Will I raise my kids in my faith?

Most of you know that I was not raised as a Catholic. Rather, I converted into the faith as a teenager, though I had been exposed as a child via Catholic school and various Catholic relatives. Still, my parents ultimately gave me the choice. I have to say, I hold a ton of respect for them for not forcing us into a religion that they couldn't even bring themselves to subscribe to (unfortunately, I've seen that happen to many of my peers). Of course, because I was allowed to have a choice, people ask me if I would extend the same choice to my own children.

I have been conflicted for awhile. You see, I want my kids to be able to appreciate faith and I know I appreciated it because I chose it. However, my parents also chose to raise me with their values (hard work, education, humility, propriety, a willingness to serve, and a willingness to question) and I have to say, if they hadn't, I would not have been able to make the choices I have made. If I brought this attitude of appreciation into the lives of my children, from baptism on, they could very well choose to appreciate faith.

What about the hard questions, questions I still hold? What about when my kids start questioning, particularly if my daughters want to know why they can't be priests or if my kids come out to me? I will tell them what the Church says (and why, people seem to forget that) but that their mom also struggles with these things. I will encourage them to keep studying (from a variety of sources) and keep looking for answers. I will encourage them to pray. If their prayers lead them elsewhere, I will support it, but only if they've honestly sought and studied (not because they want to sleep in on Sunday or play video games all day). I at least want to bring them up with the basic values, traditions and practices of my beliefs so that it serves as a firm foundation for the rest of their lives. And they will KNOW it. Mama Katie will make sure they KNOW what's in the Bible, what's in the Catechism, what Pope Whomever is saying. They're not going to be like the kids who go through Confirmation without knowing even what all seven Sacraments are.

What about the priest scandals? Look, those piss me off as much as they pissed anyone off. And the deflection I saw from the top was enough to make me wanna buy a baseball bat and scare the living daylights out of anyone who even LOOKS at a child inappropriately. It was even more maddening to see my own diocese go through scandal after scandal after scandal. What were they THINKING??? At the same time, they are also in danger of abuse from teachers, from relatives, from family friends, from strangers. Let's face it, it's downright terrifying to be a parent sometimes. What I can do is educate my children that, if someone says something to them or touches them in ways that make them feel uncomfortable, they are to tell me immediately. That they don't have to worry about protecting the other person, that we will do everything to keep them safe. That includes, ESPECIALLY includes, those who have a hand in the spiritual formation of my kids.

All in all, I want my kids to grow up knowing that faith in SOMETHING is important. They need something that grounds them, centers them, and something they can turn to in all aspects of life. I can at least give them the basics. When they're older, the rest is up to them (and God).

Dean Obeidallah and Race

My family and I were watching Axis of Evil last night. I first heard of it in my World of Islam class sophomore year, when a classmate used a Dean Obeidallah clip for a presentation. Now, my family has Netflix which means I was finally able to watch the entire show. Of course, there was a lot of laughter in the Gerry household. In addition, there were some deep thoughts, particularly when Dean Obeidallah mentioned what it means to be white. He said that white isn't necessarily a color but a status. He meant that in the sense of, when white people do bad things, no one blames it on every white person they see. Whereas, if one Arab or Middle Eastern person does something for example, they must all be responsible.

It was definitely a moment for me. I have tried to explain the concept of white privilege and found I could not put it as well as Mr. Obeidallah has. The truth is, white has so little to do with the shade of one's skin. If it did, Jews would not have had to suffer as much as they did and, for a long time, were not even considered white in the eyes of the U.S. Italians and Irish weren't even white for a time (now, you know something's up when they don't think the Irish are white and I've known my share of blonde Italians, northern and southern). Rather, white is more of a concept. It's about who's considered worthy of fair treatment in the eyes of the law, of business, and of society. It's about who's considered cultured, civilized, and contributing. That's something people don't really understand.

No, people should not use their race or past treatment to justify criminal actions. No, people should not use it to hamper their own development because they're afraid of "acting white" or "abandoning their roots." At the same time, there is a real difference in treatment. My black and Latin friends are more likely to get followed (by security in the mall and cops on the road) than I am. Even acts such as speaking Spanish result in being treated differently (friends and I will get asked about citizenship and ethnic origin because we chose to practice our Spanish that day). Jewish friends of mine have gotten accusations about money habits and their role in the death of Christ. Muslim girlfriends of mine have stories of getting harassed or asked ridiculous questions because of how they choose to cover and friends and family get "randomly selected" by airport security just because they look Middle Eastern. Now, Muslims can be white, people from Central and South America can be white, Jews mostly are white, and black people can have white ancestry. But none of this matters because having white skin is not even enough to be considered white.

Yes, things have come a long way. They're still not perfect. We need to keep going as a society, to keep improving ourselves and the lives of others around us. If we truly believe as the Declaration states, that "all men were created equal", we need to start treating each other like it. Instead of fighting over who gets to be white and who doesn't (regardless of who actually has fair skin or not), we should eradicate that idea and start seeing people. Otherwise, we will continue to give our enemies the fuel to destroy us.

St. Maria Goretti

*This may contain triggers for sexual assault survivors*

As a teenager coming into the faith, St. Maria Goretti was one of the first saints I heard about. I randomly caught a documentary about her on EWTN (for those who don't know, Eternal Word Television Network, aka Catholic TV). She was born a poor farm tenant's daughter in 1890 in Corinaldo, a town in central Italy. She grew up a devout Catholic girl and was known for her kindness and generosity. When she was not even twelve years old, a neighbor began harassing her until one day, he took her and attempted to rape her. She resisted him physically and, as a result, he stabbed her fourteen times. She died in the hospital, forgiving the man on her death bed. He later repented (after years in prison) and she was canonized a saint by the Catholic Church. She was canonized for "defending her purity".

I have a bit of a problem with that last bit.

I don't have a problem with St. Maria being a saint. I think such forgiveness, at any age, is something to be commended very highly. I also find that she showed courage in the face of huge adversity and worked hard to show a generous and loving soul, no matter what she faced. I believe it is important for young people to learn how to say no, to defend themselves in the face of attack, and, at the same time, to forgive the acts committed against them. However, I do have a problem with the Church using her as a defender of chastity.

You see, when the Church holds her up as a model of chastity (when she's barely even pubescent), it implies that Maria somehow wanted what was done. It implies that she was fighting, not a man trying to attack her, but her own sexual desires. It implies that she was somehow "asking for it." It implies that this violent act, had she submitted, would be "her fault."

It bothers me even more because she was still a child. She was not even twelve years old, may or may not have started her periods, may have just started liking boys, and she's considered a defender of purity? Even if it was his purity she was fighting for (and she did protest the act for the sake of his soul), why would that be her responsibility? As he was the adult in this picture, why shouldn't he be considered the defender of his own purity?

Further, are women who do submit (whether to save their lives or because they simply want it to end) somehow responsible for these crimes? Are children who choose not to fight an abusive adult somehow sinning? Are people who survive an ordeal such as this somehow "less" because they "allowed" someone to sin with them? What kind of message are we sending our Catholic youth, especially the young women?

I believe we should continue to hold Maria as a saint and role model. She is a model of forgiveness, of her willingness to stand for herself and could be considered as someone who stands with those who do suffer from these atrocities. However, to hold her as a model of chastity is inappropriate, as the acts were done without her consent. St. Maria was a child who was brutally killed by an adult who should have known better. This was not a turmoil of inner demons and sexual self-control. This was an act of violence that she had little control over.

I don't believe fighting against a rapist merits a "defense of purity" recognition. It would be the same as if a murder victim was recognized for "defending life" because they fought their killer. Does that mean those who do die are somehow participating in the sin of murder? Absolutely not. Why would we imply the same for those who suffered sexual violence?

Sexual Abstinence and Empowerment

"Why do you want to wait?" "Is it hard?" "But sex is FUN!" "You can't pay the mortgage off all at once, Katie." These are just a few of the myriad statements I hear when others learn of my decision to wait till marriage. As a twenty-one year old student (at a liberal university, in one of the most liberal cities), a self-proclaimed feminist, someone who's questioned her own sexuality, and someone who seems to have a crush a day (hey, I meet a lot of wonderful, beautiful, attractive people!), it seems shocking. Combined with my Catholicism, I seem an anamoly, especially given my previous statement. Yet I find this decision to be one of the most liberating ones of my life. To me, abstinence is empowerment.

First, I don't have to deal with some life-changing complications. I carry a ton of stress in my life. I go to school full-time, work nearly the same amount, carry some extracurriculars, plus I make time for things I deem important (music, connecting with friends and family, writing, reading for fun, church). What would I do if I got pregnant? Abortion repulses me and I tend to be a maternal person.....yet I know I could not be the mother I should be, should I be blessed enough with a child. At the same time, I know I'd grieve a baby I placed for adoption. I'd rather not have to make that choice, given the tensions I already face. I also do not wish to put my physical health at risk for STI's (even with protection....I don't trust it with my city's AIDS rate) or cervical cancer (NIH says that risk is greater with greater numbers of sexual partners).

"But there's protection!" Except, what are my options? I don't like the idea of putting (potentially carcinogenic, see WHO and NIH) hormones into my body unless I had serious medical conditions that required it (side effects also have me worried). In addition, with concerns rising about hormones in the water, I feel these would have social and environmental costs attached (not to mention, the cost out of my pocket!). For barrier methods, I'm not so sure how much I like the idea of synthetic materials entering my orifices, not to mention some also require leaking chemicals through my body (and again, going back into the water, reiterating my point on the environment). Furthermore, most options are only for the prevention of pregnancy. For STI protection, we only have condoms. What if it breaks, despite best efforts? Are a few moments of fun worth the rest of your life? I'd rather say I waited till marriage and have my friends laugh at me, rather than say I have AIDS and see tears on their faces.

Also, protection only works for the body (and again, not 100% of the time). What about the heart? Yes, I know, some people will have encounters and not regret an adventure. I am not one of those people. For those who know me, I get very attached to other people, especially people who are affectionate with me. I receive love through hugs, kisses, and other forms of physical touch. If I were to engage in sex with someone, I know that it would have to be within the context of a lifelong relationship because, for me, it would be a bonding experience. Further, I would not want its power clouding my judgment if someone were truly not right for me. When I date, I'm looking at the person as a potential life partner (which is why it remains an infrequent part of my life). I don't want their ability to romance and seduce me (in ways sexual or not) to get in the way of my judgment of their character and our compatibility.

This brings me to my final point. I've found that our over-consumerism has spilled into our romantic lives. Dating is no longer about who would make a suitable spouse. It's about who's the best at flirting, the most attractive, the most sexual, the most lavish and extravagant, and maybe we'll get married at some point. Our society has discouraged us from looking for commitment, encouraged us to focus on the superficial, and forgot one of our main institutions. Even if someone is amazing, we're expected to look for someone "better" because we're "young". When it comes to sex, they must please us from the beginning or they're out the door. If they lose their physical appearance, they are also eliminated. What a sad outlook!

No thanks. For me, I'd rather focus on becoming a more complete person, rooted in her values and embracing the crazy directions life takes me, while still maintaining a level of sanity and practicality. I'll look carefully for a spouse when I'm ready to look. When we've found each other, we'll embark on adventures together, sexual and non-sexual alike. We'll learn how to make a relationship withstand every fire, build a life through good and bad, storm and sun. We'll learn this particular dance in the same way a band learns to play together (after all, the guys in U2 were complete novices. Yet they've become a piece of magnificence) and appreciate its power and beauty, even if it's not always earth-shattering. We will embrace joy, sorrow, children, careers, age, economic booms and bust, war and peace together, until one of us dies. That's what I want and that's worth more than a thousand lovers.

Now, THAT'S sexy ;-)

Art, God, Hierarchy, and the Poor

I took a trip to Europe when I was eighteen. For two weeks, I traveled around four countries, performing, touring, and visiting historical sites, while using rudimentary French to get around. I've visited small towns, big cities, mountains, beaches, cathedrals, and concentration camps. I flew for the first time in my life. It was incredible.

Everything struck me when I was there, but a visit to an old church in Dinkelsbühl, Germany gave me a moment of pause. You see, St. George's Catholic church is over a thousand years old, still standing to this day, with all of its beauty intact. When it was built, it was a huge community effort. The wealthy donated money for materials and labor, the artisans made use of their talents in crafting stained glass windows, paintings, and sculptures of the angels, prophets, and saints, and the laborers contributed the work of their hands and strength of their bodies. Not one person was left out. As a result, everyone in the community, regardless of class, age, or social standing, had a place to come together as fellow human beings, and glorify God every Sunday (granted, it never falls exactly to this ideal, people still bring their prejudices, etc, but you get where I'm coming from).

Upon hearing this, and stories of churches and cathedrals worldwide, it always angers me when I hear how we need to, "sell our art and give to the poor." While yes, as Catholics, we are obligated and commanded to give to the poor and fight for social justice, I don't believe this is an accurate statement or effective method. Here are a few reasons.

In the Bible, Jesus did command His disciples to sell what they had and give to the poor. However, there is a striking passage in John, where a woman anoints Jesus' head with oil. Judas rebukes her, stating that the ointment was expensive and the money from its selling could help so many people. Jesus makes an interesting comeback. He says that we'll always have the poor, but only Him for a short while. Sounds contradictory? Not really. Jesus was not being greedy or suggesting we forget about the least of these. Instead, He was acknowledging the importance of giving our talents and resources to God. In our faith, we believe that being generous with God, something we can't see, allows us to be more generous with each other, whom we do see. Does it always work like this? No, because we are broken. However, if one is truly open, you couldn't give your talents to God without sharing them. Should musicians who advocate justice sell their instruments and give to causes? No, because otherwise, others might not hear the message in the same way, as if the musician had written a song about it (hey, it was because of Bono that I made myself learn about world poverty). Same with the art in churches. It helps us to focus on what's really important and can give more voice to the causes of justice (considering you're focusing on a guy who was beaten and killed by an unjust government for suggesting a revolution of love).

Another issue I have with that is my own beliefs about art. I don't believe art was meant to be confined to the hierarchy, to those privileged enough to buy a painting or see a concert. Art, whether in its creation or appreciation, was meant to be enjoyed by humanity. That is our way of manifesting emotions and beauty in ways that mere speech cannot. Because of the Church's preserving art such as that of Michelangelo's, people all over are able to view and share this art, to share the messages (like Mary's grief over losing her Son in the Pietá). If we sold this art, this treasure of humanity, it would go into the hands of the hierarchy, of those who'd make its sharing much more exclusive, those who don't appreciate the significance and profundity of its creation. Further, with the issue of these churches and cathedrals, we're sending a message saying that art is merely for the rich, a luxury item, an exclusive club. For those who made their living through these creations, as well as those who've sacrificed more lucrative careers for art, this is a huge slap in the face.

Finally, while I agree that there are those leaders who could live more simply, I don't believe art is responsible for this poverty. First, in many of these communities, the Church is providing health care, school systems, and other programs not provided by governments (and it's Catholic movements who have been known to call governments to accountability. Think Brazil's land reform movement or Archbishop Romero in El Salvador). Second (and I'm hoping this is true in all cases), we stand against slavery, so I am sure that these workers are paid to create this art. This could be a livelihood for people who otherwise would not have had one. For local artisans, this is a way of preserving culture, showcasing talents, in ways that they might not have been able to otherwise. Poverty is caused by social injustice and unequal distribution of resources, as well as economic turmoil. While maybe some church leaders could do more, I'd hardly peg beautiful churches as the reason for infant mortality.

As Catholics, as people of faith (or no faith), as human beings, we have a responsibility to fight poverty. We have a responsibility to fight social injustice. Yet to take a tool that binds people together, manifests our own creative desires, and to condemn it to hierarchical prostitution is a crime against humanity. We have a right to create and appreciate creation, sacred or otherwise. Art is not a luxury. For some of us, it's how we breathe. Without it, life is mere survival. Beauty is not a privilege for the powerful. It's why we're here, to show the world how it is and what it could be. Blame governments, blame attitudes, blame unkind hearts for poverty. But don't blame humanity's creative power.

Vatican Abuse Scandals-A Cause for Outrage or Excuse for Bigotry?

The sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church are, unfortunately, nothing new. The U.S. Catholic Church has been dealing with the aftermath and subsequent media exposure for at least the last decade. However, this year we've been finding that there's more than meets the eye. With new findings in Ireland and Germany, as well as the revelation of more cover-ups in the U.S., Catholics and non-Catholics alike are angry. At the same time, there are those arguing that the media is persecuting the Church, that the Church is doing something good, but that no one appreciates it because Catholics are society's favorite scapegoat these days. Any call for justice is met with accusations of "vengeance" and "not respecting the seal of the Confessional," while any criticism is met with accusations of anti-Catholicism or, if one is Catholic, disobedience and pride.

In all honesty, I'm surprised more Catholics are not outraged.

Main reason: Sex abuse of children is horrific. It's even more so when committed by a spiritual leader, one who is supposed to have moral authority. By itself, this crime destroys the trust of children and manipulates their desires for affection, love and attention. Adults guilty of this misuse the tendency of children to obey and look up to their elders. This crime harms a child's ability to bond with others in many ways and can impede with their ability to have healthy relationships (platonic and not) when they are of age. When committed by a spiritual leader, this can harm a child's ability to relate to God and connect to their faith. These children grow up seeing God as someone who thinks they are sinful and worthless, only to be the plaything of His representatives. How can we not react with anger?

Pro-life ethics: As Catholics, we are called to uphold the sanctity and dignity of life. This includes ensuring justice, especially for the innocent among us. If we are so horrified by abortion, horrified enough that excommunication is the automatic punishment, we must also protect children after they are born, preventing them from harm and violent crime. We have failed in this. In order to save reputations, the Church instead relocated "problematic" priests to other parishes or sent them to ineffective therapy treatments, even when the psychiatrists themselves said it was ineffective. When children are in our care, we have a sacred and moral obligation to keep them out of harm's way, before or after they are born. How are people supposed to believe that we're right on saving the preborn if we refuse to protect the born?

Punishment: Some Catholics seem to think that my advocacy for punishment and justice is a call for revenge. Not so. Forgiveness is something we must all strive for. I never once declared that these priests and those who aided them deserved to burn in Hell. At the same time, we need to send a clear message to society that this crime is not acceptable. Is it not just to remove an offending priest from priestly duties, turn him to secular authorities and forbid him contact with children? This is not about eternal condemnation or hatred. This is about keeping children safe and sending a warning to others who may be tempted to abuse their power. Punishment serves as a deterrence. Confession is great, but does not suffice for society. Society needs to see that this crime is a crime and that no one's clerical status excuses one from the consequences.

Bigotry: While I will not deny anti-Catholic prejudice in society and through the media, I feel that accusations of using someone else's trauma as an excuse for persecution are misplaced. First, it is a slap in the faith to Catholics who are truly being persecuted or murdered by their governments (China, some Middle Eastern nations, etc). Second, while journalists and outlets bring biases with them, I'd highly doubt that no Catholics are present on any of the staff and could not at least fact check. Third, how is it bigotry to admit that our leaders did something wrong? If our leaders are truly the successors of Jesus Christ and His Apostles, should we not hold them to that standard? Is it not loving to keep them accountable?

To all Catholics: Criticizing a policy is not the same as promulgating heresy. We have an obligation to protect the innocent and to keep each other accountable on the path to Heaven. This is not unforgiving, prideful, or wrathful. Instead, it conveys humility, justice, and the courage to do what is right (as opposed to what is politically convenient at the time). Dear Catholics, we make a vow at our weddings to raise our children to know Christ through His Church. Let us make their journey one that edifies and uplifts their precious souls as they mature in His name. Let us ensure that they are not abused in the Holy Name of God, for that would be our greatest scandal.

"Doubting Thomas" = Defensor Fidelis?

I am a Catholic. If you know me, this is usually the first thing you come to know. If you don't, you usually figure it out pretty quickly. I'm proud to be Catholic. My weekend plans include a Sunday Mass, my bag contains a rosary, and I'm involved in my Catholic community in many different ways. I also have the habit of connecting everything to a saints' day (example: "I'm seeing a U2 concert on the Feast of St. Michael!" Yeah, I'm that person). I live by Church teaching, even the hard ones, but at the same time, through all of it, there are many disagreements I hold with the Church. I believe contraception should be a couple's choice, that women should be welcomed into the priesthood, that maybe premarital sex, when done out of love, isn't as horrible a sin, even if it's not my personal cup of tea. I believe that religion shouldn't influence public policy with regards to same sex marriage and I don't understand why priests should be discouraged and forbidden from marriage (this for the Roman Rite-Eastern Rite is different).

Yet many things in my life have made me defend the Church, even despite my own disagreements.

I attend a very liberal university. This in and of itself would not be a problem, except that the words "liberal" and "tolerant" only apply if you agree completely with what others say (making the words meaningless). Though I myself am very politically liberal, my Catholic faith and pro-life beliefs have gotten me into hot water with many of my classmates. I have had experiences where I was the only person in my bio class who actively stood against turning human embryos into commodities. I've been the only person in my class defending the Church, not even when I absolutely agreed with the Pope but because my professor or classmates turned the discussion from honest inquiry to an excuse to bash Catholics, conservatives and other groups. I've been told my views are ridiculous and that my religion is horrible because of past events that no one in the Church has any control over. I've had friends come out of class frustrated for believing the same thing. I'm even afraid to get the groups I help run involved in certain events, because I'm afraid of situations devolving into a fiery pit of arrogance, insults, and an utter lack of respect or decency.

To me, the Church is my family. Even when I question my faith in God, I cannot deny the spiritual and cultural home I've found in Catholicism, nor can I deny the friendships and communities I've found because of it. Even as I question my priest on views of birth control or homosexuality, I cannot deny the good man of God that he is or underestimate the power of his faith, love and intellect combined. I cannot deny the peace I find in attending Mass or saying a rosary, even if I wish I could see a woman on that altar with the Church's blessing. Moreover, I cannot deny the honest inquiry, both intellectual and spiritual, of many theologians, the hope and faith that they are getting something right, that they really are following the will of God. I also cannot deny the heroes of Catholicism, the heroes that inspire me in my own faith, my own activism, the people whose faith was their momentum and reason for all that they did, even if it lead to their deaths. Even if I myself cringe at the wealth of the Church, I cannot deny the selflessness of the many Catholics, lay, religious and clergy, who give their hearts, minds and souls for the cause of Christ and the cause of justice.

Yes, I have my own struggles with certain teachings. At the same time, for this reason, I defend them and those who believe in, simply because I understand. I hate bigotry and disrespect more than I disagree with the men of Rome. Also, while I disagree with my family on certain things, I would never let someone speak ill of my own mother and father. Neither will I allow someone to speak evil of the main source that inspires me to do good: my faith in God through the Church.