Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

I came across a story at the Catholic Education Resource Center of which a Canadian psychologist and author argued that biology, and not a patriarchal conspiracy, was reason for a significant disparity between men and women among the high ranking positions of fortune 500 companies. She attributed the “glass ceiling” as being one of choice, based partially on the effects of a hormone called oxytocin. In other words, they had other priorities in their lives other than climbing the corporate ladder. Oxytocin is not only essential for facilitating child birth and breastfeeding, but has also been found to enhance social recognition, bonding, the formation of trust between people and generosity.

A Rutgers University study indicates that the feelings of romantic love are among the strongest drives on Earth –– even more powerful than hunger. Other researchers indicate that oxytocin has other long-range implications –– that individuals develop a “template” for a partner based on their previous pair-bonding.

A study from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), found that the production of oxytocin varied among women according to the level of distress and anxiety or the degree of security in their relationships. The women who had fewer negative emotional relationships in their lifetime experienced greater oxytocin production. Likewise, they were better able to set appropriate boundaries for their subsequent relationships.

Numerous studies indicate that stress and fright inhibit oxytocin release. In other words, if relationships are not grounded in the kind of explicit commitment evidenced by loving, trustworthy, considerate, selfless behavior, the amount of oxytocin produced by intimacy decreases, and it becomes increasingly difficult for bonding to take place. On the other hand, the researchers at UCSF said bluntly: “[A] close, regular relationship may influence the responsiveness of the hormone.”

In the pursuit of equality and sexual freedom, the liberated women have set themselves up for exploitation by men within their relationships and in many cases, the best they can hope for is the mutated misnomer of love called eroticism. Eroticism is based on the fulfilment of infantile needs which include the need of being received, accepted, and satisfied. Relationships are sustained with acts of “love” (bribes) with the hope of one buying the other’s allegiance and favor. Consequently, those who have the most to lose also have the greatest need to deceive. The more failed sexual relationships one goes through, unless they dramatically change their behaviors, the less likely they will ever have a fulfilling and meaningful relationship in the future. Since the reality of true love is to will the good of the other, it’s not something we can possibly “fall into”, as opposed to falling into desperation, loneliness and selfish needs and desires.

I think the lack of bonding and commitment among couples illustrate why even among those who make it to marriage, a majority of them never make it a life long committment- and those who don’t divorce there seems to be an epidemic of infidelity, competition and hostile relationships. There is little doubt that sex before marriage damages the bond between husband and wife required to sustain a healthy, life long relationship.

“man can build a world without God, but this world will end by turning against him.“- Pope John Paul II

California Catholic Daily had an article yesterday explaining what the San Francisco-based “Gay-Straight Alliance Network” is up to in their latest attempt to promote “marriage” for those who suffer from same sex attraction disorder and number of related affective pathologies. For the upcoming “Freedom to Marry Week” they want clubs in high schools and middle schools to go all out to promote this “fundamental human right — the right to marry those whom we love.”

In order to promote it they are suggesting decorating classrooms and hallways, holding mock weddings complete with wedding receptions with cake and toasts to the “freedom to marry.” One venue aimed at children as young as 14 years old is offering free drag shows and workshops on “safe sex” and “how to do drag.”

Of course, this is the long term strategy. One can see that these activists are hoping to influence enough young minds to become, if not activists themselves, at least favorable to their agenda. The strategy is an appeal to love, human rights, and equality. This seems quite difficult to argue against for many who do not have a solid moral grounding and/or insight into what this lifestyle really entails.

The real difficulty with arguing against this “rights language” is that society has come to distort the meaning of sexuality and marriage so badly that in its present deficient state, there seems little grounds for demonstrating the disordered nature of same sex attraction. This began when we swallowed the error that contraceptive sex within marriage is legitimate. In doing so we separated the inseparable aspects of the marital act–the procreative and the unitive. These two meanings form an inseparable unity just as the body and soul comprise two aspects of one unified human nature. In fact, there is a direct correlation between the marital act and this hylomorphic structure of the human person.

One can see that the procreative aspect of sexual intercourse, the primary end in the biological domain, corresponds to the material/bodily aspect of the human person. Likewise, the unitive aspect of marital intercourse, which weds two souls together, corresponds to the formal/soul aspect of the human person. Just as when one separates soul from body the person dies, when one attempts to separate the unitive from the procreative in marital intercourse, one destroys the marital act. It becomes, what we must admit is the ultimate end of artificial contraception any way, simply an act of hedonism in which pleasure–a fruit of the marital act–becomes the purpose of the act. Making this pleasurable secondary effect an end/purpose results in libidinism. In his work, Love and Responsibility, Karol Wojtyla shows that this libidinism necessarily results in the use (read exploitation) of each person by the other. This is the case even when both consent.

Once we destroyed the meaning of the marital act and treated in such a way that it is now clearly viewed primarily in terms of pleasure, we lost the ability to claim that the act must be reserved to marriage. Thirty years ago living with someone of the opposite sex prior to marriage was still a no no, for the most part, culturally. Today, the average person is often authentically surprised when they hear it suggested that there is actually something morally wrong with premarital intercourse or cohabitation. I see it every year with students and with RCIA.

Now since the marital act has been torn from its unified meaning as procreative and unitive in our culture, it now is free to be redefined however we choose. Add to this the fact that the no fault divorce debacle has led to the annihilation of the meaning of marriage itself, as a life long commitment of two people to one another and to their children. I would argue that the close correlation of the wide availability and “effective” artificial contraception beginning in the 1960s and the radical increase in the divorce rate and the free fall of the nuclear family all represent causally connected phenomena. Because of this destruction of the meaning of marriage and the marital act, some, of course, are choosing to make the case that anyone you can have sex with, you should be able to marry. Now is the opportune time as too many of us have lost the sense of nature and what is natural. All is now all open to redefinition based upon our whims…even the whims of disorder. At least in the sexual sphere, Nietzsche’s nihilistic, deconstructionist dream in his Gay Science is now upon us.

It is not the case that there is a large interest in marriage among those who suffer from these disorders. Rather, what we see in this movement is the manifestation of a phenomenon common to many who find themselves in a perpetual state of moral disorder. These suffering souls need continual reaffirmation that what they are doing is “really ok.” Any sense that there exists anyone, any place who would warn that they are not ok cannot be tolerated. All messages that something is not right with them must be removed.

This is what underlies the movement for “equality” in marriage. SSAD sufferers need continually reaffirmation from all quarters that same sex attraction is not a disorder. They need to hear from everyone that they are normal. This much can be seen from the totalitarian methods taken by many of those suffering from these disorders when they have the power, against anyone who would utter a word suggesting that there might be something wrong with SSAD. And this need for repeated reaffirmation will continue to be the case even when they do not hear anyone telling them they are not.

It is the fault of our society–read those of us in it– that we have promoted the conditions in which the arguments for “equality in marriage” are now compelling to so many. In truth, these disordered efforts to finally destroy the meaning of marriage are not the first volleys in the battle against marriage. Rather, they represent the final assault in a war whose first shot was heard in 1930 in the U.K. when the Anglican bishops meeting in Lambeth agreed that it was permissible to allow artificial contraception in marriage in some restricted cases. That was the initial crack in the windshield; today the windshield is nearing total structural failure.  Don’t be surprised if in the near future, your children or grandchildren will be taking as one of their required courses, How to do Drag…

The problem with most androgynous pushing activists and man-hating wives is that they understandably hate and fear what has hurt them in the past. Many of them were betrayed by an abusive “father” and/or husband who destroyed the innocence they were supposed to protect, and exploited their role as a means of self- validation and fulfillment. As if like a cancer that is carried on from generation to generation, some of it’s victims feel justified in destroying the lives of others who had become fallen prey under the premise of marriage; while others heroically dedicate their lives to never allowing it to take another victim.

Food for thought with Zenit’s article on How Dads Can Help Raise Strong Daughters:

Research shows that a father’s influence builds up self-esteem, helps his daughter to avoid sex, drugs, alcohol, and stay in college. What it is that a father offers is that he carries an authority in his daughter’s eyes. This authority is not ascribed to the mother, not that she is not important, but a father’s influence is different.

When a girl is little, her dad is her primary male love relationship. When he gives her something as a man, she learns lessons about men, setting a template in those early years on her heart about what to expect, to think, to feel, and know about men from there on out, affecting even her relationship to God, because Christ is a man.

Some of us have lived charmed lives, having no excuses for so often falling short in so many of the responsibilities in our called vocations. As this is one, among many reasons, to why we are in no position to judge anyone for any reason - but we are bound to take action against such a former victims to prevent acts which may systemically jeopardize the well being of their family members.  Although culpability may vary - the damage does not. For some, a membership into the victim hood survivor club is the best ticket in town which comes with a life time worth of benefits to include.

•  Freedom from responsibility.
• Perpetual moral correctness.
• Freedom from accountability.
• Sympathy without limits
• Justified in feeling moral indignation for being wronged.

It’s too bad we live in an imperfect world, with imperfect mental health professionals who do more to screw up imperfect patients than help them. It’s also too bad when some of us can’t seem to move beyond the self destructive nature of self pity and anger. We ALL live in a fallen world that quite often seems unfair - more for some than others - and it’s up to all us to make the best out of it by helping each other. It’s a pity when we get stuck in our own petty little world.

A request for prayers…

It had been twelve and a half years. At the time the decision had seemed a temporary concession for a greater good. If he had known at the time that it would not have been so temporary, he wondered if he would have made the same decision. That is immaterial now. He now recognized that God could not have been calling him to a marriage that would separate him from the Sacraments, even for a short period of time.

She was a single mother who had been severely sexually abused by her father and, or so she claimed, had been physically abused her first husband. This was the first woman that he had felt such a closeness to and she really needed him. He hadn’t understood then what this type of need really meant. He thought that he was being called to help her. Little did he realize that she suffered from disorders for which he could never have been prepared.

While he was, like the rest of his generation, very poorly catechized; unlike the average Catholic, he had a great sense of closeness and relationship with God while growing up. However, this sense had waned over the last decade. However, he had always recognized God’s presence in the Eucharist and this was something that he sorely missed. In hindsight, he could now see that her denial that she had agreed to seek an annulment and have the Church bless the marriage after the baby was born, was likely a symptom of her personality disorder. He found that this was something common among those who were so severely abused as children. He was now just beginning to realize that the nightmare she was putting them through was probably lurking at the margins of their relationship from the very beginning. He also admitted to himself that he was not wholly innocent. The sins which had led to the marriage and marrying outside of the Church aside, he had adopted her button pushing acumen; something that she used for her confused sense of controlling the situation he would often employ in his weaker moments, for retaliatory measures. He realized now that this probably had the effect of reinforcing her errant belief that relationships were about controlling the other.

She had always seemed to want to be the best mom to her children. This probably was still the case but clearly this maternal instinct could no longer overcome her almost primal need for control and her very distorted need for self affirmation. When her out of control spending had required his getting a second job, the reduction in attention may have been what finally drove her to these apparently new extremes. On the other hand, perhaps this also had occurred, though less obviously, throughout the marriage. Nevertheless, the disordered relationships she now sought out and the ridicule she subjected him to with her new consort made her very public infidelity all the more demeaning. And when he had finally discovered her betrayal, her demand for a divorce now drew his children into his nightmare.

This was probably the hardest part. After she had told them that she was divorcing him, whenever he looked into their eyes they seemed to be pleading with him to make all of this insanity go away. This tore his heart out; he was their father and there was nothing he could do to protect them. He didn’t know then how much worse things could get. When she found her spending made a divorce impossible until the house was sold and she was unwilling to give up the house, he found out how insane this would be. This occurred that day after Christmas when the police showed up late that night giving him five minutes to get what he needed and get out of the house because she had filed for a restraining order with the false claim of domestic battery. While the casual observer could see that she really should be the one committed to psychiatric care, it was obvious that without the enormous amount of money that he did not have, the legal system had little ability to recognize and appropriately deal with such a situation. Instead of getting her the help she needs, she will rather be enabled by the system to continue her downward spiral until something even more tragic happens.

Given this turmoil, his preparation for returning to the Sacraments was all the more poignant. Attending Mass, he could not withhold the tears realizing that very soon he would again receive Christ: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. He finally was led to recognize that he needed this Communion as much as he wanted it. His mother was there for Christmas and so she was there when he finally received Holy Communion again after more than a decade. Neither of them could withhold the tears of joy, if the experience of it somewhat mitigated by the situation. It is not at all clear how all of this will end; especially how his sons will fare in the short and long term. However, he does know that with God’s grace now giving him solace and strength, whatever comes he will be given the strength to handle it. He is also beginning to understand in his experience of God’s closeness throughout this terrible pain, what is meant by the truth that God permits evil in the world only that greater good may come from it.

Please keep this suffering family in your prayers.

Earlier this year I posted on the problem of divorce and the lack of marital commitment from the perspective of relationship and how what all of this means for children and society. While there are plenty of problems assaulting marriage and family life today, the destruction of the meaning of marriage and commitment through our no-fault divorce statutes has to be recognized.

Divorce laws began to be changed in the early 1970s in the US in a way that did away with the need to find fault in order to terminate a marriage. The rationale was manifold, but in general, it was intended to prevent the wide spread abuses that had come about in order to get around fault laws, including the generally prevalent perjury. What has happened is that we now have a system which some argue results in an unconstitutional deprivation of due process because they put the one who initiates the proceedings at a considerable advantage and denies the other party any meaningful recourse to the commitment made by the other spouse. Instead of being a defender of the bond, the state has become an enabler of socially destructive behavior.

In an article about no-fault divorce law about 10 years ago in First Things, Maggie Gallagher identifies copious problems associated with them, including the affect of divorce on children. In effect, she says, the no fault divorce laws effectively deliver divorce on demand. The state no longer seems to have a sense that it is in society’s interest to enforce the commitment couples make and in keeping marriages together. The presupposition now seems to be that the individual has a “right” not to be married any longer and this right trumps the rights of children, the rights of the spouse that does not want the divorce and would seek redress from the state in order to compel their spouse to live up to his original commitment, and the rights of society to expect people to honor their commitments and to raise healthy, emotionally mature children (which requires healthy marriages).

In the same article, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead argues against changing no fault laws, which I find, by the way, uncompelling, but she is right that this alone will not solve all of the problems we have with marriage and family. In fact, some of the more fundamental problems such as the widespread use of artificial contraception, will be very difficult nuts to crack. Nevertheless, there needs to be a fundamental shift in thinking before we can embark upon repairing the damage we have done to society with this tyranny of individualism that now threatens its very stability.

• First, we need to recover the meaning of the human person and marriage, and the central place of importance that marriage and family take in securing the health of society.

• Second, we have to recognize the authentic meaning of love and abandon the romanticist notion that love comes and goes without someone’s consent; i.e. there is the possibility of healing most marriages because love comes through personal consent.

• Third, we need to recognize that the rights and interests of society and children must be given compelling consideration in deciding not only whether a marriage out to be dissolved, but I would argue, that this same interest would demand a rigorous and mandatory preparation regimen before allowing couples to enter into marriage.

• Fourth, because the state has an interest in the success of marriage, there should be mandatory, longterm reconciliation programs required of those who would petition to have their marriages dissolved.

• Finally, we will have to get over the fiction that we do not legislate morality. Right and wrong underlies everything that we now legislate. Thus, we have to recognize what we used to recognize as crimes because of their deleterious effects on society are, in fact, crimes. Those anti-social acts that I would argue ought to once again be socially stigmatized and come with legal penalties include adultery, fornication, sodomy, sado-masochism and other sexual deviances, and family abandonment.

Our marriage and divorce laws now support the defective individualist thinking the permeates our culture. They subsidize the romanticist view that “love dies” without any personal culpability and they annihilate any meaningful sense of commitment to one’s oaths. In the process children, families, and society suffers for it.

As we continue to accede to seemingly restraint free demands for our personal (often fabricated) rights without any attendant societal responsibilities our prospects for social health decline in corresponding fashion. While programs of education and legislative initiatives to support marriage and family are important, ultimately it will take the success of the new evangelization among Catholics and a corresponding evangelization of the culture before we can expect to see much acceptance of the above proposals or the societal healing that will come from them.

LifeSiteNews reports on a Norwegian pre-school operator, backed by child psychologists, who are pressing to encourage kindergarten children to dance naked and masturbate. The psychologist fears that unless these children learn to their sexuality, “thing can go very wrong.” He doesn’t seem to have a clue though, that their is a wrong way and a wrong time to try to learn it. However, I must admit that these would be child abusers are not without any restraint. They say:

“… their sexuality must also be socialized, so they are not, for example, allowed to masturbate while sitting and eating. Nor can they be allowed to pressure other children into doing things they don’t want to,

Sure, I can see that. Eating and masturbating would just be plain impolite. The article reminds of a German government education pamphlet from earlier this summer in which the German Ministry for Family Affairs encouraged parents to sexually massage their children, for fathers to pay attention to their young daughters’ genitals, and for parents to teach their children the movements done in copulation.

Recently the APA released a report on the dangers of early sexualization of children. At least some professionals are still able to see clearly enough in this country to realize that children need to be protected from sexualization. However, given the way that we follow Europe in the slippery slope to social mayhem, I would not be surprised if the APA doesn’t reverse themselves on this in the not too distant future. Remember, this is the group that allowed activist pressure to force them remove from their list of sexual disorders same sex attraction disorder such that now any doctor who tries to treat it as a disorder is in danger of being punished or expelled for “unethical” practices.

When man forgets God, he becomes an enigma to himself and eventually turn on himself. This is what we are seeing today. Science has no resources for ascertaining morality, nor do they have the resources to understand the complete human person. Empirical data can and is interpreted in ways that support ideologies and so I would argue that because Europe has removed God from public life they have no defense against the implosion of their culture. Unfortunately, because our cultural “elite” in the entertainment and news media, and among social “progressives” are intent on following Europe in this secularization of public life, our hopes don’t look very promising either.

Twice divorced politician Gabriele Pauli proposed that marriages be allowed to expire after seven years if the couple choose to call it quits. She told reporters that setting an expiration date of seven years would lend to a more realistic ideal of marriage and prevent couples from staying together soley for the purpose of feeling safe. She has already caused some ripples in a male-dominated, mainly Catholic party which has dominated Bavarian politics since World War II.

I kept trying to figure out why Gabriele would possibly submit such an asinine proposal which has no possible chance of passing. I thought the possibilities could include that she has some sort of delusional disorder, or maybe she is just a publicity hound, or that she just loves the reactions she gets from her male conservative peers; so I deducted that it’s most likely a combination of the three.

In Canada, polygamy is oozing onto the public square as a result of same-sex marriage lending legitimacy to some of it’s argument. What’s different in this case is that a majority of the anti-polygamy lobby is being fueled by opressive feminists who, because of their ideology, find polygamy repugnant. Now that Pandora’s box has been opened, on what grounds can the Canadian government “fairly” prevent voluntary plural marriage?

Western Catholic Reporter

12 years ago yesterday, Amber and I originally exchanged marriage vows outside of the Catholic Church on June 10th 1995 by a Methodist minister, and subsequently had our union officially recognized through a Convalidation of Marriage by the Church on August 29, 1999. Looking back, I think I may understand how tough it must be for some parents whose adult children have abandoned the faith and painfully want to do what is best to ensure the salvation of their children’s soul. For many years in my early adulthood years, my father and I - who were so very much alike - had a somewhat of a contentious relationship which placed a burden on him to maintain a relationship with his son who was not typically open to inconvenient truths and, at the same time, protect him from his own ignorance. He did the best he could. Despite the fact that I had not darkened a Catholic Church in 10 years at the time, because of my father - I actually went to confession and spoke to a priest prior to the wedding. Not that it would have made a difference, but the priest told me since it was only weeks away from our wedding, that we could just to go ahead with the wedding and return to the Church in 6 months (which I never did) to have it recognized - just what I wanted to hear but not correct (correct response here).

My favorite wedding picture of Amber who told me once, in no uncertain terms, she would never be a Catholic!

The exchange of our wedding vows which were not recognized by the Church, not because the Catholic Church sees Herself as the only Church capable of performing a valid marriage but because as a Catholic I should and must follow Church law.

We had our union officially recognized by the Church through a convalidation of marriage at Our Lady of the Atonement by Father Phillips. My father died prior to this and Amber’s conversion to the Catholic faith, but grace through his patience and words that he spoke to me shortly before he died, along with David and Tricia brought me and Amber home.

Not too long ago, I heard someone talk about a family in which the father, after almost 25 years of marriage, decided to leave his wife and move out…because he “felt” that she just did not understand him (or some such thing). They had children in their teenage years to early twenties. The children of course, were quite distressed about what their father did but with time the distress has somewhat abated.

It turns out that the father goes out of his way to try to stay involved in the lives of his children, and I think that this has gone quite a way toward the attenuation of the children’s perception of their distress. So much so, that one of the boys told his mother, regarding his father, that while he abandoned you, he did not abandon us (meaning the children). There is much that ought to be said about this situation; however, I would like to focus just on this phrase.

From the appearance of things, an unreflective response from most would find little difficulty with this statement. The father does want to maintain a relationship with his children. Experientially, I would guess that this is the way, for manifold reasons, that at least some of the children perceive it. However, I am quite certain the wife would sense the lack of veracity in this assertion, even if should could not articulate why.  And of course, I would also argue that this is not the case.

What I mean is this. A family relationship has an existence, an ontology, that is more than simply the sum of its parts. It is not simply an aggregate of the multifaceted relationships among the various members of the family. The family relationship has its own existence. Its foundation begins with the marital union between wife and husband. Its ontology arises from the fact that marital union is the most unique and perfect interpersonal bodily participation in Trinitarian Communion.  The marital relationship gives rise to the potency for integrating other persons (children) into it, but this marital relationship is the foundation for the entity known as the family. Thus, while the rupture of other relationships within a family can damage its over all health, the rupture of its ground–the marriage– destroys the whole. What is left is only the possibility for individual relationships. There is no whole left by which all of the multipersonal relationships can be integrated.

This analysis means then, that to reflect reality the phrase in this post’s title must be changed. The father did abandon “us.” Rather, the son must say that he did not abandon “me or the others.” There is no longer the possibility of a familial relationship. That is gone. All that is left is, at best, an disunified aggregate of independent, bi-personal relationships with no cohering entity to elevate them into a synergistic whole.

One might ask, then, what about when one of the spouses dies? Does this then destroy the family relationship? It does not. One can explain why this is so by making distinctions between the reality of relations and that of relationships.  Relationships differ from relations in that the former are volitional and the later exist by nature.  My relation to my parents always exists but it is the relationship, which exists by choice, that can be broken.  In the case of death, there is no volitional act by which the relationship is destroyed. Therefore, it transcends death and will be taken up into the perfect, universally intersubjective communion (God please) in the beatific vision of the eschaton.

Our fragmented, Ockhamist culture has reduced relationships from ontological realities (ends in themselves) to disposable means of extracting personal fulfillment (understood as pleasure). This combined with our radically selfish individualism has made the likelihood that marriages will be able to survive the storms of this valley of tears, quite unlikely. Even though the relational philosophy described above, that explains what is happening is not readily made accessible to the average person (primarily because so much mistaken thought must first be corrected) there is still an easily understood and experientially verifiable truth that can be clearly proclaimed.

We need to continue to proclaim the message that John Paul the Great constantly emphasized. Man can only fulfill himself by giving himself away. In other words, we fulfill ourselves in relationships (with God and others) not by seeing what we can get out of them (pleasure, persona affirmation, novel affective experience, etc.) but by giving ourselves completely to others, for their own sakes. Personal fulfillment does not come by what you take but by how much of yourself you give. If this were better lived (beginning with me), then these errors (regardless of the cause) would be less likely, perhaps nearly even impossible, to make.

Please pray for this family as a final decision about its fate will be made by the husband in the next couple of weeks.

Here is a cute video that shows quadruplets responding to their father’s funny faces . . . four “choices” giving such great joy to their parents:

We were watching TV yesterday morning, trying to learn more about the snow storm making its way across the east central states, and I came to recall why I avoid, as much as possible, watching the popular media. The program was NBC’s Today Show and the issue was the “tragic” situation of couples continuing to live together after the “love” has “disappeared” from the marriage. This is the plug line from their website:

NBC’s Janet Shamlian takes a look at married couples who choose to live separate lives under the same roof instead of getting a legal divorce. Then, TODAY’s Al Roker talks with Dr. Gail Saltz about the new trend.

Shamlain’s portion (which is not on-line) provided the “sage” advice, that one’s concern for the children ought not be an inhibitor to going through with a divorce. The parents just need to explain to their children that their “journey together has now come to an end.” Roker’s interview with Dr. Saltz, a psychiatrist, was just as illuminating.

Saltz says that the reason for people living in this situation is fear. The fear arises from economics including the cost of divorce and the loss of income, the fear of being alone, and the fear about the impacts on children (Saltz admits that we now know about the long term negative effects on children of divorce but that short remark exhausts their treatment this concern). Roker offered that these fears did not legitimize living with someone whom you no longer loved. Saltz agreed. She warns that the problem is that people need intimacy, love, and sex (emphasis her’s).

Saltz says that what couples need to do is to seek counseling. Why, pray tell? Of course, counseling is needed in order to prepare the couples for a “healthy” divorce (whatever that may be). As an after thought, it seems, she offered that perhaps there might even be something left in the marriage that could allow it to be salvaged. But the over riding emphasis of Saltz’s discussion is on getting on with a “healthy” divorce.

Now here we have a “professional” psychiatrist who seems to suffer from emotivism. Emotivism is the defective view that moral judgments simply express our feelings. With emotivism, emotions like love are reduced to feelings and so if this “feeling” has “mysteriously” disappeared then it would seem that there is nothing one can do to restore it. There is no right or wrong about divorce, simply the need to ensure that the couples have the “intimacy, love, and sex” that they need; the welfare of the children be damned.

Classical philosophy shows us that love is an act of the will; it is not an emotion. Emotions ought to correspond to the rational faculties (which include the intellect and will) but they do not always do so immediately. However, emotions can and must be trained to submit themselves to reason, as they are created to do. Bad philosophy has negative consequences for society at large. Psychiatry has swallowed the philosophical errors of modernism and post-modernism and have called them science and medicine. It is time that they recognize that there is such a thing as human nature and that human nature entails more than simply biology. Modern medicine is in sore need of an adequate philosophical system in order to recover an authentic anthropology. Without this, they do not have a snow ball’s chance of actually helping their patients.

When the focus of marriage counseling is providing “healthy divorces” and saving a marriage is an afterthought that is viewed in terms of assessing whether there is anything there worth salvaging, we seem to have little chance of turning around the “free fall” of the family ( the state it has been in since the 1960s). I am not defending the non-divorce, divorce. Rather, I am saying that we need to recognize the truth about the human person if we are going to provide helpful advice and treatment to troubled marriages. Promoting the modern reductive understanding of the human person and erroneous ideas about personal needs will continue to damage marriages, families, children, and society.  Heaven help us.

A same-sex marriage activist group called the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance has proposed a ballot measure which would require all marriages to produce children within three years, or have their marriage annulled, and consequently be ineligible for any marriage benefits. They’re hoping that this idea will open up discussions that will address the, “misguided assumptions” underlying the state Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on same-sex marriage. If nothing else, they hope to experience “the good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.”

If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:

• add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
• require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
• require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
• establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
• make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

The one glaring weaknesses of their argument that really stuck out to me was the false assumption that a marriage’s sole purpose is procreative in nature, when in all actuality, it’s an inclusive component. As Catholics, we believe, “The permanent and exclusive commitment of marriage is the necessary context for the expression of sexual love intended by God both to serve the transmission of human life and (not or) to build up the bond between husband and wife (see CCC, nos. 1639-1640).” Marriage is the fundamental pattern for the complimentary male-female relationship. It also contributes to society because it models the way in which women and men live interdependently and commit, for the whole of life, to seek the good of each other, which also INCLUDES remaining open to procreation.

After being investigated by the FDA for over 4 hours, Jennalee Ryan is reportedly tired of all of all the negative press about her home based business. Ryan is a broker who constructs her own custom made embryos from sperm donors who must be attractive and have doctorates, and eggs from a young, intelligent, and attractive white female. Anyone who uses her services have the limited options of choosing embryos already devised by Ryan’s personal creations, “based on what I feel that people want. Who wants an ugly, stupid kid?” She also markets her service where parents can get better babies.

Aside from the obviously grave immorality of genetically engineering children, I also have a concern over the emotional and spiritual development of a child who has been raised by the types of parents who would purchase their child based on the criteria of beauty and intelligence. Dysfunctional adults usually come from dysfunctional parents. Somehow, I have a feeling there would be a lot of pressure for the manufactured child to measure up to parental expectations and provide some sort of return on their investment. Children are not a manufactured commodity which is bred, but the fruit of the unconditional love between husband and wife.

29 year old Michael Buday goes to court in an attempt to change California law that would make it permissible for men to take their wife’s last name when married. He wants to take his wife’s last name so he can honor his wife’s family.

California is one of 44 states with unequal name change laws for people getting married. Right now, only six states — Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York and North Dakota — explicitly allow a man to change his name through marriage with the same ease as a woman can.

According to the ACLU, the obstacles facing a husband who wishes to adopt his wife’s last name violate the equal protection clause provided by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. “California has the perfect marriage application for the 17th century,” said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California. “The laws reflect a mind-set that the wife is to be subordinate to the husband”

As for Buday’s personal decision to adopt his wife’s last name, Allred adds that “the point is not if he wishes to change his name, but that he has a right to do it.”Buday, she says, is set apart from most men because “he is secure enough” to take his wife’s surname.

We know that this has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with manipulating a system to promote change which will adapt to one’s own desired paradigms. As so often the case, there is a tendency to attack and demand change to a system that doesn’t provide us with a sense of belonging or providing a comfort zone, as opposed to addressing the internal issues which are at the root these feelings of insecurity. If one feels inadequate in one’s role as a male/female and husband/wife, wouldn’t it make sense that an androgynous society should be the norm? It’s a sort of adolescent, egocentric thought process that expects and demands that others change, because it’s not them with the problem. As for the wimp syndrome; what woman wouldn’t long for their fathers, husbands, and boyfriends to avoid being bullies OR wimps. They would want a man who loves them and transcends his ego and desires for their sake - this is real masculinity, this is true manhood. It all starts with the man.

Fruit of the Loom withdrew their claim that a film made by Catholic film-maker Michelle Messina, called Fruitful Sex, infringed on the company’s name. Her short film is about chastity, where a banana and an orange meet, fall in love, and get married by a rhubarb and eventually have a little banana and carrot babies. She was warned that her message would be unpopular, but it won honorable mentions and received considerable media coverage. She believes, “It’s a very strong message, and it’s one that people should be telling their children: wait for the right person and wait till marriage before getting involved with sex.”

Source

O.k., so my puns are not the greatest. In preparing for a marriage and family course for next semester I have been reading quite a bit on the theme of sexual purity recently. I find it interesting that so many “Catholic” dissenters reject the idea out of hand as anything from an impossible ideal to a dangerous repression of healthy sexual urges. So much for being leaven for the world. These are worldly messages, not the Gospel message. As G.K. Chesterton would say, attaining sexual purity is not difficult, even if it is humanly impossible.

Sexual purity, at least in a certain way, is much more difficult for men on average than for women. Why is this? It is because men’s psycho-sexual makeup (especially with testosterone) help to focus their attention on women in such a way that men very easily can, regularly have to fight against, and often do reduce a woman to an object of pleasure rather than seeing her as a person. For men wanting to live a pure life, the job is so much harder today.

One problem is that women more than men, on average, are much more integrated in many ways. One of these ways can lead women to experience the compelling desire to be thought of as beautiful and desirable. In our current culture, this unfortunately is very often manifesting itself as immodest dress and behavior. Most men, schooled by our culture and succumbing to their fallen inclinations, are not complaining. All too often, even committed Christian women who are too schooled by our permissive culture can dress (if you can call it that) in ways that leave little to the imagination.

Now there is a difference between purity and being prudish. Prudishness mistakes the body for an evil. Purity recognizes that the human body is very very good! Without it one cannot be a human person. The human body is beautiful. The problem is that in our fallen state, lust is always lurking at the door. As John Paul the Great says, it is an ever present danger.

So it is the problem of immodest dress the sole concern of those who are negatively affected by it? I say no; especially when it comes to those who share the Gospel. We are all in this life together so we ought to help each other in the universal call to holiness. Those men and women who do not consider the affect that their attire and actions will have on others’ ability to see them as a child of God rather than a piece of meat ought to consider that they are their brothers’ keepers. Those who do not care, should.

We all need to keep our eyes focused on Jesus and to strive for a pure heart, a singular heart given wholly to God. This can be made somewhat easier, especially in Mass, if there is not a temptation lurking in the next pew.

Here’s a short 1:30 second video of the “man on street’s” thoughts on the purpose of marriage. I think it’s a great question that helps explain why it blows some peoples minds why Catholics oppose same-sex marriage.

John, from over at The Immaculate Direction, passed on a post he did recently discussing a new PBS series about a young Tae Kwon Do instructor turned priest who is taking a new approach to trying to make a positive influence on culture through promoting healthy family life.

Fr. Leo is a diocesan priest from the Archdiocese of Baltimore. In the series, he goes into families’ homes to cook a meal and help them to understand the importance of family and the need for families to spend time together around the table.

The series is called, Grace Before Meals. I looked at the trailer (they also have the pilot on line) and must say that I am impressed. He does very well in front of the camera and has a very positive message to present. Fr. Leo is correct, the family today is in crisis. There are many reasons for this. It seems to me that this is one approach that can help some families to realize the damaging effects of a fast food lifesyle.

Go over and take a look and let me know what you think. Hopefully this show does well. If you think it’s worthwhile, let others know about it.

If you’ve never heard of Dick Hoyt and his son Rick, than you need to click Here! This is so powerful, I don’t think you can watch it without feeling any emotions. Abortion and euthanasia has robbed so many of a beautiful relationship such as this, and this illustrates why I and others must do more to protect innocent live from the hands of our culture of death. Fatherhood/parenthood is truly a beautiful thing. What are you waiting for, watch the video!