Ready for school?!

She's not even two yet? Who is this kid???

In defense of the pope... [updated]

UPDATED 4-8-10

Maureen Dowd of the New York Times is taught a lesson in fidelity by NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez.

New York Times is outed as a hack newspaper; Italian documents used against Benedict were improperly translated with... Yahoo translator. Seriously.

A great article that lays it all out: "The Atomic Eros & the Hatred of the Church" by James M. Wilson of Front Porch Republic.


Cardinal William Levada pans the New York Times for the irresponsible reporting. Click here.

As a full-time member of the Roman Curia, the governing structure that carries out the Holy See’s tasks, I do not have time to deal with the Times’s subsequent almost daily articles by Rachel Donadio and others, much less with Maureen Dowd’s silly parroting of Goodstein’s “disturbing report.”

The definitive article on this smear campaign of Pope Benedict XVI has now arrived (click here): Then-presiding judge for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee gives first-person account of the church trial, and corrects/embarrasses the shoddy reporting commonly found in The New York Times.

Here's a snip:

I will limit my comments, because of judicial oaths I have taken as a canon lawyer and as an ecclesiastical judge. However, since my name and comments in the matter of the Father Murphy case have been liberally and often inaccurately quoted in the New York Times and in more than 100 other newspapers and on-line periodicals, I feel a freedom to tell part of the story of Father Murphy’s trial from ground zero.

As I have found that the reporting on this issue has been inaccurate and poor in terms of the facts, I am also writing out of a sense of duty to the truth.

The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.

My intent in the following paragraphs is to accomplish the following:

To tell the back-story of what actually happened in the Father Murphy case on the local level;

To outline the sloppy and inaccurate reporting on the Father Murphy case by the New York Times and other media outlets;

To assert that Pope Benedict XVI has done more than any other pope or bishop in history to rid the Catholic Church of the scourge of child sexual abuse and provide for those who have been injured;

To set the record straight with regards to the efforts made by the church to heal the wounds caused by clergy sexual misconduct. The Catholic Church is probably the safest place for children at this point in history.

Original post...

That's right. We will break with our usual light and cute stories of our children with some serious business. I have sat by and watched Pope Benedict get tarred and feathered by the liberal media, and I have seen enough of this trash.

Below is a screen shot of MSN's shoddy coverage. When first updated, one story headline read: "Pope describes touching boys: 'I went too far'" Absurd. Is this really a "typo"? The news organization, harangued by anti-defamation organizations, fixed the title. Yet, look at these headlines: is that objectivity?


It's time to set the record straight. I have chosen to write in this venue because there may be friends and family who read this blog who are only hearing the garbage uncritically reported by the leftist media. This unfairly fuels the flames of hatred or misunderstanding against the Church, and this is a terrible situation. Estranging Catholics from their own Church as well as making the pope and the Church look foolish to other Christians and non-Christians: this is unfair and a great injustice. I will not tolerate it.

First, I will posit my own observations, and then I will offer links to other alternative news outlets that have more carefully analyzed the situation by actually looking at and sizing up the facts.

My thoughts (in no particular order of importance, but in a logical thought sequence):

1) The abuse of children by priests has been a real problem and is a total abomination. A total outrage. It should not be taken lightly at all. It has happened in the Catholic Church, and it has hurt many people.

2) The abuse of children is not limited to Catholic priests, although from the media coverage one would think so. Any profession or vocation that has authority, trust, and contact with young people is susceptible to abuse and pedophilia. No if's, and's, or but's about it. This is a problem in every institution. Pick up the newspaper and read (in the later pages) about abuse in schools, day cares, sports, extracurricular activities, and any other venue where young people could possibly be alone with an adult.

3) The vast majority of priests are NOT pedophiles or abusers, but looking at the news would suggest that the Church is full of them. Not true. In fact, if I could find the study, the Catholic Church is much lower in cases of abuse than most other institutions.

4) Abuse of minors by priests has NOTHING to do with priestly celibacy. If we were to pay attention at all to abuse that happens in all other institutions we would see not only single men/women, but also married men/women and those with what are now popularly called "partners" embroiled in abuse scandals. In addition, if we were to look at the archives of English newspapers, we would see how well the Church of England has fared with abuse by its married clergy.

5) The vast majority of the abuse of minors by Catholic priests has been perpetrated by homosexual men. Yes, it is true: most cases, by far, are men going after boys. Straight men do not turn into homosexuals after becoming priests. This is not a problem of priestly celibacy but a problem of homosexuality infiltrating the priesthood. Homosexuality is a problem of our society in general.

6) The rules of the Church regarding the discipline of priestly abuse, from even before Vatican II, are very clear on what actions must be taken by local bishops in cooperation with local authorities. There is no secrecy in what should happen. If secrecy has occurred, it is because local priests and bishops have disobeyed Vatican rules. I repeat: the Vatican is the enemy of and weapon against local priestly abuse, not the institution of secrecy and obfuscation.

7) The Church, at her own demise, followed the directives of secular authorities on how to treat priest abusers. Recall how the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality off of its books as being a mental disorder. Secular "experts" advised the Church to "reform" abusers by sending them off to retreats and moving them to a different location. "There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It can be controlled. They will not continue to go after children. There is no connection to pedophilia." And so on, claimed the "experts." This was not the Church's idea, but the advice given by "experts" in the field of psychology. This advice, obviously, was horrendous. The Church should not have listened to the "world" here, but did. Shame on Church leaders for doing so.

8) Despite the wretched advice of "experts" in psychology, local bishops did a terrible job of responding to offenders, especially repeat offenders. No question about it. Many bishops will answer before God for how poorly they handled these cases. So many complaints went unanswered, and repeatedly, by local bishops, and likewise many bishops avoided the situation by simply moving priests around.

9) Although the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is the "internal affairs" body of the Vatican, is the ultimate authority on disciplinary measures, the responsibility ALWAYS and FIRST falls on the shoulders of the local bishop. Local bishops have everything they need to deal with an abuse case, and likewise they have access to local police authorities. When this was not done properly (and at times even in secret), it was because the bishop was being irresponsible and weak (and usually unorthodox). The bishop is the head of his Church. The Vatican should not need to get involved and take action for a bishop; the Vatican only deals with official trials AFTER the local bishop has handled the case by removing a priest from ministry. This is likewise the case with the Church's mission to evangelize the world: the pope is the spiritual and juridical head of the Church regarding issues between Churches, the selection of bishops, and lastly the declaration of dogmatic teaching on faith and morals. The pope does not run every local Church; that is what a bishop does. The pope is not a micro-manager. Bishops are in charge of their Churches, and I repeat: many bishops will answer to God for their obfuscation of priestly abuse.

Regarding the case that the media are after in a frenzy:
10) The case, as almost all of the abuse cases, is from over 20 years ago. Let's not forget this fact. The vast majority of abuse cases are from over 20 years ago. So why is the media frenzy raging now? Haven't these stories already boiled over years ago? Is there maybe another motivation for why national media outlets like the New York Times are choosing to pursue the story now?

11) The case in question, as almost all of the abuse cases, occurred during a period when many bishops were unfaithful to Church teaching and, frankly, were homosexual themselves.

12) The case in question: Archbishop Rembert Weakland, a very sick and twisted individual, used Church money, the money of the faithful, to hush-up his gay lover from "coming out" with their relationship. Likewise, this beast of a man spent many thousands and thousands of dollars, wastefully, to wreck the Milwaukee Cathedral. Regarding the case in question, Weakland only bothered to deal with the situation as an attempt to save his own reputation, after years of ignoring it. Only when the faithful cried out publicly in the media did Weakland want swift action. Weakland could have swiftly removed Fr. Murphy from ministry by his own authority, but did not do so. Liberal Catholics, like Archbishop Weakland, hate the Vatican's authority, but when the Vatican can be used as a scapegoat, they want the Vatican to flex its authority. Weakland, now in retirement, has gone recently on record as saying: "The Church ignored me and didn't act swiftly enough." Ironic, eh?

13) Regarding the case in question: local police authorities had dropped the charges and were inconclusive. This is not to say that this was correct. The priest had, in fact, abused children.

14) The accusations against Fr. Murphy occurred over 20 years prior to Weakland's inquiry and the possibility of a canonical trial removing Murphy from the priesthood; at that point, Murphy was quite old, quite ill and near death.

15) Now, look at this from Cardinal Ratzinger's (now Pope Benedict, unfairly being implicated in all this) point of view in 1996-1998:
a) a priest is accused of abuse over 20 years ago (granted, many abuses alleged)
b) local police authorities have been inconclusive in their response
c) local bishops failed to act from the onset: bishops failed and the alleged abuse continued
d) now, in 1996, an openly unfaithful and homosexual bishop (Archbishop Weakland) wants disciplinary action taken, and at the highest levels, against this priest to save his own (Weakland's) reputation. In fact, Weakland is responsible for the continued abuse and obfuscation in the first place. Likewise, the priest is near death.
e) the priest has written Ratzinger, practically on his death bed, and asked for ecclesiastical mercy stating that he is sorry and repented of his wretched sins against children.
f) the local media and faithful have already "outed" the disgraceful situation and all the damage has been done, and Murphy is a disgrace. Likewise, the local Church looks silly. What more can be done at this point? The accused is near death.
g) Ratzinger's secretary, Archbishop Bertone, writes Weakland and drops the formal trial for Fr. Murphy to be laicized (be official removed from priesthood), encouraging Weakland to formally remove Murphy from ministry (which he never attempted); Murphy dies within months of the exchange

16) With all this in mind, can anyone say that Ratzinger (now the pope) is guilty of anything at all here? Is not mercy and forgiveness part of the Christian faith? Would it have even been just for the Vatican's doctrinal office to act at the highest levels when bishop after bishop failed to discipline Murphy at a local level? Does Weakland deserve any credibility, and after so many years of his own scandal? (I repeat: Weakland could have EASILY removed Murphy from ministry himself.) Could this have been avoided from the first moment of suspicion? Who knows, but we cannot conclude that the current pope, then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, is guilty of anything.

To top it off:
17) Ratzinger has been the most outspoken member of the Catholic hierarchy, even rewriting the rules to make cracking down on pedophile priests a priority and laicizing priests an easier and quicker process. This was done in 2000 by Joseph Ratzinger. As pope, Ratzinger authoritatively barred homosexuals from the seminary. He has repeatedly referred to the "filth" in the priesthood, most notably during the 2005 Stations of the Cross as cardinal.

18) The period of time during which most of the abuse took place was during the so called "post conciliar period" after Vatican II, when many bishops, priests, and nuns/sisters took to being unfaithful to Church teaching. The Church, under the guidance locally by "liberal" or "progressive" bishops was witness to weak leadership, poor catechesis, terrible seminary formation, liturgical abuses, and the abuse of minors by Catholic priests. Hence the cooperation with "experts" in psychology to deal with pedophile/homosexual priests. To boot, many of these "progressive" bishops were homosexuals themselves. The point is that many liberals hijacked the Church after the council, and they did so very effectively. That is why so many Catholics today do not know Scripture, doctrine, or the Mass and the other Sacraments.

19) The leftist media is in a campaign to smear the current pope's reputation, and at all costs. They hate the pope and the direction in which he is reorienting the Church. It is odd how the media rails against the pope's and the Vatican's authority in the Church, but when it is useful for the media they accuse the Vatican of not acting swiftly and authoritatively enough in local issues (issues that local bishops should take care of).

20) It is a disgrace and an irony that the homosexual, leftist (former) Archbishop Rembert Weakland has come out of his retirement to speak against the pope on this matter of Fr. Murphy; an issue that was in fact his own scandal! To the media, Weakland is a useful idiot. The media promotes the homosexual agenda all the time, but rails against pedophilia (by gays). What sense does this make? Weakland is taking advantage of the issue to corrupt Benedict's moral authority, which he sees as destroying the liberalism of the Church that dominated the 70's and 80's (the period of the worst abuses). Weakland has a personal axe to grind with the current pope and his orthodoxy.

21) The pope has moved the Church significantly back into the right direction through:
a) the appointment of solid, orthodox bishops
b) excellent catechesis on the Church
c) the many books he has published
d) his work on the Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church
e) definitive documents under his leadership: Dominus Iesus and Summorum Pontificum
f) the reintegration of traditional formulae of Catholic doctrine
g) the investigation of religious communities (lacking purpose and orthodoxy)
h) the universal barring of homosexuals from the seminary
i) the defining of Vatican II with a view of "continuity" with the pre-conciliar Church
j) and possibly most importantly, the reintegration of the traditional Latin Mass of 1962
k) the document Anglicanorum Coetibus which has ushered in a great number of traditional Anglicans back into the Catholic Church: we have a pope of Christian Unity

22) It is worth noting that people are outraged by these abuse scandals because they do see the power of Christ's lofty call of discipleship, and how so many priests have not followed it. This lofty vision, too, is seldom upheld by any other institutions besides the Catholic Church. Yet, most people who uncritically analyze these situations never notice that they are, in a sense, praising Catholic teaching with their righteous anger. Unfortunately, many of those who rail against priestly abuse, do so only to strengthen some leftist agenda rather than to defend the truth.

Well, here are some links to more critical analysis of this absurd story:
Click here: A Response to the New York Times by Fr. Raymond de Souza
Click here: An Italian newspaper parses the New York Times hit-piece
Click here: It's the Pope's Turn to Retaliate by Gerald Warner of the Scotsman
Click here: Scoundrel Time(s) by George Weigel

Other responses in the press:

"Shame on the New York Times" says Michael Sean Winters (America Magazine which is hardly a conservative outlet or friend of the pope):...

I will grant that there is something to the argument that the victims’ right to have their story told, to receive justice for the crimes against them, demanded a canonical trial of the priest no matter his physical condition. I will grant that there is a coldness in the correspondence that seems more focused on the reputation of the Church than on the rights of the victims. I will grant that it was the victims of this priest’s abuse, not Cardinal Ratzinger, who had a right to decide when and how to show mercy to Father Murphy. It is not difficult to see that Cardinal Ratzinger might have made the wrong decision in this case, but I submit that there is nothing in the documents the Times presents that suggests Cardinal Ratzinger’s moral culpability for the abuse itself or for any cover-up of that abuse. And the Times article certainly suggests moral culpability even though the documents do not support the charge.

The Pope and the Murphy case: what the New York Times story didn't tell you - Phil Lawler (CatholicCulture.com) examines the evidence and finds that

... his is a story about the abject failure of the Milwaukee archdiocese to discipline a dangerous priest, and the tardy effort by Archbishop Weakland--who would soon become the subject of a major scandal himself--to shift responsibility to Rome.
Lawler lists six notable points:
The allegations of abuse by Father Lawrence Murphy began in 1955 and continued in 1974, according to the Times account. The Vatican was first notified in 1996: 40 years after Church officials in Wisconsin were first made aware of the problem. Local Church leaders could have taken action in the 1950s. They didn't.
The Vatican, following the standard procedures required by canon law, kept its own inquiries confidential. But the CDF never barred other investigations.
Milwaukee's Archbishop Cousins could have suspended Father Murphy from priestly ministry in 1974, when he was evidently convinced that the priest was guilty of gross misconduct. He didn't.
Having called the Vatican's attention to Murphy's case, Archbishop Weakland apparently wanted an immediate response, and was unhappy that the CDF took 8 months to respond. But again, the Milwaukee archdiocese had waited decades to take this action.
This was, in effect, the final result of the Vatican's inquiry in this case; Father Murphy died just months later.
The correspondence makes it clear that Archbishop Weakland took action not because he wanted to protect the public from an abusive priest, but because he wanted to avoid the huge public outcry that he predicted would emerge if Murphy was not disciplined.

Damien Thompson (The Times UK) "smells a stitch up":

Murphy? Guilty as hell. Various bishops? Likewise. But the fact that in 1996 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger may have approved the decision not to pursue complex canonical procedures against Murphy on the grounds that the guy was dying anyway doesn’t strike me as much of a smoking gun.
I do, however, get the very strong feeling that the Pope’s enemies, including his enemies in the Church, are trying desperately hard to discover serious complicity on his part in a child abuse case. Because that would be just so convenient, wouldn’t it?

Thank you for allowing me to set the record straight. Now let's all move on with our normal lives...

Look at these curly cues

Or as Faustina would say, "Loog-it" (for 'look at'). Faustina does NOT like to wash her hair. But on the rare (!) occasions that we do, the curls are in full effect!

Cicero: Optimus Orator

The last 4-5 years, I have become a political junkie. Especially since I've been home, I listen to talk radio to stay informed and to keep my mind working on a more intellectual level while I change diapers, give bottles, and read children's books. I can discuss all these issues with Mike, of course, and he is very educated in the political arena (Although he has become less intrigued over the past few years with specifics - it can become predictable. He has moved onto other interests). Unfortunately, there are very few people I can talk about these topics with. Many friends either do not share political and religious views, or they are not interested/informed about the topics. And when that is the case, it is just easier to not start a passionate debate that you know will be on shaky ground! :)

Thank goodness that hope is a virtue for Christians! This week I have surprised myself with how disappointed and actually worried about I am with the direction this country is going. I stayed fairly close to the t.v. on Sunday to see the events unfold on capitol hill with the health reform bill. I was not at all surprised to see it pass, but my gut dropped about a foot as I listened to how this America is changing. America in decline; or as a friend said kind of jokingly, but half serious, "America is over"! Just the debt alone that our children will be saddled with is incomprehensible. This bill may not seem 'bad' to some people, but the most frightening part for me is the avalanche affect it has started toward socialized medicine. When I studied in Italy for a semester, I was so anxious to come home to America. Now, I find that America is becoming like the dysfunctional European countries. I find that I am more invested in these issues since I have kids. If I were the only one that I needed to be concerned with, well, whatever. I can deal with it. But to think of the kind of world my kids will grow up in - it is disheartening. My parents did not even have any health insurance when my brother, John, was born. And now we are being forced to buy something even if we do not want it - and it is not cheap! Not to mentioned publicly funded abortions and not to mention all the dirty deals that happened. Nancy Pelosi truly is a despicable individual (a self-proclaimed "ardent Catholic," to boot). It is stunning to think about our congressmen. Do they have no principles at all that they can be bought off in such a way?? How can they look at themselves in the mirror! Really!!

As I was listening to John Boehner give a speech on the floor on Sunday night, Mike and I started talking about the greatness of the Roman orator, Cicero. We both were fortunate to be able to teach Cicero for many years at Trinity. This John Boehner was weak; all our congressmen are pathetic. You just do not hear any good oration anymore. It used to be an art, now it is just wimpy rhetoric.

Cicero's speeches against Catiline in the first century A.D were clever, intelligent, passionate, persuasive, full of historical references, poetic, invective, humorous - his work is an art. The fact that I can take out his speeches 2,000 years later and study them for pleasure is a testament in and of itself. And what he said was true! That is the satisfying part. It would do our country good to study such a great man. [Mike chimes in: Our forefathers did study Cicero, and in fact they built this "res publica," our republic, on the Roman conception of democracy, not the Greek. Unfortunately, our current politicians are dismantling the republic, and ironically in much the same way that the ancient liberals destroyed Rome.]

Sac-ri-fice

I was reading the magazine the Latin Mass the other day (in which my sister-in-law published a fabulous article) and put it down for a moment to go take care of Jude. As my back was turned to Faustina studying the front cover, I heard her say the word "Sac-ri-fiiice" in her somewhat robotic voice. I whipped around and asked, "What did you say, Faustina?!". She pointed to the magazine cover and again said, "Sacrifice. Jesus. Carrying cross. Fall down."

I was once again stunned by our little 22 month old. I called Mike and Faustina said 'sacrifice' on the phone for him too. Neither of us had talked to her about 'sacrifice' or explained the cross very specifically to her. I simply cannot believe what these little ones pick up.

Trampoline love

Faustina has come to absolutely love Grandpa's trampoline. She talks about it all the time at home, jumps all over the place at home, and 'bounces' with Teddy. She especially likes to jump with Grandpa...Mom just doesn't cut it.

Dad in action

This year both Mike and I have been able to play on indoor soccer teams. Once a week it is a terrific outlet to exercise, enjoy the game of soccer, and forget for an hour or two whatever other stresses life might have for us at home and work! When Mike brought Faustina and Jude to a few of my games in October, he was inspired to get a group of guys together to make his own team. And his team turned out to be a great success. They are an upstanding bunch of Christian men , they love playing, and they like playing with each other. Faustina, Jude and I were fortunate to see them play their most challenging opponent last Sunday. Although the other team pulled out a victory, Mike's team really is fun to watch. They work hard and are clearly a skilled team. That will probably be the only game we will be able to attend since they play late into the night - this weekend their hour long game starts at 11pm! A dedicated bunch. And, of course, Faustina is honing her skills as she kicks the soccer ball around the house imitating Mom and Dad.

Meditation on the Royal Official

Today's gospel reading is from John about the healing of the nobleman's son. It hit home as I read it this morning because when Mom was sick we had great faith that the Lord would heal her of cancer, if that was his will. Mom and many of us prayed, meditated and focused on passages of healing in the gospels. Until Mom was sick, I did not realize there are so many! One passage she went back to over and over again was the woman who touched the hem of Jesus' cloak and was healed. Of course, it was not God's plan for Mom to stay here with us. As I read this reflection, I found myself again sitting by Mom's bedside September 14th again with these thoughts in mind. The following meditation is from the Magnificat.

"We are not alone in the hour of death; we have nothing to fear in the hour of death: beause when the times comes Christ identifies himself with us so closely that fear gvies way to trust and anguish to peace. He has lived all of our lives, died all of our deaths; to all of us he has given this peace. It is in the hour of death that our fear, our anxiety, our loneliness will end.
Death is too big a thing for any one of us to face alone. It separates us, for a time from those we love on earth. It is difficult for us earthbound, rooted creatures to want heaven; it is impossible for us to realize what the glory of God will be to us. It is loving God, and that only, that can make heaven, heaven. Here imagination does not help us: we cannot really imagine ourselves loving the "Supreme Spirit" - we even want to cling to our human frailties and comforts, to our human weakness.
It is now that Christ takes over. He has died all our deaths on the cross; now we are going to die his; it is Christ in us who surrenders to God. It is not with our own heart and our own will that we can long for God, but with Christ's. And Christ ahs given his heart and will to us. In this is the supreme mercy that comes to us in the hour of death.
Now I love God with Christ's will, with Christ's heart, with Christ's trust; and because he has taken whole possession of me, in the hour of my death I shall at last love my friends too with his love."
- Caryll Houselander

Don't forget Amy

It is Aunt Amy's birthday today - Happy Birthday Amy! So, this morning Faustina and I were talking about Aaron, Amy, Leo and Ruby.

A few hours later in the day, I said, "Okay, Faustina it is time to run a few errands."

She responded with with an excited nod and said, "Okay. Good! Errands. We go run Amys too!" And she ran to the door to get her shoes.

Whether she thought we were going to Aaron and Amy's house or if she was just substituting names in for 'errands' (because she said in the next breath let's go run 'teddys'), she wanted Amy in the picture.

6 months is a long time

On Sunday it will be six months since Mom died. I have said several times to people that it seems both like a short time ago and just yesterday that we were caring for Mom in September. But, no, now it just seems like a long time ago. Faustina and Jude are so young and changing every day - literally - it seems forever ago that Jude was born or when Faustina was not talking.

Tuesdays at midnight I go to adoration at Lumen Christi, and the Lord seems to use this quiet hour as a more intense grieving time for me. Each week, there seems to be something unique that happens during adoration that brings emotions flooding back. A few weeks ago there was a book laying out on one of the kneelers titled "101 things for Grandma and Grandpa to do with their Grandchildren". This is exactly the type of book that my Mom would have at their house;, she would have loved and used it. She lived for her grandkids and just wanted to be their Grandma and spend time with them! Why in the world was this book in the adoration chapel staring me in the face? Who knows.

I was reflecting last night on this Lenten season and thinking about all the countless blessings I have and how it is difficult to be disciplined and be sacrificial during this season. Even when I AM disciplined and give some things up, I still live like a queen. And then my very next thought was of Mom and how much I miss her and I broke down. As I prayed the rosary one of the mysteries is Jesus carrying the cross and I thought of how Mom looked as she was dying and how she died on the feast of The Triumph of the Cross. Perhaps this lenten season is going to be mainly a grieving time for me as I miss her.

This strange life is such a paradox. You need to lay down your life to gain it. You need to be last in order to be first. In the big picture, our salvation story is clear in black and white, yet life often seems gray and hazy with decisions every day. As I love each day of my earthly life so much, there is something in me that yearns for eternal life. Time keeps flying by yet somehow I seem stuck back in the fall. As my heart aches because I miss Mom so much I am joyful as I imagine her in heaven. As corny as that sounds (I am not a corny person!), I really do have a vivid picture of her in heaven. These are all paradoxes. They do not make any sense from a purely human perspective. Somehow, thank goodness, they so make some sense as I try and grapple with them from a Godly and eternal perspective.

Rolling, scooting, giggling, teething

Jude has entered a new stage. He is no longer a blob baby - that sounds horrible, but babies don't really do a whole lot before 6 months.

Jude is now rolling over all the time. He scoots around by pushing himself backward. He laughs a lot and is irresistable when he giggles uncontrollably. I've said this before, but he is one of the happiest, most smiley babies I can remember. And he is interacting with Faustina more and more. Of course, we say he is teething, which I am sure he is - it is just that no teeth will probably pop through for a few months. Such is life; I like his gum smile!

Snownometer

This is what is outside our kitchen window. At one point, Faustina's play car was completely covered in snow....it is slowly, ever so slowly emerging. Spring is near. And, yes, that is our Christmas tree laying there that we just threw into the backyard.

drink photo shoot

I am blending up more stuff lately since I'm just beginning to feed Jude some solids. Faustina and Aidric love them too! Today's drink of apple and lettuce turned into a photo shoot. Faustina now loves to look at the pictures on the digital camera after they are taken so she kept saying..."more, more, more"!

Mystery menu

Mike and I put on a fancy dinner for friends Saturday night. It turned out to be a very fun night with good company and conversation.

We did a 'mystery meal'. I was inspired to do this from memories of my parents doing this years ago. I also did it with friends as a little kid and it was always a good time. This was a 7 course meal with a 'coded menu'. Our menu, of course, was in Latin with our Classics background. Each guest was given a menu and they had to pick one item from each course and the order in which they wanted each item. So each person was getting a different surprise each course. Kim and I were up in the kitchen preparing the food while Mike was the waiter as he brought each course down to our company. Everyone was pleasantly surprised by the elegance: dimmed lighting, white table clothes, wine, cheese, bread, and 7 courses of good food if I do say so myself! Calzones, crab chicken pot pie and manicotti were the main course with soups, fruits, drinks, veggies to accompany it. It was fun to serve couples who are special
friends and have busy lives.

It was a good deal of work, but certainly worth it! Mike and I are already talking about what we would do different when we do it again. We were so busy the whole evening we only took a picture of the menu after everyone left!

Best knitting site ever

The website ravelry.com has been eating up my time the past few months. It is essentially a kind of 'facebook' (although I never really even seen a facebook page...! people tell Mike and I that we are out of it)website for knitters. Tons of patterns, many free patterns, so many ideas - it is addicting.

I finished this sundress for Isabelle Gagnon the other day. It is one of the more satisfying feelings to put final touches on a project - any project!