He brings me rest...

The reason blogging appeals to me, in part, is because one doesn't have to push oneself to write or think or move within a set of humanly constructed boundaries.  I have great respect for those boundaries, mind you, and I will be the first one to constructively criticize a friend's poorly structured essay, paper, letter or whathaveyou.  I think there needs to be a movement which flows and makes sense and the way we, as rational beings, have cooperated to communicate in common form is logical, functional, and forces one to think intelligently and thoroughly.  I also think with some practice, a lot of practice, the principle behind the structure becomes internalized, part of one's logical rhythm, and once that has happened, it is nice to let the writing flow...at least a bit (hoping this describes me a little bit).

Because for me, writing has always been a conduit through which I've prayed and hoped God would work.  I want Him to speak through me.  I want to bring something of use, light, truth, and most of all, love, into this world which can feel so cold, lost, and ...calculating...conditional, I suppose.  I used to believe that if I just worked hard enough, I could do it, all on my own.  I could figure out the answers and hand them down from on high.  I just needed to work hard enough, search hard enough, pray hard enough.

I've since learned that growth in holiness (in said growth I am NOT very far... or else I wouldn't be writing a post about how I like the opportunity to be undisciplined, etc....holiness is my main aim in life, however far I may be from achieving it, however) happens through a transformation by the divine.  It's not something that you can just search out, or that you can learn with your mind, or think your way to (and thank goodness because I would spend way TOO much time trying to do that if that were true - what a relief to know I don't have to figure it all out with my poor and finite reasoning ability).

Rather, you ask God to transform you and....he does it.  Done.  Yes, this process takes years and never really ends.  Yes, this process can take you through periods in your life which are super difficult but it leads you to a place of...well...rest.  It's hard to explain.

I've worked so so so hard, at least by my standards, in this life.  It always felt like I was stretched to the limit, over-extended, about to break.  I always told myself (or was told) just hang on, just get through this time, and then life will get easier.  But, it never really did.  And then, after all that hard work, I find myself working very hard, on an extremely tight budget (for the tenth year or so), and regularly very fatigued.  Sometimes, it's made me a little resentful (forgive me, Father).  But, then, I stop for a second and realize, I no longer feel pushed, forced, strained.  Life itself is not a burden that feels unbearable in my life (as it often has).  I don't feel like I might break.  I don't feel like the ground under my feet is comstantly shifting.  I'm exhausted, challenged, drained sometimes, sad, lonely, and sometimes scared and upset.

But, I am not lost.  I am not overburdened.  I am not terrified (most of the time).  And, life doesn't not feel too much.  In fact, my life right now, has certain qualities of rest and relaxation about it that I have never experienced in my life.

Why?

Because I made some choices to live God's will instead of my own.  He knows what I can and cannot handle.  He knows what I am and am not made for.  And he has constructed a life for me that I can bear (his burdens are light) when it's tough and rest in when things lighten a little.  It's not that things aren't rough....or any less rough than they've ever been.

It's, well, it's that He took my life...a life that looked good on paper but was riddled with emptiness, despair, and fear... and He made it into something that may not look as good materially (I wouldn't even have thought to choose it myself given the option) but is...restful...fulfilling...light...meaningful.

I have touched on this before, in a different sense, but I continue to be amazed.

And, as I continue to give over more, and to trust more...the challenges become bigger but the sense of rest and ease...well, it does too.

I don't mean rest and ease, like, I have servants, no money troubles, and regularly vacation.  I don't have any of that.  Rather, I mean, a life that suits me well...me...my temperament...and is not overwhelming or unbearably difficult to live out.  As one who has been a chronic overburdener of self, this is miraculous and, and new.

I love the life God has given me.  I hope I can incline my will more to his, because, then I know, I will find more of that sense of rest.

"Come to me all you who are burdened and are heavy laden and I will give you rest..." Paraphrase of Jesus somewhere in the bible.  Baby is waking - don't have time to look it up.

HHS Mandate/Komen

Baby's teething and that means my sleep is a little disrupted.  Kept me from posting although I have a lot to say.

I'm sad, though, about the mandate and now about Komen's seeming cave into pressure around their decision not to fund Planned Parenthood.

I want to be hopeful.  A piece of the internet that sees God's hand in all of this.  But it's also hard to watch those who don't have a sense of justice on the attack ...and winning.

Will address this when I am feeling a little stronger of heart.

Perhaps this will result in a backlash by Catholics?

Hmmm...we'll see.  The baby woke up from her all-too-short nap.

Selflessness vs "making time for yourself"

This great article about Making Time for Yourself started me thinking:

I've spent a long time being confused about whether it is more virtuous giving all of yourself or if, really, the virtue lies in "taking me-time."  I grew up fairly privileged, and with not too much asked of me.  Perhaps because of growing up in this way,  I found that I yearned for opportunities to give, and had difficulty putting up boundaries during those instances when someone decided to continuously take.  Partly, I was unsure about where the line lay between generosity and giving too much, if such a thing exists.  But, mostly, I found that I liked, and genuinely wanted, to give of myself.  From reading what pass as women's magazines and listening to the culture, I also began to feel like that was weak, or wrong, or something like that.

One of the best things about coming into the Church has been learning that it's wonderful to give, to be vulnerable, to open yourself up to being hurt, burned, exhausted, and drained.  That's what Jesus did.  And, God will give the necessary graces to help you when you just can't do what he has set before you on your own.

I read something once, though, which helped me define a line after which I should stop giving...at least for the moment.  I can't remember where I read this, but the author, and I believe it was a saint, suggested that attempting to be far more virtuous than you actually are is presumptuous.  In other words, you shouldn't try to go from 1 to 100 (or 33 to 100 or whatever the case may be) in an instant.  Part of humility is understanding where you truly are in this or that virtue and working from there.

Therefore, if I am a person who gives of myself 75% of the day, then maybe I should try bumping that up to 80%.  In other words, I should always be challenging myself.  But, all of the sudden deciding, and expecting, to be the type of person who gives of myself 100% of the day, is actually me being prideful, dishonest (to myself and perhaps others about who I am), and presumptuous.

Therefore, growth in virtue requires an honest accounting of where you are, followed by an earnest attempt to push oneself just a little bit further on a daily basis.  This means that, for someone like me who has actually had quite a lot of "me-time" in my life, I have to admit that deficit in selflessness in order to change it.  That admission includes expecting that not getting my "me time" will make me want to be cranky, frivolously purchase lattes, etc.  It also means, that, where possible, I will need to make some "me-time" but it's only because I can't be instantly better than I am and, unfortunately, I was spoiled by "me-time" growing up.

Where the culture gets it completely wrong, is that they want us to go backwards.  They want us to reclaim the vice we have already fought and won against.  "Me-time" ought to be considered a concession to our humanity, our fallen nature, rather than the courageous act of empowerment implied by Dove Chocolate commercials (not that I've ever been against Dove chocolate).

Speaking of courage, I also think that the current culture gets it wrong when it forgets that the human heart is one that longs for the heroic.  We all know, deep inside, whether or not we really have given selflessly to our limit, an act of heroism, and it makes us feel fulfilled, strong, and lifts our self-esteem.  A woman who pours all of herself out to others, as a gracious gift of self, knows that she is pleasing to God.  In that, women develop a sense of dignity, and steady confidence, much more real and based on a much more solid foundation, than because they managed to take their "me-time" that day.

That being said, the baby's asleep and my husband is working on a paper...I'm going to take a bubble bath.

Why faithful Catholics ought to vote for Rick Santorum (Part II)

continued from my earlier post Why Faithful Catholics ought to vote for Rick Santorum (Part I)

 3.  Because he is electable - but we must vote on principle not popularity.

Let me make one thing clear first.  We, as Catholics, don't make decisions based purely on what's practical but, rather, based on what's also right.  In case you are listening to people saying Santorum is unelectable, or saying it yourself, shame on you!  We have a great God, with whom all things are possible, and we have a moral imperative to do our best to vote for the best candidate.  Guessing, and that's all it can ever be (no-one really knows who is and is not electable) that others won't like your candidate and then abandoning him or her is just as shameful as abandoning yourself, your principles, and your truth because you want to be liked.  We all do it.  It's hard not to.  But, let's not go around saying proudly that we make our decisions based on what we think others will like.  We are Catholics!  Let's at least try to make our decisions based on principle and show a little character. Let's not forget, also, we have a great God.  Anyone He wills to be president could be so in a snap...many surprising things have happened before (everyone was surprised when Hilary imploded during the democratic primaries).

Now that we've dealt with making decisions based on the faulty notion that someone must be 'electable,' let's address whether it might be right to vote for Santorum based on his record.  Is it right to vote for someone who has consistently stood for life and traditional marriage both in his personal and his professional life?  Yes.  Is it right to vote for the person who has demonstrated considerable integrity in difficult situations (everyone says this about Rick thus far)?  Yes.  Is it right to be the person with a consistently decent, direct, and honest response to something as vile, destructive, and useless as Santorum's "Google problem" (if you don't know what I mean, just google Santorum...the person who did this to Santorum publicly 'takes a stand' against bullying...if that's not bullying in the worst way, I don't know what is).  Is it right to vote for someone brave enough to speak out boldly against gay marriage even though he has been, for years, branded a 'bigot,' 'someone who hates gays' and worse?  Yes.  Is it right to vote for someone who was in the lead in enacting some amazing and real reforms such as welfare reform?  Umm...yes. 

So far, I have only heard a couple arguments against Santorum by conservatives based on his record.  That's amazing.  And they are small.  One is that he revoted-in pro-choice Arlen Specter when he had the chance to vote-in pro-life Pat Toomey.  He now admits his fault (something awesome in itself).  But his argument is that he wanted to keep Specter since Specter had promised to vote in two conservative justices, which he did do.  Obviously those judges have already and will continue to make a huge difference in our culture in a positive way.  Nonetheless, the critique of Santorum's vote here is correct.  He chose the utilitarian rather than the principled choice in this instance.  In fact, he did what I am arguing above not to do.  He voted practically rather than for the candidate he thought would be best.  And what happened?  Two good justices were elected to the supreme court.  BUT, and this is a big but, this choice allowed Obamacare to pass through the senate...an unintended consequence with huge ramifications.  He admits his wrong...we can't predict the future - there's always something we can't see.  However, the fact that he voted the wrong way once in a two decade long political career is pretty good...especially since he has the integrity to admit his fault.  It's a good example of what not to do.  When we vote based on a utilitarian assessment of how we think the future will go, rather than based on principle, there are almost always consequences to our action that we did not intend.

And, just for one second, even though this should not be a deal-breaker one way or the other, let's remember that there is reason to believe that Santorum is highly electable.  He won three out of four races in highly democratic areas, two times against a democratic incumbent.  Or something like that - don't quote me on it - my memory's failing me.

Vote for the best candidate and then trust God with the rest.  We are Catholics, after all.  We know that with God all things are possible.  Let's work with him, not against him.  It's fun to stand with David against Goliath, especially when we know he holds the higher ground.

Part 3 to come







 

Did the state grow bigger because we need more, or do we need more because the state grew bigger?

In response to a class discussion question, a close friend of mine wrote the following.  They prefer to remain anonymous but I thought it was pretty good and worth a post. :)



I would agree that the needs of the American people have grown. I will also agree that the Federal Administrative State has grown along with it.  However, I disagree with the order of operations, so to speak.  It would seem to me that the needs of the people have grown becuase of the steady, creeping growth of the administrative state.  In other words, the more services government provides, the more dependent the citizenry becomes on them and, thus, their "needs" increase.  It's a vicious cycle of addiction if you ask me.

I believe that this growth has dangerously undermined our country and its ability to survive.  Like a drug dealer, the government has sold us more and more "services" in the name of our own good.  Like a drug addict, we've come back asking for more and more, sacrificing more of our liberty, industriousness and communal connections for another hit.  What's worse is that we willingy make this sacrifice; indeed, we demand it.  It's sad that we look to the government to finance everything from our retirements to our healthcare to the education of our children.

Now, this is not all the government's fault.  In fact, I would argue that it is mostly not government's fault.  The fault lies squarely at the feet of the generations that have sold the liberties of their posterity to the government for temporary solutions to long-term problems.  The fault lies with a culture that has lost its trust in God and His providence, looking instead to the State for it's daily bread.  Furthermore, the fault lies with a culture that has given us a breed of politician for whom, to paraphrase the late William F. Buckley, Jr., spending is a form of eating.  The advocates of a large Federal Administrative state are correct in assuming that, left to their own devices, state and local governments wouldn't or couldn't deal with all of the issues and demands of the citizenry.  This is not progress, however.  The fact that we have become a society that thrives on creating an ever greater number of narrow issues and an even greater number of demands shows how far we've come from our noble beginnings, in which each man was responsible for his destiny and the welfare of his neighbor (via charity, not taxes).

Sounds about right to me.

Why faithful Catholics ought to vote for Rick Santorum (Part I)

1. He's a faithful Catholic. 

I know, I know.  That’s religious-ist or biased or narrow-minded or something... I can hear it now.  But, let’s think more carefully, is it being biased or religious-ist or some other such thing to vote for someone because they live their lives in a way that is in sync with how you live yours?  No.  That's ridiculous.  Religion is a particularly good reason to vote for someone.  Religious labels are a short-hand for saying, "I believe the same as this group of people" or, in terms of Catholicism “I adhere to this set of principles."  It’s a quick way to say – this is who I am, what I stand for, and what I believe.  And, why else would you vote for someone other than that they have your worldview, i.e. they believe what you do about what is best for the world. 

2.  He’s a faithful Catholic AND this is visible in his personal life.

Again, I know, I can hear you saying it already…”I don’t care,” you say, “whether or not he’s good in his personal life, I want to know if he’ll be a good president.”  But, as faithful Catholics, there are two reasons for us NOT to fall in line with this illogical, yet prevalent, stance of the secular world.  First off, we all know, implicitly, that if we can’t trust someone with small things, we can’t trust them with big things.  That is why personal attacks and attempts at character assassination are often so effective.  We all want to pretend that the personal is separate from the professional.  But it’s not...and we all know it or negative campaigning wouldn’t be used so much.  If we can betray those who love us and take care of us, we can betray the electorate.  If we can lie to those we have vowed to love and protect, we can lie to the general public. 

The second reason follows from the first.  Catholicism pushes its faithful to challenge themselves to grow and improve.  The confessional holds one accountable, the weekly encounter with the face of our Lord discourages complacency in those who burn for him, our scriptures ask us to “Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect.” For those of you who haven’t noticed, it’s REALLY hard to be virtuous in the small things.  The hardest time not to steal is when it’s just a little change miscounted at the check-out counter.  The hardest time not to lie is when it’s the tiniest of white lies, “I didn’t say that behind your back” when you did.  But those who are pushing themselves to grow, surrounding themselves with material and people who inspire improvement, and allowing themselves to be held accountable to our Lord in the confessional and at communion (at a minimum) are people who are much more likely to be trustworthy, honest, diligent, and caring.  It’s like anything, even with the head-start of natural talent, the more you practice, the better you get.  We want someone who’s been working hard at virtue in the smallest things, only they will have the backbone to stand straight when the storms come.  And they will come.

Is Rick Santorum perfect?  Certainly not.  And he has not yet taken the brunt of attacks waged at the other candidates so there may be more things to find out.  However, it is clear from the attacks that have been made that so far they have very little as of yet.  Either way, it’s less of a gamble to bet on someone who shows virtue throughout his life professionally and personally, then on someone who has not.  We all know that implicitly as well, as much as we might argue against it.  That is precisely why it’s such a story when the seemingly ‘clean’ candidate/celebrity/public figure falls and fails.  We’ve learned to expect their fall in our cynicism, but not in our hearts.

3 - ? Still to come. 

I will split this post up or it will be too long.  These reasons will also focus on his “electability’ (or supposed lack thereof), his exceptional record, his history of standing up against the establishment, and the way in which Catholic teaching undergirds his unusually sophisticated and coherent political philosophy.

Quick Link Saturday

My favorite links this week:

Inspiration and encouragement...you are not alone....heals my heart.  I have an outlook, leftover from my Protestant work ethic upbringing, that says God is watching but YOU must do this.  If you are lucky, and good enough, He will be pleased.  Or something like that...it was very subconscious and not particularly doctrinal.  I love this post which I found linked to on Elizabeth Foss's page.

This spoken word by Father Pontifex is an excellent answer to the I Hate Religion viral guy:

I also like this kid!  He's a breath of fresh air - I'm so worried about the young, and not so young, girls who have no idea who a husband can and ought to be for them.  So many girls putting boys first...I did it too.  Definitely.  Thank goodness I found the Church and a man who loves the Church.

March for Life Video by Marc at BadCatholic...mainstream media might have ignored us...but the pictures and videos of the alternative media speak for themselves!

That's it for now - baby's crying - may add more later!!!!

God's blessings on everyone's weekend!

Jennie