed him in some clean clothes and nursed him. What a beautiful thing it is to have a baby for whom to care. I was thinking of Mother Teresa and her serving Christ in those to whom she ministered. "What so ever you do for these, the least of my children, that you do unto Me." Mother Teresa would repeat these words to herself as she cared for the poorest of the poor. In simply caring for my little baby, I have accomplished a lot on this day, and in so doing, I have cared for Jesus Himself! May Mother Teresa pray for my vocation of Motherhood, and for all Mothers, that we may be holy, gentle, and loving women to our husbands, children, and neighbors. God Bless and Take Care."
This perfectly sums up my view of my vocation as a mother.
God's Word
As every Sunday Mass at my home parish is a three-ring-circus of performances and calling attention to the laity (today was no exception), I was dreading going. I considered going to another parish to which our former Parochial Vicar had invited me, but I wasn't looking forward to three hours in the van. I have had a very productive week and was torn as to as to what was going to best refuel me for another busy week. What I really wanted was a quiet, God-focused Mass, but perhaps not at the expense of a day in the van. Finally, I chose to just stick it out at our home parish. As such, I knew that I would really need to recollect myself and put all I could into Mass. Sometimes you can come and just receive and sometimes you have to seek God. As Mass began, I prayed to God that the Holy Spirit would be with me and guide me as I needed. I always find that He comes to me when I ask, but that it is a bit like falling asleep, He comes so peacefully, you don't know it until you know it, just as you may not know you were falling asleep until something jerks you awake.
Today in Mass, I was offering up a past wound, a betrayal of sorts. Just as I started to do so the thought came to my head:
Alleluia, of Aggeus and Zacharias.
Praise the Lord, O my soul, in my life I will praise the Lord:
I will sing to my God as long as I shall be.
Put not your trust in princes:
in the children of men, in whom there is no salvation.
His spirit shall go forth, and he shall return into his earth: in that day all their thoughts shall perish.
Blessed is he who hath the God of Jacob for his helper, whose hope is in the Lord his God:
who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all things that are in them.
Who keepeth truth for ever: who executeth judgment for them that suffer wrong: who giveth food to the hungry. The Lord looseth them that are fettered:
the Lord enlighteneth the blind. The Lord lifteth up them that are cast down: the Lord loveth the just.
The Lord keepeth the strangers, he will support the fatherless and the widow: and the ways of sinners he will destroy.
The Lord shall reign for ever: thy God, O Sion, unto generation and generation.
And then a few minutes later, I tuned in to hear this:
I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God,
Today in Mass, I was offering up a past wound, a betrayal of sorts. Just as I started to do so the thought came to my head:
Alleluia, of Aggeus and Zacharias.
Praise the Lord, O my soul, in my life I will praise the Lord:
I will sing to my God as long as I shall be.
Put not your trust in princes:
in the children of men, in whom there is no salvation.
His spirit shall go forth, and he shall return into his earth: in that day all their thoughts shall perish.
Blessed is he who hath the God of Jacob for his helper, whose hope is in the Lord his God:
who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all things that are in them.
Who keepeth truth for ever: who executeth judgment for them that suffer wrong: who giveth food to the hungry. The Lord looseth them that are fettered:
the Lord enlighteneth the blind. The Lord lifteth up them that are cast down: the Lord loveth the just.
The Lord keepeth the strangers, he will support the fatherless and the widow: and the ways of sinners he will destroy.
The Lord shall reign for ever: thy God, O Sion, unto generation and generation.
Psalm 146
And then a few minutes later, I tuned in to hear this:
I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God,
to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice,
holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship.
Do not conform yourselves to this age
but be transformed by the renewal of your mind,
that you may discern what is the will of God,
what is good and pleasing and perfect.
Romans 12:1-2
And then...
Jesus began to show his disciples
that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly
from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes,
and be killed and on the third day be raised.
Then Peter took Jesus aside and began to rebuke him,
"God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you."
He turned and said to Peter,
"Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me.
You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do."
Then Jesus said to his disciples
that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly
from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes,
and be killed and on the third day be raised.
Then Peter took Jesus aside and began to rebuke him,
"God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you."
He turned and said to Peter,
"Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me.
You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do."
Then Jesus said to his disciples
"Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself,
take up his cross, and follow me.
For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it,
but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world
and forfeit his life"
Or what can one give in exchange for his life?
For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory,
and then he will repay all according to his conduct."
take up his cross, and follow me.
For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it,
but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world
and forfeit his life"
Or what can one give in exchange for his life?
For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory,
and then he will repay all according to his conduct."
Matthew 16:21-27
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Parenting basics
Lately, I have received requests for parenting advice from homeschooling moms of big (and not so big) families. I am not a perfect mom and I'm well aware of my failings (number one among many, I lose my patience), but I suppose the compliment comes because the adults and their children enjoy my children's company. I have to admit that I enjoy my children's company, too! But often, I think they are so very enjoyable IN SPITE of me (read kind, helpful, playful, considerate, respectful of young & old).
That said, I'm going to step out on a limb & share some advice. Behavior is THE most important thing you can work on. Period. If the kids aren't behaving, you can be using the best curriculum in the world and you will be accomplishing nothing.
Specifically, work on the behavior of your eldest child first. Then work your way down the children. You may have darling toddlers, but if you have mouthy pre-teens, guess what? You'll soon have mouthy preschoolers. And more importantly, the elder of your children back you up & reinforce your lessons. This does not mean that you leave parenting to your eldest children, that's just a variation of "The Lord of the Flies," but it does mean that they are role models for your youngers.
And my last piece of advice is to be consistent and follow through. There is nothing more important than your children's behavior (FB, TV, dates with your hubby OR girlfriends). Don't despair when they give you a run for your money, kids WILL test every limit. But if you set clear limits & expectations and follow through with enforcing, punishing, or rewarding consistently, your children will slowly (yes, maybe years) come around.
And THAT is where the real fun begins! That is when the academics soar, the ability to trust your child with responsibilities begins, and your kids are simply a joy to be around. Once they learn self control, you can focus on all the wonderful things that life holds in store for them.
Enjoy your children every minute of everyday, but never lose sight of who you want them to be and consistently guide them to that goal.
That said, I'm going to step out on a limb & share some advice. Behavior is THE most important thing you can work on. Period. If the kids aren't behaving, you can be using the best curriculum in the world and you will be accomplishing nothing.
Specifically, work on the behavior of your eldest child first. Then work your way down the children. You may have darling toddlers, but if you have mouthy pre-teens, guess what? You'll soon have mouthy preschoolers. And more importantly, the elder of your children back you up & reinforce your lessons. This does not mean that you leave parenting to your eldest children, that's just a variation of "The Lord of the Flies," but it does mean that they are role models for your youngers.
And my last piece of advice is to be consistent and follow through. There is nothing more important than your children's behavior (FB, TV, dates with your hubby OR girlfriends). Don't despair when they give you a run for your money, kids WILL test every limit. But if you set clear limits & expectations and follow through with enforcing, punishing, or rewarding consistently, your children will slowly (yes, maybe years) come around.
And THAT is where the real fun begins! That is when the academics soar, the ability to trust your child with responsibilities begins, and your kids are simply a joy to be around. Once they learn self control, you can focus on all the wonderful things that life holds in store for them.
Enjoy your children every minute of everyday, but never lose sight of who you want them to be and consistently guide them to that goal.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Contentment
I tried to say something to this effect on a home schooling forum to which I was adde; it fell on deaf ears. Chesterton is much more eloquent than I. Perhaps he would have broken through the log-jam.
"True contentment is a thing as active as agriculture. It is the power of getting out of any situation all that there is in it. It is arduous and it is rare. The absence of this digestive talent is what makes so cold and incredible the tales of so many people who say they have been "through" things; when it is evident that they have come out on the other side quite unchanged. A man might have gone "through" a plum pudding as a bullet might go through a plum pudding; it depends on the size of the pudding—and the man. But the awful and sacred question is "Has the pudding been through him?" Has he tasted, appreciated, and absorbed the solid pudding, with its three dimensions and its three thousand tastes and smells? Can he offer himself to the eyes of men as one who has cubically conquered and contained a pudding?
In the same way we may ask of those who profess to have passed through trivial or tragic experiences whether they have absorbed the content of them; whether they licked up such living water as there was. It is a pertinent question in connection with many modern problems."
From The Contented Man
"True contentment is a thing as active as agriculture. It is the power of getting out of any situation all that there is in it. It is arduous and it is rare. The absence of this digestive talent is what makes so cold and incredible the tales of so many people who say they have been "through" things; when it is evident that they have come out on the other side quite unchanged. A man might have gone "through" a plum pudding as a bullet might go through a plum pudding; it depends on the size of the pudding—and the man. But the awful and sacred question is "Has the pudding been through him?" Has he tasted, appreciated, and absorbed the solid pudding, with its three dimensions and its three thousand tastes and smells? Can he offer himself to the eyes of men as one who has cubically conquered and contained a pudding?
In the same way we may ask of those who profess to have passed through trivial or tragic experiences whether they have absorbed the content of them; whether they licked up such living water as there was. It is a pertinent question in connection with many modern problems."
From The Contented Man
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Fulfilling our desires
Thinking more of cultivating a spirit of gratefulness: we must seek what we really desire.
A happy marriage? Look for the good in your spouse. Enjoy your time together, seek to make your differences areas where you grow.
Good kids? Lead them by your honest, hardworking example. Correct them gently but don't indulge them.
So often, what we really desire is SELF, so when our spouse doesn't cater to our whims, they are a jerk and we really just want our kids to let us do our thing, so we bribe & indulge them so they'll leave us alone.
Look at your actions. What do they say about what you REALLY desire?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
A happy marriage? Look for the good in your spouse. Enjoy your time together, seek to make your differences areas where you grow.
Good kids? Lead them by your honest, hardworking example. Correct them gently but don't indulge them.
So often, what we really desire is SELF, so when our spouse doesn't cater to our whims, they are a jerk and we really just want our kids to let us do our thing, so we bribe & indulge them so they'll leave us alone.
Look at your actions. What do they say about what you REALLY desire?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Thankfulness
I was out running errands today, grumbling about how I hate to shop. Then it struck me how easy it is to slip into a habit of complaining. And then, because God never passes up a teaching moment, I realized, "I have never once thanked God for being able to pay my grocery bill."
What ungratefulness.
A rather humbling realization.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
What ungratefulness.
A rather humbling realization.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
God's gift of Faith
Are you in the midst of a conversion? Re-version? Is everything so exciting? But perhaps also a little frustrating because you want more, now? Slow down. Relax. Understand, this change inside of you is ALL God's doing. You aren't doing this, nor can you. Savor it all. Enjoy right here. God is slowly drawing you in, pulling you close. He will unfold it all to you, in His time. Rest in the Lord and thank Him for the gift He is bestowing on you.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Monday, April 9, 2012
A slowly blooming flower...
God has been unfolding this lesson to me for the last five years, like a flower blossoming. Sometimes it was painful, but now it brings me joy.
"Our present life is given only to gain the eternal one and if we don't think about it, we build our affections on what belongs to this world, where our life is transitory. When we have to leave it we are afraid and become agitated. Believe me, to live happily in this pilgrimage, we have to aim at the hope of arriving at our Homeland, where we will stay eternally. Meanwhile we have to believe firmly that God calls us to Himself and follows us along the path towards Him. He will never permit anything to happen to us that is not for our greater good. He knows who we are and He will hold out His paternal hand to us during difficulties, so that nothing prevents us from running to Him swiftly. But to enjoy this grace we must have complete trust in Him." St. Padre Pio
"Our present life is given only to gain the eternal one and if we don't think about it, we build our affections on what belongs to this world, where our life is transitory. When we have to leave it we are afraid and become agitated. Believe me, to live happily in this pilgrimage, we have to aim at the hope of arriving at our Homeland, where we will stay eternally. Meanwhile we have to believe firmly that God calls us to Himself and follows us along the path towards Him. He will never permit anything to happen to us that is not for our greater good. He knows who we are and He will hold out His paternal hand to us during difficulties, so that nothing prevents us from running to Him swiftly. But to enjoy this grace we must have complete trust in Him." St. Padre Pio
Friday, March 23, 2012
Teenagers, an excellent article
"What Plato thought no parents would ever do, turn over their own children to others to be reeducated, the parents of America did after World War II. Before then there were no TVs, a few disk jockeys, and some movie stars, but they were seldom allowed in the home, and certainly not allowed to educate the children. Suddenly after the War, into the American home came hordes of them. Few parents would have invited these persons in as guests and yet they turned over the souls of their own children to them to be educated."
http://www.home-school.com/Articles/myth-of-the-teenager.html
http://www.home-school.com/Articles/myth-of-the-teenager.html
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
The Parton saint of Teachers!
"'Your total ignorance of that which you profess to teach merits the death penalty. I doubt whether you would know that St. Cassian of Imola was stabbed to death by his students with their styli. His death, a martyr's honorable one, made him a patron saint of teachers.'" -- Ignatius Reilly, in John Kennedy Toole, A Confederacy of Dunces [1]
As the second semester begins, 'tis well to think of the lot of the teacher. I had not known that there was a "patron saint" of teachers. And if there was one, I presumed, at least for the college and graduate crowd, that it was Thomas Aquinas. But Aquinas, even though he spent a good deal of time dealing with beginners, is usually considered the patron of the more heady philosophical types. We know that Aquinas was not a martyr, even though he died rather young at 49, leaving several unfinished works, including the famous Summa Theologiae.
So when I returned to Washington after Christmas from California, I wanted a book to read on the Alaska Airline Flight #6 from LAX to Reagan National. I was staying with my niece, who lives some twenty minutes from LAX. Among the books on her shelves, I spotted John Kennedy Toole's A Confederacy of Dunces, a title from Swift. I began to read this novel last summer but only covered a few pages. My good niece let me have it to read on the five-hour flight to D.C. Since the Introduction was by Walker Percy, I figured it would be a pretty good read.
Somewhere over the eastern United States, I came to the passage that I cited above, about St. Cassian of Imola, the patron of teachers. Needless to say, I had not heard of St. Cassian before, at least not this one. As I recall, another Cassian, a medieval abbot, wrote something called The Spiritual Meadow. So I looked up Cassian of Imola (a town near Ravenna) on Google. I found a reference to his Feast Day, August 13, from Butler's Lives of the Saints.
Cassian comes from the time of Julian the Apostate, in the fourth century or so. It seems that the Emperor had ordered all teachers to take an oath to the local gods, which Cassian, good Christian that he was, refused to do. (Our modern teachers have to take an oath that they will not refer to any gods, pagan or Christian, something known as "cultural evolution".) Roman soldiers who were Christian had the same problem. It was a local form of swearing loyalty to the state which was identified with the gods. It seemed like state-supported blasphemy, which it was.
Cassian was evidently a pious professor and refused to make such an oath. Whereupon, the local magistrate promptly decided to make an example of him. Cunning man that he was, the official involved the man's own students in his punishment. The students, not having finished the course, evidently had no problem with this strange form of justice. Cassian was stripped and tied to a post. From whence, his students, mindful of the man's punishments for their own scholarly laxities, drew their iron styli—pens used to mark on wax tablets—and stabbed the man to death.
So, here we have it. A Christian teacher was stabbed to death, under orders, by his own students with their own writing instruments in the name of the state for refusing to offer sacrifices to pagan gods. Today we have a more cruel punishment. We do not grant tenure to such stubborn types! But what could be a more graphic example for the scholarly vocation? One shudders to think of the lessons that students may draw from this account of how to deal with teachers!
In recording this remarkable history, the famous Butler laconically remarks, "There is no record of his (St. Cassian's) becoming a patron of teachers in spite of his pre-eminent qualifications for the role." Well, from now on, St. Cassian is my man. Recently, I decided to forbid computers from being used in my classes. But, so far, I have seen no indication of my good students rising to bludgeon Schall to death with their laptops because he would not let them type e-mails to their friends during class. Ever since Ignatius Reilly referred to him, I have had a special devotion to St. Cassian of Imola, patron of teachers. It is probably worth noting that the "dunces" to whom Jonathan Swift referred were no doubt all of high academic standing.
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2008/print2008/schall_patronsaint_jan08.html
As the second semester begins, 'tis well to think of the lot of the teacher. I had not known that there was a "patron saint" of teachers. And if there was one, I presumed, at least for the college and graduate crowd, that it was Thomas Aquinas. But Aquinas, even though he spent a good deal of time dealing with beginners, is usually considered the patron of the more heady philosophical types. We know that Aquinas was not a martyr, even though he died rather young at 49, leaving several unfinished works, including the famous Summa Theologiae.
So when I returned to Washington after Christmas from California, I wanted a book to read on the Alaska Airline Flight #6 from LAX to Reagan National. I was staying with my niece, who lives some twenty minutes from LAX. Among the books on her shelves, I spotted John Kennedy Toole's A Confederacy of Dunces, a title from Swift. I began to read this novel last summer but only covered a few pages. My good niece let me have it to read on the five-hour flight to D.C. Since the Introduction was by Walker Percy, I figured it would be a pretty good read.
Somewhere over the eastern United States, I came to the passage that I cited above, about St. Cassian of Imola, the patron of teachers. Needless to say, I had not heard of St. Cassian before, at least not this one. As I recall, another Cassian, a medieval abbot, wrote something called The Spiritual Meadow. So I looked up Cassian of Imola (a town near Ravenna) on Google. I found a reference to his Feast Day, August 13, from Butler's Lives of the Saints.
Cassian comes from the time of Julian the Apostate, in the fourth century or so. It seems that the Emperor had ordered all teachers to take an oath to the local gods, which Cassian, good Christian that he was, refused to do. (Our modern teachers have to take an oath that they will not refer to any gods, pagan or Christian, something known as "cultural evolution".) Roman soldiers who were Christian had the same problem. It was a local form of swearing loyalty to the state which was identified with the gods. It seemed like state-supported blasphemy, which it was.
Cassian was evidently a pious professor and refused to make such an oath. Whereupon, the local magistrate promptly decided to make an example of him. Cunning man that he was, the official involved the man's own students in his punishment. The students, not having finished the course, evidently had no problem with this strange form of justice. Cassian was stripped and tied to a post. From whence, his students, mindful of the man's punishments for their own scholarly laxities, drew their iron styli—pens used to mark on wax tablets—and stabbed the man to death.
So, here we have it. A Christian teacher was stabbed to death, under orders, by his own students with their own writing instruments in the name of the state for refusing to offer sacrifices to pagan gods. Today we have a more cruel punishment. We do not grant tenure to such stubborn types! But what could be a more graphic example for the scholarly vocation? One shudders to think of the lessons that students may draw from this account of how to deal with teachers!
In recording this remarkable history, the famous Butler laconically remarks, "There is no record of his (St. Cassian's) becoming a patron of teachers in spite of his pre-eminent qualifications for the role." Well, from now on, St. Cassian is my man. Recently, I decided to forbid computers from being used in my classes. But, so far, I have seen no indication of my good students rising to bludgeon Schall to death with their laptops because he would not let them type e-mails to their friends during class. Ever since Ignatius Reilly referred to him, I have had a special devotion to St. Cassian of Imola, patron of teachers. It is probably worth noting that the "dunces" to whom Jonathan Swift referred were no doubt all of high academic standing.
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2008/print2008/schall_patronsaint_jan08.html
20 books to read by the time you are 80...
Just today, I received an e-mail from a student who had been in my class a couple of years ago. He confessed to me that he had not read carefully all the books that I had assigned in class, but now with a little experience—he tells me he is a stand-up comedian in New York!—he realizes that he missed things that would be useful and important him now after a little experience. This is just what Plato said to young men in book seven of the Republic. He wanted to know if I had any books I might suggest to him! Well, I did. I told him to look up the lists in Another Sort of Learning but in particular to read James Thurber's My Life and Hard Times and Chesterton's Orthodoxy.
An interview with Father James V Shall, SJ
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2008/print2008/schall_orderthings2_jan08.html
An interview with Father James V Shall, SJ
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2008/print2008/schall_orderthings2_jan08.html
Saturday, March 10, 2012
The Divine office of a Wife and Mother
Your Divine Office
Your duty now, and the expression of your love for God, is to be fully present to your family. Your "Divine Office" is to cook, and clean, and change dirty diapers, and run errands, and keep the littlest ones amused, and find time to listen to the older children, and to bandage cuts, and look after bruises, and welcome guests -- and every now and then -- to steal a moment or two alone with your husband. Is this incompatible with your desire as an Oblate of our monastery to offer yourself to Our Lord in adoration, in reparation, and in supplication for the holiness of priests?
http://vultus.stblogs.org/2012/01/letter-to-a-novice-oblate-ii.html
Your duty now, and the expression of your love for God, is to be fully present to your family. Your "Divine Office" is to cook, and clean, and change dirty diapers, and run errands, and keep the littlest ones amused, and find time to listen to the older children, and to bandage cuts, and look after bruises, and welcome guests -- and every now and then -- to steal a moment or two alone with your husband. Is this incompatible with your desire as an Oblate of our monastery to offer yourself to Our Lord in adoration, in reparation, and in supplication for the holiness of priests?
http://vultus.stblogs.org/2012/01/letter-to-a-novice-oblate-ii.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)