Thursday, May 15, 2008


I know, there haven't been any new posts lately. I'm sorry. But I think I've had a pretty good excuse.

I flew home on Friday to see my dad, help with all of the things that needed to get done (including roofing our house and sheetrocking a room), and just be around family. I might give a more complete update later, but I just wanted to quickly put in this little tidbit:

Despite the fact that I got delayed, bumped, and then cancelled, I still managed to fly into Minneapolis almost 2 hours earlier than originally scheduled, and with a better seat and no layover. That worked out quite well.

I get knocked down, but I get up again

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Holey Shamoley!

It's not as funny as Ben's incident, but on Monday of this week I managed to walk around all day with a hole in my pants that exposed what can be generously referred to as my "upper, inner thigh".

As an attorney, I frequently wear suits to work. I purchased this particular suit from Jos. A. Bank. I've had it for about a year now, and the crotch has slowly been wearing thin. I probably haven't worn them any more than 40 times, so this probably shouldn't have happened. I think it must have been shoddy tailoring; none of my other suits have this problem.

Either way, "slowly wearing thin" quickly became "gaping holes in the crotch". Unfortunately I didn't realize this until after I got to work. I think a few crucial threads may have finally given - perhaps even on the way to work - and so the holes were sudden and large. Fortunately, since i don't routinely sit with my legs spread, the holes couldn't be seen unless you were really looking intently at my crotch.

I was paranoid about the holes the whole day. It was an intake day, which meant I was meeting with a bunch of new clients, in addition to the regular lawyerly duties. And that night we had dance class, so I made sure to waltz a little more carefully. After all, I didn't want to end up doing some sort of forbidden dance.

There's a hole in your knickers dear Calvin

Monday, May 05, 2008

Can You Just Imagine The "Chicks With Collars" Fetish?

By the end of mass most weeks I'm upset at something or other. The parish we go to is incredibly stuffy and conservative in their worship style and politics, the parishioners are unfriendly and usually don't participate, and the music is terrible. Even worse that usual for a Catholic church. Really bad stuff.

But you can say one thing for our local church... it usually prompts me to think.

This week the pastor's homily focused on women in the priesthood. I have to commend him for taking on such a daunting topic. Most priests seem to avoid anything controversial, and routinely talk about much more benign issues. I do very much appreciate this quality to our current priest: he takes on the big issues, and he doesn't dumb things down. He actually uses his homilies for teaching, as well as for preaching. My problem just seems to come with regard to what he's teaching.

Being an especially conservative priest, he talked about the apologetics approach to explaining the Catholic position that women can't be priests. This is an issue I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about (primarily in college), and at various times I've come down on different sides. For a while, I thought women should be priests (women and men are equal, there's a shortage of priests, etc.). Then I thought maybe the church was right, that women shouldn't be ordained (Christ only picked men for apostles, value of tradition, etc.). Finally, after much research, writing, internal debate, reflection and prayer, I finally came to understand the crucial fact of this debate: there is no good theological reason for either supporting or denying women's ordination.

There are certainly some reasons to be given in support of both sides, but none of them are solid theological reasons. None of the reasons actually reveal God's will on the issue.

And that's what made tonight's homily so maddening: instead of discussing the issue without an agenda, the priest approached it from the standpoint that the arguments against women's ordination are the stronger arguments, and then he attempted to address some of the criticism of those arguments.

There are two primary reasons given against women's ordination. The first, and stupidest, is the idea that the church "is the bride of Christ" and Christ is the "bridegroom." Since the priest is "standing in" for Jesus he has to be male, because otherwise the analogy to marriage doesn't work. Pretty stupid, given that there are all sorts of similar analogies, including perhaps the most obvious one, that the church is the body of Christ, which would of course imply that the church is male and... well, you see the point. The whole bride/groom analogy is a pretty stupid idea. And since it's an analogy, it isn't really a reason in itself anyway. The priest didn't really address any of the criticism of this argument. I don't really wonder why.

The second reason given against women's ordination, and this is a [just] slightly more compelling one, is that Jesus himself selected only men to carry on his church. He appointed twelve male apostles, even though he hung out with a lot of women too, and this clearly indicates God's choice to have only men in the priesthood.

Of course, this is a pretty silly argument as well. The first inclination is to dismiss this because there are all sorts of other reasonable explanations for why Jesus would have only chosen men. There was the fact that women wouldn't have been as effective preachers in their day or age, or that they would have had a harder time traveling around like the apostles needed to, or whatever other justification you want to give. It was these counter-arguments that the priest attempted to address, and I must say that he did so rather effectively.

But that's not important. Because the composition of the twelve was not a statement on the future demographics of the priesthood. There is simply nothing in Jesus' ministry or teaching that would indicate that he intended to set precedent by selecting only men. Just like there's nothing to indicate that he intended to set precedent by selecting only Jews. Or only people between whatever ages the apostles were. Or any of the other various categories you could fit all of the 12 into.

The very argument, "Jesus selected only men, therefore the priesthood should be only men" is misleading. There needs to be another clause for the logic to work. The argument should read: "Jesus selected only men, the demographics of Jesus' selection were intended and instructive, therefore the priesthood should be only men."

Because the argument is presented without that necessary clause, there's no way to attack the conclusion without directing your attention to the first premise (Jesus selected only men), and trying to explain that away. That's how the argument has been addressed in the past, and those attempts usually fall pretty flat. Meaning that it seems like the argument against women's ordination stands.

But when we add the missing clause, things change. Suddenly we can see that the logic isn't so flawless, and that there's a tremendous assumption being made when the argument is presented. And when we look at some of the other natural conclusions that the premise implies, we can see that the assumption falls apart.

Which pretty much leaves us with no good theological reason that women shouldn't be priests.

I'm just still waiting to hear a really good theological reason why the should be. Until that happens, I'll keep reserving judgment.

I'm coming up only to hold you under
I'm coming up only to show you wrong

Thursday, May 01, 2008

A Meme-O

Jeff tagged me with this meme. It's real simple:

1) Open the nearest book to page 123.
2) Post sentences 6, 7, and 8 from that page.
3) Tag five others.

In lieu of the Virginia code book that is sitting on my desk, I reached into my bag and pulled out the two books I've got in there; one I'm actually reading, and one I just purchased and will be reading next.

Sabina could not understand why the dead would want to have imitation palaces built over them. The cemetary was vanity transmogrified into stone. Instead of growing more sensible in death, the inhabitants of the cemetary were sillier than they had been in life.

Taken from Milan Kundera's The Unbearable Lightness of Being, which I'm currently re-reading.
I spend half an hour stepping first on one, then on the other, then on the floor. I move the scales around the bathroom, and they change their minds, slightly. Then I try standing on them in different ways, my heels close together or wide apart.

This one if from The Man Who Ate Everything, by Jeffery Steingarten. Yup, that's right. The dude from Iron Chef. I can't wait to start reading this one.

And I, in turn, will pass it on to my siblings: Gina, Kendrick, Emily, Theresa, and Maria. It's your turn now. I expect to see new posts soon!

But I need a break and I want to be a paperback writer