Pillow Talk

Sometime after a child manages to climb out of the crib, he or she decides that Mom and Dad’s bed is the only place to hang out after dark. Consider our latest two-year-old, who views head butts as a means of greeting a sleeping adult. At four in the morning, usually one is only dimly aware of having the covers invaded. Most of our earlier two year olds were content to snuggle up to the parent of their choice and hope general fatigue would prevent eviction.

Not so this one. She Who Would Be Two must have an audience on which to work her kewpie doll toddler magic, so Mom or Dad must wake up.

Wham!****

Curiously, the intensity of pain increases as one becomes more alert.

Oh, ow, ow, Ow, Ow, OW, OW, OW! I’m up. I’m up. Ow! I’m up.

She Who Would Be Two, having accomplished objective one, has started phase two of her plan, singing a soft sweet lullaby as if nothing happened. She hopes to melt any potential irritation brought on by a throbbing head and tender nose with cuteness. She looks at me and giggles. It works. Her Father and I the Mom have a standing rotation of alternate nights as to who gets to handle wandering monsters. Nothing happened last night.

It figures.

“Come here.” I the Mom take her in my arms and pull the covers over us both, hoping she will drop off quickly and then I can carry her to her own bed. I the Mom am completely gone in less than a minute.

It’s boring sitting in the dark with two sleeping adults who should be up and playing games with She Who Would Be Two.

She dimly recognizes that if she pushes too hard, either Her Father or I the Mom will carry her back to her own bed. So She Who Would be Two tries finding a comfortable position. For the uninitiated to the world of toddlers, this involves stretching to one’s maximum height and lying down perpendicular to the adults, ensuring that most of the real estate of the mattress is in the toddler’s domain. (It’s just more comfortable that way).

Adults vaguely aware of losing property rights, scoot and contort their bodies in an effort to remain unconscious for as long as possible, even allowing legs or arms to drape off the edge or surrendering all covers and pillows as a concession for being allowed to continue sleeping. Alas, appeasement seldom works. She Who Would Be Two remains listless.

There is a phone next to the alarm clock, keys, wallet, a CD player and a lap top. She Who Would Be Two has watched her parents use these. They look like fun. I the Mom somehow register that in the middle of the night, something is not right and open one eye to discover the wallet has been emptied. She Who Would Be Two has also turned off the alarm and placed a call. She is still talking on the phone. Someone is answering her back.

Fully alert, I snatch the phone from her hands. "Hello." I say into the phone a bit too loudly. "I'm sorry my daughter..." It is a recording. I hand the phone back to my tearful daughter and tell her to hang up. She is satisfied with an "How Rude." look at me as she hangs the phone up.

Taking back the keys and the wallet, she pouts at me. She's in the wrong and I feel bad. She sucks her thumb and shuts her eyes in a contented smile and pulls the covers up. I was going to move her. Looking at her sweetly almost sleeping, I can't believe I would be so cruel. Then I'm mad I'm such a sap.

BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! The early get up and agoing alarm has sounded, waking She Who Would Be Two but not Her Father. She cries.

The conscious adult I the Mom must then make the calculated judgment, difficult at a predawn time. Should I get up? Should I take her to her bed? Can I go back to sleep? If I get up now I could….insert tedious task here.

Changing diapers, offering water and tucking in doesn’t earn much time in the morning, but it does stand the outside chance of predisposing She Who Would Be Two to go to sleep or at least lie quietly in the bed for a little while. Following the dutiful adult routine, the now completely zombified I the Mom returns to bed, just in time for the second nag alarms to sound their evil call. Hitting the snooze, I crawl under the covers, sleep is coming fast, I the Mom can feel it.

BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! I wake again, feeling the tender part of my nose, a parting gift from She Who Would Be Two. Making a fist to smash the alarm, I the Mom blink and survey the room. There is a new trail of toys showing the path the toddler took to get to Mom and Dad’s room. Picking up a stuffed monkey puppet, naked Barbie, three shoes, sippy cup and bed spread, I the Mom swallow a yawn while considering the morning ahead.

Can I collapse the schedule to grab another fifteen minutes or will slowness now result in a hectic day where every event would be easy if only I had fifteen more minutes then. Just as I’ve abandoned common sense and put my feet into the cave of the still warm blankets, She Who Would Be Two is back.

“Breakfast.” She Who Would Be Two says expectantly with all the innocent sweetness and full sincerity she can muster.

It’s not going to work this time I the Mom think as I set my will. I’m going to sleep.

“Breakfast.” She Who Would Be Two repeats.

When she ages, maybe I'll rechristen myself I The Mom Who Sleeps.

Small Success Thursday

This week, the Lenten resolution got harder and harder and harder.  I do know it's because the personal gritch doesn't want to lose.  She even makes playing into a chore.  Over the weekend, I played games. I ignored dishes and laundry.  I swallowed my irritation when I would discover a mess.  And all of that got me at the end of the weekend was upset.   I mean, I'd done what I was supposed to do.   But I'd done it for the wrong reasons; like chores to be checked off.  I hadn't played to play, I'd played instead of, or rather in hopes of, then getting everyone to do what I wanted, to tidy up. 

It's a petty pesky demon that personal gritch and she prefers that I go around saying, "I love you because" rather than doing "Beause I love you." 

Fortunately, we do not go into the desert alone. So this week I:

1) made it to my daughter's orientation for her high school. She got accepted and a scholarship last week. It was wonderful and sure made those four years sound like more fun than I remember.

2) Got not a yes but it wasn't a no, from a publishing company that asked me to put together a proposal and an outline for a book.  

3) Cleaned every kid's room one day and when one kid asked why, "Because I love you."

4) Made a list and a goal, one book a month.  Finishing up February's book. (It was designed to get me to finish the February book so I can start on March's selection). 

5) Wrote several pieces, some of which are still too raw and too personal to share.

6)  Recognized that all of this, even the parts we don't like, is supposed to be done, "Because I love you." and that again, this lesson must be beaten into my brain because it slips the moment a dish gets broken, a cup spilled or a homework assignment asks too much.   So I'm repeating to myself when we get hip deep in the mundane, "Because I love you." over and over again.

Have a Because I love you moment? Go share it at Family and Faith Live!

Jesus Said Both

It began at Notre Dame. The Observer refused to publish an article by law professor, Dr. Charles Rice. He has written a regular column for the student paper entitled, "Right or Wrong" since 1992. The piece not run addressed the recent protests of University anti-discrimination policy because it did not include sexual orientation as one of the groups granted protection. Dr. Rice laid out the reasons why a Catholic university could not engage in such behavior, as it would be recognizing formally through policy, sinful behavior as a legitimate lifestyle choice. (His article is linked in the title).

He quoted cannon law in making the distinction that the inclination to homosexual activity was not in and of it self, a sin, but the actionable behavior was. Dr. Rice further reminded the ostensibly Catholic readership that only in a sacramental union could sex find its proper moral context and thus bring the individuals in question closer to God. This is not popular or political opinion, it is Catholic teaching. The law professor put forth the radical notion that a university that professes to be Catholic should and in this case does practice its Catholicism in all of its actions and policies.

The Observer editor pretended it was about column space; a fact disputed by the Dr. by citing his prior 17 year history of articles that indicated this one was much shorter. I suspect in this scenario, the editor is young and fears the consequences of publically witnessing such an unpopular view; or that the editor is young and disagrees with the Church. In either case, publically shaming the paper and the editor by bringing down the righteous wrath of the blogosphere probably won’t persuade him to consider the Church’s position more favorably. Winning the case might still lose the jury and we want to make a compelling argument to all who would hear it.

Looking at the article itself, I felt frustrated; the public pressure on Notre Dame to change its policies is not small and many who still love the University and what she is supposed to stand for worry that political correctness and public mood will sway those who draft policy to do the publically safe and easy thing. Those who hold the Church and her teachings dear knew the essence of the Canon law before it was cited by Rice. Those who think the Church is wrong and should change will not find the citing of the law a compelling argument against their position. Right now, to move hearts, to get people to listen, we need poetry. Citing Canon law might move a heart set against it but it is not the most effective weapon in this fight. How would we win those who felt it was right to censure Dr. Rice because they thought his thinking backwards, wrong and indicative of a prurient obsession with sex and homophobia?

The Pharisees could cite law, but Jesus taught the essence of the law using parables. Jesus told stories to move the hearts of those uncertain, strengthen the resolve of those who silently agreed but were fearful, and reprove those who willfully ignored or denied the essence of truth that gave birth to the many laws. He did not stone the adulterer, he did not condemn her, but he did say, "Go and sin no more." and that still matters as much as the "Judge not" part. Jesus said both. But I could see, everyone thinks the other side is the Pharasiee citing the law and holding the rocks; those citing Canon law and those citing the recent decisions in various states to have same sex marriages were both citing authorities to prove their case. 

These days, it's possible to envision a different story unfolding.

A group of outraged citizens indignant at a proselytizer for living a counter-cultural lifestyle and even publically proclaiming it to be true, declare him to be a homophobe promoting hate speech. They seize the offensive person who says such outlandish and outrageous things and bring him to the magistrate for judgment.

The trial is more of a formality really, as the various accusers who can prove the man said what he said and wrote what he wrote are already excoriating the defendant via twitters and blogs all over the internet. They'll expose his family to shame as a warning to others who engage in such behavior or believe such things and these viral scarlet letters will never be expunged. Society needs protection from people like him, and public virtual shredding seems as good a way as any to ensure justice is done as determined by the individual angry hearts in question. They will be satisfied.

A group of equally irritated righteous citizens lambast a University for failing to censure its students.  Their frustrations at seeing an instution they love perpetually stumble and seem lost in popular culture allows them to feel fully vindicated in seeing this senario as proof that the school has lost it's way and failed to hold true to the Church's teachings.   They cease donating, they call for resignations.  They prepare to encourage others via the internet. 

"Let Him who believes in God, not throw stones." is the verdict and all the bloggers hit send.

What is this about?

Let us consider why Catholicism holds that a man with a man and a woman with a woman and a man with a woman sans the sacrament are not equal to a sacramental union.

Catholicism can’t say all relationships are equal just because it is politically correct to do so. Catholicism is at its core about relationship, about Communion, about the Eucharist. We do not say it is only a symbol because the Eucharist is Christ present. We do not allow others to partake because they do not acknowledge this relationship or understand it to be authentic and true. They do not hold this great mystery to be real. Catholicism claims to be Truth, Universal Truth. Within that Truth is mercy, forgiveness, compassion, wisdom, and peace; and all of these are found through fidelity of the heart as rendered through service, obedience and love. We cannot say it is just bread or a symbol to make it more appealing or compelling or inclusive; the fact that it is not just bread or a symbol is WHY the Eucharist is compelling.

Just so, a Catholic University cannot morally shrug its shoulders and pretend that a non sacramental union regardless of orientation is the same as one consecrated just because popular sentiment would be appeased. A lay person is not the same as a priest; a single woman is not the same as a nun. A chaste relationship is not the same as an unchaste one. Simply put, Catholicism does not acknowledge truth as a relative concept, as being simply in the eye of the beholder. It does not accept the lie that all sexual behavior between consenting adults is equal and that God doesn’t care about such trivial animal matters amongst private individuals because God cares about every private individual and all of their relationships, thoughts, dreams and actions.

Catholicism holds to the radical notion that God cares about each of our souls individually, that each of us is the 100th sheep lost that needs to be found; that each of us is called to be in Communion with Christ. So we can't say we will support a sin with our policies, deliberately sanctioning a value we know places a soul at risk.  This is why this little matter between a professor and an editor is not so little; because the discussion needs to be had and right now, the atmosphere is so thick with the possibility of outrage, righteous and otherwise, that nothing can be heard and no hearts can be moved. We need to understand, but it is hard to bear the truth in our broken state; it is too hard even knowing our God is all loving. The landscape of the moral argument right now is not well known to the vast majority of Catholics and most of us are untrained for engaging in this discussion.

We will need Notre Dame to not simply hold to its values, but to be Catholic in all things, luminous and true, forgiving and instructive so that the Church body as a whole can have the Why's of the Canon law, rather than simply the Canon law itself. We need the "Allness" of the Eucharist to be revealed in this discussion, even though to some, it is obvious.  And we will all need to remember that each of us, is that 100th sheep, that adulterer caught by others in the act of sin, and the accuser poised with the stone; that we are everyone in every parable but the Good Shepherd, the Father of the Prodigal son, the owner of the vineyard who pays everyone with more generosity than they merit; those people in the story are God revealed in his love for us, and those people are who we are called to be. 

So in response to the controversy, perhaps the best we can do is to say "Neither do I condemn you." and  "Go and sin no more."  Bread and divinity, the Eucharist response is both.