Journeys of a Catholic Poster Girl

With the Confessions that is. Yes, friends, after all this time (since I started this blog, essentially) I have finished it!! It is well worth reading, if just for the sections on Augustine’s life before his conversion, and the book IX tribute to his mother, St. Monica, which is a biography in itself ( a mini-one). Augustine’s reflections on love and friendship are also worth careful digestion. The only thing I wasn’t expecting was the heavy, almost metaphysical ( I think) turn the book takes in it’s last 1/2-1/4. It talks about memory and it’s implications, as well as what it really is. He discusses the creation of the universe, what time is, and other highly philosophical things. his actual Confession is only about 1/2 of the book (if that). So if you decide to embark upon this adventure (and it is an adventure–and a commitment!), be warned that it’s not total autobiography. He delves into the depths of theology and philosophy as the book goes on. Overall, well worth reading; not sure if I’d read it again, but I’m glad to have read it once.

So what am I working on now? Glad you asked…
–Hahn’s Letter and Spirit but I’m also taking lots of notes, so that’s why it’s taking awhile;
–JP II’s The Jeweller’s Shop which is a play/meditation/ poem about marriage and love in the Church;
–Sir Walter Scott’s Manners, Customs and History of the Highlanders of Scotland ;
–Pierre Choderlos de Laclos’ Les Liasions Dangereuses (for all you film fans, the book Cruel Intentions was based upon;
–and finally, Winston Churchill’s first volume of British History, The Birth of Britain . Whew!

some reviews as I finish these off….

of B XVI’s encyclical. From our “friends” at Reuters: (my comments in bold)

Encouraged by Pope Benedict’s encyclical on love, a Roman Catholic bishop and a group of Christian intellectuals in France are urging the Vatican to reopen the debate on its ban on artificial birth control.

Bishop Francis Deniau told the Catholic magazine Le Pelerin this week that Benedict’s first encyclical “Deus Caritas Est” (God is Love), which was widely praised for the positive way it spoke about sexual love, was a hopeful sign for possible change.

Sociologist Catherine Gremion noted the encyclical — the highest form of papal writing — did not condemn Catholic couples “who do not manage to live out their love in strict respect for Church teachings.”

“That’s an important sign,” said Gremion, one of the co-authors of a book by Christian intellectuals entitled “The Church and Contraception — the Urgent Need to Change.”

Um, OK. So it didn’t condemn couples who “do not manage to live out their love in strict respect for Church teaching.” It just basically said that if you don’t live it in regards to Church teaching, then you’re cheapening it and taking away the sacred character. But that’s not a condemnation, or anything.

Benedict made clear last November he was not considering any change in the contraception ban and that family planning was only allowed by the “rhythm method” of abstinence from sex during a woman’s fertile period.

Pope Paul VI banned contraception in the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, arguing that sexual intercourse was meant for procreation and any artificial method to block a pregnancy went against the nature of the act.

That encyclical prompted Catholics to leave the Church in droves and undercut papal authority. Many practicing Catholics now simply ignore the ban and some say it weakens the Church’s message on other moral issues such as abortion and bioethics.

In his encyclical last month, Benedict wrote that the Church was long seen as being “opposed to the body” but it actually believed that erotic love and selfless love were both important aspects of the same phenomenon.

The document was widely praised for its positive tone, which was somewhat surprising because of the stern conservative stand the pope took in his previous post as top Vatican doctrinal expert.

A “positive tone” on love is one thing, a radical change in policy is another. Both JP II and B XVI see human love as a awonderful thing–so wonderful and so important that it deserves the highest respect and careful treatment. Birth control does not allow for the full expression of selfless love between members of the couple and does not allow the couple to be open to God’s will for them; in fact, birth control shuts off that outlet for God’s grace. And why is “conservative” always aligned with “prudish” or bad sexual tones? Conservatives treat sex with more respect than liberals do, that’s for sure. And why not? It’s only slightly important.

Deniau, bishop of Nevers in eastern France, noted that a papal commission had advised in 1966 to allow it, but Pope Paul ignored their recommendation after consulting several cardinals, including the future Pope John Paul.

“The analyses made by the first commission in 1966, which did not condemn contraception, are worth being reviewed and debated,” Deniau said. He said many Catholics found they could not follow the “rhythm method” of family planning.

“It’s important that these things are not seen in a rigid fashion,” he said.

ah, the great liberal word–’ridgid’. You know, if Moses came down the mountain today in Nevers, France (incidentially the place where Bernadette is buried), this bishop would probably say he’s being too ‘ridgid’. Sheesh.

OK, grr. I know I printed out a story that was on NRO recently about pro-choice churches, but I’ve misplaced it so I’m working from memory here. Forgive me.

It seems that more Christian churches are joining the “Churches for Reproductive Choice” (I believe it’s called) coalition–churches that are pro-choice. Now, besides from the obvious prohibition against “Thou Shalt Not Kill” given us in the 10 Commandments (or, as I like to say, the liberals’ 10 “suggestions”), I wonder how these people can sleep at night. Some of the members are the Presbyterians, Reform and Conservative Judaism, the United Methodist Church and others (including the infamous “Catholics for a Free Choice”—-don’t even get me started). While some of them are “fuzzy” on their support, saying things like “while abortion is never a good/preferrable option” it should nonetheless remain an option. Huh? I can’t imagine these churches saying, “while rape is not a good/preferrable option, it should nonetheless remain an option.” Same with murder, or theft, or other morally reprehensible things that Christians, in theory, are against. But when it comes to killing innocent babies, nah, that’s a choice we should keep in tact.

The whole idea just burns me up. They talk all they want about protecting the poor and such, but don’t they understand that without the right to life, everything else is secondary? We can’t worry about the poor until the kids are here . The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away….right??

kudos to the Vatican for saying that I.D. and evolution are not the same thing, therefore they are not incompatible with each other, but also that I.D. is not a scientific theory. This has never seemed like one of those tough pieces of doctrine that we should have issues with, but, strangely enough, we do.

Evolution is the scientific theory about how we got here; I.D. is the religious explanation. I was raised on both and can believe both. My first (and only) serious doubts about this was when I was about 10 and was reading our Childcraft books (remember those?). One of the books (I think it was people and places, but whatever) had both the creation story from Genesis and the story of the Big Bang. I thought, “hmmm. Can I believe both?” After reading the stories again, I decided that I could, just because one was science and one was God. Turns out my ten-year old reasoning worked pretty well, because that’s really what it boils down to. Now I had some friends in h.s. who didn’t do any of the projects in the evolution unit because they didn’t believe it; my bio teacher avoided the whole thing by just not teaching it. But either way, it seems like this is all a moot point. If you want your kids to grow up with creationism or I.D., read them the Bible and send them to church. They’ll learn about evolution in school. The two can coincide–it’s not hard. Let’s just give this one a rest.

So, as we wrap up our secular celebration for a saint (hey, Catholics are good for something, as I tell my protestant friends), here are a few of my favorite romance books/ movies/ CDs. Yeah, they’re late, but you can bookmark this entry for next year.

Books

–Anything by Richard Paul Evans
– The Notebook by Nicholas Sparks
– Message in a Bottle by Nicholas Sparks
– Pride and Prejudice , by the wonderful Jane, of course. For the more ‘adult’ minded, try her Persuasion the last novel published in her lifetime, which features a wonderful heroine in Anne Elliot. Do read it.
– Till We Have Faces by C.S. Lewis–about the good and bad kinds of relationships
– A Room Wirth a View by E.M. Forester
– First Comes Love by Scott Hahn, for the theologically minded
–Love and Responsibility by JP II (again, for the theologically minded)
– The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton

DVDs :

–Shakespeare In Love
–Beaches
–Sense and Sensibility
–The BEST Pride and Prejudice–the BBC mammoth version with Jennifer Ehle and a delectable Colin Firth. Mmm, wet shirt scene!
–Casablanca
–Breakfast at Tiffany’s
–Gone With The Wind
–Braveheart (yes, it’s romantic! Come on!)
–As Good As It Gets
–Sleepless In Seattle
–When Harry Met Sally
–Love Actually
–Finding Neverland
–Bridget Jones’s Diary
–Just Like Heaven
–Notting Hill
–Spanglish
–The Wedding Planner
–Ever After (woohoo Tiff and Milia )
–Mansfield Park
–The Notebook (what a weeper)
–Phantom of the Opera (2004 version–mmmm Patrick…)
–Anne of Avonlea
–Shadowlands (another weeper)
–Victoria and Albert (BBC miniseries)

music
–Rachmanioff for Romance (compliation album..try Barnes and Noble)
–Phantom of the Opera–highlights
–The Secret Garden–”How Could I ever Know?”
–Love Actually soundtrack
–Celine Dion All The Way (esp. “The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face”)
–Rachel York, “Let’s Fall In Love”
–Sleepless in Seattle soundtrack
–”Le Nozze di Figaro”–Mozart
–The Ultimate Puccini album–all great Opera romance numbers!
–Norah Jones “Come Away With Me”
–Sarah McLachlin, “Surfacing” (some tracks)

two good movies I saw recently, both available on DVD:

Hotel Rwanda : 2004, nominated for 3 academy awards,including Best Actor (Don Cheadle) and Best Supporting Actress. Tells the story of a Rwandan hotel owner who hid over 1000 Tutsis from Hutu soldiers bent on slaughtering the entire ethnic population during the 1994 genocide. Powerful and moving, with great performances by Cheadle and Nick Nolte as a helpless U.N. official who can have his men guard the Belgian hotel Cheadle’s character managers but the soliders “can’t use their guns” against teh Hutu rebels. Parts are a big gruesome, but it’s so compelling that it’s worth watching.

In a totally different vein is Just Like Heaven the 2005 romantic comedy with Reese Witherspoon playing Dr. Elizabeth Masterston, a totally dedicated ER doc entirely submerged in her work. She meets David (Mark Ruffalo), whom she thinks in squatting in her San Francisco apartment. The problem is, he’s renting and Elizabeth is in a coma after being hit by a truck on the way home from work one raining evening. Together she and David try to put together her past before her sister, Abby, disconnectes her from life support. Funny and moving, very enjoyable (especially around Valentine’s Day…even if you, like me, are single).

I’m also working my way through my Best Picture winner and nominee collection: so far I’ve watched Casablanca (1943), My Fair Lady (1964), The Sound of Music (1965). Good to review the awesome movies of the past, especially since this year’s crop of Best Picture nominees is so disappointing. But there are still good movies to be had!

The unabating riots over the Muslim cartoons has claimed the life of a priest in Turkey. B XVI prayer for him at his weekly audience today, and the audience applauded his memory during the talk. The really sad thing is neither the Church nor this priest had done anything wrong, and are not even remotely involved in this controversy. It is a senseless death, perpetrated by people who claim they have killed a man of God in the name of God. It’s a twisted way of thinking and serves to further illustrate the total depravity of these terrorists.

So now Iran’s biggest newspaper is calling for a cartoon contest to offend Jews, because if this is the new wave, then they “don’t want to be left behind.” Sheesh!

OK, look–the Danish cartoon may have been offensive, crude, rude, whatever, but it was making a political statement. It’s intent wasn’t, “gee, how can I insult Muslims today?” The cartoonist was making a satirical point about fundamentalist interpretations of Islam. No matter what you think of the result, that was (most likely) the intent. What this paper is doing is purposefully trying to offend people. It’s not real free speech. One of the cartoons is purportedly Hitler in bed with Anne Frank. This serves no editorial purpose (and, if Iran’s president sees it, it’ll pretty much undermine the whole Holocaust denial thing, since everyone knows Anne Frank died in a concentration camp) and is just out to offend. That’s not what free speech is. Free speech usually proves a point and has a purpose in the press. These cartoons don’t serve any purpose except a childish urge to “get back” at the people who have “wronged” them. Another example of the differences between insulting Jews and Christians–we don’t hold cartoon contests specifically to insult others. We usually do more constructive things.

This whole thing is reaching the point of the ridiculous. Riots are all over the world because of a cartoon that was drawn to prove a point– a point that is being seen throughout the world. If fundamentalist Islam wasn’t violent, then the cartoon wouldn’t have resonated. I would think that if you want to prove to the world that you’re not what they think you are, you shouldn’t engage in the same behavior the cartoon was commenting on in the first place.

The uproar over the Muslim cartoons- is it deserved?

I’ve been thinking about this for a few days now, and I’ve come to several conclusions.

–First, I think it’s fine that Muslims are upset. How many times have Catholics been offended by something in the press, media, print or photo, such as the movie Dogma or the TV show Priest or numerous other items? Far too often, if you ask me. So it’s perfectly understandable that they’re upset.

–The different is Catholics don’t go out rioting and killing people and chanting “death to France” (or whatever) when we’re offended. We don’t call for uprisings and there are no riots in the streets. There are peaceful way to protest–don’t buy the paper, boycott the advertisers, whatever. Killing people and raiding embassies probably isn’t the best way to get across your message.

–Some have said that free speech isn’t really free- that it only goes so far and shouldn’t offend people’s religion. Ehhhh. I tend to disagree. Yes, free speech can lead to abhorrent things–the KKK, pornography, etc. And there are limits on free speech (see Holmes’ “fire in a theater” opinion). But we cannot really set too many limits on free speech else it is not free. Something always offends someone–it’s the way of the beast. And tactful cartoonists and writers will take certain cultural sensibilities into acocunt. But we can’t limit the press to what ‘might’ offend people, or what’s the point of a free society?

Those are my thoughts…feel free to add your own….

You can start the countdown now….the next Narnia movie has, apparently, begun production and will open Christmas 2007, if all goes as planned. The best part? The original cast is all returning (including the adorable Georgie Henley…don’t get me wrong, I love the rest of the kids, too, William and Anna and Skynard (sp?), but Georgie’s just too cute). Prince Caspian, the second book published but the fourth in the series, tells the tale of Caspian, the son of the new rulers of Narnia, the Telmarines, who believes in “Old Narnia” (the narnia of LWW) and fights for his rightful place on the throne of narnia. The Penseive kids, a few years older now, come back to help out (but not of their own volition…read the book for more). And this movie gives us my second favorite Narnia character–Reepicheep the mouse!!! Read the book if you haven’t, yet, and get ready for the film! You’ve got almost two solid years to do it!