Murder in the Heart

Tonight I watched the movie "The Quick and the Dead" (1995), a movie I thought I'd seen before, but it turns out, well....I hadn't.

It's not the kind of movie I normally watch, but tonight I did so with theological themes in mind, and I have to be honest; under the influence of the philosophy of Flannery O'Connor. I can't explain exactly why, but I think she would have loved this movie.

While there are themes of vengeance and outright violence, it takes place in a town seemingly-improperly named: "Redemption".

The characters are all fallen, none are necessarily likeable (outside of the little girl who suffers an unspeakable offense), and even that child displays the concupiscence of the world that surrounds her, yet none of the protection given to other children her age.

The film juxtaposes those who are murderous by nature, those who have reformed and are trying to overcome their nature, and those who are there by choice but truly have a more benevolent nature. All are fallen, all have sinned, and in the same way, but not all share the same level of depravity.

The lone voice of reason and holiness is quiet (but far from silent), is vilified by all sides and even falls himself, seemingly a discredit to his own attempted reform. In this movie, that which is holy is chained, disarmed except to be armed for battle for the enemy, and then forced into that battle, forced into a temptation so strong he cannot overcome it.

The protagonist enters with a vengeance, but in the process, learns the soul of the antagonist and seeks to flee. She is bolstered by a voice from the past, the only one who knows who she is and what she seeks. That, too, is a temptation, and she returns to the  battle, only to learn that her chance to stand down is gone. It is a metaphor, at this point, for addiction.

"Your chance to back out is gone."   The words of evil Herod are clear.

The duel scene between Herod and his son, "The Boy", are the antithesis of the Gospel, for in this movie, the Father not only directly kills his son in a town named "Redemption" but does so for his own glory, and then denies his patronage to the deceased boy. The Boy was somewhat of a town hero; if anyone should have won the duel, it should have been him, but in Redemption, evil holds court, reveling in a taste of Hell that just continues.

It's no surprise that the Woman, the protagonist, deals the killing blow, crushing Satan beneath her heel, and in so doing, passes on the star that represents the Law into the hands of the Holy Man, the lone representative of moral law.

I don't know if the author of the original story, Simon Moore, is a Catholic, but based on this movie, I see Catholicism, I see Christianity.

Now, before you object, I am not saying that the moral play-out of this movie is Christian, or that what the characters did was right, or that it didn't twist Christian themes a bit. However, I do see an allegorical nature to it and think we might legitimately take notice and use it to examine ourselves.

Examination of Conscience

The protagonist, the female gunslinger, came a bit too close to home for me, although I'm not willing to express all the dimensions of that. Certainly, as a woman who once ventured into law enforcement and worked hard to harden myself to the world around me, the main character here could "speak" to me.

In all honesty, I sought to be what she was:  cool, collected, tough, and a great shot. She could play with the big dogs and still maintain her femininity while placing them at bay.

Tonight, as I watched the movie, though, the scene that most stood out to me was her response to the vermine that stole the innocence of the only innocent character in the movie. She struggled with justice and mercy, opted for mercy even as "Satan" egged her on, then found herself in a position of self defense. She was triumphant, but struck to her very being. She was not innocent and had entered into this walking her daddy's line.

I'm no different.

When she blew the pedophile's *ss away, I said to myself that I would have done the same thing, but I would have had no mercy.  I would have taken him out piece by piece, slowly and with great relish to ensure he suffered as slow and painful a death as possible.

That's murder, folks.  That's murder in the heart, and yes, I'm capable of it. I hold a hatred and anger so deep within myself that I could look you straight in the eye and tell you in person what I stated above, and I'm neither the victim of such a crime nor the relation or friend of one who has suffered it (to my knowledge).

But oh, yes, I know it is within me and in that knowledge, I am brought to my knees by the words of Christ, who, in Matthew, 5 asserts that sin in the heart is as real as that sin made manifest. As we give life to temptation, so that temptation becomes sin and therefore palpable in the eyes of God, even if not physically committed.

Yes, I have committed murder in my heart, I did so tonight and have done so many times before. Too many to count.  I know I could and will kill in hatred and vengeance; my own conscience tells me  it's possible. What I learned in psychology tells me this: That which we can conceive in our imaginations we have the propensity to commit.

I recall standing in the early morning corridor of an apartment building, a gun in my hand, loaded, pointed at a man who had just drawn on us. I did not want to kill him, for truly, he was just being stupid and had no intent, on his own part, to kill anyone else, certainly not us. We were to learn he was a regular guy, if a not-so-bright-one and in my professionalism, I had no desire to pull the trigger. Although I knew I might have to kill, I had an innate sense that the level of force we offered was sufficient.

I can't say, though, that if I was emotionally involved I would have the same restraint.

Yes, I have it within me to pull the trigger. I have it within my fallen nature to take a life.

I have it within my nature, for I have, through the trials of life, been formed in a murderous culture that fed into my own propensities, making it possible to give license to such murderous evil.

I have had murder in my heart, and therefore, in God's eyes, I have been guilty of murder.

Lord, have mercy on me, and defend me from evil.

Sed libera nos a malo. Sed libera nos a malo....

Losing His....Uh... *ahem*

My blog must seem so schizophrenic these days;  one day writing of discernment or other spiritual topic, the next, about the realities of being a "foster mom" for the first time. Just goes to show that life isn't one-dimensional.

It's actually possible to discern God's will while living life in all it entails, so really, I make no apologies for blogging about this part of my life.  (I've lost a few readers since Bear's arrival, and find it hard to believe my discernment posts would cause such a huff.)

"Bear" is doing very well, but there's a secret we aren't going to share with him:  tomorrow he's making a very special trip to a Human Society's mobile unit for a very special surgery.

Yup. That's the one. The one that all the men in my audience would prefer I never name.

For some reason, even though it's a DOG undergoing this surgery, grown men cringe and grab at their privates when this particular surgery is mentioned, as though it is being proposed that it be applied to them.

Sotto Voce:  
Incidentally I find this hilarious as most men these days don't NEARLY cringe so much at the sound of "vasectomy" or even pretend to cringe at the sound of "tubal ligation" which is infinitely more dangerous for women than what they undergo.  It should be noted that those surgeries in human beings are morally incompatible with the spiritual life and romantically incompatible with the definition of true, sacrificial, sacramental charity. So maybe I don't find it so hilarious after all. 

Anyway...

Although I haven't been instructed to do so, I will be withholding food and water tomorrow morning from "Bear", driving him to his temporary destination, and picking him up later, with the challenge of "keeping him quiet."

Have you ever tried to keep a dog "QUIET" after surgery?

I recall picking up a female dog we once adopted from Animal Control. The City paid for her surgery, and I remember going into the vet's office as the harassed vet tech passed the leash to me. The dog was not just excited to see me and pawing at ME, but desperately scrambling to deeply know all the dogs in the waiting room as well.

"Keep her quiet for a few days." said the harried Tech, without much confidence.

Say WHAT?  She's doped up NOW and not even TRYING to be docile and quiet...what happens when the drugs wear off???

But for the only time in her life she laid down in the back seat once removed from the stimulus of the vet's waiting room and when we got home, she found a spot in the bedroom on her dog bed where she just SAT...head down, ears floppy....not sure whether to sleep or just hang out in her dopey highness.

Eventually sleep won out. Not until after much confusion, though.

I don't know how Bear will be tomorrow when I bring him home, but I know it'll be a challenge to keep him quiet.

He may be 9 years old, but he loves to play, he has taken to bounding around in happiness and joy and every so often he gets the "zooms".

This morning, this "malady" hit him and after tiring of figure-eights in my narrow livingroom, he settled for spinning on a dime a la Quarter Horse Extraordinaire.  All the while, my dog,  who was first intimidated by his antics and found the need to flee to the couch for refuge, became quite intent on his activities.  When Bear began to spin she took special notice and after a period of solemn study, she suddenly BOUNDED from the couch and POUNCED on him mid-spin, apparently deciding it was an opportune time to gain the upper paw.

If I had this on camera, it would go viral and win awards.

But, alas, you'll have to take my word for it.

This dog is ready for a real home, methinks.

Incidentally, I learned today that a nice couple is interested in him so a meeting will be set up with them not next weekend, but the one after (as I am not available this coming weekend due to class.)

Part of my job as a foster is to go with him to meet his potential adoptive family, the reason being that I can answer questions on his personality, training, how best to handle certain things, etc.

For example, tonight I learned that the signal for "sit" as commonly accepted in dog training circles is a signal to "Bear" to flee.  An adoptive home, if using traditional obedience training, will need to either use a different signal or take the time to teach him that the hand signal for "sit" is a good thing, not a cause for fear.  He can certainly learn, but that hand association will take more time with him as he has several things to overcome.

There you have it. Bear will continue to be Bear, in all his challenges, and until he is adopted, he'll continue to be a part of my blog.

Oh... And...

To all you men out there....for Goodness' sake, STAND UP STRAIGHT!  Yes, I can see you and you look RIDICULOUS!

Empathy is fine and good, but when you cringe like that you look like a bunch of sissies!  After all, the guys out West throw those oysters on the barbie as soon as they're removed from the calf every summer!  And in fact, GUYS are the ones wielding the knives that cut the "manhood"!

It's not like anyone is asking you to partake in a new delicacy compliments of the Humane Society!

Just sayin', my friends...just sayin'.

To What Do We Agree?

In the last couple years, I have received a great deal of help in both large and small things, from both people I know and people I've never met.

And in that time, I've reflected on the generosity and love of such people, which has made me also reflect on my own lack of generosity, or my own lack of helpfulness to others. I've mentioned before that I'm often lacking in the "hands-on" form of charity, at least, in my estimation. I also realize we are all called to different things at different times. As members of the Mystical Body of Christ, we all must fulfill our roles, none of which excludes the others, but rather, incorporates them while maybe one particular portion is what we have been designed to complete.

Lately this has been my struggle. I have one co-worker who is very service-oriented, and I used to be as well. But my life has pulled me into more of a contemplative stream, one involving more prayer and study than actual hands-on service. It makes me feel guilty. I have to keep reminding myself that the time may come where literally feeding the poor in homeless shelters might be my role, and of course, I would love it. Or maybe it'll be caring for the sick and injured.

Or maybe I'm already fulfilling that role, in caring for the spiritually poor, which is the REAL deficit of our nation. Of all nations. Ever since I added the widget to my sidebar and have seen all the people from all the different nations who have passed through my blog at one point or another, I've realized that I'm fulfilling the command of Christ as He ascended into Heaven: to preach the Gospel to all Nations.

As Catholics, that is our command, and we all do this in different ways, according to the gifts we have been given. Everything we do should be ordered towards spreading the Gospel. Perhaps we're not well versed in the Faith, but know Christ enough to act in love and maintain a strong moral stance as an example to others. Maybe we don't have the words to preach, but we have the hands, and we have our very lives to lay down as an example to others who may ridicule what we say, but can't ridicule the joy of our lives and our hopes. And in that, there is a door opened through which they may enter.

Several years ago, a friend of mine and I were discussing the lack of morality around us. Neither of us were exactly living moral lives ourselves, and we regretted our actions. My friend, after a long pause in our conversation, said to me, "Once you've said "yes" to one guy, it's harder to say "no" to someone else."

It had to do with a loss of moral ground. A loss of dignity. From the other side, a judgment of a lack of fairness: "You're not a virgin. You slept with that other guy, what's wrong with me that you won't do the same thing with me? It's not like it means anything!"

And yet, it does, and we all know it. My friend knew it, and she carried her warning with her. Once we've compromised by saying "yes" to the wrong thing, it's harder to fight in the right battle. One becomes disoriented, unable to truly discern any longer, especially when the culture around us all defines certain behaviors as proper, even as our souls scream at us to stop for a moment and reconsider. To use our intellect and wills, to look upwards towards what is good, to flee from what is only debasement and injury.

Jesus Himself tells us to make our "yes" mean "yes", and our "no" mean "no". There is no middle ground; not in oaths, not in our moral choices. In everything we do, even in the small things, there's an absolute. A small compromise here leads to a larger compromise there. A strong stance here becomes a stronger, more fortified stance there.

We see this in many ways. Recently I observed to a friend that sometimes it's hard to step out and help another person, especially a stranger. But we can be safe about it, and truly, once we are willing to break out of our self-absorbed bubble on behalf of someone else, it is easier the next time. Once we say "yes" to the right things, it's as though the wind fills our sails and helps us to engage more quickly, and with more confidence the next time someone around us needs our charity.

The converse is also true; when we say "no" to someone, it becomes easier to say "no" again and again to the needs of others, and in that process, our hearts become more hardened. That's what happened to the Israelites in Isaiah; they said "no" to God, and as a consequence, their hearts were hardened. They had free will; they chose to disengage from their relationship with The Lord. And because of their willing rejection, they continued to reject all the blessings that came their way.

Nothing has changed; we still have this same nature. We tend to say "yes" to the things that debase us, and "no" to the things that make us holy. We are prideful if we go about "helping" others, but don't see the moral poverty that we must address, and so what do our good works mean if they are divorced from the morality and holiness that should be driving all of it?

So it happens that when we give our acquiescence to the wrong things, we end up giving obesience to even more things, until we are slaves of the world rather than lovers of God.

But when we give our obedience and love to our Lord, we are lead into active accord with not only charity to our neighbor in whatever form is needed, but to a higher morality that seeks to elevate the sinner towards God and out of the mire rather than to tell the sinner (ourselves, mostly) that the mire is actually a "good".

God is not a gray object. He desires that we are clear in our intent, one way or another. A "yes" to Him is a clear "no" to the winds of fickle popular culture. A "no" to an immoral act is automatically a "yes" to the Most High and His love.

We must be clear in everything that we do, at every moment, surrendering to God in even the smallest things. It is the smallest sins that lead us to the bigger ones that rupture our relationship with God.

To what, then, are we giving our agreement every day? To things that are holy, or to things that debase us?

We must choose. We must examine ourselves.

What do YOU choose today?
*

Ignoring the Obvious

SANCTE PATER: Be careful not to offend gay worshippers, Catholic priests warned

For some reason, homosexual activists, like the Hollywood divas, have some kind of crazy idea that the world revolves around them. They think they have a "vote" in something they clearly know nothing about or have outright rejected.

We must be very clear: the Church does not exist as an admiration society for whatever popular immoral issue happens to be running the headlines. The Church, in fact, is a hospital for SINNERS. She is concerned with the salvation of SINNERS. Jesus Christ died for SINNERS...and that would be ALL of us. Including practicing homosexuals.

They should be flattered that the Church doesn't cave into their demands to accept their lifestyle, for if she did, that would mean that she didn't love them and that Christ, her Bridegroom, does not love them. The very fact that the Catholic Church continues to stand up for the sacramentality of heterosexual marriage (thus for LIFE) is directly indicative of her love of homosexuals.

Personally, I'm thrilled to be given the title of "sinner" and a place to go for help. That means both that I'm loved and that I have the dignity given to me by God that indicates I still have the ability to reject what is evil in favor of virtue and all those things that are of God.

The second the Church starts affirming me in my own favorite sins, I will realize that I am no longer loved by God.

Loving Our Enemies

From today's Office of Readings from a homily written in the second century:

(Note that the bold is my emphasis, as well as some of the italics):

My name is constantly blasphemed by unbelievers, says the Lord. Woe to the man who causes my name to be blasphemed. Why is the Lord’s name blasphemed? Because we say one thing and do another. When they hear the words of God on our lips, unbelievers are amazed at their beauty and power, but when they see that those words have no effect in our lives, their admiration turns to scorn, and they dismiss such words as myths and fairy tales.

They listen, for example, when we tell them that God has said: It is no credit to you if you love those who love you, but only if you love your enemies, and those who
hate you. They are full of admiration at such extraordinary virtue, but when they observe that we not only fail to love people who hate us, but even those who love us, they laugh us to scorn, and the Name is blasphemed.

Therefore, brothers, if we do the will of God the Father, we shall be members of the first spiritual Church that was created before the sun and the moon; but if we fail to do the will of the Lord, we shall be among those to whom it is said in Scripture: My house has been made into a robbers’ den. We must choose then, if we want to be saved, to be members of the Church of life.

You surely cannot be ignorant of the fact that the living Church is the body of Christ; for Scripture says: God made man male and female. Now the male signifies Christ, and the female signifies the Church, which, according to both the Old and New Testament, is no recent creation, but has existed from the beginning. At first the Church was purely spiritual, even as our Jesus was spiritual, but it appeared in the last days to save us.

For the spiritual Church was made manifest in the body of Christ, in order to show us that if we uphold its honour in the outward, visible form, and do not defile it, we shall, through the Holy Spirit, be made its members in the true, spiritual sense. For the body of the Church is a copy of the Spirit, and no one who defaces the copy can have any part in what the copy represents. In other words, brothers, you must preserve the honour of the body in order to share in the Spirit. For if we say that the body is the Church and the Spirit is Christ, it follows that anyone who dishonours his body, dishonours the Church. Such a man will have no part in the Spirit, which is Christ. But if the Holy Spirit is joined to it, this body can receive an immortal life that is wonderful beyond words, for the blessings that God has made ready for his chosen ones surpass all human powers of description.

***
The message is clear. If we are not living our lives with reference to God, remaining aloof from the temptations of popular culture, choosing instead to be like others in hatred of our enemies, then we are blaspheming the name of the Lord.

We claim to love, and then fail to even try.

We criticize our enemies with ad hominim attacks, just as those who hate us do to us. We sometimes join into these attacks, justifying our actions by saying, "Well, they deserved it."

Whether they deserve spite or verbal retribution is a moot point; if we aren't holding up the command of Christ to love our enemies, and instead we take on the methods of common culture in literary, verbal, or technological discourse, then we are not only disobedient, but we are blasphemous through our actions at the very least.

Mea culpa, Domine, Mea culpa.

Don't You Judge Me!

We've all heard the trite, perfectly-packaged statements that are designed to cast us into silence and seal our mouths shut. The statements are designed to make us feel ashamed so that we'll say no more, especially if what we're saying is contrary to someone's near and dear opinion that normally has something to do with permissiveness.

Sorry...was that harsh? And reality check...I'm not a bit sorry for saying it.

But....DON'T YOU JUDGE ME! DON'T YOU DARE!

Yup, that's the word. That's the statement. Other variations are, "We can't judge." Or my personal related favorite: "What would Jesus do?"

I got that inane comment early today on a different post. Because, of course, we all know that Jesus was a warm fuzzy teddy bear that just made everyone feel good about themselves. (Aside: Do people ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT?)

So, maybe it's time to discuss what judgment is...and what it is not.

JUDGMENT

We all make judgments. We have to. If you are breathing, you are making judgments. Right now, YOU, dear reader, are probably making a judgment about what you think I'm going to say, whether you agree with what you think I'm going to say, or whether you disagree, and in fact, I'm guessing that you're already preparing to comment upon or refute what you think I'm saying, as opposed to actually reading my words.

Sound about right?

Busted.

So, let's talk about judgment. We make judgments every day, from the inane to the important. We have to judge what is proper to wear, what is proper to eat, what is proper to say in greeting to the guy at the DMV. We have to judge what we are going to do in any given situation, because we know the difference between right and wrong. We know, for example, that as much as we might want to run the red light and think we'd be justified in doing so, that the action would be wrong; not just because it's against the law and there might be consequences if we are caught, but because our action may hurt someone else.

That's a judgment.

And when we see another car run a red light just as we're about to venture into the intersection, and a crash is narrowly avoided, we certainly have the right to peel our feet off the brake and declare that the other driver that nearly got us killed was in the wrong. It's a clear cut situation. That right or wrong is objective; it's outside of us. We don't get to arbitrarily decide that the red light is optional or not necessary or that we're more important than everyone else and they should stop to clear a way for us. We'd all agree that if someone runs a red light, they're in the wrong.

That's a judgment. The kind of judgment we make every day, and we do it for our own survival. But there's more; sometimes we have to make judgments on behalf of others who perhaps aren't able to do so on their own. Such as our children. Ask any parent...you are constantly making judgment calls for your children, rather than suggesting that their decisions and lives are morally ambiguous. And you teach them, over time, to know right and wrong so that they don't get hurt, so that they become good citizens, good Catholics, good people...making good choices.

OBJECTIVE REALITY

We all have to recognize that there is an objective Truth, something outside of us, something against which to measure our decisions. For if that "yardstick" is absent, how can we know right from wrong? Just because a vote is taken by society to vote something good or not good?

That kind of moral ambivalence, sadly, is what pervades and is destroying our society, and even our Church. And because this is a Catholic blog, I'm going to address this with regard to Catholic teaching, although what I'm saying here, consistent with the universality of the Church, applies to EVERYONE.

Let's take the idea of liturgical abuse. We all know that the Mass has certain rubrics that must be followed...to disregard these rubrics means that the Mass could be rendered invalid. Or irreverent. Or just plain...weird. And that happens. I know of a local parish that has the lay Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion line up on the altar BEFORE the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God), and they are given a consecrated host, and they elevate it with the Priest...and then they self-communicate. (In this parish...I don't think the lay ministers are GIVEN the host...I believe they TAKE it themselves as would the Priest.)

Now, this doesn't render the Mass invalid, but this is a SERIOUS abuse. Since I know that this happens at that parish, I won't attend Mass there unless I have no other choice. Yup...I just made a judgment.

I have a friend who recognizes the abuses and just tries not to look, and only goes there occasionally for specific purposes. She knows that what's happening is wrong, and she is VERY uncomfortable with it. She is a VERY faithful Catholic. Yet, about this abuse, she has said to me on more than one occasion, "We can't judge".

YES WE CAN!

This is an objective judgment:

1. There are rubrics to the Mass, found in the GIRM for thos interested.
2. If people are taking actions contrary to what is written in the GIRM, or in complete disobedience to this document....they are doing something wrong, ergo...
3. We can judge that the actions happening at that Mass are liturgical abuses and need to stop.

In that judgment that we have just made, have we judged the people? No. We have judged their actions, comparing the actions against an authortitative document that spells out what is correct and what must be followed.

And consider my friend; although the words, "We can't judge" passed from her lips, didn't she judge? Didn't her conscience TELL her, making her cringe and physically close her eyes? That was a judgment...and a proper one. Because she knows right and wrong and what should be juxtaposed against what isn't happening.

But what about life issues?

Consider this scenario: You have a friend who is caring for an aged relative. This friend has put their entire life on hold to care for this relative, and then one day when you're having coffee, says, "Well, Aunt Helga isn't doing so well and I'm kinda tired of taking care of her, and she doesn't like anything I cook, and has no quality of life. And her mind is gone, with that Alzheimer's, you know. So...I'm not going to feed her anymore. That way she'll die a natural death and I can get on with my life without all the inconvencience."

If you're appalled...you've just made a judgment. If you're in favor of it...you've just made a judgment.

And if you're reaction is "Well, we can't judge", my reaction to YOU is...then you've lost touch with reality. ESPECIALLY if you have reacted to that story in any way.

We sure CAN judge, and it is our MORAL OBLIGATION to make these kinds of judgments!

Yes, you can quote scripture at me all you want about "not judging others". I know the verses, too. And so did Satan. He was an EXPERT in scripture, as you might recall.

WHAT JUDGMENT ISN'T

We are not allowed to judge the SOUL of another, no matter what they have done or what we think they have done. We can't declare, "So and so is going to Hell for what they did." We likewise don't have the authority to judge whether someone has gone to Heaven. What if they didn't? We can't possibly know that. And it's not our place to make that decision.

But we can definitely look at what is objectively true and declare what does or does not match up against Truth. For example...Nancy Pelosi has revealed her ignorance of Catholic teaching and thus we have a right to declare that she is not, in fact, capable of calling herself Catholic. Maybe she was baptized Catholic, maybe she was raised Catholic. But if her beliefs and conduct don't match Catholic teaching...well, then we can surmise that she's left the Church. Fine. She has that right.

With regard to the term "Pro-Choice". Sure. In political parlance, that means that they support the "right to abortion." There's one problem with that; abortion is murder, and no one has the right to commit murder.

Let's say I'm married, and of course, that would mean my husband and I are "one flesh". I see this term used even in secular/civil marriages that do not have the sacramentality of marriage. But it's universally believed, and recognized by the law that the "two become one."

Well...I guess, if I follow the logic of the "Pro-Choice" crowd, if my husband is an inconvenience to me, for whatever reason, well, then I can just eradicate him. Why not? You can't judge me for it. You haven't been walking in my shoes. And for those who aren't married...who are YOU to say that I can't kill my husband? We're one flesh! We own each other and I have a right to do what I want with his life!

Such an argument is ridiculous, isn't it?

But...I'm entitled to that opinion. Maybe I'm not right, but you have no right to judge whether I'm right or not.

And the baby-killing crowd, they might "personally believe" that abortion is wrong, but who are they to "judge"? That's probably the biggest reason people declare themselves "pro-choice". Not because they're for killing children...but because they haven't thought it through.

Their position is one of silence, and, folks...silence gives consent. And by this silent consent, one is made a party to a murder. If a friend comes to you and wants an abortion, or to kill her husband, and you remain silent, and your friend goes away...you share in the culpability of an intrinsically evil act. In a murder, you'd be charged as an accomplice.

Abortion is no different; just because it's legal doesn't mean the moral law changes. The moral law that guides us all in our judgments.

You can choose to ignore moral law. You have free will and a right to reject Truth. But don't you DARE tell me I can't judge. I can and I will and I have a moral obligation whether you like it or not.

And if you're going to flame this post, you'd darn well better have something to say other than the same old relativist tripe quoted in all the message boards. Or you'll be summarily deleted. I don't have time for empty arguments and trite slogans that follow the lack of reasoning of "you can't judge" and "what would Jesus do?"

Tomorrow's gospel reveals a Jesus who tells you EXACTLY what He would do and this is what He said:

MT 16:21

“Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me.
You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

Then Jesus said to his disciples,
“Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself,
take up his cross, and follow me.
For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it,
but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world
and forfeit his life?
Or what can one give in exchange for his life?
For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory,
and then he will repay all according to his conduct.”

Do you want to know what a Christian is? Read the above description...and make the right judgments. You'll be held responsible for all of them.

Let the flaming begin. But let me remind you: if you are about to say, "Who are you to judge", then you should keep your typing fingers to yourself...because that statement is a judgment.

I await. To remain or delete, I don't know. I haven't judged yet.

Conscience, Dignity, and Prayers

This morning I headed out to Caribou Coffee in order to get out, get some caffeine, and organize my Vatican II paper on "conscience". When it comes to crunch time and I still have 3 papers due in one short week, well, I find that if I try to do this at home it's too easy to putz around with the computer or other household duties. Amazing....I hate cleaning house, unless my other option is to do some serious intellectual work, and then I'm right in there with the scrub brush and the detergent!

So I took my books and my notebook and went methodically through my notes, trying to figure out the major themes and how to organize them. And then I came across this gem:

16. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.(9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.(11) In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

~ Gaudium et spes, Vatican II document on the Church in the Modern World

I've read this before, but something about it today convicted me, stopped me in my tracks, and made me put my head down. And then I read on:

17. Only in freedom can man direct himself toward goodness. Our contemporaries make much of this freedom and pursue it eagerly; and rightly to be sure. Often however they foster it perversely as a license for doing whatever pleases them, even if it is evil. For its part, authentic freedom is an exceptional sign of the divine image within man. For God has willed that man remain "under the control of his own decisions,"(12) so that he can seek his Creator spontaneously, and come freely to utter and blissful perfection through loyalty to Him. Hence man's dignity demands that he act according to a knowing and free choice that is personally motivated and prompted from within, not under blind internal impulse nor by mere external pressure. Man achieves such dignity when, emancipating himself from all captivity to passion, he pursues his goal in a spontaneous choice of what is good, and procures for himself through effective and skilful action, apt helps to that end. Since man's freedom has been damaged by sin, only by the aid of God's grace can he bring such a relationship with God into full flower. Before the judgement seat of God each man must render an account of his own life, whether he has done good or evil.

~ Gaudium et spes, 17

And then, when I finished my sudden attack of conscience in recognition of my sinfulness, I happened to look up. There in front of me was a coffee display, which, of course, in a coffee shop is not out of place. It would be odd had the display not been present. It wasn't the existance of the display, then, but WHAT the display supported, and it seems that I will nevermore darken the door at Caribou Coffee.

Caribou is offering a coffee called "Amy's Blend"; apparently Amy was a roastmaster who succombed to breast cancer, and in that, I ask you all to offer prayers for the repose of her soul. However, Caribou has decided that the proceeds from the sale of Amy's blend coffee and other specific items will be donted to the Susan B. Komen Foundation.

On the surface, that's not such a bad thing; we all agree that breast cancer is horrible, and breast cancer research and prevention are good things. Being that I had my own scare a year or so ago, I am all for the search for a cure; but not at the cost of support to Planned Parenthood. I'd give up both my breasts to whatever horrible disease, and even my life, if it meant an end to abortions.

There is a very well publicized link between Susan B. Komen and Planned Parenthood; the former has donated over $400,000 (as of 2002, I think) to the latter, ostensibly for breast cancer screenings. However, given the other obvious link between contraception and breast cancer, abortion and breast cancer, Planned Parenthood and the slaughter of innocents (to include their mothers), well, that kind of support cannot be justified.

Right now I feel literally ill. I should have dumped my coffee and walked out.

So I am now asking for all of you to contact Caribou's corporate offices and voice your concerns, and your willingness to go elsewhere for your coffee until such time as they choose to donate the money from Amy's Blend to a research organization that does not also happen to cause the very disease and death that killed the woman they are tying to honor.

Additionally, I'm also requesting all of you to offer Divine Mercy prayers on behalf of the soul of Emily X, a pseudonym given to proud abortionists and workers at Planned Parenthood. "She" obviously believes in what she is doing, and why not? Consciences are deadened in this world, and with what she sees every day, what she does every day, in reality, she HAS to be dead to it! One day, by the grace of God, she will realize with indescribeable horror what she and her cohorts have done. Pray that we as a pro-life community will be there for her when this happens for she will not be able to pass through that horror into the mercy of Jesus Christ without other hands to assist her through that dark passage.

Did I Kill My Little Girl?

This was originally posted on the ides of March, and I took it down. I am putting it up again in honor of Respct Life Sunday. It may come down again soon.

*


I am terrified to write this post. There are some parts of my past that I have alluded to but have never come out directly to admit, and part of that is pride; I want to be seen as a "good Catholic girl." The truth is that maybe today I'm mostly a "good Catholic woman" but in the past, I was not. I got lost and I bought into our culture, and it's terrifying and even humiliating to admit the mistakes I made while I was wandering around in the desert of my own creation.

But I am even MORE terrified that someday, I may meet another woman with the same questions I have now, and she will ask me why I never brought this up. She will ask me why I didn't warn her and why I didn't try to save her babies. I can't undo my past, but I CAN influence someone else's future.

A few years ago, I was involved in a "long-term relationship", and we used contraception. I remember my willful ignorance, most of which I gained from "informed" sources, even when that information was contradicted. I had a roommate, a left-wing liberal Democrat social worker, who told me that contraception does, in fact, cause abortions. It does this because contraception cannnot necessarily suppress ovulation. And if ovulation occurs, and a child is conceived, that zygote cannot be implanted. Contraception makes the womb uninhabitable and flushes the new life out and away and into death.

I rejected what she said because I didn't like it, even though it struck me as truth. She let me live out my denial. After all, it was nothing to her; she was pro-"choice" to the core. She would have been the first in line to drive me down to Planned Parenthood for an abortion (and she expressed this to me on one occasion). Yet truth can come even in these unlikely packages. My friend told me the truth because she was my friend and she knew that I didn't believe in abortion. It must have cost her to somewhat compromise her own liberal agenda out of love for me, her friend, to help me not carry out something she knew was against my own values.

People are puzzling, aren't they?

But I still didn't listen to her. Not then, anyway, but even today, I hear her voice, and I ask questions. I have to wonder; in those years, did I kill a child that was supposed to come into the world?

One day at work as I counted down the night-shift hours, I saw a black-and-white photograph of a little girl and I KNEW I needed to reproduce this image. I took out my art supplies and carefully began to draw. I tenderly began to form the features that made up her face, her eyes, and her hair. I put deep, deep love into each and every stroke of the pencil and then of the charcoal. And then I carefully colored in her own personal hue, trying to infuse life into her pudgy baby-fat cheeks. I kept the sadness in her face, the solemn gaze in her eyes, and the subtle pout to her lips.

This child spoke to me. This child could have been mine.

I don't have a lot of my own art work on my walls, but this is one that was destined from its conception to face me every single day. Several people have asked me if she is mine, if she is related to me, or if she is someone I know. These questions have always amazed me because I do not see any outward connection to me, especially given her skin tone (I'm white), yet by their questions they prove to me that some of the artist goes into each work of art; just as part of the parent goes into each new life. This is why, when I look at this picture, I see what might have been. I see myself and I see her father. And by the comments of friends, they see us, too.

I see my little girl. A little girl who never came to be because I might have killed her.

Please, please, I beg you from the bottom of my heart and the depths of my soul to throw away your pills, your condoms, your sponges, your IUD's, and, please, don't kill your baby.

Can you really look into the eyes of this child and deny her life?

Blogging, Gossip, and True Intent

When I first began my blog, I was still a recent revert, and very sensitive towards dissent in the Church, that very dissent that had pulled me off the rails. I was angry, because I felt I had been deprived of the Truth for so long, and truth be told, I am still resentful, however, that resentment is abating. Why? Because God is good and he has brought a greater good out of my having fallen away.

Yet it was fresh in the beginning so I focused more on snarky topics condemning certain local practices and the like. Not a lot of people read me at the time, and as I've matured as a blogger, I've gotten away from that stuff and tend to focus on things more positive and spiritual.

My regular readers have become somewhat acquainted with me and my style, and I'm guessing they know I'm an opinionated person. However, I hope they also all realize that it has never been my purpose to defame, or gossip, or do any such thing. I will simply state an experience from my perspective, good or bad, but I pray that people see that ultimately, I am only providing a snapshot.

As I've started school again and will be continuing, God willing, I have also become more aware of citations, which, as some have noticed, have become more scholarly. If I have internet links, I like to use them but I'll admit that sometimes if I perceive that something is common knowledge, I get lazy and don't post the link, just summarize what I have to say. I shot myself in the foot with that one a couple times recently and got called on it. Not because of any issues with plagiarism, but rather because using a simple citation would have answered the concerns of some people who became offended at what I said, leading to a misunderstanding. A misunderstanding that could have been prevented thorough a couple minutes' work.

I also will admit that sometimes I am unclear in my intent, perhaps, in spite of my typical long-windedness, because I am again lazy and don't do a clear enough edit. Sometimes I have other things going on when I write and don't phrase things properly, and of course, if a key word is the wrong word, it severely can change the meaning and intent of a topic. And boy, was I deservedly taken to task for THAT error!

So I would like to humbly apologize for any hurt I may have caused at any time by my laziness in editing. I would like to request the forgivenss of those I have offended, and to please understand that I write from a total context that is not always clear in an individual post.

Sometimes I become so comfortable with my regular readers and commenters that I forget there are those out there who may happen by for the first time and have no idea where I'm coming from. Perhaps part of the standard in blogging is to remember that we never know who will be sent to us, who will happen by, and we must all consider what impression we will make.

I will confess to often being overly sensitive, and it is human nature to read into things or even grasp a particular thing within someone's work, then worry it to death. We are fallen creatures, and we can be easily offended. Because we are reading the written word apart from knowing the person who wrote those words, it's all too easy to depersonalize the author and become offended at his or her words. I have been guilty of that and I have made comments to other bloggers for which I now regret.

I have also been on the receiving end of such comments, and never fail to feel a sense of consternation that my words were taken badly, or somehow insulted someone, and I do try to repair that damage which was not intended.

There was a combox conversation in one of my older posts in which this was brought up; it is one of the dangers of the internet and email. We cannot see expressions, we cannot observe feelings and sentiments, and sometimes such things are impossible to convey by the written word. It's way too easy for all of us to both miscommunicate and to feel slighted or insulted when someone has simply misspoken.

In a live coversation, when someone mis-speaks, the question can be immediately addressed and corrected, and as we can see expression, we can observe sincerity, and even ill-intent. Not so in blogging and in other popular written media. And sometimes, even with a careful edit, some things are not caught and can lead to controversy. I've been on both sides of that and all too often I've been guilty of causing the offense.

Some time ago the Catholic Spirit, our diocesan paper, completely villified bloggers, making a blanket accusation of "gossip". I agree, blogging can be a form of gossip, but as it has been said before, our local Catholic bloggers and most, if not all, of the blogs on my link list have a high standard and work from a perspective of personal integrity. But we are all human and sometimes we err, and then it's time for damage control.

I think we all need to remember that even when someone posts something controversial, before we accuse, we should pray, question, and if there is truly an insult present, then we can address it appropriately in a charitable mannr. Perhaps we find that the person in question only misspoke, badly chose their words, and is ready and willing to correct the error. This goes not only for bloggers, but for commenters, for I do feel we truly enter into a conversation of sorts. But as it is in writing only, sometimes we forget that we are addressing a live person, someone with feelings, someone with sensitivities, and this can lead to a form of depersonalization and a denial of that person's dignity. If we don't use due care, conversations can deteriorate very quickly. People will say things to each other on the internet in chat rooms, discussion forums, and even in voice mail on the phone that they would never in a thousand years say to someone directly. Because we cannot see reactions, it is all too easy to spout off, and not realize that our words have consequences.

I had a lesson in that recently, and I deserved that lesson.

All that said, we are all also entitled to our opinions, and sometimes our legitimate opinions will be at odds with another person's opinions. I will continue to give my opinion on things, as I think we all will, and sometimes we will take each other's words personally. For example; if I say I can't stand the works of Marty Haugen and Andy Warhol, guaranteed there will be a fan of both who will come along and be personally offended at my condemnation of those persons' works. I will not change my opinion if I think something is trash. One of my pet peeves is bad church architecture, which I keep under wraps for the most part, for it is so common that if I let it get under my skin I'd never be able to go to Mass! Yet if I comment about such things in a negative manner, it should be understood from an impersonal context relating to a thing, not the people contained within the thing.

I think that we all have to remember, whether we are bloggers or whether we like to only surf blogs and articles and comment occasionally, we should all remember to be charitable, choose our words carefully, edit carefully, and consider how our words might be taken. It could be that a legitimate difference of opinion will cause offense; that can't be helped. In our world today, too many people are ready to cry "intolerance!" to quell actual discussion. We can all expect to be offended at one time or another, but our question should always be: is the offense actually intended?

I'm guilty of so much, but I do not go out of my way to cause offense. Please forgive my lack of tact which has been so apparent at times, and in turn, I will work harder to consider my words and how they impact others.

God bless you all.

News and Theology

OK, first of all, the news part. There isn't any. I haven't heard anything so that means that I'll either get a letter in the mail stating, "Thanks but No Thanks", they weren't able to finish their first round of interviews yet, or they are sorting through the candidates and have yet to call for the second interview. All in God's time.

Moving on to the Theology part:

From today's Gospel reading:

John 14:27-31a (Last verses)

"I will no longer speak much with you, for the ruler of the world is coming. he has no power over me, but the world must know that I love the Father and that I do just as the Father has commanded me."

This class definitely has me making connections in scripture. I just shot off a note to my professor because today's Gospel seems to demonstrate a very profound link between the Trinity, the divine and human dimensions of Jesus in relation to the Father in expiation for sin (ie perfect obedience), the dignity of humanity in the image and likeness of God, and the similarity in how Jesus responds to the Father's commands as a demonstration and lesson to us all. And I say this because he shows us by example how we must respond to His commands within, that being the conscience, which is the Holy Spirit convincing us of sin in relation to the definitive judgment that already took place (Satan), and pointing us to the all-good, which is God.

Whew! Did you get all that?! I'm not sure I did, and it's not how I phrased it in the question posed to my professor. It's one thing to summarize it lightly here, another entirely to send a question to my professor knowing what he knows, his knowing what he has taught us, and then to be specific enough without laying the foundational theology it would be necessary to explain if I were to write a solid post on this idea.

Perhaps I'll expand on this idea if the prof. can confirm my imperfect understanding. I do NOT want to spend a bunch of time on a post only to find out I've just opened up a can of Gnostic on myself.

Gun Control

There's a lot of ideology and politiking flying around since Monday, and quite honestly, I'm offended that all these people are jumping onto the political bandwagon to seek votes while the emotions are running high over the horrible slaughter at Virginia Tech.

Let me be very clear; the people who were killed and injured at Virginia Tech are not there to be poster children for politicians, and to make them out to be such is demeaning to the dignity and memory of them all, including the killer.

But since the topic is flying around, I am going to enter my own opinion, which actually has nothing to do with this event. I am "pro-gun" now and will likely remain so, but keep in mind that my position was tempered by the extensive training I have receivd.

I grew up in a household in which my mother was so terrified of guns that the very topic threw her into a complete tizzy. Her brother, my uncle, died in Korea, killed by a sniper, apparently while protecting a priest. I don't know the whole story, but we have visited his grave every year on Memorial Day to honor his memory and his sacrifice.

Imagine Mom's complete consternation when I announced I wanted to be a police officer! I think she nearly drove off the road; we were en route to visit the college I was considering for their Criminal Justice program, and her questions forced me to reveal the news although I would have chosen a safer occasion to do so.

That following summer, when I turned 18, my cousin, a part-time officer, welcomed me to his home and gave me a "dry-run" with several guns, gave me quite the involved primer on gun safety, and instilled the foundation for my education in this. He took me under his wing and really fed my career aspirations but with great cautions and of course, with great love.

Mom referred to him as a "gun nut". I wish all "gun nuts" were just like him, because if they were, the world would be a safer place. He was all about education and safety.

When we finally went out to the gravel pit, he brought along a bullet proof vest; he would not even allow me to enter the area without it, for fear of a ricochet. My cousin took his lessons very seriously and knew of my Mom's fears so he did his utmost to be sure I was returned to her in the same condition I had been when I left the house.

He taught me to shoot several types of guns, several styles, and on our third trip out, he was confidant enough in my ability to challenge my marksmanship with something he thought I might face someday; a gunman with a hostage.

He set up the cardboard cutouts with clothing to blur the lines, and set one in front of the other to mimic a gunman shielding himself with an innocent party...and he bid me to put one through this guy's head and "ruin his day."

I did as I was told, and I "ruined his day" in a major way with a Smith and Wesson .45 semi-automatic.

The primary lesson of all of this was not only experience and forcing me to face real-life situations, but when I shot the victim, he made sure I knew that, too, because the use of weapons in deadly force is not a joke. There are always consequences, and these consequences are deadly.

In skills training we spent a great deal of time at the range, and our instructor, while fond of humor, was deadly serious on the range. Even though we had heard the instructions a thousand times, he always bid us to "fire downrange!" before holstering our weapons. (.9mm glocks).

On the occasion of a night shoot at the training range, however, one individual chose to ignore his advice. He holstered his weapon, and as he did so, pulled the trigger...and the gun went off. It entered his pantleg, seared down his leg, and exited through his shoe.

He was unharmed, but for a black burn-mark down his leg, and the holes in his clothing.

He learned this lesson in a very scary way.

The school was also home to other bullet-marks in the walls, thanks to students who had disregarded classroom instruction and put everyone in a bad situation.

When I was hired as a Police Officer, I was given a Smith & Wesson .45 to carry, quite large for my hands and predictably, I had some difficulty qualifying. A few years prior I had purchased an HK .9mm, which I still own, so my duty weapon was very different and took some adjustment. The Range Instructor felt that I was a good shot, however the qualification took awhile and the department's standards were far higher than the school's standards. As it should be, for Police Officers are charged with making that ultimate decision; to take life or not to take life.

I was amazed by the ignorance of my friends (non-law enforcement) while I went through training, for they often offered the suggestion to "shoot to maim, not kill".

I have to be very clear on this issue; there is NEVER a reason to point a gun towards another human being unless you intend to kill him.

That is why the use of a gun in any situation constitutes "use of deadly force", which in the Minnesota State Statutes is Criminal Code 609.066.

Deadly force is a big deal, and the situation had better warrent such use. Someone may intend to shoot a leg or an arm, and strike the heart. A shooting situation involves a human being who may have run for blocks, may have leapt over fences, may be shaking with adrenalin...and that shot may not be true and kill the person they only want to stop. There is no such thing as "shoot to maim."

When I lived in Mexico, I became acquainted with a man who was an ex-cop. I had observed that, in Mexico, at museums, at tourist affairs, at government buildings, and literally everywhere we went, the cops were carrying sawed-off shotguns and fully-automatic weapons. I asked this man why, and he serenly replied, "It's for shooting into crowds so we can kill more people."

God. Bless. America.

We do not shoot into crowds here. As depraved as our society happens to be, we still hold, collectively, some shred of value for life.

I am no longer a cop nor do I ever plan to revisit that part of my life in any way other than through memory or writing of the lessons learned.

However, I am a woman, and I am a trained woman, and I fully believe in my right to own a weapon for the purpose of self-defense.

When I lived in south Minneapolis, I kept a loaded gun close by because I worked nights and I was well aware that most burglaries take place in the daytime. Because I had nowhere to go if someone were to enter our home, I planned to be prepared.

I still have my gun although I live in a more secure area now, however, if someone enters my home and comes up my stairs at 3 am, he gets one warning if he's lucky (if there's time), and then he will be entrusted to the Lord's Judgment. I reserve the right to defend my own honor because there is no one else to do it for me.

I have heard the arguments stemming from the wording of the Constitution with regard to the 2nd Amendment; that it pertains to a trained militia.

Fine. I'm a trained militia of one woman. Do not enter unbidden or I will consider it to be a hostile takeover and I. Will. Take. You. Out. Period.

In all seriousness, the concept about a "trained militia" having the only access is a great ideology and if our country and culture had developed differently, I would agree, but I must say that we live in the real world, not one that we would like to be real. Thus we must deal with this on real terms.

The reality is that guns are readily available in our culture and if they forbidden to the average citizen, the criminals would be empowered, forcing the good citizens into the black market to obtain weapons for themselves, for Americans are not going to be cowed by legislation that usurps their right to defend their families.

In other countries that have stringent gun laws, (ie the Netherlands)their murder rates are only slightly lower...for very little has to do with guns, but most has to do with premeditation for the murders are committed in closer quarters with knives and other weapons.

"Gun control" is not the solution to violence.

Respect for life IS a solution. Education in gun handling is a solution, and enabling the average citizen to learn to handle guns and the appropriate use of and consequences of them IS a solution.

Guns are a tool. They are inanimate metal and plastic; it takes intent to kill.

Where I live now, I am not so "dependent" upon my gun, and this is because I have other protective measures I did not have before. I see the gun as the last option, the option of absolute desperation for the purpose of defense only.

Yet there are extremists out there who seem to depend upon this as their answer to defense, which it is not. Then there are those who seem to depend upon legislation to deprive their neighbors from this legitimate option for defense.

The answer to violence has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with humanity and our flawed consciousness with respect to human life.

Yes, I am pro-gun and I'm willing to use the gun...in defense, if I am cornered, and consistent with my training.

But I'd far prefer never to have to think about it. I'd prefer that we live in a society that respects life and the reality behind the events of Virginia Tech. It was a man, not a gun, who killed the innocent in cold blood. It was a man, not a gun, who planned, plotted, and carried out this event. It was a man, not a gun, that was seriously mentally disturbed, displaying outright aggressive paranoia when he carried out his act.

If guns were not available to him, he would have found another way. The 9/11 terrorists didn't use guns to carry out their slaughter, did they?

Guns have never been the problem; don't make them the scapegoat. It's people who carry out the acts with whatever tool is available.

I am all for a waiting period, strict education, and other "controls", but do not ever take away my gun as long as I am a law-abiding citizen. I maintain the right to defend my life or that of another should the situation call for it.

I just pray that it might never be necessary and that this weapon will only be used to practice hand-eye coordination.

Let the flaming begin:

Disordered Inclinations versus Disordered Behavior

A commenter recently left a note on my post, "Sex and Marriage are Sacred". And although I responded, I felt that this really deserves to be addressed in its own post. I will not quote the entire comment, but I will respond to the pertinent parts. I provided the link to the post so all can go read the full context of the post and this anonymous person's response. There were actually two parts; I will address the second point in a seperate post.

1. You say "There is NOTHING natural about homosexual sex." But homosexuality and homosexual sex occurs all throughout nature. 8% of sheep are gay (cf. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/science/25sheep.html). There are gay penguins (cf. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL).
Just because something occurs in 8% of the population doesn't make it "unnatural." If 8% of the world's population were caucasian, does that mean caucasians are "unnatural"?

First of all, the reality is that this commenter obviously has not been able to discern the difference between an inclination and acting out on the inclination. My post was about the actual behavior of human beings. It is simply a straw-man argument to suggest that just because sheep hump each other and engage in what appears to be homosexual activity, that it justifies human behavior. Additionally, suggesting that voluntary behavior is tatamount to racial statistics is just completely illogical. It has no place in this conversation.

People, if you are using the argument that it's ok to engage in unnatural sexual acts because sheep do it, then you have a major problem. Suggesting that it's "natural" because dogs do it is not a logical argument. If you want to use that argument, then I would also like to see you bend over and clean your rear end as a dog does, I would also like to know if you support eating your young, as this also occurs in the "natural world", and I'm very curious as to whether you fully consume your sexual partner after being impregnated as does the black widow.

We are human beings. We sometimes have disordered inclinations such as same sex attraction, alcoholism, kleptomania, etc. The Catholic Church teaches that we ALL have some sort of disordered inclination: it's often referred to as "Concupiscence", that is, the inclination to sin.

So let's define this term, "inclination" (taken from Dictionary.com):

–noun 1. a disposition or bent, esp. of the mind or will; a liking or preference: Much against his inclination, he was forced to resign.

2. something to which one is inclined: In sports his inclination is tennis.

3. the act of inclining; state of being inclined.

4. a tendency toward a certain condition, action, etc.: the door's inclination to stick.

5. deviation or amount of deviation from a normal, esp. horizontal or vertical, direction or position.

It can safely be said, then, that it is a natural part of our human condition to have the inclination towards sin, which are acts contrary to God's divine order. Thus, the inclination towards homosexuality in and of itself is not a sin; it is simply a tendency towards sin. It is only upon acting upon that tendency that it becomes a sin. So, a logical person can see that there is a difference between a latent state of inclination versus the kinetic activity enacting up the inclination.

As human beings, we have a choice; we can recognize our tendencies and resist them so as to continue to be unified with God and His will, or we can act upon our sinful inclinations and seperate ourselves from the Lord. To act upon something contrary to God's will is unnatural, disordered, and it is a SIN. Pure and simple. Thus, homosexual behavior is unnatural and disordered.

We have the ability to reason and maintain self-control, even in the face those strong tendencies towards a certain type of behavior. We have the ability to understand the consequences of our behavior; personal, social, moral consequences. We do not have to look to animal behavior in order to see what is natural or unnatural in a human. To do so is complete folly.

Animals do not act according to a moral code; they act according to instinct. If they happen to have an inclination towards disordered behavior, then it is simply an abnormality. Animals cannot sin. Only human beings can sin, and only human beings can respond to a reasoned moral code and know right from wrong. To suggest that our inclinations and resultant behavior is "natural" is not only ignorant, but it is willfully illogical and completely contrary to our dignity as human beings.

We cannot look to animals to validate our willful human behavior.