Daughter of a saint
Interesting feature from Catholic News Service on an Italian woman whose mother was a saint – literally.
When Gianna Beretta Molla was pregnant with her fourth child, doctors discovered that she had a large ovarian tumor, according to CNS. Surgical protocol in 1962 dictated that the uterus be removed, but the 39-year-old woman – a physician herself – insisted that they remove only what was necessary so that her baby might live.
Molla died a week after the birth of her daughter Gianna Emanuela – now also a physician. She was canonized in 2004 by Pope John Paul II, and is known in the church as "the pro-life saint."
The CNS story focuses on Laura Molla, who was three when her mother died. She was in Washington over the weekend to address a Eucharistic congress at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington sponsored by the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious.
"We had to work through the shock of losing our mother to find the joy in knowing she is a mother for all," said Laura Molla, who was three when her mother died.
"She teaches us to truly discern" what our vocation should be, she said, and then to "live that vocation to the fullest."






Comments
All this busy body activity in the Catholic church is vertiginous. Does this church ever sit still and meditate on the Lord or the Lord's mother? There is always another event, another regulation or decree to follow, another grandiose comment on the mind of God and then there are the processes of lionization and canonization. Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious--you don't say. I see them in their capes and gowns samurai swords in hand (yes, these swords have surfaced in the conscious thanks to the JHU student and his self defense tactics ) marching in some deep dark wood to perform a mystifying ritual that includes Latin mutterings beneath the breath-- reverberating in the echo chambers of the Lord. If there is a God, my God, He is to be pitied because the daily dose of religious brew served to Him by the Catholic church must be toxic to His sanity.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2009 9:26 AM
I was wondering who would be the first person to post a cheap shot at the Church would be. My money was on Clay, but he’s given up so I guess you are here to take his place.
Posted by: ravensfan | September 16, 2009 12:50 PM
Ravensfan lighten up--I picture you with a thunderous brow, following the Major Superiors of Women Religious to fight the infidels to the ground. Good luck! You are an eloquent swordsman--the major superiors will be glad you've joined the fight on their behalf. If you keep it up they may recommend you for canonization.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2009 3:22 PM
Anonymous you tell me to lighten up then proceed to try and make me mad with a cheap insult. Those may work with Clay or Robert, but you’ll have to do a lot better than that to get under my skin. I’ve seen your kind many times. You fancy yourself as an intellectual and try and impress with your long winded insults as well encourage people like Clay and Robert to amuse yourself. You probably believe in nothing and that’s what causes you to try and bring down those who believe in something. I actually pity you. At least Robert and Clay actually believe in something even if I don’t always agree with them.
Posted by: ravensfan | September 16, 2009 4:23 PM
Interesting that belief in something is a vindicator in your eyes Ravensfan. You too suffer from anti intellectualism don't you? A very common malady these days. Every aspiring intellectual hates intellectuals--not that I am claiming to be one, only you accuse me of pretending to be one. As for long winded I can't help it that your attention span falters. You have two Achilles heels Ravensfan--Catholicism and conservatism--step on your toes about either you totally lose it. I am glad Robert and Clay are earning brownie points with you. Don't give them too much paternal pats--they may go off and do something terrible to provoke you. If it will placate you I loved the reply you gave to the woman who grumbled about anonymous postings on the Sun blogs. You asked the woman why attaching a name to the postings would sanctify them or make them more accurate and you asked her to go troll elsewhere if she didn't like what she saw in the blogs. That woman may appear as anonymous on this religion blog to prove a point to you and then you wouldn't know which anonymous to shoot down-me or her. If she turns out to be as long winded as I or worse an intellectual then the matter would get too knotted. Lets hope she trolls elsewhere for the rest of her life and leaves me as the only anonymous long winded bogus intellectual at your mercy.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2009 9:01 PM
Anonymous you confuse respect with vindication. I respect the fact that Clay and Robert are willing to debate what they stand for. I don’t agree with them. In reality I’ve never met an intellectual who was ever as smart as they thought they were. I guess that’s their Achilles heel. Actually that analysis of aspiring intellectuals was good. I agree you aren’t an intellectual. If you were you wouldn’t be on this blog spending so much time either mocking others or cheering them on for your own amusement. As for Achilles heels thanks for your concern. As for that woman while it shows a degree of cowardice not to at least leave an simple id, it’s not worth getting as worked up as she did over it. It also doesn’t invalidate an argument. I’m starting to get a bit too wordy myself. Sorry I guess I need to practice what I preach.
Posted by: ravensfan | September 17, 2009 10:20 AM
Wow Ravensfan--on the one hand you declare much of what I say an illusion--said to get a rise, and then you judge the power of my intellect based on that illusion. Hopefully we are all aspiring intellectuals Ravensfan--the journey is far more interesting than the arrival. And being on these blogs doesn't make you or I any less an intellectual Ravensfan. Actually I find Matthew Hay Brown to be an interesting writer and an intellectual. He has the knack to track down the happening moments in religion and post them here. I am here because I don't have the time to learn all this elsewhere--I like the amalgamation of this material in one place--unless you are prejudiced against something you do yourself which is to traverse these blogs, or worse you have a low opinion of yourself for being on these blogs (which I don't--I do what I please--I have no artificial standards to measure my intellect) or you see intellectuals as people with horns and tails in ivory towers or dungeons--and the last seems quite likely from your writings--I don't see why my being on these blogs should make you see my intellect as shaky.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2009 6:11 PM
Anonymous you seem to enjoy putting words in my mouth. There is no illusion to you or what you are doing. I know it’s to get me to respond and congratulations it worked. Why you are here is your own concern. I never equated being here to lack of intellect. I equated it to mocking others or cheering them on for your own amusement. As for opinions of one self, I’m sure I don’t hold mine as high as you do yours. That’s your Achilles heels Anonymous. I see no demons in intellects or even fake ones for that matter. You feel the need paint me as some sort of conservative religious zealot. Maybe it’s so you can convince yourself that what I’ve said about you isn’t true. It could also be to simply get a response out of me. I hope it’s something else since the two I mentioned would be rather sad reasons for it.
For the record I agree with you about Matthew Hay Brown and his blogs.
Posted by: ravensfan | September 18, 2009 11:17 AM