Feast of Ss. Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael

Happy Feast of Saints Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael, everyone!

This is an exciting feast for our family. We have a son named Gabriel, and my husband chose "Gabriel" as his confirmation name. A celebration is in order!

To celebrate, our dinner menu will feature angel hair pasta with a white sauce. Odds are slim on the Angel Food Cake dessert, but perhaps some vanilla ice cream (which is WHITE).

If you don't do so already, today would be a great day to begin saying the Prayer to St. Michael, and perhaps one to St. Raphael (both found here). It would also be an excellent day for saying The Angelus. It's a day for angels, and prayer is always excellent, so don't forget to say a prayer to your Guardian Angel, but keep him especially in your prayers and on your mind on October 2nd, the feast day for Guardian Angels.

As we head into October, which is Respect Life Month, it might be a good idea for you to bear in mind especially our need for spiritual protection, particularly in the angels, against all practices that threaten the dignity of human life. Bearing that in mind:

• St. Michael is the patron saint of Holy Death and against temptation. 
• St. Raphael is the patron saint of sick people of all kinds (particularly those suffering from eye problems and mental illness, as well as their care givers), and love.
• St. Gabriel is the patron saint of conception, as well as communications workers.

They are all patron saints of much, much more. Figuring out how their patronage works into your specific life situation (try here) will be an excellent exercise!

NFP on the rise?

Okay, okay...so I'm becoming more and more crunchy with every passing day. From a blog that I subscribe to, Simple Organic (yes, yes, alright), comes this post that's somewhat encouraging. It talks about using NFP (Natural Family Planning) because it is...go figure...ORGANIC! Imagine that!

Now, I do believe that NFP proponents have been hounding this message for years. Primarily a Catholic movement because of its (bafflingly) uncommon teaching on birth control, NFP has experienced few proponents and many misconceptions. So, the method has persisted mostly out of strictly obligatory motivation. What I mean is that most people who choose to practice NFP do so because it is their only option for conception regulation. Consequently, many of the professional sources that support NFP reflect this religious background. I believe that because it seems to be such a catholic practice, secular professionals have labeled it as backwards and ineffective (the now age-old myth: Catholic = Dark Ages = close-minded, superstitious, backward, anti-science, etc.). They persist in equating it with the much less effective rhythm method and wave bad statistics in the air saying, "See, SEE! It's ineffective!"

When NFP is dismissed, people who want to regulate birth are forced to choose between barrier methods with higher failure rates (compared to NFP) or hormonal regulation (either an oral contraceptive or injected contraceptive) that will have negative side effects and a negative impact on the environment. People who teach NFP know this, so they have been highlighting the benefits for years.

So, now we liberal-leaning people double-checking NFP effective rate and concluding that, yes, it is effective enough to use, despite the misconceptions. It is delightful that the advent of the "green" movement--by most standards a liberal movement--should raise supportive NFP awareness.

I say it's delightful, but not a surprise. It's just another piece of evidence that true open-mindedness and objective analysis vindicates the Church.

EDIT by Jake 4/9/10

It bears mentioning the principles that govern the use of NFP. I will reproduce section 10 of Humanae Vitae, an Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI:

10. Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.

With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. (9)

With regard to man's innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man's reason and will must exert control over them.

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)

As we see in the fourth paragraph, parents may decide to delay conception for "serious reasons". Responsible parenthood also "concerns the objective moral order which was established by God." Finally, we see that "the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society."

I wanted to highlight this portion of the document to show that NFP is not merely a "moral contraception" and can be used as flagrantly as contraception so often is. It is something used by couples only for serious reasons.

Green Movement vs. Feminist Movement

From Times Online comes this interesting article by Adam Sage where he interviews French feminist Elisabeth Badinter on her new book Le Conflit, La Femme et La Mère (The Conflict, The Woman and The Mother). From the interview, we get the overall message that Badinter believes that the"Green Movement" (you know, the movement that wants moms to breastfeed, used cloth diapers, make their own baby food, etc.) is at odds with women's liberation:

"Between the protection of trees and the liberty of women, my choice is clear,” she says. “It may seem derisory but powdered milk, jars of baby food and disposable nappies were all stages in the liberation of women.”

She's right! Is it really possible for a woman to breastfeed, make her own baby food, and wash all the diapers while maintaining her pre-child social- and work-life? Possible maybe, but it would be very hard.

The interesting thing here, of course, is watching two non-traditional movements fight. Whose side do I take? In the Greens vs. Feminists fight, I will ALWAYS side with Green (not just because I'm a die-hard Spartan fan). Why? Well, on this specific point, it's the Green mother who sacrifices more for her child. Does she sacrifice for love of her child or for love of Mother Earth? That's where the story gets gray, but the mother who sacrifices for the duties of motherhood has her priorities straighter than the mother who doesn't.

Plus, I'm much greener than I am feminist in practice. On the one hand, I just finished reading and agreeing with "Casti Canubii" by Pius XI; on the other hand, I'm considering making the switch to cloth diapers (or "nappies," for all the British readers out there!).

So I can take a side on the Green vs. Feminist duke-out not because I'm green or feminist, but because I'm Catholic.

(HT to Cloth Diaper Blog)

Who am I?

I am a Catholic mother with traditional leanings.

This blog is mine.

Follow if you will, don't if you won't.

Life Hacking

My new life-hack philosophy is "purge, purge, purge, and when you're done with that, purge some more." This is partially because I'm just about the laziest person I know, and throwing the stuff out (or recycling it, or donating it) is much easier than organizing it. Once it's in the bin, I'll never have to sort it again. I've also been recently inspired by Fr. Dubay's book Happy Are You Poor. It's amazing, even if it does point out blatant weaknesses.

Another reading that's inspired me to make do with less is G.K. Chesterton's essay "To Frances..." These readings, together with a general outcry to "live simply" make me want to rid the house of more and more and write maxims on the few things I keep to make them all the more beautiful, if they are also ugly.

Form Follows Function

Father Longnecker has a great, funny blog, which I frequent infrequently--perhaps too infrequently. Anyway, I know this old news, but he had a post in the voice of his alter-ego "Mantilla the Hon" back in September in which he criticizes the architectural concept that "form follows function." He mentions how the architecture students are very new-agey, and follows it up, saying,

"Then they are always talking about 'form follows function' and 'Bauhaus' and all this, and making nasty buildings out of concrete that look like that bunker that Adolph Hitler shot himself in. You know?"

Now, I have no problem with a good, hard critique of modern church architecture. However, I can't help but think that someone in this situation--Fr. Longnecker or the architects--is missing something. More specifically, someone is missing the connection between "function" and what a holy place, a church, is. Isn't the function of a church a place to worship God? That is enough, but a church is even more than that; it is a place to house the Lord. Is it a great stretch of the mind to see that such a function requires a beautiful form? I should think not. If the form follows the function, then a church will be much grander than minimalistic.

So who's missing the point? I think it most likely that the architects Fr. Longnecker is talking about missed the point. They missed it again and again. If the function of the building is to focus the visitors' minds on God and on Christ's sacrifice, then surely the form wouldn't necessitate musicians front and center, but that's how churches are built. If the function of the building is worshiping Christ, then the form would not place the tabernacle in unexpected side rooms, but that's how churches are built. And if the function of the building is to raise men and women's spirits in awe, the form would not be quaint or cute or ugly, but that's how churches are built. Is it any wonder that Father would find fault with the teaching when the students misuse it time and time again? No, it is no surprise. However, as far as I can tell, this is another case where the teaching is good and correct, but there are those who misinterpret it to the detriment of many.

Kinda like heretics.