Abortion and Psychosis, some clarification on my part

Below is a direct copy past from an email exchange with a friend.

From: FRIENDTo: KELLY
Subject: RE: Grey Area Sticky Abortion Question
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 20:28:41 +0800

Hey there Kelly,

Good on you for looking out for this girl, I’m sure she appreciates your support and listening ear right now.

 There were many questions that came to me while I was reading this scenario (see my red below). Ultimately, I think this girl needs professional help in two areas. One area is ethical advice, which really ought to go to someone more experienced and qualified. I think bioethics in the Archdiocese is Fr Joe Parkinson’s responsibility? Bronia at the RLO could also advise you on who could help. I’d recommend you get in touch with either of these asap.

 The other area of professional help this girl needs is counselling with regards to coming to terms with her pregnancy. I think she may be thinking that abortion is the least bad of the options she is facing. Pregnancy Assistance might be able to help. Bronia at the RLO might also be able to advise you what to do on this. This girl may also need counselling in general for just being in this complicated situation.

 How does this sit with you?

 I’ll keep this matter in my prayers.

 God bless,

FRIEND

  

I've a friend, whom I met in hospital, who is allergic to oestrogen. Which is unfortunate because she has XX Chromosomes, as I do. Her reaction to estrogen day to day is severe depressive episodes.
We met in hospital because she'd started taking oestrogen based contraception and it had triggered a suicidal psychosis. If her fiance hadn't unexpectedly come home two hours early to find her unusually calm, she would be dead. That was around 2x her normal day-to-day levels.

This friend is now worried that she's pregnant. Oestrogen levels by the end of pregnancy are, apparently, about 1000x that of day-to-day levels. She's extremely resourceful and, during her psychoses, can be very deceptive about how bad things actually are. At anything more that 2x her normal levels of oestrogen, she will find a way to kill herself. If she is pregnant then wont her oestrogen levels have already risen significantly? They go up relatively quick I thought.

The Church teaches, through the principle of double effect, that she can continue and increase treatment for her mental illness during pregnancy, even to the detriment of the child. Sounds like the principle of double effect, but before definitively concluding on this difficult situation I’d get another opinion from someone more experienced in ethics. Has this girl already seen an ethicist at the hospital? She could take some oestrogen-blocking therapy, even if it kills the child.

The child could, however, survive to or past around 20 weeks when both pain and viability-outside-the-womb become a possibility I’m not sure if you could block oestrogen AND get to 20 weeks pregnant – more likely to miscarry early in the pregnancy if the hormones are not at healthy levels? If the child is born, at whatever stage after that, there is a high likelihood of terrible suffering for them. It is unlikely that the child will survive long after birth, if at all. What does she mean by that? Is it a health issue or something else… 

She could, of course, not continue or receive more treatment. That decision would depend on her mental health doctors wouldn’t it? I don’t know a lot about her psychotic-suicidal reaction to oestrogen. What if she just went under 24hr surveillance? Her husband could take leave and care for her?

Meanwhile, even a week of high levels of estrogen - much more for if it's 40 weeks - and this friend is likely dead; almost certainly.

Her question to me: How is killing the embryo, foetus, child slowly, possible over 9 or 10 months, more ethical than a direct abortion? My intention in either case is to stop in estrogen and the result in either case is the thing dying?

I’m not sure how the child could die slowly over 9 or 10 months. If she blocks the oestrogen then I can’t see how she could bring the child to full term.

If the child was born, is this girl thinking of killing the child?

I appreciate her lose-lose situation, but we both know abortion leads to further suffering.

She needs counselling with regard to her difficult situation. Pregnancy Assistance?

My question to you: How should I answer?


EDIT to clarify: I use allergy somewhat allegorically.
She has BPD and has a psychotic-suicidal reaction to estrogen. 
My assumptions, the 'givens,' are based on my close knowledge of her and her condition.
Also, yes, she could continue with BPD therapy; the resulting death or injuries to the child are of the same likelihood.
And, she uses a utilitarian prism for her moral compass:
"Greatest good for the greatest number," while believing that "There is some suffering worse than death."

*   ***   ***   ***   *

From: KELLY
Sent: Tuesday, 27 August 2013 10:30 PM
To: FRIEND
Subject: RE: Grey Area Sticky Abortion Question

Thank you, FRIEND. You raise some great questions.

I've been in contact with both RLO and PA.
I'm hoping to hear back from both tomorrow.

Alas, this woman is suspicious of anyone clearly on either 'side' of the 'abortion fence,' so to speak.
This means that the likelihood of her speaking to someone other than me or Fr Giles (whom she met while we were in hospital) is quite low.

Now, to your questions:

If she is pregnant then wont her oestrogen levels have already risen significantly? They go up relatively quick I thought.Yes. That's why she's worried that she's pregnant. It's been about a week and she's noticed a huge increase in her depression and the first symptoms of psychosis.

Sounds like the principle of double effect, but before definitively concluding on this difficult situation I’d get another opinion from someone more experienced in ethics. Has this girl already seen an ethicist at the hospital?This is part of my reason for contacting RLO.

Although we probably could have asked to have seen an ethicist in hospital, it's not really high on a mental-health patients list-of-professionals-to-see.

  I’m not sure if you could block oestrogen AND get to 20 weeks pregnant – more likely to miscarry early in the pregnancy if the hormones are not at healthy levels?Probably can't.

But she also has the option of continuing her current medication without taking the oestrogen blocker-thing which would severely harm the child.

What does she mean by that? Is it a health issue or something else… Health of the child in regard to the effects of the medication/s she'd be taking during pregnancy.

 That decision would depend on her mental health doctors wouldn’t it? I don’t know a lot about her psychotic-suicidal reaction to oestrogen. What if she just went under 24hr surveillance? Her husband could take leave and care for her?  Well, kind of. Under the Mental Health Act, you have the right to refuse treatment.

The only type of supervision that might work is being in a Locked Ward for the duration of the oestrogen spike.

She'd probably have to be literally tied down: it's the curse of being a high functioning mental health patient that, once you've decided that you need to die, nothing but physically preventing you from acting will stop you. 

 I’m not sure how the child could die slowly over 9 or 10 months. If she blocks the oestrogen then I can’t see how she could bring the child to full term.If the child was born, is this girl thinking of killing the child?I appreciate her lose-lose situation, but we both know abortion leads to further suffering. She needs counselling with regard to her difficult situation. Pregnancy Assistance?

 As above, probably not. 9 months in the womb, maybe a month outside.She has not intention of killing a live-born child.It does, but so does several months of phychosis. 

I will continue trying to chase (up or down) any help I can get for her.

 Thank you, again, for your help and - more especially - for your prayers.

 You remain in my prayers, too.

 -Kelly

Coping with Suicide: At the Moment

Today, I’m going better than yesterday. I didn’t want to run away crying at the sight of someone else. This said, yesterday’s episode was brought on because it was unexpected. I didn’t expect there to be another person at the bus stop near mum’s place, so it was uncomfortable. It’s not so much that I need a set routine - an hourarium, for example - to function, but I do really need to know that the social conventions are going to be followed and, it seems, that whatever it is that I’m expecting will happen.

Now, this could be taken as a “my way or the highway” attitude and in some sense it is. However, it has nothing to do with opinions and everything to do with people, places and things acting as one might reasonably expect them to act, with a twist. The only other person I’ve seen waiting at that particular bus stop while I was also waiting there was my brother; we were going somewhere together. Here was someone else! Something unexpected! And to make matters worse, an entire family, a further four people showed up to hop on the bus as well. Now, once they were on the bus, there was not problem for me. I expected to see people on the bus. I didn’t expect to see people at that particular bus stop in the middle of a day, on a working day, no less: I really, really didn’t expect to see five of them.

Oh, they were complete strangers and none of them wanted to talk to me. That’s not the thing that got me. It was just that there were people there.

Does it actually matter? No, not at all.
Did it feel like it mattered at the time? Absolutely.

Today, so far, has functioned as a normal morning of me waking up in the house that I pay rent at would. True, Eliza’s here. But I expected to see her; forewarned is forearmed, as they way. (Not that I was lacking my forearms yesterday…)

Anyway, I don’t feel as fragile at the moment. I don’t feel like a handshake might undo my ability to stand or to not cry.

At the moment.

Coping with Suicide: Some Initial Thoughts

This post and any following it are not going to be easy for me to write. I'm putting this out here because it's what I'd like to read at the moment and cannot find anywhere in the Very Helpful Information that people keep giving me. This is because most of the Very Helpful Information that has been shared with me over the past 46 days has consisted mostly in "It's entirely normal for you to be X or Y or Z or even A, B or C. In fact, everyone deals with grief in different ways, so however you're feeling is quite normal."

I am not going to dispute the Very Helpful Information; instead, I'm hoping to move beyond it because, here's the Thing: as much as feeling X, Y, Z, A, B or C might be normal for someone feeling grief and as much as grief lasts for an indeterminate amount of time, I want to know how to get back to something that might more easily be called normal for the rest of the (non-grieving) population. The Thing is that if I had not lost my dad to suicide recently, my fits of not eating, my extreme social withdrawal, my inconsistent sleep patterns and my irritability (not to mention the strange constriction of my throat that I've been feeling every time I think about dad's suicide lately) would not be normal and I want to go back to a normal reaction as soon as possible. I am hoping to have an irregular series of posts on how I'm going at the moment so that I can both document how I'm coping with suicide and so that, perhaps, others might come to see that - although our stories and journeys are different - it is possible to cope with the suicide of someone close to you. I am convinced that it is possible to cope; it simply must be possible to get through this horror that I feel and to be able to regain normality.


And then I wonder if I'm just slothful, ungrateful or stupidly unable to cope.

Jen Fulwiler, a blogger for the Nation Catholic Register, over at her personal blog, recently posted about the trials of motherhood - more to the point (for me, at least) - the relief she felt at the diagnoses she received of a condition that's nearly fatal. Isn't it strange how someone's blog on nothing-to-do-with-suicide had been amazingly helpful to me this week? Here is a passage from her post that particularly stood out for me when I first read them a few days ago:

But there was something else, too, that was responsible for my surprisingly peaceful state of mind:

Relief.

December was a hard month. I couldn’t seem to stay on top of anything, and my inability to deal with life seemed to get worse by the week. 

Now, Jen's diagnoses came after December and mine (as it were) came at the beginning. However, I would describe my December in much the same way that she did. Moreover, in the 30something hours following finding out about dad's death, I had a terrible sense of relief.
Apparently, according to the Very Helpful Information I've been reading, this is another one of those Normal Reactions To Grief. However, it was terrifying for me. Why should I feel relief at the fact that my dad had hung himself?

I think that a good portion of my relief was due to my expectation that this is how dad would die and, moreover, a relief that I did nothing to directly trigger it and was there when mum and Aaron found out.

Actually, I answered the door at about 9.30pm, after mum and Aaron had gone to bed, to two police men asking for mum. I had just house-sat for mum for a week and had her car during that time; my first thought upon opening the door was, "but I didn't do anything illegal with mum's car!"

I did my best to not listen to the initial conversation that the police had with mum in the front room but decided to go in when I over-heared them asking about dad by his full name.

I then had to wake up Aaron.

Seriously, that kid (not really a kid anymore, but, hey!) is a gun and such an amazingly mature young man.

I then stayed up until just-about-day-break calling people, watching Monty Python and having crying fits.

Before going on, I will quote Fr Ron Rolheiser:

Is this making light of suicide? No. Anyone who has ever dealt with either the victim of a suicide before his or her death or with those grieving that death afterwards knows that it is impossible to make light of it. There is no pain like the one suicide inflicts. Nobody who is healthy wants to die and nobody who is healthy seeks to burden his or her loved ones with this kind of pain. And that's the point: This is only done when someone isn't healthy. (X)

And now, I shall go on with what I was saying

My relief was born from more than just this, though. Or, rather, it is not that simple. It never is, I'm told.

Three years beforehand, between the Christmas of 2009 and the New Year ('09/'10) dad had threatened and attempted to commit suicide three times. I was so angry with him at the third time that I ignored his suicide-note-text (it was the third in 5 days) and continued dancing at the Ballroom, making the decision not to talk to him. It took me eleven months of carefully ignoring his calls, text messages and attempts to see me face-to-face before I was ready to make contact with him.

In November of 2010 I had decided that the best way was to call him and read a prepared monologue that ended with an option of him sending me a letter in reply and I did so.

The reply made it quite plain to me that dad blamed me for his suicide attempts almost a year earlier.
What was I to do with that information other than withdraw from the one I had so grievously injured and pray that both he and I got better?

It was almost a full year before I was able to attempt to make contact with him again. I read another monologue, this one ending with an invitation to meet me for coffee on entirely my terms. We met and when we did so, he denied that he'd ever accused me of causing his suicidal ... however you finish this sentence. It was almost too much for me to bear, however I knew how much my non-communication with dad was hurting my brother, so I forged on, trying to mend what was beyond broken. Shattered comes to mind. So does the phrase "ground into dust."

I need to make it abundantly clear that God, as through my entire life, was with me and has been with me. I know that God uses all things for the good of those who love Him, just as Saint Paul says. It is so important for you, my reader, to know that God is always - always - with us: He dwells within us by our Baptism, where we are marked with His Sign. God never forsakes those whom He loves. God loves each and everyone of us.

Moreover, He is full of compassion; He is abounding in mercy; He is full of tenderness and love.

There is nothing, ever, that can keep Him from us.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2282-2283) says that

Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.
We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

And yet I finish with more from Fr Rolheiser; I do so as a means for me to lead into my next post on this topic, whenever it is that I write that.

Knowing all of this however, doesn't necessarily take away our pain (and anger) at losing someone to suicide. Faith and understanding aren't meant to take our pain away but to give us hope, vision, and support as we walk within it. 

More from Let Me Be Catholic

“How was Mass?”

 

Which made me think:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Heard There Was A Secret Chord

Or, Feeling Like King Saul

There are a few songs at the moment which, even if I'm not playing all the time, I would like to be.

The first, here, is from the Divine Office. It is the Hymn for Morning Prayer of the Office for the Dead. It will be the Communion Hymn for dad's Requiem Mass.

Remember those, O Lord
Who in Your peace have died
Yet may not gain love's high reward
'Til love is purified.

With You they faced death's night
Sealed with Your victory sign;
Soon may the splendor of Your Light
On them forever shine.

Sweet is their pain yet deep
'TIl perfect love is born;

Their long night watch they gladly keep
Before Your radiant morn.

You love is their great joy;
Your will their one desire;
As finest gold without alloy
Refine them in love's fire;

For them we humbly pray:
Perfect them in Your love.
O, may we share eternal Day
With them in Heav'n above!

This next is one is a sing that I've liked since it was first shown to me (h/t to Conface.) I first liked it because it's the first theologically decent song about the Book of the Appocalypse that I've heard in a long while; I then begun to like it because of a few lines in one of the verses which 'spoke' to me, as it were; I now like it because it is related to the First Reading from dad's funeral, the discussions we've been having at The Presbytery and - even more - because of those same lines.

For all the thirsty in need of the river
For all the sleeping hearts waking from their slumber
For everyone still standing at the shoreline, come

For all the hurting souls running from their healer
For all the skeptics running from an answer
Let everyone who hears these words say come

For the Spirit and the Bride say come
Yeah, the Spirit and the Bride say come

For all the Pharisees, empty on the inside
For all the lovers who spent their love on a lie
For the forgotten, the Father's heart says come

For all the fatherless looking for approval
For all the daughters who've never heard they're beautiful
Let everyone who hears these words say come

For the Spirit and the Bride say come
Yeah, the Spirit and the Bride say come
For the Spirit and the Bride say come
Yeah, the Spirit and the Bride say come

Amen, amen
Come, Lord Jesus, come again
Until then, until then
Grace and peace be ours, amen
Amen, amen
Come, Lord Jesus, come again
Until then, until then
Grace and peace be ours, amen
Till You come again
Peace be ours, amen
Till You come again
Till You come again

For the Spirit and the Bride say come
Yeah, the Spirit and the Bride say come

Arise, envious sun, and kill the fair moon...

I really need to stop doing this; it happens so often now that I don't even realise until it's too late. Or, rather, too early. What I mean is this. It's now sometime after 3 am and I really only thought that it was almost-midnight. I must say, though, that this is the first time in several years that such has happened for the reason it has tonight; namely, that I got lost on the internet. Usually, it's because I'm in a Chapel somewhere, or at SBG, talking with Fr Martin and Br Gilbert.

I say that I need to stop doing this, but perhaps I just need to adopt a nocturnal lifestyle.
Or a semi-nocturnal one.
I could do "all-nighters" on Friday, Saturday and Sunday (or at least the latter two) and spend Monday recovering, in order to function well on Tuesdays.

It's when my mind is overtired that I stop filtering my thoughts and I believe that such a lack of filter is probably good for me to some extent. I don't know if everyone habitually stops their trains of thought when they get close to any topic that causes them discomfort or pain; I don't even know if anyone else does it. I know that I over do it.

You see, it is common  place for me to chose not to think about a certain topic because my inability to not-feel about it is diminished. Or, not diminished so much as nonexistent. And feeling is dangerous.

And I'm writing in sentence fragments.

Even thinking about that fact that I actively chose to not-feel about certain things is a train of thought I usually halt as soon as I am able. Such thought is too dangerous because it comes much too close to actually feeling.

Related to feelings:
I think a large portion of the reason I make friends with guys so much easier than with girls (have I ever wondered about that 'out loud' on this blog before?) is because guys typically show their feelings less. It is way easier for me to talk about abstract concepts than it is for me to talk about practical ways of doing things. However, the difference between the two types of conversation (in the order of difficulty) is almost minuscule when compared to the difference between practical-type conversations and those which revolve around feelings and emotions. (If such an occasion ever occurs, I tend to emote, rather than feel because emoting is further removed from my self.)

Yeah, so, I'm not comfortable with myself; I ought to be and I'm not. I ought to be because my Holy Guardian Angel is and he is an immediate expression of God's Love [x] and, since God is Love (1 Jn 4:8,) my Angel is an immediate expression of God's Self.

That last sentence is an immediate expression of my ability to write my best theology papers at this time of whichever day it is.

Anyway; if God is comfortable with me - or at the very least, deigns to be with me and provide for my every need, and many of my wants - I ought to be comfortable with myself. Yet, here I go again: I am taking a subject which ought to transform the way I live, act, think and (frankly) feel and turning it into an intellectual exercise.

Back to the being-friends-with-guys thing.
Guys don't typically need to have "How do you feel about that?" conversations all that often, at least when compared to girls. Moreover, when girls aren't like that, they are typically holding a "This is how I felt about it:" conversation. I dislike the first and find the second one draining.
Typically, too, guys seem better at comfortable silences wherein I can allow my mind to wander to not-feeling.

Further, although I don't think that me having a larger number of guy-friends than the other is problematic per se, I do believe that I need to learn to be more comfortable around other women.

There are, of course, a few notable exceptions to both parts of this 'rule,' none of whom I will name but all of whom I hope will both recognise themselves and tell me such.



I am not going to pretend that this post has been entirely coherent, but thus endeth the lesson.

Metaphor

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor?s=t&ld=1089

John 6:47-62

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." 

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper'na-um. Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?" 

 Obviously, Jesus is speaking metaphorically. That's why He says "Truly, truly;" twice.
I mean, He was clearly mucking around and everyone knew it. That's why they "disputed among themselves," and said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to is?"

Indeed! Who can listen to this outrageous statement that Jesus is "the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is [Jesus'] flesh?"
Here's the thing, all snark aside: Jesus was serious and not speaking in metaphor when He said that "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you," and everyone around him knew it. When Jesus says that He is the Vine (John 15), no one asks how He could be a plant; when He says that He is the Door by which the sheep enter (John 10), no one asked how He could be made of wood.
No, instead, they wondered how a fellow Jew could command that they drink blood when God, through Noah, commands them the exact opposite (Gen 9:3-6)

"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it and of man; of every man's brother I will require the life of man.Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.

 Do you think Christ, who willed all to be saved (cf 2 Pet 3:9; 1 Tim 2:3-4) would let a whole bunch of people just walk away from Him, whose name is the only one "under heaven given among men by which we must be saved?"
It is an utterly outrageous thing to say that we must eat the flesh of a Man in order to live "because of [Him]." What makes this even more outrageous is that this Man is God. Surely no where else in the history of world religions has a a religion's founder and very God (or god) commanded that their followers eat their flesh!
Yet, the earliest theologian of Christianity, Saint Paul, clearly states in 1 Corinthians 11 that

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

Not only then, did those around Him know that Jesus was not speaking in metaphor, but His earliest followers figured it out, too. Similarly, a host of Church Fathers believed that Jesus was being serious when He said it.

Now, if Jesus wasn't speaking metaphorically and He really does want all men to be saved, then He must have left a way for us to eat His Body and drink His Blood.

There must be some historical link between Sts Paul, Peter, James, John and the other 'apostolic men' (that is to say, men both who were Apostles and who were around at the same time as them) and now. This historical link must be more than superficial and it must contain the  ability to 'confect' Jesus' body and blood.

Where can this be found?

Sources:
Eucharist in Scripture http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html
RSV Bible translations http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bible.pl

Wish List

You know how some girls have a list of everything they'd like in their ideal husband?
Well, the guy Whom I want to have a spousal relationship with is perfect.

This is my list of things that I think would ideally express my relationship to Him, lived within a Community.

• Habits
• Adoration
• All the Hours of the Church
• Silence
• Study
• Daily Adoration
• Daily Mass
• Daily Rosary
• Strict following of the Rule
• Saints in that Order
• Penance
• Use of Latin
• Some Active Apostolate
• 
  

Writing.

I havn't written here in a long time.
The poems I've posted have been written for other purposes.


This, however, is a vain attempt at writing something, different.

Stuff it. That's not going to work.
I can not currently put what I'm thinking or feeling into sentences and paragraphs.
That's why my tumblog has been overused of late.

I want to write something that is at once meaningful and universal.
I want to write something that is at once interesting and personal.
I want to write something that is at once poigniant and popular.

I want to write something at once.

What Hypocrisy?

Everyone who reads my other blog Kelly Thinks (a little more often) knows how much I respect the consistency and un-hypocrisy of the pro-choicers who choose to debate me.
Or, at least, how much I would if any of them were either consistent or un-hypocritical.

One of the most common objections that may be merited as real objections (there are many that cannot be merited as such) against pro-life arguments is that we never cite unbiased material.

Now, perhaps I have jumped the gun a little and the citations made to me by pro-choicers recently have not been hypocritical. Or, perhaps, they cannot be blamed for their hypocrisy. Perhaps stfuhypocrisy is really just a fan of irony; maybe stfuprolife is actually interested in non-biased material, even if it happens to show data that turns out to be in favour of not killing children.
Maybe, even though stfuprolife says that they “don’t need to know the difference between pro-life and anti-choice” and that they can “respect a pro-lifer”,[source] they just chose to have that name out of irony. Or something.

However, I think one of these two situations is much more likely: either these people don’t care that they’re being hypocritical because if we post information that only they can agree with, and they post information only they can agree with, then any undecided person only has access to one type of information. Or, with all the honesty that they can manage, the pro-choicers who have recently sent me links and citations believe that everything they send to me, the definitions that they choose to use and the reports that they choose to cite are all completely unbiased.

Here’s the thing: they aren’t.
The following is a link as part of a reply that I was recently sent by stfuprolife. The link to what they said is above.

A fetus is not a child.  It is not a person.  It is simply a potential person.  It is human, but not a human being.  It cannot be an individual if it’s not a separate being, it is depending and residing within someone else’s body.  So by definition, logic, and fact, a fetus simply cannot be considered an individual human being..

Missing Book

So I recently realised that I'm missing my book which contains all of George Orwell's novels.
Aparently it's not at mum's.
And it's not at mine.
Does anyone have any idea where it could have got to?

Right Now:

Outside my window

the wind blows the palm fronds that are just visible from in front of my neighbours apartment.

I am thinking

about how to save the world; or, at least, the culture.

I am hearing

traffic noise and said wind

I am thankful for

the graces I recieve, even though I am totally unworthy of them.

I am learning

about the Culture of Death, the Culture of Life, and, slowly, about myself.

I am creating

nothing, since 'create' is to make something out of nothing.

I am going

to get motivated to write lots about my recent trip.

I am reading

Light of the World, an interview with Pope Benedict XVI (2010)

I am hoping

to act on what I've been thinking about (see above)

Around the house

is pretty spotless; so is my room; we had an inspection this week.

One of my favourite things is

rain drops on roses; no, seriously.

Formation of Lectors

Last night's Mass was, unfortunately, not the Vigil Mass for Pentecost, but a Mass of Pentecost Day without the Sequence. That's fine.
What was more unfortunate was the obvious lack of formation for the Lector. Please note that I am not decrying her, or her reading but using this as an example for why Lectors must recieve proper formation. Or, at the very least, they must practice in front of someone who has been formed and who has clear knowledge of the meaning and pronounciation of the words.

An excerpt from text of the First Reading for today's Mass:

'Surely,' they said, 'all thses men speaking are Galileans? How doesit happen that each of us hears them in his own native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; people from Mesopotamia, Judaea and Cappadocia, Pontious and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya round Cyrene; as well as visitors from Rome - Jews and proselytes alike - Cretans and Arabs; we hear them all preaching in our own language about the marvels of God.'

 Last night, I listened to it as it was rendered (by someone who speaks english fluently and whose accent is Australian) as:

'Surely,' they said, 'all thses men speaking are Galileos? How doesit happen that each of us hears them in his own native language? Partyians, Meds and Eel-lam-ites; people from Meso-pota-mia, Judaea and Kappadotchia, Ponus and Asia, Fi-yi-ga and Pam-py-la, Egypt and the parts of Lib-ya round Kine; as well as visitors from Rome - Jews and pro-styles alike - Creations and Ara-bins; we hear them all preaching in our own language around the morals of God.'

Granted, these are somewhat difficult place names, but what struck me was Creations (usually, if it's mangled, it comes out as cretins) and around the morals of God.
These two mangalings showed, more than the others, that she had not practiced and did not know the meaning of the passage.
At the best of times, it is difficult to proclaim the Readings: when you have not read the passage before, it is often a reading and not a proclaimation. When you do not understand what you are reading, it is that much harder.


One upon a time, the Latin Rite had a Order [as in Holy Orders] called the Subdiaconate. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The duties of a subdeacon are to serve the deacon at Mass; to prepare the bread and wine and sacred vessels for the Holy Sacrifice; to present the chalice and paten at the Offertory, and pour water into the wine for the Eucharist; to chant the Epistles solemnly; to wash the sacred linen."

His role was similar to modern forma ordinaria Acolyte and,  had to have formation before having recieved the Order, and taken his duties. He was also olbliged (under the 1917 Code of Canon Law) to pray all the Canonical Hours.

The Motu Proprio of Pope Paul VI Ministeria Quaedam that became effective of January 1st, 1973 split the role of the subdiaconate into two ministries. Since ministries are open to lay people, these roles were no longer restricted to those hoping to recieve Holy Orders.

3.     Two ministries, adapted to present-day needs, are to be preserved in the whole Latin Church, namely, those of reader [lector] and acolyte. The functions heretofore assigned to the subdeacon are entrusted to the reader [lector] and the acolyte; consequently, the major order of subdiaconate no longer exists in the Latin Church. There is, however, no reason why the acolyte cannot be called a subdeacon in some places, at the discretion of the conference of bishops.
4.     The reader [lector] is appointed for a function proper to him, that of reading the word of God in the liturgical assembly. Accordingly, he is to proclaim the readings from sacred Scripture, except for the gospel in the Mass and other sacred celebrations; he is to recite the psalm between the readings when there is no psalmist; he is to present the intentions for the general intercessions in the absence of a deacon or cantor; he is to direct the singing and the participation by the faithful; he is to instruct the faithful for the worthy reception of the sacraments. He may also, insofar as may be necessary, take care of preparing other faithful who are appointed on a temporary basis to read the Scriptures in liturgical celebrations. That he may more fittingly and perfectly fulfill these functions, he is to meditate assiduously on sacred Scripture. [He has to know what he's saying, what it means. Moreover, he has to meditate assiduously on, not just the Readings that he is to proclaim that week, but on the whole of sacred Scripture.]

***

Interestingly,

7.     In accordance with the ancient tradition of the Church, institution to the ministries of reader [lector] and acolyte is reserved to men.

To any reader with information on when women were allowed to start proclaiming the readings, please share this informaiton in the comment box below. References to specific documents would be great.

That your joy may be complete...

I was doing some preparation for today's Mass when I stumbled upone this quote from St Fancis de Sales:

“The one has great need and capacity to receive, the other great abundance and inclination to bestow. Nothing is more suited to indigence than affluence; and the kinder affluence is, the stronger its inclination to give. The more needy indigence is, the more eager it is to be satiated. The meeting then, of affluence and indigence is sweet and happy; and we could scarcely say which should enjoy the more contentment, abundance to be communicated, or deficiency to be filled, had not our Lord told us that it is a more blessed thing to give than to receive.”

— St. Francis de Sales

Just imagine the joy that fills your heart when you recieve Our Lord after having prepared well for doing so. This joy is nothing compared to the great joy that we will recieve upon entering His presence; this joy, again, is small compared to the joy He has in giving Himself to you, to us; to me.

As my Parish Priest constantly reiterates: "If He could give you more than Himself, He would; but He can't becuase He's infinite and you can't get more than infintie."

God Doesn't Exist

God doesn’t exist. No-one's God does. You have absolutely no evidence for it.
And even if He did, it’s not like He’s loving: just look at all the cruel things that have happened in your life; surely that’s proof against an all-loving God.

What? You think that just because you exist, He must have had some play in that? You think that just because you can come up with reasons for the cruelty He’s supposed to have inflicted on you, that proves He really does love you? You think that just because heaps of other people say they have God means that He really exists?
Oh, you’ve seen God and He told you that He was God.
Well; that changes everything.

But, hang on, what if you’re lying to me?
Sure, so you’re an honest person; but what if you were deluded into seeing God because you so desperately wanted to, because you’d heard other people talk about Him and you really wanted to experience it your self?
Are you sure you weren’t experiencing something other than what you thought it was and that you didn’t project your longings onto what you actually experienced?


You parents don’t exist. No-one’s parents do. You have absolutely no evidence for it.
And even if they did, it’s not like they’re loving: just look at all the cruel things that have happened in your life; surely that’s proof against all-loving parents.

What? You think that just because you exist, they must have had some play in that? You think that just because you can come up with reasons for the cruelty they’re supposed to have inflicted on you, that proves they really does love you? You think that just because heaps of other people say they have parents means that they really exists?
Oh, you’ve seen your parents and they told you that they were your parents.
Well; that changes everything.

But, hang on, what if you’re lying to me?
Sure, so you’re an honest person; but what if you were deluded into seeing parents because you so desperately wanted to, because you’d heard other people talk about them and you really wanted to experience it your self?
Oh. It was a tangible experience.
Are you sure you weren’t experiencing something other than what you thought it was and that you didn’t project your longings onto what you actually experienced?

Mary Had a Little Lamb

Lauren and I were talking the other night about hidden meanings.
We started reading religious (specifically Christian) connotations into various Nursery Rhymes.
These connotations, at least for the most part, are not actually there in the Rhyme.
Saying that, some of them sounded convincing, at least to us.

To Lauren, at this point, I'd like to say that I've changed some of the interpretations that we discussed to make them sound slightly more plausible.

Mary had a little lamb, little lamb, little lamb.

Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow.

[Mary, Our Lady, gave birth to Jesus who in true humility (littleness) became the Spotless Lamb for us]
Everywhere that Mary went, Mary went, Mary went;

Everywhere that Mary went, that lamb was sure to go.

[Mary leads us always to Christ. That is to say, wherever Mary is venerated (hyperdulia), Our Lord will necessarily be adored (latria)]

It followed her to school one day, school one day, school one day;

It followed her to school one day: it was against the rules.

[Even in Cahtolic schools and institutions who use Our Lady's name and are under Her patronage, it is often politically incorrect to mention Our Lord, Jesus Christ, the one to whom she leads.]

 

Chords

Rather than being all 'deep' tonight, I'm just going to post up some chord progressions.


Reader, tell me what you think and why.



Gm, ||:Gm7 (1st), Em(1st), Cm (root), AbM (1st), Bb sus2,sus4 (2nd), :|| need to find a chord to finish

Ebm, Cm, Gm, Ab, Bb :|| EbM

F7, Bdim7 :||