So I have blogged on and off for a few years now, very quietly, in the shadows, back in a dark corner. (Actually that is quite literal. I often write in the dark of my living room after everyone has gone to bed.) I have about 3 regular readers so far. (Hi there!) My gratitude to them cannot be measured. You have kept me writing when I feared no one wanted to hear my message. Thank you for that. Now finally I am making attempts to go public with this blog. The message to be free from contraception is an important one. It affects more aspects of all of our lives than most people realize. I started this blog when I realized that the topic still comes up every. single. day. I was on a path to self destruction for many years and my way out was changing my mindset. This blog is about how and why I became a former contracepter.
So I now have a link to subscribe with email that picks up my RSS feed (Yay me, for knowing who to talk to translate that previous sentence.) I am thankful to flocknote.com for making that possible. It is a site attempting to make it more convenient to communicate with your Catholic parish, your area, and your diocese. I hope they are successful. Please go and check them out even if you don't want to subscribe to my ramblings quite yet. I am still working up the courage to post this to my page on facebook (That clattering sound you hear are my knees knocking and my teeth chattering.) I will begin by sending a few people a private message to this link and see where it goes.
My grandest wish of this blog is to reach those who need it most. I want to be a voice of Truth without coming off as self-righteous. As I said when I first started posting here, I have some pretty amazing friends who do contracept, whom I can, and do, learn new ideas from every day. I want to reach those women who have been harmed and now use contraception in self-defense. I want to reach those young men who are beginning to believe that in fact, "Everyone is doing it,"and they need to join up. I want to help heal those wounds, calm those fears, and show compassion. I want this to be a safe place for people to ask the hard questions and I want to take the time to answer them, if I can, and direct them to a better source if I cannot.
In short, yes, I do want to save the world. (Well, at least my little corner of it.) Thanks for reading and please have a joyful day.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Sunday, July 4, 2010
"Have to Abstain" and What That Means to Me
I had yet another day that I was too fatigued to attend Mass. I swear I am called to this to be more of a poster child for NFP. Nothing drives me crazier than the people who complain about the ten days of abstinence required for NFP. I have days where the marital act just can't happen. I am in too much pain. But I married a wonderful man who understands. The practice of NFP makes him more able to cope with my times of illness.
I have had debates with people who think that sex is the be all, end all of marriage. I have asked them about the weeks of abstinence after child-birth. Most feel deprived. That makes me sad. Some say, "well because you have to abstain, it is not so bad." Even this, I wish I better understood their mindset. "Have to" is a relative term. What do they say to teenagers who think "have to abstain" is dumb and old fashioned? Teens "have to" because they aren't married right? So why then do these same parents tell these young people not to get married young if it is only that they aren't married that makes them "have to" abstain. Could it be that they aren't ready for the babies that come with sex? Possibly. But isn't that the same reason older married people use contraception? Usually.
So these people who complain about abstinence in marriage want the bonding without the babies. Isn't this exactly what the teens want? They want the bonding, but not the babies too. So maybe those adults believe the teens aren't ready for the bonding side, the side that leads to the not so pretty side; paying bills, getting along, fidelity. So what exactly do these people who want teens to abstain but aren't willing to abstain themselves actually believe about sex? I am not so sure.
When I was of that mindset I thought that you could "bond" without really "bonding." I thought that it was like, as Professor Janet Smith has jokingly termed, "test driving before you buy." I thought you only test drove a car when you were in the market (marriageable age and "maturity"). But I discovered that I, and all of my friends, thought we were in the market ALL the time. We were willing to test drive anyone who looked hopeful. Two words: BAD. IDEA.
Now, I will grant that most people who are pro-contraception are against pre-marital sex...in theory. But when you ask them exactly how their ideas work, they are often contradictory. They want teens to abstain, but believe young adults probably can't, so they might need to marry young. So why would you want to be married to someone for the rest of your life (or until divorce does you part) who was supposed to grow up after marriage? But at the same time they believe you should be older and "financially ready and mature enough" to get married and even more so to have a family. I think they honestly believe somehow that contraception gives people time to grow up. But what I don't know is who they think should be using it, what type exactly they should be using, when they should be using it, why they should be using it and exactly how their minds and bodies are supposed to know this if they shouldn't be having babies in the first place.
I just want to understand. What does their ideal look like and is it possible for anyone to reach it?
I have had debates with people who think that sex is the be all, end all of marriage. I have asked them about the weeks of abstinence after child-birth. Most feel deprived. That makes me sad. Some say, "well because you have to abstain, it is not so bad." Even this, I wish I better understood their mindset. "Have to" is a relative term. What do they say to teenagers who think "have to abstain" is dumb and old fashioned? Teens "have to" because they aren't married right? So why then do these same parents tell these young people not to get married young if it is only that they aren't married that makes them "have to" abstain. Could it be that they aren't ready for the babies that come with sex? Possibly. But isn't that the same reason older married people use contraception? Usually.
So these people who complain about abstinence in marriage want the bonding without the babies. Isn't this exactly what the teens want? They want the bonding, but not the babies too. So maybe those adults believe the teens aren't ready for the bonding side, the side that leads to the not so pretty side; paying bills, getting along, fidelity. So what exactly do these people who want teens to abstain but aren't willing to abstain themselves actually believe about sex? I am not so sure.
When I was of that mindset I thought that you could "bond" without really "bonding." I thought that it was like, as Professor Janet Smith has jokingly termed, "test driving before you buy." I thought you only test drove a car when you were in the market (marriageable age and "maturity"). But I discovered that I, and all of my friends, thought we were in the market ALL the time. We were willing to test drive anyone who looked hopeful. Two words: BAD. IDEA.
Now, I will grant that most people who are pro-contraception are against pre-marital sex...in theory. But when you ask them exactly how their ideas work, they are often contradictory. They want teens to abstain, but believe young adults probably can't, so they might need to marry young. So why would you want to be married to someone for the rest of your life (or until divorce does you part) who was supposed to grow up after marriage? But at the same time they believe you should be older and "financially ready and mature enough" to get married and even more so to have a family. I think they honestly believe somehow that contraception gives people time to grow up. But what I don't know is who they think should be using it, what type exactly they should be using, when they should be using it, why they should be using it and exactly how their minds and bodies are supposed to know this if they shouldn't be having babies in the first place.
I just want to understand. What does their ideal look like and is it possible for anyone to reach it?
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Too Many Topics, Not Enough Time
I want to update this all the time, but I have too many ideas and not enough time. Here are some of the ideas that I would like to write about, to address, when I finally have the time:
An open letter to the women on a website who are arguing for free contraception. Two things: number one, they don't define what "free" actually means. Someone has to pay for it. They mean "free to them," but they have no concept of facts. Point number two; why free contraception? Abstinence is free. Why does someone have to pay for them to have sex?
But the more important point is that the ladies are angry. They need hope and love and self respect. A main purpose of my blog is to learn to speak to women who have been harmed. I want to let them know that they deserve more than empty sex has to offer. I want them to know that real men want to love them and want their respect in return. They deserve better than they even know. And the men want better too. It is a matter of joining forces toward something much more beautiful than empty sexual gratification.
Another topic I want to address is the issue of public breast-feeding. I fully believe that the Puritan mentality of the so-called nostalgic eras, has led to a rise in contraception. Breast-feeding is the most natural way to space conceptions, but our society says, "cover that UP!" Even many women who believe they are pro-woman say it must be done, "discreetly." Discreet: many definitions has that word, none of which make sense for breast-feeding.
One of the other ideas I want to address is the direction our society is going in changing the definitions of men and women. I am wondering how far we will go in accepting same sex relationships as interchangeable with opposite sex ones. Will it begin to have an effect on such commonplace things as identifying plugs and receivers as male and female? Will the Olympics be adding a "pairs skating" for men, and for women? How far are we going to go as a society in getting rid of the reality of complementarity? At what point will society decide that one or the other sex is expendable?
Those are three topics I will be exploring in the near future. I pray I have time to expand the ideas. Maybe if I would just do as my dad is always saying and..., "Get to the point!" I would have more time to write because I would be writing fewer words. But then the point of my blog is to share and expand ideas and experiences. That takes a lifetime.
An open letter to the women on a website who are arguing for free contraception. Two things: number one, they don't define what "free" actually means. Someone has to pay for it. They mean "free to them," but they have no concept of facts. Point number two; why free contraception? Abstinence is free. Why does someone have to pay for them to have sex?
But the more important point is that the ladies are angry. They need hope and love and self respect. A main purpose of my blog is to learn to speak to women who have been harmed. I want to let them know that they deserve more than empty sex has to offer. I want them to know that real men want to love them and want their respect in return. They deserve better than they even know. And the men want better too. It is a matter of joining forces toward something much more beautiful than empty sexual gratification.
Another topic I want to address is the issue of public breast-feeding. I fully believe that the Puritan mentality of the so-called nostalgic eras, has led to a rise in contraception. Breast-feeding is the most natural way to space conceptions, but our society says, "cover that UP!" Even many women who believe they are pro-woman say it must be done, "discreetly." Discreet: many definitions has that word, none of which make sense for breast-feeding.
One of the other ideas I want to address is the direction our society is going in changing the definitions of men and women. I am wondering how far we will go in accepting same sex relationships as interchangeable with opposite sex ones. Will it begin to have an effect on such commonplace things as identifying plugs and receivers as male and female? Will the Olympics be adding a "pairs skating" for men, and for women? How far are we going to go as a society in getting rid of the reality of complementarity? At what point will society decide that one or the other sex is expendable?
Those are three topics I will be exploring in the near future. I pray I have time to expand the ideas. Maybe if I would just do as my dad is always saying and..., "Get to the point!" I would have more time to write because I would be writing fewer words. But then the point of my blog is to share and expand ideas and experiences. That takes a lifetime.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Searching for Truth in the Oddest Places
As Catholics we believe that Truth is a 'Who,' not a 'what.' Through a series of events I was led to read a the writings on an atheist website called "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?" It is a question I have heard before. Now before I jumped in there to start firing off dumb replies, I read for awhile to see if my points had already been made, and what points other Catholics had already made. Two words: dismal failure. Catholics were trying to make the same old tired arguments. The author(s) of the site already had their commentary shooting down the theory of Intelligent Design, at the ready. I stopped to pray to wonder how these people were going to proven wrong, and if so, what was my part in it? I got one very clear answer: NOT. MY. JOB.
My job is not to be understood, but to seek to understand. Those words of St. Francis rang in my head again. The people at that site do hold some truth. If they didn't, they would cease to exist! My job is to find the Person of Truth everywhere. My job is seek out Christ in every person and every situation. My job isn't to change minds. My job IS to seek humility and deeper understanding of my fellow man.
How am I to be the face of Christ if I don't know what He looks like through the fog? I have to know the face of Christ better than my own if I am to show Him to the world. I asked myself, "Could I describe myself to a sketch artist?" My answer is a resounding "NO!" I have no idea what I really look like, only my perception of myself. So too, is my understanding of the face of Christ. I cannot describe Him well enough yet.
So I will continue to read what my fellow man has to say about the non-existence of God. I will read it with the continued belief that these people are wonderful creations of God and worthy of my respect and understanding.
But of course I couldn't finish this blog post without answering the question here, "Why won't God heal amputees?" I answer this question the same way Forest Gump answers the question,"Have you found Jesus?"
He answers, "I didn't know I was supposed to be looking for Him!"
Why won't God heal amputees? I thought He already did. I might have missed the memo that says amputees continue to gush blood for the rest of their lives, but I think they actually mean, "Why won't God regrow the limb?" My answer is: "Because they don't need it." If they actually NEEDED that limb, they would die without it. For me the question falls under the, "why do we have two arms and not four?" and the "Why do we have appendices?" categories. Why does that amputee need that limb back?
The atheists on the the site go into great detail of the inefficiency of the design of the human body. (That is their commentary shooting down intelligent design that I referenced earlier.) Again, I have heard it all before, "What Intelligent Designer would put a waste management facility so close to an amusement park?" (For those who miss the joke it is a reference to the close proximity of anus and the sexual organs.) They say the design is bad. They actually believe the design is bad. I simply disagree. The design works quite nicely. It is just how you look at it.
I tell my children when they are only using one hand to pick their toys up, "God gave you two hands for a reason. Use them both!" When I was in college I asked a friend who was born with only one hand, "How do you tie your shoes?" and "How do you button your shirt with only one hand?" His answers? "Very carefully. Wanna see?" and "How do you button your shirt with two?" We started dating shortly afterward. I learned a lot about God by knowing that atheist.
So, what is in the atheist message that I need to learn? I think there are many things. But I think the most important is to better understand what Christ looks like in everyone.
My job is not to be understood, but to seek to understand. Those words of St. Francis rang in my head again. The people at that site do hold some truth. If they didn't, they would cease to exist! My job is to find the Person of Truth everywhere. My job is seek out Christ in every person and every situation. My job isn't to change minds. My job IS to seek humility and deeper understanding of my fellow man.
How am I to be the face of Christ if I don't know what He looks like through the fog? I have to know the face of Christ better than my own if I am to show Him to the world. I asked myself, "Could I describe myself to a sketch artist?" My answer is a resounding "NO!" I have no idea what I really look like, only my perception of myself. So too, is my understanding of the face of Christ. I cannot describe Him well enough yet.
So I will continue to read what my fellow man has to say about the non-existence of God. I will read it with the continued belief that these people are wonderful creations of God and worthy of my respect and understanding.
But of course I couldn't finish this blog post without answering the question here, "Why won't God heal amputees?" I answer this question the same way Forest Gump answers the question,"Have you found Jesus?"
He answers, "I didn't know I was supposed to be looking for Him!"
Why won't God heal amputees? I thought He already did. I might have missed the memo that says amputees continue to gush blood for the rest of their lives, but I think they actually mean, "Why won't God regrow the limb?" My answer is: "Because they don't need it." If they actually NEEDED that limb, they would die without it. For me the question falls under the, "why do we have two arms and not four?" and the "Why do we have appendices?" categories. Why does that amputee need that limb back?
The atheists on the the site go into great detail of the inefficiency of the design of the human body. (That is their commentary shooting down intelligent design that I referenced earlier.) Again, I have heard it all before, "What Intelligent Designer would put a waste management facility so close to an amusement park?" (For those who miss the joke it is a reference to the close proximity of anus and the sexual organs.) They say the design is bad. They actually believe the design is bad. I simply disagree. The design works quite nicely. It is just how you look at it.
I tell my children when they are only using one hand to pick their toys up, "God gave you two hands for a reason. Use them both!" When I was in college I asked a friend who was born with only one hand, "How do you tie your shoes?" and "How do you button your shirt with only one hand?" His answers? "Very carefully. Wanna see?" and "How do you button your shirt with two?" We started dating shortly afterward. I learned a lot about God by knowing that atheist.
So, what is in the atheist message that I need to learn? I think there are many things. But I think the most important is to better understand what Christ looks like in everyone.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
My Mother-in-law is Coming Home!!
To anyone but a Catholic that title means something different than it says. To the secular person it sounds like the person has been away from home and is now moving back. Well, to the Catholic it also means that someone has been away from home and is now moving back. But from a Catholic perspective, "coming home" doesn't have to do with the location of your "stuff." It has entirely to do with the location of your soul.
After many years of prayer, my mother-in-law (God has blessed me with this amazing lady!) has decided to start going to Mass. Praise be to God!! It will be a long journey for her. Her marital situation will have to be resolved before she can be received into the Church, but she has her foot on the path.
With God, ALL things are possible. Thank you Jesus!!
After many years of prayer, my mother-in-law (God has blessed me with this amazing lady!) has decided to start going to Mass. Praise be to God!! It will be a long journey for her. Her marital situation will have to be resolved before she can be received into the Church, but she has her foot on the path.
With God, ALL things are possible. Thank you Jesus!!
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Have to '86 the Negative
I keep wanting to blog, but I just can't stay away from the negative articles right now. I don't know if they are finding me or I am finding them. I think the articles are getting so outrageous that we read them so we can protest them.
The latest, that I don't want to write about... (like that ever stops me...) is an article by a Jewish Rabbi who hosts a show called, "Shalom in the Home." I think he means well; um er maybe not. I actually don't think he means well. The article was found on a religious belief type website. I don't want to link to it, because I am hoping never to see it myself again. I honestly kept praying it was actually from the satire news source, "The Onion." It wasn't.
In a nutshell: He says breast-feeding is bad for marriage. He says that it destroys the man's erotic feelings for his wife when he sees her as the mother of his children. The Rabbi recommends that if she feels she absolutely must breast-feed, then she should cover it up around her husband. ACK!!!!
Again, like the previous book I reviewed, this goes completely against everything I stand for. And on this one, I do mean EV-ER-Y-THING! There was not a single point this man made that I can even agree with. He wants husbands out of the delivery room because the birth canal is just "not sexy." (Though he does brag about being there for all eight of his wife's labors.) Again, backwards to me. I was fine with my husband being in and out of the room during labor, but I wanted him and only him present for the delivery. We made that baby together, we sure as heck were bringing it into the world together!!
I just won't go into much more. It is all negative. His opinion came to light because of a couple where he said that the wife was ignoring the husband and nursing the baby and giving all of her attention there. The Rabbi very snidely said she was nursing, "well into the eleventh month." Oh dear!! *GASP* Eleven months! How could she? How dare she give her child such a perfect food for the first year of its life when she should be making her body the erotic, recreational playground for her husband! GoodNESS!! [/end sarcasm]
As I said, the rabbi had nothing good to say. My husband is a very involved parent from day one. Since he was so caring for our children and so attentive to me, it was a great source of joy for us to be intimate. I was more than happy to fill my role as a wife. But I can certainly say, if he had made me cover up while I nursed at home or, worse yet quit entirely, our marriage would not be intact today. I haven't read the article to my husband because I know what he will say about the author. One word: "Idiot!"
The advice this rabbi gives is nowhere rooted in fact. And it is actually a hold-over from a very prudish, recent time, the 1950s, when breast-feeding was nearly lost in our culture. Marriages start breaking up right and left as breast-feeding declines. His horrible opinion needs to be thrown out and never heard from again. How to destroy your marriage in one easy step: Stop viewing your wife as a whole person and instead look at her as a collection of erotic parts placed there for your personal entertainment. Worst. article. ever!
The latest, that I don't want to write about... (like that ever stops me...) is an article by a Jewish Rabbi who hosts a show called, "Shalom in the Home." I think he means well; um er maybe not. I actually don't think he means well. The article was found on a religious belief type website. I don't want to link to it, because I am hoping never to see it myself again. I honestly kept praying it was actually from the satire news source, "The Onion." It wasn't.
In a nutshell: He says breast-feeding is bad for marriage. He says that it destroys the man's erotic feelings for his wife when he sees her as the mother of his children. The Rabbi recommends that if she feels she absolutely must breast-feed, then she should cover it up around her husband. ACK!!!!
Again, like the previous book I reviewed, this goes completely against everything I stand for. And on this one, I do mean EV-ER-Y-THING! There was not a single point this man made that I can even agree with. He wants husbands out of the delivery room because the birth canal is just "not sexy." (Though he does brag about being there for all eight of his wife's labors.) Again, backwards to me. I was fine with my husband being in and out of the room during labor, but I wanted him and only him present for the delivery. We made that baby together, we sure as heck were bringing it into the world together!!
I just won't go into much more. It is all negative. His opinion came to light because of a couple where he said that the wife was ignoring the husband and nursing the baby and giving all of her attention there. The Rabbi very snidely said she was nursing, "well into the eleventh month." Oh dear!! *GASP* Eleven months! How could she? How dare she give her child such a perfect food for the first year of its life when she should be making her body the erotic, recreational playground for her husband! GoodNESS!! [/end sarcasm]
As I said, the rabbi had nothing good to say. My husband is a very involved parent from day one. Since he was so caring for our children and so attentive to me, it was a great source of joy for us to be intimate. I was more than happy to fill my role as a wife. But I can certainly say, if he had made me cover up while I nursed at home or, worse yet quit entirely, our marriage would not be intact today. I haven't read the article to my husband because I know what he will say about the author. One word: "Idiot!"
The advice this rabbi gives is nowhere rooted in fact. And it is actually a hold-over from a very prudish, recent time, the 1950s, when breast-feeding was nearly lost in our culture. Marriages start breaking up right and left as breast-feeding declines. His horrible opinion needs to be thrown out and never heard from again. How to destroy your marriage in one easy step: Stop viewing your wife as a whole person and instead look at her as a collection of erotic parts placed there for your personal entertainment. Worst. article. ever!
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)