The Supreme Court Decides....That They Get To Decide.

The enormity of today's Supreme Court decision is such that I can barely think, but I'm going to give it a try.

The Supreme Court has invented yet another Constitutional right just as they did in Roe v. Wade and many other cases since. These inventions make a mockery of the Constitution and the separation of powers it requires. Only Congress has the authority to make laws and yet the Supreme Court has repeatedly taken that authority unto themselves.

As Justice Scalia said in his dissent:

Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.
There is no "right" in the Constitution for people of the same sex to marry. It isn't there. The justices have made it up. Americans should be outraged that 5 justices would take it upon themselves to redefine an institution that has been the basis of human society for millennia. But, hey, they know better. This ruling is an insult to freedom.

Scalia goes on:

But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.13

In other words, this decision actually asserts that the Supreme Court gets to decide laws.

Again from Justice Scalia, (the voice of reason):

This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy......

SCALIA, J., dissenting every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.20 They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds— minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago,21 cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

I hope you didn't skip over Justice Scalia's words because they are right on the money.

Today's ruling was an incredible judicial overreach. I'm hoping it will finally lead to a Constitutional amendment limiting the terms of justices, or even better, making the offices elected.

The utter arrogance and judicial overreach of the opinion aside, may I say that I am finding the simplistic platitudes that so characterize the proponents of gay marriage quite tiresome.

Example: "I know gays who love each other. Therefore their relationship and the intimate expression of it should be equated with marriage." (This is not a quote from a particular person. Just how the "logic" goes.) Say, what? They love each other. Heterosexual couples love each other. Therefore they are the same. How on Earth is this conclusion drawn? Love is not the defining element of marriage. I love my dog. I love my children. Marriage is a very specific institution that for millennia has been the bedrock of civilized society. If you want to argue in favor of same-sex marriage convincingly you've got to give me more than this.

I'm sorry. The whole thing is making me sick. May the Lord have mercy on our country for rejecting His authority as the Creator and specifically on the Supreme Court justices who decided the issue was theirs to decide.

Mother's Day 2015

I had a lovely Mother's Day this year. In fact, I believe it was probably the best Mother's Day ever!!  Yes, that good.  I'm only sharing this now because before this I was not at liberty to talk about it.

We had dinner at Zingerman's Roadhouse, one of my very favorite restaurants in Ann Arbor because of the delicious food, the clearly identifiable gluten free dishes, and the capable wait staff who understand that those who cannot eat gluten really CANNOT eat any gluten. I really appreciate how thoughtful and well-informed they are.

My oldest daughter and son-in-law had dinner with us, as well as my two youngest daughters and my son John.

Here I am with Liz..

And here I am with Mary....

And now with John, who we are happy to have back on American soil!

It was starting to be a pretty typical Mother's Day. Great dinner and time with my family.

Then, as I opened gifts, Anne dropped the bombshell. Once someone shows me how to transfer photos from my phone to my computer I will show you my reaction. I completely fell apart.

My last gift was a tiny bag with something made of white cotton all rolled up. I unrolled it to read the words Anne had written on the onesie, "Grandma's Favorite. December 2015"

I'm going to be a grandma!!!!!!!!!!!  I was so filled with joy, so completely overwhelmed that I could barely stop crying.

Here we are. The parents and the grandparents of the tiny baby who will make his/her appearance this December.

We could not be happier. As I said, best Mother's Day ever!!!

I AM SO EXCITED TO BE A GRANDMOTHER!!!!!!!!

Passages of Laudato si' You May Not Hear Mentioned in the Media

There are passages in the Holy Father's most recent encyclical that are not likely to get much media attention. Here are a few that really struck me...

46. The social dimensions of global change include the effects of technological innovations on employment, social exclusion, an inequitable distribution and consumption of energy and other services, social breakdown, increased violence and a rise in new forms of social aggression, drug trafficking, growing drug use by young people, and the loss of identity. These are signs that the growth of the past two centuries has not always led to an integral development and an improvement in the quality of life. Some of these signs are also symptomatic of real social decline, the silent rupture of the bonds of integration and social cohesion.

From Paragraph 47...

 ....Real relationships with others, with all the challenges they entail, now tend to be replaced by a type of internet communication which enables us to choose or eliminate relationships at whim, thus giving rise to a new type of contrived emotion which has more to do with devices and displays than with other people and with nature. Today’s media do enable us to communicate and to share our knowledge and affections. Yet at times they also shield us from direct contact with the pain, the fears and the joys of others and the complexity of their personal experiences. For this reason, we should be concerned that, alongside the exciting possibilities offered by these media, a deep and melancholic dissatisfaction with interpersonal relations, or a harmful sense of isolation, can also arise.

  From Paragraph 49....This is due partly to the fact that many professionals, opinion makers, communications media and centres of power, being located in affluent urban areas, are far removed from the poor, with little direct contact with their problems. They live and reason from the comfortable position of a high level of development and a quality of life well beyond the reach of the majority of the world’s population. This lack of physical contact and encounter, encouraged at times by the disintegration of our cities, can lead to a numbing of conscience and to tendentious analyses which neglect parts of reality. At times this attitude exists side by side with a “green” rhetoric. Today, however, we have to realize that a true ecological approach always becomes a social approach; it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor.

From Paragraph 50.... Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate. At times, developing countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of “reproductive health”....To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.

75. A spirituality which forgets God as all-powerful and Creator is not acceptable. That is how we end up worshipping earthly powers, or ourselves usurping the place of God, even to the point of claiming an unlimited right to trample his creation underfoot. The best way to restore men and women to their rightful place, putting an end to their claim to absolute dominion over the earth, is to speak once more of the figure of a Father who creates and who alone owns the world. Otherwise, human beings will always try to impose their own laws and interests on reality.

Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner--What Are We To Make of All This?

I have to say that the entire transgender issue has been quite a mystery to me for a long time.  I've done a lot of reading about it lately. My heart does go out to those people who are suffering in this way. It seems to me that this issue is most likely a psychological issue, rather than biological, but in either case, these are people who are hurting and very distressed. I pray that they can find relief.

What could motivate a person to want to have sex reassignment surgery--something that could quite accurately be described as mutilation of the human body.

It seems to me that the evidence is not really there that gender identity (as something different from biological identity) is in the brain and determined for a person from birth. It is curious, however, the number of people, even children, who are seriously distressed by the gender that their biology says is theirs.

How is gender dysphoria diagnosed? A child needs to have six of the following true to have a gender dysphoria diagnosis. This list is from PsychCentral.

• repeatedly stated desire to be, or insistence that he or she is, the other sex
• in boys, preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire; in girls, insistence on wearing only stereotypical masculine clothing
• strong and persistent preferences for cross-sex roles in make-believe play or persistent fantasies of being the other sex
• a strong rejection of typical toys/games typically played by one’s sex.
• intense desire to participate in the stereotypical games and pastimes of the other sex
• strong preference for playmates of the other sex
• a strong dislike of one’s sexual anatomy
• a strong desire for the primary (e.g., penis, vagina) or secondary (e.g., menstruation) sex characteristics of the other gender

I was shocked to read that six of these items would result in a diagnosis. That's it. There is no blood work that indicates it, no other tests. No brain scan. A girl who wants to wear boy's clothing? Haven't tomboys been around forever? A strong rejection of toys/games typically played by one's sex? These situations are really not that uncommon! And it is estimated that 70-80% of children with gender dysphoria outgrow it.

For adults, Psych Central says "In adolescents and adults, the disturbance is manifested by symptoms such as a stated desire to be the other sex, frequent passing as the other sex, desire to live or be treated as the other sex, or the conviction that he or she has the typical feelings and reactions of the other sex."

It sounds to me that these diagnoses are all about feelings. Feelings are not facts. 

Flooding a body with hormones of the opposite sex is a very drastic measure! Would it not be safer to treat the individual's feelings and help them to accept the gender that they are biologically? Estrogen therapy is carcinogenic, for heaven's sake!

And sex reassignment surgery? Does this surgery really help the problem? Why do transgenders who have had this surgery have a suicide rate that is 20 times higher than others? Twenty times! That's a 2,000 percent increase! Are these people truly being helped?

Regardless of the source of distress for the trangender individual, how could it help to dress as the other sex, take hormones to make you look like the other sex, and have surgery to change your body into some semblance of the other sex? The suicide rate alone seems to indicate that these actions do not help.

Are the trangender's relationships helped by these actions? Are they really given any relief?

Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner said that he used to wear pantyhose under his clothes when having interviews as an Olympic athlete. My thought was what the heck does that prove? Is being a woman about wearing pantyhose?? I hope not! And how would wearing them help him at all? 

I don't want to be insensitive to the pain that Jenner clearly has experienced but wearing women's clothes under yours sounds more like a fetish than any kind of expression of identity.

I think I have to agree with Peter Kreeft when he said, "No empirical psychologist can be a dualist; the evidence for psychosomatic unity is overwhelming. No pervasive feature of either body or soul is insulated from the other; every sound in the soul echoes in the body, and every sound in the body echoes in the soul."

We are who we are. Some men are more typically masculine than others. Some may have characteristics that are more typical of women. Some have preferences that are not typical for their sex. But they are all men. There are all kinds of men. The same is true for women. There are all kinds. Some are typically feminine in every way. Others are not. They are all women.

It seems to me that transgenders are hurting themselves and the people who love them. I pray that they will come to embrace who they truly are and that they will find comfort from what seems like a disordered and inordinate desire to be something they are not. May they be embraced by the love of God!

This was the view from my kitchen window today.

Later I read the following quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson:

A little consideration of what takes place around us every day, would show us that a higher law than that of our will, regulates events; that our painful experiences are not necessary. A believing love will relieve us of a vast load of care. Oh, my brothers, God exists!

Yes, God exists! Could such beauty actually occur by accident?

Introducing Foundation Chiropractic

I have long been a believer in chiropractic care.  My father had had serious back problems that even caused him to require bed rest for weeks at a time on one occasion.  He had tried everything and finally saw a chiropractor as a last resort. Well, to make a long story short, the chiropractor cured his back problems.  He never had back pain like that again.   If he had a little pain, he would head for the chiropractor and get if fixed.  He LOVED chiropractic after that and often told his the story of how only a chiropractor had been able to help him.

So when I developed back pain I followed his example and my back is not a problem for me either. When it hurts, I see my chiropractor which brings me to the subject of this post!

My new chiropractor is Dr. Zach Simkins who also happens to be my son-in-law.  Those of you who live in southeastern Michigan should know that he is very skilled, very compassionate, and very knowledgable. My husband does every morning the exercises that Dr. Zach recommended to him and he no longer has back pain, despite having a herniated disk!  Yes!  That's good!!

Dr, Zach adjusted my brother's jaw for TMJ.  He gave him one adjustment and the TMJ was gone. That was two years ago and it has not come back!!

If you're scared to have your back "cracked" talk to him about it. He will listen.

And if you're in pain, well, head on over to his Plymouth Rd. office in Ann Arbor.  Back pain is awful. Don't put up with it.

Think about THESE things....

Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things....  Philippians 4:8

The Lord has reminded me of this passage so many times that I realize it must still be something I need to work on.  I have worked on it to be sure, even committing the passage to memory that I might recite it when I find myself doing just the opposite.  The opposite such as chewing on thoughts of how wrong such and such is, or recalling things best forgotten.

Note the use of the imperative.  We are told to think about these things. Yes, we are instructed to think about the good. I don't think this means that we should go about our lives wearing rose colored glasses. No, the Lord would never have us pretend that reality somehow does not include the negative, the tragic, and incidents of injustice or unkindness. We must live with our eyes wide open, always ready to evaluate life from the perspective of the Gospel.

But we can choose what we will dwell on in our thoughts. Do we spend more time decrying the action of evil in the world or more time rejoicing in the love of God?

Is it necessary to recall that past offense? Does recalling it serve any purpose or does it just fuel a self-indulgent enjoyment of resentment or indignation?

Does it help us, after recognizing that it exists, to wring our hands over the darkness in our world? Does it bring us any closer to the Lord or increase our faith? Not usually.

What about divulging mistakes that loved ones have made, or even those made by not-so-loved ones?  Even under the guise of a prayer request, this sharing is often not done in love.  (Excluded, of course, are those situations where one needs advice or empathy and, for that purpose, shares with a trusted friend or spouse.)

Hand wringing doesn't help anything. Nor does self-pity.

What about the situation or person who seems utterly hopeless. Note the word any in the passage above. Is there any excellence, is there anything worthy of praise? Sometimes there is not, but often there is some excellence, something worthy of praise.  Does that person who is driving you nuts have some redeeming quality? Is that situation truly completely without hope?

I love Philippians 4:8.  When I find myself drifting toward negativity I purposefully remember this passage and try to obey its instruction. Think about these things.

Yes, think about these things. Because such thoughts will take you to a place that is more loving, more fair, more kind, and so much more peaceful.

May we see and think as God does, embracing his mercy, his compassion, and his all-encompassing love.

Favorite Quote of the Day

From National Review (May 18, 2015) The Week section:

President Obama responded to the rioting in Baltimore by condemning the rioters, calling for criminal-justice reform, lamenting such problems as fatherlessness, and then, in a long riff, urging Americans to do some "soul-searching." We know how to fix Baltimore and other troubled communities, he said, and would make the large investments necessary if we saw their children as ours. This is, of course, delusional.  If Obama knows how to revivify marriage or compensate for its decline, he should share his insight.  In reality, his confidence that he has the answers, and that the rest of us do too but are too callous to act on them, is a reminder that his worst personal failing is the same as his worst ideological one:  vanity.

President Obama, like many on the far left, is so accusatory.   Does he really think that we (whoever we are) are withholding solutions to the problems of racism and poverty because whites don't see children of other races as their own? Seriously? He holds us in such contempt?  And he has the answers, if only we would give him the money to implement them?  Whaaat? Such dark rhetoric.

The Grace of Ordinary Time

The Easter season has ended and here we are back in Ordinary Time. I am reminded of the comment made by my friend Patti, busy mother of 11 children and faithful servant of the Church. She let out a long exhale and said, "Ordinary Time. I love Ordinary Time. It's so peaceful." Indeed, it is peaceful. It's not Advent or Christmas. It is not Lent or the joyous season of Easter.  It's ordinary. It is the normal rhythm of our daily lives.

There is a great grace that lies on the days that are high feasts in the Church. But may we never forget that there is grace in the ordinary as well. As Pope Saint John Paul II said (quoting St. Augustine), "We are the Easter people and hallelujah is our song."

Ordinary time is about sweeping the floor, seeing what we have for dinner, picking up clutter, cleaning the bathroom. Yes, and it is about answering that phone call, sending that card, smiling at that grumpy salesperson, and blessing the person who just cut me off in traffic.

As Saint Philip Neri as quoted in the Meditation of the Day in the May 26th reading in Magnificat:

     A man should not ask tribulations of God presuming on his being able to bear them:  there should be the greatest possible caution in this manner, for he who bears what God sends him daily does not do a small thing.

No, it is not a small thing to bear the minor crosses of everyday life.  How we respond to them represents the stuff of which we are made.  Is there love in our hearts?  What happens when we are pressed, pushed, treated poorly?

The Lord notices when we turn the other cheek, when we respond with kindness when confronted with rudeness. Maybe that person is having a terrible day. Maybe that person needs our smile desperately. Maybe he or she is even approaching despair. In the ordinary experiences of everyday life may we keep the image of Christ ever before us, always imitating him to the best of our abilities.

As Francis Fernandez writes in the meditation for Wednesday of the Eighth week of Ordinary Time in Volume 3 of In Conversation with God:

When we serve someone with a smile and a pleasant manner it is as if our action has acquired an enhanced value, apart from its being all the more appreciated.

...And, in any case let us remember that Christ is a 'good paymaster' and that, when we imitate him, He notices even the accompanying gesture, the smile, the smallest piece of service we have rendered. He looks at us with warm approval and we feel ourselves well rewarded.

Yes, may we seek the "warm approval" of our God!  Let us give always of the love we have received!
From the words of Mother Theresa (as quoted in goodreads.com):

Let no one ever come to you without leaving better and happier.  Be the living expression of God's kindness:  kindness in your face, kindness in your eyes, kindness in your smile.

Ordinary Time is ordinary. It's just another day. But it is the day that the Lord has made, the one in which we are told to rejoice. May it not pass by without our claiming the Hallelujah that is our song!

Announcing the opening of Foundation Chiropractic!!!

My son-in-law, Dr. Zachary Simkins has opened his new office, Foundation Chiropractic.

Dr. Zach is a strong Christian, honest, caring, and compassionate.  He is also an excellent chiropractor!!  I know this from personal experience as he has adjusted me many times. He has also provided care to my entire family and extended family.

Great at explaining things, Dr. Zach takes the time to tell you exactly what is going on with your back and what he will do to fix it.  He also gives you exercises to help correct problems and to maintain your good health.

Foundation Chiropractic is located in Ann Arbor and I highly recommend it.

Who Has the Responsibility to Develop Character?

Psychiatrist Peter C. Whybrow wrote an opinion piece in today's Wall Street Journal ("This IsYour Brain on Easy Credit"), adapted from his upcoming book The Well-Tuned Brain:  Neuroscience and the Life Well Lived. Whybrow rightly concludes that we would all do better to avoid impulsive decision making and to develop a greater ability to delay gratification.  But the following lines really caught my attention.

Yet the habits of prudent concern and self-command develop, just as do profligate habits, through social exchange.  Ask who is responsible for the development of character and there is no single answer, because it is a collective responsibility.  It is regrettable that discussion of how good character is built has become an unfashionable subject, largely ignored in today’s public debate. 

Is the development of character a collective responsibility?  It is not. Parents are responsible for the development of character in their children.  Healthy societies support and reinforce the teaching of parents.  But the society in which we live, in many ways, can no longer be considered healthy. Parents must educate children in the virtues by constant and repeated instruction when children are small.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church spells this out quite clearly. In CCC 2223:

They (parents) bear witness to this responsibility first by creating a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested service are the rule.  The home is well suited for education in the virtues. This requires an apprenticeship in self- denial, sound judgment, and self-mastery—the preconditions of all true freedom.  Parents should teach their children to subordinate the “material and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones.” 

Yes, the parents must provide this instruction.  No one else has the authority or influence over the child to do so.

Whybrow is right that the discussion of how character is built has become an unfashionable subject. Why is that?  I would suggest that there are two main reasons.  First, moral relativism has become the norm. Our culture is very committed to the irrational notion that there is no absolute right or wrong and that truth is relative and dependent on personal opinion. We are a ship without a rudder. Consequently, many parents are raising children not only without a compass to rely on, but without even the ability to argue that there is such a thing as a moral compass. The results have been predictable.

The second reason flows from the first. There has been widespread abdication of parents' responsibility toward children.  Some of this abdication is evidenced by the actual turning over of children to the care of others.  If you spend less time with your children, you have fewer opportunities to teach them about what is important. But even parents who are the primary caregivers of their children are frequently failing to teach their children about virtue. Why? Because of a prevailing and insidious child rearing philosophy that says that parents cannot control their children. So parents give up before they have even tried and then blame the bad behavior on the child, ignoring the fact that parents have tremendous influence and great God-given authority over their children. Discipline is very much out of vogue. It is much easier to throw up your hands and shake your head over the "bad choices" your child is making than it is to painstakingly and repeatedly instruct your child in what is the right way to live.  Yes, I said a right way to live.  And, yes, there is a wrong way to live.

We live in disturbingly dark and spiritually dangerous times in which to raise children.  But life remains a beautiful gift from God. Our God reigns. We must diligently call upon the Lord and implore the help of his Blessed Mother to discern and to follow his will in all of the challenges that life and parenting presents.  We must stay on the path illumined by his law and teach our children to do so as well. Our children will recognize the truth. But we must be the ones to show them.

Gay Marriage and The Supreme Oligarchs

The following quotes on the Supreme Court's gay marriage arguments are from the New York Times article which can be viewed HERE.

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard arguments for two and a half hours on two cases involving gay marriage.

Justice Kennedy said:

“This definition has been with us for millennia. And it’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh, well, we know better.’ ” He added that “the social science on this” — the value and perils of same-sex marriage — is “too new.”

Indeed, it has.  And even ancient Rome, in the midst of their decline when homosexual behavior was quite common, even then, they did not recognize marriage as any other combination than that of a man and a woman.

Justice Kennedy went on:

Same-sex couples say, of course: ‘We understand the nobility and the sacredness of the marriage. We know we can’t procreate but we want the other attributes of it in order to show that we, too, have a dignity that can be fulfilled,’ ” Justice Kennedy said, strongly suggesting that the reasoning resonated with him.

And the attorney for the gay couple...

“….Mary L. Bonauto, representing more than a dozen gay and lesbian couples, urged the justices to remove “the stain of unworthiness” that marriage bans produce.”

When Justice Kennedy explains that gays want to be recognized as having "a dignity that can be fulfilled," I think he has inadvertently identified the true motivation behind the desire of gays to have their unions recognized as marriage.  I know what I am about to say could be very hurtful to homosexuals, who would no doubt deny it.  But it is important to speak the truth about matters of this grave importance.  The issue of gay marriage, I believe, is about moral legitimacy.  Gays want to be free from the awareness that many, many people believe that their intimate behavior is immoral.  I imagine there is a very oppressive shame associated with the knowledge that great religions, such as Christianity, have always taught that their unions are gravely against the good.  

Yes, I have no doubt that gays would like the "stain of unworthiness" to be removed.  But the Supreme Court, no matter how they rule, cannot do that.

Justice Scalia asked:

“Do you know of any society, prior to the Netherlands in 2001, that permitted same-sex marriage?” he asked Ms. Bonauto. She said no, at least as a legal matter.”

Justice Roberts:  

“You’re not seeking to join the institution,” he said. “You’re seeking to change what the institution is.”

Justice Breyer said, "Marriage is about as basic a right as there is."

Now I am not a judge or a Constitutional scholar.  I'm not even an attorney.  But I have read the Bill of Rights and a right for members of the same sex to marry is not in there.  Are there innate human rights that are not in the Constitution?  Well, yes, and the most basic is surely a right to life, a right that the Supreme Court threw out the window in 1973.  There is no "right to marriage," it would seem to me, Justice Breyer.  And isn't that the entire point of this case?  Is it not to determine whether or not there is such a right?

If the Supreme Court rules that there is a Constitutional "right to marriage" for gays (and who knows what other combinations down the road. There is no legitimate reason to prevent other combos if they decide there is a "right to marry.") Then the name of the Supreme Court should be changed to the Supreme Oligarchs.  

I for one have had enough of the Supreme Court usurping the democratic process.  Everyone knows full well there is no right to abortion in the Constitution and there is no right to gay marriage.  If they rule that there is, I hope there will be a powerful and deliberate effort on the part of the American people to at least require terms limits for these oligarchs!!

The Body of Christ-- A Network System

From the wonderful book The Gift of Faith by Tadeusz Dajczer comes the following words of wisdom.

Growth in grace through a greater faithfulness to God intensifies one's specific influence on others like invisible radiation......As Romano Guardini has said:

The prayers of others belong also to you just as their actions, spiritual growth, and purity of heart do.  Have you ever reflected on the community of the suffering, on the fact that the graces flowing from somebody's suffering are transferred to others?  If, united with the suffering of Christ you offer your painful experiences to God for others, then your experiences become a living, beneficial, redemptive, power for them.  Beyond all obstacles and distances, you bring help where nothing else can be of help. ("II senso della Chiesa in La realta della Chiesa [Breseia, Italy: Morcelliana, 1999], p.38.)

     No one is a solitary island.  As the Mystical Body of Christ, we constitute a unique network system, similar to a system of connected vessels.  Your good as well as your evil has a social dimension, because it creates a specific supernatural pressure of good or evil on others.

What a beautiful description of the interconnectedness of prayer, good works, and suffering upon the Body of Christ.  Yes, it does matter what each individual chooses to do.  Good begets good.  Evil begets evil.

Every moment matters for the good of the whole, all of us.  Every decision is significant.

May we keep this truth ever before us, that we might live always for the greater glory of God.

A Diet to Avoid Alzheimer's?!

Just read a great article  by Sumathi Reddy in the Wall Street Journal entitled "A Diet Might Cut the Risk of Developing Alzheimer's."  Well, that's a pleasant thought!

"Experts say there is a growing awareness that lifestyle factors-- not just genetics--play a prominent role in the development of Alzheimer's, and researchers hope to come up with an optimal diet that will lessen the chances of developing the disease."  Yes!!

The diet was developed at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago.

Called the MIND diet, it is a combination of the Mediterranean diet and the DASH diet.  The DASH diet (Dietary Approaches to Hypertension) was designed to reduce high blood pressure.  Thus the acronym Mediterranean- DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay. MIND Diet. Clever.

OK. So what's the diet?  Here it is.

Green, leafy vegetables-- a salad and one other vegetable every day
Other vegetables
Beans-- three times a week
Berries (especially blueberries)-- twice a week
Whole grains- three servings a day
Fish-- once a week
Poultry-- two or more servings a week
Olive oil
Wine-- one glass a day
Nuts-- five times a week   LOVE this one!!

And avoid the following!!

Red meats
Butter and stick margarine
Cheese
Pastries and Sweets
Fried and fast food.

Those who followed this diet closely lowered their risk of Alzheimer's by 53%.  Those who followed it moderately lowered their risk by 35%.  So it's even worth doing it halfway!!

The only thing surprising and problematic for me is the whole grain requirement, because I can no longer eat gluten.

David Perlmutter in his book Grain Brain makes a strong case that gluten is bad for everyone and that it's especially bad for the brain.

Well, they're just getting started on this idea.  I'm just excited by the idea that diet can impact one's risk of Alzheimer's.  That's very good news!

"Whatever the Ayatollah Wants" WSJ

The Wall Street Journal as an interesting opinion piece in today's (4/20/15) edition.

Aptly titled Whatever the Ayatollah Wants, the piece opens with this.

     Give Ayatollah Ali Khamenei credit for knowing his opposition.  Two weeks ago the Supreme Leader declared that Western sanctions had to be lifted immediately as a condition of the nuclear deal.  And sure enough, on Friday President Obama said Iran would get significant sanctions relief immediately upon signing a deal.
     The Ayatollah knows that Mr. Obama wants an agreement with Iran so much that there's almost no concession the President won't make.  So why not keep asking for more?

Hopefully, you can read the rest of the editorial HERE.

The U.S. has already granted numerous concessions that contradict previous U.S. positions, concessions that have so alarmed Israel, that Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that even the so-called deal framework paves the way for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.

We have been negotiating with a country that continues to define the U.S. as its enemy and continues to export terrorism throughout the region.  Chants of "Death to America" and a call for the destruction of Israel, our most important ally in the region, continue.

And during the negotiations Iran staged a mock attack on a U.S. air carrier.  Yes, during the negotiations.  The administration dismissed the maneuver as harmless.

Does it make any sense to trust a country like this?  Does it?  What on Earth is the president doing?  Preserving his foolish and naive belief that making nice and talking to anyone, including terrorists, is the path to peace?  Is the whole dangerous exercise about saving face for the president?

SPRING!!!!! Don't You Just Love It?

From Goodreads I bring you the following fun quotes about spring.  (There are many others on the site so if you enjoy these, you know where to go.  HERE.

"That is one good thing about this world...there are always sure to be more springs.
     L.M. Montgomery, Anne of Avonlea

"Spring is the time of plans and projects."
     Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina

"In the Spring, at the end of the day, you should smell like dirt."
     Margaret Atwood, Bluebeard

"If people did not love one another, I really don't know what use there would be in having any spring."
     Victor Hugo, Les Miserables

"It's spring fever.  That is what the name of it is.  And when you've got it, you want-- oh, you don't quite know what you want, but it just fairly makes your heart ache, you want it so!"
     Mark Twain

I bought some pea and lettuce plants today.  Spring is the time of new life! More energy! Joy!!

Small Success Thursday--Things to Make Time For

Well... on a lighter note.....

Today is Small Success Thursday over at Catholicmom.com.

What are my "small successes" this week?

I have been going to a gym.  This is not like me.  I really don't enjoy exercise.  I enjoy reading and writing and my favorite place to do these things is on my bed, where I am right now.

But I realize that I need to be strong and healthy to enjoy my life, and I do want to enjoy my life.

So I've been exercising at the gym.  Quite regularly, I must say.

This past week I even attended several of the free exercise classes.  I started with a class that didn't sound TOO challenging.  I was wrong.  It was quite challenging.  I kept looking at the other older participants, but nobody seemed to want to look at me and exchange mutual eye rolling.

We needed a stability ball, 3 sets of dumbbells, a foam roller, and an exercise mat.  What a relief it was when we finally laid down on the mats.  I had taken my hair out of a ponytail, because it's hard to lay back on a ponytail.  I forgot that my hair has gotten quite long.  As per the instructions of the teacher, my legs were stretched into a pretzel position when I realized I could not raise my head, having pinned it to the floor by lying on my hair.  I tried to roll a little to the side but the leg pretzel prevented that.  Sheesh.  I guess this is the kind of thing fitness gurus think of before they lie down.

Finally the legs were undone and we were told to put the foam roller under our necks to stretch them.  I thought, oh, this is going to feel good, leaning back onto the roller.  The little foam log slipped on my hair and rolled toward the other people on their mats, all ready to relax.  I had to jump up and chase it maybe ten feet further into the room.

A little embarrassing.  But I had the presence of mind to remind myself that I was not there to impress anyone, and I WAS getting exercise.

The small success?  I even tried another class this week!

And tonight I will be seeing a wonderful musical production of "The Music Man" with my daughter Mary.

There are some things we really must make time for.

We Must Obey God Rather Than Men

The antipathy of the current administration to all things Christian makes todays readings and commentary particularly appropriate. (See yesterday's post.)

The first reading, Acts 5:27-33, describes the questioning of the Apostles by the Sanhedrin. They say, "We gave you strict orders, did we not, to stop teaching in that name?" To which the Apostles respond, "We must obey God rather than men."

And from the Gospel, John 3:31-36, "The ONE WHO comes from above is above all." Amen.

I can't say enough good things about the series In Conversation with God by Francis Fernandez. (Not to be confused with another title, Conversations with God, which I do NOT recommend.) Fernandez' series is like daily spiritual direction based on the reading of the day.  It's WONDERFUL!!!  It's orthodox, insightful, and intelligent.  I've never been disappointed with a single day's meditation.

Today's Commentary is from Volume Two: Lent and Eastertide.

Fernandez writes:

     The fortitude and conviction of the first Christians is what Our Lord is also asking from his followers today, when, in certain environments, there breathes a climate of indifference or even direct attack, more or less veiled, on true human and Christian values.

This volume was first published in 1987. Today the attacks are unveiled and even come from our own government. (See yesterday's post.)

     The effective protection of fundamental individual rights, the right to life from the very moment of conception, the protection of marriage and the family, equality of opportunities in education and in work, freedom of education and of speech, religious freedom, personal security, contribution to world peace, all form part of the common good for which Christians should be prepared to fight.
     Passivity in the face of such important affairs would really be a lamentable error and omission-- at times grave-- of the duty to contribute to the common good.

Well.... that got my attention.  He goes on...

     One cannot praise a political action or social regulation or work of art when it becomes transformed into an instrument for evil.  It is a question of strict morality and therefore of common sense.  Who would praise an insult to his own mother just because it was composed in verse which had perfect rhythm?

Indeed.  In reference to abortion and other "abominable crimes," Fernandez writes:

Whatever little each person is able to do, he should do it, especially should he be in public life....It lies in the hands of everybody, of each individual, provided he acts with supernatural outlook and with common sense, to make this world which God has given us to live in, into a more human place and a means of sanctification.  If we strive to fulfill our social duties, whether we live in a big city or in a little out-of-the-way village, with an important job in society or a lowly one, even though we may think our contribution is tiny, we shall be faithful to Our Lord.

We must speak the truth courageously, send the emails, make the phone calls, sign the petitions, and pray, pray, pray.

Come Holy Spirit.

Is the President Anti-Christian?

As Christians we must guard against the temptation to judge others and to assign motives to people for questionable actions.  We can’t know the content of another’s heart, nor what is driving them to behave in a particular way.

That being said, public officials must be held to a high level of accountability to the citizens who elected them, the president of the Unites States perhaps more so than any other elected official. He has unmatched power, influence, and responsibility.

While we cannot know the president’s heart nor calculate his culpability, his accumulated words and actions have a decidedly anti-Christian flavor.  At this point, I don’t think his antipathy can be denied or ignored any longer.

During the government shutdown military chaplains were prohibited from saying Mass and ministering to the troops.  Why? And since that time there have been numerous limitations placed on the speech and actions of military chaplains and many infringements placed on their  freedoms of religion and of speech.  What could possibly explain such antagonistic actions?

In 2013 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under this administration sued a trucking company for failing to accommodate Muslim drivers who did not want to deliver alcohol.  And yet no such support is given to Christian bakers and photographers for their religious objections to participating in gay weddings.  In fact, they are only treated with scorn and insults.

When speaking at Georgetown University the president asked that the crucifix and IHS symbol behind his podium be removed.  Yes, the reason given was that they wanted a neutral background. My question is why was a neutral background needed?  

And then there is the Affordable Care Act.

Cardinal Dolan said the following in 2013 when the HHS mandate was first introduced:

Over the last six months or so the Catholic Church in the United States has found itself in some tension with the executive branch of the federal government over a grave issue: religious freedom…Can a government bureau, in this case the Department of Health and Human Services define for us or any faith community what is ministry and how it is exercised? Can government also coerce the church to violate its conscience? 

The president first assured Cardinal Dolan that he considered the “protection of conscience a sacred duty,” and then left the freedom violating mandates in place.

The administration went on to inform Cardinal Dolan that, in Cardinal Dolan’s words, “the broader concerns of religious freedom—that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table.”

Well over 100 lawsuits have been filed against the HHSmandate.

Why is this happening?  At a minimum it would appear that the president has no respect for the Catholic Church or for religious freedom.  How could anyone be so committed to offering free contraception, abortifacients and sterilization to the American people as to be willing to alienate the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops, the Catholic population, as well as many, many evangelicals?  Why would those things be so important? Clearly, this is the most anti-life president we have ever had—by far.  And he holds more than a little antipathy toward Catholics in particular.

At the National Prayer Breakfast he minimized the atrocities of ISIS by comparing them to the “terrible deeds” committed during the Crusades and the Inquisition “in the name of Christ.” He went on to blame Jim Crow laws on Christians.  (Never mind, Mr. President, that the Crusades were fought against Muslim aggression and that Jim Crow laws could never be justified by Christian teaching.) Christians all over the Middle East are being martyred for their faith and our president chose to criticize Christianity at the National Prayer Breakfast. Virginia governor Jim Gilmore said of the president’s words, “The president’s remarks at the prayer breakfast are the most offensive I’ve heard a president make in my lifetime.”  Indeed, in anyone’s lifetime.

And at the Easter Prayer Breakfast at the White House the president said, “On Easter I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian, I am supposed to love.  And I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less than loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned.  But that’s a topic for another day.”  This statement was greeted with laughter.

Keep in mind that the above statement was made on the highest holy day of the year for Christians and just days after a terrorist attack in Kenya by Islamist terrorists where 147 Christians were killed specifically for their faith.  These martyrs were not even mentioned in the Easter Prayer Breakfast remarks. And on the day of the Kenyan attack, the president did not even say that these people were specifically killed because they were Christians.

President Obama claims that he is a Christian.  Frankly, I don’t know how that could be. He seems to use every opportunity he has to belittle Christians, and his policies have consistently shown hostility to the Christian faith.

We have whispered and thought this for years now.  It’s time to hold the president accountable by naming this antipathy for what it is—anti-Christian hostility. Sign the petitions, write the letters to the editor, ask the prospective presidential candidates what they think of the president’s words and actions and how they stand on religious freedom. Ask how their policies differ from the president’s.  Take every opportunity you are given to defend the faith and to point out that the president is failing in his solemn obligation to defend the Constitution of the United States—that Constitution that very specifically guarantees religious freedom.

Daniel Henninger tells it like is in "The Incredible Obama Doctrine."

Daniel Henninger has written a great opinion piece in today's Wall Street Journal, "The Incredible Obama Doctrine."

Here is a snippet:

     Mr. Obama then offered an example of how this would work-- U.S. support for Israel: "What we will be doing even as we enter into this deal is sending a very clear message to the Iranians and to the entire region that if anybody messes with Israel, America will be there."
     This statement, and indeed the Obama Doctrine is a hoax.
     Set aside that "messes with Israel" and "America will be there" are phrases with no real operational meaning.
     "American will be there" could mean that if someone set off a nuclear backpack bomb in Tel Aviv, where the Obama administration would be the next day is on New York's east side, condemning the attack in a U.N. Security Council resolution.
     Any American foreign policy doctrine needs interpretive wiggle room for the commander in chief. But anyone would assume that the phrase "America will be there" refers to the deployment of what Mr. Obama invokes as "our military superiority."
     Unless it doesn't.
     In the case of the Obama presidency, it doesn't.  There is next to no chance that this president under any circumstance-- and that would include China's invasion of Taiwan-- will use the U.S. military on the scale he implies here......

He goes on to say:

Put it this way: Any conceivable Democratic presidential candidate would associate with Teddy Roosevelt's foundational dictum-- Speak softly and carry a big stick.  That sounds like the Obama doctrine, or what Hilary Clinton and progressive foreign-policy pundits call "smart" power.  But the reality of modern democratic foreign policy is-- Speak softly and claim to carry a big stick, which you have no intention of ever using.

Hopefully, you can read the entire article HERE.

For those who would argue that of course he would use the full force of the American military if necessary, I would ask where is the evidence?  He has drawn red lines and then ignored them. Deadlines are not even deadlines for this president. In my humble opinion, he is weak, indecisive, passive to a fault, and an extremely dangerous president for America to have in these chaotic and violent times.