Where's that in the Constitution?

I saw this roaming around on facebook a while back. Lets just say I had many words to say about this!

Let's back up a second before I get to the the last sentence of this picture.

Yes it is a sin in the bible, but it ALSO goes against the Institution of Marriage in the first place. 

The Institution of Marriage is not some man made institution, it is a Divine Institution. It was established since the days before Christ. Heck, you can even go back to when God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1). It was established way before the social issue of gay marriage was ever mentioned.  It is not something that is "owned" by the State as the case of Goodridge v. Massachusetts tried to argue. (More on this point a little later). 

There is a reason why Adam felt so alone even after God created the animals of the sea, air, and land. He was missing the other half of himself. And as the story goes in the bible, God created a woman for Adam from one of his ribs. Did he create another man from his ribs? No, it was a woman. We see from this that marriage is a sacred and permanent covenant between ONE man and ONE woman. 

One could argue that marriage is solely an emotional and practical alliance between two adults. What does that mean? According to the court case Goodridge v. Massachusetts, marriage should be based upon each person's individual rights rather than the rights of couples. In other words, it doesn't matter if they are male and female, just as long as they love each other, they have a right to be married. BUT, the Supreme Court has always viewed marriage in the traditional sense: between one man and one woman. Also, marriage is not something that only satisfies the individuals separately; it is about the development of each member's earthly and spiritual life. It's about being vulnerable and giving one's self for the other, and not being selfish in trying to satisfy your own need.

Before I dive into the Constitution, I would like for you to read through it and have the page up while you read the rest of this post. Below, I have provided a link to a very simple read of the Constitution. 

U.S. Constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

I am going to pay particular attention to the 1st Amendment for the purpose of this post and to better understand what it means for us as individuals.

When the Constitution was first written, the founding fathers knew exactly what they wanted and how they wanted us Americans to live. During their era, the people rose up in a revolution against England because they wanted to escape from the way they had to live under the rule of a monarch - especially one that supressed the religious groups that went against the king. They wanted the people to live freely, to express themselves freely, to practice whatever religion they wanted to freely; they wanted to get away from someone telling them how to live their lives. 

The 1st Amendment gives us the Freedom of Speech, the Freedom of Religion, and the Freedom of the Press.

Lets start with Freedom of Speech. What do you think that means? Do you think it means that we can burn the American flag because we are expressing our 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Speech? No because that's just plain disrespectful and unpatriotic. Freedom of Speech, as the founders sought it, was for us to freely speak our minds without being reprimanded or punished for what we have to say. It does not mean the government has control over what we say or think about anything. If we believe the government is ruining our nation, we have a right to say and do something about it without any consequences. In other words, we have a right to our own opinion without someone putting us in jail for it.

The Freedom of the Press was given to the media, journalist, etc. to "keep an eye out" on the government's activity and actions freely. If this was not established, then reporters would have to toe around so they would not get into trouble, or even arrested. It is also a way for the people to see what the government is doing for our nation. 

We are at the best part of the 1st Amendment: Freedom of Religion. The people are free to practice their own religion in this country. If there was a set religion, like it is over in England, it would defeat everything there is about our 1st Amendment rights. Again, this is part of the reason why there was a revolution in the first place. The people did not want to be deprived of practicing their own religious beliefs. 

But does this freedom of religion mean that someone can "innovate" whatever they want about a topic, like gay marriage, and claim it a "religious practice"?... well, let's look at an interesting case:

Mormons were practicing polygamy because it was part of their religion. They believed that the men had the right to marry as many women as they want. Now a days, they have changed this. They no longer practice polygamy. Why? Because of a court case, a few in fact (Reynolds v. United States and Mormon Church v. United States), that changed everything for the Mormons.

In the case of Reynolds, a man had intentionally married a second time while he was still married to his first wife that was still living. Reynolds was charged with bigamy, but tried to get it appealed through the Supreme Court. Reynolds argued that he was practicing his 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Religion: to freely practice his religion without precaution.  In doing so, he was ignoring the Morril Anti-Bigamy Act which, at the time, was a federal enactment that clearly banned bigamy.  The Supreme Court recognized that under the 1st Amendment, Congress cannot pass a law that would prohibit anyone from freely practicing their religion. It argued that the law prohibiting bigamy did not fall under this. The court also recognized the very fact that 'a person can only be married once' has existed since the ruling of King James I, which the United States laws are based upon. Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the charges against Reynolds.

An example of Freedom of Religion is to take a quick look at what Catholics believe about contraception. Catholics take on a lot of heat for believing that contraception is a moral sin. Any form of contraception prevents the woman from bearing children which goes against what marriage is. We marry to procreate, to have children so that we can expand our nation, not to die out the people. If gay marriage was constitutional, that would cause problems for the Catholic and a substantial number of Protestant religious practice. Relating this to the Catholic view mentioned above, there would be no way for a gay couple to procreate. There has been an argument against this essential purpose of a marriage. The Goodridge case stated that procreation and marriage were not linked together. This argument went all the way to the Supreme Court case Skinner v. Oklahoma, which they stated that marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the human race.

"What about using birth control for medical reasons only?" The answer to this is yes you can, but only for that reason. There are many people who need to use birth control for medical reasons and that is fine. I used to be one of those woman. I would have horrible pain in my abdomen from cramps where I could not get up and move. I got on the pill and it helped a lot, but did I ever consider that my body changes as I get older? I never ever considered it since I was still in my twenties. I knew that as we got close to age 50, we would go through menopause and our bodies would change then, but our bodies do change periodically within our lifetime and that it doesn't start when we hit menopause.

I had been on the pill for 2 years when my husband, who is a practicing cradle Catholic, asked me if I ever considered that my body might have changed in the past two years. I did not have an answer to this because I've never tried to get off the pill to see if I would get my horrible cramps. A month after I started RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults), I got off the pill and have been off of it ever since, without those painful cramps that I was experiencing in high school. From this experience, I do not need the pill anymore and the only reason (and disagreement with some of my relatives) that I would "need" to be on it is to not conceive any children after I give birth. I fought (and still am fighting) tooth and nail about my decision to not get back on the pill after I gave birth to our third little girl. Therefore, I am not and will not be on the pill to satiate what my relatives believe I should do. Being on the pill goes against what I practice and goes against what I believe as a Catholic woman.

These are just a few examples of someone practicing their religious beliefs. Of course, people still judge  those who practice their faith, but at least our country has given us the freedom to be able to do so, rather than sentencing us to death for believing in something the government deems "not the religion of the land."

The reason why I broke the 1st Amendment down was to let you see why it's established in the first place. Each living person that has been born in the United States of America have these rights, whether you deem yourself gay or not. You already have individual rights as a person, which is why we have our Constitution. The Constitution is not something to uphold laws based on social whims, it's to uphold the laws of the land.

Now, each state has their own Constitution, and if they so chose to, they can partake in the social issues of their State. If they want to make gay marriage legal then they make it so. This is where I come back to the claim that marriage is an institution that is owned by the states. The case argued that the government created civil marriage and has been a wholly secular institution. Another case,  Hernandez v. Robles, stated the same theme. Besides saying that the institution of marriage was created by the government, the case also stated that it has been redefined within modern American society and that the law has adjusted accordingly. It also said that the general population now views marriage as a partnership of equals with equal rights and that the gender of the partners is no longer critical in the definition of marriage. Again, another Supreme Court case (Murphy v. Ramsey) proved this wrong. The case stated that "[N]o legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take [its] rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony." 

There is one another thing I want to go over to completely answer the pending question of "Where's that in the Constitution?" and that is to address The Defense of Marriage Act. I have never heard about this until my husband actually told me about it when I was seeking some advice and help with writing this post. I just wikipedia the act and got a quick summary of what the act is all about.

First off, it's a United States Federal Law that defines marriage as a legal union of one man and one woman. Furthermore, no state is required to recognize a same sex marriage that was treated as a legal marriage from another state. More recently, as I found out, Section 3 which "codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns" has been found unconstitutional according to the Obama Administration, but NOT from the US Supreme Court which is the only authority on determining whether or not something is constitutional.

So where does it say in the Constitution that gay marriage is a sin? With all the claims and arguments I have mentioned in this post all come to one conclusion: The Supreme Court sees that marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. The Supreme Court is given the right to examine laws that are challenged through the lower courts. They examine these laws through the "eye of the Constitution." Meaning they have the authority to interpret the Constitution to upheld laws that are constitutional or to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. What ever the Supreme Court decides is as it stands, unless Congress passes an amendment to the Constitution, or the findings of a succeeding case overturns a previous court decision.

Sources:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble

http://old.usccb.org/laity/marriage/samesexeng.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/136/1/case.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Anti-Bigamy_Act

"Monday's with Answers": Why So Many Denominations?

Thanks for coming back for Mondays With Answers!  This week’s question topically follows on heels of last week’s question, and I think it is a good progression given that the answer is closely related to some of the issues introduced last week. This week, we explore:
Why are there so many Christian denominations?
Much like last week had a deceptively simple answer that needed to be developed, this week also has an answer too simple to stand alone.
In short, at the heart of this question is a question of authority. The reason why there are so many Christian denominations is because at the heart of each new denomination that was started there was a reaction to a question of authority.
“Ahh,  but wait…” you say, “What of Luther? Didn’t he break away from the Catholic Church because of the extra-biblical practices of the Catholic Church? You know, the whole ‘selling indulgences’ and clerical abuses bit?”
Indeed he did. However, what makes Luther different than, say, St. Benedict of the 5-6th Century, St. Gregory the Great of the 6-7th Century, or even St Gregory VII of the 11th Century, who each experienced their own forms of abuses of their own times? What is the difference between him and a whole host of “reformers” that preceded him; men such as Ximenes de Cisneros, John Colet, John Fisher, Gasparo Contarini and even Erasmus of Rotterdam. How about St. Ignatius of Loyola who’s work was in the heart of the Protestant revolt? We will explore that in a little bit.
If you haven’t in a while, read through Luther’s 95 Thesis. It is a relatively quick read.
Isn’t it interesting that the substance of Luther’s 95 Thesis actually presumes the authority of the Papacy and, by extension, the clergy while at the same time presupposes the validity of many of the Catholic practices not found in modern-day Protestantism? To those who say that Luther changed and later developed his views that are different than what the Catholic church teaches, again I say I agree. In fact, I agree to such an extent that the degree to which Luther’s views diverged so much from the church that he no longer recognized the validity of the Catholic Church or authority of the Pope is the point of which Luther ceased to be part of the ancient church and found himself part of a new, and in his view “restored,” church. Which takes us back to the heart of the issue: by what authority? Whatever answer to that question you have defines the rational for whatever group you may find yourself, and the question itself explains why – at least in that brief time with just Luther – there were two different ‘denominations’.
What of Henry VIII?… Need I explain?  The question of authority seems self evident given Henry crowning himself the prince of the Church of England when he wouldn’t be issued a decree of divorce by the Church Universal.
And John Calvin? His Christianae Religionis Instituitio – better known as Institute,  and to borrow from Hilaire Belloc’s words – produced a “church, a creed, a discipline, which could be set over against what had been for all these centuries (and what still is) the native church, creed, and discipline of Christian civilization.” In other words, Calvin created a framework from which the Protestant worldview can have recourse to authority. This is a framework that currently exists today even if tenets of Calvinist thoughts aren’t devoutly followed.
Each split ceased to recognize the authority of the parent group, and often the very justifications for such a split was used to justify further splinters still.
The issues leading to the Protestant revolt, and the circumstances during, are complicated. In fact, it can be argued that the conditions that allowed for a prolonged and persistent revolution was an inability of many of the church leadership to recognize their faults and with humility work to resolve the legitimate issues that were brought up. Hilaire Belloc (quoted above) gives an excellent cursory review of this period in his work How the Reformation Happened.
So, this brings us back to St. Ignatius et al. What sets them apart from Luther, Henry VIII, and John Calvin? Each one of them recognized something wrong with the Christian Church – from Ignatius to Calvin, and Gregory to Luther. Each one of them fought hard to reform and correct the injustices. What sets Ignatius et al. apart from Luther et al. is that St. Gregory’s reforms didn’t result in a new “church” or new “denomination.” St. Ignatius et al. worked within the Catholic church to accomplish the reforms that were needed – much like Luther originally set out to do. Ultimately what sets Luther et al apart from the former is that each ceased to recognize the authority of the parent church and set out on their own authority to “restore” what they thought should be the church.
Each succeeding denomination hinges its establishment on this question of authority.
I hope you find these Mondays with Answers worthwhile! Please, if you have any questions, feel free to post comments.
God Love You!

"Monday's with Answers": Why Different Bible Versions?

Welcome to Mondays With Answers.

The concept of Mondays With Answers is to give me the opportunity to take a little more time during the week to do research and write an answer to questions about Christianity, more specifically Catholicism, that are substantial in nature. Not all topics will be uniquely Catholic, though, like case of this first edition:

This week’s question: Why are there so many different versions of the Bible and what makes one more accurate than the others?

This is a question I found perusing the internet. When I started thinking about it a little more, I think this is a common question that a lot of people don’t realize that they have. How many people have really stopped to think about why some bibles read differently than others?  This is not to question anybody’s devotion to God or faithfulness to Sacred Scriptures. This is really just a question on the mechanics of what makes one version different than another.

The bottom-line answer: the differences have to do with translations.

This post won't go through all the different versions exhaustively. Instead, out of brevity, I will hit on the broad (general) differences. There will be principles brought up, though, that will more than likely be an explanation that applies to specific differences that may not be covered. If you have a question about a specific difference that wasn't covered feel free to ask. Please keep in mind that this isn't intended to be an academic dissertation so some liberty will be taken to try to keep this as brief as possible.

First, there is a general difference between a Catholic Bible and most Protestant Bibles. Catholic scriptures are the exact same in substance as what you will find in Protestant Scriptures. They are essentially of the same sources.  That said, the Catholic Bible has a larger Old Testament with 7 more books called the Deuterocanonical books which Protestants know as “Apocryphal” books. I understand I may have introduced a few words that aren’t necessarily in everyday use, so here is a quick background:

NewAdvent.org: The Greek kanon means primarily a reed, or measuring-rod: by a natural figure it was employed by ancient writers both profane and religious to denote a rule or standard.

So the word canon refers to a “regulated and defined collection” typically used in the context of theological or official “church” writings.  New Advent continues:

The terms protocanonical and deuterocanonical, of frequent usage among Catholic theologians and exegetes, require a word of caution. … It would be wrong to infer from them that the Church successively possessed two distinct Biblical Canons. Only in a partial and restricted way may we speak of a first and second Canon. Protocanonical (protos, "first") is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. The deuterocanonical (deuteros, "second") are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the "Apocrypha". These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel.

The derivation of the word Apocrypha comes from the Greek word apokryphos, which means “hidden.”  In this context Protestants use it to refer to “non-canonical” books.  Catholics use a different term because “apocrypha” has a historical use of that term that goes back beyond the Protestant Reformation. To read more on this use of the word click here. This is another article from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and is a thorough albeit a little difficult read.

The point of contention between the Catholic and Protestant listing of the Old Testament works has its roots with Luther early in the beginning of the Protestant revolt, and his relegating (among other New Testament books) the listed 7 books to an appendix in his translation of the bible.

Luther’s intent with his translation of the bible was to translate directly from Hebrew. At the time, the bible standard was what is known as the Latin Vulgate which was translated into Latin by St. Jerome. St. Jerome was a renown scripture scholar of his time (4th Century), and coined the following quote regarding Scripture: “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” Jerome was commissioned to do essentially what Luther set out to do: to create an accurate translation of scriptures as close to the source as possible.

Only, Jerome was dealing with a different problem. The issue that the Church was dealing with in the 4th century was that the Latin scriptures that they had were handwritten copies of copies of copies of...(well, you get my point). By the 4th century the Latin texts that they DID have varied from one another, and were to the point of being unreliable from possible additions and/or mistakes by copyists. Jerome had at his disposal Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the books of the Old Testament that were even considered ancient at HIS time. Jerome cross-referenced his work between these sources that he had available to him.

Notice that a new element entered this post: Greek? I thought we were dealing with Hebrew. How is a Greek translation even considered close to an “original” source?

Okay before we go there, a quick inventory of Scripture Translations that we have talked about: Hebrew OT, Greek NT, Latin Vulgate, Luther Bible (German).

Enter: Septuagint.

NewAdvent.org: The Septuagint version was the Bible of the Greek-speaking, or Hellenist, Jews, whose intellectual and literary centre was Alexandria. The oldest extant copies date from the fourth and fifth centuries of our era, and were therefore made by Christian hands; nevertheless scholars generally admit that these faithfully represent the Old Testament as it was current among the Hellenist or Alexandrian Jews in the age immediately preceding Christ.

The Septuagint (LXX translation) is a Greek translation of OT scriptures that dates back to 300 B.C.  Before Christ, the Septuagint was accepted and recognized as a legitimate text by Jews in all the Greek-speaking countries, and helped spread the idea/expectation of a Messias to the Gentiles.

Simplistically, Luther did not refer to the legitimacy of the Septuagint because, at the time, there were no ancient Hebrew manuscripts that could support the additional books that were included in the Greek version. And, because there were no Hebrew manuscripts, it couldn't be considered as "authoritative" as the protocanonical books. Since then, in the 1950's, the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery found manuscripts dating as early as 408 B.C. that have the Greek books in question in Hebrew.

Clearly, there is a lot of debate (that even continues to this day) as to whether the "extra" books should be included in the bible or not.  The spirit of this post is not intended to advocate one over the other so much as it is to explain what those differences are and where they come from. That said, I will not try to hide which one I favor (and given the context of the Blog, I don't think it would take much to figure it out).

Beyond the major difference (7 "extra" books or not), there are still differences. You can even find differences between Bibles that number the same books. Some read relatively easily, some seem clunky...  while others read like they are antiquated, in old English.  The latter is pretty easy to explain, in that they are translations that hold true to the time they were originally translated (i.e. 1611 KJV, or Douay Rheims Bible).

But what about those that read "clunky" vs. those that ready colloquially? At the heart of that question is the philosophy that goes into the translation: "formal equivalence" vs. "dynamic equivalence." Formal equivalence translations try to give a translation that is as literal to the original text as possible. Dynamic equivalence translations give the translator more liberty in the translation to make a more readable translation -- so long as the meaning of the text is preserved.

Each has its disadvantages, and each has its uses.

Finally, to the last question: "what makes one version more accurate than the other?"

Ultimately, we have different versions of the Bible because of different translations... which means an evaluation of accuracy is contingent on interpretation. Personally, this answer is not satisfying enough. In other words, without an appeal to an outside authority, no one can subjectively and definitively say that "this" is the most accurate as opposed to "that" one. I don't say that the 7 "extra" books should be included in the bible because of the NT references, the history of translations, the closeness to Hebrew, etc. in and of itself. Those arguments help, but in the end... I think as such because God became man, gave man authority - guided by the Holy Spirit -  to build His church, and His Church determined as much.

Call me simple-minded... ;)  Maybe that will be a question for next week!

God Love You!


A good audio on the Bible:
EWTN's The Journey Home: The Canon of Scripture

LiveJournal Tags: Bible History,Bible,translations

Guest Blogger and Guest Blogging

Sorry I have not posted much on here lately. Life has been quit busy with three little ones all under the age of 5.

I have a post I have been working on that is a little more serious than my previous posts. I am hoping to get it up sooner rather than later. After that one is posted, I'm hoping to start on another post that has a "happier" tune to it. :)

Anyway, onward with the title of this post! :D

I believe every Monday, a guest blogger* will start to post a series called "Mondays with Answers." Throughout the week, at least with these first few posts, he will be actively seeking out questions with a focus on Catholic responses to the questions that arise. Once the series gets it's kick start he will then start to collect questions that he may hear/see throughout the week and will post the answers on Mondays, hence the title of the series. If this does not make sense, please feel free to ask and I will try my best to ask the guest blogger to explain in his own words. :) Oh! And if you have any questions of your own, do not hesitate to ask him! I am sure he will appreciate any questions that may come up, whether it is one you have from the post you read, or one that you are curious about.

Speaking of guest blogging. Every now and then, I will be guest blogging on his blog as well! As I have mentioned in a previous post at the beginning of my blog, I was once a Protestant before I converted to Catholicism so there may be a time when he would like a "Protestant" point of view with his posts.

I hope everyone has Happy Monday!











*pst! The guest blogger is my husband! :-P

Baby sewing projects

Sorry it has been a while since I have posted anything on here. Needless to say it has been quit busy these past few weeks.

I have been crazy at work with my sewing machine. I managed to whip up some baby bibs and burp cloths for a baby shower gift, but my most favorite project (one I have been dying to get my hands on before the baby was born) was a car seat canopy for my infant car seat.

I found this great snuggly flannel fabric (and thanks to my eldest for helping me pick out the other colors) at Joann's for 50% off. I found the pattern for the canopy and straps for free off of fleecefun.com (instruction included).

As I said, I wanted to get it done before my 3rd was born, but she decided to come a couple of weeks early. :)

Lillian Ruth

I have been blessed that she likes to sleep, especially during the night.  I was even more blessed to have my husband on paternity leave for 10 days so that I was able to have some sewing time while my two youngest had naps.

It took me at least two weeks to get everything put together. I had to do each step a little at a time. I was very surprised how fast 2 hours go by when I am head deep within a project. :) And so, after a couple of hours worth yesterday, I finally finished my car seat canopy! It turned out better than I expected, minus a piece of velcro that I miscalculated (but still has a use!). :-D

Front view. I need to add some big buttons to make the straps stand out more.

Front view with canopy open.

Side view

Side view with canopy open.

Weening of the Pacifier

I've been told three different methods for weening your child off their pacifier. The first method is to cut the tip off little by little each day or each week (whichever you are most comfortable with). The second method is to use the next size down (going from 6-18 month pacifiers to 0-6 month pacifiers). The third method is just getting rid of the entire pacifier cold turkey. For some this method has worked perfectly for them, and for others, it seems pretty harsh to do to their child. As for myself, this method seems a bit harsh. I prefer the other two methods to be completely honest.

My husband and I did the second method for our eldest daughter and that took about a week before she fell asleep the minute we put her in her crib.

Now we are trying the second method with our youngest. I was a little afraid of how she would react since the pacifier became her "security blanket" so to speak, ever since I stopped breastfeeding her when she was 11 months. We made our first cut about 3 weeks ago and cut the tip once a week after that. By the third week, she was running around the house without her pacifier and talking more while we were in the car.

Saturday night was the first night we had put her to sleep without her "security blanket." She pretty much crashed, but had woken up around 2:30 in the morning crying. I ignored her and she seemed to have fallen asleep again. For her Sunday nap time, she cried for about five minutes then started talking to herself! It was the funniest thing to listen to over the baby monitor, but eventually she fell asleep. Tonight (Sunday) it seems that it is taking her a little bit longer to fall asleep without her pacifier. She cried for five minutes ago like she did during her nap time, started talking to herself once again, and made a few noises just so she could stay up a little bit longer. There is one things I am glad about... she is not screaming her head off for more than ten minutes! :-P

I am hoping she will sleep the whole night through tonight, but if not, that is okay too. It is a process that we all must go through that takes some time for our littlest to get used to. I just need to remind myself not to get too frustrated about her not falling asleep immediately. After all, my youngest is very different from how my eldest was when she was 14 months old. :-)



Food for thought: Which method(s) have you done to ween your little one(s) off the pacifier?

Day Two/Three: Luke 1:39-45

Sorry I did not get this up yesterday. My youngest had a rough nap and was very needy of her mommy after she woke up.

Ahh, this is one of my favorite parts of the Gospel of Luke. Why? Because we see where some of the first half of the Hail Mary prayer comes from!

Growing up, I’ve heard this story a million times (exaggeration, but you understand what I am saying.), but I never really paid attention to the words. Yes, I know that Mary went to visit her cousin after getting the news that Elizabeth had conceived a child, but that greeting? I grew up as a nondenominational, not a Catholic, so we never really cared to look at the words more closely in the bible. We just knew that Elizabeth was pregnant and her baby leaped when she heard Mary’s voice.

I converted to Catholicism in 2007 and this was the first I had a conversation about the Hail Mary prayer and where you can find it in the bible. Of all the people in the bible, it was Elizabeth, her cousin, who has given us the first part of the Hail Mary! I would have thought it to be an Angel, someone with more meaning and value, not a relative, but that’s the thing! We, as human beings, have a hard time just stopping to look at the little things in life, or those who do not seem so important. We worry about what computer we have, or if we have the latest iPhone that’s out on the market. We never look and think about the little things we have in our lives. We know that our family is important, that’s why we put them before us. We want to make sure that our children and husbands or wives are well taken care of before we think about ourselves. But is that all? Would we say that our aunt or uncle is significant or as important as an Angel? Probably not and that is why this passage is so important and meaningful to our faith. Elizabeth has greeted our Heavenly Mother with the most important message for us: “Most blessed are you amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” For Mary is the mother of our Lord, Jesus!

There are many things I hope to accomplish this Lent and one of them is for me to just stop and look at my surroundings and to thank God for all that he has provided for me and to be thankful for the little things and not the material things in life.

Food for thought: What do you hope to accomplish this Lent?