Update on the Little One

So Damien's learned a new word... "Yoda". We start them young.

You ask him "Where's Yoda?" and he runs and gets his little Yoda toy.

* * *

He's also putting his analytical engineering mind to work, trying to unlock the secrets of the remote. After his Mickey Mouse cartoon ends, he runs to the table, pulls out a chair, climbs on it, reaches for the cable box remote in the center of the table, points it at the TV and starts mashing buttons. He knows it's used to start Mickey Mouse, it's just a matter of figuring out how.

Top baby scientists are hard at work on these pressing concerns.

* * *

He's also learning inflections. One way to decipher his babblings is by listening for the inflection. "Duh-duh-duh?" with an upwards inflection means "May I have it?" "Duh duh!" with a downwards inflection means "thank you!" and is usually said when he's giving something or after he's given something.

He also counts, in this fashion. We started playing a game with him, where we'd count to three then drop him on the couch. Now he does it himself. He stands on the tables behind the couch (see, climbing), and counts "duh? duh? DUH!" and throws himself onto the cushions. Sometimes he hilariously rolls feet over head onto the floor. Hilarious for me, at least. He doesn't think it's funny.

* * *

Another one of his favorite tricks is pretending to drink from a cup. A few weeks ago, we were at a friend's house. My friend took a big drink from her water bottle, then set it down with a gasp of refreshment. Damien decided to imitate. With the bottle cap on, he tilted the bottle way back, set it down and said "Ahh!" He now does this all the time, particularly when the Murloc or I am drinking. We'll give him one of his sippy cups to pretend to drink out of. He tosses it back, slams it down and gasps "Ahh!"

But he still won't actually drink from anything other than a bottle.

* * *
He's also learned the throw temper tantrums. Hilarious temper tantrums. He throws himself on the floor, screams, and bangs his head on the floor. Then he really screams, because it hurts to bang your head on the floor. For all his smarts, he still doesn't have much common sense.

On Desserts, and the Lack Thereof

I think for me, the hardest part of Lent--harder than not posting stupid trivialities to Facebook, or pwning n00bs in Medal of Duty: Modern Battlefield Assault--is the constant feeling of hunger. Not from fasting, or lack of food, or lack of meat. Simply from the lack of sweets. My body seems to have some mechanism, in which I don't actually feel satisfied until I've had dessert. It doesn't have to be much. But the sugar somehow tells my brain, "ok, you're done eating now." Without that trigger, I never feel satisfied, no matter how full I get.

The mechanism for this was always clear to me, as a child, and yet my mother, for some reason, needed to be schooled in the basic principles. I clearly remember one dinnertime meal when I informed her that-after having finished the meat or pasta or whatever we were having, and leaving the vegetables untouched--I was completely stuffed, and couldn't possibly eat another bite. Of course, it was entirely coincidental that I happened to fill up right before getting to my veggies.

Shortly afterwards, the ice cream came out for those good boy and girl who had cleaned their plates. I informed my mother of me desire for ice cream, too. "But how can you have any ice cream when you're so completely stuffed full?"

She thought she had me, but that was really only a sign of her ignorance. I, of course, being the good, charitable little boy that I was, corrected her error, and informed her about the basic anatomical lesson that all little boys who wanted dessert but not vegetables knew. "My dinner pipe is full, but my dessert pipe is still empty." I mean, duh. How could she not know about the different pipes where food was stored? How could she not know that dessert went into a different bodily compartment than dinner?

Sheesh.

So for Lent...

Giving up the usuals:

• Sweets
• Hot Chocolate
• Soda
• Alcohol
• Vidjamagames (including especially Bejeweled for iPhone)
• The Internet

Extra practices:

• Reading; set aside time for both spiritual reading and fun reading each day
• Writing; set aside time for writing (blogging or fiction) whenever possible
• Floss every day
• Daily rosary

Aside from that, I'm not sure what else to do. Ideally, Lent ought to be used to deepen the practice of one's faith. Last year, I got into the habit of daily mass (which, amazingly, I've kept up for a whole year). I'm not sure how to build on that. I suppose I could get up a half-hour earlier and join the Norbertines for morning prayer, but I'm reluctant to do that because I'd either have to go to bed earlier, which would cut into wifey time (as it is, we only have about an hour together after Damien goes to bed), or I'd be even more tired at work. Maybe I'll save morning prayer for Fridays only.

I've never been one for New Year's resolutions, mainly because I do that during Lent. I also try to use this time to focus on one aspect of life where I need personal improvement. In past years, I've focused on driving and given up changing lanes and speeding. There was also that one year where I resolved to be more patient and trusting of God's providence, and we all know how that ended, even if I still don't manage to live by the lessons I learned. What? I've never told that story on this blog? Well, remind me to tell it sometime.

This year, I'd like to focus on coming out of my shell, being more involved and helpful to others, and not just be such a flaming huge introvert. How bad my introverted tendencies are was driven home last week when, as I was leaving the parking lot after morning mass, I noticed that another car had a flat tire. I was about five blocks away before I realized that the proper response would have been to, y'know, wait for the person to tell him his tire was flat (it was the passenger-side, rear, so it would be unlikely he'd know) and offer to help change it, or at the very least leave a note so he wouldn't drive away. When I got to work, all I could imagine was hearing an announcement the next day about some poor parishioner who died in a fiery auto crash when his tire shredded on the highway at 80 mph, and oh, if only he could have known his tire was flat! But, of course, for me, it's a toss up between the guilt of walking away from someone in need and, y'know, talking to someone I don't know. Actually, it's not a toss up. I would much prefer just to walk away. Which, perhaps, is a problem that ought to be worked on.

Unfortunately, "be less shy" doesn't exactly meet Fr. Philip's criteria of a good resolution, that it must be specific, practical, and renewable. Choosing a specific goal would seem to be in order. I think, though, that God, in his infinite patience and providence, already has a goal in mind. I'm getting faint hints that maybe I ought to involve myself more in parish life.

Being friends with the priests of the parish is always a good idea. I'm reminded of my parents and Fr. McHugh, who, if he saw the trademark two-tone blue van, would sometimes wait around for Mass to let out so he could invite us up to his apartment for tea. That kind of fraternity with priests is a wonderful thing for children, especially boys, to grow up with, and I'd love for Damien and Anthony to be familiar with the priests of their parish.

(While we're on the topic, I've also always been envious of my mother's ability to start a conversation with anyone, anywhere, at any time. That is, alas, an ability I do not have. My attempts at engaging strangers usually end up with stupid chit chat and awkward pauses.)

But anyways, faint hints. At the parish ministry fair several months ago, one of the ushers asked if I would be interested in becoming an usher. I said I'd think about it, which was true, but I never acted upon it because that would involve two fears: talking to strangers and telephones. The usher, and Irishman named Dennis, gave the selling points for usherhood: most were Knights of Columbus, and they were all drinking buddies. Last Sunday, the Knights had a booth set up outside church and one of them approached me specifically and asked if I had thought about joining them (why yes, I have, as a matter of fact). He gave me the details of an informational meeting they'd be having soon. At the same mass, Father Philip announced, for the third consecutive week, that the Latin schola would be putting on a concert and they were looking for more singers. After mass, Mrs. Bainbridge, who also sings in the Schola, stopped me to chat, and of course at one point we began talking about the Schola (how did we sound this week?) and mentioned their desperate need of male voices. As if that wasn't enough, after Ash Wednesday mass, instead of rushing back to my car, I stopped to check out the booth of Crusade Catholic Stores, which was selling books. They had two I wanted, Light of the World, and Unplanned. While waiting to buy them, I ended up chatting with the lady next to me, who, as it turns out, sings in the Schola. And to top it off, the Schola Mistress was right next to my car, and I ended up chatting with her and may or may not have accidentally volunteered to help with their concert. (She actually wanted me in Schola at Sunday mass, but I explained I had a little one, with one on the way, that need supervision.)

So I don't know what any of this means, or where it will lead. I don't know if I'll be an usher, or a Knight, or sing in Schola. I just think that, maybe, I should follow this path that's been laid out before me, hold out my hand for Our Lady to lead me, and see where I end up. That's the great lesson I learned during Lent in Austria and Rome.

But that's another story. Remind me to tell it sometime.

Quaestiones

Question 1: Whether Blogging Is Permissible when One has Given Up the Internet for Lent.

Objection 1. It would seem otherwise, since the blog itself, and the means of posting to it, reside on and require access to the Internet, respectively.

Objection 2. Furthermore, merely writing the blog posts offline in a word processor, then uploading them on Sunday would also violate this resolution, since the essential nature of the promise--to avoid the frivolous use of time on the Internet during Lent--is still broken by spending time on a pursuit that has as its natural end a form of communication that requires the Internet.

On the contrary, blogging is not essentially different from writing for printed media, which is a worthwhile and non-trivial pursuit, and not covered by any promise to give up the Internet for Lent.

I answer that, the vow to give up the Internet during Lent is a shorthand method of stating "giving up frivolous pursuits using the Internet," which the Philosopher surely would have agreed is one of the primary usages of the Internet. However, especially for one who has vowed to spend more time writing during Lent, blogging is not necessarily a frivolous pursuit, so long as care is taken to avoid the Five Lowest Forms. In fact, for one who has promised to spend more time writing, a blog is no different than any other media for the promulgation of the written word.

This simplistic understanding of the prohibition of the use of the Internet during Lent, in fact, stands as an obstacle to one who must write more, especially if his primary word processor is an online application. Clearly, one can promise to write more and also simultaneously not waste time on the Internet.

This is particularly evident for one whose job requires use of the Internet and email. Since his Lentent penance cannot supersede his duty to use the just fruits of the Internet to do his job, it can clearly be seen that giving up the Internet for Lent does not include all uses of the Internet, but merely those that are contrary to productivity.

Reply to Objection 1. While blogging does indeed use the Internet in myriad ways, both as a means of creating the content (form) of the blog post, and of posting the content for others to read (matter), this usage of the Internet can promote a self-betterment and more effective use of time, which is not what is intended to be avoided when one gives up the Internet for Lent.

Reply to Objection 2. That blogging is not essentially different from other forms of the written word seems to lend credence to the idea that blogging is allowed to one who has given up the Internet for Lent. If an act is no different from another act, any prohibitions against the one ought apply to the other, and should the first be acceptable, so ought the second.


Question 2: Whether Posting on Facebook, or Linking to Blog Posts on Facebook Is Prohibited to One Who has Given Up the Internet for Lent.


Objection 1. It would seem otherwise, since if one is permitted to upload the written word to a blog, one ought further be permitted to promote that written word in other venues.

Objection 2. Furthermore, what is a Facebook status update, if not a short blog post?

On the contrary, Facebook is a tool for socializing. To post a status update or link a blog post without a continued presence does a sort of violence to one's friends who reasonably expect to converse, but the continued presence constitutes a trivial usage of the Internet, which is not allowed by the vow.

I answer that, Facebook is, by its very nature, a frivolous use of the Internet. Surely, it is written, "can anything good come from [Facebook]?" The limitation of status updates to a mere 420 characters means that a status update cannot contain any of the intellectual depth of a blog post. These status updates cannot ever be considered anything but triviality.

Additionally, while simply posting a link to a blog post may not, in and of itself, violate the prohibition against the foolish use of one's time, the Theologian surely would have written that Facebook represents such a great time suck that one should not even log in, even for such a noble purpose as publicly promoting the written word, for the temptation for he who has given up the Internet for Lent is simply too great to justify the noble intent.

Reply to Objection 1. Promotion of the written word ought always be guided, as should every aspect of life, by the virtue of temperance. Because one is allowed to further the cause of the written word does not mean one should use every conceivable method of doing such. This is particularly true for those methods that tend towards triflingness.

Reply to Objection 2. While the Five Lowest Forms may tend towards the puerile nature of a Facebook status update, the latter, by its nature, must be different from a thoughtful and intelligent blog post. Those things which are said in the High Forms of blogging cannot be replicated in a Facebook status update.

Question 3: Whether a 19-Month-Old May Post Pictures to Facebook when His Father has Given Up the Internet for Lent.


Objection. It would seem otherwise, since 19-month-olds cannot use the Internet, let alone Facebook, without the assistance of their fathers. And since fathers who have given up the Internet for Lent are prohibited from using Facebook, the 19-month-old must respect his father's sacrifice and not tempt him to post picture on Facebook.

On the contrary, Lenten prohibitions must never fall on others to enforce. A father's vows should not in any ways place undue burden on his son.

I answer that, the duties of a father cannot be superseded by his Lenten penance. Since many depend on him, such as his son who cannot use the good fruits of social networking without him, and his parents, who depend on the numerous photographic evidences of the well-breeding and good rearing of their grandchild, the father must never abandon them. Surely, the Angelic Doctor would agree that the judicious and temperate assistance lent to his son to post pictures on Facebook does not violate prohibitions against frivolous use of his time on the Internet.

Reply to Objection. The 19-month-old's inability to share in the fruits of friendship without his father's assistance means that the father's penance cannot preclude the possibility of assisting his son.

Preach it, John, Preach it!

This:

Only a modern thinker, by which I mean ‘only a morally retarded one-dimensional thinker’ could regard both the Eve by whose proud disobedience all mankind was condemned, and the New Eve by whose humble obedience all mankind was saved as ‘weak.’ Heroines and villainesses on whose decisions turn the fates of worlds can be called a lot of things, but the Marxist and feminist interpretation of life only has two words for life in all its complexity: strong and weak. Whatever is strong is an oppressor, an exploiter, and guilty, and whatever is weak is oppressed, exploited, and innocent.

Being feminine does not mean being weak. That is a Marxist lie, produced by the morally retarded one-dimensional and therefore stupid idea that all human relationships are mutually hostile power struggles about power. Being feminine means being not masculine. 

Male pride is brittle. I am sorry, fellow guys, but we have weaknesses particular to our sex, and a woman can shatter us with word, if it is the right woman and the right word. Women, at least old fashioned & old school women, seem to have more endurance and more stick-to-itiveness and more Christian charity than men, by and large. 

They go through pregnancy, and THEN look forward to doing it again. Sheesh! Who says feminine girls are weak? 

It is the masculine girls who are weak, the Buffy Vampireslayers. They have the brittleness and pride of touchy male pride — feminists are as sensitive to any trifling slights against their honor as a Spanish Grandee — but they do not have the corresponding masculine virtues of chivalry, generosity, and honor for the fallen foe that Christianity introduced to ameliorate the savage pagan attitude that glorifies strength and despises the weak.

...is the point I was trying to make in clunky fashion here.

Also, this:

Of course, I also agree with St. Paul that men should love their wives as Christ loves his bride the Church, which is to say, men should regard marriage as crucifixion. It is not fun and games, loverboy. You think joining the army demands total commitment from you? Marriage, you do not get R&R, do not get leave, and you are never off duty. You are husband and father forever and aye, till death do you part, amen. 

You might come to marriage for the sake of Eros, romantic love, or for the sake of Philos, because you seek the companionship and friendship of the beloved, because you like her as well as love her. But marriage is Agape, self-emptying, self-denying, self-sacrificing love. So do not rejoice if St. Paul crowns you with the crown of marriage, husbands, and asks your wives to submit to your leadership and rule, because the crown is a crown of thorns, and the rulership is like that Christ refused of the devil when offered the kingdoms of this world. Your task, husbands, is to take second place in your wife’s affections once children arrive. You live for them, not they for you.

...is probably the best exegeses of Saint Paul's letter to the Ephesians that I've read.

It's (Officially) a Boy!

Introducing Anthony William!

As it turns out, one of his great-great-grandfathers was named Antonio (Anthony), and another was named William. This is coincidental (or is it?).

We've kinda known that it was a boy since the 13-week genetics ultrasound. At that point, it can be pretty hard to tell the difference, but both the doctor and ultrasound technician were pretty sure.

Hoag is now doing 4D ultrasounds. They didn't do that with Damien.

We've had the name picked out for over a year and a half. Shortly after the genetics ultrasound, we spelled out "Anthony" on the refrigerator under Damien's name in letter magnets. One day, Damien found his way into the kitchen, grabbed the "o" out of "Anthony" and started playing with it. The Murloc barked at him, "Damien, leave 'Anthony' alone!"

I'm sure that's only the first time of many we'll be hearing that.

Ummm... don't look now, but our baby is missing half his head.

I think he already looks a little like Damien. Is that a dimple I see in his chin? We may have another lady-charmer on our hands!

Such a lady's man!

iConfess I'm Shocked

So my friend's iPhone app has been doing quite well, apparently.

It's now the top paid app in the "Lifestyles" section of the app store.

And it's also in the top 25 purchased apps in the app store.



It started small, with the Catholic blogosphere.

Thomas Peters at American Papist praised it.
Mark Shea called it "very cool."
Father Z called it "useful but flawed."
Father Roderick tweeted about it.
Even Father Barron recommended it.
Early on in the viral outbreak, Patrick himself appeared for an interview on one of SQPN's podcasts.

Then it got big.

ABC: Confession App: Catholic Church Sanctions New iPhone App.

CNN: New app helps Catholics confess on the go.
Fox: Church Approves 'Confession' App for iPhone.
CNBC: Bless me iPhone for I have sinned.
New York Times: Forgive Me, Father, for I Have Linked.

Time Magazine: Smartphone Sins: Catholic Bishop Approves iPhone Confession App.

Associated Press: New iPhone, iPad app helps you keep track of sins.

USA Today: U.S. Catholic Church blesses iPhone app for confession.

The Guardian: Bless me, Apple, for I have sinned.

NPR: Confessing Sin in the Age of the iPhone.

HuffPo: Confession App Sanctioned By Catholic Church.

PC Magazine: Hail Mary! Catholic Church Blesses iPhone App.

(I'm tired of linking. Find the rest yourself)

It was also covered on segments on Fox News, CNN, and the Today Show (I don't have the clips). Apparently Conan made a joke about it on his show. Something about butt-dialing God.

Even Perez Hilton mentions it.

Some of the coverage was good:
AP: Religion Tech: Confessing Sins on Your iPhone.

Other, well, not so much, prompting Get Religion to correct The Times (of London).

Then it got... really big.

Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, commented on it, saying it is not a replacement for confessing to a priest. Of course, Patrick already new that and never intended that it would be used as a substitute, only as an assistance.

This caused a fair amount of confusion as several news outlets announced that the Vatican "excommunicated" the app. Seriously.

HuffPo: Vatican Bans Confession Via iPhone App.
Reuters (via LA Times): New iPhone app helps Catholics through confession.
The Telegraph: Vatican bans iPhone 'God app'.

Of course, you can't say the phrase "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic" in an empty room without stirring up controversy. The range of criticism showed the Chesterton effect in full force. Complaints in the comments sections on the blogs and news articles ranged from "the Catholic Church is so silly for offering this backwards and outdated rite. Why, a Catholic can commit the most outrageous sin and simply confess to a priest to receive absolution! It makes wrong-doing so easily forgiven as to encourage it!" to "the Catholic Church is so silly for offering this quaint and un-biblical rite. Why, anyone can receive forgiveness by simply offering contrition directly to God! Involving a priest simply adds needless complexity to obtaining redemption to the point of encouraging people not to seek it!" to "the Catholic Church is so silly for offering this wrong-headed and hurtful rite. Why, telling people to confess their sins to a priest makes them feel guilty and shameful about ordinary behavior! The guilt-complex it creates is responsible for driving gay teens to suicide!"

(In case you don't believe me on that last one, this HuffPo piece makes a connection between Pat's app and teen suicide. For reals.)

Despite my earlier protestations, I did end up buying the app today. The personalized examination of conscience is good. This is what it gave me when I entered my name.

Perhaps a little too good