How to Guide: Which Book NOT to Read on Courtship

I was asked by a friend to read and review a book on courtship and marriage. Right out of the gate he called the book "scary," so I had an idea where it might be going. Sure enough when it arrived in the mail, I was completely perturbed by it. Since it was a book by a Catholic author, I was even more concerned. Every single belief I have about healthy dating was rejected in this book. The book espouses a completely hands-off courtship as being a healthy way to start a marriage. Can I say one word? WOW!

This horrible idea is precisely opposite extreme of the pornographic approach often employed. And if I have said it once I have said it a hundred times, it is the extreme views of puritanism that is just the other side of the coin to pornography. The book is chock-full of negative ideas for courtship. And sadly, it is endorsed by some well known Catholic speakers. I have to put my voice out there and say that I completely disagree. It is entitled "Courtship and Marriage" and subtitled,"How to Prepare for Lifelong Love." The author is listed as John A. O'Brien. Now I am not sure who the actual author is because it appears that parts of the book were written in 1949 and someone thought it was a good idea to reissue and update it. I think it was a bad idea in 1949 and an even worse idea now.

Where do I even begin? There are many quotes from excellent encyclicals throughout the book. Those are the only saving grace that makes it worth the cost of printing. Outside of those quotes, I find no redeeming qualities and actually consider it a dangerous book due to the misconceptions on the so-called "passions of men and women." It begins on a negative note about why marriage fails and then makes huge leaps to ideas on how to overcome those problems. None of the ideas show any proof of leading to healthy marriage. In fact, from personal experience with people from other religions who employ the ideas, they can be downright dangerous.

First and foremost, they go so far as to say that since a man is more likely to push the boundaries of sex, that the woman should act as his conscience in addition to her own. Out of everything in the book, this was the most disturbing to me. The role of an auxiliary conscience is a role only appropriate to a parent or a mentor. Acting as a conscience to one's future spouse is a recipe for destruction. It creates a parent-child relationship in marriage. A wife can only form and follow her own conscience. Men being mothered by their wives is rooted in the very dangerous idea of being a conscience for another. I could go on and on about this topic alone. Even among non-dating peers it is dangerous to try to be a conscience for another. The individual must make the choice to walk away from a bad situation. If one can serve as an example to others, then that can be good, but peer pressure is defined by the idea of a peer pressuring a different idea than your own conscience wants.

Another huge problem I find with the book is the complete and utter misunderstanding of the female libido. If a woman were to believe the ideas in this book, she is setting herself up for a lifetime of denying her own sexual passion in marriage. Women and men are different sexually, but this book almost paints women as asexual! The author makes leaps about the sexuality of women that are downright infuriating. The idea that men are all about sex and women are just naive and innocent was a wrong idea in 1949 and still is today. Women ARE sexual beings!! I think the "hands-off courtship" idea is very detrimental to women. It presents her desire for marital affection as something to be feared. The author pushes the idea that if a goodnight kiss goes a "trifle to long" (his words) that the couple runs the risk of ruining the entire relationship, so it is best to not kiss at all. How absurd!!

If the ideas in this book were played out congruently, then single people wouldn't be able to do anything, since everything they do holds some risk to their physical and moral well-being. The concept of moderation is outright rejected by the author. Drinking is forbidden, being anywhere without a chaperon is scandalous, and dating during college leads to unchastity since marriage isn't right around the corner. In other words, the author asks these young people to cease being who they are merely because they have entered a marriageable age. The author forbids genuine friendship between men and women since he seems to think that they cannot ever be trusted alone together. Yet, he (rightly) says that a good marriage is rooted in genuine friendship! That blatant contradiction was just too much for me to accept.

For me, the saddest part of this book is that people seeking a healthy marriage will seek it out. And further, that people who have a lot of clout are recommending it is disappointing. The correct ideas that are presented here are readily available from other, better sources. The ideas that are unique to this book are the ones most dangerous. The horrible idea that simple affection is a bad thing is what led Hugh Heffner, (founder of Playboy magazine) down his path to pornography. Affection is good and healthy and wholesome. The author of this book does not seem to believe that, neither did Heffner's parents.

To tell my children that a kiss or a touch of the hand is off limits because it might "fan the flames of desire" negates every bit of affection I have given them throughout their lives! My job as parent is to be an auxiliary conscience as they continue to form their own. I do not want their peers to be their conscience, especially not as they contemplate marriage. I want my children to show affection, healthy affection, to both sexes. I hope and pray that they are able to understand the passions of their bodies and properly order them to their state in life. I will never ask them to deny their feelings. And I certainly do not want them behaving in a different manner when I am not around. I learned one of my greatest life lessons from my driver's ed. teacher. He said, "I don't care how you drive in front of your parents' house. I care how you drive when you turn the corner."

When the pendulum swings to extreme puritanism it is only a matter of time before it swings over to pornography. It is only by finding that narrow middle ground where the pendulum stills, that we can find the narrow gate to enter.