feminine-genius

God Beyond All Praising

Father Z has the account of the miracle that will be was attributed [thank you, Fr.] to the intercession of Gianna Beretta Molla, and will raise raised her to the altars of God as a saint. Not surprisingly, it has to do with pregnancy, since her own heroic virtue was tied to her motherhood.

In mid November 1999 a Brazilian woman named Elisabete Comparini Arcolino discovered she was pregnant for the fourth time. An echogram on 30 Nov. showed that the developing child was within a small sac only .8 cm in length and 2.3 cm in diameter. The doctor said that it was doubtful that with such a beginning for the gestation that child would come to term. On 9 December a echo showed the embryo a 1.0 cm in length but also a huge increase in coagulation of blood (blood loss), measuring 5.2×3.5 cm. On 19 Dec they found the beating heart of the child, but also a deterioration of the placenta in the lower region of the uterus. A pessimistic prognosis was given. The doctor following the case, Dr. Nadia Bicego Vieitez de Almeida, who had handled Elisabete’s previous pregnancies, said that with the great loss of blood Elisebete would probably spontaneously abort or they would have to do the procedure sooner or later.

Contrary to expectations, the child’s heart kept beating and the pregnancy continued.

On 11 February 2000 Elisabete realized there was a serious problem and went to the hospital. The echo showed that the gestational sack’s membrane had broken at 16 weeks of gestation and, while the fetus was alive, there was now a total absence of amniotic fluid. The radiologist testified that there was no amniotic liquid to protect the child from exposure to the outside world and from the external pressure of the uterus itself. This meant that both the child and mother were in serious danger of infection, etc.

Take the time to read the account, when possible. There was no "aha moment," nor a magic wand transformation, but a long slog through pregnancy with few realistic hopes and many opportunities to "throw in the towel." So many of our own answered prayers are such gradual gifts, that when all is said and done, you realise that the miracle was equally the ability to persevere against dark odds -- transforming the one  who is asking. I think I am more taken by the fact that Gianna's intercession still mandated tremendous trust for so long on the part of the mother than the outcome for the child.

A beautiful account for our dear one's cause. May she intercede for all mothers, children, and families.

Remembering Stephanie

Stephanie's parents and professor want her story known. I am only too happy to oblige, though I wish there were no story. Women have to know that they cannot fix men; nor do they deserve abuse. In the words of her grieving prof:

As anyone who reads here regularly knows, I don't understand women, even as I find their nature the most fascinating and annoyingly complex thing on the planet. But do I really need to tell you, ladies, (as I told the class) that a man who hits you is not a man, but a barbarian? If he does it once, he'll do it again. If he can hit you, he can kill you. If he can even think of inflicting harm on the one person for whom a tender solicitude should possess his being, there's an evil brewing that love will not cure. You are supposed to be the object of his adoration, not his therapist. Do you think you can change him? You won't. And you don't really love him, either. You love an idea of what he could be if only...he would change, if only that good side you once saw would take control. But that won't happen either. If you think you love him enough, you may end up dying in his presence.

Spread the word. God willing, this will fall into the hands of someone who needs to hear it. [Thanks to FructusVentris]

Who's the professional here?

I know only the barest essential facts about Miley Cyrus. Less than most. But this story has been troubling me.

Pop star and 15-year-old Disney sensation Miley Cyrus tells ET she's "embarrassed" about an upcoming photograph of her appearing semi-topless in the new Vanity Fair issue. "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," she tells ET. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about."

One fact I do know is that Miley happened to mention her Christan faith recently, and pegged it as the reason that she stays focused and family-centered. I can't help but thinking that such a disclosure set her up as a target.

The photo, on stands next week, accompanies an interview with Miley and her dad, Billy Ray,  and were shot by famed photographer Annie Leibovitz. As seen on our show promo last week, they show Miley sitting in profile with just a blanket wrapped around her chest.

Vanity Fair editors respond: "Miley's parents and/or minders were on the set all day. Since the photo was taken digitally, they saw it on the shoot and everyone thought it was a beautiful and natural portrait of Miley. In fact, when Bruce Handy interviewed Miley, he asked her about the photo and she was very cheerful about it and thought it was perfectly fine."

However, a Disney Channel spokesperson says: "Unfortunately, as the article suggests, a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines."

So was the photo seen digitally on the shoot the same one used in the magazine? Some details are missing. Poor judgement may have been exercised (how anyone survives in such shark-infested waters is beyond me) but it would appear that someone ought to ask about the photographer's professionalism. Did she set out to shame the youngster? Did she have an ulterior motive for her shots? Why is everyone appalled at the child, and none at the photographer?

Two justice systems

There is a comprehensive piece in City Journal, outlining the appeasement of Islamic fundamentalists in the name of multi-culturalism. Where this concerns women is the establishment or jurisdiction of shari'a in democratic countries, allowing two legal systems to co-exist as an accomodation to the Muslims therein.

Experts Ian Buruma of Bard College and Timothy Garton Ash of Oxford, while furiously denying that they advocate cultural surrender, have embraced “accommodation,” which sounds like a distinction without a difference. In his book Murder in Amsterdam, Buruma approvingly quotes Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen’s call for “accommodation with the Muslims,” including those “who consciously discriminate against their women.” Sharia enshrines a Muslim man’s right to beat and rape his wife, to force marriages on his daughters, and to kill them if they resist. One wonders what female Muslims who immigrated to Europe to escape such barbarity think of this prescription.

Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury and one of Britain’s best-known public intellectuals, suggested in February the institution of a parallel system of sharia law in Britain. Since the Islamic Sharia Council already adjudicates Muslim marriages and divorces in the U.K. [did you know that??], what Williams was proposing was, as he put it, “a much enhanced and quite sophisticated version of such a body, with increased resources.”

Western legislatures and courts have reinforced the “spirit of appeasement.” In 2005, Norway’s parliament, with virtually no public discussion or media coverage, criminalized religious insults (and placed the burden of proof on the defendant). Last year, that country’s most celebrated lawyer, Tor Erling Staff, argued that the punishment for honor killing should be less than for other murders, because it’s arrogant for us to expect Muslim men to conform to our society’s norms. Also in 2007, in one of several instances in which magistrates sworn to uphold German law have followed sharia instead, a Frankfurt judge rejected a Muslim woman’s request for a quick divorce from her brutally abusive husband; after all, under the Koran he had the right to beat her.

Of all the West’s leaders, however, few can hold a candle to Piet Hein Donner, who in 2006, as Dutch minister of justice, said that if voters wanted to bring sharia to the Netherlands—where Muslims will soon be a majority in major cities—“it would be a disgrace to say, ‘This is not permitted!’ ”

In July 2007, a planned TV appeal by British cops to help capture a Muslim rapist was canceled to avoid “racist backlash.” And in August, the Times of London reported that “Asian” men (British code for “Muslims”) in the U.K. were having sex with perhaps hundreds of “white girls as young as twelve”—but that authorities wouldn’t take action for fear of “upsetting race relations.” Typically, neither the Times nor government officials acknowledged that the “Asian” men’s contempt for the “white” girls was a matter not of race but of religion.

And on our side of the pond:

This spring, Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, writing in the New York Times Magazine, actually gave two cheers for sharia. He contrasted it favorably with English common law, and described “the Islamists’ aspiration to renew old ideas of the rule of law” as “bold and noble.”

Lest anyone think this blog is mindlessly banging the gong by disparaging Islam, remember the dignity offered to women in the Christian worldview. If this is true, then we would take advantage of the First Amendment which allows us to speak about it, count on the Constitution to defend the legitimate rights of women, but rely primarily on faith to guide us in our response to any legal system that demeans them.

Women deserve better than multi-cultural platitudes -- especially those that end up writing their own death sentence.

UPDATE: Always searching for the reason that such folks cannot see the contradiction between supporting feminists principles and promoting the diversity found in Islam, is it possible that these men who have toed the line with the feminists for so long are subtly signing onto this idiotic plan as the only way to shaft the women they've come to despise through radical feminism? Could they be laughing in their sleeves, wondering if shari'a can finally silence what has become to them a hideous shriek? We know they are no gentlemen; is it possible they are no men at all?

Back to veils

Not from traditional Catholics, but from another who chooses to quote from the Bible when he finds it convenient:

Outspoken Muslim cleric Taj al-Din al-Hilali says the Bible "mandates" the wearing of the veil by Christian women. Writing in a new book, Sheik Hilali, who lost his job as mufti of Australia after comparing scantily clad women to uncovered meat, argues that the Bible and the Koran make similar demands of a woman's modesty.

Sheik Hilali, who remains the head of Australia's largest mosque, in the southwestern Sydney suburb of Lakemba, says the purpose of the book is to show the commonalities of Islam with the Jewish and Christian faiths when it comes to women's modesty and clothing.

In the soon to be published The Legitimacy of the Veil for Women of the Scripture - Evidence of the Veil in the Bible, the cleric points to references in the Old and New Testaments to women wearing a veil. "Through this I hope to raise awareness and understanding and eliminate apprehensions and misunderstandings about the veil," he writes.

Finding Old Testament arguments to bolster his faith make some sense, but picking about in the New Testament between verses that describe Jesus as "Son of God" and "Bread of Life" in order to find sartorial commonalities seems rather specious. His point seems to be that we all have traditions of covering women, but I've done my best to show that modesty and humility are culture-bound. I'm even in league with the Anglican (!) who responded thusly:

The Anglican Bishop of South Sydney, Robert Forsyth, challenged Sheik Hilali's comments about the veil being "mandated" in the Bible, saying they were misleading. "The New Testament does call upon people to dress modestly," he said. "But there is no understanding that women are commanded to wear the veil. But it is mandated that you should dress appropriately for your social context."

Sheik Hilali plays his "trump card" with Our Lady:

"The veil upholds the modesty and protects the dignity of women, whether Muslim or non-Muslim," he writes. "Wearing the veil creates the most realistic similarity with the Virgin Mary, the mother of Christ."

This is the cart before the horse. When his religion begins to protect the dignity of women, I will begin to take his words more seriously. For now, with the entire feminine population cursed as wicked temptresses and yet used as bait (en masse in "heaven") for jihadi who kill women and children (whose guilt is comprised of not being Muslim), having this man pick through my Holy Scriptures seems sacriligous.

Frogs and cricket

Everyone's heard the analogy about debasing culture, in which it's likened to the proper cooking of frogs. If one tosses a frog into very hot water, he'll jump out immediately. The trick is to put him in lukewarm water and turn up the heat g r a d u a l l y.

Well, they didn't get the word in India and, out of the blue, tried to use "western" cheerleaders (dare we claim these sort of things?) at cricket matches. Everyone was appalled.

Officials equate their gyrations and suggestive hip-hop dancing to that of the city's bar girls who were banned on grounds of obscenity two years ago.

"All the organizers are doing by making scantily clad white women dance in front of huge crowds is to stoke the base, voyeuristic and sexual insecurities of the Indian male. It's revolting and crude," historian Ramachandra Guha said.

But many cheerleaders said they were "disgusted and disturbed" over the suggestive remarks from Indian spectators.

"We do expect people to pass lewd, snide remarks but I am shocked by the nature and magnitude of the comments people pass here (in India)" cheerleader Tabitha from Uzbekistan said.

"Be it a 70-year-old or a 15-year-old kid they all letch at us and make amorous advances.

"We are living in constant fear of being molested," she bemoaned.

Meanwhile, some of the cricketers too objected to the cheerleaders. "The girls in skimpy dresses should be removed from the ground as this is distracting to batsmen," Pakistan's aggressive scorer Shahid Afridi said. "Cricket itself is an entertainment and does not require such cheerleaders to entertain," he added.

So let's see, the players, the officials, the fans and the cheerleaders themselves are all unhappy. Must be someone up in the front office laughing himself silly about his "forward-looking" hijinx. Interesting that their outfits are likened to those of obscene bar dancers and they draw lecherous comments from spectators. Where's the surprise? The only [on-going] surprise is that well-boiled westerners manage to disassociate the gyrating and flesh from its natural corollaries.

Joining the "Day of Prayer"

The tyrant Robert Mugabe has been voted out of office by the courageous citizens of Zimbabwe, and he's not taking it well. Letting loose multitudes or armed thugs to attack those who voted for the opposition, they are burning, killing, and terrorising the country. The most vile example is against the most innocent, of course:

Scores of children and babies have been locked up in filthy prison cells in Harare as Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s president, sinks to new depths in his campaign to force the opposition into exile before an expected run-off in presidential elections.

Twenty-four babies and 40 children under the age of six were among the 250 people rounded up in a raid on Friday, according to Nelson Chamisa, spokesman for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). Yesterday they were crammed into cells in Southerton police station in central Harare.

“This is ruthlessness of the worst kind. How can you incarcerate children whose mothers have fled their homes hoping to give their children refuge?” asked an emotional Chamisa yesterday. “In Mugabe’s Zimbabwe even children are not spared the terror that befalls their parents.”

No doubt this is simply the tip of an iceburg -- a wealth of vengeance flowing from a sick mind. The Church in Zimbabwe has asked that today be a day of prayer. We'll join our prayers to theirs, so that "Rachel" can recover her children -- every one (Matthew 2: 18).

More to "hail" than we see

What this analysis offers makes perfect sense:

Fr. Albert Enard, O.P., a French Dominican priest, suggested a modification of the present form of the Hail Mary. He proposed a new translation of the opening word of the Angel's greeting to the Virgin Mary at the Annunciation (Lk 1: 28) to indicate that the angel's message is one of joy. The angel at the Annunciation said chaire: "rejoice" in St Luke's Gospel--translated into Latin as ave. In Latin, ave was a simple word of greeting. Consequently, all the Western European languages (dependent upon the Latin) translated ave as a simple word of greeting: Hail, Mary; Je vous salue Marie; Dios te salve Maria, etc.

In 1969, a change in the wording of this popular prayer first occurred in Lourdes. "Rejoice" (réjouis-toi) began to be used as the opening words of Ave Maria. Four years later, as the French bishops submitted the texts of the Lectionary to the Congregation for Divine Worship; they requested that the word "Rejoice" (rejouis-toi) be retained in the official liturgical texts. However, their request was denied. "The reasons for the change," the congregation averred, "appear to be less weighty than the reasons for not changing the words of the Hail Mary which are so dear to the Christian people." Accordingly, all the English Lectionaries have retained the phrase Hail Mary.

Meanwhile, Fr. Enard continued his work of showing that the angel's words were not simply words of greeting but a call to great joy. In 1983, his book Réjouis-toi Marie appeared with translations of the commentaries of Greek writers. The Akathist Hymn of the Byzantine Church is an extended meditation on the Annunciation scene, with the refrain "Rejoice, rejoice, o wedded virgin" repeated throughout. St Sophronias, patriarch of Jerusalem, commented, "What will the angel say to the blessed and pure Virgin? How will he communicate the great message? 'Rejoice, you have been filled with grace, the Lord is with you.' When he addressed her, he begins with joy, he who is the announcer of great joy."

Now it's true, that changing well-worn words -- even for the best of intentions -- proves difficult. Anyone who has tried to pray the "Saint Michael the Archangel" prayer in a group knows this. There are differing forms, and I thought I was clinging to the archaic -- until I prayed it with an older convert (from the High Anglican communion) and found that I was whiz-bang nouveau compared to her form. Same with the Magnificat. Thus to tinker with the Hail Mary would really require a monumental reason, which would then throw centuries of traditions into suspicion.

Better just to keep this insight close to our hearts, praying the "Hail" with all the reverence and wonder possible, since they are the words on which salvation history hinges. A marvel, a gift, and the revelation of so good a God -- not to mention the Immaculata who made it all possible. [Source]

[Image source]