They Knew

From today’s NYT…the results of an major investigation by Louis Freeh, the former director of the FBI:

Freeh’s investigation — which took seven months and involved more than 400 interviews and the review of more than 3.5 million documents — accuses Paterno, the university’s former president and others of deliberately hiding facts about Sandusky’s sexually predatory behavior over the years.

“In order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders of Penn State University” “repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse from the authorities, the board of trustees, the Penn State community and the public at large.”

Our church knows deeply the pain that is inflicted when cover ups happen when children are abused by child molesters. It is so tough to think that people could be that cold to not protect a child and it’s so easy for all of us to grow unforgiving and hateful towards them.

Are they in fact, too hard to forgive? If so, what does that say about us as so-called people of forgiveness? What does it say about justice if we dare to forgive them?

Justice is not blind. But do we sometimes become blind by not being able to forgive people–allowing our hatred to turn us into people who seem to be controlled by hatred.

And instead of channelling that justice that we can clearly see more positively, doesn’t evil have a way to keep us in our desolation? Where we seek revenge, rather than reconciliation.

I really hate Jerry Sandusky for what he’s done. But my hatred doesn’t help protect children who might be victimized by someone like him down the road. And I can’t change what Mr. Sandusky did in his horrible past, his monstrous, devious, sick life. I can only choose to move on and not let his vileness turn me into someone who can’t see that love always conquers hatred. We can’t seem to control our emotions–and I think we need to do that. And good religion teaches us to temper our dark passions and lead us not into the temptation that evil would rather have us turn to. Rather it hopes to deliver us from all that is evil.

They knew. And now we know that we know now. But where does that call us to be? May we be challenged today by forgiveness, justice and a sense that all may be brought to healing by God’s love.

Including those who find it hard to forgive.

Amend, Not Repeal

Catholic Quote of the day yesterday from the USCCB:

Following enactment of ACA, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has not joined in efforts to repeal the law in its entirety, and we do not do so today.The decision of the Supreme Court neither diminishes the moral imperative to ensure decent health care for all, nor eliminates the need to correct the fundamental flaws described above.We therefore continue to urge Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, legislation to fix those flaws.

Which means they will not fight to repeal the law that gives universal health care, rather they will work to lobby the federal government to amend the law, rather than repeal it in its entirely.

A reasonable strategy and one that insures conversation continues and no longer polarizes.

Maybe things are getting better? Cooler heads, people. Cooler heads!

Sandusky Lawyer: If He’s Guilty He Deserves to Rot in Jail

Yeesh, with a lawyer like that…who needs the other side?

Jerry Sandusky is going to go to prison. I was listening to Jim Rome yesterday and I can’t fathom a jury not convicting him on at least some of the counts he’s charged against.

And then this hit the news yesterday:

From Yahoo:

Just hours after the sex abuse trial of former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky wrapped up on Thursday, his adopted son revealed that he had been “a victim of Jerry Sandusky’s abuse” and had offered to testify against his father.
It is unclear whether prosecutors were prepared to put Matt Sandusky on the stand. But NBC News reports that Jerry Sandusky’s defense team decided against having the former coach testify on his own behalf after they learned that prosecutors planned to call a new witness — believed to be Matt Sandusky.

This is just getting more bizarre by the second. What troubles me most is that it took this long for this guy to be found out.

Now to add a different perspective…

What does this mean for college athletics and for coaches? Well, the same standard of zero tolerance should be applied that the church was forced to apply as per the Dallas charter. Coaches and trainers and all those who have access to children and even to athletes below the age of 18 (read: potentially all of them) should have to take Virtus or some other form of child protective course.

But let’s see if THAT actually happens. Because as you know, the church is always held to a higher standard than others, and rightfully so. But that doesn’t mean that other secular organizations shouldn’t be held to at least similar standards.

Pope to SSPX: No Worries on Vatican II

The Society of Saint Piux X which has been not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church precisely because they don’t agree with some changes that have taken place as a result of the Second Vatican Council said today that “Rome no longer makes total acceptance” of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council a condition for full reconciliation with the church.

Here’s a clip from CNS:

In the interview on the SSPX website, Bishop Fellay said, “We are still not in agreement doctrinally, and yet the pope wants to recognize us. Why? The answer is right in front of us: there are terribly important problems in the church today.”

The reconciliation talks, he said, are a sign that the Catholic Church has begun to recognize it needs to recover traditions and traditional teaching eclipsed by the Second Vatican Council. If the SSPX were to reconcile fully with the church, Bishop Fellay said, its members would continue to denounce “doctrinal difficulties” in the church, but would do so while also providing “tangible signs of the vitality of tradition” in its growing membership and vocation rate.

Speaking to members of the SSPX who are wary of reconciliation, Bishop Fellay said “one of the great dangers is to end up inventing an idea of the church that appears ideal, but is in fact not found in the real history of the church.”

“Some claim that in order to work ‘safely’ in the church, she must first be cleansed of all error. This is what they say when they declare that Rome must convert before any agreement, or that its errors must first be suppressed so that we can work,” he said.

OK, so here’s my take: It seems that some in the Vatican are backtracking on whether the Second Vatican Council is an ecumenical council (which is binding on everyone) or just a local one (which isn’t necessarily binding). That distinction will make a big difference. They’ll probably point to confusion of some sort because one Pope started it and another Pope finished it (John XXIII and Paul VI). It’s ridiculous if that’s the case. It surely was intended to be an Ecumenical council and many traditionalist were up in arms at the time because it was precisely an ecumenical council.

Is the church changing in this regard? Regrettably, some would say so. Even the SSPX’s Bishop Fellay says in his article that they have not changed as a group but Rome has.

An interesting point to consider is that often on matters of belief and tradition many will say that the church must consider how change might effect the entire church and not just some small faction of it. For example, how would ordaining women to the diaconate be received in Africa? But by the same token, how would saying that the tenets of the Second Vatican Council need not be accepted, be received in the United States?

In fairness, because I’m the king of fairness, the issue at hand is really one of media literacy (again!). How many nominal Catholics or even Catholics who attend mass regularly can even name the tenets of Vatican II? I’d presume not a whole lot. How many people under the age of 50 even have had an experience of what Vatican II meant for the church? For most, Vatican II is the only experience of church that they’ve had. They haven’t had an experience of what the church was like before the council, so they have no experience of a Pre-Vatican II church. Even those who esteem things like a Latin Mass, it’s not nostalgia that they seek. Perhaps it’s more curiosity than anything else in these cases or a desire for silence in a world of noise or engaging with mystery.

With this in mind the Vatican is gambling that Americans, in particular won’t put up much of a fight about eschewing with some of the tenets of Vatican II. This may in fact be at the heart of Benedict’s “smaller and more pure” view of the church. They’ll assume that most will just go along with them because it doesn’t effect their lives all that much. For most, just attending mass is their only participation and it doesn’t seem like the Pope is going to change having mass in the vernacular, but rather will make the option of Latin mass for those who want it more available (which has already been done).

I doubt that this will go smoothly, especially since the SSPX are so controversial, but more importantly, it seems like they are back-pedaling on Vatican II and that we should not stand for as an informed laity. The informed will be the ones who need to stand up against this. The only question I have is “Will they?” and “How many will?”

Regardless, this should be interesting as we move into the summer months.

Just Love, By Example

Sr. Margaret Farley whose book was deemed as not being in conformity with Catholic teaching released the following statement yesterday:

I have received the official Notification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, published in Rome, June 4, 2012. By it, I understand that my book, Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics, has been judged to contain positions that are not in conformity with the hierarchical teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. I appreciate the efforts made by the Congregation and its consultants, over several years, to evaluate positions articulated in that book, and I do not dispute the judgment that some of the positions contained within it are not in accord with current official Catholic teaching. In the end, I can only clarify that the book was not intended to be an expression of current official Catholic teaching, nor was it aimed specifically against this teaching. It is of a different genre altogether.

She is the epitome of her book’s title and clarifies further on her site at Yale. When we disagree, we need to get to the heart of the disagreement. While certainly disappointed she opened up the possibility that the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and her book are simply of two different aims and doesn’t purport the book to be trying to teach Catholic doctrine, rather it lays out possibilities for sexual ethics that readers can judge for themselves.

Apparently the CDF has judged that these positions do not represent a Catholic position and Sr. Farley’s response is simple. “That’s fine and thanks for reading my book. You have assessed it critically.”

The goal of any book! Glad that this resolution was peaceful for once and we should thanks Sr. Farley for her work here in the regard.

Sexism in Hockey and the Church

So recently this one came across my plate since the Stanley Cup playoffs have started. It’s a show called “While the Men Watch” about women whose husbands, boyfriends, etc. watch sports but they’re not too eager to join in the festivities. So they created a show around the minutia that they discuss while their men watch the game. Take a preview and I hope you are as bothered by this as I am.

OK, let me just say, my darling wife, puts up with my sports watching and I don’t abuse the privilege. She’s certainly more interested in watching, say the Bachelorette, than any ballgame. I actually watch with her and play what I call “Mystery Science Bachelorette.” Example: “Dude should be voted off for wearing that ugly shirt and horrid tie.”

OK, so I don’t actually use the word “horrid” but other than that, I’m quite a hit with the girlfriends who get together and watch the show together on Mondays. See, we can co-exist. We all have gifts to share!

But while my wife isn’t a sports fan, she’s not like these ladies either. She doesn’t perpetuate sexist myths and I hope I don’t either. I don’t think she’d appreciate this show which panders to the lowest common denominator and makes women look stupid in my opinion as if they had nothing to contribute, learn, or enjoy about the game.

Ellen Ethcinham over at the Score had this excellent take on just how the show perpetuates sexism.

While the Men Watch participates in an astounding collection of stereotypes about women. Women don’t understand sports. Women don’t care about sports. If women watch sports, they only do so because a man pushes it on them. Women are interested in fashion, cleaning, shopping, and men. The show is essentially the traditional four Fs of pink ghetto journalism- food, family, fashion, and furniture- tangentially tied in to hockey. It is Cosmo with a game in the background.

To understand why this show is so dispiriting and depressing for a certain segment of female fans, you have to understand the role that sports play in many of our lives. For all the substantial progress of feminism, the larger culture is still awash in portrayals of women that hew closely to the long-standing stereotypes, that push us to think about ourselves in terms of our attractiveness, our sexual appeal, our fashion sense, our youth, etc etc. These issues intrude, one way or another, into almost every facet of life- into our work and the beers after, into our family life and our relationships, into our education. There is always someone critiquing our bodies or our style. There is always someone trying to sell us a miracle skin cream or a pair of shoes or f**king yogurt or whatever on the grounds that it will make us more acceptably and attractively feminine. Now, we’re adults and we can handle it, but sometimes, frankly, the cultural stereotypes of heteronormative femininity are a pain in the ass. Sometimes one gets pretty f**king tired of being appreciated, shamed, warned, and appealed to ‘as a woman’.

Now that’s a first-class rant! The rest is pure gold, albeit a bit potty-mouthed, be forewarned.

A question: Do we treat women in the church in the same way?

There seems to be no need to dialogue or even FIGHT with women when problems or disagreements come up (see, LCWR or Elizabeth Johnson) because women aren’t supposed to fight, after all. That’s a man’s role. Beth Johnson rightly said if the Bishops who had a problem with her book had called she could’ve happily cleared up their misunderstanding. I wonder if the LCWR and Cardinal Levada can even have a civil conversation without some backbiting later on at this point?

Some may just want women to be a kind of Stepford Wife. Sure they have a snarky comment or two and they can reduce hockey players to objectified sexual beings (because Men never do that!), but some women have a lot more to offer both sports and the theological world than that! They might actually know a thing or two about both hockey strategy or theology– and it’s insulting for any of us not to consider that.

That said, the attitude that this show presents is also damaging to the way we look at MEN in our society. The message is that men are too dumb to consider anything beyond the sports scores or in the church we often hear that the women really run things and our work is somehow incomplete. Or that much of our attitude toward women is misogynistic machismo that many have had to put up with over the years but that many men find just as offensive, even if they will never feel the hurt in the same way.

A second question: Do women in the church who long for a more inclusive church treat men this way as well?

At times I fear they do. “Oh those men just don’t know what they’re doing. If a woman were in charge…things would be different.”

Well…maybe not. Some women are just as power hungry, pig headed and nasty as their male counterparts.

And all of this seems, well…sinful.

It seems to dishonor the gifts that God has made, both male and female, complimentary to one another to be sure, but also individuals in their own right. Both are capable of autonomy without the other and can and should appreciate the other’s gifts in moments of collaboration.

It seems to dishonor that we all may have different interests, none bad or good, just different. And that when we come together these interests can’t co-exist simply because we say they can’t.

It seems to dishonor, that gifts are not categorized by gender, rather they are the expression of each individual and not owned by any particular collective, nor should it be assumed that a collective male or female gender should correspond to either gender stereotype. Nor does it make anyone who bucks the usual trend “gay” unless they actually are.

Perhaps there’s a lesson there for those at the sports network as well as for those of us who find ourselves mired in gender wars within the church, men, as well as women.

That lesson is simply to believe that we have different gifts but the same spirit, no matter who we are, male or female. And these gifts need to come together for the good of the church, nay humankind.

For we all have gifts to share. And it’s time to stop looking at those gifts and each other as purely male or female.

And time to start looking at one another as Christians.

And when we do, marvelous things will happen. We might just experience who God calls us all to become.

Voices of Hope and Doom

E.J. Dionne has a great column today in the Washington Post and he rightly points out that the voices of doom seem to be all around us.

First he points to the voices of doom on the left.

Recently, a group called the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) ran a full-page ad in The Washington Post cast as an “open letter to ‘liberal’ and ‘nominal’ Catholics.” Its headline commanded: “It’s Time to Quit the Catholic Church.”

The ad included the usual criticism of Catholicism, but I was most struck by this paragraph: “If you think you can change the church from within — get it to lighten up on birth control, gay rights, marriage equality, embryonic stem-cell research — you’re deluding yourself. By remaining a ‘good Catholic,’ you are doing ‘bad’ to women’s rights. You are an enabler. And it’s got to stop.”

He immediately grasps that the secular left doesn’t care much for Catholicism, or I suspect religion of any kind, preferring to lump all of us “religious-types” together.

But there’s another kind of progressive minded group. And it’s those of us who believe in much that liberal principles hold and that it reflects much of Catholic teaching.

We’re the ones who remind some narrow minded folks that it’s not OK to just be against abortion when you call yourself a pro-lifer but that the title also demanded that we support women who struggle to not just bring a child to term, but also to support that child and mother well long after the birth. Not to mention those of us who call for an end to war, violence and the death penalty. We hope to care for the poor who all-too-often are in harm’s way and for the environment which continually gets ignored too often as well.

And we do so by pointing people to the wisdom of our tradition as the reason why.

Dionne then takes up a second group of doomsayers. Those on the Catholic right.

I wonder if the bishops realize how some in their ranks have strengthened the hands of the church’s adversaries (and disheartened many of the faithful) with public statements — including that odious comparison of President Obama to Hitler by a Peoria prelate last month — that threaten to shrink the church into a narrow, conservative sect.

Do the bishops notice how often those of us who regularly defend the church turn to the work of nuns on behalf of charity and justice to prove Catholicism’s detractors wrong? ….has it occurred to the bishops that less stridency might change more hearts and minds on this very difficult question?

Indeed. While I certainly think that those who oppose abortion, for instance (I would count myself as being in that group), are doing their darnedest to try to change the law and to protect the innocent who so desperately need our assistance, what good has it really done? Our opposers are more firmly entrenched because of the vitriol of some and they liken the words coming forth from well-meaning and dedicated people (Laity and Bishops alike) to hate speech and at best, mean-spiritedness.

I don’t think that’s the message that people need or even want to hear. It doesn’t call us to change and it doesn’t produce results apparently.

What do people want? They want two things: action and results.

It seems to me that this is what the nuns were doing pretty darn well and their heroism seems to be brushed off because they didn’t spew venom often enough.

Even with a Republican President for 4 years recently and a congress that also shared those principles what were we able to do about abortion?


That’s not a good record. And we should be ashamed. All of us.

There’s an old adage that some in the church should carefully heed.

“It’s time to put up or shut up.”

Why, might I add, haven’t we heard much about a small organization called Malta House in the state of Connecticut –a state I might add, that just abolished the death penalty?

Just a sample of what Malta House does:

Malta House promotes the dignity of God given life by providing a nurturing home environment, support services, and independent living skills to expectant mothers of all faiths, and to their babies.

Residents of Malta House participate in educational programs covering issues of Health, Nutrition, Parenting and Child Development. During their stay at Malta House, mothers also receive guidance designed to foster a positive self image for themselves and their children. Personal finance and budgeting advice is offered to promote self sufficiency as our young families assimilate back into the community.

In addition, each resident agrees to participate in an individualized educational component that may include GED preparation or certificate programs at a local community college. Tutoring is provided to support the rigors of each class.

Michael O’Rourke, Malta House’s founder, is a saint in my opinion. He put up and then he didn’t shut up–rather he went and spoke to thousands of people leaving no stone unturned in order to gain support for his cause. It was an easy sell. And he did it all with grace and a quiet voice of peace.

So why, might I ask, has nobody bothered to say…

“Y’know what might be a good idea? Let’s have one of these Malta Houses in every diocese! Heck, let’s have two! Get O’Rourke on the phone.”

It would provide jobs, care, and it’s clearly a pro-life message that can be seen and produces results.

Do we think that the secular left couldn’t get behind that? Despite the law, we Catholics need to find ways to support the cause of life ANYWAY.

And other causes that support and claim who we are–a people of action.

Or we can just keep crying foul as a voice of doom that claims that the whole world is going to hell in a handbasket and we are powerless to change that because of those pesky little laws.

Now c’mon folks, we’re smarter than this. A lot smarter.

Perhaps, as Dionne suggests, we should heed the words of John XXIII:

“Distrustful souls see only darkness burdening the face of the earth. We prefer instead to reaffirm all our confidence in our Savior who has not abandoned the world which he redeemed.”

And as Dionne rightfully notes: “The church best answers its critics when it remembers that its mission is to preach hope, not fear.”


Oh! And if you’d like to help to Malta House click here—their gala event is Thursday!

Girls Can’t Play

This one got to me today, and thus will produce a rant below:

From Irish Central

A fundamentalist Arizona Catholic high school is refusing to play in a baseball final as their opponent’s team includes a girl on second base.

Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic school, in Phoenix, will forfeit the final rather than play against Mesa Preparatory Academy because 15-year-old Paige Sultzbach is on their team.

The fundamentalist Catholic school is run by the U.S. branch of the Society of Saint Pius X. The group represents conservative, traditional priests who broke from the Catholic Church in the 1980s.

The school’s statement read, “Our school aims to instill in our boys a profound respect for women and girls. Teaching our boys to treat ladies with deference, we choose not to place them in an athletic competition where proper boundaries can only be respected with difficulty.”

Paige’s mother Pamela responded by saying, “This is not a contact sport, it shouldn’t be an issue. It wasn’t that they were afraid they were going to hurt or injure her, it’s that they believe that a girl’s place is not on a field.”

Read more: here

So ya wanna know what I think (said in my deepest Bronx-laden accent)?

I think they’re scared.

I think these misogynist cowards might just be afraid that this girl is better than half of the WIMPS on their team. And they’re too scared to pitch to her, lest she get a hit off of one of their pitchers.

As Tom Hanks would say, “There’s no crying in baseball.”

I played a year of soccer on my high school’s junior varsity team. My school didn’t field a girl’s soccer team and so, Dawn Burns became our goalie. We were horrible. But Dawn made some saves that I know I wouldn’t have made, nor would anyone else have.

On my street the Kosmolsick girls were some of the best athletes around, especially in basketball. My dear childhood friend Donna Bechtold hit a softball one day that still hasn’t landed. And when we played fast pitch stickball, a woman named Stacy hit a tennis ball that flew out of the park so quickly that rocket ships might not have caught up to.

Girls can play too. Sometimes better than us boys.

They call the religion that the protesting school follows a “Fundamentalist Catholic” one. I would challenge that because Catholics are not fundamentalists. In fact, to be fundamentalist is exactly what it means to NOT be Catholic–and it insults centuries of our great intellectual tradition and it’s a fairly new development of thought amongst people who simply want to reform Catholicism to their own brand of what they think Catholicism should become. But I get the author’s thought.

I have another word to describe them. Goofy.

Hey Paige Sultzbach, I hope you understand that not all Catholics would bar you from the right to play a sport you love.

Or serve at the altar. Or be a lector.

You go girl…and keep swinging.

And h/t over to Deacon Greg

Supporting Sisters

So I know a lot of Sisters.

I think it’s important to note that the recent investigation that has been in the headlines this week is an investigation not of every single religious women’s communities. That investigation did occur and the results have not yet been released. Rumors state there is much positive news coming out of that investigation.

This investigation was of a professional organization–a conference of women’s religious leadership, namely the Leadership Conference of Women’s Religious. So the Vatican isn’t saying that Sr. so and so’s’s dedication to the poor in our neighborhood isn’t wonderful, or that another sister’s work in Catholic education for years wasn’t amazing…no they are taking a particular organization of women’s religious leadership to task. You read about the problems they have raised—some that I think are justified and others that I think are a stretch.

But let me say something about the encounters I’ve had with religious women in ministry and in my life in general. Most of the religious women I’ve worked with have been wonderful colleagues and friends. Sr. Jeanne Hamilton, OSU was one of my campus ministers at Fordham and she’d often stay up into the wee hours with me in her office talking to me and making sure I knew of my self-worth. She really led me to take better care of myself and to be more able to see gratitude.

There’s colleagues of mine today who are sisters, like, Sr. Jeremy Midura, a Felician sister here in Buffalo, who knows more about urban renewal than anyone I know. She’s led our RCIA team for years and has brought so many people into the church. She also has a special care for the poor in our community–but you won’t see her letting people panhandle. She’s set up an entire system where we can care for the poor in a more dignified way. She’s always walking with someone on Sunday morning who needs just a bit more attention.

Sr. Eileen McCann, SSJ who works for the U.S. Bishops is one of my closest ministry colleagues and she has gone to the mat for me more times than I can remember. She’s been a voice for young people for quite a long time and brought attention to the hierarchy in ways that none of us could have done. She’s used her influence to make sure that young adults are heard and has prayed with us in our struggles to keep them on the minds of everyone who calls themselves Catholic.

Sr. Caroline, who I don’t think had a last time, was my CCD teacher back in the day for my first confession and my first holy communion in the late 70s. She was a Franciscan with a special love for children, both in and out of the womb. She had a quiet way of speaking and was always encouraging children. When I started as an altar boy, I made the usual foul-ups and mistakes that anyone would make. As time went on I got better and the rhythms of the mass became second nature. As I was extinguishing candles after mass, I felt a gentle tap on my shoulder. There she was, habit and all, with her rich Irish brogue and she only said four words to me that day:

“You’re getting much better.”

For a nine year old kid, still unsure of himself, that was all I needed. I probably got more involved in the church as a kid because of that moment. And the words I said back to her that day is words we should express to religious women often:

“Thank you, Sister.”

Now, not all the news is good. Like in any other walk of life, there are Sisters who haven’t always lived up to what God and the church has called them to. How many nuns did our parents fear when they were in Catholic School and who perhaps used corporal punishment as a way to dominate? The Magdalene laundries in Ireland are certainly a blight on the record of the nuns in our church. There are also some nuns who I have found to be bitter, angry women and I have met some who just seem to hate men and others who crave power and prestige and some who are just simply goofy.

But I’ve met lay folk and priests who exemplify the same attitude.

Simply put, there are nutty and challenging people in every way of life.

But just as sure as we know that every priest is not a child molester, we also know that every nun is not a heretic, or an angry man-hater. In fact, that’s not even close to the majority. And in reading around the Catholic blogosphere this week, you’d never know it.

So let’s remember how much the good Sisters have sacrificed for us, for the poor, for the unborn, for those who have no voice. Let’s remember how many of their prayers have been our prayers –for our families and our dead. Let’s remember how many hands of the sick and the dying they’ve held and how many have done all that they do without a personal assistant or a blackberry. They’ve baked the bread that will become God’s body and they’ve gone to prisons and the developing world and cared for those who everyone else seemed to have forgotten.

Sorta like this sister:

These women are truly free. They offer their lives for each one of us and for all those who they speak for—and they do it with a grace and a passion that most can only dream about.

I hope you all have a Sister in your life…

And if you do, just take a second today to thank her.