Man or Muppet?

In one of my favorite family movies of recent times, The Muppets, two of the main characters sing themselves the question "am I a Man or a Muppet?" The song is hilariously poignant in the movie's setting, illustrating each man's search for his true identity. While in this setting the decision to be a Muppet is a charmingly positive choice for the younger brother, who has really been one all along, the phrase "am I a Man or a Muppet?" struck me recently as a metaphor for the way those of faith can be seen by those around us.


On one hand, we have the choice of being a Man (or woman of course, but there's no Wuppet alternative if you get my meaning) of faith. An individual who is seen by those around them as strong, steadfast in belief, kind to those they disagree with, compassionate to all, but admittedly fallen in nature and seeking forgiveness and redemption.

On the other hand, we can be a Muppet. Always light-hearted and humorous, but ultimately puppets lacking full individuality and depth. We can choose to be a Muppet-ized Christian; a caricature; more of a comedic reflection of the quaint points of Christianity that society can poke fun at but that no one really takes seriously. Muppets talk about the light points of life but never delve below the surface to ask "why?" on issues of importance. This Muppetized view of Christianity is held by many, embraced by many for themselves, and really serves to anesthetize Christianity of all its power and truth.

You see, to be a Man of Christianity, one has to be willing to say things that are contrary and that others don't want to hear. We have to be willing to be unpopular. Muppets of Christianity go along to get along, unwilling to cause a thoughtful frown of introspection for fear of losing that feel-good label. Imagine a Muppet talking about the danger of sexual sin (you know what I'm talking about, the stuff that "I wouldn't do, but I'm totally ok with them doing it"), corporate corruption or fraud, or the danger of a society that devalues human life and puts their own feelings ahead of the will of God? Nope, it takes men with conviction, charity and compassionate desire for the good of each person to say that. Instead, Muppets talk about the issues that no one really argues, because they are one-dimensional and easy to see through. Men have depth, seeking truth and being willing to talk about it even in the face of being ridiculed or trivialized.

The greatest Christians in history said and did things that were very unpopular. Pope Paul IV wrote Humanae Vitae and almost caused schism by those that thought the Catholic Church should embrace artificial contraception. Abraham Lincoln almost lost half the country by condemning slavery. Thomas More stood up to the king and was killed for it. John Paul II and Ronald Raegan tag-teamed communist Russia and the Berlin wall ultimately fell. In today's world of rampant immorality and scorn for Christian values, are you willing to be unpopular and stand for truth in the face of great lies? Are you willing to be that Man that many may scorn but many more will respect?

Or are you simply a Muppet?

Back again

Hello Friends!

After more than a year off and multiple requests to return to blogging, I figured that it was about time to share some more of my thoughts here. As many of you know, I graduated last May with my Bachelor of Science in Nursing, obtained my RN in July, and currently work at Mercy Medical Center here in Canton, in the ICU. I love my job, and it stretches my in ways I would never have imagined. As the name of my blog suggests, the redirection of my career to nursing has definitely been a reinvention.

I am going to refrain from talking in-depth about all the goings-on of the 14 months since my last post, but if you'd like some additional snippets of that time please visit Life Without a Map for Monica's musings. In the meantime, here are a few highlights:

We spent a week in St. Augustine, FL, with great friends last June.
In July I passed boards and received my RN, and stood as best man for my brother at his wedding.
Started at Mercy's ICU in August.
Celebrated with Monica's sister at her September wedding.
Bought our new home in October!
Traveled to Washington, DC and Chicago for two different conferences as a committee member of the New Careers in Nursing Scholars' Network.
Tore my ACL the week before Christmas (while warming up for a basketball game).
Waiting for Fogarty child #5, due in February.

2013 was a great year! A few thoughts...

Tearing my ACL made me realize how much I take for granted my ability to be active. I will be having reconstructive surgery in mid-February, just before our baby is due. It's stressful thinking of the time crunch that this will present, but a combination of limited time off and surgery availability requires that we take that time. God is in control!

RN work is hard. No other way about it. Every nurse faces challenges in their respective departments, and the ICU is especially challenging. I have learned more in 5 months than I could possibly have imagined, and I know I will continue learning until the day I hang up my stethoscope and retire. There is never a day without stress, and that is natural part of taking care of people and holding their life in my hands with each medication push, drip change, vital analysis, assessment change, etc. Some days I walk away from my shift smiling, other days I can hardly wait to get to sleep just to forget the stress of the previous night. I try to visit our chapel before each shift because I know that I can't do this alone, and I still hold to my belief that Christ called me to this profession to act as His vessel in a the work of caring for others.

Our new home is fantastic. We have been truly blessed by a home that meets our needs. We got a fantastic deal on a home that needed lots of updates but has a full and dry basement and a large, tree-lined yard. We were blessed immediately after closing with a flood of help from family and friends, and within two weeks we had stripped the whole house of wallpaper, painted all the rooms, tore up carpet, and had new carpet laid just in time for move-in. We have dabbled with little projects here and there since then, but have spent most of our time enjoying our new life in the very Northeast corner of Canton. We are close to our parish and many of our friends, and it's a short 15-minute drive to work. God truly blessed us with this home.

I have much more to talk about and share, but I'll use that as motivation to return here soon. In the meantime, here is an excerpt from today's mass readings and a couple short thoughts:

"You belong to God, children, and you have conquered them, for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They belong to the world; accordingly, their teaching belongs to the world, and the world listens to them. We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit." 1 John 4:4-6

Take heart today with the knowledge that if you strive to follow Christ, seek his ways, and love others as Christ loves the world, we have no need to fear the forces of the world. Don't allow frustration to take over when those you meet deny Christ. Continue to reflect truth!

America the Beautiful

I went to bed last night with a very heavy heart. It was apparent that Barack Obama would retain the presidency and that Mitt Romney would be relegated to election history. I woke up this morning to the news confirming what I already knew, and to a flurry of sad, despairing, and indignant posts on Facebook as friends took to the web in an attempt to verbalize their feelings over what seems like one big mistake by the American populace.

But, this post is not so much about my fears for the future as it is for my hopeful, glass-is-half-full side. If you haven't already read my previous posts regarding my fear surrounding Obama's multitude of bad policies, feel free to browse through my past posts. If you want a pretty accurate summary of my fears for the future, read my friend Mary's post at Let Love be Sincere. In the meantime, I just want to share a few thoughts on how I HOPE the next four years will go.

As a starting point, I want to point out that the past four years have seen an increasing political rift between individuals from different parties. I know that I have been a perpetrator of political polarization often enough on my own, mostly in reaction to policies mandated by the current administration. Regardless of all the lofty talk in the 2008 election, Mr. Obama has failed in his promise to bring a post-partisan, post-racial era to our country. I think that this should be a wake-up call to people on both sides of the political spectrum that the change starts with US. Why should anyone wait to change their attitude until the president they dislike is booted from office, or the man they want elected is voted into office, or until the incumbent is guaranteed four more years?

I love my country. I always have. What I love about it transcends my disagreements with my fellow citizens. And in turn, I hope that my fellow Americans feel the same way. I truly believe that what unites us is stronger than what divides us, and I'll explain:

I believe that both liberals and conservatives can agree that religious freedom should be respected. Whether you are Catholic, Jewish, Lutheran, Muslim, athiest, or none of the above, we should be allowed to practice religion as our faith dictates; it is not up to the state to dictate how we live our faith.

I believe that both conservatives and liberals are concerned with the financial future of our country. We often differ in our attitudes towards spending, taxing, wealth, etc...but we do not often differ in the fact that a) our children do not deserve the financial pit that awaits them with our current financial deficit, and b) we want to help the less fortunate of our country. The real question is: how do we agree to work together and solve the problems that we face? How do we eliminate the wasteful spending, allow individuals to make decisions about their own money, and reign in the debt so that our kids and grandkids won't have to go hungry so they can pay their taxes?

I believe that most Americans, whether liberal or conservative or somewhere else on the spectrum, agree that our healthcare system is very flawed in regulation, legislation, and insurance. We agree that we have the best healthcare delivery system in the world, but a combination of special interests, government-regulated pricing (Medicare price fixing IS a big problem), bad legislation that is counter-productive, etc is preventing us from truly offering good, affordable healthcare for all Americans. This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue, this is a human issue. We all loved Mother Teresa because she gave care and comfort to the poorest of the poor. If we could get past the political shouting, couldn't we come to a (lawyer-, accountant-, bureaucrat-free) solution to our healthcare problems and make sure that people get the healthcare that they need?

Finally, I believe that Americans from both sides of the aisle agree that we are a country built on freedom. It's time we remember that. We're too caught up on shouting why "I'm right and you're wrong", and we forget that sometimes the solution is not to push our political agenda but to allow freedom and personal responsibility to reign. Conservatives want to prove that liberals all want free contraception, free cell phones, free EVERYTHING. Democrats want to prove that Republicans are trying to outlaw contraceptives, take away Grandma's healthcare, take away EVERYTHING. If we thought for a moment, couldn't we come to the agreement that some women want contraceptives, and that's a choice they have to make and support on their own. Can't we agree that if I don't want to pay for your elective medications I shouldn't have to? There's no need to outlaw it, and there's no need to provide it for free. How about the fact that healthcare is crucial for all Americans and with REAL reform we really can help the elderly and those in need? No need to make it free and no need to punish people who can't afford to buy it, or maybe don't want to? Heck, I can only imagine that if we all just quieted our hearts for a moment over the Obamaphone craziness, we could find some common ground in that cellphones are a great way to provide a safety net for the less fortunate. Can't we agree that programs to give used cell phones to the poor, homeless, and underprivileged to use for emergencies is a good thing? We don't have to give them a data plan and a smart phone, but we don't have to ignore the value of communication either.

I guess what I'm getting at is that as much as I'm disappointed in Obama's reelection, it's not the end. It really should be the beginning for many of us to rise above our disappointment and create change for the better without waiting for our political savior. We need to stop the shrill partisan shouting, from both sides of the aisle. I have little hope that our political system will move much in the next four years, as we currently have no change in the executive or legislative balance of power. But our elected officials work for us. WE are the meaning of this country, not them. We will never agree on everything, but that's OK. We are American. America is a beautiful land of freedom, liberty, justice...and hopefully love somewhere in our hearts. Let's not forget that.

The Battle of the Bulge(-ing waistline)

I have poor self-discipline when it comes to diet and exercise. If there was a diagnosis for binge-and-purge dieting (actually, I think that exists), I would be institutionalized by now. I'm not proud to say it, but since I began the married life I have been a poor example of how to eat or not eat, exercise or not exercise. I'm so up and down with my regimen that Cedar Point should name a ride in my honor. I'm either eating fruit, veggie, and protein smoothies (and they taste healthy, not delicious) or I'm eating ice cream sundaes. I'm either running 3-4 miles a day for three or four months or I'm crashing on the couch with that sundae I mentioned.

Almost 7 years ago, with our first baby on the way and working a 2nd shift desk job, I was experiencing the effects of sympathy baby weight. I topped off at that point at a hair under 200lbs, and will never forget the Christmas pictures of Monica and me smiling at my family's house on Christmas morning, her with her expectant mother glow and me with my well-rounded cheeks. I committed to losing weight and, after entering my office's weight loss challenge, proceeded to diet and exercise my way to a trim 167lbs. Since then I have gone up and down, up and down, up and down. I am currently at my highest ever, topping the scales at 204.

I can make excuses all day about how I have four kids, how I'm in school school full-time; how everybody puts on some weight and I'm much smaller than most of America. I could say that I will weight until I (did you catch that?) finish school and then take advantage of my probable three 12-hour shifts weekly to focus on weight loss, but those are all excuses. Those are the things that should be motivating me to lose now. All that plus my secret desire to actually look like this again in Under Armour:

I want my four kids to see that their daddy wants to be in top shape so I can have more energy to play with them. I want to show my patients that I care about myself and I will certainly care about them. I need to eat right and exercise so I don't feel tired when I sit down to study. And I certainly can't wait until next summer or who knows what I might add to my adipose stash by then. I need to stop waiting for motivation to hit me in the face and get motivated NOW.

Thankfully, I have a good friend who also wants to shed a few pounds. We've made a commitment to encourage and push each other to lose a practical amount by Christmas, with a "mile marker" weight at Thanksgiving. So, I hope to be writing you all again in 3 months at the smaller 180lb mark. I've lost more before, I can do this now.

The politics of "I'm NOT a ______"

Have you seen this bumper sticker? It's one of the Democratic National Committee's bumper stickers that they're sharing with constituents. Someone down the street from us has one on the back of their truck. I'm sure that they're a wonderful person and know what they believe in and the policies they can get behind. So, why not just say "I'm a Democrat"? Are we so far removed from actually talking about our own stance on issues that an officially sanctioned party slogan doesn't even claim membership, but rather touts NOT being a member of the other party? Seems like all we see these days are the negative ads, the "Look at how awful that guy is" jabs, rather than "THIS is what I stand for" statements. This happens on both sides of the aisle, neither Democrats nor Republicans are exempt. But as the president, Mr. Obama, I'm looking you square in the eye; you haven't upheld your claim of a post-partisan, post-racial, most-transparent-administration ever since you were sworn in. Actually, I've felt that the polarization in this country has been worse in the past four years than I can remember in my lifetime. I, for one, would like to think that if I was running for office or leading a political movement I would have the courage to actually stand up and say publicly over and over again..."I believe in THIS and I'm going to stand behind it. How do YOU feel about this issue?" I believe that it's only this type of attitude that will bridge the huge ideological gap that our country is experiencing right now.

In the meantime, since I'm not running for office and can say whatever incendiary thing I want...and since I know that my Democrat readers have a good sense of humor, I'll leave you with this replacement bumper sticker:

Does legality determine morality?

A friend of mine and I were talking over the weekend about the current state of affairs in our country, particularly the erosion of our country's moral fabric. While we both agree on the fact that there is a general sense of moral relativism, a "let them do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody" attitude, we discovered that we were coming at issues from a different perspectives. My buddy had viewed issues more from a sense that issues like the push for same-sex marriage were created or pushed as part of a grand plan to undermine traditional marriage. I, on the other hand, believe that on issues like same-sex marriage the proponents truly want to legitimize these couples in the eye of the world, using legal means to achieve what they believe to be an issue of equal rights. The question for me became: where did this come from? How did human society for thousands of years view marriage as a singular entity, a union between a man and a woman, and now we see individuals and groups who believe that marriage should be defined as a union between any two individuals regardless of sex? Here are my thoughts on the issue...

While often attacked by modern society as being old and out of touch, the Catholic Church has held to its teachings on sexual morality since the time of Christ, approaching human sexuality as not something merely physical, but as containing a sacred element. We believe that every act between husband and wife should be both unitive and procreative...not that every conjugal encounter must result in a new life, but that whenever they engage the couple must be open to the possibility of the gift of life. This is why we believe in periodic abstinence as a means of spacing children. So, anyway...in 1930, under pressure from its members and society, the Anglican church became the first Christian denomination to allow use of contraceptives under some circumstances, during the Lambeth Conference of that year. Since that time, every major protestant church has allowed the use of contraceptives to the point that the Catholic Church is the only denomination that still teaches against it.

Over the next several decades, as the use of contraceptives became more widespread, various methods were improved upon and we had the emergence of "the pill". Still the more widely preferred method today, the contraceptive pill is used to alter a woman's hormones to prevent or terminate a conception. The rate of conception when on the pill is roughly 2-5%, giving rise to the term "protected sex" and taking away the procreative aspect; essentially sex became a recreational activity rather than an expression of unconditional love. It became an act rather than a promise. It became something to protect yourself during rather than something within which to give yourself freely and fully. However, the term love certainly did not go away...

"Free love" was a favorite term during the Sexual Revolution of the 1960's and 1970's as young people began a wholesale shed of their Greatest Generation parents' values. With sex offering both the pleasure they desired and very little chance of producing a child, sexual partners grew in number, couples began to cohabitate more outside of marriage, and popular culture reinforced the new practices in both radio and television.

With the rise of the sexual revolution, aided by contraception, there was still one question that remained in the way of total sexual emancipation: what to do in cases where contraceptives didn't do their job and a conception occurred? It's foolish to look idealistically at the issue of abortion with the assumption that prior to this time abortion did not occur. It did, although it was illegal and believed to be immoral by the majority of society. However, abortion did offer the opportunity to rectify a failed contraceptive, and so our country saw the infamous Roe v. Wade court case that ultimately made abortion a non-criminal act. The case hinged on two basic questions: 1) when does life actually begin, and 2) is it a woman's right to abort the life of her unborn child because it is in her body? According to the law, a woman can choose to abort the child, because life begins when she decides it begins.

With contraceptives accepted by the majority of society and abortion a legal act, sex became viewed as mainly an act of pleasure and not one of meaning and commitment. With this perspective, any sexual act that brought pleasure was sure to be accepted as good, because remember...sex is about pleasure, and nothing else. From this position it makes sense that sex between two men or two women would be accepted as much as sex between a man and a woman, because sex is no longer about an act which is naturally inclined to reproduction, but one that expresses...whatever one wants it to express. And so we see how homosexual acts are more acceptable to those who view sex in this light. So why homosexual marriage?

In the eyes of many, a thing or action is considered good if a majority of persons believes it to be good, if the act is legal, or if it is somehow "endorsed" through laws that support that thing or action. In the case of same-sex marriage the underlying motivation is to legitimize what many in society believe to be immoral, that being sexual relations between two persons of the same gender. The result is an undermining of society's respect for traditional marriage. The same thing has happened before in examples like unmarried cohabitation; society previously frowned on this arrangement and although many still disapprove, the sheer number of couples living together overpowers traditional thoughts on saving sexual cohabitation for marriage.

What is lacking in today's common thought is true logic in the application of legality, morality and where the two intersect on issues. Rather than simply seeking good as one defines it for him or herself, logic aids in the pursuit of good to a natural order and principled end, seeking the good of others first and applying a natural moral framework to one's worldview. Within this view there are limitations on what is good. Not that we should or must force our beliefs on others, but that holding principled views regardless of society's moral tide is acceptable, even when others can't accept that.

If I told you I strangled a puppy...

Would you hate me? Would you think I was heartless and possibly try to press charges against me for committing canicide? Would you want to lead a raging mob to my house if you found out I intentionally strangled a little, big-eyed, fluffy, cute-as-a-button puppy? Yeah, I figured you would. What if I told you I put my dog in a cage designed to be strapped to the top of my car, would you decline to vote for me as president? Or, what if I told you that there was a law being passed to allow breeders to selectively kill puppies at the point of birth by putting a knife through their brain or simply allowing them to perish from the elements? Does that upset you? Fortunately, I don't have to tether my rage into words, as I have the president of the United States, mister Barack Obama, to give his thoughts on allowing little puppies...oh wait, I mean babies...to die:
(emphasis mine)

As I understand it, this [law] puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that its nonviable but there's, lets say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just out limp and dead, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?

That transcript came from 2002, during his tenure as an Illinois state senator, where he was arguing against the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" which was passed almost unanimously by the U.S. Senate and protects babies who survive botched abortions. Sounds humane though, doesn't it? But in case you're thinking I'm just pulling more Obamaphobic quotes...here's a bit more for you to digest from the person elected to lead our country. I encourage you to read through to the end to get the full effect of Obama's words (again, emphasis mine):

Senator O'Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was - is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as - as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct?
Well, it turned out - that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your - you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably befound unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it.

How can anyone listen to this and not see the illogical thought in saying that a premature baby who is, for instance, delivered alive and healthy at 25 weeks has all the rights of anyone, but if the baby is unwanted it has no rights up until it's born at 40 weeks? Are there any doubts that he has indeed sold his soul to the abortion industry?