Giving thanks to God for His mysterious ways

This morning my wife and I awoke to find a message on our answering machine telling us that her uncle Dan was getting a new heart. He's been waiting for a heart transplant for quite some time now and we had been told that there was a good chance it would happen over the holidays. I can imagine the emotions that he must be feeling this morning as he goes in to receive a new heart. It is definitely a scary thing, as no one knows how his body will handle a new heart. Still this news is an answer to prayer.

The strange thing is that someone's life had to end tragically for Dan to receive this new heart. One person's bad news is another person's good news. Life is definitely not fair, but what an awesome gift he has received. As I say a prayer for Dan this morning that the surgery goes well, I also offer a little prayer for the person who is giving Dan this gift and that person's family who must be grieving right now.

Listening to this morning's daily Scripture readings, I thought it was appropriate that they dealt with giving thanks to God. The Psalm talked about this directly, and the Gospel reading was actually about the woman named Anna who had waited for years to see the promised Messiah. Upon meeting the baby Jesus, it says she gave glory to God. I'm sure it was not easy waiting for eight years just like it hasn't been easy for Dan to wait for this new heart. I do see a difference in Dan however as he has found a new zeal for life. Uncertainty and practicing patience is never fun, but God does use it to help us grow. Amazingly God always finds a way to take our pain and suffering and bring something good out of it.

Voting for Life

You know what’s great about our country is that when this election is over in a couple days we’ll all still be friends. Obviously there are some very differing opinions on who the best candidate is to lead our country and I’m glad people feel open enough to share there views with everyone. With that being said and having read many of your emails, I’d like to add my thoughts to conversation.

I’ve always considered myself pro-life since my early upbringing and I think much of that can be attributed to growing up in a family that cherishes and loves life so much. A year ago when the campaigns were just getting started, I questioned many of the same social justice issues that have been brought up by some of you and wondered if these could out way the importance of the abortion issue. Then my wife and I conceived our first child and I saw his heart beating in an ultrasound when he was only three weeks old. As the pregnancy continued my wife and I got to see and feel him kicking and waving….hiccuping and definitely growing inside her. Then the morning of September 8 we got to hold our baby boy for very first time. I know many of you have experienced this feeling before but what an amazing moment that was. It was at this moment and in countless others since then as I’ve stared into the eyes of my child, that I knew without a doubt that the greatest cruelty or injustice possible was that we as a society would turn our heads and let millions of innocent children die.

Think about it this way….You see two people on the street. One is a child being brutally murdered. The other can be a person facing whatever other evil or social justice issue you can think of. If you can only save one which would save? Looking at it this way makes the answer blatantly obvious to me.

Recently Dr. Alveda C. King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, stated that, “The fight against abortion is a new frontier in the Civil Rights Movement…We are not following Martin’s dream if we do not stand up for the voiceless.” I wholeheartedly agree with her and truly feel that abortion is the civil rights issue or out times. There are many issues that affect us more directly as individuals and perhaps that is why many people choose to give more importance to them. As a society though, there can be nothing more terrible then the thousands of babies who are legally slaughtered each day. Whatever struggles and injustices my son will face in this life at least he will get to experience them. Friends and family, the way I see it the war overseas is terrible and our economy is a problem, but let’s not forget that there is a bigger war taking place right here in our own nation. Sacrifices need to be made but innocent children should never be the price.

So I guess you can probably guess who I’ll be voting for tomorrow. Obama and McCain are so far apart on the abortion issue that it’s not even close decision. I’ll gladly cast my vote for the millions like my son who don’t get a say in the matter. I’m voting for life.

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
-- Mother Teresa

Don’t dunk your remote…that’s better for milk and cookies

Yeah, everybody knows that electronics and water don’t mix. Sure if your camera or cell phone get splashed it’s not a big deal but actually dunking such a device into a glass of water is definitely pushing things. Well a couple nights ago my subconscious mind decided to test logic in what has to be one of the dumbest things I’ve ever done.

That night I laid in bed watching the news or a Mythbusters’ rerun or something else. I can’t really be sure cause at some point I fell asleep with the TV on. Hours later a loud commercial brought out of a deep sleep and I realized that I had forgotten to turn off the tube. Still half asleep I fumbled for the remote and pressed a number of buttons until at last my figures found the power button and the TV turned off. Now in a darkened bedroom I reached over to set the TV remote down on my nightstand.

I could have felt the top of the nightstand and gently set the remote down but this is where my subconscious deemed it a perfect time to see if a remote controller can float in a glass of water. As the remote slipped into the water sitting by my bed I remember thinking, “You idiot, you just put the remote in your water glass,” but I was so tired and out of it that it still took me what seemed like forever to fish it out of the glass. I immediately wondered if I had broke it but left it on the nightstand till morning.

Now all this made me quite thirsty and having already done one stupid thing I began to ponder another. “Probably not a good idea to drink water that’s had a remote sitting in it,” I told myself. But in the end my thirst got the better of me so instead of getting up and retrieving a new glass, I quickly guzzled the tainted water down and went back to sleep.

Well morning came and remote was still wet. I shook my head as I looked at how the remote would have barely fit into the glass. Nothing to do now but to take the batteries out of it (better late then never) and let it dry out for the rest of the day. Now a few days removed from the incident the good news is that I’ve suffered no ill effects from drinking the water after dunking the remote in it. The bad news is the remote has become a paperweight with buttons. So that ends my scientific experiment of dunking a remote in water and it’s safe to say that it’s still just as bad of an idea as it’s always been. Best to leave the dunking to milk and cookies.

Too many outfielders: A good problem for the Twins

Denard Span has created a nice problem for the Minnesota Twins. He’s played so well since last being called up to the majors that when Michael Cuddyer get's off the disabled list the Twins will have some tough decisions to make on who get’s to play in the outfield.

Span has easily been one of the biggest reasons for the teams recent success. He’s been an on base machine and has really been taking good at bats now at the top of the line up. Additionally he’s played spectacular defense taking away plenty of hits and saving some big runs. Watching a game with Detroit announcers a few weeks back they raved on and on about how much ground the Twins cover in the outfield between Span and Carlos Gomez. On one ball hit to the gap they actually declared it a double and then Span ended up catching it. Needless to say only a fool would send him back down to the minors and it’s becoming very apparent that he needs to be in the starting lineup.

The problem is that the lineup could really use another good right-handed bat with some pop and Cuddyer fits that bill nicely when he’s healthy. He’ll definitely be starting again which means somebody is out of a starting job. Some have suggested that Delmon Young should be the odd man out but he has actually been hitting well now despite a rough start to the season and like Cuddyer provides a right handed bat that can drive the ball. The more realistic option that has been discussed would be demoting Gomez in center field. He’s struggled big time lately and could use more work in the minors. The issue is that he’s arguably can have the biggest impact on the team if he works through his offensive slump and as stated above having him and Sapn in the outfield means not much hits the ground. Of course the other option is to use Cuddyer at DH but there’s not much time for him there as Jason Kubel and Craig Monroe are already splitting time there.

Some people have also suggested that the Twins try to trade one of their outfielders but I don’t see that as likely. All of the them are young and don’t have much of a track record so I doubt they’d get much back. Cuddyer is the exception but having been injured most of the year he’s not going anywhere either. The truth is I think they are better off with all of them anyway.

So what’s my solution? It’s actually pretty simple. Shift Cuddyer back to third base for the rest of the season. Contrary to popular opinion he never was quite that bad over there when they played him there previously and I can’t imagine he’ll be any worse defensively then Mike Lamb. This would solve a lot of problems as it would give the Twins an upgrade offensively at third with a canon of an arm and in my opinion fields the best possible lineup. Cuddyer probably prefers to play right field but he seems like a team player who would do what’s necessary for the betterment of team. Of course injuries happen and if someone get’s hurt then he’s ready to step in. It’s not like Brian Buscher has done that bad of job at third but somebody has to go to the bench. It’s definitely a good problem to have and with all these guys being so young sure makes the future exciting to think about.

Baptism and Original Sin

Recently my wife and I took a Baptism class through our local church and unfortunately we left wondering just how much we could trust the deacon who lead it. He helps with most of the Masses and activities in the parish and listening to his homilies he's always seemed like he knows his stuff, but as he lead the class he laid out a very different view of Baptism and Original Sin then what I was familiar with. He said that Vatican II changed the way we understand Original Sin and that we needed to get the idea of our child's sole being stained with it, as portrayed in the old Baltimore Catechism, out of our head. To quote the handout material he gave us....

Modern theology defines original sin as follows;
"Original sin is the condition of being born into a sin filled world."
A. It is not a stain on the innocent child's soul.
B. The following can counteract the negative things in our world.
FAMILY
LOVE
CHURCH/FAITH

He expounded on this saying that Baptism is mostly about starting a faith journey and said that there was a big long document on Baptism that came out of Vatican II and goes into detail on this. To a degree this makes sense to me, but if this is the new official definition of original sin then what does it really mean when we say that Mary was conceived Immaculately (without Original Sin)? She most definitely was born into "a sin filled world." Also if original sin is diminished this way it also seems to diminish the whole sacrament of Baptism and ultimately the concept of our redemptions.

What really made me question the authenticity of what this deacon was saying though was that when one woman at the class asked the deacon what would happen to a baby who died without being Baptized, he told her that the churches "official stance" is that the child is completely innocent and would go straight to heaven. It may seem like nitpicking but salvation is a pretty important matter and what he said seemed to fly directly in the face of what I've read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church so I looked it up and it pretty clearly states in so many words that we have every reason to hope in God's Mercy for such a child but we can't know for sure.

This all lead me to our main concern which was how soon we need to have our child Baptized. We did ask the deacon and he said there is no rush or recommended time table. In fact they only do Baptisms twice a month at our church due to the size of the parish. This sounded like good news to us as we've asked my brother to be the Godfather but he is going to be studying in Europe this August through December so will most likely be gone for the first few months of our baby's life. We would love for him to be able to participate in the Baptism and think it would mean a lot to him so it would be great to have the baby Baptized in December when he gets back. At the same time we want to make sure we are putting our baby's salvation ahead of what would be nice for us.

With all this confusion I turned to my Great Aunt who is Notre Dame Sister and has been involved in Catholic education for many years. She was the perfect person to talk to as she teaches a similar class at her parish every month and has dealt with all of these issues. She told me that she always explains Original Sin this way; She takes off her glasses and tells people that she has poor vision and that this poor vision is something she inherited from her parents. She didn’t do anything wrong to merit her poor eyesight but it’s just something she was born with. Now she says thanks to modern wonders she can use eyeglasses and which help her see clearly. She still has the same genes but thanks to the glasses she doesn’t have to suffer the effects of bad eyesight that were passed down to her.

This analogy made a lot of sense to me as it’s easy to see relate her inherited poor vision to the original sin and her glasses to Baptism. My aunt went on to tell me that our deacon was partially correct in that we are born into a sinful world and baptism helps us counter that, but she said a better definition for Original Sin is that it is simply our inherited tendency towards sin. While we are all born good and innocent we do inherit this tendency from our first parents’ sin. In a way we our soul is stained though not in an evil way. Through Baptism we receive grace to counter this tendency towards sin and become a child of God.

Now as far as when we should Baptize our child, my great aunt explained to me that while the Catholic Church can’t declare for a fact what happens to a child that dies prior to being Baptized, the Church does teach that there are three ways we can be Baptized. The most common is by water but lesser known ways include Baptism by blood (as when someone is martyred) and Baptism by desire (which is when a person wishes to be Baptized but dies prior before they can be). It would only make sense that this Baptism by desire would apply if a child passes away who’s parents desired Baptism for that child. With that in mind she didn’t see any reason why waiting for my brother to be there would be a problem as long as our baby is healthy.

All this has really made me look long and hard at something I’ve taken for granted most of my life. I’ve always seen Baptism as something that was important but never really stopped to ponder what it really theologically speaking was about. It makes so much more sense now and I’m glad I’ve had the opportunity to learn more about my Faith. Hopefully as our child grows up my understanding about my Faith can also continue to grow.