Postscripts From The Catholic Spitfire Grill

Here is what the Vatican said the Holy Father told Speaker Pelosi:

Let me be clear. I do not support either major candidate for the presidency. I have disliked McCain and his politics for as long as I can remember. I have disliked Obama and his politics for not quite as long. Nevertheless, I cannot cast my vote for someone who is campaiging on a promise to pass legislation that will surely increase the number of abortions in this country. I am not a one issue voter, but Obama’s absolutely uncompromising stance on abortion including voting against protecting babies born alive, and partial birth abortions, etc. totally disqualifies him for dog catcher much less POTUS.

But I digess. Back to voting third party. Unless a third party candidate is on the ballot in enough states to win an electoral majority and ideally in all 50 states (and yes, I know how hard that is to accopmlish for a third party candidate) they are simply not only not going to win. Furthermore, they are not prepared to govern if they do win.

The Constitution Party candidate (the one I have heard most often as the favored third party choice…although, he is not my particular temptation in the third party realm), Chuck Baldwin, is currently on the ballot (not as a write-in) in states constituting 318 electoral votes. That leaves 220 electoral votes that he absolutely cannot get. You need 270 to win.

So to be clear here, all Obama and McCain have to do TOGETHER is get 48 electoral votes in the states where Baldwin is on the ballot and he cannot win. Can’t. You think that Obama isn’t going to take 55 electoral votes in California? Or that Texas (34 electoral votes) isn’t going to McCain? That’s the reality.

And let’s just suspend reality for a minute and ask, “How is a third party candidate, that doesn’t even have the depth of support to get on the ballot in all 50 states going to govern in the event he actually got elected?” The whole idea of accumulating and spending “political capital” is a very real one and a third party candidate wouldn’t have ANY to start with.

I think that third party candidates for President help foster the notion that the most important vote we make is the one for President and that the only way we have to influence politics is with our vote. Meadow muffins. We’ve got a lot of options available to us. We can build a new party by doing the hard work necessary to get local people on the ballot and building from there, NOT by starting at the top and working down. We can have fund-raisers and talk to our neighbors for the the entire 4 years between presidential elections so that there is a base to build from. We can support the special interests that we care the most about with our hard earned money. We can write those people we do elect and send letters to the editor and hold our elected officials accountable ALL of the time and not just the 6 months before a presidential election.

It’s not our presidential vote that we “throw away.” It’s all the time between elections that is thrown away when we could have been working and investing some of our OWN political capital so that we aren’t faced with a choice of the lesser of two evils. If we are faced with a choice of the lesser of two evils, I don’t think that voting thrid party is the way to assuage our conscience. It’s how we use our time and money between elections that will truly fix our conscience.

Now those of you who know me more than just reading what I write here and those who read regularly enough to be deeply suspicious that I am more inclined than your average person to tell you that you need to buy a book and that I have never met a book I didn’t like are saying to yourselves, “She’d sell her soul for a free book. This is just something she read for the Catholic Company’s reviewer program. Why on earth would I listen to a thing she said with respect to how much I need to buy this book?” Well let me assure you that while I just might sell my soul for a free book, I recognize in myself a possibly irremediable weakness with regard to that, I have however, met books I don’t like. I have….deep breath….thrown books away that made me mad or had no redeeming value whatsoever. True, I might have a very low standard for “no redeeming value whatsoever” but I do have one. And no matter how many books I think I “need”, I do recognize that not everyone has the same sentiment about books. I love books and I want to see them placed in homes where they will be loved and cared for and so I do not recommend books willy nilly. As I read books I often think of people who might also enjoy reading that particular book, and this one was no different. What was different was that after a while, I started trying to think of someone to whom I would not recommend this book. I couldn’t think of a single one. I don’t know a one person who is old enough to read and understand the text who would not potentially benefit from the message of this book.: Heaven’s Song by Christopher West

In a nutshell, it’s an exploration of some recently discovered adresses that were written by John Paul II (recently discovered writings? how cool is that!?) on the Theology of the Body but were not delivered publicly because of their “delicate” nature. On the surface, they are commentaries on the the Song of Songs and the marriage of Tobias and Sarah in the deuterocanonical book of Tobit. What they constitute though is the rest of theological foundation John Paul II gave us in addresses that comprise theTheology of the Body that every catechist — and I very much mean every — bishop, priest, deacon, religious, parent, DRE, CCE teacher, husband, wife, consecrated virgin, (have I made my point yet?), etc. needs to help repair marriages in the Catholic Church and everything resting on those marriages. We will never solve the problem of a lack of vocations which are a generous giving of oneself to the Church until we repair the vocation of Marriage which is the generous giving of one spouse to another. We will not regain our footing with respect to the liturgy until we not only understand on an intellectual level that the giving of oneself to one’s spouse in marriage is meant as a sign and symbol of Christ’s total giving of himself in the Eucharist, but live it as well. The good news is not that the Church needs to be telling married people that conjugal love is bad, but rather helping them to redeem it from the twisted morass that the enemy has made of things and restore the joy that God intended it to have. The Theology of the Body must begin to permeate our thoughts about the family, the Faith, the Church, and the Liturgy. And that not just my opinion:

Through West, John Paul II reminds us that being created in the image of God means that from the beginning of creation, our bodies “have had the God-given ability to reveal divine mysteries.” Chew on that for just a moment and begin to realize that to the extent that our bodies  and physical relationships are not in harmony with God’s plan for them, we will be unable to understand and to properly live the divine mysteries that God intended to be revealed through our bodies. Time and again in Sacred Scripture we see Jesus use the metaphor of marriage to convey his divine Love for us. The passion of marriage, the sacrifice of marriage, the life-giving embrace of husband and wife is a God-given sign to instruct us about Our Lord’s s love and passion and sacrifice for us. Is it any wonder then, that in a world where Catholic divorce rates nearly match those who are not religious, where Catholics are just as likely to contracept as any other Christian, where Catholics live together before marriage nearly as much as non-Christian that we are stuggling to understand Christ’s love for us? Redeemed from sin, John Paul II tells us that the marital embrace is liturgical and that the liturgy is spousal. We must understand this, live it, and teach it effectively if we are to turn back the tide of crumbling families and all that implies for society and Church alike.

Here’s a news flash….the thou-shalt-not approach to teaching the message of the good news of Christian sexuality is not working. That’s why it’s a relief to be able to say that this is most emphatically not a book that is condemning. In a field awash with books that can make you feel guilty, West manages to deliver the heart of the message of the Theology of the Body with all of the tenderness that I imagine was in Our Lord’s voice when He spoke to the woman caught in adultery. “Neither do I condemn you. Go and from now on, do not sin any more.” This is not a book that anyone, no matter how diseased and dysfunctional their sexual life is, needs to be afraid of. It’s full of hope and joy and quite frankly, the promise of greater things ahead for those who are married AND for those who are not. You will be able to recommend this book with confidence to those who are already hurting badly in this area and fear additional battery by well-meaning but insufficiently charitable Christians.  

This is also a supremely practical book. It’s already set up for those who might want to lead a book discussion in their parish with questions for reflection at the end of every chapter. It’s easy to read so it’s a good introduction for pretty much anyone who wants to begin to learn about the Theology of the Body both for those who are not inclined to study every point of Catholic doctrine in depth because there is plenty to meditate on for a long time and for those who are inclined to read-more-about-it since it’s a good jumping off place. If you are a theologian, this book might be a little lightweight for you but then again, it might just be the help you need to put some of John Paul II’s deeper theology into terms that would be easy to digest in a Sunday homily or parish study or at the dinner table with your family.  Besides, I don’t think these newly discovered writings of John Paul II are widely distributed yet. (Feel free to leave a link to where they ARE published in the comments, if I am wrong about that.) You’ve got to buy the book to get a glimpse.

And now, let me tell you that I am putting my money where my mouth is. The copy I read was an unbound galley copy. I want this book on my library shelves and an unbound galley copy just is not going to cut it. Furthermore, I am not lending my copy of this book and I anticipate lending it frequently. So I am not only going to buy this book, I am going to give this book the honor accorded very VERY few books in my library. I am going to specifically buy at least one additional “lending copy” because I am NOT parting with my own.  

“A few years back, the promoters of “Bodies…The Exhibition” had a problem. The traveling science-museum show, in which preserved corpses stripped of their skin are used to display the human body’s internal organs, needed a supply of cadavers in good condition from healthy people (who just happened to be dead). By a fortunate coincidence, the Chinese Bureau of Police had a generous supply of that very item that it was looking to unload, and so a deal was struck. The exhibit has traveled the country since 2005, increasingly hounded by questions about the origins of its bodies. Now, in a settlement with New York state, the promoters have admitted that they are not sure whether their cadavers were among the thousands of prisoners that China executes every year (whose remains, when not preserved whole, are often harvested for organ transplants by the thrifty Chinese government). Anyone who saw the exhibit in New York and objects to the Chinese connection can get a refund; future visitors will be told of the bodies’ uncertain origins. And perhaps museums will learn to be just as careful about the provenance of their human exhibits as they are with works of art.”

Not sure? Not sure!?!

Ryan Willin is a young, conscious, man who suffers from dementia. His wife has been told to either consent to pallitive sedation, which will kill him or they will discharge him via taxicab if necessary, into her care. She cannot care for him by herself.

The Terri Schiavo Foundation is involved but a little public outcry couldn’t hurt.