True love

My husband loves me!

Hubby's an engineer who designs industrial robots. One division of the company makes package handling robots. Often times these robots are designed for companies like General Mills to move large quantities of cereal or other products around. Many times the robots position cereal boxes to be crated or wrapped for delivery to places like Sam's Club or Costco. Many times, companies send their product to the company my husband works for so that they are able to test the robots and make sure they work. Actual food that the company doesn't want back because it's been in the hands of someone else and out of their sight and control. Non-perishable items are often times given to employees when the testing is complete.

Today, my beloved, knowing my favorite thing in the world is a good brownie (even a bad one is still good), got me a six pound box of General Mills brownie mix. Six pounds!!! If that's not love, I don't know what it is!!

Weekend Kneeler Jeopardy

Heading to the cabin today and hope to get some relief from the heat! Have a bunch of errands to run before we leave and I have to get my backside to confession. Busy, busy. Have a wonderful weekend everyone!

Category: Cuisine

If the Pope were to visit your home, what would be the perfect meal to set before him? Answer must include Hors d'Oeuvres, entree selection, dessert and wine/beer recommendation.

St. Alex says, place your answer in the form of a question in the combox.

And, bonus points for your selection of china and flatware, also note any music selections.

A duty to ourselves

With the Feast of Our Lady of the Angels coming up this weekend (August 2nd) and the attached indulgence, The Portiuncula Indulgence, I have started my Examination of Conscience in preparation for confession tomorrow night (with the kids and all, I have to plan ahead instead of doing my examination as I'm on my way to confession!). I always like to take advantage of God's great mercy because I shudder to think of the time I will spend in Purgatory. Eyes have not seen and ears have not heard what God has in store for us in Heaven, but Purgatory might be a corollary and conversely, equally horrible. If we only saw the effects of sin as God does, at least to the extent that we could withstand...

NB: One is not required to attend Mass on the day of the visit to a church. See posts here and here. (Thanks for the clarification, Terry)

From The Spiritual Life, by Adolphe Tanquerey SS, DD:
Sin leaves in the soul baneful consequences against which it is necessary to react.
A.) Even when the guilt or fault has been remitted, there generally remains a temporal punishment varying according to the gravity and number of our sins, and according to the fervor of our contrition at the moment of our return to God. This punishment must be undergone either in this life or in the next. By far the most advantageous course is to make satisfaction in this life. The sooner and the more perfectly we acquit ourselves of this debt, the better fitted our soul becomes for union with God. Moreover, expiation on earth is easier, since this is the acceptable time for mercy; it is more fruitful, since the acts wherewith we make satisfaction are also meritorious, a source of grace and greater glory. Therefore, personal interest and love for our own soul are best served by a prompt and whole-hearted penance.
B.) Moreover, by the fact that sin intensifies in us the disordered love of pleasure and weakens our will, it bequeaths to us a pernicious facility to commit fresh faults. Nothing so well rectifies this disorder as the virtue of penance. By having us bear with fortitude the afflictions and austerities compatible with our health, it gradually weakens within us the love of pleasure, and inspires us with a fear of sin which exacts such amends. By inuring us to the exercise of such acts of virtue as are opposed to our evil habits, it helps us to correct them and thus gives us greater security for the future. Hence, to do penance is charity towards ourselves.
The Spiritual Life, pp. 356-357.

Angel of God

Vacation Bible School this year deals with St. Catherine Laboure, but also deals quite a bit with Guardian Angels, especially at the lower grades.

I think emphasizing Angels with young children is wonderful and the first prayer I teach my children is their Guardian Angel prayer. My son has learned about St. George and the Dragon, but also knows Spiderman, Superman and other super heros. I like to tell him that his Guardian Angel could kick butt on any of the comic book super heros. No matter how cool Spiderman may be, he's no match for a Guardian Angel.

In the time I spent in the Byzantine Catholic Church, it was frequently mentioned to me, since it was obvious I was a Roman Catholic, that the Church of the East was the "Church of Faith" and the Church of the West was the "Church of Rules." And, it was the priest that always pointed this out, kind of like the little brother tired of living in the shadow of his older brother. What he meant was, in his point of view, those not belonging to the Roman Rite took things on faith, where the Roman Catholic Church felt the need to spell things out with papal encyclicals and bulls before people would adopt them and believe in them. So much for all of us being Catholic.

One of the things I always took on faith was the role of the Guardian Angel. When I was younger, a good priest friend of my father's was a strong promoter of the Opus Sanctorum Angelorum, the work of the Holy Angels. He had affectionately named his Guardian Angel, Tyke. Tyke was blamed for a great number of mischievous things, although I doubt it was Tyke who hid Father's glasses, but rather it was Father himself who misplaced them. But, it was the way that Father gently and lovingly spoke of his Angel that made you feel that Tyke was a physical person that joined Father at meal time and was always playing practical jokes.

The Church has not dogmatically defined when our Guardian Angels are assigned to us. I take it on faith that it is the moment of conception. Saint Anselm has said that, "every soul is committed to an Angel when it is united to the body." However, St. Thomas, St. Jerome and other Fathers maintain it is at the time of birth, probably because "during the time of gestation the Guardian Angel of the mother could very well take care also of the unborn child she was carrying" (Beyond Space, p. 113).

I'm not a theologian, it will be challenging for me just to instruct my own children in the Faith, but I believe that a Guardian Angel begins his role at conception. That's when life begins. I doubt the Church Fathers and scholars could have imagined that a baby would be in serious danger within its mother's womb, but that's today's reality. I cannot fathom that God in His infinite mercy would not provide these children an angel to watch over them.

As a mother, I feel it deeply and personally that a Guardian Angel is present at conception. When I was so sick with my son during the pregnancy and couldn't sleep or eat, I prayed to my son's Guardian Angel, who I named John after the beloved disciple, to protect my son. My Guardian Angel was busy looking after me, but someone needed to protect my son while I was so ill. During this time, I felt my constant companions were my angel and my son's.

My daily offering is given to my Guardian Angel to take to the altar in Heaven. When I ask for intercession, my litany of intercessors always includes the Guardian Angels. I bring my Guardian Angel to Mass with me and envision him kneeling along side me. Like the Byzantines, I take this one on faith.

One Word Meme

I don't think I can follow those rules, but will try, sort of.

Tagged for this by Karen.

_____________________________________________

1. Where is your cell phone? (Fireplace) mantel

2. Your significant other? Hubby

3. Your hair? Disaster

4. Your mother? Saint

5. Your father? Saint

6. Your favorite things? Humor, irony, conversation, genealogy, relaxing at cabin

7. Your dream last night? Something to do with the moms in my homeschool group, maybe it's good I can't remember exactly what it had to do with :)

8. Your favorite drink? Coke

9. Your dream/goal? Heaven for me and my family, otherwise my earthly goal is to live a long, healthy, peaceful, Obama-free, joy-filled life!

10. The room you’re in? Upstairs

11. Your church? St. Agnes

12. Your fear? Losing my faith, which would probably result in hell, so to cut to the chase, hell would be bad. Earthly fears, as I have mentioned before and have been proven right about, are bridges. Yep, and chunks of the Maryland bridge over 35E fell onto the highway just yesterday!!

13. Where do you want to be in 6 years? Living in a home that is sans construction projects and happily and successfully homeschooling my kids

14. Where were you last night? Home, Chinese restaurant, Cub Foods

15. What you’re not? Idle

16. Muffins? If no doughnuts are in the case

17. One of your wish list items? On Amazon, I am wishing for some Navarre commentaries and Joseph Pearce's book, The Quest for Shakespeare, although First Things had a snarky review of it. I don't get First Things, it's way over my head and seemingly lacks an editor, just like the Wanderer. Can't these people say what they mean with out all the drawn out verbiage? Get out a red pen and cut it down, save us all some time. Meow. Start by doing this meme and see how you do...one word to say it all.

18. Where you grew up? White Bear Lake, MN

19. The last thing you did? Had mean thoughts about First Things

20. What are you wearing? Shorts, tee-shirt -- the usual uniform

21. Your TV? Off

22. Your pets? Siamese cat until two summers ago. No more pets! (until the kids sucker me into it)

23. Your computer? Vintage Dell

24. Your life? About to get very busy

25. Your mood? Fair to middling

26. Missing someone? Dad

27. Your car? Honda Civic EX

28. Something you’re not wearing? Socks and my ubiquitous scrunchie (think that's the first time I've ever used the word ubiquitous)

29. Favorite store? Bookstore, antique store, or Target

30. Your Summer? Too short

31. Like (love) someone? Always

32. Your favorite color? Blue

33. Last time you laughed? This morning at the kids

34. Last time you cried? This weekend, teared up anyway

35. Who will re-post this? I have no idea. Surprise me. If you don't have a blog, feel free to place your answers to this meme in my combox!

Weekend Kneeler Jeopardy

Gone for most of the weekend to a sleep over...not for the kids...for the moms.

Category: Shakespeare was a Catholic

Who gives Juliet the sleeping potion in Shakespeare's tragedy, Romeo and Juliet?

St. Alex says, place your answer in the form of a question in the combox, say an Our Father while you wait for the answer to be revealed.

Your humble prize for a correct answer is the satisfaction of knowing you are a brainiac.

A little information

doesn't mix well with a big imagination

A member of the Knights of Columbus came over last night.

My husband had filled out a form to find out more information about joining the Knights. My husband, an Eagle Scout (trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, reverent, at least according to the BSA laws), is used to oaths and pledges and this hierarchical structure.

My uncle has been a Knight for over 60 years. We see the KofC at Mass often and I always point them out to my kids. I was happy my husband was going to join the Knights, even though he has no time to participate while he's working on his masters.

After my husband filled out all the forms and the gentleman left, I asked him what all the requirements were, were there any dues, any meetings, etc.

My husband mentioned he wouldn't officially be a Knight until the swearing in ceremony, which would take place within the next few months. However, I couldn't attend since it was a secret ceremony and he would have to swear an oath that he wouldn't tell anyone what it was about.

Say what?

Awhile back, I posted about my possible connection to the Knights Templar. All the talk of secrets and oaths has my mind going all sorts of places.

I asked hubby if he didn't think it was: creepy, nefarious, subversive, odd. He didn't think so. I don't mean to slam the Knights, but since I don't understand the reason for this oath, I find it "odd." The bible has several references to oaths and that you are NOT to swear an oath. Is it just me or isn't this a weird disconnect?

Now I envision secret handshakes, codes, daggers and dank basements filled with elderly men with feathered hats and satin sashes eating stale Tootsie Rolls.

I've often thought about going under cover and infiltrating the male-only Argument of the Month Club, but now the Knights have piqued my curiosity. I'd come up with a plan to get inside the secret swearing in if I wasn't afraid they'd chain me up in the dungeon if they ever caught me.

Nature, nurture, nirvana

Back in junior high, which I think is called Middle School these days, I remember having to write a report where the teacher had to insist only one student, typically a girl, got to write her report on the Amish and one student got to write on birth order. For some reason, those were the "hot topics" of the day. Everyone wanted to write their report on the Amish.

The rest of us unlucky folks had to rack our brains for some other topic. That was the hard part, finding something to write about. Contrarian that I was, I remember doing my report on psychokinesis. Uri Geller, I believe, was doing his spoon bending thing during this time, so that must've been where I picked it up from. I felt a little like Wednesday Addams compared to the girls writing on the Amish, but at least I learned something new instead of checking out the same worn copies on the Amish from the library and writing the same report we had heard every couple of weeks.

My best friend was the seventh of eight kids. She always wanted to write the report on birth order. And, her family was a text book case of birth order: very successful first born, troubled middle group and prima donna younger kids. I think she wanted to use the "birth order" argument to ward off anyone's expectations. Her older siblings were, in order of birth, a doctor, a dentist, an electrical engineer, a hospital administrator, a drop-out-druggie, and an auto mechanic. I think she was hoping to make the argument that the most her parents could expect from her, being down at the end of the birth order spectrum, was waitress/cosmetology school drop out. Fortunately, her parents were of a generation prior to all the psychological insight of birth order and kept their expectations high.

Once again, the birth order argument is in the news. I even heard Dr. Ray mention it the other day and I had to groan. I missed what Dr. Ray had said on the topic (other than to hear him mocking it), so checked it out on the internet. Now the powers that be are telling us that our marriages will succeed or fail based on our birth order and that of our spouse. Not really anything new.

I'm a first born, so is my husband. According to all the research, it's a recipe for disaster. We should've signed a pre-nup. What were we thinking? You can't just rush into marriage without considering birth order -- what wanton and reckless disregard for research. There ought to be a law or at least we should've been in some intensive counseling prior to saying "I do." I even think canon law must address this some where.

My problem with this is, just like in the case with my friend, these notions remove personal responsibility from the equation. They remove God and free will. Just because I'm a first born doesn't mean I have to, ipso facto in triplicate, be in charge and clash with my husband who is also, by his birth order dictated nature, clamoring to be in charge. Funny how the idea of "being in charge" never has come up in the nearly 20 years we've been married. God knows it hasn't been a cake walk all those years, but I would say that it has been especially harmonious in the areas we are "supposed" to have problems. Getting my husband to clean the garage, well, those are areas I just have to bite my lip and offer up.

Today, it's hard to identify "birth order." Families just aren't having enough kids to have eldest, middle and youngest labels. Now what? Kids have to take on multiple roles? My son is an upper with middle child tendencies? My daughter is middle-youngest?

Personally, I think a lot of this is a character issue. I share a lot of traits with first borns, I'm a recovering perfectionist and a people pleaser, but I also know that I'm called to be a saint regardless of my birth order. I seriously doubt that God is going to reduce anyone's time in Purgatory because, "Oh my, I see you were a middle child. Poor thing. That's just so hard and unfair."

And, according to the article, it is a good thing Jesus never married, being an only child. Divorce court for sure.

fawnicks

This was sent to me in an e-mail. Kind of where we are at with our Phonics program.


My four-year old Grandson is learning to read.

Yesterday he pointed at a picture in a zoo book and said, 'Look Grandpa! It's a frickin' elephant!'

I took a deep breath, then asked...'What did you call it?'

'It's a frickin' Elephant, Grandpa! It says so on the picture!' and so it does...




[scroll down]






[a bit further]







AFRICAN ELEPHANT

Weekend Kneeler Jeopardy

Going to the cabin this weekend. Have a wonderful weekend everyone!

Category: Titles

In what other city, besides Rome, does the bishop bear the title "Patriarch?"

St. Alex says, place your answer in the form of a question in the combox, say a Hail, Holy Queen, while you wait for the answer to be revealed.

Your humble prize for a correct answer is the satisfaction of knowing you are a very smart cookie.

Comp time

Because I'm one of the Vacation Bible School teachers at our parish next month, I have to attend, under penalty of excommunication or some similar such fate, a VIRTUS training program.

VIRTUS, from their website:

VIRTUS is the brand name that identifies best practices programs designed to help prevent wrongdoing and promote "rightdoing" within religious organizations. The VIRTUS programs empower organizations and people to better control risk and improve the lives of all those who interact with the Church.

The training I have to take is three hours long. After I registered for the class, I put a request in with the Big Guy upstairs and asked Him if I could substitute my time in this class for time off in Purgatory. And, I didn't just ask for a 1:1 comp. I asked for a 3:1 comp, since this experience is going to be like going to the dentist and having my wisdom teeth removed.

The abuse scandals are a complete tragedy. Few things are worse. However, this training is way off in a legal, CYA, realm to really do much to protect children. As I've mentioned before, my family was affected by the Father Ryan Erickson scandal. We need astute and strong leaders in our seminaries to catch these monsters before they get in a position of trust. Stop the abuse from even happening.

Blessed Mother, please protect our seminaries and seminarians. Provide us with many good priests and strong shepherds.

Congratulations

Go check out the story on Ray's blog about Bishop-elect John LeVoir as Bishop of New Ulm!

LeVoir, 62, succeeds Archbishop John Nienstedt of St Paul and Minneapolis, who was transferred out of the exurban Minnesota church in April 2007. Ordained in 1981 and a parish priest throughout, the bishop-elect -- an accountant before entering seminary -- has authored a series of books, both on the teachings of John Paul II and the Image of God catechetical series.

Where Chant and Westerns collide

I have tinnitus -- a chronic case of never-ending ringing in my ears. As a child, I had tubes put in my ears when I was in first grade. My ears were pretty much OK until a few years ago, when I experienced some dramatic hearing loss accompanied by the hideous ringing.

Actually, I've always had the ringing in my ears, but it was so low that the room would have to be quiet before I could hear it. Now, the ringing is so loud I can't hear the phone ringing and have to have the TV on pretty loud just to rise above the noise in my head.

Rush Limbaugh has lost most of his hearing. He also has tinnitus. Rush attributes his tinnitus to a fertile, active brain. But, the real kicker is that he says his tinnitus sounds like Gregorian Chant...and sometimes a western tune. (No, I don't listen to Rush, I find him too bombastic and inflammatory for my tastes, someone who knew I had tinnitus told me about Rush's comments).

It's called tinnitus, "ringing of the bells," for a reason. If it was called Schola-itus I might believe he was hearing Chant. I only wish I was hearing Chant instead of ringing. Chant would put me in a good mood, calm me down, maybe even make me more contemplative. I'd trade the noise in my ears any day for persistent Chanting.

I hadn't heard that "fertile brain" song-and-dance before. What I had been told about tinnitus is that your brain gets used to hearing a range of sound. When you suffer hearing loss, your brain freaks out because of the silence in parts of this range and starts making its own noise to fill in the areas where the sound is missing. I don't know if the medical world really knows why this happens and they don't have any cures (other than teaching you to not "hear" the noise by not concentrating on it).

Everyone has aches and pains and various afflictions. I think this is God's way of giving me something to offer up each day. Many days, when I'm lacking in anything good to offer up, I always have this little suffering. Not much, but I think God knows my limitations. I used to pray God would take the tinnitus away. Now I just pray it doesn't get louder and I pray I don't start hearing rap music instead of ringing. Yes, I count my blessings, it could be worse.

A few years before my father died, I asked him one day after he had been praying silently for hours saying his daily rosary, knowing that he had a litany of intentions for so many people, who and what he was praying for. First intention he mentioned: he prayed for his daughter's ears and his son's eyes. This is 30 years after I had tubes put in my ears and had no subsequent problems. And, it was 30 years after my brother had surgery for a lazy eye. Dad was still praying. God bless him. Some day I hope to learn just how much my father has interceded for me. Sobering to think that I could possibly be deaf if it wasn't for his prayers.

Transcript from Rush Limbaugh:

RUSH: In fact, there's a story in the stack today that the brain creates noise and the smarter and the more active the brain, the more noise. They figured the older that you get the less noise the brain creates. Now, you people know about my brain; it's one of the best. And my brain does create noise, I'm not kidding. Some people have said, "Well, Rush, it's tinnitus, the ringing tones that you hear in your ears." Since I went deaf, I have this all the time, but in my right ear constantly. It's been there since I lost my hearing, and finally it's become so much a part of my existence, I have to concentrate on hearing it, but it's there. I really think I'm hearing Gregorian chants all day long, and it's crystal clear. I asked the ear doctors about it, they said the mind plays strange games, but it literally sounds like a high quality tape just looped in my brain as though I have normal, very good hearing. It's the strangest thing. I read this story today and it explains it. I have a great brain, and great brains make a lot of noise. Why it's Gregorian chants, I couldn't tell you. My own personal soundtrack and it's in there for something.

Speaking of soundtracks, sometimes I do hear soundtracks from Westerns. I do. In fact, let me give you an example of a soundtrack of a western that I sometimes hear. You remember the old Blazing Saddles tune? Well, my brain plays a different version of that.

(playing of Blazing Saddles spoof)

Right, all right. That's white comedian Paul Shanklin, ladies and gentlemen, of course the takeoff on Blazing Saddles, theme song for the movie Blazing Saddles. There's something on the tip of my fertile brain and now these Gregorian chants are so loud that I cannot remember what it was I was going to say.

Fisticuffs

It almost came to blows in the neighborhood last night. All the neighbor kids were sitting around on the grass of the neighbor's yard getting ready to play a game.

What to do?

Then someone suggested the game Duck, Duck, Goose.

Just to clarify, the game is called, Duck, Duck, GREY DUCK. This is Minnesota, that's what it's called here, everyone knows that. It's like Walter Mondale, Prince, hot dish, and ice fishing -- true blue Minnesotan.

Well, when one of the neighbor boys, a transplant from California, called it Duck, Duck, Goose, my son fraternally corrects him and tells him it's Duck, Duck, Grey Duck.

A shouting match ensued.

Needless to say, the game was called on account of poor sportsmanship. And, I'm happy to report, no one was injured.



I KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At least it was the kids fighting and not the parents!

Mary garden

This summer my gardens have been slightly neglected. With the kids being more and more active, I can't contain them in the backyard when the other neighbor kids are out running around like banshees.

My new plantings on the west side of the house are coming along. Rabbits did manage to gnaw off part of my special type of Veronica, but I think one of the three has survived. I sprinkled Bone Meal around and that seeems to have kept the rabbits at bay.

My front yard needs a great deal of work since one side is just a jumble of plants that are all the same height. Just not very attractive.

Some people I know have Mary Gardens. I'd like to do this, but would have to rip up other areas to put it in.

A Mary Garden is a garden filled with flowers, plants and trees named for Our Lady and Jesus, designed to be a place of beauty that reminds us of our Lord and our Lady, allows one to experience God's creation, and invites prayer and contemplation. Because Mary is a type of the Church as Bride, the garden should be enclosed if at all possible, based on the words in the fourth chapter of Solomon's Canticle of Canticles.

The Fisheaters website has a HUGE list of plants for a Mary garden and their meanings. I have plants throughout the yard that I bought because of their religious significance, specifically Lady's Mantle and Hyssop, but don't have a place that is dedicated to the Blessed Mother. Maybe I'll clean up the front yard first, then plan a garden that will be more of a formal Mary garden in the back yard.

But, with homeschooling starting soon, I don't know when I will have time to concentrate on planning a garden! I do need an good excuse to attend the Friends' School Plant Sale again in the Spring *cough* I'd attend the plant sale even if I had a cement yard!

The hyssop I have in my yard is a reminder of the Dominican Rite parish I used to attend in Seattle. The Asperges, sung as the priest came out and sprinkled Holy Water on the congregation, was one of my favorite parts of the Mass. I'm not so enamored with the hyssop in my yard since it is very prolific and is now everywhere.

Asperges me, Domine, hyssopo, et mundabor: lavabis me, et super nivem dealbabor. (Ps. 50) Miserere mei, Deus, secundum magnam misericordiam tuam. Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen. Asperges me, Domine, hyssopo, et mundabor: lavabis me, et super nivem dealbabor.

* Link to Fisheaters and their extensive list of plants for a Mary Garden
* Link to a prior post of mine on the Dominican Rite, a beautiful and rich Rite you should experience if you're able to find one being said.

Mortifications courtesy of Facebook

The fervor over Facebook has finally subsided, at least for me. Admittedly, I never really got the whole idea as it seemed just another black hole for my time. I am happy I connected with a few folks and I did send my new BFF, Monsignor Ganswein, a birthday greeting, but kind of like my blog, I like to keep things on the "down low."

One of the really bad things about Facebook is that it is as close as it comes to a Borg collective. When one of your "friends" does something, the system automatically, as part of its structure, is set up to ask, "Wouldn't you like to invite your friends to join too?" If someone sends you a virtual "gift" then you have to load another application just to accept the gift, and the system then asks you the same question, "You don't want to be alone, do you? Ask your friends to join you, it will be great. Don't be the only loser not to belong."

When you first log into Facebook, it also tells you everything your friends have been doing while on Facebook. Similarly, every profile page spells out each move that friend has made, every comment, every thought.

A while back, dear, sweet Ray sent me (and probably all of his friends) a "friend suggestion." Ray suggested I become friends with Anthony Basil Taylor. I don't know about you, but that name sounds very British to me, quite European at least. But, since I trust Ray, I don't check out who Anthony Basil Taylor is by running his name through Google. However, the Facebook "friend request" automatically brings up his picture, so I at least have a name and a face.



Since I already assumed the man was British, seeing the clerical collar made me think "Church of England." He does look a bit stuffy, so all the pieces lead me to conclude he is a pastor in the Church of England. Since he is a friend of Ray's, and since I trust Ray, no "proceed with caution" lights were going off in my head. I've gotten burned way too many times assuming that a man in a collar is a Catholic priest. Having been Catholic all my life, a man in a collar is just that -- a priest. It's been quite an education, many times learned by awkward and embarrassing situations, that not every man in a collar is a Catholic priest.

I send a friend request, per Ray's instruction, to Anthony Basil Taylor. In my friend request, since I don't know this man from Adam, I debate whether or not I should ask him if he is a Catholic priest. Maybe I should ask him if he's an Anglican? Having stepped in it too many times in the past, I fall back to the safe position of, "Ray suggested I send you a friend request." Not very chummy, but at least I don't ask him if he's Anglican or Catholic or include other petty small talk.

A very short time later, Anthony Basil Taylor confirms me as a friend. I then look at his profile (which you cannot view unless you are already confirmed as a person's friend -- an odd Catch-22 in Facebook). Who is this man?

BISHOP Anthony Basil Taylor of the Diocese of Little Rock, Arkansas.

Even though I hadn't asked the Bishop if he was, in fact, Catholic, I was utterly and completely mortified at how incredibly close I had come to total embarrassment...with a Catholic priest, and a BISHOP to boot! D'oh!!

Two things here. It's just plain wrong that a bishop doesn't use his title (people like me can get into lots of trouble with our assumptions!) and secondly, I trusted Ray.

As they say in the work world, it was yet another "lessons learned" experience.

The Catholic vote

My genealogy books are filled with newspaper articles of my shirt-tail relatives' involvement in politics. Many, many branches of the family, on both my father's and mother's sides, are very politically active. I'm currently related to two political office holders: Senator Dorgan (D) from North Dakota, and in a surprising turn of events, a Republican House member from Wisconsin. I contend that the only reason that my cousin, the Republican, got elected, is that my extended family is so incredibly huge that she was elected on their votes alone, albeit those lines of farmers voted for her begrudgingly, with gritted teeth and a few cuss words.

Back in the day, farmers were Democrats. Plain, simple. My farming family is also all Catholic. This didn't used to be a problem as these things went hand-in-hand, and they were very proud of their Faith and their Politics. As always, times change but the Catholic Church does not. My family's political affiliation, like their Faith, is part of their DNA, despite these two pieces of their soul being at odds.

Unfortunately, the Democratic party has been affected by relativism and has morally derailed. My family has been slow to change. Unwilling to change. It could be at the expense of their souls.

Other cousins, very active in their parish, community, and Democratic politics, have been more willing to compromise their Faith than their politics. I'm sure their saintly and staunchly Catholic parents would be aghast to learn their children now support birth control, abortion, euthanasia, population control and a host of other moral evils.

In a short period of time, family members went from supporting morally acceptable Democratic candidates, to voting for candidates that support immoral causes, to internalizing those beliefs and spouting them off themselves. All this within one lifetime.

About a year ago, Ma Beck had the following maps on her blog. Since branches of my family and my husband's family both came from Germany, mine being Catholic and his being fiercely Lutheran, along with several Bavarian Catholic branches, the maps are an interesting visual.

Germany, 1932. Percentage of Catholics with black being the highest.

(In the top left of the map, where the black makes a "peak" is where my family is from, the Duchy of Oldenburg.)

Percentage of people voting for the Nazi party. Black is highest.



A lady in my homeschool group recently sent out the following (shown below) Time article (H/T: Jean). It is also interesting to note the counties and states where Catholics have a higher percentage (darker red). It will be telling to see how the country votes.

The intro to the piece says, "With the economy and Iraq topping voter concerns, abortion has receded into the political background. That puts Catholics up for grabs—and Obama is winning some converts." Since when has abortion receded into the background? Especially when we have a candidate who is unwilling to protect the life of the unborn and the born.

I suspect the map of how Catholics vote in the next election will be completely unlike the German map. Our shepherds need to be more vocal in just how grave the matter of voting for a pro-abort candidate is because many Catholics, a large number of my family, are rationalizing their collusion with evil as something acceptible, even necessary.



It is not morally possible for any Catholic to support abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning, or same-sex marriage. There are no ways around this, no justifications whatever. Why? For the simple reason that the Church holds these things to be intrinsically evil. They are evil in themselves, and no circumstances or subjective conditions can ever change that.
Father Corapi

* Link to the Time map, for clearer viewing

Bear!! Fireworks!!!

Things that make you go, "AHHHHHH"


There was a bear at our cabin this weekend. We never get bears. Since my husband's parents, sister and her husband, uncle, and aunt and her husband, all live within five miles of our cabin, we often hear their stories about bears climbing up their decks to get to bird feeders and hanging out in their yards looking for food. But, because our cabin is at the end of a half-mile long peninsula (bears and deer supposedly don't like to wander down peninsulas, they must've read Sun Tsu's, "Ancient Art of War"), we don't get bears. We don't even get too many deer. I can have plants around my cabin without worrying that the deer will eat them all.

However, this weekend, as we were coming in to get ready to go see the fireworks, a bear crawled out of the woods on one side of the road. I had gone in the house with my daughter, while my husband was outside with my son. I just happened to look out the window and saw the bear appear across the road from our driveway, while my husband and son were near the door by the driveway.

Being a good mom, I went screaming like a maniac that there was a bear and told hubby and my son to get in the house. All was well and we didn't see the bear again. He must've thought I was mighty un-neighborly.

Fireworks were being shot off at the golf course on the lake my parents-in-law live on. It connects to the lake hubby's aunt and uncle live on and they have a brand new pontoon. This was our transportation for the evening. The pontoon is amazing, with iPOD hookup, GPS, stereo speakers throughout, faucet, cooler, you name it. Not grandpa's fishing boat.

We dropped anchor a short distance off the shore of the golf course and tied up with my brother-in-law's bass boat, since they were meeting us on the water for the fireworks show. The kids were doing well considering it was way past their bedtime and they hadn't taken naps that day.

Before the show started, hubby's uncle had to play the tunes from his iPOD, which included the Oak Ridge Boy's singing, "My baby is American made." And, the whole Woody Guthrie version of "Alice's Restaurant." This was his attempt at patriotic music. *Cough*

Fireworks were great and the kids loved them, even my daughter who was covering her eyes for part of the show.

When it was time to go, the pontoon's motor wouldn't start. Seems the battery was dead. The iPOD had done it in. This shouldn't have happened, but it seemed there was a short in the electrical system somewhere. But, have no fear, my brother-in-law who is a serious fisherman had a spare battery in his boat (it was for his trolling motor). So, the dead battery was removed and the spare installed. We were on our way again.

Got the kids in bed around 11:30pm. We were all exhausted. Hope you had a wonderful weekend!

Flying colors

In honor of the 4th of July, could you pass these quizzes with flying colors?

You Passed the US Citizenship Test

Congratulations - you got 9 out of 10 correct!

Could You Pass the US Citizenship Test?

And, I could tell you exactly which question I got wrong...

_______________________________________________________

You Know Your States

You got 10/10 correct. You've got a pretty good handle on US geography. There's a good chance you've visited at least a dozen of the fifty states.

How Well Do You Know Your States?

_______________________________________________________

You Are Most Like Ronald Reagan

People tend to think you're a god - or that you almost ruined the country. But even if people do disagree with you, they still fall victim to your charms!

What Modern US President Are You Most Like?

__________________________________________________________

Hard to believe I'm like Reagan. I changed a few of my answers and got W, so I think I'll stick with Reagan.

HAVE A SAFE, WONDERFUL, BLESSED AND GASTROMONICALLY PLEASING 4TH!!!!!

If it wasn't bad enough

that women have to be thin...


"...all anyone wanted to cast was the scrawny kid who looked like he got sand kicked in his face. The big, great looking models just stopped going to Europe. They knew they’d never get cast." NY Times, Vanishing Point

Male models are even experiencing pressure to be thin. Not just trim, but anorexic looking. I don't know what the designers are thinking, but these models are a complete turn off. I don't even want to look at their ads, little alone buy their goods. Maybe I'm not even in the demographics any more...

Are they targeting men or women? I don't think women have evolved past the point of wanting a strong male provider. Call me a cave girl, but I could never have married a man like this, which wouldn't have been an issue because I never would've dated a man like this. Give me tall, dark and handsome...even hairy . I want a spouse who's going to be a husband and father, not a cake topper.

Despite the earnings potential of these guys, they don't really appear to be husband material. If their modeling gig ever came to an end, I don't think they could run down to the local construction site and apply for a job without some serious snickers. And, from a woman's point of view, they don't look like they could hold down a desk job because those jobs typically require some independent thinking and these guys are completely caught up in someone else's idea of beauty and fashion.

This weekend I came across two men who had shaved their legs and obviously applied lotion to provide that "oh-so-supple" look. The first man was spotted at Sam's Club in the check out line in front of us. He was impersonating a metrosexual, wearing a blue tooth phone and all the other required accoutrements. But, the other was a married man who was eating dinner with his wife and young daughter. Things are really backwards when the man has to borrow his wife's razor to shave his legs.

If my husband suddenly started shaving his legs, I'd schedule an appointment with a mental health specialist. I'd even consult a canon lawyer. It has to be grounds for an annulment.

* The Vanishing Point
* Male models: Pressure to be thin (WSJ)

Summer reads

I didn't start reading for pleasure until five years ago when I was pregnant with my son. Up to that point, almost everything I read had been a text book or technical journal, so my leisure time consisted of anything but reading. Reading was work. As a child, I never read the classics or learned to enjoy reading. Considering that both my parents were avid readers and strongly encouraged my brother and me to read, I never acquired the interest and subsequent joy of reading for pleasure.

Initially, when I was pregnant with my son, I was far too sick to do anything. Half way into my second trimester, things finally settled down enough that I was able to relax; then I discovered reading. Most of the things I read were junk -- they still are. If I'm going to read for pleasure, then it has to be something that occupies my mind, but doesn't tax it. Anything beyond a trashy mystery novel is too much, it's drudgery. Trashy novels are a quick read; I'm too impatient to spend more than a few days with a book. I have a strange aversion to reading things that might actually require concentration.

Since I hope to provide my children with a more classical experience, saturated with "great books," I've been trying to read the classics myself. Some of them, like Dickens and Austen, I thoroughly enjoy. Others, like one of my current reads, Crime and Punishment, are truly well-named. In the few weeks this book has sat on my head board, I've only managed to trudge through four chapters. I want to know what happens and be done with it, I just don't want to have to read it.

However, I did manage to read one of Scott Hahn's books (I went from reading zero books for decades, to reading several books at once). I had always kept Scott Hahn's books at an arm's length. I can't even explain why. Part of it was I just didn't know what to think of the man. It seemed he was trying too hard. Plus, since he is a professor, I assumed his books would be dry and "professorial."

I was in the middle of reading Mark Shea's, Making Senses Out of Scripture, when I was pulled off-track and inexplicably checked to see if the library carried any of Scott Hahn's books. Given the subject matter, I never thought the public library, of all places, would actually carry this book given our non-establishment and politically correct ideas. But, they had several of Scott Hahn's books. I even managed to find, "The Lamb's Supper" sitting right on the shelf.

The book really wasn't what I thought it was going to be. First, it's actually a quick read. That's a positive in my estimation. And, it wasn't at all dry or professorial. It is an easy read, however, I didn't really get a lot out of it. This surprised me. Really surprised me. Those who have been reading my blog know that I'm a poorly catechised cradle Catholic. There's been a huge learning curve in my attempts to fill in the gaps of my knowledge. I thought reading Scott Hahn would really boost me up the curve.

Maybe it's because I'm getting further up the curve that I expect more, I need more, than a book that seems to have Protestants as its target audience. It could also be because I've read books by others in this "apologist frat" that Scott Hahn seems to be part of and have heard much of this before. I did appreciate how he shows the connection between the Mass and the book of Revelation in a little more detail than I had known. I hadn't previously heard about the connections between Heaven and Mount Zion, so that was interesting.

I know Scott Hahn can think circles around me and I guess I assumed that this book would do that. Maybe it's good he's able to articulate these ideas down to my level, but I still was left feeling a little disappointed that I didn't get a lot out of the book. Bible study this fall is on the Book of Revelation, so that should provide some more in-depth information to elaborate on what Scott Hahn touched on.

I am glad that Scott Hahn corrected my thinking on what the Second Coming might be like:

Consider, for a moment, Jesus' Jewish contemporaries and their worldly expectation of the Messiah: He would establish the kingdom of God by military and political means -- conquer Rome, subjugate the gentiles, and so on. We know that such hopes were dashed away. Rather than marching on Jerusalem with His armies, Jesus waged a campaign of mercy and love, manifested by the meals shared with tax collectors and other sinners.

And we all learned our lesson, right? It doesn't seem that way. Because, today, many Christians still hope for the same messianic vengeance as the first-century Jews. Though Christ came peacefully the first time, they say, He'll come back with a holy vengeance in the end, crushing His Foes with almighty force.

As Scott Hahn points out, Jesus is called the Lamb of God in St. John's gospel and in the Book of Revelation, not the Lion of Judah. It doesn't sound like a lamb is coming to kick butt. Interesting point.

Next up, something I want to get under my belt before the Miles Christi retreat is, The Three Conversions in the Spiritual Life, by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP. I got this book for Christmas and haven't gotten around to reading it. It's quite short, but I think it will take more concentration to get through it. I've put down my book, The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, until I attend the retreat. That book did mention that I would experience discouraging thoughts about attending the retreat, but so far I'm pretty jazzed about it. My spiritual life has been stagnating and it's really time to take a step forward.

In between, I'll still read my trashy mystery novels. I've got a back-log of about three Patricia Cornwell's to tackle. Her stuff isn't really trashy, neither is Anne Perry's, but Janet Evanovich's...ei yi yi.

And what did you do this weekend?

While I was at a picnic, Archbishop Nienstedt was in Rome to receive his pallium. Very cool.

"When we take the pallium upon our shoulders", the pope explained, "this gesture reminds us of the Shepherd who takes upon his shoulders the lost sheep, which on its own was not able to find the way home, and brings it back to the fold". But Jesus Christ "also wants men who will 'carry' together with Him" lost humanity.

"The pallium", he added, "becomes a symbol of our love for the Shepherd, Christ, and of our loving together with Him - it becomes a symbol of the call to love men as He does, together with Him: those who are searching, those who are questioning, those who are sure of themselves and those who are humble, the simple and the great; it becomes a symbol of the call to love all with the power of Christ and in view of Christ, so that they may find Him, and in Him, themselves".

The pallium, he added finally, is a sign of collegiality, of unity among all the bishops and with the pope: "No one is a Shepherd on his own. We are successors to the Apostles thanks only to being in collegial communion, in which the college of the Apostles finds its continuation. Communion, the 'we' of the Shepherds, is part of being Shepherds, because the flock is only one, the one Church of Jesus Christ And finally, this 'with' also refers to communion with Peter and with his successor as the guarantee of unity".

H/T to Ray, via Whispers in the Loggia

Is it that obvious?

It was an incredibly busy week, filled with lots of prayers for friends and family. Fortunately, everyone seems to be doing well. Thanks be to God!

Spent some time at Sam's Club over the weekend and ran into a lady from church. I don't personally know this family, but have seen them at Mass. It's hard not to notice them, since they have, literally, about a dozen kids. Today, that's unusual. I didn't think she would know who I was since we blend into the parish wood work with our two kids.

But, as I was paging through the workbooks for children that they carry at Sam's, I was aware that someone I didn't know was standing next to me. Being "in the zone" while I was looking at the books, I thought the person next to me was getting a little close, but was conversing with whomever they were with.

Suddenly, and without provocation, I was whacked on the arm. It was the lady from church AND she had been trying to carry on a conversation with me. Good grief. I think she had finally gotten tired that I was ignoring her. *Cringe*

She whacked me on the arm and said, "You homeschool, right?"

It's kind of a grey area at the moment, since I plan to "officially" start in the fall. But, how did she know?

On the way out of the store, I asked my husband if he didn't think it was a little odd that people seem to know that I'm a homeschooling mom, or at least getting close to the point of no return.

Sweet hubby replied, "Well, you all look alike."
Confused, I said, "What do you mean, 'We all look alike'?"
"You all look alike."
I concluded, "It must be the fifth eye."
"You mean third eye."
"No, fifth eye. There are supposedly two others on the back on my head and the new one in the middle of my forehead."

See, it has nothing to do with denim jumpers.

Mr. Keating's hellishly hard quiz

I stumbled across this quiz this morning. Maybe you've already seen it; maybe you've already taken it. Since Mr. Keating threw down the gauntlet by calling this the toughest Catholic quiz around, I had to test my knowledge. See how well you do.

I got #'s 4 and 8 wrong, and had to make educated guesses on a few others :)

(Clipped from Catholic Answers in its entirety)

Questions

1. In the Mass

a. Jesus is symbolized by the bread and wine from the moment of consecration onward.

b. Jesus is spiritually present when the community gathers in prayer under the leadership of the priest and ceases to be spiritually present when the priest leaves the sanctuary.

c. Jesus is physically present along with the bread and wine once the consecration has occurred.

d. Jesus is present, and the bread and wine are not present, after the consecration.

e. None of the above.

2. After the consecration

a. The host on the paten is Jesus' body, and the contents of the chalice are Jesus' blood.

b. The host symbolizes Jesus' body, and the wine symbolizes Jesus' blood.

c. The host is both Jesus' body and blood, and the wine is both Jesus' body and blood.

d. Jesus' body and blood are really present with the bread and the wine, and this is called the Real Presence.

e. None of the above.

3. The consecration of the Eucharist

a. Can be performed by a Catholic priest or by a priest of an Eastern Orthodox church.

b. Can be performed by a Catholic priest only if he celebrates Mass with at least two witnesses.

c. Can be performed by Catholic priests and Anglican priests so long as they have the proper intention and pronounce the correct words of consecration.

d. Can be performed by deacons and specially-commissioned lay persons in emergency situations.

e. None of the above.

4. A Mass is invalid

a. If fewer than half the people present hold hands during the Our Father.

b. If the priest omits the opening sign of the cross and the Nicene Creed.

c. If the priest celebrates Mass while he is in the state of mortal sin.

d. If the priest ad libs any part of the canon.

e. None of the above.

5. Holy Communion may be taken by

a. Anyone at all, so long as his conscience tells him it is the right thing to do.

b. Any Christian who wishes to manifest the unity which Christ willed for his Church.

c. Catholics in the state of grace, but not by Protestants even if they are in the state of grace.

d. Catholics who have committed mortal sins and are sorry for them, even if they have not confessed them yet in confession.

e. None of the above.

6. The doctrine of the Trinity means

a. There is one God who manifests himself in the three distinct roles of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

b. Since the Resurrection there have been four persons in the Trinity, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ the God-Man.

c. In the Godhead there is only one divine person, and he takes on different aspects according to his actions as Creator, Redeemer, or Sanctifier.

d. There are three Gods who work so closely together that it is proper to call them one God.

e. None of the above.

7. A deacon is

a. A priest who does not have permission to celebrate Mass until after his wife dies.

b. A layman who may distribute Communion, marry people, baptize babies, and wear vestments.

c. A man who has received the first level of holy orders and is neither a priest nor a layman.

d. Forbidden to hear confessions and give absolution except in emergency situations and in the absence of a priest.

e. None of the above.

8. A sister is

a. Neither a lay person nor a cleric.

b. A cleric, but no longer a lay person.

c. May be installed as a chaplain of a hospital.

d. Is the female equivalent of a deacon.

e. None of the above.

9. An archbishop

a. Is always an older bishop and, by canon law, must be at least 55 years of age.

b. Has jurisdiction over all the bishops within his metropolitan area, and he may overrule their decisions.

c. Assists the pope by voting on prospective cardinals.

d. Is a regular bishop who has been given the honorary title of archbishop by leading bishops in his national bishops' conference.

e. None of the above.

10. Which of the following is a defined Catholic dogma?

a. Limbo

b. Purgatory

c. Both limbo and purgatory.

d. Priestly celibacy.

e. None of the above.

11. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception means

a. Mary conceived Jesus immaculately in her womb, without the aid of a human father.

b. Mary conceived Jesus immaculately in her womb, and he remained without sin.

c. Mary was conceived immaculately in her mother's womb, without the aid of a human father.

d. Mary was conceived immaculately in her mother's womb and was preserved from sin.

e. None of the above.

12. Papal infallibility means

a. The pope is preserved by the Holy Spirit from committing mortal sins.

b. Anything the pope teaches is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit to be true.

c. The pope's teachings must be obeyed because he is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and thus speaks for the Holy Spirit, who cannot err.

d. The pope is incapable of teaching erroneously on matters of faith and morals when he teaches publicly and officially a doctrine for all Christians, not just Catholics, to hold.

e. None of the above.

13. Contraception is

a. Permissible only to married couples with the permission of their parish priest and under extenuating circumstances.

b. Never permissible, no matter what the circumstances.

c. Permissible if the husband and wife, after honest prayer, conclude it is right for them and do not use it selfishly.

d. Permissible only if the wife's health would be in danger or if the husband is unable to support a large family.

e. None of the above.

14. The sacrament of confession

a. Must be received before receiving Communion by anyone guilty of a mortal sin since his last confession.

b. Is entirely superfluous if you privately and sincerely confess your sins to God.

c. Must be received by all Catholic adults at least once a year. (This is one of the six precepts of the Church.)

d. Was done away with by Vatican II, except in cases of the three sins which "cry out to God for vengeance": murder, adultery, and sexism.

e. None of the above.

15. At the Crucifixion

a. Jesus' human nature died on the cross.

b. Only the human person of Jesus, not the divine person of Jesus, died on the cross.

c. God died on the cross.

d. Jesus' human and divine natures both died on the cross, but the universe was kept going by the Father and the Holy Spirit until Jesus' Resurrection.

e. None of the above.

16. Purgatory is

a. A state of natural happiness where souls of unbaptized infants and morally good non-Christians will wait until they are judged on the Last Day.

b. A state of mild punishment for people who were not bad enough to go to hell and who were not good enough to go to heaven.

c. A state of purification for people who die in the state of grace but who do not die with complete love for God.

d. A temporary state where sincere people who do not die in the state of grace get a second chance to do good and thus avoid going to hell.

e. None of the above.

17. An annulment is

a. The canon law equivalent of a divorce under the civil law.

b. A Church-authorized dissolution of a marriage which has failed through the infidelity of one of the spouses.

c. A declaration that no valid marriage existed in the first place, even if there are children born during the relationship.

d. A declaration that children born in a failed marriage are not illegitimate.

e. None of the above.

18. Parish councils

a. Were set up by Vatican II to oversee the work of parish priests.

b. Prevail against the opinions of pastors if at least two-thirds of the council members agree on an issue.

c. Advise the pastor and relieve him of administrative duties, but have no authority over him.

d. Were instituted by Vatican II because the Church is now a democracy, not a monarchy.

e. None of the above.

19. Mortal sin

a. Is nowhere mentioned in Scripture.

b. Is a theological construct from the Church of the Middle Ages, and since Vatican II we recognize that there are only two kinds of sins, venial and serious.

c. Is the same as serious sin; only the words are different.

d. Makes it impossible for you ever to get to heaven, no matter what you do.

e. None of the above.

20. Apologetics means

a. Never having to say you're sorry.

b. The art of apologizing for being a Catholic.

c. A course which seminarians used to have to take but which they now are exempted from by canon law.

d. Giving reasoned explanations and defenses for the faith.

e. None of the above.


Answers
There you have it! Now you know why some people call this "the pop quiz from hell." Now let's look at the answers.

Question 1

a. Wrong, because Jesus is not symbolized by the bread and wine--they become him.

b. Wrong, because Jesus is more than just spiritually present during Mass and because he remains present in the consecrated elements until they cease to look like bread and wine. The priest's presence in the sanctuary isn't necessary.

c. Wrong, because, although physically present, Jesus is not present with the bread and the wine. They cease to be present after the consecration. This is the heresy of consubstantiation or impanation.

d. Correct, because the bread and wine cease to be present in their essence or substance after the consecration. Only Jesus is present, though the mere appearances of bread and wine remain.
e. Wrong, because 1d is correct.

Question 2

a. Wrong, because the host and the contents of the chalice are each both the body and blood of Jesus, even though, because of their appearances, we commonly call one the body and the other the blood.

b. Wrong, because the host and wine do not symbolize Jesus but become him.

c. Correct, because both the host and the wine (which is no longer wine but is called that only because of its appearance) become both the real body and blood of Jesus.

d. Wrong, because after the consecration the bread and wine cease to be present, so Jesus' body and blood cannot be present with them.

e. Wrong, because 2c is correct.

Question 3

a. Correct, because the Eastern Orthodox churches have the seven sacraments and therefore a real priesthood. It takes a real priest to confect the Real Presence.

b. Wrong, because a priest may celebrate Mass by himself. The validity of the Mass does not depend on the presence of witnesses. Perhaps you are confusing here the validity of a marriage, which normally requires two witnesses.

c. Wrong, because Anglican orders are not valid. Out of courtesy we call Anglican ministers "Father," but Pope Leo XIII definitely determined in 1896 that Anglican orders long ago became defective. This means Anglican priests are, technically, Christian laymen. Since they aren't priests, their having the proper intention and their pronouncing the correct words of consecration are immaterial.

d. Wrong, because deacons have only partial priestly orders and lay people have no priestly orders, and you need full priestly orders to consecrate the Eucharist.

e. Wrong, because 3a is correct.

Question 4

a. Wrong. If you chose this answer you should think seriously about enrolling in a first-grade religion class. The seven-year-olds probably will be able to teach you something.

b. Wrong, even though it is illicit for a priest to omit the opening sign of the cross or, when specified by the rubrics, the creed, such omission does not make the Mass invalid.

c. Wrong, because the efficacy of any sacrament does not depend on the holiness of the minister. If so, we never could tell if absolution "took" in the confessional or if a Mass were validly said, since we can't see inside the priest's soul. Sacraments work through their own power, given by Christ, not through the virtuousness of the priest.

d. Wrong, but close. If the priest ad libs the words of consecration, he likely will end up with an invalid Mass. If he ad libs other parts of the canon, he acts illicitly and perhaps sinfully, but the Mass does not become invalid.

e. Correct, because all the other possible answers are wrong.

Question 5

a. Wrong, because, as an obvious case, non-Christians may not take Communion, nor may someone knowingly in the state of mortal sin.

b. Wrong, because canon law provides that only those Christians (such as the Eastern Orthodox) who believe in the Real Presence as Catholics do may take Communion in our churches (canon 844). All they need do is ask.

c. Correct. Since Protestants do not believe as Catholics do regarding the Real Presence, they may not take Communion, even if they are in the state of grace. The very act of taking Communion is a visible sign that you believe exactly as the Catholic Church teaches concerning the Real Presence, and Protestants don't.

d. Wrong, because, absent a life-or-death situation, you must go to confession before receiving Communion, even if you have repented of your mortal sin.

e. Wrong, because 5c is correct.

Question 6

a. Wrong, because this is the heresy of Modalism, which says that there is one Person in the Godhead and that Person, so to speak, wears different "masks" according to his different activities.

b. Wrong. This is another nonsense answer. The very word Trinity comes from the prefix for three ("tri"), so you should have seen right away that the Trinity could not be composed of four Persons.

c. Wrong, because this is just a rephrasing, in "gender neutral language," of 6a.

d. Wrong, because Christians are monotheists and believe in one God, not three. No matter how closely together three gods work, they remain three gods, not one.

e. Correct, because all the other possible answers are wrong.

Question 7

a. Wrong, because a deacon is not a married priest. Married priests are called, well, married priests, and they are common in some of the Eastern rites. Although deacons are ordained, they receive only the first level of holy orders.

b. Wrong, because, although deacons may do all these things, they are not laymen. They are clerics, even though they usually don't dress anything like priests.

c. Correct, because a deacon, as a cleric, is no longer a layman but is not yet a priest.

d. Wrong, because a deacon never can give priestly absolution, for the simple reason that he is not a priest.

e. Wrong, because 7c is correct.

Question 8

a. Wrong, because sisters (women religious), like brothers (men religious), are lay people. They are not ordained--they take vows, which is different.

b. Wrong, because sisters are not ordained, and only the ordained are clerics. There are three grades of clerics: deacons, priests, bishops.

c. Wrong, even though in some places sisters are termed chaplains. According to canon law (canon 564), chaplains, properly speaking, are priests. It isn't correct to call someone a chaplain merely because he (or she) provides some sort of spiritual counseling.

d. Wrong, because there are no female deacons, because women cannot be ordained as deacons, priests, or bishops.

e. Correct, because all the other possible answers are wrong.

Question 9

a. Wrong, because canon law provides no age requirement for the office of archbishop.

b. Wrong, because diocesan bishops (ordinaries), as distinguished from auxiliary bishops, have only the pope as their boss, though, for ceremonial purposes, arch_bishops take the lead over bishops within their metro_politan areas.

c. Wrong, because cardinals are not selected by voting. The pope chooses them directly.

d. Wrong, because a man becomes an archbishop by being named by the pope to an archepiscopal see. Such sees normally are in larger cities or have had some historical importance.
e. Correct, because all the other possible answers are wrong.

Question 10

a. Wrong, because limbo is not a defined dogma. It is a theological speculation, and good Catholics may believe or not believe in it, as the arguments move them. But if the Church were to define formally the existence or non-existence of limbo, everyone would be obliged in conscience to fall in line.

b. Correct, because purgatory is an official dogma of the Church. Even though it is not much talked about today, Catholics still must believe in it. It is not optional.

c. Wrong, because only purgatory is a defined dogma.

d. Wrong, because priestly celibacy is a custom, not a dogma.

e. Wrong, because 10b is correct.

Question 11

a. Wrong, because this defines not the Immaculate Conception, but the Virgin Birth of Jesus (that is, the birth of Jesus from a Virgin).

b. Wrong, even though it is true Jesus remained without sin and was conceived immaculately. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception concerns Mary's conception, not Jesus'.

c. Wrong, because Mary had a human father. It is believed her mother's name was Anne and her father's Joachim.

d. Correct, because the main consequence of the Immaculate Conception is that Mary was able to live a sinless life. (She could have sinned, had she so chosen, but she chose not to; Adam and Eve could have chosen not to sin, but they chose to sin.)

e. Wrong, because 11d is correct.

Question 12

a. Wrong. This is the notion of impeccability--the inability to sin. Only Jesus was impeccable. It has nothing to do with infallibility, which means the inability to err.

b. Wrong, because the pope's infallibility is guaranteed only when he speaks officially on matters of faith and morals. If he tells you who will win the next World Series, keep your betting money in your pocket.

c. Wrong, even though it is true that the pope's teaching (even his non-infallible teaching) must be obeyed. This simply isn't what the doctrine of infallibility means.

d. Correct, as defined formally at Vatican I (1870).

e. Wrong, because 12d is correct.

Question 13

a. Wrong, because a priest cannot give permission to anyone to engage in any sinful act.

b. Correct, as explained in Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae. It is immaterial that most Catholics don't practice what the Church always has preached. Truth is not determined by majority vote.

c. Wrong, because this is a cop-out. Contraception is always immoral and does not become moral just because some couples agree not to use it "selfishly." Do bank heists become moral if the thieves agree to distribute the proceeds not to themselves but to the poor?

d. Wrong, because a good motive cannot make an evil act good. If there is a problem with the wife's health or the family's pocketbook, the couple should consider natural family planning (which is not the same as the rhythm method); it can be used morally because it does not subvert the requisite openness to new life.

e. Wrong, because 13b is correct.

Question 14

a. Correct. Compare answer 5d.

b. Wrong, because this would imply Jesus set up a superfluous sacrament, confession, and he never did anything superfluously. See John 20:22-23.

c. Wrong, because this is not one of the six precepts of the Church, for the simple reason that you need to go to confession only if you commit a mortal sin, though it is good to go frequently even if you commit only venial sins.

d. Wrong, because this is another nonsense answer. The word "sexism" didn't even exist during Vatican II.

e. Wrong, because 14a is correct.

Question 15

a. Wrong, because natures aren't put to death--persons are. When you die, it is not your human nature which dies, but you as a distinct person.

b. Wrong, because there is no human person in Jesus. There is only one Person, the divine, who already (by definition) had a divine nature and who took on a human nature.

c. Correct, because the Person who died on the cross was a divine Person, commonly called the Son of God. Since that Person is God, it is proper to say God died on the cross, even though that sounds odd and may make some unthinking people conclude that it means that God ceased to exists, which, of course, was not the case. (If you were sure this answer could not be right, don't fret--you're in good company. Most people miss this question because the correct answer "just doesn't sound right.")

d. Wrong, first because natures don't die, persons do, and second because the answer suggest Jesus couldn't keep the universe going, as though he ceased to be God between the time of his death and his Resurrection.

e. Wrong, because 15c is correct.

Question 16

a. Wrong, because what is described is almost (not quite) the definition of limbo--not quite because limbo is posited to be a permanent state of natural happiness, not one that will end on the Last Day.

b. Wrong, first because the answer suggests purgatory is permanent (in fact, it will cease to exist at the end of the world when the last person leaves it for heaven), second because the answer suggests purgatory is for people who are not good enough to go to heaven (in fact, it is precisely for people who are good enough to go to heaven--but not quite yet; everyone who goes to purgatory will go to heaven).

c. Correct, because purgatory is a state in which the last vestiges of self-love are removed, so we might enter heaven according to Revelation 21:27, which says "nothing unclean shall enter heaven."

d. Wrong, because you only go around once in life ("It is appointed to man once to die and then comes judgment" [Heb. 9:27]). Your soul is judged immediately after your death, and your fate is sealed then.

e. Wrong, because 16c is correct.

Question 17

a. Wrong, because there is no canon law equivalent of civil divorce because sacramental marriages can't be ended by divorce.

b. Wrong, because a sacramental marriage, once made, is not undone even if one of the spouses becomes unfaithful. Only death ends a valid, sacramental marriage.

c. Correct, because the existence of children from the relationship is not a bar to being granted a decree of nullity.

d. Wrong, because an annulment is a decision that no valid, sacramental marriage existed in the first place. It is not a decision about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of children. (Church law holds that children born in putative marriages which are later annulled are to be considered legitimate.)

e. Wrong, because 17c is correct.

Question 18

a. Wrong, because Vatican II did not set up parish councils and because such councils are not above parish priests.

b. Wrong, because this is just a "supermajority variation" of 18a.

c. Correct, because parish councils are under the pastor, who, under canon law, is subject in his running of the parish only to his bishop and to the Vatican.

d. Wrong, because Vatican II did not institute them (parish councils predate Vatican II) and because the Church remains a monarchy, not a democracy, because it mirrors the organization of heaven, which is a monarchy.

e. Wrong, because 18c is correct.

Question 19

a. Wrong, because mortal sin is mentioned in 1 John 5:16: "Not all sin is mortal," which implies that some sin is.

b. Wrong, because serious sin is exactly the same as mortal sin. Only the words differ.

c. Correct; see 19b.

d. Wrong, because you can go to heaven if you die after repenting of a mortal sin.

e. Wrong, because 19c is correct.

Question 20

a. Wrong, unless you saw the movie Love Story too many times.

b. Wrong. This betrays a penchant for using the colloquial meaning of a word when trying to decide on the word's definition.

c. Wrong, even though it is true that no seminary we know of has courses in apologetics.

d. Correct. Need we say more?

e. Wrong. Back up one answer.


Scoring

Those are the answers. Tally up how many you got right. Don't fret if your percentage is lower than you expected it to be.

As you see, the Catholic faith is a very exact thing. Yes, you can be saved even if you know it imperfectly, but your value as an apologist will increase as you learn how much you still have to learn.

Here are the official rankings:

Fewer than four answers correct: Downright embarrassing. Even random guessing should have gotten you a score of four out of twenty. Crumple up your answer sheet and make a novena.

Four to seven answers correct: Frankly, pretty poor. You have a long way to go before you're prepared to explain your faith in public.

Eight to ten answers correct: On the low side, but you will be spared public penance.

Eleven to thirteen answers correct: About average or a little better--nothing to be ashamed about, but nothing to write home about either.

Fourteen to sixteen answers correct: You're nearly ready to take over the adult education classes in your parish--you need to do just a little more homework.

Seventeen to nineteen answers correct: Wonderful! You have every reason to be satisfied with yourself.

Twenty correct: Zounds! Contact me about a job as an apologist.

Catholic Karma

Does it exist, or does God just have a perverse sense of humor?

I never had a class in comparitive religion. I don't think St. Thomas offered it back when, but at that point in my life, one religion was plenty to deal with. Getting through my three required theology classes, along with my required philosophy classes in ethics and logic, was enough to keep me from venturing far and wide.

My understanding of karma is the axiom of "what goes around, comes around." Probably a Christian perspective would be, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Golden Rule kind of thing. But, karma is a little more involved, since Hinduism and Buddhism (along with some other religions) both believe in karma. I'm more familiar with the Hindu idea of karma that "the effects of all deeds actively create past, present, and future experiences, thus making one responsible for one's own life, and the pain and joy it brings to him/her and others." And, this summation of your life's deeds will determine if you are reincarnated as a goat or if you reach Nirvana. It's a lot more complicated than that, but I have enough to study in my own Catechism instead of concerning myself with another religion's Enlightenment.

Lately, I've been trying not to concern myself at all...with my neighbor. Seems if things settle down with the family, then the neighbors have to find a way to keep it interesting. My neighbor across the street insists on parking right in front of our house. We live in the city. It's not just common courtesy to park your car in front of your own house, it's common knowledge -- Basic Neighbor Relations 101. We've lived here eight years and our cars are always in the exact same spots, unless, of course, the neighbor across the street parks her car in one of "our" places. There are NO cars parked on her side of the street. None. A rock star's entourage could pull up with their huge buses and she'd still have a place to park.

The irony, or you could say karma, is that back when I was that student at St. Thomas, I used to park my big old Buick across the street in front of my neighbor's house. Difference was (read: mitigating factor), that I grew up in the suburbs and NO ONE parked on the street. Everyone parked in their driveways or in their garages. I wasn't usurping anyone's parking spot. I parked in the street because both of my parents worked and had to get out of the garage/driveway, and because my schedule was so erratic with school and work, I always was blocking someone. So, I parked in the street.

When I got a car, I started out by parking on my own side of the street for a very long time. My car was happy there under the shade of the big maple tree. Except, one day I had to race home for something. I parked on the other side of the street and before I even got out of my car, the neighbor lady was running out of her house, yelling at me that I couldn't park there, it was "her" side.

Well, back then I wasn't the sweet, forgiving soul that I am now *ahem* so, barking at me like that, me of stubborn German descent, was not the way to handle the situation. From that point on, I was unable to stop my car from parking itself on the neighbor's side of the street. And, every day, I got a chance to say "hi" to the neighbor lady as she came running out of her house to greet me.

My, how the tables have turned. I don't know if this is karma or if God really is working on instilling those virtues I keep half-heartedly praying for. I'm afraid if I pray in earnest for virtues, I might have to park a block over.

My father always insisted that if God laughed, it was a big, hearty laugh. Don't I know it.