abc family

Amica mea habet filium

Jamie was my first Internet friend, and she's been a strong and loving support for me ever since I first sent her an email.  She is my Internet mentor, and I am very grateful for her.

Last night, she gave birth to her fourth son.  What wonderful news!  Head over and congratulate her.

(Her Latin is much better than mine, so Jamie, forgive me if the title of this post doesn't say what I'm trying to say.)

On Vocations and Human Dignity

In the research for my thesis, I’ve read a lot of feminist theology. I’ve seen countless arguments which contend that by not ordaining women, the Church is saying that women are intrinsically less valuable than men. As a matter of fact, most of the arguments take that for granted. To them, by refusing to ordain women the Church is proclaiming, if passively so, that women are worth less than men, in awful contradiction to its teaching on the inherent dignity of every human person.

In his letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, John Paul II writes, “It is to the holiness of the faithful that the hierarchical structure of the Church is totally ordered. For this reason, the Declaration Inter Insigniores recalls: ‘the only better gift, which can and must be desired, is love. The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are not the ministers but the saints.’”

Ultimately, the question is about value. What does it mean to be a valuable person? John Paul, in the tradition of two thousand years of Christianity, defends the truth that each person has an inherent dignity and that the perfection of the person comes not with power, but with holiness. But it seems to me that our culture has rejected this truth. We do not see a person’s value in what he is; we see it in what he does.

When I was young my father always told us that there was no such thing as ignoble work. Unskilled labor, skilled labor, intellectual labor – whatever we chose to do, we needed only to do it to the best of our ability, and it would be honorable. Unlike many of my friends, I learned to look at garbage collectors and school janitors and see valuable people doing valuable work. The idea is entrenched in our society that these people are nothing because they do little jobs, but it did not occur to me to see it that way. That is perhaps one of the reasons that I was never bothered by the fact that women can’t be ordained.

Many women say that they want to be ordained because they feel God calling them to priestly ministry, but I would remind them that the ban on women’s ordination has been proclaimed by the Magisterium. Do they think their private “revelation” supersedes the authority of the Body of Christ? And if they think that, why in heaven’s name are they still Catholic?

Oops. Got a little rant-y there. Anyway, I don’t know any women who want to be priests, but I’ve read stuff by a lot of them, and the theme I see over and over is that in order to show that it values women, the Church needs to give them power.

But power does not equal value. Did you hear that, WOC? Power does not equal value.

(I got into the theological argument against ordaining women last time. If you weren’t satisfied with my exposition, you can read the argument in Inter Insigniores.)

A Wall Street journal article by George Weigel about our new pope brought my thoughts on the topic of power and value into focus. In the article, Weigel quotes Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger) on the merits of the Benedictine motto ora et labora, pray and work. “Turning the earth into a garden and the service of God [were] fused together and became a whole… Worshiping God always takes priority… But at the same time, it’s a matter of cultivating and renewing the earth in an ethos of worship. This also involves overcoming the ancient prejudice against manual labor… Manual labor now becomes something noble… an imitation of the Creator’s work. [And] along with the new attitude toward work comes a change in our ideas about the dignity of man.”

These words of Benedict’s, some of the first of his I read since his papacy began, brought me hope. How fitting that they should concern the themes which have been persistently on my mind. In a way I can’t explain, things clicked for me when I read these lines.

It really comes down to this: earthly work is not our final object. In the last line of Weigel’s article, he writes, “We can be sure that [Benedict XVI] will challenge us all to the noble human adventure that has no better name than sanctity.” The work we do on earth is merely the means to our real object, which is holiness, ultimately beatitude. Plowing the fields, if that is what God calls you to do, is noble work because it is your path to sanctity. Each person’s work, however undignified it may seem, says nothing about the dignity of his person. The lowliest peasant may be greater, in the end, than the most powerful king.

That is why it is no contradiction that the Church values all persons equally but refuses to ordain women. The great ones are not those who are most powerful but those who are most holy. And if you reduce the value of someone to his power and ability, what does that say about the value of a person who cannot take care of himself? We must value the unborn and the disabled and we must also value the invisible people, the ones who do the little things.

The greatest person ever to walk the face of the earth was a humble and undistinguished carpenter who showed his greatness most when he relinquished every bit of his power. The greatest human creature on earth was the humble and undistinguished mother of a carpenter who in heaven is given the highest place among creatures. Should we not then seek to be humble and undistinguished ourselves?

I would guess that most of us are unable to be both powerful and holy. (Perhaps this is why they say that the one who should get the job of pope is the one who desires it least.) If this is so, then it seems to me that the error of equating power and value is a fatal one. When we think that we are only valuable when we are powerful, we seek power for its own sake, and every step takes us farther from the path to holiness.

I think that Mother Teresa (a great person, even though she was “only” a little nun) had a beautiful insight when she said “We can do no great things, only small things with great love.” Our new pope once called himself a “draft animal,” called to a work he did not seek. For him, the papacy is not what determines his value. Rather, being pope is merely the path God has called him to walk in “the noble human adventure that has no better name than sanctity.” The best we can do is follow his example in the work to which we ourselves have been called.

Habemus Papam

The times have changed since the 1970s.  With this election, the world waited to see if the Church planned to keep up with them.  I am so happy to say that she has shown the world that she has no plans to do so.

Long live Pope Benedict XVI! 

Why I don't want to be a priest (with overlong semi-related preface)

Cari asked about my thoughts on women in the priesthood. That is a very good question, because my thesis is about the debate in the Catholic Church over whether women should be ordained. Answering this question should be easy for me, because I’ve spent the past months researching and writing about this topic. Before I get into it, though, I want to clarify something that needs to be clarified if I’m going to be doing apologetics on this site.

The Catholic Church is not a salad bar, New York Times articles to the contrary notwithstanding. I cannot be a Catholic and unilaterally decide that I disagree with a particular Church teaching. Picking and choosing doctrines is not a part of what it means to be a witness to Christ.

That said, there are many things on which the Church has made no definitive statement. For example, as long as you affirm that God is the real source of all creation, you are free to believe that he created it by physical means of the Big Bang. I personally think that the Big Bang is a fairly convincing theory, although I clearly don’t have all the evidence. In the same way, you’re allowed to believe that the seven days of creation in the Bible were actually seven twenty-four hour days, or that they lasted much longer. I lean toward the second view.

Despite what some people think, the Catholic Church does not going around randomly picking stances on issues so that it can have more control over the beliefs of its members. It defines doctrines that are important for the practice of the faith by Christians, and it defines them in accordance with Scripture, Tradition, and reason. Most Americans are convinced that the Church’s stance on birth control is arbitrary and oppressive, but I think Humanae Vitae shows that the teaching was not developed to make people’s lives miserable, but to make their lives better.

It comes down to this: the Catholic Church is the mystical Body of Christ, under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit. If you believe that the Body of Christ has been hijacked by misogynistic, patriarchal celibate priests who want nothing except to impose their will on the people, then why are you still a Catholic? If the Body of Christ can be hijacked by men, then clearly the Spirit of God is not all-powerful, and the Church is a fraud. Why would you want to belong to a fraud?

Certainly there have been many bad leaders in the Church over the years, on all levels of the hierarchy. But the Church’s teachings and traditions survived the influence of these people largely unscathed, and I think this proves, if you need proof, that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is still with us. In my opinion it’s no accident that people all over the world were so attracted to John Paul II, even if they disagreed with him - he was another proof that the almighty, all-loving God is present in the Church in a way that he is not present elsewhere.

I am not trying to convert anyone here – it’s too big a job for the Internet, I think – but simply to explain where I’m coming from. This is the way I see it: I’m Catholic. This means I am an active member of the Body of Christ, and I believe its teachings wholeheartedly. If a doctrine is defined, then it is not my job to rail against it; it is my job to understand it and to integrate my understanding into the practice of my faith. It is perfectly fine for me to struggle to understand it, as long as I admit that the weakness is on my side, and not on the doctrine’s side.

So if you were hoping I was going to say I’m in favor of women being ordained, no dice. The doctrine is clearly defined, and I agree with it. I should add that the research I’ve done this semester has convinced me that those Catholics who are seeking the priesthood for women are seriously misguided.

I was going to write an explanation, in laymen’s terms, of what this teaching is and why I agree with it, but my preface has gone on too long. So instead, I give you the section of my thesis that deals with Church teaching on the topic. Hopefully it will enlighten you about my thoughts on the issue. Here it is:

On October 15, 1976, in response to controversy that had arisen among Catholic theologians, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued Inter Insigniores, the Declaration on the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood. Its conclusion regarding the question is stated definitively in the first paragraph:

The Catholic Church has never felt that priestly or episcopal ordination can be validly conferred on women… Over and above considerations inspired by the spirit of the times, one finds expressed – especially in the canonical documents of the Antiochan and Egyptian traditions – this essential reason, namely, that by calling only men to the priestly Order and ministry in its true sense, the Church intends to remain faithful to the type of ordained ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and carefully maintained by the Apostles.

The Declaration continues with a comprehensive exposition of the Church’s argument in defense of her exclusion of women from the priesthood. Here we will briefly examine the points of this argument, so that we may keep them in mind when we consider the claims made by feminist theologians on the opposite side.

Inter Insigniores affirms the truth that Jesus acted toward women in a way that was out of accordance with the practices of his time. He took care to affirm the dignity and equality of women, and yet he did not call any of them to the priesthood. This suggests that the exclusion of women from the priesthood does not imply the subordination of women, but rather a difference between men and women that does not mean women are of lesser value. Inter Insigniores points out that Mary was not called to the priesthood, even though she was greater than the Apostles: “Although the Blessed Virgin Mary surpassed in dignity and in excellence all the Apostles, nevertheless it was not to her but to them that the Lord entrusted the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.”

The Apostles, entrusted with carrying out Christ’s mission, acted in accordance with his decision not to call any women to be apostles. The Church has followed this example throughout the two thousand years since then. It is the Church’s place to decide whether this tradition can be changed, as Inter Insigniores points out,

In the final analysis it is the Church through the voice of the Magisterium, that, in these various domains, decides what can change and what must remain immutable. When she judges she cannot accept certain changes, it is because she knows she is bound by Christ’s manner of acting. Her attitude, despite appearances, is therefore not one of archaism but of fidelity: it can be truly understood only in this light.

The decision to exclude women from priestly ordination is not an arbitrary one. It has been made carefully, in accordance with the teachings of Christ, by the Body of Christ under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Church says that she does not consider herself authorized to ordain women; that is the end of the question.

That is, it should have been the end of the question. In reality, the discussion continued after Inter Insigniores was issued. This led Pope John Paul II, almost twenty years later, to issue Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the apostolic letter On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone. In it, he affirms the conclusions of Inter Insigniores and states,

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Thus, the Church has spoken conclusively about the possibility of ordaining women to the priesthood.

However, it would not have been customary of Pope John Paul II’s pastoral style if he had simply supported the exclusion of the women from the priesthood without giving further explanation of the fact that the Catholic Church, despite this exclusion, still affirms their dignity as persons. John Paul II gave this explanation in Mulieris Dignitatem, his 1988 apostolic letter On the Dignity and Vocation of Women. In the letter, he affirms the singularity and beauty of woman’s role in humanity. Beginning with a discussion of Eve, the first woman, he shows that while Adam was the beginning of humanity, Eve was the beginning of human community. Women, he asserts, are community-builders; it is in them that new life grows and through them that the human community is strengthened. By pointing out to women what he calls their “original” role in the world, John Paul gently nudges them toward true femininity and helps them to fulfill the nature of their womanhood. His teaching, far from being sexist and narrow-minded, leads women to embrace the only thing that will bring them true happiness, womanhood in the light of Christ.

The teaching of the Church regarding the exclusion of women from the priesthood often seems to be mostly negative, outlining what women cannot do instead of what they can. In reality, the theology of the Church concerning the nature of feminity is ultimately positive. In Mulieris Dignitatem, John Paul II reminds us of this, and calls women to seek that which all Christians are called to seek, fulfillment in Christ. “The dignity of every human being and the vocation corresponding to that dignity find their definitive measure in union with God.” The dignity of each person has nothing to do with his status on earth, and everything to do with his holiness. Thus the teaching of the Church that women may not be ordained priests is not meant to imprison women; indeed, when understood within the larger context of an authentic Catholic feminism, the Church’s decision to act in accordance with the teachings of Christ frees women to fulfill the vocations for which God intended them.

Book Meme Answers

Wow, it appears you all love books as much as I do!  That makes me happy.  If you haven't gotten a chance to guess at the book meme yet, and you want to, scroll down to the previous entry before reading this one.

Now, without further ado, here are the answers, with kudos to the lovely readers who guessed them first.

1. I am old now and have not much to fear from the anger of the gods. I have neither husband nor child, nor hardly a friend, through whom they can hurt me. 
Answer: Till We Have Faces, by C.S. Lewis.  The prize goes to Anamaria, with Jamie, Maggie, and Sonetka also getting it right.  In my opinion, this is an absolutely awesome book - if you haven't read it, you should.

2. The Fossil sisters lived in the Cromwell Road.
Answer: Ballet Shoes, by Noel Streatfeild.  Guessed first by Anamaria.  Maggie and Alicia also guessed it.  My sister gets the Dork Prize for spelling "Streatfeild" correctly (although I know she can only do that because she's watched You've Got Mail a hundred times). 

3. Sir Walter Elliot, of Kellynch-hall, in Somersetshire, was a man who, for his own amusement, never took up any book but the Baronetage.
Answer: Persuasion, by Jane Austen.  Jamie, Sonetka, Jenn, and Tracy all got that one.  That Sir Walter is such a snob, isn't he?  He makes me furious.

4. “There are dragons in the twins’ vegetable garden.”
Answer: A Wind in the Door, by Madeleine L'Engle. Guessed first by Jamie, and also by Marin and Sonetka.  I've read almost everything by Madeleine L'Engle - which is a lot more than you think; her popular children's books are just the tip of the iceberg - and I'm a big fan. 

5. There was no possibility of taking a walk that day.
Answer: Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bronte.  The prize goes to Jenn for guessing this one first, and Tracy also got it.  The Dork Prize again goes to Maggie for her "Is it a book about a paraplegic?" comment.

6. “Christmas won’t be Christmas without any presents.”
Answer: Little Women, by Louisa May Alcott.  Guessed first by Amy, and also by Maggie, Sonetka, Tracy, Becki, and Alicia.  I read this book for the first time when I was seven, when it seemed enormously long to me.  I've read it countless times since then.  My favorite chapter is, for reasons I don't even understand, the Vanity Fair chapter. 

7. On an exceptionally hot evening early in July a young man came out of the garret in which he lodged in S. Place and walked slowly, as though in hesitation, towards K. Bridge.
Answer: Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoevsky.  I think the prize for this one should go to Sonetka, since Jamie peeked.  By the way, Sonetka, I have no idea what's up with the initials; I had to buy this translation for a class and the initials drove me crazy the whole time I was reading it.  I have to admit that I don't like this book nearly as much as The Brothers Karamazov, but unfortunately I don't own that.

8. Mrs. Rachel Lynde lived just where the Avonlea main road dipped down into a little hollow, fringed with alders and ladies’ eardrops and traversed by a brook that had its source away back in the woods of the old Cuthbert place.
Answer: Anne of Green Gables, by L.M. Montgomery.  Guessed by Jamie, as well as by Maggie, Marin, Sonetka, Jenn, Shelly, Tracy, Becki, and Alicia.  This one was painfully obvious to anyone who's familiar with Anne, but I love her so much that I had to include her in this list.  I thought about using the first line from my favorite of the series, but that seemed unreasonable.  However, for those of you who love a challenge, here it is: "'Harvest is ended and summer is gone,' quoted Anne Shirley, gazing across the shorn fields dreamily."

9. Betsy was visiting at the Taggarts’ farm. It was Wednesday, and soon the kitchen would swim with warm delicious odors.
Answer: Heaven to Betsy, by Maud Hart Lovelace.  Anamaria got it first, followed by Maggie.  Anyone who has not read the Betsy books has seriously missed out.  These books really make me wish I was born a hundred years ago.  So fun!

10. Mma Ramotswe had a detective agency in Africa, at the foot of Kgale Hill.
Answer: The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency, by Alexander McCall Smith.  Maggie, Melissa, and Alicia nailed this one.  Hooray!

I hope that some of you will do this game on your blogs, so that I can come and guess.  Thank you all for playing!

Book Meme

Recently in the blogosphere there seems to have been an inordinately large amount of discussion about books, which makes me happy. I normally try not to do memes, but I saw a book meme (at a password-protected journal I can’t link to) and was so darn excited that I decided to do it. This is the way it works: I post a list of the first lines from ten of my favorite books, and then you all try and guess the books and their authors.

I don’t own all of my favorite books, and some of them are so obscure that you wouldn’t be able to guess them. Instead, here are the first lines of ten books I picked at random off my bookshelf. I was tempted to find all my most literary offerings so I could impress you, but this is much more realistic; this is a sampling of the kinds of things I actually read. Some are children’s books, but ones that I still enjoy. Some are very easy, some are harder. They’re all fiction. Happy guessing!

1. I am old now and have not much to fear from the anger of the gods. I have neither husband nor child, nor hardly a friend, through whom they can hurt me. 

2. The Fossil sisters lived in the Cromwell Road.

3. Sir Walter Elliot, of Kellynch-hall, in Somersetshire, was a man who, for his own amusement, never took up any book but the Baronetage.

4. “There are dragons in the twins’ vegetable garden.”

5. There was no possibility of taking a walk that day.

6. “Christmas won’t be Christmas without any presents.”

7. On an exceptionally hot evening early in July a young man came out of the garret in which he lodged in S. Place and walked slowly, as though in hesitation, towards K. Bridge.

8. Mrs. Rachel Lynde lived just where the Avonlea main road dipped down into a little hollow, fringed with alders and ladies’ eardrops and traversed by a brook that had its source away back in the woods of the old Cuthbert place.

9. Betsy was visiting at the Taggarts’ farm. It was Wednesday, and soon the kitchen would swim with warm delicious odors.

10. Mma Ramotswe had a detective agency in Africa, at the foot of Kgale Hill.

On reexamination I find that rather a large number of these are children’s books. Draw what conclusions you may about the maturity of my mind, but please don’t tease me, because I am sensitive.

Also, no fair Googling. You either know it or you don’t.

Don't hate me because I'm lazy

Before the end of April, I have to write a thesis and two term papers, which amount to about forty pages. I have to admit, it’s stressing me out a little. Last night I said to Michael, “I have so much work to do; I think I’m going to have to become a full-time student.” Of course I’ve been a full-time student for ten semesters now, but I meant that I’m going to have to buckle down to my studies full-time.

Michael laughed. “Now’s the time to start working hard? In the last month of your fifth year in college? Don’t you think it’s kind of late?” But he was just teasing. He knows about my Problem, and about my Policy. And I think now, when I really should be working on my papers, is the perfect time to share those with you.

It’s fitting, really, because my Problem, if you haven’t guessed already, is Procrastination. Big-time Procrastination. Some people work better under stress, but I work only under stress. There have been times when I simply could not get started on a paper until I had a time-limit most people would consider unbearable. I never need more than an hour per page, so if the paper was due at midnight I’d start writing at 7:00, and if by 9:00 I had three pages written, I’d take an hour break. Otherwise the pressure would cool and I’d just waste time.

It sounds really, really crazy to most people who hear about it, but I know that you all are already aware of my craziness, so what have I got to lose by revealing it here? I am a world-class Procrastinator. I’ve tried to change, but I cannot. If I sit down in front of the computer two or three days before a paper is due, I’ll just stare at the screen or write the same paragraph over and over. I’ll think, “Okay, ten-pager due Friday; it’s Monday, so I’ll write two or three pages a day and be fine.” Then Thursday night I’ve got nothing written, but when I sit down with that pressure pushing me, my fingers fly over the keys. I once wrote a ten-page history term paper in five hours, which I believe is my record.

Which brings me to my Policy: Never do more work than is necessary to get an A. I don’t remember having this policy when I was in kindergarten, so I must have developed it in first grade, maybe as late as second grade. In high school I did my homework at the lunch table or in other classes. I didn’t study for tests. I did assignments as quickly, with as little effort, as possible. If I’d been unable to get As using this system, then I would obviously have changed it, but I didn’t need to, so I didn’t.

My freshman year in college I got a rude awakening from my organic chemistry class. I changed my definition of “acceptable grade” from A to B, but to get that I still needed to study, so I did. That semester, I’d spend six hours at a time in the library, buried in my textbooks. It felt kind of good, but it was definitely not the way I planned to spend the rest of my college career. In the years since then, I’ve perfected the system. I know exactly how much work I need to do to get an acceptable grade in a class. I have become an ultimately efficient machine, cranking out assignments in the least amount of time necessary, with the least amount of effort.

It sounds awful, doesn’t it? I will frankly admit that I do not consider myself a good student. I love the things I’m studying, and I learn them, but devotion to my work I do not have. Maybe it’s why I could get married so young – school was never my first priority, so I didn’t have trouble making room in my academic life for my marriage. It was always abundantly clear to me that marriage should come first.

Of course, I’m clearly not cut out for a career in academia, but I’m okay with that. Knowledge for its own sake, I love, but the work required to get those degrees is simply not something I’m prepared to do. I hear in grad school you actually have to study every day!

Tenacity is a good thing. In some cases.

I’ve been very industrious this afternoon. See?

What makes me even prouder is that I’m working so hard while sitting just a few feet from the outdoors. See?

Actually, I can’t lie to you. I haven’t been very industrious. The 77-degree breeze is torturing me. Torturing me! If I have to spend a week inside working on my thesis (entirely my fault, as I was meant to have been working on it all semester, but put it off until now), the weather could at least oblige by being nasty. It’s very hard for me, a practiced procrastinator, to resist the temptation to grab a beach towel and a novel and go lounge on the lawn. Very hard! Unnecessarily hard! But it’s supposed to rain tomorrow, and tomorrow I’ll probably be whining about the bad weather. In fact, I guess I’ll be whining about everything until my thesis is finished.

Which reminds me of something I wanted to ask you about/horrify you with. Remember Goosie? The one who tried to manipulate me into babysitting for her? She’s been doing something horrifying, and with every new occurrence I think, “I should blog about that,” and then I forget. But now I’ve remembered!

Her child was born at the beginning of last September, approximately seven months ago. Since then, we have received eight pictures of the little one, all completely unsolicited. We got a birth announcement, a newborn picture with the thank-you note for bringing them dinner, a Halloween card, a Christmas card, a Valentine’s Day card, and an Easter card. Also, by email, a picture of the baby with Santa Claus and a picture of the baby with the Easter bunny.

I ask you (and your answer had better be: “Heavens, yes, absolutely!”), is this not too many pictures? After all, we are not related to the child; we are not even really close friends with her parents. Wouldn’t one or two pictures a year be plenty?

On top of which (and here I am just ranting, so feel free to stop reading now) the baby’s mother does the most absolutely horrifyingly cutesy thing ever – she writes notes as if they were written by the child. The thank-you note for dinner, which I have since unfortunately discarded, said something along the lines of “Thank you so much for bringing dinner, Mommy and Daddy really appreciated it.” Gah! Are we supposed to believe that a four-day-old child can write? Or, alternatively, dictate? Who finds these things endearing? Anyone? It’s impossible to imagine someone opening that card and saying, “Oh look, honey, the baby wrote to us. How sweet.”  Ridiculous.

I am not really upset by the situation, in large part because it is so ludicrous.  Michael and I laugh every time we get an envelope from them, because we know there will be something laughable inside.  In fact, I guess I should be grateful to Goosie for cheering me up, and for giving me something about which to say confidently, "When I am a mother, I will never do that."

Have any of you had similar experiences to mine? I’d love to hear about them! I need something to distract me from all this work. You know, the work I should be doing.  The work I will start doing again in a moment, but only because I can't find a beach towel.  I'm not about to brave lawn chairs that have sat out the entire winter.

In Memoriam

I've thought long and hard about how to properly honor the Pope in this space, and I've concluded that it can't be done.  John Paul II deserves such vast honor, and this is such a small space.

I have decided, in his honor, to post a paper I wrote last semester on the pillars of his teachings.  If you want to know what I really think of our late Holy Father, check it out.

He was a great man.  I pray that his successor will be an equally worthy pastor and teacher.

Help!

Just after writing my last post about how I have nothing to write about, I remembered something I've been meaning to ask you all.  I get such great advice here that it would be silly not to ask you this question, which is a pretty important one.

When Michael and I got married, we agreed that when we had children, it would be a top priority for us to have me stay home with them.  At the time he was still a student, and we had no guarantees that our financial situation would be easy after he graduated, but we knew that we would make it work somehow.  After he got his job, which provides a very reasonable income for us, we relaxed in the knowledge that we would definitely be able to make it work.  I assumed that I would probably get pregnant before I even finished college, so I didn't worry about having a career.  I figured I'd go right from undergrad into career motherhood.

Obviously that has not happened.  With the passing of each semester I worried a little about what to do after college if no babies had come along, but it was easy to put off thinking about it.  Now, with graduation a month away, it has hit me.  I won't be a student anymore.  I know from experience that I can't stay home all day.  I need to find something else to do.

This is where you come in.  What should I do?  Many of you probably have experience in the job world.  What jobs have you hated, what jobs have you loved?  For what do you think I would be well suited?  I'd love to hear things like, "Elizabeth, I think you'd make a great [chef/movie star/President]," or, alternatively "I think you'd make a horrible [CPA/construction worker/President]."  Bring on the advice!

Clarification:  We can live on Michael's income alone, but I have a bunch of student loans that will come due this fall, and adding payments to our current budget would make it pretty tight - if I am able to work, it's good for me to do so.  Also, my major is theology.