Application For Permission To Date My Daughter

A friend sent this to me today. It's supposed to be funny, but I think it's a great idea!

APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO DATE MY DAUGHTER

NOTE: This application will be incomplete and rejected unless accompanied by a complete financial statement, job history, lineage, and current medical report from your doctor.

NAME_________________________

DATE OF BIRTH__________

HEIGHT___ WEIGHT_______

IQ__________ GPA___________

SOCIAL SECURITY #_________DRIVERS LICENSE #___________

BOY SCOUT RANK AND BADGES___________________________

HOME ADDRESS_________ CITY/STATE___________ ZIP______

Do you have parents? ___Yes ___No

Is one male and the other female? ___Yes ___No

If No, explain:______________________________________________

Number of years they have been married ___________________

If less than your age, explain__________________________________________________
_________________________________________________

ACCESSORIES SECTION:

A. Do you own or have access to a van? __Yes __No

B. A truck with oversized tires? __Yes __No

C. A waterbed? __Yes __No

D. A pickup with a mattress in the back? __Yes __No

E. A tattoo? __Yes __No

F. Do you have an earring, nose ring, __Yes __Nopierced tongue, pierced cheek or a belly button ring?

(IF YOU ANSWERED "YES" TO ANY OF THE ABOVE, DISCONTINUE APPLICATIONAND LEAVE PREMISES IMMEDIATELY. I SUGGEST RUNNING.)

ESSAY SECTION:

In 50 words or less, what does "LATE" mean to you?
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________

In 50 words or less, what does "DON'T TOUCH MY DAUGHTER" mean to you?
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

In 50 words or less, what does "ABSTINENCE" mean to you?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________

REFERENCES SECTION:

Church you attend ___________________________________________________

How often you attend _______________________________

When would be the best time to interview your:

father? _____________
mother? _____________
pastor? _____________

SHORT-ANSWER SECTION:

Answer by filling in the blank. Please answer freely, all answersare confidential.

A: If I were shot, the last place I would want shot would be:
______________________________________________________

B: If I were beaten, the last bone I would want broken is my:
_____________________________________________________

C: A woman's place is in the:
____________________________________________________

D: The one thing I hope this application does not ask me about is:
_______________________________________________________

E. What do you want to do IF you grow up? ___________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________

F. When I meet a girl, the thing I always notice about her first is:
______________________________________________________

F. What is the current going rate of a hotel room? __________________

I SWEAR THAT ALL INFORMATION SUPPLIED ABOVE IS TRUE AND CORRECT TOTHE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE UNDER PENALTY OF DEATH, DISMEMBERMENT,NATIVE AMERICAN ANT TORTURE, CRUCIFIXION, ELECTROCUTION, CHINESEWATER TORTURE, RED HOT POKERS, AND HILLARY CLINTON KISS TORTURE.

_________________________________________________________
Applicant's Signature (that means sign your name, moron!)
_______________________________
Father's Signature
________________________________
Mother's Signature
_______________________________ ________________________________
Priest's Signature (if you don't know a priest, or you only know priests from the dioceses or archdioceses of Boston, Milwaukee, Rochester, or Los Angeles, tear up this application now. If your priest is from the SSPX, FSSP or Institute of Christ the King the application process may be expedited.)

Thank you for your interest, and it had better be genuine and virtuous. Please allow four to six years for processing.

You will be contacted in writing if you are approved. Please do not try to call or write (since you probably can't, and it would cause you injury). If your application is rejected, you will benotified by two gentleman wearing white ties carrying violin cases (you might watch your back).
To prepare yourself, start studying Daddy's Rules for Dating. (coming soon)
by dir. Sir Major John

A Dead Thing Flows With The Current--Only A Living Thing Can Swim Against It

Part of the mystique of homeschooling is how very different it is from the mainstream. For most homeschoolers it is not only a different way of educating our young, but a different way of life entirely. This difference is a definite turn-off to some folks, but a strong lure for others. For Catholics it is a necessity. I'm still reading Kay Toy Fenner's book, American Catholic Etiquette, and she summed up very nicely what I want to say on this matter:

"Many influences in modern living unite to induce the general public to accept a universal standard of morals, behavior, opinion, manners and dress. To some extent this has always been so; our ideas in these areas have ever been heavily influenced by those of our fellows. Universal literacy, the availability of inexpensive books and magazines, and our public school system have encouraged the spread of common standards. To these we add today television, radio, and moving pictures, and, most important of all, the development of certain psychological theories as to how man can best function in a modern world.

"...The educators engaged in teaching children how to 'function in the group,' to accept the 'will of the majority' as the standard of what constitutes right behavior, are, from their own point of view, merely assisting children to live happily with their fellows. All of this would be intensely valuable, if the ideas and standards upheld were the noblest possible. Unfortunately, setting such a universal uniform standard always means levelling down. One can never level 'up.' The standards acceptable to humanity at large will always be inferior to those possible to the brightest and the best. If these inferior standards are held up to the superior members of a society as ideal, such members are robbed of all incentive to struggle to the heights which may be possible to them.

"This results in an incalculable loss to mankind. Our great philosophers, saints, radicals, inventors--those whom A.W.E. O'Shaughnessy called 'the movers and shakers of the world'--have always been 'different' from the common run of man, and have been rightfully proud of their differences. Such people are the yeast which leavens the loaf of mankind; if they fail to rise, the loaf will become a pancake.

"For society at large, the acceptance of a low dead level of conformity, the spread of a common fear to differ from one's fellows, is a tragedy. For Catholics, it is impossible. We are, and will continue to be (for how long only God knows, but He knoweth) a minority group. Socially and governmentally, this is unimportant. In the realm of ideas and moral standards, it is important, and it is just in these realms that we are far more of a minority than we were a hundred years ago...

"This means that present-day Catholics must learn and must teach their children to differ from the majority of their fellows in many basic moral principles, to love and cherish those with whom they differ, while refusing to accept, as their moral guides, standards with which they do not agree. To do this, neither doubting one's own position nor rejecting all who differ from it, one must constantly bear in mind that the number of persons who hold any set of opinions has nothing to do with the rightness of one's position; to differ, and to be in the minority while differing, has no bearing on whether one is right or wrong.

"Granting that it is valuable to dare to be different, how does one go about teaching one's children independence of thought and action? One first examines one's own attitudes and opinions to see whether they are based on independent conclusions, or unconscious acceptance of what one sees and hears..."

In my mind there is a very simple answer to her question that goes beyond examining one's own opinions. I believe that the answer is to look to Tradition, and traditions--of morals, behavior, opinion, manners and dress. And not just the traditions of the first 69 years of the 20th century, but the Tradition of 2,000 years of Catholic saints and scholars, and ordinary folks like us, who, by Christ's example have been held to the highest standards. I've always hated the terms "liberal" and "conservative" because they are comparative terms that use eachother to guage themselves, rather than a transcendent reality. And one can be as liberal as liberals were 50 years ago, but still be considered conservative only because the liberals are more liberal than they were 50 years ago. The only comparison for a Catholic is Christ, and His Blessed Mother. "What would Jesus do?" as cliche as it is, is the only question we need ask ourselves. "Would Mary wear these tight jeans?" or ..."use this kind of language, or watch this movie or read this book?" Catholics, because we follow He Who set the highest standard, are bound to aspire to the highest standard. We must strive to practice the "best" manners, the "best" behavior, hold the "most" virtuous opinions, dress the "most" modestly, and hold ourselves to the "highest" moral code. We cannot allow ourselves or our children to "level down" to what is most prevalent, mediocre, or common. We are followers of Him who was unlike anyone who ever walked the face of the Earth. We must emulate His example, and in so doing will be more like Him, and less like those, interiorly as well as exteriorly, who are not His followers. We may find others who are like us, but let it be because they too strive for the highest standards, and not because we have become lukewarm and settled for mediocrity.

Mrs. Fenner continues:

"Those who have had the advantage of being gently reared or have had more educational opportunities will have higher standards than those who have not. Children who are taught from infancy about morals and ethics will try harder to be good than those who never hear the subject mentioned. Explain that you are trying to teach them what you consider to be the very best behavior: the most honorable, the most courteous, the kindest. Admit that there may be people with higher standards than yours, and many with standards that are lower. But your standards are the ones that you are convinced are best for you and your family. You therefore expect your children to learn to live up to them, even though in so doing their lives will often differ in many ways from those of their friends. They should consider themselves fortunate that they have parents so devoted and so idealistic, and they will so consider themselves when they are older and know enough to evaluate such matters. They should never be afraid to differ from their comrades in doing that which they know, from their home training, is right.

"Caution your children, also, not to criticize the behavior of others. Explain that those fortunate enough to be taught at home to strive for the highest standards have an obligation to be kind and forebearing to those who have not had such advantages. If you are convinced of the truth of all this, your children will sense the weight of your conviction and will abide by your opinions."

She concludes by reminding parents that it is alright for children to be like others on morally neutral matters, but on matters of morals, modesty, and manners, they cannot strive for any less than the highest standards.

I found these insights, written in the 60's, to be very helpful and just as relevant today as they were 45 years ago, if not more so. I hope you find them as helpful as I did! In Sanguine Christi,

To Shield or Not To Shield

I've been contemplating the matter of sheltering, or shielding our children (especially after a Catholic, homeschooling friend of mine asserted a few weeks ago that she did not want her children to be sheltered and wanted them to associate with other kids who have not been sheltered--whatever that means), and have been collecting various morsels on the matter from my spiritual reading, other friends, priests, and of course, my mother, which I will post after I've wrapped my mind around them and they take shape.

For today, however, I found the reading from my Imitation of Mary to be quite relevant, and a good start to any thorough examination of the matter. But first, a preface:

There is a funny trend among some folks nowadays of accusing certain parents of sheltering their children, as though it were a bad thing. I find it rather odd, as I’m sure the same folks would not look favorably on the alternatives. Why, if I were to cast my children out of our rather comfortable home to live in the barnyard with the goats, year round, what would they think of me then? If I were to carelessly expose them to every sort of disease and bodily peril I would surely be dragged into court by child protective services for reckless endangerment and most likely loose custody of my children all together. Suppose I were to feed them only what we would otherwise throw into the compost bin? Or make them to clothe themselves in whatever they may scrounge up from the woods? It is a funny thing indeed for some folks to accuse certain parents of sheltering their children when these same folks would never do without shelter themselves.



Of course, living in a material world we place much more importance on the material, which includes, of course, our bodies and those material things we shelter them with. But Catholic parents are keenly aware of the existence of the soul in the spiritual world, which includes Heaven and Hell, which endures for eternity. This is why I am utterly baffled when I hear good Catholic parents proclaim that they do not want their children to be sheltered. Of course, I know they are not referring to their children’s bodily sheltering, but to the sheltering of their spirits, their minds and hearts and souls, from the onslaught of a Godless world. How do they expect to make a strong case for themselves when they stand before the Heavenly court, whose justice is perfect and will be neither deceived nor persuaded by even the most brilliant rhetorician?

Perhaps it would be best to back up for a moment and explore what it means to shelter or not to shelter a child. I have long revered the analogy of a child to a plant, which, when set in a good environment, exposed to what is good for it’s growth: ample, but not too much sunlight; nutritious but not too rich soil; sufficient, but not excessive uncontaminated water; pruned each year a little but not too much; and shielded from what is harmful to it’s growth—harsh winds, cold, insects that feed on its leaves, flowers and fruits, etc. will grow to it’s full potential, strong and beautiful, able to withstand the elements that in it’s youth threatened it’s very existence. A certain amount of sheltering is necessary for the survival of every living thing.

Shielding, or sheltering our children, in my mind is no more than protecting their virtue. In the Imitation of Mary we read:



“Mary was conceived in God’s grace; there was no trace of sin in her nor any inclination to sin. Therefore, unlike us, she had no reason to hear falling into sin. Yet, if you were to judge by the way she acted, you would say that she had as much reason to fear it as we do, or even more than we do?
“She watched constantly over her own heart as though creatures could have drawn her affections to themselves. She watched over her every word as though she could not trust her tongue.
“In her conception she was given all the privileges that go with sinlessness, yet she decided to live permanently as a penitent?

“We, on the contrary, are surrounded by flattering, treacherous enemies whose sole aim is to use our natural weakness to bring about our fall. Yet we have no fear and are not watchful at all!



“We admit that we are weakness incarnate, yet frequently we expose ourselves to temptations that would bring down even the strongest soul.
“When weakness is compounded by presumption, does it not deserve to lose all that supports it and gives it strength?
“We carry the treasure of grace in a very weak vessel (2 Cor. 4, 7), that can shatter when we least expect it.
“How many enemies are trying to snatch this treasure from us? Enemies within, enemies outside, enemies all around us.
“Within us, there are the passions we have not sufficiently mastered; outside, the spirit of darkness; around us, a corrupt world. Like a flame not fully extinguished, our passions can always be rekindled and light a fire.
“Even if we were, like St. Paul, snatched up to the third heaven (2 Cor. 12, 3), we would still have to fear being cast down with the rebellious angels into the bottomless abyss.
“It is not enough to assure ourselves that our sentiments are heartfelt and our resolution fervent.
“A single inopportune occasion is enough to destroy us.”



Perhaps the real problem lies in all the current blather about universal salvation, and the eclipse of the traditional teaching that if one dies with even one mortal sin on his soul he WILL suffer eternal fire.

Happy parenting!

Shielding Children

Why Johnny Quit Church
This is an excellent article on shielding our kids from bad influences, and why, if we don't, even if we do all the positive things to keep our kids Catholic (Mass, Rosary, Scapular, etc.), they could still go astray and even lose their faith. It's not easy raising kids Catholic these days and it seems parents need to play it safe. Our children's souls are too precious to take chances with.

The Five Standards for Safe Childbearing

There are five standards of safe childbearing. Evidence and support for these five standards has surfaced over the last 100 years through comparative analysis of birth outcomes at various venues, with different attendants, and pre-natal care emphasis. ALL the evidence of the last 100 years suggests that where these five standards are present, medical professionals, childbirth experts and families can hope for the best birth outcomes possible for each individual child.

The first standard for safe childbearing is good nutrition.

Good nutrition is the foundation for safe childbearing, because a well nourished mother is a strong, healthy mother, and strong healthy women give birth to strong healthy babies. Weight gain in pregnancy is normal and an indication of a healthy pregnancy as long as it is accompanied by good nutrition. A mother may eat what she craves as long as it’s healthy. She should not use pregnancy as an excuse to eat every kind of sweet and junk food she wants, because that results in poor nutrition and poor nutrition creates a ream of problems for both baby and mother including but not limited to toxemia, gestational diabetes, hemorrhage and death in the mother and brain damage, infection-proneness, hyperactivity and death in babies. The March of Dimes says low birth-weight, caused by poor nutrition during pregnancy, is “the cause of the greatest number of deaths in the first year of life and is a major cause of disability in childhood.” Surprisingly, nutrition is not usually taught in Med School and what is taught is usually wrong. William’s Obstetrics, a standard med-school textbook, recommends a goal of only 20 pounds weight gain, which surely increases the chance for low birth weight babies.

The second standard for safe childbearing is Skillful midwifery.

Skillful Midwifery, as apposed to Physician care, is the highest and safest standard. Every study ever published--- currently or in the past in any country (over a span of more than 100 yrs) ---shows Midwives to be safer than doctors. Every study. NO exceptions. Data to the contrary simply does not exist, nor did it ever. The U.S. , despite having one of the highest rates of doctor attended births, as well as perhaps the “best” health care system in the world, also has one of the highest infant mortality rates of every industrialized nation in the world. Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan have the lowest infant mortality rates in the world as well as the highest rate of midwife attended births. Most doctors use too much intervention, rather than begin with prevention by good nutrition. Where doctors emphasize testing to discover problems with the pregnancy and the baby, midwives emphasize prevention through good nutrition, exercise and supporting the natural flow of labor by allowing the mother to do what her body is telling her, like eat if she’s hungry, drink if she’s thirsty, and find the most comfortable position for her to labor in. Most doctors do not attend a woman in labor and certainly not for the duration of her labor, which can last for days with some women; midwives stay with a laboring mother for the duration of her labor and several hours after the baby is born. Most doctors do not develop the supportive rapport with a pregnant and laboring mother to facilitate her ability to give birth safely and naturally by her own efforts; midwives show respect, encouragement and confidence in a laboring mother, regarding her as the true “expert” when it comes to her body and what she needs to safely deliver her own baby.

The third standard of safe childbearing is Natural Childbirth.

Natural Childbirth is intervention and drug-free childbirth. Interventions during labor increase risk, increasing anxiety in the laboring mother, which increases her pain, which increases her desire for drugs which increases risk. Epidurals, among other drugs and interventions can cause paralysis, psychosis and even death in the mother, and brain-damage and even death in the baby. IV’s and fetal monitors limit the possible comfortable laboring positions for the mother resulting in greater pain, decreased blood flow to the baby, which causes the doctors to want to intervene even more. A healthy, comfortable mother has a more productive labor and less need for interventions or desire for drugs.

The fourth standard for safe childbirth is birth at home.

Home has proved time and time again to be the safest place to give birth. There are no strangers, fewer germs, no interventions and no drugs, and a mother is naturally more comfortable and happy in the familiar surroundings of her own home among family and friends who care for her and her baby. Fewer germs mean less risk of infection for mother and baby. No strangers and interventions mean less anxiety for the mother and therefore a smoother, less painful labor and birth. 99% of complications that could possibly arise in an unhindered birth allow for ample time to arrive safely at a hospital, but fewer complications arise to begin with when the five standards for safe childbirth are present.

Breastfeeding is the fifth and last standard to safe childbearing.

Breastfeeding helps a mother’s body finish the birth process; it is also healthy for both mother and child. Breastfeeding immediately after the baby is born stimulates uterine contractions that prevent hemorrhaging, and ensures that a baby’s blood sugar is at a healthy level. Breastfeeding stimulates a hormonal and physiological response in the mother that helps her feel calm, happy and even more loving toward her family, helping her establish a closer relationship with her child. Breast milk is the healthiest nutrition for baby physically, mentally and emotionally. Breast milk contains a mother’s antibodies which are a natural inoculation against germs and disease for the baby. Breast milk changes with the needs of the baby, providing perfectly balanced nutrition throughout all the stages of the young child’s development. Breast milk also promotes a healthy development of the brain, resulting in children who are more intelligent and who have fewer behavioral problems.

The Five Standards together produce the best possible outcomes.

Childbirth experts postulate that an infant mortality rate of 2 to 3 per 1,000 live births is probably the very best human beings can ever expect. Some babies will die no matter what we do. But nations who are most closely approaching this irreducible minimum of nature are those who most fully uphold the five standards, especially midwifery, which is the surest guarantee of the other four standards. Someone once asked, “Got change for a paradigm?” Until we as a nation change the way we view pregnancy and childbirth—until we re-embrace the idea of these events as being beautiful blessings, not bothersome burdens, natural and welcome parts of life, not life-threatening diseases to be cured and avoided, we will continue as a nation to destroy unnecessarily, purposely and not, future generations of American people—of inventors, explorers, discoverers, priests, presidents and even popes. We owe it to our country, to God and to the human race to make childbirth as safe as it can possibly be by upholding the five standards that have sustained the human race for thousands of years and that a hundred years of scientific research have proven to produce the best outcomes humanly possible.

The Dangers of Internet Chatrooms

Practically every conscious American, as opposed to the unconscious ones that my sister speaks of in her speech, are aware of the fact that internet chat rooms and blogospheres are feeding grounds for child predators, swindlers, thieves and every other form of lecherous sadist the human race can offer. Only the most completely and utterly brain dead Americans will argue that these venues are not among the leading threats to national security, consuming hundreds of thousands of dollars and man hours in screening, sifting and tracking down worldwide potential terrorists and traitors. And the popular World War II axiom, “Loose lips sink ships,” could easily be updated to “Frenzied finger tips sink ships.”

For the sake of my argument, however, let’s stick to the chat rooms and blogospheres of Patriotic Catholic Americans.

What danger could there be among such a virtuous test group, you ask. Why, to the Catholicism and Patriotism of said Americans, of course!

Keep this thought in mind: Catholicism as well as Patriotism is grounded in fraternal charity.

First of all, because of the addictive nature of the Internet, one could easily spend 10-12 hours a day chatting, while neglecting one’s familial and neighborly responsibilities as well as one’s own spiritual life.

Secondly, since internet chatters are afforded the advantage of writing under pseudonyms, the building up of trust is inhibited, and the temptation to allow our fallen human nature to shine through in a confrontation is encouraged and manifested in such phenomena as “flame wars” where chatters freely spew vitriol at one another with impunity, resorting to signing on under a new pseudonym after things get out of hand. Furthermore, charity towards each individual is also lost, since even the most conscientious chatter doesn’t know the secret crosses of every soul with whom he’s communicating.

Perhaps not as immediately important, but significant in the long run is the fact that language skills are endangered by the need to make one’s point in as few words as possible, using abbreviations, hyperlinks, and the EVER present wisecrack. These mechanisms include all kinds of epithets wielded against anyone from the newest posting member of a blogosphere, to the President of our country, to our own Holy Father.

And finally, on that note, at least the appearance of a hatred of the clergy and our government abounds where self-proclaimed theologians and political analysts play out the struggle for power in the Church and the Government on the worldwide stage before an audience of over a billion internet users. Even defenders of Church and Country only provoke further attacks from the disgruntled. So much for Patriotism and Catholicism!

In a nutshell, the usual safeguards of charity, social grace and correct speech are utterly lacking, opening the floodgates to every form of verbal attack on the individual, society and the Mystical Body of Christ as a whole.