Feed on
Posts
Comments

What do St Benedict and St Therese have to do with one another? The link was keyed when I was reading the last chapter of the Rule of St Benedict where he says, “I have written a little rule for beginners” Ah! the light bulb lit up! The Little Rule and the Little Way. So I began to research both saints and found that they complement each other beautifully. Here is an excerpt from my book, St Benedict and St Therese–the Little Rule and the Little Way:

To study two saints together is to perceive three things: their unique personalities, their similarity to one another and the way their lives and teachings complement each other. When Saint Benedict and Saint Thérèse of Lisieux are studied together the contrast between their personalities is striking. One is an Italian patriarch of the sixth century, the other a bourgeois French girl at the end of the nineteenth. Benedict writes from the edge of the middle age. Thérèse writes from the edge of the modern age. Benedict writes a monastic rule, founds monasteries, rules as an abbot, is visited by royalty and dies an old man. Like a French Emily Dickinson, Thérèse hardly moves beyond her provincial family circle. She has a pious father, lives an enclosed life, writes poetry and a quaint biography, and dies a painful death at the age of twenty four. Like Aquinas and Francis, Benedict and Thérèse are radically different personalities; also like Aquinas and Francis, they complement one another in surprising and profound ways. Augustine wrote about the Scriptures that ‘the New Testament is hidden in the Old and the Old made manifest in the New.’

So it is with the writings of Thérèse and Benedict;  the remarkable insights of Thérèse are hidden within Benedict’s simple monastic rule, and the universal wisdom of Benedict is made fully manifest in the writings of Thérèse. In the two of them Thérèse’s picture of the saints in heaven comes true, for in Thérèse and Benedict ‘a simple little child becomes the intimate friend of a patriarch.’

In ‘studying’ a saint one is never drawn only to their writings. The first attraction to any saint is to their unusual life. The saint’s teachings are nothing without their life because their writings and their life are one. As Gregory the Great said of Benedict, ‘he could not have written what he did not live’ and Hans Urs Von Balthasar says ‘Thérèse protected herself from ever writing any statement that she herself had not tested and that she was not translating into deeds as she was writing.’

Hagiograpny and biography are not the same thing. We do not study the life of a saint as we might read the story of a dead celebrity. We can’t study the story of a dead saint because there’s no such thing.  The saint’s life is dynamic because in Christ the saint is still alive. Thérèse is famous for anticipating the great work she would do after her death, ‘I will spend my heaven doing good on earth,’

she said.  We venerate the saints and ask for their intercession not because they have written fine words, nor because we think them especially powerful in heaven. Neither do we venerate the saints and ask for their intercession simply because they are holy and good. We venerate saints and ask for their help because they have become our friends. They may be friends, but they are exalted friends. We relate to the saints as we might to a member of the royal family who has come to call. We are fascinated by them because they are greater than us, but we’re more fascinated because they’re not greater than us. They might wear satin breeches, but they step into them one leg at a time. Because the saints are like us and unlike us they not only show us what we are but what we could be. Studying a saint therefore, is a work of devotion not diligence. It is a relationship, not a report. We study a saint not for the love of knowledge but for the knowledge of love.

Certainly Benedict and Thérèse are attractive personalities. Benedict stands as a regal patriarch, calling his followers to a spiritual path of simple moderation. He offers them a civilised and liberating balance of prayer, work and study.  The monasteries that followed his rule kept the memory of learning alive during a dark age and laid the foundations for modern Western culture. Benedict is a true gentleman of the spirit. He is realistic about human nature, but always optimistic about the chances for progress. His personality is cautious and modest, yet fervent with brotherly love. Most of all, he is exhilarated by the spiritual life. Disciples of Benedict have been drawn from every corner of the world for over one thousand, five hundred years. Men and women, religious and laity have heard his youthful call to run with him…’in the path of God’s commandments with hearts overflowing with the inexpressible delight of love.’

Thérèse of Lisieux also draws multitudes with her blend of innocence and unrelenting love. She may be the ‘little flower’, but Southerners in the United States would call her a steel magnolia, for her fragrance and purity is undergirded with a determination and resilience like no other. As time turned into the darkest century of human history, Thérèse offered her life and writings as a testimony to the universal values of innocence, faith and child-like trust.  Anyone who perseveres with her writings finds an astounding spiritual depth communicated by a witty and delightful personality. She is tough and tender. She soars with a rhapsody of emotion yet has no time for shallow sentimentality. Anyone who blames her for promoting sugary religion has not read her book to the end.

Deacon Greg has something to say about this week’s Gospel reading and the Obama/HHS assault on freedom of religion and our consciences:

This goes far beyond whether or not someone agrees with the Church’s teachings about birth control and abortion. But this is, in a fundamental way, a life issue. This is about respecting the most personal and private aspect of human life: the conscience. This is about protecting it. Honoring it. Defending it.

A great saint to remember is St. Thomas More, who gave his life for his conscience. When Pope John Paul declared him the patron of statesmen and people in public life, he wrote: “The defense of the Church’s freedom from unwarranted interference by the State is at the same time a defense, in the name of the primacy of conscience, of the individual’s freedom vis-à-vis political power. Here we find the basic principle of every civil order consonant with human nature.”

My friends, this is so central to our human nature. It is about our fundamental rights as human beings, as Catholics and, yes, as Americans.

It is about who we are. What we cherish. What we believe.

In 1952, Lillian Hellman said: “I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashions.”

Sixty years later, neither can we.

Read it all and send it around. Maybe let your priest/preacher see it!

Tags: , , ,

In just about 24 hours the “non-political” billion-dollar entity known as Planned Parenthood — which does not itself do mammograms, despite how ABC News frames it — managed to leak the news that the Susan G. Komen Foundation would no longer be contributing $700,000 dollars to its coffers, get the two stupidest women in the US Senate to go into public hysterics, bring out the heavy guns of the mainstream media and apparently win Komen’s surrender!

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.

The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

You can read the rest here. They are chastened and offer tearful apologies, because tearful apologies are required when one has transgressed the party and wishes to be allowed, cowering, back into its good graces.

Understand what has happened, here. Komen did not break the news that they were defunding; Planned Parenthood — the “unpolitical” operation — leaked the news in order to sic their buddies in the senate and in the media on Komen. The assault was readied and rolled out, and damn near rabid — all out of proportion to what it should mean for one charity to decline to give $700,000 to another charity worth a billion! The message was clear: get back in line, or we will destroy you; we will bring the full power of the elite media and the government against you.

And so, like a good but weak soldier, Komen has essentially destroyed itself: hardline leftists will never forgive it; hardline rightists will never trust it. But feel a little sorry for Komen. They were trying to do the better thing, and they got mauled for it. They’re not cowards, they just weren’t strong. Not everyone can face the lions, especially if they’re being pounced on in their first steps.

In this, however, Komen has helped put panache on institutional bullying; it’s demonstrated that the one-two punch of the press and a mere calling out from DC is enough to buckle the knees. The press and the Democrats have made an example of Komen — with Komen’s permission: this is what we will do to you, if you dare step out of line.

Yesterday’s insane reaction to Komen, by the press and the government gave me a mental image of Moloch, enraged and stomping and roaring because there was a threat of less meat coming to his fire.

Today, Moloch is appeased; the media’s heartbeat and respiration are returning to normal. They and their pals in DC can take a nice, deep cleansing breath and sit back and smile, understanding what they have just demonstrated to themselves, their enemies and the world: you don’t have to fall in love; just fall in line, or you will fall, altogether.

The Day of the Bully has dawned. Institutional aggression, carried out by mobs is the ascendent modality, and they’re feeling emboldened. If the brouhahas of Wisconsin toned them, this was a stinging punch.

The have something else to feel really good about today, as well. As Deacon Greg points out, the latest polls indicated that despite the Obama/HHS assault on religious freedom and conscience, despite the public outcry of 145 US Catholic Bishops and representatives from other religions, President Obama is still enjoying support among Catholics.

Why? Because most Catholics — unless they are online or in the pews — have heard little-to-nothing about the story, and if they have it’s been framed by the press as a “contraception” issue, not an Obama vs Religious Liberty issue; not a “freedom of religion and conscience” issue.

This is the other side of the Bullying Dawn. Like it or not, the mainstream media still controls what gets talked about and understood; they still control the national conversation. And we can see now that if the government wants to hurt you, it will use the press to do so, either by its noise, as with Komen or by its silence.

On their weekend evening news shows, the three major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) all ignored a Friday mandate from the Obama administration forcing non-profit religious employers to provide for contraception in their health insurance for employees. Critics had condemned the rule as a violation of religious liberty.

Face it: if this decision by Obama (who, the WH has confirmed, will not be reconsidering) was a wise or a just or a constitutionally-sound idea, wouldn’t the press be talking about it, playing it up, especially in an election year?

The press is not talking about Obama’s assault on religious freedom because they do not want you to know about it; they do not want people thinking what they’re not supposed to be thinking. They don’t want to talk about the Obama administration’s recent attempt to take from the churches the right to decide who is and is not a minster. They especially don’t want you thinking about those two stories together! You might begin to believe that this president — who is suddenly writing policy in the expedient name of Jesus — doesn’t actually like the churches, or the first amendment.

But the press doesn’t mind mischaracterizing the whole HHS story and framing it in “the Catholic Church is going to force you to be pregnant!” hysterics. Once they have their narrative in place, once they can distort it to their needs, they’ll finally talk about it. Even if they understand nothing of which they speak

The story, and the truth, gets turned upside down, because that’s what spin is: it makes you dizzy. Diabolical disorientation.

So, if you’re reading this, it’s up to you to let people know what’s going on. Because the press won’t. And people are going to start becoming afraid to speak out, or to sign a petition, because the day of the bully is upon us.

Related:
Thomas Peters says: Komen hasn’t caved, take a breath:

This is more than a pro-life, pro-abortion debate. It’s a culture war between the powerful liberal elite and grassroots pro-life conservatism. It’s also a battle of identity for the pro-life movement. Will we listen to our own, trust our instincts and remain focused? Or will we allow the pro-abortion forces to knock us off our game and play by their rules.

As I’ve been saying since this story broke, we need to be doing two essential things: 1) support Komen in their bid to cut Planned Parenthood out of their funding streams and 2) place the focus on Planned Parenthood‘s hypocrisy and lies.

If we do these two things, we win. If we get distracted and cease supporting Komen or focusing on Planned Parenthood, we lose. It’s as simple as that.

As for what is happening at Komen: I’ve received a crash-course education in the foundation over the past couple days and I can say without doubt that one thing motivates their President: ending breast cancer. That’s why she decided to cease funding Planned Parenthood, because they are about the lousiest group to help if you are serious about ending breast cancer. Second, that’s why Nancy is worried about the damage to the Komen brand being done by Planned Parenthood and it’s pro-abortion allies. Nancy knows if Komen is weakened it will be less able to pursue it’s objective of ending breast cancer.

That’s why we need to make common cause with Komen and support them. That’s why we need to expose Planned Parenthood’s scurrilous move to destroy Komen.

He’s much more optimistic than I am, but then again, I’m watching Moloch dance today. I know he loses in the end, but today, he feels triumphant. Komen won’t dare not to fund PP in the future, not after what they just tasted.

Unless, perhaps, the Christians have mercy, as Thomas says.

UPDATE: Pressure makes diamonds? Many are looking at the ambiguous language of Komen’s statement and saying, Planned Parenthood loses; this is no cave:
Da Tech Guy
Ed Morrissey
Greg Sargent

UPDATE II:
Wow, is this hateful: Planned Parenthood video from a few years ago


James Taranto: Totalitarian Feminism and the Smearing of Komen

More on these topics:
Obama vs Religious Liberty
The press doesn’t cover what it hates and wants to suppress
Grassley Says Obama Behaving Dictatorially
Creative Minority Report

Restricting Political Speech
Can Catholics Unite?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Wrap your mind around this (can you see it?). It’s a Bornean Rainbow Toad.


God, in His infinite wisdom and creativity, designed a panoply of creatures so diverse, so fantastic, so colorful, so… well, so HUNGRY.

And because no one—not even a lowly amphibian—likes to be someone else’s lunch, God thought up a bunch of cool ways to hide. It’s called “cryptic camouflage” and it allows a toad or a moth or a caterpillar to blend into the environment so well that a hawk or a sand crane is unlikely to see it and think “Dinner!”

Scientists recently discovered and photographed the Bornean Rainbow Toad, a species long thought to be extinct. I was charmed by its weird beauty and so want to show you just a few more examples of God’s handiwork, some of the winners in the “hide from the enemy” category.

The Walking Stick is a favorite at my house. The 4″- or 5″-long brown stick-like insects drop from the trees and fall onto our house. Children giggle. Old people gawk.

The Flounder is not one I’ve seen personally—but check out how this guy plays on the rocks with his Invisibility Shield.

The Gumleaf Grasshopper looks like dry, dead leaves on the forest floor:

Isn’t God, too, wearing camouflage? He’s in all of His creation—so there he is, in the Rainbow Toad and in the birds and the trees and the mountains and the seas. He’s there in all the people—fat and skinny, short and tall—out buying hot dogs and beer at the convenience store this afternoon.

Can you see Him?

After the vows of stability and obedience is the third vow of Conversion of Life. This is the part where the spiritual life gets some kick and zing. Obedience and stability seem dull and pedestrian, but conversion of life is what it is all about.

Conversion of life is not just that a person seeks to be converted the way an Evangelical ‘gets saved.’ Its certainly a good thing to repent and accept Christ’s saving work, but for the Catholic ‘conversion of life’ means much more. First of all, it means a life that is constantly, every moment seeking to be converted. ‘Converted’ means changed, and the Benedictine way is always alive, always alert to change and growth–always looking for new ways the Spirit is seeking to convert the soul.

There is a larger dimension to it still: we seek conversion not just of our own individual life, but of Life–meaning the transformation of our entire existence. We work with the Spirit to change our family, transform our communities, transform our world through the conversion of our own lives. We are all interconnected and the best thing I can do therefore for the conversion of the world is to be truly and completely converted myself.

Conversion of Life is the central, driving goal of the whole spiritual life. Everything else–the liturgy, the prayer, the discipline, the service and the self denial–all are focussed on this greater goal of conversion of life. We pray and read and work so that we may be totally transformed into the image of Christ. For the Catholic this is a constant opportunity and reality. We do not believe that sanctification is accomplished for us like magic, or that it is a legal fiction the way some Protestants do. Instead it is a work of grace, through which we participate in the great adventure of becoming saints. We work with God to complete this work so that in the end we live the life of grace in joyous freedom–then as St Benedict says, “we will run on the path of God’s commandments, our hearts overflowing with an inexpressible delight of love.”

You probably know at least a little about Danish baroness and plantation owner Karen von Blixen-Finecke. She was the heroine (Meryl Streep) who had a passionate but ultimately doomed love affair with a free-spirited big-game hunter (Robert Redford) in the 1985 romantic drama Out of Africa. She was an author who wrote under the pen name “Isak Denisen.”

But you may not remember that she was an agnostic.

My husband and I recently pulled out our copy of the film Babette’s Feast (Danish: Babettes Gæstebud), which won the 1987 Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. The story was originally published, I understand, in Ladies Home Journal—and it was recreated in film by esteemed Danish writer and director Gabriel Axel.

Babette’s Feast is Dinesen’s parable about two spinster sisters who, once beautiful young women, had forsaken their chances at romance and fame, taking hollow refuge in religion and caring for their father, a pastor of a stern Christian sect in a rough Danish coastal town.

The sisters are named Martine (after Martin Luther) and Philippa (after Luther’s close friend Philip Melanchthon). [This is an important factoid—more on this later.]

* * * * *

The sisters are approaching old age when Babette Hersant appears at their door carrying a letter of recommendation from Philippa’s former suitor. Babette is a refugee from the French counter-revolution; and the sisters cautiously agree to take her in as a housekeeper. For fourteen years, Babette works as their cook and housekeeper—gradually warming the town with her generosity and pleasant demeanor. One day, she wins the French lottery; but rather than return to her hometown, she decides to use the money to prepare a delicious feast for the sisters and the small religious congregation on the founding pastor’s hundredth birthday.

Babette, in a lavish expression of generosity, spends her entire winnings on the banquet. Not simply an epicurean delight, the meal is the means by which Babette expresses her gratitude and her love for the sisters who sheltered her.

The wary townspeople—unprepared for such a lavish pallet of strange new foods, distrustful of a Catholic foreigner such as Babette, and unaccustomed to joy—secretly determine to eat the meal without commenting, to consume without truly appreciating the generous repast.

But as the guests experience the rich flavors and beautiful presentation of the extraordinary banquet, they are moved—and they are gradually transformed by joy. The director amplifies this joy with color, focusing on the delectable dishes, bringing a pallette of rich colors into the cool whites and grays of the sisters’ modest home. And as the color intensifies, so, too, does laughter and pleasure and love.

* * * * *

What does it all mean?

  • The Washington Post called Babette’s Feast “edible art,” a tour de force for the taste buds.
  • Marjorie Baumgarten, writing in the Austin Chronicle, called it the “food in film” equivalent of Valhalla.
  • Christopher Null at filmcritic.com sees in Babette’s Feast a seminal work about repressed emotions and self-doubt.

A foodie film? A gloomy story of repression?

Well, yes but…. for a Christian, the parallel to the Eucharist, to a heavenly Feast, is striking. In her sacrifice, her pouring out of her resources in an expansive love, Babette is a riveting Christ-figure. The satiating meal, an earthly parallel to the heavenly banquet, is eucharistic. And the grace it imparts, the rich outpouring of emotion among the gloomy Danish congregants, mirrors the spiritual life-giving nourishment of the Eucharist.

But curiously, Isak Dinesen herself seems to have been limited by her secularism, incapable of applying the story’s imagery within the context of faith. Raised in a Unitarian household, she drew upon the Old and New Testaments and other spiritual works for her themes; but she remained an agnostic, never raising her eyes toward the heavens to gaze upon the transcendent God. Her personal life was marred by a failed marriage and unsatisfying relationships. She was addicted to painkillers, and she died in 1962 of malnutrition—starving both physically and spiritually.

So to the question in my title:   Can an agnostic be divinely inspired?

My answer is a resounding “Yes.” It seems that Dinesen reached beyond herself, beyond her wildest imaginings, to reveal a Truth which she, lacking true faith, could not understand.

* * * * *

Now about Martine and Philippe, and their famed namesakes Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon:

Melanchthon, the younger and lesser known friend of Martin Luther, labored with him to reform the church. However, there is an interesting difference between the two: Whereas Luther stood firmly on his self-constructed platform of “justification by faith,” Melanchthon was more moderate. He agreed that one must have faith; but also, he taught, one must demonstrate one’s faith by works.

The two friends are buried side by side at the Castle Church in Wittenberg. I’ve read that Martin Luther has a statue of Mary at his grave.

I organized my husband’s sock drawer yesterday. It had to be done, all those mismatched and threadbare tube socks emerging from the drawer making it impossible to close. I also went through his undershirts and put the dingy off-white ones in the washer with bleach. I might have made a bleachy paste to remove the underarm stains, if I knew how to do that. I could have looked on the internet for a bleachy paste recipe, but it seemed more prudent to stick to the task at hand until I saw it completed, and that would not happen if I allowed myself to drift off into internet never-land.

 

Not long ago, a friend of mine began reading The Devout Life by Francis de Sales, and I decided that I, too, would embark on the devout life, or at least on reading the book with her. Actually improving my soul is such a scary prospect.

 

Saint Theresa of Avila wrote, “I cannot understand what it is that makes people afraid of setting out on the road of perfection.” Well, Dear Saint, I think I might know. That way leads to eschewing fun on the internet for organizing the sock drawer.

 

Isn’t it exactly as I feared, that if I kept beating on that glass ceiling of my mediocrity, I’d one day burst through into the realm of holiness where all the holy people scrub the corners of their houses with toothbrushes and listen to classical music, and read only books written before 1945 with an imprimatur?

 

Isn’t what’s kept me from pursuing a more devout life, the mistaken (and arrogant) assumption that I must actually be terribly close to perfection, and that reaching that final benchmark, that cap where there’s no where else to grow, means spending the rest of my life in a grim martyrdom of boring quotidian tasks offered for all those people still stuck on the other side of the glass in mediocre-land, wasting their time browsing the web, flirting, reading fun books and listening to pop music?

 

Except deciding to organize my husband’s sock drawer wasn’t like that at all. One could argue that the impetus for the task was fifteen years in the making, as so many of those socks were older than our relationship, and even the most placid temperament must someday say, “Enough is enough. It’s time to close that drawer.” But it wasn’t that either.

 

Inch by inch, reading the book, doing about a meditation a week, saying the Rosary, showing up at Mass during the week—practicing devotion—the decision to organize the sock drawer was somehow a manifestation of a new freedom—freedom from my chronic “No.”

 

How many times have I passed that sock drawer, considered doing something about it, and argued with myself that it’s not even my drawer; those are not my socks; if I do it once, he’ll want me to match his socks all the time; and I barely even fold my own laundry. I might unwittingly become a slave to him. Well, I’m too smart for that, I say. I’m not going to organize his drawer; I’m just going to live with the chaos—Ha!

 

And as a consequence, I maintain an oppressive status quo—the slavery to my “No.”

 

The “road to perfection” sounds so binding and final. I get hung up on that word, “perfection” and overlook the fact that that’s just the name of the road. Hence, taking that road is actually an unbinding—the freedom to go a different way, not the habitual way—and it goes on for a really long time.

 

I wouldn’t write this post if I didn’t have other evidence of a personal unbinding, most of which are manifest in acts of huswifery because the house is my battle ground. At the same time, all of this is probably imperceptible to anyone but me.

 

We are at a time in our lives when it’s necessary to spend a lot of time sitting out in the yard doing nothing. The baby likes to be out there wandering around, and it’s good for him to do so. He has acres on which to wander, but there’s always a small chance that he’s going to go to that one place where he’s not allowed to play. It’s human nature after all, so I have to be on guard. I can’t read, because I’ll become too absorbed. I can’t laptop because my battery doesn’t work for long.

 

In my “no” phase, I might have been annoyed with the situation, because there’s a load of work to be done inside, and if I’m doing nothing, I at least want to do nothing on the internet. But the freedom to do nothing–nothing but feeling the breeze, roasting in the sun, watching the leaves and the putterings of a little boy who doesn’t need to be convinced that doing nothing is really wonderful–is really wonderful.

 

But from the outside, I imagine this internal shift just looks to others like a woman sitting around doing nothing, which is, of course, exactly what it is. The great relief and surprise about the devout life, is that it looks similar to the not so devout life I was living last week, except that I am more free, no longer divided by the concepts of myself that I have created.

 

I just finished reading “The Edge of Sadness” by Edwin O’Connor. It’s the best novel I’ve read in a long time, about a priest who’s been through a period of spiritual aridity and finds at the end of it, the freedom to embrace the life he’s been living as opposed to the life he always thought he wanted. When Father Kennedy finally acknowledges that what he wants is not the warmth and regard of other people, but love and truer devotion to God, his conversion works out like this:

 

“The mighty changes, of course, did not take place—or if they did they remained invisible to me. Which was natural enough…since a slight increase in the zeal of one man produces no miracles—unless the one man is himself one of the extraordinary few who can and do change history. But nothing like that was involved here. I did my work, time went by…”

 

And so it does.

 

This post originally appeared on my blog.

On March 8, 2011, feminists observed the centenary of International Women’s Day—a day when we remember the struggles of women in the fight against gender discrimination, and celebrate the economic, political and social achievements of women past, present and future.

I would like to dedicate this post to the smallest of women: those who have not yet seen the light of day, but for whom Jesus also died.  These smallest women, still unborn, have been generated in the heart of God, and have been a part of His perfect plan from the moment of creation.

* * * * *

In the early 1960s, when the National Organization of Women was just gathering steam and abortion was still illegal in America, being a feminist was a good thing. Those were the years when discrimination was real and often severe.  Letter carriers were called “mailmen,” police officers were “policemen,” because those government positions were not available to women. Employment policies decreed that women could not hold certain management-level positions; that women would train men, who would then become their bosses, but that women could not be considered for advancement; that pregnant women would be required to resign by the seventh month of gestation. Many women did not drive automobiles. Few worked outside the home.

But change was coming. Gloria Steinem, founder of Ms. magazine, popularized the witticism “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” New York’s Bella Abzug led the way for women into the halls of Congress and co-founded the National Women’s Political Caucus. “Equal pay for equal work” became the mantra of the1960s gender feminists.

Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Eleanor Smeal and other prominent feminists in the ‘60s and early ‘70s decried the fact that a woman was only considered “valuable” to the extent that she was wanted by a man—either her father or her husband. “No,” the feminists rightly exclaimed, “EVERY woman has an inherent dignity, regardless of her marital status.”

The innate value of all women was a battle cry for the women’s movement at its offset. How ironic, then—how unthinkable—that only a few years later they should abandon that line of reasoning for the convenience of the “women’s rights” movement, hitching their wagon to “a woman’s right to choose.”

For just as a woman is invaluable because she has been created by God, so, too, is the unborn child—the fetus or, before that, the embryo—precious, because God has crafted it in His likeness, has imbued it with life, has granted it a dignity which remains, regardless whether or not it was “chosen” and is desired by its mother.

* * * * *

One of the classic defenses of the value of the human person in America is a speech delivered in 1851 by a former slave, Sojourner Truth. She was speaking at the Women’s Convention in Akron, Ohio, in 1851, as women were clamoring for equal rights.

In honor of Sojourner Truth, and of all persons whom God has created, I reprint her remarks in their entirety.

AIN’T I A WOMAN?

By Sojourner Truth

Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that ‘twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon.  But what’s all this here talking about?

That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain’t I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most sold off into slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain’t I a woman?

Then they talk about this thing in the head; what’s this they call it?  [member of audience whispers, “intellect”] That’s it, honey. What’s that got to do with women’s rights or negroes’ rights? If my cup won’t hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn’t you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?

Then that little man in black there, he says women can’t have as much rights as men, ‘cause Christ wasn’t a woman! Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.  If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.

Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain’t got nothing more to say.

 

Mrs Brady is a sweet old thing. She qualifies as ‘steel magnolia’. Firm in her Catholic faith, she doesn’t tolerate fools, but she remains kind to all. Go here to meet her as she gives advice to one of her many visitors.

Earlier in the week Kathy Schiffer mentioned the old woman who swallowed a fly… and tomorrow is St Blaise day with the blessing of throats–which you would need if you swallowed a fly or a bee, and now Fr. Z posts here on what a priest is supposed to do if a creepy crawly of some sort gets into the chalice after the consecration. It seems the old books tell you what to do, and Fr. Z–with his usual attention to rather arcane detail outlines the process.

It all has to do with pins from maniples, drying and burning the poor creature and disposing of the cremains.

Which is much more mundane solution than that of a friend of mine who had a wasp zoom in the window and dive bomb into the chalice right after the consecration. The yellowjacket was mad as a hornet–if you like–and swimming around in circles. The astonished priest was also quite experienced as an exorcist, so almost without thinking he leaned over the chalice, closed his eyes and the stared at the offending insect and said, “In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, I command you to come out!”

At which point the insect leaped up from his swimming, out of the chalice, circled once to get his bearings and flew out the window.

Of course John the Baptist had another solution to pesky insects. He ate them with a delicate dressing of honey.

Older Posts »