I am a bad prolifer.

It’s not a matter of where I stand on the issue of abortion. Few political hot buttons are as unmuddled as this one. Abortion kills a human being and is no more just than the slaughter of innocents in a time of war. The fetus is not the mother’s body. The science is clear. Difficult circumstances should be met with compassion but not used to justify murdering the unborn.

What I mean is that I don’t do anything to help the cause. I avoid sharing prolife posts on Facebook for fear of further estranging my aunts who have not yet come around to see the truth of things. I don’t usually even consider going to prolife marches because I have very little faith in the efficacy of such displays. I don’t go and pray outside of abortion clinics or volunteer at crisis pregnancy centers. I’m not a member of the prolife club on campus. I don’t go to prolife dinners or pray prolife rosaries or donate to prolife fundraisers.

And there’s no real reason for my inactivity and negligence and by-standerness.

Abortion is deplorable. The least I can do is say a Hail Mary.

I was having a conversation with a fellow English major the other day, and he said that one of the gifts Wallace Stevens has as a poet is the ability to educate the reader’s emotions. According to him, when you begin reading Wallace Stevens, you aren’t quite sure how you’re supposed to feel in response to his poems, but over time he teaches you. I’ve never read Wallace Stevens myself, but I’m going to run with this idea because I think the Psalms do something similar.

Lately I have found myself frequently marveling at the vast variety and depth of feeling that David (/the Psalmist(s)) conveys throughout the Psalms. It has been my experience that some emotions come more easily to me in prayer. Specifically, I find the psalms of repentance easier to correspond with interiorly than the psalms of praise. However, praise is the true essence of the Psalms. All the penitential psalms end in praise. The whole book of Psalms ends with a symphony of praise. Undeniably, some of the most beautiful psalms are the psalms of praise (I’m thinking of Psalm 8 at the moment). I even think I heard once that the word ‘psalm’ itself means ‘praise.’

But I also think it is ok that I came to the Psalms not really knowing how to make the corresponding interior movement of praise. Because praying the Psalms educates the heart in how to make that movement. The Psalms come at praise from every imaginable angle. From “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” to “Praise the Lord all you nations, extol him all you peoples” the psalms lead us to praise. We praise the Lord because our enemies dug us a pit but fell in it themselves, because God made the sea monsters to play with, because the Lord’s voice flashes flames of fire, because He gave us his law and what a marvelous law it is, because He is the king of glory the Lord the mighty the valiant, because He has hidden His face from us, because we know he will not forsake us. In every situation and for every reason the psalmist returns to praise.

More tentatively now — obviously praise is a really important part of our ‘divine’ interactions, if you will. From what I understand, heaven is supposed to be one never ending praise fest and our time here on earth is time to train for that, time to get our hearts in shape. And, perhaps, part of that training needs to take place in our interactions with other people. I think I am forgetful of this sometimes. I forget to praise. But I think genuine praise for a job well done might have the potential to offer an antidote to the overwhelming negativity and loneliness and, in a word, muck floating around the world. And, of course, inasmuch as our human interactions are never entirely divorced from our divine interactions, remembering to praise will also serve as training for that day when all our days turn into one eternal day and we join the holy ones that have gone before us in singing never ending hymns of praise. And, in the meantime, I suspect it will also make the interior movement of praise in prayer a little easier.

gloria ad Deum.

I did something just now which I have not done for a good long while. I read a feminist’s rant. If you are curious, you can read it for yourself here. The post is titled “Why I don’t want women to become ‘equal to men’,” which I thought had potential for containing some true insight. I don’t particularly want to be equal to men either. A lot of the post goes over all the ways in which men have problems, create problems, contribute to problems, and are misogynistic to their very cores. The author’s point is that while women are “oppressed by the patriarchy,” men are also harmed by it. They are just too dumb to notice. She dreams of the day when men and women can work together to entirely dismantle the toxic patriarchy which is so harmful to everyone.

Why did I read the whole thing? Because I was hoping she would put forth some positive vision of what she thinks women have to offer the world. She lists some policy changes that would be included in her non patriarchal Utopia, and this is the brief version of it:

A world where the patriarchy no longer controls women, kills female babies because they were unwanted, hacks off vulva and clitoris of women, revels in porn, excuses everything with rape myths, positions ‘woman’ as the ultimate insult to men, sells women’s bodies and denies women the right to healthcare and advice about their own reproductive systems.

The thing is, I love a lot of these ideas. We have a radical feminist who seems to be acknowledging both that abortion kills a baby and that a disproportionate amount of the time it’s the baby girls that are killed. Of course I’d like female genital mutilation to end. I’d love to live in a world where porn and rape and human trafficking don’t exist. Inasmuch as women are actually denied healthcare and good advice about their reproductive systems, these too are problems I would like to see solved.

So where’s my problem? There’s not a compelling anthropology underpinning her view. I want to know what she thinks of ἄνθρωπος (humankind) and inasmuch as ἄνθρωπος is different between ἀνήρ (man) and γυνὴ (woman), what are those differences? What is man? what is woman? A lot of what she advocates for are true human goods that we should all be advocating for. But some of the things she takes to be problems I hesitate to get on board with.

For example, why shouldn’t guys balk at the thought of some other guy calling them a girl? I think insults like “you’re such a girl” have a lot less to do with a negative attitude towards women and a lot more to do with the simple fact that boys are not girls. It’s like, why is it insulting to be told that you look like a monkey? Because you are not in fact a monkey. For a monkey to look like a monkey is a beautiful thing and there is a kind of dignity to it. For a man to resemble a monkey implies that he is not living up to his dignity as man. Likewise, it is a beautiful thing for a woman to be a woman. But for a man to resemble a woman is not proper to his nature as man. So it’s insulting. I’ll grant that when these sorts of insults are used in order to perpetuate a shallow understanding of the differences between men and women it’s a problem. Boys shouldn’t be shamed for crying, for example.

But I’d also like to challenge the notion that girls are just so much better at handling their emotions in a healthy way. That’s simply not true. Learning how to handle emotions in a healthy way is hard all around. Girls have a tendency to hold onto things – both harms and hopes – in a way which prevents our true flourishing. I have an idea, which I’ll develop more in a later post, that space is a really helpful way of conceptualizing the feminine interior. We have this space inside of us which is really freaking sensitive (regardless of how we come across to people) and we have to learn to pay attention to  what’s happening in it.

Maybe the argument to be had is that society grants us permission to have emotions, while it ubiquitously suppresses the emotional lives of men. If that’s the issue at play I have two responses: On the one hand, I see what you’re saying with regards to men and will grant that this is something we should have a good think about. And that conversation needs to involve a lot of men. On the other hand, I don’t agree with you that society is ok with letting women have emotions. Society grants permission for women to be happy. If women are angry they are bitches, and if sad it’s probably just because it’s their time of the month. This all points to a really shallow understanding of the range and depth of human emotions, human experiences, human nature.

In conclusion, I find contemporary feminism as incoherent as ever. While it advocates for some truly excellent things, its philosophical presuppositions are deeply flawed (the post was saturated with Marxist terminology) and its anthropology is shallow at best.

I promise the next post will be biblical.

gloria ad Deum.

I think it was by way of Rabbi Sacks’s book To Heal A Fractured World that I learned ruth used to be a word in common usage. It means ‘kindness.’ Bring to mind your most vivid image of ‘ruthless’ and its precise opposite would be ‘ruth.’

If Ruth is a true exemplar of her name (as I think she is), then I think we need to rethink what we mean by the word kindness. This story enriches ‘kindness’ with shades of deep affection, loyalty, and generosity.

This is my favorite passage:

Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her. And [Naomi] said, “See, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law.” But Ruth said, “Entreat me not to leave you or to return from following you; for where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God; where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the LORD do so to me and more also if even death parts me from you.” And when Naomi saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more. (Ruth 1:14-18, RSV)

I would like to start off by saying that Orpah did nothing wrong. I don’t think she was lacking in virtue or love for her mother-in-law. She was following Naomi’s wishes which were only concerned with the good of both Orpah and Ruth. They would be much more likely to find new husbands if they stayed in Moab than if they came with Naomi to Bethlehem. Besides, after Naomi’s sons died they no longer had any obligations to Naomi. Orpah did the normal thing. Ruth is just a little bit crazy, and that’s why the story is about her.

I do not know what motivated Ruth to make the choice to follow Naomi. Do we ever know the internal mechanism that inspires loyalty like that? It is more than just a filial bond, because Orpah had that much too. It makes me think of Penelope and Odysseus. Homer tells us that the two enjoyed a harmony of mind and soul which transcended twenty years of absence. Ruth’s declaration to Naomi is another note of that Homeric harmony.

I wonder about Naomi’s silence. Was it outwardly begrudging and inwardly grateful? I kind of think so. Naomi does not appear to have come across the idea “the power of positive thinking,” as the next verses make clear. They arrive in Bethlehem and Naomi declares to everyone that they should call her Mara now, which means ‘bitter’ “for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me.” (‘Naomi’ means ‘pleasant.’) Her self assigned new name does not reappear, and I take this as a signal from the author that things are going to turn out pleasantly for Naomi after all, which they do. Despite her tendency towards despair, I think Naomi was probably deeply grateful for Ruth’s company. Ruth is a do-er rather than a complainer; the sort of woman who makes a good companion when the journey is bound to be long and the result uncertain. She keeps her focus on the task at hand, on what she can do, in order to keep nagging worries at bay. Naomi seems likely to get overwhelmed by the difficulty of a situation and thereby rendered helpless. So Ruth is a nice counterweight.

Ruth is both bold enough and humble enough to believe that others will be kind to her just as she is kind to them. That’s the disposition behind Ruth’s choices throughout the whole tale, and it results in the generosity Ruth showed to Naomi at the beginning being returned to her tenfold through the generosity of Boaz by the end.

gloria ad Deum.

(P.S. I highly recommend To Heal A Fractured World. Not only does Rabbi Sacks break open some of the Bible’s best name games, he writes beautifully about how we can live the Bible’s ethic of social responsibility today.)

 

It’s traditional for Saturday Masses to be celebrated as memorials of the Blessed Virgin when there isn’t a Marian feast earlier in the week. It’s one of many little things in the Catholic church that I really like a lot. This morning at the abbey was one of those Saturdays for mom. So in honor of that, I’d like to offer an explanatory note about the title: Luke 2:19.

Because I’m a nerd, here it is in the Greek: ἡ δὲ Μαριὰμ πάντα συνετήρει τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα συμβάλλουσα ἐν τῇ κραδίᾳ αὐτῆς.

The RSV translation renders this verse: “But Mary kept all of these things, pondering them in her heart.”

The verbs are interesting to me. συνετήρει’s range of meaning includes: protect, keep safe, preserve, keep in good condition, remember, treasure up. συμβάλλουσα (technically a participle, don’t hold that against me) can mean think about, consider, or ponder when it’s a transitive verb, but some of the intransitive meanings are illuminating too — discuss, confer; debate.

Mary remembered all these things. She treasured them. She protected them, kept them safe, preserved them. While at the same time she pondered them. I’m really partial to ponder here because it conveys the weightiness of the activity. What does it mean to ponder? I think of it as a quiet sifting of layers. A gentle turning over of the memory.

There is something in those intransitive alternatives that tempts me. They are more active, maybe even agitated, activities. That’s not what Mary is doing here, but it’s sometimes more characteristic of what my interior looks like.

I chose Luke 2:19 as the title of this site because I think it describes the activity perhaps most characteristic of women. We store things up in our hearts — memories, emotions, worries, ideas, and problems — and we ponder them on the good days and thrash about debating them within ourselves on the bad days.

What is it exactly that Mary is keeping in her heart? It’s the news that the shepherds bring on the night of the Nativity that “an Angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear” but then they were instructed not to fear, but rather to rejoice because the Savior was born and lying in a manger, and then they could not help but rejoice because “a multitude of heavenly host” appeared praising God. So these crazy men pick up in the middle of the night and go to Bethlehem to bother this poor woman who has just given birth (in a stable, no less). Everyone else marvels at the shepherds. On one reading, maybe Mary ponders because she has no energy left to do anything else. But on another reading, maybe Mary ponders because she too has had the Angel of the Lord come to her and she has that knowing calmness that comes with intuitions and which allows her to trust that grace is flowing in abundance here.

gloria ad Deum.