I was going through papers and books, saving and discarding as I went along. I ran across an ancient recipe card with just the dessert I've been thinking of but couldn't locate. Kind of nostalgic to hold this stained and spattered card and realize how many places it has been and find it in my possession once more. My mother baked this often when I was growing up. It was probably what got me enjoying lemon so much. I have made it over the year but it slipped my mind so I was happy for the reminder. Thought I'd share it with everyone. Perhaps, someone will end up making a family memory of it for themselves.
Tart Lemon Pie Cake
1 cup granulated sugar
1/4 cup all-purpose flour
1/4 cup butter
pinch of salt
2 eggs - separated
2 lemons, juice and grated zest
1 teaspoon lemon extract
1 cup whole milk
1 9-inch unbaked pie crust
Bake the pie shell at 350 degrees for five minutes. Leave the oven on.
Combine sugar, flour, butter, salt, and egg yolks. Beat until smooth. Beat in the lemon juice and grated zest. Add milk and lemon extract, beating slowly. Whip egg whites until stiff but not dry; fold into the lemon mixture. Pour into partially-baked pie crust. Bake for approximately 35-40 minutes or until filling is set.
Let pie cool thoroughly. When you cut into the pie, there will be a delicate cake on top of lemon pie filling. Magic time!
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Where have all the bishops gone . . .
Although the United States Conference of Bishops has given a representative response to the president's recent support of the mandate requiring all employers, Catholic/Christian or not, to include anti-life elements in their health coverage regardless of their religious convictions, I'm still a bit disappointed. Where is a massive outcry coming forth from our diocesan offices? Why hasn't every bishop, archbishop, etc. in the United States made statements of objections?
Yes, I know several bishops/archbishops have been outspoken but I feel that each and every bishop in each and every diocese should have required the information brought up at Sunday Mass, today, and sent out letters to all Catholics in their diocese setting out what the mandate is about and why it infringes on our religious rights. I won't accept that it would take too much effort to do so as the annual diocesan collections get a large mailing from the diocese.
Naturally, I read with great respect and thankfulness the articles and interviews by Archbishop Timothy Dolan, etc. but people in a specific diocese want to rally around their own bishop. I have done some Internet searches and have yet to come up with a statement from our bishop. The world is waiting to see what we do on this current attack on our Faith and we don't seem to be gathering the prayerful forces that we should.
Yes, I know several bishops/archbishops have been outspoken but I feel that each and every bishop in each and every diocese should have required the information brought up at Sunday Mass, today, and sent out letters to all Catholics in their diocese setting out what the mandate is about and why it infringes on our religious rights. I won't accept that it would take too much effort to do so as the annual diocesan collections get a large mailing from the diocese.
Naturally, I read with great respect and thankfulness the articles and interviews by Archbishop Timothy Dolan, etc. but people in a specific diocese want to rally around their own bishop. I have done some Internet searches and have yet to come up with a statement from our bishop. The world is waiting to see what we do on this current attack on our Faith and we don't seem to be gathering the prayerful forces that we should.
Cats, Cats, Cats . . .
After the storm is over . . .
Although the fence was open and our dog could have escaped, she was too shocked about it all and begged to come in the house. It all could have been worse. Our dog didn't wander off and we have help in getting the fence back in order.
Rising to the occasion . . .
When I got married, I had a basic understanding of baking bread and could produce an average loaf of it. My husband, however, had a hobby of breadmaking and shared all his discoveries with me. Over the years, he has been more occupied with the maintenance of the house and yard so most all the bread baking is now done by me.
When his parents were still able to travel, they often spent a week with us here and there during the year. At lunch, one day, my father-in-law complimented me on the sandwich and asked where we purchased our bread rolls. My husband proudly pointed to me and said I was the baker. Later in the week, my father-in-law watched me put some yeast dough together and was hooked. He went home and started baking bread. He would call for advice ever so often but mostly just enjoyed discovering things on his own.
About six months into his new-found hobby, his daughter decided to surprise him with a bread baking machine. I think he used it two or three times and stopped. He never really baked bread, again.
I'm sure his daughter just figured the novelty had gone out of the hobby. From a couple of phone calls regarding the outcome of the machine loaves of bread, I think that by taking away the process, the joy was removed, too. People who don't bake just don't understand that it is not so much the results but the action of working with the simple ingredients of flour, water, yeast, and salt that make the work so worthwhile. It is taking next-to-nothing items and seeing the 'creation' rise up and be counted among the foodstuffs of the world.
You don't always need a more efficient, faster way to do things. The bread machine took away that time with the bread dough and the thoughts that might go through one's mind as they knead and think. Ten minutes to toss ingredients into a machine and then come back to the finished product isn't an accomplishment.
I know my sister-in-law probably thought the latest and greatest item for bread baking would be a great gift. I think a super book on making bread by hand would have been a more creative present. The easy way isn't always the happiest way. Taking away the process doesn't alway make the end result as satisfying.
When his parents were still able to travel, they often spent a week with us here and there during the year. At lunch, one day, my father-in-law complimented me on the sandwich and asked where we purchased our bread rolls. My husband proudly pointed to me and said I was the baker. Later in the week, my father-in-law watched me put some yeast dough together and was hooked. He went home and started baking bread. He would call for advice ever so often but mostly just enjoyed discovering things on his own.
About six months into his new-found hobby, his daughter decided to surprise him with a bread baking machine. I think he used it two or three times and stopped. He never really baked bread, again.
I'm sure his daughter just figured the novelty had gone out of the hobby. From a couple of phone calls regarding the outcome of the machine loaves of bread, I think that by taking away the process, the joy was removed, too. People who don't bake just don't understand that it is not so much the results but the action of working with the simple ingredients of flour, water, yeast, and salt that make the work so worthwhile. It is taking next-to-nothing items and seeing the 'creation' rise up and be counted among the foodstuffs of the world.
You don't always need a more efficient, faster way to do things. The bread machine took away that time with the bread dough and the thoughts that might go through one's mind as they knead and think. Ten minutes to toss ingredients into a machine and then come back to the finished product isn't an accomplishment.
I know my sister-in-law probably thought the latest and greatest item for bread baking would be a great gift. I think a super book on making bread by hand would have been a more creative present. The easy way isn't always the happiest way. Taking away the process doesn't alway make the end result as satisfying.
Beautiful . . .
It
is easy enough to be pleasant, When life flows by like a song, But the man worth
while is the one who can smile, When everything goes dead wrong. For the test of
the heart is troubled, And it always comes with the years. And the smiles that
is worth the praises of earth Is the smile that shines through tears.
- Ella Wheeler
Wilcox
Passing on an article from the Wall Street Journal
In case you might have missed this latest piece of legislation from our president and government, this article was submitted to the Wall Street Journal by Archbishop Timothy Dolan. Even if you aren't a Catholic, don't be complacent as the next word from the powers that be could be a further infringement on more rights shared by all. You can't shake just 'one branch of a tree' without it being felt by the whole tree.
WALL STREET JOURNAL
ObamaCare and Religious Freedom
How about some respect for Catholics and others who object to treating pregnancy as a disease?
By TIMOTHY M. DOLAN
Religious freedom is the lifeblood of the American people, the cornerstone of American government. When the Founding Fathers determined that the innate rights of men and women should be enshrined in our Constitution, they so esteemed religious liberty that they made it the first freedom in the Bill of Rights.
In particular, the Founding Fathers fiercely defended the right of conscience. George Washington himself declared: "The conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness; and it is my wish and desire, that the laws may always be extensively accommodated to them." James Madison, a key defender of religious freedom and author of the First Amendment, said: "Conscience is the most sacred of all property."
Scarcely two weeks ago, in its Hosanna-Tabor decision upholding the right of churches to make ministerial hiring decisions, the Supreme Court unanimously and enthusiastically reaffirmed these longstanding and foundational principles of religious freedom. The court made clear that they include the right of religious institutions to control their internal affairs.
Yet the Obama administration has veered in the opposite direction. It has refused to exempt religious institutions that serve the common good—including Catholic schools, charities and hospitals—from its sweeping new health-care mandate that requires employers to purchase contraception, including abortion-producing drugs, and sterilization coverage for their employees.
Last August, when the administration first proposed this nationwide mandate for contraception and sterilization coverage, it also proposed a "religious employer" exemption. But this was so narrow that it would apply only to religious organizations engaged primarily in serving people of the same religion. As Catholic Charities USA's president, the Rev. Larry Snyder, notes, even Jesus and His disciples would not qualify for the exemption in that case, because they were committed to serve those of other faiths.
Since then, hundreds of religious institutions, and hundreds of thousands of individual citizens, have raised their voices in principled opposition to this requirement that religious institutions and individuals violate their own basic moral teaching in their health plans. Certainly many of these good people and groups were Catholic, but many were Americans of other faiths, or no faith at all, who recognize that their beliefs could be next on the block. They also recognize that the cleverest way for the government to erode the broader principle of religious freedom is to target unpopular beliefs first.
Now we have learned that those loud and strong appeals were ignored. On Friday, the administration reaffirmed the mandate, and offered only a one-year delay in enforcement in some cases—as if we might suddenly be more willing to violate our consciences 12 months from now. As a result, all but a few employers will be forced to purchase coverage for contraception, abortion drugs and sterilization services even when they seriously object to them. All who share the cost of health plans that include such services will be forced to pay for them as well. Surely it violates freedom of religion to force religious ministries and citizens to buy health coverage to which they object as a matter of conscience and religious principle.
The rule forces insurance companies to provide these services without a co-pay, suggesting they are "free"—but it is naive to believe that. There is no free lunch, and you can be sure there's no free abortion, sterilization or contraception. There will be a source of funding: you.
Coercing religious ministries and citizens to pay directly for actions that violate their teaching is an unprecedented incursion into freedom of conscience. Organizations fear that this unjust rule will force them to take one horn or the other of an unacceptable dilemma: Stop serving people of all faiths in their ministries—so that they will fall under the narrow exemption—or stop providing health-care coverage to their own employees.
The Catholic Church defends religious liberty, including freedom of conscience, for everyone. The Amish do not carry health insurance. The government respects their principles. Christian Scientists want to heal by prayer alone, and the new health-care reform law respects that.
Quakers and others object to killing even in wartime, and the government respects that principle for conscientious objectors. By its decision, the Obama administration has failed to show the same respect for the consciences of Catholics and others who object to treating pregnancy as a disease.
This latest erosion of our first freedom should make all Americans pause. When the government tampers with a freedom so fundamental to the life of our nation, one shudders to think what lies ahead.
Timothy Dolan is archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
WALL STREET JOURNAL
ObamaCare and Religious Freedom
How about some respect for Catholics and others who object to treating pregnancy as a disease?
By TIMOTHY M. DOLAN
Religious freedom is the lifeblood of the American people, the cornerstone of American government. When the Founding Fathers determined that the innate rights of men and women should be enshrined in our Constitution, they so esteemed religious liberty that they made it the first freedom in the Bill of Rights.
In particular, the Founding Fathers fiercely defended the right of conscience. George Washington himself declared: "The conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness; and it is my wish and desire, that the laws may always be extensively accommodated to them." James Madison, a key defender of religious freedom and author of the First Amendment, said: "Conscience is the most sacred of all property."
Scarcely two weeks ago, in its Hosanna-Tabor decision upholding the right of churches to make ministerial hiring decisions, the Supreme Court unanimously and enthusiastically reaffirmed these longstanding and foundational principles of religious freedom. The court made clear that they include the right of religious institutions to control their internal affairs.
Yet the Obama administration has veered in the opposite direction. It has refused to exempt religious institutions that serve the common good—including Catholic schools, charities and hospitals—from its sweeping new health-care mandate that requires employers to purchase contraception, including abortion-producing drugs, and sterilization coverage for their employees.
Last August, when the administration first proposed this nationwide mandate for contraception and sterilization coverage, it also proposed a "religious employer" exemption. But this was so narrow that it would apply only to religious organizations engaged primarily in serving people of the same religion. As Catholic Charities USA's president, the Rev. Larry Snyder, notes, even Jesus and His disciples would not qualify for the exemption in that case, because they were committed to serve those of other faiths.
Since then, hundreds of religious institutions, and hundreds of thousands of individual citizens, have raised their voices in principled opposition to this requirement that religious institutions and individuals violate their own basic moral teaching in their health plans. Certainly many of these good people and groups were Catholic, but many were Americans of other faiths, or no faith at all, who recognize that their beliefs could be next on the block. They also recognize that the cleverest way for the government to erode the broader principle of religious freedom is to target unpopular beliefs first.
Now we have learned that those loud and strong appeals were ignored. On Friday, the administration reaffirmed the mandate, and offered only a one-year delay in enforcement in some cases—as if we might suddenly be more willing to violate our consciences 12 months from now. As a result, all but a few employers will be forced to purchase coverage for contraception, abortion drugs and sterilization services even when they seriously object to them. All who share the cost of health plans that include such services will be forced to pay for them as well. Surely it violates freedom of religion to force religious ministries and citizens to buy health coverage to which they object as a matter of conscience and religious principle.
The rule forces insurance companies to provide these services without a co-pay, suggesting they are "free"—but it is naive to believe that. There is no free lunch, and you can be sure there's no free abortion, sterilization or contraception. There will be a source of funding: you.
Coercing religious ministries and citizens to pay directly for actions that violate their teaching is an unprecedented incursion into freedom of conscience. Organizations fear that this unjust rule will force them to take one horn or the other of an unacceptable dilemma: Stop serving people of all faiths in their ministries—so that they will fall under the narrow exemption—or stop providing health-care coverage to their own employees.
The Catholic Church defends religious liberty, including freedom of conscience, for everyone. The Amish do not carry health insurance. The government respects their principles. Christian Scientists want to heal by prayer alone, and the new health-care reform law respects that.
Quakers and others object to killing even in wartime, and the government respects that principle for conscientious objectors. By its decision, the Obama administration has failed to show the same respect for the consciences of Catholics and others who object to treating pregnancy as a disease.
This latest erosion of our first freedom should make all Americans pause. When the government tampers with a freedom so fundamental to the life of our nation, one shudders to think what lies ahead.
Timothy Dolan is archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)