Baby godmamma drama

Thank you all for your thoughts on my question about godparent etiquette. Your input actually changed the way I was going to handle the situation. I'd convinced myself that I just had to ask married couples in pairs, but after reading your comments I felt assured that it'd be OK to make my choices primarily on who would be most committed to strengthening my children's faith.

I thought it would be smooth sailing from there. Never did I anticipate that the fact that I don't know many religious people has actually made the process more of a social minefield.

Here is how conversations about the subject have generally been going. I didn't have this exact conversation with anyone, but it's a pretty good compilation of the types of things I've heard regarding this issue:

ME: So I'm thinking about asking cousin Tracy to be the baby's godmother, and an old family friend to be his godfather.

THEM: What about Tracy's husband, Ron?

ME: Umm, we're having them baptized Catholic. Ron's not Catholic.

THEM: Whatever, they were married in the Catholic Church. Just tell the priest he's Catholic.

ME: Err, well, I don't think it works that way. And, besides, it's important to us that our children's godparents take their roles seriously.

THEM: [Confused look]

ME: You know, that they're supposed to support their godchildren's faith, and if anything were to happen to us, to make sure the kids continue to be Catholic.

THEM: [Looks has if they've just heard that concept for the first time] Really? OK, well, I'm sure Ron would do that.

ME: Remember that appalling joke he made at the dinner table at Christmas last year? The one where the Pope walks into the bar and sees--

THEM: Oh, yeah, that was pretty bad. So maybe he's not that Catholic. Or Christian. But you really need to make him the godfather. It will cause a lot of ruffled feathers around here if you don't.

ME: [Bangs head into nearest solid object]

So, that's how it's going. I know that baptisms are supposed to be done soon after birth and that it's supposed to be a smooth, quick process, but that's not how it's shaping up. Ah, the joys of being one of the very, very few Catholic couples in our familial/social network. :)

Meatless Fridays

Another quick, random question: do meatless Fridays serve the same purpose if you don't like to eat meat in the first place?

I'm a recovering vegetarian (I went meatless for a long time but am slowly coming back to my senses) so I don't particularly like to eat meat much anyway. So meatless Fridays would be something of a treat for me.

But, from what I understand, the purpose of foregoing meat on Fridays is to make it a day of penance. So how would that work if you really enjoy eating meatless meals? Should you do another form of penance?

Praying for other people

It's time for another round of dumb questions from the new convert...

After almost a year of following the good advice I got about praying last December, I think I kind of get it. The ultimate purpose is to let God know that you submit to and trust his will since it would be absurd to ask him to do something other than what he's planned (right?). It's a chance to get closer to God and perhaps understand what his will is so that you can conform to it. Either way, I pray regularly now. I figure I'll get it right one day.

One thing I don't really understand, however, is how praying for other people works. I pray for others all the time yet always feel strange about it, like I'm asking God to change his mind. If I say, "Lord, please let Bob's sister recover from her illness," isn't that proposing my own plan as opposed to just submitting to his will? Yet I don't think that when Bob asks me to pray for his sister he has in mind that I'd just say, "Your will be done in regards to Bob's sister, Lord." When you pray for someone else's situation to have a certain outcome, aren't you kind of bossing God around?

Also, I've often heard of the power of prayer, of people seeing the impact of others' prayers in their lives. I've even seen examples of this in my own life in the past few months. Yet, why does that work? It seems to unfairly favor those who have lots of people out there to pray for them. What about good, deserving people who don't have anyone praying for them? Do they receive less help from God?


So, I ask you guys: How exactly do you go about praying for someone else? And why does it work?

More thoughts on Catholic teaching and overpopulation

Just thought I'd throw out this little follow-up in case anyone's interested:

While doing some thinking last week about Catholic teaching and its potential to lead to overpopulation, I realized that the perfect person to ask about this would be my 92-year-old grandfather. He was in his 20's during the Great Depression, so he remembers it all very well. It was basically an overpopulation situation since there were not enough resources to go around. He said he knew plenty of people who were bone thin from malnourishment, that all resources (food, money, jobs, clothing, etc.) were hard to come by.

Since those were days before birth control, I asked him if the situation seemed to have any effect on people having children. He said it did. Those who were married tried to avoid pregnancies to the extent they could, and those who were unmarried waited to get married. Back then getting married went hand in hand with having children, so if you couldn't afford children you waited to get married until you could. He and my grandmother postponed marriage for a long time, until they were out of college and had saved up some money, so that they knew they'd be able to take care of any children they had.

It confirms what my gut tells me, and what some of the studies that are linked to in this post at DarwinCatholic seem to show: if all people were to suddenly follow Catholic teaching we wouldn't be plunged into a dire overpopulation situation. Some would choose religious life; if resources started getting scarce, many young people would postpone marriage until they were in a better position to take care of children (as my grandparents did); and married couples would use natural methods to try to avoid pregnancy until they felt they could provide for another child.

Godparent etiquette?

My husband and I are finally getting moving on having the kids baptized. The main holdup has been, as I've mentioned, the fact that we don't really know many serious Catholics to consider for the role of godparent. And since the role of godparent is to guide the child in their faith, especially if something should happen to the parents, our kids really need good godparents. If something were to happen to my husband and me I have serious concerns about what would happen with my children's faith.

So anyway, we do have some good candidates for the godparents. However, I worry that since I'm not familiar with any of this that I might end up hurting some feelings. So I have a question for you guys:

If a person is married, and their spouse is also Catholic, is it insulting to the spouse if you ask them to be a godparent but not their spouse? For example: we'd like for my son DB's godparents to be my aunt and a good friend of my husband's (I'll call him "Carlos"). Carlos is married to a woman who is a good Catholic. We like her but we don't know her very well, so we weren't considering her as godmother. Will it be an insult to Mrs. Carlos to select someone else as godmother when her husband is godfather?

Thanks in advance for any thoughts on this.

Which logical fallacy is best?

These will be all too familiar to anyone who's ever ended up in a debate on a blog or message board (or anywhere else for that matter). Via the always-entertaining GeekPress.

Ad Hominem:
This is the best logical fallacy, and if you disagree with me, well, you suck.

Appeal To False Authority:
Your logical fallacies aren't logical fallacies at all because Einstein said so. Einstein also said that this one is better.

Appeal To Emotion:
See, my mom, she had to work three jobs on account of my dad leaving and refusing to support us, and me with my elephantitis and all, all our money went to doctor's bills so I never was able to get proper schooling. So really, if you look deep down inside yourself, you'll see that my fallacy here is the best.

Appeal to Fear:
If you don't accept Appeal to Fear as the greatest fallacy, then THE TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON. Do you want that on your conscience, that THE TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON because you were a pansy who didn't really think that Appeal to Fear was worth voting for, and you wanted to vote for something else? Of course not, and neither would the people you let die because THE TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON.

Appeal To Force:
If you don't agree that Appeal to Force is the greatest logical fallacy, I will kick your ass.

Appeal To Majority:
Most people think that this fallacy is the best, so clearly it is.

Appeal To Novelty:
The Appeal to Novelty's a new fallacy, and it blows all your crappy old fallacies out the water! All the cool kids are using it: it's OBVIOUSLY the best.

Appeal To Numbers:
Millions think that this fallacy is the best, so clearly it is.

Appeal To Tradition:
We've used Appeal to Tradition for centuries: how can it possibly be wrong?

Argumentum Ad Nauseam:
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.

Begging The Question:
Circular reasoning is the best fallacy and is capable of proving anything.
Since it can prove anything, it can obviously prove the above statement.
Since it can prove the first statement, it must be true.
Therefore, circular reasoning is the best fallacy and is capable of proving anything.

Burden Of Proof:
Can you prove that Burden of Proof isn't the best logical fallacy?

Complex Question:
Have you stopped beating your wife and saying Complex Question isn't the best fallacy?

False Dilemma:
I've found that either you think False Dilemma is the best fallacy, or you're a terrorist.

False Premise:
All of the other fallacies are decent, but clearly not the best as they didn't come from my incredibly large and sexy brain.

Gambler's Fallacy:
In all the previous talks about this subject, Gambler's Fallacy won, so I just know the Gambler's Fallacy is going to win this time!

Guilt By Association:
You know who else preferred those other logical fallacies?
*(insert pictures of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot here)*

Non Sequitur:
Non Sequitur is the best fallacy because none of my meals so far today have involved asparagus.

Post Hoc/False Cause:
Since I've started presuming that correlation equals causation, violent crime has gone down 54%.

Red Herring:
They say that to prove your fallacy is the best requires extraordinary evidence, because it's an extraordinary claim. Well, I'd like to note that "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" is itself an extraordinary claim.

Relativism:
Well maybe all those other fallacies are the best for you, but to me, the relativist fallacy is the greatest logical fallacy ever.

Slippery Slope:
If you don't like Slippery Slope arguments, you will do poorly in class, drop out of school, commit crimes, go to prison, and die of AIDS.

Special Pleading:
I know that everyone is posting about their favorite fallacies, but Special Pleading is out-and-out the best, so it should just win with no contest.

Ouija boards

What do you guys think of Ouija boards? Silly toy or potentially dangerous doorways to some sort of spiritual realm?

I'm inclined to go with the former, that it's just a meaningless curiosity, that any movement of the planchette is the result of the subconscious thoughts of the users. But I did have a weird Ouija board experience when I was a teenager...

---

Right before the 1993 New Year my best friend and I got out her old Ouija board. She really believed it would get us in touch with spirits so she told me with great emphasis a series rules I was supposed to follow, e.g. saying "break" before I took my hands off the planchette. I took this as an opportunity to show her how non-superstitious I was and intentionally broke all the rules and made a big joke out of the whole thing. She warned me that this could result in a curse and I looked at her like she was an idiot before continuing with my jokes.

Our hands did move over various letters without any attempt on my part to make it happen, but I thought (and still think) that it was probably either her moving it or the result of our subconscious desires for something interesting to happen.

It was kind of creepy, though. A little after midnight, in the middle of whispering questions of some spirit that we'd supposedly gotten in touch with, the phone in the room next to us rang, scaring the crap out of us. My heart almost jumped out of my chest. We ran to answer the phone, worried that something must have happened for someone to call so late at night. Nobody was there. We went to turn off the ringer to avoid another scare but...it was already off. We didn't play with the Ouija board any more that night.

At some point we brought the board over to my house to play with but never got around to it. She either took it back to her house or it got put away somewhere. Then one night I awoke from a deep sleep to hear a digging sound to the right of my bed. I figured it was the cat "fighting" with one of my stuffed animals and jumped up to stop him. It sounded like he was really tearing something up.

As soon as I sat up I saw the cat sound asleep at the foot of my bed. I leaned over to the source of the sound and saw only a pile of stuffed animals and throw pillows. I moved them aside to see the Ouija board. My adrenaline level went through the roof as I looked around for some other source of the sound but saw only the Ouija board. I swear it had not been there before. I have no idea how it got there.

The next few months were the worst of my life. Almost every single traumatic thing that has ever happened to me happened in 1993. There are very few exceptions. It truly felt like there was a black cloud hanging over me that year. It eventually lifted but, man, I really did feel "cursed" there for a while. Not just because bad things kept happeneing (though they did), but I felt horribly cold and depressed on the inside as well.

I don't really think that any of that had anything to do with the Ouija board, but there's an irrational part of me that's definitely kind of freaked out about playing with those things now. I wouldn't do it again.

---

What made me think of this is reading M. Scott Peck's People of the Lie. In it he talks about how he came to believe that there really are demons and a Devil, and that demonic/Satanic possession does happen (albeit rarely). He seems like a pretty reasonable person and his descriptions of the exorcisms he witnessed are calm, thoughtful and not sensationalistic.

He mentions that the two people he saw who were possessed probably came under the influence of these demons after dabbling in the occult. Which made me wonder...is there some chance that I'm wrong, that maybe there is something to the idea of getting in touch with spirits through the Ouija board or other means?

What do you think? Anyone else had any crazy Ouija board experiences?

I couldn't agree more

Everyone in my personal life is probably tired of hearing me rant about what young girls are wearing these days. It's really a pet peeve of mine. I cannot believe that everyone else isn't utterly shocked by the new fashion trends for pre-teens.

I don't generally put buttons on my site since I'm lazy and like a clean look, but I'll make an exception for the Moms for Modesty one. I couldn't agree more.

Moms for Modesty Mission Statement

* As a Mom for Modesty I believe in common-sense modesty for girls and young women.
* I believe in refraining from sexualizing our girls and young women.
* I believe that it is unwise and unfair to taunt boys and young men by permitting my daughter(s) to dress in an immodest manner.
* I believe that true beauty comes from within and I strive to teach my daughter(s) this truth.
* I will loyally shop at retailers that provide girls' and young womens clothing that is modest, affordable and stylish.

via SFO Mom

Contraception, sex, and gay marriage

Last year when I first started to feel drawn to Christianity I spent a lot of time worrying about how this would affect my relationship with our friends who are gay. Three of our very dearest friends are homosexual men and it made me cringe to think about having to defend Christian beliefs on their lifestyle.

Though I was eager to tell everyone else about my spiritual journey, I kept this part of my life hidden from my gay friends. Also, at the time the issue of gay marriage was the hot topic in our state. When I thought of the subject coming up at an upcoming dinner party where we'd be the only heterosexual couple there I decided I'd just have to pretend to choke to death on my food to avoid having to talk about it.

My guilt around the issue should have been a sign that something was amiss. I didn't feel guilty about defending other areas of Christian teaching, but this stood out as an uncomfortable issue for me. And now I understand why.

Back then I was arguing from our modern, contraception culture's view of marriage. If I'd taken the time to write out a definition of "marriage" it would have been something like: a commitment to sexual monogamy that you enter into when you really like someone, usually involving an exchange of rings. That's it. The beauty I saw in it is that it was two people coming together who really, really liked each other. Coming at it from this point of view, where many married couples are not much different than roommates, the whole thing about it being between a man and a woman seems pretty arbitrary. I still had a vague gut feeling that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and I believed that that was probably also the "correct" point of view to hold as a Christian, but I had a hard time defending those beliefs.

Until I discovered the Catholic Church. As with so many other things in my life, it all fell into place. I shouldn't have been surprised that looking at it through the lens of Church wisdom, sanctioned by God and honed over 2,000 years by some of the greatest minds in Western civilization, made everything clear.

It immediately struck me that I was applying God's laws unequally. I saw one standard for behavior applying to those who are attracted to people of the opposite gender, and another applying to those who are attracted to people of the same gender. By arguing from the modern, pro-contraception view of marriage I was saying to my gay friends, "We can use sex as a recreational activity but you can't." It didn't feel right.

My acceptance of contraception -- something I'd never even thought to question before I discovered Catholicism -- necessitated the view that marriage does not have to go hand in hand with the creation of children. That makes the purpose of marriage difficult to discern but it's basically just sexual monogamy. And (per that acceptance of contraception) sex isn't even that big of a deal anyway. From there it seemed downright rude to tell gays and lesbians that they couldn't get in on that.

It didn't take too much reading of the Cathecism to realize where I'd gone wrong.

As I delved further and further into the Church my view of marriage changed drastically. I was intimidated by the huge, almost crushingly heavy responsibility that comes with accepting Catholic teaching. Yet I knew I'd found truth here. And I knew that I would no longer be holding myself to a different standard than my friends who had same-sex attractions.

Though my opinion is that gay marriage is not the same thing as heterosexual marriage, I don't feel guilty about it. As a Catholic, those opinions are based on teachings that are heavy for me as well as for my friends with same-sex attractions. Just because I'm married doesn't mean that I get a "Get Out of Sin Free" Card when it comes to sex; that by virtue of being heterosexual all I had to do was exchange some vows and then go on my merry way; that casual sex is OK as long as it's done by a married man and woman. To practice what I preach when I say that respect for the gravity of the sexual act is what separates us from animals, that it's not to be used for solely for personal pleasure, that the act should always involve openness to life, is not easy.


As demanding as Catholic teachings on sex and marriage are, it's actually been easier to defend. I no longer get wrapped up in the confusing back-and-forths and circular logic involved in trying to defend the sanctity of marriage while accepting pretty much any two people as "married" as long as they're heterosexual and they exchanged some rings. I actually have even more sympathy for my gay friends on this issue now. They don't see anything special in the unions that our anti-life, pro-contraception culture calls "marriage" that would exclude them. And, frankly, neither do I.

-----

UPDATE: I posted on this here as well.