Yippie! New computer parts are on their way. I'm actually moving into the 21st century. One of the problems with linux is that it'll literally run on anything. This is good, because you can use older hardware. This is also bad when your dissertation is computer-intensive, and your progress is bottlenecked by an ancient CPU. You don't want to replace your computer, because, by God, it still runs linux.

I'm saving a ton of money, since I buy parts. (Still need a new video card, since mine is AGP, and the new motherboard is PCI-E.) This is a tool, not a toy. Or so I keep telling myself. I hate making big purchases, even when I know they're necessary.

No Vista. I've seen vista, and it's a steaming heap. I'll stick with XP for as long as I possibly can, I think. (I dual boot.) I'm open for suggestions as to what to call the new computer. I had a gamelan naming scheme going on for awhile. Not stuck on it.

I inherited a digital camera, so I'm madly running around taking pictures of things. My oldest niece has been sending me pictures, so I'm returning the favor. I just hope an academic gamer-geek's life isn't too boring for her. I'm hoping the people upstairs left the door open to their patio, so I can go get a picture of the Space Needle from Chez Jen.

But I've taken a bunch of pictures of some of my knit finished objects. The whole gallery is here. Here's my first bit of fandom knitting. They're Rose's wrist warmers from the "Doomsday" episode of Doctor Who:



The pattern for them is here. Have I mentioned how easy it is to get a camera working under linux? Edit /etc/fstab, mount it, and you're good to go. USB Mass Storage Devices, I love you.

So a post over on Erin's blog got me thinking in a roundabout way about men and women. The original post was about some survey that Colleen Hammond did, in which a percentage of men are threatened by women in pants. In my response, I wondered if her sample of men isn't skewed.

I'm in a male-dominated field, and it's safe to say that all my colleagues are men. All of my professors in my field have been men, and those I studied with privately were also possessors of a Y chromosome. A few assholes aside (fortunately very few and far between), I've never had a problem. Certainly not with any of my professors--who've all been encouraging.

In the interest of full disclosure, I dress like a geek. My day job involves computer support, and it wouldn't be practical--or safe, considering some of the crawlspaces I'm in--to dress in overly girly clothes, not that I'd be comfortable wearing such things. Also I don't have the figure for overly revealing clothing. So it's geek chic for me. My colleagues and professors have always been nothing but professional with me, and I with them.

Am I "feminizing" my discipline, when that term usually refers to watering down rigor? I'm held to the same standards as anyone else in my program. One thing I find refreshing from my colleagues is that they're--sometimes brutally--honest. If I weren't toeing the line or doing my end of the work, I'd hear. Then again, where are the non-white people in my discipline? I can't think of any PoC in my department, much less among the faculty.

One of the more eye-opening moments came in the context of a seminar. Someone played a music video featuring scantily-clad, ultra-thin women. I anticipated the rest of the room being attracted to it. Newp. To a person, they were all disgusted by it. Comments ranged from "Ew, gross" to "Poor thing needs a cheeseburger."

So where are all these men that are so titillated by women, that they're resentful of them in pants and can't function when women are in "men's" jobs? I'm sure they're there, like I'm sure there are women who're inappropriate at a job. Resentful at my presence? Threatened by my jeans? Doesn't overly give my male colleagues any credit.

So I like curry. I like all kinds of curry. And I'm a total chili head, so I like spice. (As one friend put it when eating pho with me--"Hey, did you know your food is glowing?" And from the Hoopy Frood when eating Thai with me: "I can feel your food's heat from across the table." Others have mentioned something about my food not having anything on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.) What can I say? I can handle my spice.

I haven't made Thai curry in awhile--I was embarrassed to admit to my Thai roommates that I used curry paste as a base. Then I asked them for their recipe. It included pulling out a tub of curry paste from the fridge. Fry up some meat or protein. Dump a few healthy tablespoons of curry paste in. Cook with the meat for a bit. Then dump your veggies (bamboo shoots, mushrooms, whatever) cover with coconut milk. Give it a splash of fish sauce to taste. (You can also add lime leaves or basil leaves.) Serve over rice. (Jasmine.)

Japanese curry: Brown some cut-up meat. Cube some potatoes, carrots and onion. I like to give them a quick toss in the pan to get them started and carmelize a bit. Look on the back of the box of curry to see what the proper ratio of water to curry is. Dump the water over and boil until everything is mostly cooked. Then dump in your curry cubes. Thicken and serve over rice. (Short-grain.)

So I have had notoriously bad luck cooking Indian food from scratch. I lived with a post-doc from India for awhile, and she'd laugh off my requests for recipes, saying I wouldn't be able to handle the heat. (O ye of little faith...) But the elusive cuisine was out of my grasp. Thus, I have discovered the wonder that is Pataks. And...I have tasty curry atop a fluffy pile of basmati (organic) rice. As my neighbors can attest to my contented belch, I have discovered how to make good Indian food.

Their hot curry paste isn't that hot. I wonder if they tone it down for export across the Pond. Now if I can find an import shop that sells shetland wool for lace, Doctor Who DVD's, and curry paste, I would be very happy. (And probably never leave the house.)

Speaking of curry, it seems that there are some who are addicted to it. Who, me? Naw, I can stop eating curry at any time...

Can the subaltern sing?

Something doesn't sit right with me about this blurb in my alma mater's website. I grew up in that area, and I know what kind of poverty those kids face. I can't get out of my mind how incredibly colonial the author's being.

What strikes me about it is how jubilant she is to learn that her students are capable of learning something like how to read music. Her comment about them sticking with music so they can get scholarships to college reminds me of the comments about PoC playing basketball so they have a shot at college. Not for their own merits or abilities. They're not studying western art music for a well-rounded education or to participate in culture. (In the interest of full disclosure, although I was a music major, I was on mostly academic scholarships.)

I grew up with teachers telling me that although I was in honors and AP classes, my coursework wouldn't mean much and that I would never be able to keep up with college-level work, since my school didn't have the opportunities that other more well-off schools did. I was also told that I'd never be able to compete musically because I couldn't afford lessons from the best people, like other more economically-advantaged people could.

I object to her perpetuating power and class structures, as if western art music is only the realm of the financially elite. Instrumental music isn't the be-all and end-all of western art music, either. There's music theory, music history, musicology, historical musicology, and composition. All of which don't require any financial backing beyond a library card and basic research skills. Yet she's holding up an expensive instrument as their only exposure to the vast discipline of music.

I'm all for helping the less-advantaged out. But if the so-called help is only to keep existing power structures in order, then it's worthless. I don't see any empowering going on at Lakewood.

More "Doctor Who." More mega-spoilers behind the cut bits. I promise this will be it for awhile. Sadly no new episodes until Christmas. Maybe it's just as well, because I have this dissertation to write.

You know, I'm a composer. I'm in academe. I know how brutal and cruel people can get about one's work. I've gotten my fair share of snark disguised as constructive criticism or thinly-veiled personal attacks. I'd like to say it gets easier to deal with, and in some respects it does. One would hope academics, especially, would be more into judging a person's work on the work's merits, and not getting personal, but they're just as petty as anyone else.

So the "Doctor Who" season finale was last Saturday, with two episodes leading up to it. People either loved it or hated it. OK, fine. I get this. What I don't get are those--read any fan community on LJ or board--who take it as a personal insult that the episode didn't meet their expectations.

OK. Extrapolating to something else, namely "Crossroads, part 2" of "Battlestar Galactica." I was disappointed with it, but at the end of the day, it still entertained me for 45 minutes, and I've got the season 3 DVD on pre-order from Amazon. Am I a raving fangirl? Maybe, but if people want me to ramble on, I'd be glad to elucidate where I thought it could be better. Does it mean anything about the writers and producers? Nope. Did it jump the shark? Nowhere near as badly as "Battlestar 1980" did. Arguably BSG is still one of the best programs on TV. I doubt that Ronald D. Moore is out to pee in people's breakfast cereal, like people are convinced the writers and producers of "Doctor Who" are.

So back to "Doctor Who." Was I expecting some of the ending? Yah, parts. Did I think there were things that could've been tighter? Absolutely. I'd love it if they released the Criterion Director's Cut of all my favorite shows. But more importantly did it follow its own logic? Yes, as well as they could with so many threads in 51 minutes.


Things I didn't have a problem with: glowy Doctor rejuvinated by the psychic field. If anything, I really wish they would've developed this further. They've never really gone into any detail about the psychic capabilities of Time Lords aside from a few throwaway lines and when the plot suits it. I was blown away with the Doctor forgiving
the Master. I don't think defeating him with words was out of character in the least. If anything, that's the Doctor's greatest strength.

The Master really needed to die. He went out at the top of his game, and I think why the Master became almost comic in the 1980's was because he was defeated almost every other week by the Doctor. It's like Diana in "V." You can't have a big badass supervillain, when they're defeated by the good guys all the time. They have no potency if they aren't a real threat. The Master was badass, and in dying he won.

Martha needed to leave, even temporarily. Ever seen the movie "White" ("Blanc") by Kieslowski? Same deal as between Karol and Dominique as between the Doctor and Martha. (Ok, with a lot less sex.) You can't have a relationship--even friendship--when there's such a great inequality of power. I also don't doubt for an instant that the character of the Doctor loves his companions, but it's not a human love. (You saw that in "Human Nature/"Family of Blood.") Either companions come to terms with it (Martha) or they don't. (Tegan, Adric.)

The funeral for the Master: Yeah, OK, they used a pyre in "Return of the Jedi," but so do a hell of a lot of cultures. My first thought was that it looked a lot like a Balinese Hindu cremation. And, really, how else are you going to get rid of an archetypal character?

In the end, though, I thought it was a good resolution to the series. The things I enjoyed far outweighed the things I didn't. I think I need to quit reading fansites, since I'm so fed up reading personal attacks on people who have done nothing to me.

Mega-spoilers for Doctor Who. I mean it. Don't read this post if you don't want season 3/29 spoiled!

This is your last warning. If you don't want things spoiled, don't read behind the link. OK, I may talk about Torchwood a bit, too. This has got to be the best season of Doctor Who ever. If you'd like to learn how to make these text cuts for your very own blog, check out this help article here. No clue why the tags are appearing before the spoiler cut, but there you go.

OK. Anyone else notice how this season of Doctor Who with the last episode of Torchwood follows the Revelation of St. John almost perfectly? There's still one episode left to go, but the similarities are uncanny. All biblical quotes are taken from the New Jerusalem Bible because that's what I've got lying around. Just some scattered thoughts I have:

The fifth trumpet and Abbadon has been pointed out about the last episode of Torchwood. That's when Jack and the Doctor meet back up.

Woman clothed with the sun/Martha: 12:1-6, she escapes to the desert and is the key to the dragon's downfall. (Think we'll see more of this tomorrow.)

Jack: "...people will long for death and not find it anywhere; they will want to die and death will evade them." (5:6)

Chapter 6: kind of describes the decimation (literal) at the end of "Sound of Drums": "the sky disappeared like a scroll rolling up and all the mountains and islands were shaken from their places." Paradox machine and when the sky split and the toclafane came? On the decimation of humanity: "Immediately I saw another horse appear, deathly pale, and its rider was called Death, and Hades followed at its heels. They were given authority over a quarter of the earth, to kill by the sword, by famine, by plague and through wild beasts."

I'm really seeing the Doctor as St. Michael lately. He's been described as a lonely angel, and it's kind of his job to protect people, the universe. It sort of fits that the dragon would be the Master--he's a fallen angel, he and his armies fight against St. Michael and company. "Sound of Drums" really set up the Master as a perversion of everything the Doctor stands for, including his relationship with others.

We'll see how tomorrow's episode changes everything.

1.) I'm still here. More fighting with financial aid. Hopefully it'll finally be resolved. At least they're convinced I have a Master's degree. Progress, I guess. This bout of fun involved having to call them every other day to get my award for this year and conflicting information, not to mention a hold on my account for no reason. Thanks to Student Fiscal Services--who really are wonderful--I think things are sorted out.

2.) Doctor Who: Yowza. Anyone else watching it? If you don't watch it, when it comes on Sci-Fi, check it out. Easily the best season yet.

3.) In lieu of actual content, a few things about how God wrote the world in LISP.



And here's a song about it. If you'd like to sing along, here are lyrics.

I've been in a funk lately. I'm sure part of it is financial aid worries (hopefully resolved) and the other part is that there are no good role models for lay Catholics. Rather, there aren't any that fit my situation in life. Most of the intellectuals I admire are monastics or people in religious orders. Lay modern Catholics? Can't think of many I'd like to emulate, especially for women. Most speak to childbirth and homemaking--both vitally important vocations, but neither mine.

So we've got St. Gianna Molla. She's never spoken to me. If anything her message seems to be the same as what I'd get from my family: I'm selfish if I don't have children. She's never mentioned for being a doctor during a time when women just weren't. She had to have been one sharp cookie--I'm sure the prejudice was against her to begin with, so she had to be better than those around her. I think a woman who was able to overcome such a situation back in the 1950's is enough proof of sainthood. But that's not what's emphasized in her story. I worry that the extremist "pro-lifers" are going to an idolatrous extreme, which objectifies women in opposite ways from hedonistic secularists.

Then we've got the Quattrocchi family. I swore I'd never discuss sex on my blog, but I can't say their relationship is one the Hoopy Frood and I would like to emulate, either. Sure, you can't build a relationship on sex, but going too far the other way--the term "living as brother and sister" for a married couple creeps me out in a deeply Freudian way--isn't good, either. Humans need closeness. There was a study done with primates--if you deprive them of touch from other primates they wither, give up, and die. I've seen the same thing happen to couples who've been married decades when one person in the relationship dies. The other person fades away.

Are children necessary for such a relationship? I know more than a handful of couples without children. The fruit of their love can't help but spill over into their relationships with other people. Maybe it's coincidence, but those couples--some of which have been married as long as I've been alive--are some of the most loving people I know.

I don't know why I was given the gift of being able to compose music. I have to believe it's not an accident, given the hardship and trials I've faced getting to where I am today. I'm not after fame and prestige--there are easier ways to get it beyond a doctorate in music composition. I don't know why I was given the gift of the Hoopy Frood, either, but I have to believe both of them aren't accidents.

Yet it seems like the overwhelming bias on marriage in the RCC emphasizes women giving up on their careers to be mothers. How is my being unhappy bringing glory to God or using the talents I have? (I know myself well enough at 32.5 to know that there is no way I'd ever be a happy person as a stay-at-home-mother.) How is throwing away my talents best for the relationship between the Frood and I?

I can point to Catholics I'd like to emulate, but they aren't "big names" or canonized saints. Maybe things are changing. Over on Whispers in the Loggia, Palmo wrote a wonderful article about the role of women in Benedict's papacy, including a letter from him about the need for women in the Church. So why doesn't the institutional Church value women's talents?

Blog Like it's the End of the World

You can read more about my chronicles of zombie apocalypse here...

(Some NSFW language...because during a zombie attack, you don't have time for pleasantries...)

For more information go here.

Care and Feeding of Your Catholic, part 5, "mixed" relationships.

OK. This one's a bit more pragmatic. Nothing special, just a few tidbits I've gleaned over 8 years of life with the Hoopy Frood. Feel free to add, reject, or correct. Seems like the issue of "mixed" relationships--that is, a relationship with a person who's not Catholic--keeps coming up in various forms, blogs, and forums.

1.) Rule #1: The only person you can change is yourself.

2.) Rule #2: Your relationship isn't a zero-sum game.

3.) Golden Rule in all things.

Really, that's all there is to it. The times religion's been an issue, someone broke one of the three rules. (In any issue, I might add, not just religion.)

I mean, look, it's not theoretical physics. One of the common things I see come up is converting one's spouse. If one's spouse wants to convert, that's one thing. If they don't, forcing the issue isn't going to do anyone any good. Would you want your spouse to try to convert you to their religion? No? Then why do it to him/her? And as to sneaking green scapulars into your SO's stuff, is that really building trust? Would you want your SO sneaking their religious items into your things to make you convert? You can respect a person's beliefs without agreeing to them, and such tactics don't overly seem respectful.

The rest, really, is just details. What I've found works for us is a common ground, some area we can agree on. (In anything, again, not just religion.) Lord knows we've had our squabbles, but also one pig-headed statement doesn't merit another. ("Get bent," is not appropriate apologetics, for instance.) And really, if a couple disagrees, it means they disagree. It doesn't mean they love each other less, which I think some newer couples seem to equate disagreement with.

The other big source of discord has been a lack of knowledge or understanding. For instance I have a horrible habit of ripping on evangelicals. I really do try to be nice, but their beliefs are the opposite of mine. Their emphasis upon their take on Christianity as being the only way (in some cases) really grates on my nerves, especially since some of them think they're closer to "authentic" Christianity. Some of my in-laws are evangelical Christians, and I know I've said some unkind things that hurt the Frood, even though I wasn't specifically talking about his family and he's neither Christian, nor evangelical.

Conversely, I've had to sit through some rather uncomfortable moments, one in particular where it was said that all people born into a denomination aren't strong in their faith, when I've been a Catholic since birth. To me it feels like they rub their faith in other peoples' faces. To them, it's as if I'm not "on fire." I"m a contemplative--I need silence in my worship, where they have no problem with pop and more "boisterous" worship. They see ritual as dead, where I see it as a sign of the universal Church and something transcendent. It's funny that the Hoopy Frood and I aren't even the same religion, yet we agree on more in things spiritual than between his family and I, and we're all Christian.

So I guess the bottom line is love your SO, keep a sense of humor about it all, and be prepared to pass the ketchup or apologize, when one of you puts your foot in your mouth.

At some point words become frail. I could say so much about what I'm doing as a composer, yet nothing but silence would come close to that by which I'm confronted in the act of composition. I could fill reams of program notes about formal method and procedures, but never be able to describe the terrifying (awe-inspiring) intimacy of the moment that music gets written.

I think why so many composers in computer music hide behind technology is because without an instrumentalist to be shielded by, they're completely exposed. Every fault and failing is blasted to the world. Elements of themselves, which may or may not exist, are splayed for all to see and consume or vomit back in disgust. Real intimacy with one person you know well is scary enough. With people one doesn't know? Horrifying.

Walking along the main street by my studio, words and actions become raw. The suffering of panhandlers contrasts the bacchanalia of fraternities and sororities. Mundane errands, lunch-seekers, and drug-pushers collide. Their humanity is too much. Nothing I can actively do will fill the gaping void formed from everyday life.

This is not the place prepared for me. A composer's music, a contemplative's prayer (if the two were ever separate), this is the bread of my life for others and my vocation. If, as critics of contemporary music alledge, we only write music to be ellitist, then if not for others, why would we expose ourselves (lovingly) in such a vulnerable way?

Receive, O Lord, this all-embracing host which your whole creation, moved by your magnetism, offers you at this dawn of a new day. This bread, our toil, is of itself, I know, but an immense fragmentation; this wine, our pain is no more, I know, than a draught that dissolves. Yet in the very depths this formless mass you have implanted--and this I am sure of, for I sense it--a desire, irresistible, hallowing, which makes us cry out, believer and unbeliever alike: 'Lord make us one. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, "Mass on the World"

Dissertation meter update. Cut some stuff out. Once again, it's measured in seconds. I'm thinking about changing the meter so that it's reflecting pieces after awhile, since the target number is 15. A five minute limit per piece is somewhat artificial, since some are slightly less, and some are slightly more. But I'm not sure how I'd numerically represent pieces in progress. Halves, thirds, and quarters are easily done. The problem comes in when I've got something like 13 seconds. (A good day, considering I had some code tweaking to do.) Anyway:

654 / 4,500

14.5%)

I've got a ton of progress to be made this summer...like 3 minutes per week of music. I badly need to upgrade my computer (currently a 1.2 ghz Athlon thunderbird), but am afraid of downtime. Yet having it take one hour per minute of music isn't exactly helping my productivity. And then there's still the financial aid business, which I can't get an answer for. Oh and then there's the overhanging job search, since I hope to be done this year. Gack. Just thinking about everything that needs to happen this year is enough to make my brain freeze.

I know. Lilies of the field, and sufficient for today being its own evil. Sorry for my brevity lately, but I'll try to post something of more substance when things aren't so busy.

Because a friend said it so much better than I could.

A friend of mine on LJ talks about life in the Bible Belt as a normal Catholic and the polarization between fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists. Well worth a read, especially if you want to understand what's at the root of the political situation over here.

(Sort of book related, since the book meme is going around...)

So I'm trying to figure out what's up with the whole Divine Mercy thing. It usually takes forever for private revelations to become part of official theology, so something that was revealed to someone and then adapted in the same century is kind of odd. (Not that it probably hasn't happened before, but most of the private revelations tend to take longer than 50 years to become more mainstream, such as Fatima, although reception is mixed. You have those who dote on every word the seers revealed, and you have those who think it probably happened, but don't give it much thought.) Is there something more to the Divine Mercy thing besides the Sunday after Easter and cheesy art?

(N.B. I'm not discounting visionaries and other mystical revelations. I do believe they happen, and I believe that there are still people who have these kinds of experiences. I'm leery when private revelations get pushed so hard on the rest of us.)

So Divine Mercy chaplet. Have to admit, the prayers in it are kind of nifty. Mercy hour at 3...sure, I do the Divine Office when able, so I appreciate the value of regular prayer.

To give it a fair shot, I got St. Faustina's book, Divine Mercy in my Soul. All 600+ pages of it. I'm not unfamiliar with mystical writings, and she's very much coming out of that idiom. OK. nothing strange there. It's her spiritual journal, after all, and wasn't probably intended for publication when it was written. Plus she didn't receive much education, so we can forgive some stylistic and grammatical glitches. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm only on page 50 or so.

She's got some passages that are gorgeous. And then there are some that make me wonder about the whole Divine Mercy devotion. For instance, Jesus comes off as a manipulative bully of a boyfriend. He (according to her) tells her that he won't put up with her, when she was discerning a vocation. Although it didn't sound like much of a discernment to me. She talks about how she would've been happier in a less apostolic environment, but after speaking with her confessor (and after an encounter with Christ), she completely subsumes her will.

OK, now that really tweaked my inner Benedictine. Sure, obedience is something all orders stress (and vow.) But that kind of blind submission above and beyond one's own misery isn't a good thing. For instance, there's ample opportunity to leave in the Rule of St. Benedict. One abbot said that if someone's miserable, they don't want them sticking around, either. There are times in which one must just grin and bear it, but, at least how it was explained to me, one's postulancy isn't the time or place, if the particular order is a bad fit.

Maybe I'm being unfair, and things were radically different in the 1920's, but reading between the lines, I don't think it was an overly happy situation. I get the impression from comments other nuns made towards her that she wasn't liked. (And that her need for prayer and her sicknesses were seen as ways for her to avoid work.) Maybe instead of seeing the cultural baggage of women being put in place, there's something else I'm missing?

Here's a person who, at least in the first 50 pages of the notebooks, had a dismal life, died of tuberculosis early, and amid all of it managed to have these empowering, ecstatic experiences. When I was researching Balinese balians (kind of a shaman), it was mentioned that the trance/ecstasy experience tends to be colored by one's culture. So maybe her vision of Christ was also a reflection of the culture she came out of. Would a person living now have the same experiences? What about a person, who was from a different culture, where women were valued and not seen merely as possessions? Or so I keep telling myself. Because if the bully Jesus is the message the Church wants us to hear from this, the rest of the 600 pages are going to be rough.

1.) Sorry I've been so quiet on this front. I'm still waiting to hear about next year's financial aid. If you've been following along, they've been insisting that I don't have a Master's and canceling all aid. They've done this four times, and counting. Supposedly my aid for next year is being "worked on" and they require more information from me. I called to see what this might be, and was brushed off, saying I need to wait for the award letter. I asked to speak with someone higher up, and was hung up on. This is the kind of crap I've been dealing with since last April. (Yes, I was polite.)

My department can't really do anything--they're beholden to financial aid. If financial aid says I qualify, they pay up. The graduate school said they'd take care of it the last time I had issues with them, and it was fixed that day. (Due to financial aid not believing I had a Master's, even documented with an official transcript (signed, sealed) from my alma mater, which I was told by the financial aid counselor was "not acceptable.")

You know, I could understand if I were forced out of my program due to academics. But this? Pure incompetence. Especially the fact that there's a problem, but they won't tell me what it is. Nor can I find out if I'm able to finish out my degree--since I've only got a year to go. (And I don't have $9K + fees lying around for tuition. If I did, I probably wouldn't bother with financial aid in the first place.)

This whole situation isn't the greatest for productivity on one's dissertation, either, where one's dissertation is a set of fifteen pieces. It's hard to be creative and productive, when you don't know if you'll be able to attend the next quarter.

2.) I come home today, and a neighbor is going through other people's mail. Got a complaint in to the landlord, since messing with other people's mail is a federal offense.

3.) I go to do laundry. Laundry room is filled with wet, stinky piles of laundry. All machines are filled with equally stinky laundry. Mold allergies going crazy. So I'll probably have to head to the laundromat. Luckily, it has free wifi.

I'll be OK. Just a bunch of annoyances making a nice little annoyance logjam. That and the summer is looming. I've never had a good summer, either.

I'm starting to think the blogosphere is off its meds. Either that, or it's spring, pheromones are raging, and people are becoming more primate in anticipation of the summer. I've seen two people get slammed by the Catholic Moral Majority--generally twentysomethings--because the blogger dared to contradict what they think the Church is.

I'm not tolerating such behavior here. I've had anonymous commenting turned off for awhile. If you're going to say something, you have to own up for it. Also, this is not a democracy. This is my personal sandbox, and if you're going to pee in it, you get kicked out. Discussion of ideas is allowed and encouraged. Ranting your personal flavor of "orthodoxy" is not.

It's easy for people to behave online in ways they never would in a face-to-face encounter. There's no accountability, and really if you slam some faceless blog, there's no direct consequence of your action. But for every person someone disses, there's a face behind the computer screen. I'm thinking of Antony's blog. I loved it. By necessity I'm isolated from other oblates, so to connect with a like-minded individual was a wonderful experience.

I'm not letting the bullies drive me away. I moderate a few livejournal communities, and I have no qualms about deleting comments. You can call me anything you want. I'm not going anywhere. And I'm every bit as much a part of the Church as you are.

CFOYC, part 3, salvation, other religions, and getting along with the natives

If there's something that the non-Catholics are wondering about Catholics, but are afraid to ask, fire away, with the caveats on topics from last time. If I don't know, there are a bunch of people reading this who would.

Meh. I had a nicely glib and upbeat version of this one started. The Catholic notion of salvation is one of the big reasons why I'm a practicing Catholic. I read Nostra aetate in college, anticipating hating it, since I grew up with the pre-Vatican II version of relations with other denominations. What's in it is truly Good News--salvation is something that's revealed through truths in many other religions and denominations. And those who through no fault of their own who aren't even Christian can be saved through the justification of grace (which is a free gift from God), and a desire to lead a moral life, free from sin. The real documents of Vatican II--as opposed to things in the spirit of--are truly wonderful and upbeat. The optimism and hope in them is one of the most uplifting things I've ever experienced.

Obviously I believe the RCC is true. If I didn't, I wouldn't be Catholic. For me, it represents the fullness of Truth, insofar as we're able to perceive it in this life. Other people find their Truth with a capital "t" in other places. If my path is true for me, and yours is true for you, maybe we're seeing little pieces of something bigger than either of us. I like the fact that Catholic theology allows for this, and at the heart of the matter, salvation and who God decides to give that grace to is a complete gift and mystery. Asking a Catholic if they're saved will probably get you a puzzled look in response. The right answer is, "I don't know!" or "God only knows." There's no positive assurance, but there's hope in God's limitless mercy. This is stuff that keeps me coming back, Sunday after Sunday through all the bullcrap people like to sling at each other in the name of orthodoxy.

So why am I emo tonight? Fast forward to present day. In this country, we've got two sides, both becoming more and more entrenched. On one side, we've got fundamentalist evangelicals--the "Jesus Camp" types--who believe they're right, come hell or high water, and all must accept their take on Christianity to be saved. On the other side, you've got the EWTN types, who I think are a direct response to the fundamentalist Protestant hegemony. Their response to the fundamentalist Protestants is to become more Catholic than Rome. Or, rather, to foist their view of Catholicism upon the rest of us. And since they've got money and mass media outlets, they become the status quo. (Watch their daily Mass sometime...the message they're portraying is slick.)

Thing is, if all of Christianity suddenly became non-denominational Protestant megachurch or Catholic, I think the world would be a poorer place. You wouldn't have the Orthodox, with their ornate liturgies and icons. You wouldn't have the Lutherans' four-part hymns and middle-America sensibility. Forget the Methodists' social justice and quasi-Anglican ways. And even though evangelicals can piss me off, Christianity would be missing something if they were gone.

The RCC has always been about unity in diversity. I wonder if Christianity as a whole can learn from this, instead of the zero-sum game it seems so hell bent on playing.

CFoYC, part 2, the sacraments

So as mentioned in the comments on the last one, there's a wide variation of what's done on Fridays during the year and during Lent. Consult your local bishop for details, since it seems to go by bishop and by country. We're required to abstain on Fridays during the year and Lent. We're also encouraged to fast on Fridays during Lent (but not required.) Also N.B., I'm not discussing sex, homosexuality, abortion, or birth control here. They've been talked to death; they always lead to arguments; and they're not very interesting.

Welcome back to "Care and Feeding of Your Catholic!" This installment is a whirlwind tour through life as a Catholic: the sacraments, or how to get hatched, matched, and dispatched.

1.) A sacrament is an outward sign of an inner grace given by Christ for our salvation. We've got seven: baptism, reconciliation, communion, confirmation, marriage, holy orders, and the anointing of the sick. Your Catholic will most probably have received four of them, possibly five.

2.) Baptism: this is how a Catholic enters the Church. Generally this is done shortly after birth, and it's necessary for all other sacraments. It's also to free the person from sin. It's also a promise from the community to support the person in their faith. Some parishes are doing baptisms during Masses, others do them at special Masses. For the most part, the "ordinary" ministers of baptism are priests and bishops, although in a pinch anyone can, so long as he/she has the right intentions and baptizes the person using the Trinitarian formula. (I was baptized immediately after birth, for instance, by a nurse in the hospital.)

3.) There's also a baptism of desire--a person wishes to be baptized, but dies before it happens, or a baptism of blood--namely martyrdom. It's preferable to enroll someone in RCIA, rather than killing them.

4.) Reconciliation: (used to be called confession when I was in CCD) confession of sins. It doesn't take away the effects of it, but is to help lessen the consequence. Catholics are required to confess all mortal sins once a year at the bare minimum. If you have to think about whether or not you committed a mortal sin, you probably didn't--they take full participation and knowledge.

5.) Catholics have the option of either private (in the booth thingy) or face-to-face. Personally I'm claustrophobic. I like telling people I've never been in a confessional in my life. The priest is also commanded (under pain of instant excommunication) to never divulge that which is told to him in a confession. It's really not as scary as you might think. I've never been berated or made fun of. At the time, I've always heard what I've needed to hear.

6.) The Eucharist. (This is a biggie and will get its own.)

7.) Most Latin-rite Catholics receive the first three sacraments by the time they're 7 years old. If they're Byzantine or come from an Orthodox church, odds are they were baptized, confirmed, and received the Eucharist all at once as an infant. In the Roman rite, babies are anointed after baptism with chrism--the oil also used in confirmation.

8.) Confirmation: this is a fulfillment of one's baptismal promises and a maturation of one's faith. It's always done by the bishop, unless permission is given to a priest. Priests almost always do confirmations on the Easter vigil. Chrism--one of the oils is used. This one is easy to tell apart from the other two, since it smells like balsam. (You have to look closely to tell apart the oil of the infirm and oil of the catechumenate, and hope you grabbed the right jar.) It's becoming rarer, but most Catholics would take another name at their confirmation, some saint they admired or wanted to emulate. (Mine's Hildegard.) Generally a person is confirmed at 11-18. It all depends on when your bishop says people should be confirmed. Confirmation always happens in the context of a Mass.

9.) The sacraments are reversed if one is coming into the Church as an adult: people will be baptized first, then confirmed, then given their first Eucharist, the way it's done in Eastern churches.

10.) Marriage: gettin' hitched. Like all other sacraments, it has an ordinary minister--the couple themselves. The priest and others are just witnesses to the vows. There isn't an extra-ordinary minister. That would be too kinky. Marriage almost always happens at a Mass, but it doesn't have to. (The Hoopy Frood and I probably won't, since I'd be the only one there able to receive Communion. Neither one of us want a huge affair, anyway.)

11.) Holy orders: Ordination. I believe the vows women religious fall under this sacrament, as well, although it's not as clear. (And I'm at work, so I can't double check it.) Bishops are the ordinary ministers for it. If you get a chance to see an ordination or solemn profession, go. They're generally gorgeous affairs with lots of happy people. (Chrism--and lots of it--is used at this one. )

12.) Anointing of the sick: this used to be called last rites, since it was generally only done right before a person died. The ordinary for this is a priest or a bishop. (To my knowledge, there's no extra-ordinary minister.) Generally now it's suggested it's done any time a person's quality of life is negatively impacted--surgery is definitely a time, as is dealing with any serious illness (mental or physical.) It's not meant to cure a person--although miraculous cures have sometimes been reported--but it's meant to give them the strength to deal with their illness. Hopefully the priest or altar server grabbed the right jar--the oil of the infirm. Generally this one's done in private, although there may be special Masses at which it's given.

13.) Of these, baptism, confirmation, marriage, and holy orders are only done once over the course of a person's life. Baptisms by all other denominations except Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses are considered valid. Marriages by other denominations are considered valid, but not sacramental (they need a renewing of vows before a priest to be sacramental.) Holy orders, it depends on if your bishops are part of our apostolic succession.

14.) All other sacraments may be repeated, sometimes daily. If you go to confession daily, your priest may talk to you about scruples. A priest might also wonder if something's up if you ask for the anointing of the sick every day.

15.) A sacramental is not a sacrament. It's an object (generally blessed). Or an action (like blessing one's self with holy water, although the water itself may be a sacramental.) Where sacraments are limited to Catholics, anyone can have/use a sacramental.

CFoYC, part 1, The Basics.

So a discussion got me thinking about how culturally Catholics and evangelicals are a world apart. Thus, I'm beginning a series of posts entitled, "Care and feeding of your Catholic."

So you've got yourself a Catholic in the family! Congratulations! With a little understanding, and liberal feedings of chocolate, you'll probably have a happy Catholic for years to come. This is the first in a series of posts designed to get the most out of your Catholic.

1.) The one thing central to a Catholic's life is the sacrifice of the Mass. Odds are in this country, your Catholic is Roman Catholic, one of 4 rites within the Church. This site does a pretty good job of explaining all of them. Any one church within the Catholic Church will count for one's weekly obligation.

2.) The Mass is a sacrifice. Communion in the Catholic Church is offered daily. Catholics believe in the Real Presence--Christ is fully present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. This is non-negotiable and dogma (there's actually precious little that's defined as dogma. We'll get to that later.) How exactly it happens is also a mystery.

3.) Your Catholic is obligated to go to Mass on Sunday. Other non-feast days are encouraged. Additionally your Catholic will be obligated to go to Mass on certain feasts, non-Sunday days called Holy Days of Obligation--Jan. 1, the Solemnity of Mary; Thursday of the 6th week of easter--the Ascension; August 15--the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin; November 1--All Saints; December 8--the Immaculate Conception (doesn't refer to Christ...); December 25--Christmas. Now if Jan 1, Ascension, or All Saints falls on a Saturday or a Monday, your Catholic may not be obligated to go to Mass. Also, some bishops may make a solemnity--what these feasts are called--on a Sunday. Confused yet? It all depends on what the bishop decides for the diocese in which your Catholic resides.

4.) The Catholic liturgical day starts the night before. So your Catholic could go to Mass on Saturday night, and it would count. Ditto for the night before any Holy Day of Obligation. These are "vigils" of the feast.

5.) There are only two days your Catholic is obliged to fast and abstain: Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. (These aren't days of obligation, although some Catholics will attend services on them. Good Friday never has a Mass.) A Catholic between the age of 14 and 59 must fast as one's health will allow. The rules for fasting are one meal plus all the fluids a person can drink. Two smaller meals plus one larger are allowed, so long as they don't go over the one meal limit.

6.) Abstinence: no meat, except for amphibians, reptiles, bugs, and fish. (Anything cold-blooded is acceptable, although personally my ass is not going to eat salamander, no matter how much hot sauce is served with it.) Also broth in something is acceptable, if you forget and make something with chicken broth on a Friday. Catholics must abstain on all Fridays of the year, plus Good Friday and Ash Wednesday. (So for the meal, your Catholic can't eat meat.) The Friday abstinence during the year (not during Lent!) may be substituted with something else, if you forget and bust out a pot roast when having your Catholic for dinner.

7.) With fasting and abstinence, common sense applies. Obviously a big smoothie from Jamba Juice is pushing the line on the fluids during a fast day. Sushi is acceptable for a day of abstinence, but it's questionable about the spirit of the law. (Since in this country sushi is a luxury.)

8.) All Catholics are required to fast for an hour before receiving Communion. Only exceptions to this fast are water and medicine. (So don't offer your Catholic breakfast before Mass...afterwards breakfast would be appreciated.)

9.) Your Catholic may make the sign of the Cross before and after a prayer, or anytime the formula "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is used. This is done in remembrance of one's baptism (always Trinitarian).

10.) Upon entering a Catholic church, your Catholic will cross him/herself with holy water, conveniently placed at the entrances, or from the baptismal font. Again, this is a remembrance of one's baptism (how one enters the Church). In a non-Catholic church, your Catholic may forget and cross him/herself with water from your baptismal font, anyway, not finding little holders for holy water at the entrance. (Yes, I've done this.) You aren't required to do this, but if you were baptized according to the Trinitarian formula, you're more than welcome to do so.

11.) If you go with your Catholic to Mass, you'll notice that he/she will genuflect before entering a pew or leaving it. This is because the Real Presence--in the consecrated hosts--are reserved in a special container near the altar or to the side of it called the tabernacle. You aren't required to genuflect. A Catholic doesn't genuflect on Good Friday, because the tabernacle is emptied out the night before. If your Catholic goes to your worship service, he/she may forget and genuflect anyway.

12.) Did you offer to take your Catholic to your worship service? If he/she goes, your Catholic will still be obligated to go to Mass that day. It is not a commentary on your worship! Catholics are obligated to attend Mass on Sunday. Why not go with him/her? Or better yet, if you've got one of the funky other rites within the Catholic Church nearby, why not go to one of them? Both of you will be on equal footing.