This ought to be fun ...
So are Protestants going to ask us for a list of doctrines that are inflatable?
Make your own bad pun ...
So are Protestants going to ask us for a list of doctrines that are inflatable?
Make your own bad pun ...
This ought to be fun ...
So are Protestants going to ask us for a list of doctrines that are inflatable?
Make your own bad pun ...
OK, so I am late on this ... So, is anyone else amazed that the Sun is 100 Sun diameters from Earth and the moon is 100 moon diameters from the Earth and if the distances of either were all that much different, solar eclipses as we see them wouldn't look like this:
Instead they might look like this:
Or simply this:
Isn't random chance awesome? ;)
You can see more coverage by clicking the image below ...
HT to Fr. Z over at WDTPRS ... as if the two hits he will get from my blog is going to inflate his numbers by any appreciable amount.
Tonight is my adoration night. I leave the house at 10:30pm and I "watch" for my hour between 11pm and midnight. Four out of five of the last Sundays I have brought at least one of my children to adoration with me. Now its unusual for our children, even with our sleep struggles, to be up at 10:30 on any given night. For some reason we have always had a child awake late on Saturday and my solution to the problem was to go ahead and take the opportunity to bring them to adoration.
This week I had grand plans for adoration. In a few short weeks I have a talk I am supposed to be giving at my parish. I have a vague idea of what I plan to talk about. Tonight was going to be my night to plant my face in the ground and listen to God. God had other plans. At 10:20 my daughter overheard me tell my wife that I had to leave for adoration. She runs eagerly up to me and says "Daddy, I want to go to adoration." This was quickly followed by my two older boys. The first thought that popped into my mind was "great, I will not get my answers tonight". I had 10 minutes to get three children ready -- ages 6, 5, and 4. We piled in the van and I grabbed a CD -- the seasonally inappropriate Christmas chant CD my brother-in-law brought back from Germany.
The trip to the chapel was littered with the usual smattering of arguments that tend to go on between my children. My oldest was distraught that this wasn't just going to be his special time with me. He was indignant at having to share adoration with his siblings -- I understood his pain. My plans were long dashed. I was wondering what I was getting myself into. With one child I have a great deal of control. I can read stories and within a few minutes I know I will have a sleeping child. After all, its kind of late. Three is a new dynamic.
We pulled into the chapel parking lot. My daughter wanted to be carried which was a no-go because I had to have free hands to carry pillows and type in the security code at the door. When we got in, as parents often do, I suggested a quick visit to the bathroom. Finally we went to the door to enter the room with Jesus. My children all walked in. My boys laid prostrate before the Eucharist along with myself. My daughter was a little unsure of what to do. I tried to get them to settle in, just as I always do, near me and as FAR away from any other person who might be there. One son tugged on the other which resulted in a tackle. I diffused the situation calmly and sat them close to me. Now the poor soul who has the hour before me always stays til 11pm. Tonight his usual 10 minute ritual before leaving was cut to an amazingly swift 30 seconds. That left me, three children and seventy minutes with Jesus.
After a few moments I realized that I forgot to bring a bible in before entering the chapel. My intent was to read the multiplication of the loaves to my children. I wandered out for 15 seconds to grab the bible. When I returned ALL three of my children had wandered UP TO the monstrance. I felt indignant. My instinct was to pull them back to where I had set them but I felt a calm reassurance that I was supposed to leave them there.
Matt 19:13-14 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked them, but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."God had never so clearly placed a verse in my head. Jesus was calling them here. They stood in wonder. They asked questions. They said "Hi" to Jesus. They did as little children do, demonstrating faith mountains larger than the piddling amount I eek out. They were here to teach me about how to believe in Jesus. Eventually I ushered them to the back. My four year old daughter insisted that I let her sleep with a rosary. My five year old son snuggled in next to me. I asked him "So, do you like being here with Jesus". "Yeah daddy" he replied. "There is no place I would rather be". My six year old snuggled quietly at my feet. Tonight, I fell asleep with my children.
When midnight rolled around the woman who keeps watch after me came in. She has watched on and off this odd progression of weeks. I leave with thoroughly asleep children hanging over my shoulder and toss out a truncated wave as I walk out the door. She has expressed great joy that they want to be there. Trust me, its not my grand parenting skills that has me dragging little children out at odd hours of the night in a questionable part of town to spend time with God. Its all them. Tonight though, I was in a pickle. I had to get three sleeping children into the car. She held the door for the first two. When I went to grab my daughter I told her the beginning of this story -- how my daughter asked and the boys insisted on coming too. The light glistened just so that I could see she was crying. I said good night and put my daughter in the car. All the while home I kept thinking about what it was that made her cry. I knew what it was. She saw the faith of little children. Ones who show up and walk right up to Jesus and say "Hi".
For those looking for information on homeschooling, the following two links give my reasons -- and my perceived negatives of the choice.
A not so short list of reasons why we have chosen to homeschool
Negative aspects of homeschooling
The biggest gripe you will hear from people if you make this choice is what about socialization?. Get some facts though. You will be asked a lot :)
Speaking from experience, our local homeschooling group has 80 families. We even had a yearbook this past year. From all evidences I have seen in practice socialization is alive and well in homeschooling circles.
The American Chesterton Society has an interesting post for those of us who live in Louisiana. Milwaukee Sculptor David Wanner is working on a statue that will stand in Chesterton Square in Ponchatoula, Louisiana. The statue was commissioned by Dr. Bob Benson, who is developing Chesterton Square.
Go check it out .... looks like a short road trip will be in order soon.
Speaking of the Syllabus of Errors - I find it interesting that it was even necessary to condemn this:
44. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine sacraments, and the dispositions necessary for receiving them. -- Allocutions "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850, and "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.One of the biggest concerns I have with the creep of scope regarding same-sex marriage is the possibility of the state enacting laws that overstep their traditional bounds and require the Church to marry gays, ordain women or any other manner of forced ecclesiastical dissent under the guise of "individual freedom" or "employment rights".
Time will tell.
This is making the rounds on St. Blogs. I cannot tell you how good this article is ... The Vindication of Humanae Vitae ... its a long read but it is well worth the effort.
“He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh,” the Psalmist promises, specifically in a passage about enjoying vindication over one’s adversaries. If that is so, then the racket on this fortieth anniversary must be prodigious. Four decades later, not only have the document’s signature predictions been ratified in empirical force, but they have been ratified as few predictions ever are: in ways its authors could not possibly have foreseen, including by information that did not exist when the document was written, by scholars and others with no interest whatever in its teaching, and indeed even inadvertently, and in more ways than one, by many proud public adversaries of the Church.Those four items being
The encyclical warned of four resulting trends: a general lowering of moral standards throughout society; a rise in infidelity; a lessening of respect for women by men; and the coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments.I don't want to spoil it by copying here all the choice quotes. Go read it ...
Then ask yourself why we still have groups calling for the Church to change her teaching.
---From a different article marking the 40 year anniversary---
When “Humanae Vitae” came out in July 1968 I thought I better read a copy of it. So I went up to my Newman Club chaplain at the University of Minnesota and I asked him where I could find a copy of “Humanae Vitae.” And his comment to me was, “What do you want to read that kind of trash for?”Indeed .... after all, Paul VI was right about its consequences. The cause should be considered.
The Pope's Pilgrims Sway Australia
Then the pilgrims came. The winter weather turned heavenly — one blue day after another. And the crowds of youths weren't quite the kind party-mad "Sinny" is used to. They were happy, patient, peaceable. They sang hymns and waved flags. When protesters threw condoms at them, they shouted, "Jesus loves you, too." When gay activists dressed as monks, nuns and devils shouted "Pope Go Homo, Gay Is Great," pilgrims made peace signs. After a mass on Bondi Beach, some high-spirited worshipers plunged into the surf. "They don't feel the cold, obviously," said local resident Lilian Selby. "I'm freezing."I love it! Thank you youth for witnessing to the cynical.
To return to something I posted the other day: By their FRUITS you will know them. These are fruit. Why would anyone judge us by those who pour the medicine down the sink?
Way to go WYD pilgrims!
because so many of the great writings of the faith are freely available online. I have noticed that I rarely have to resort to typing something in. There is almost always a copy online somewhere ...
Catholic church easy target for bigots
Another non-Catholic points out the obvious ...
Of the priests I've known, not one deserves this casual vilification as pedophiles, or their protectors. And when I check how their church touches even my life, I see one of its hospitals, in which my children were born. I see its churchmen tackling forces that rip up homes and make our streets unsafe. I see its intellectuals preaching values I recognise as essential for the defence of our weak. And I see a faith that exhorts its -- yes, fallible -- believers to goodness, integrity and public service.(a) Bad Catholics: these are not the "fruits" of the Church, e.g. as you judge a medicine by those who take it, not by those who pour it down the sink, so the Church must be judged: "bad Catholics" having rejected the teaching and scorned the means are not the "fruits."
(b) Saints: these are the real fruits of the Church since:
—(i) They have used it most fully.
—(ii) In the widest variety of character, worldly circumstances, temptation. (Make the crowd realize this variety by examples, and also learn up lives of one or two Saints.)
—(iii) Their holiness is not questioned by outsiders. Not one Saint of our Church ever has his character attacked by the bitterest enemies of the Church.
—(iv) From the first to the nineteenth century there has been no age without its army of Saints.
-- Catholic Evidence Training Outlines (Maise, Ward) (source)
So my spidey senses went off reading this earlier ...Pope rides to Rowan's rescue
Let it be known that he [Benedict XVI] does not support the defection of conservative Anglicans to the Roman Catholic ChurchFess up the evidence folks ...
Benedict is encouraging Anglican converts
They want us to believe that Pope Benedict is "shunning defectors" in an attempt to shore up the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Not true.Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner. If I had to put my thinking cap on I am guessing the blogger has it right and the paper has it wrong.
My children's obsession with the Titanic continues ...
After watching the James Cameron adaptation of the movie the histoy of the phrase "Women and Children first" became of great interest to me. It just so happens that this phrase developed from another shipping disaster.
HMS Birkenhead sank off the coast of South Africa on 26th February 1852. This incident is widely believed to be the origin of the phrase women and children first. The ship was carrying 480 British troops and about 26 women and children. When the ship foundered the soldiers' commander Colonel Seton told them to 'Stand fast!' and allow the women and children to make use of the few lifeboats. Most of the soldiers and sailors on board were drowned or eaten by sharks, but all the women and children survived.(source)That said, many complaints arose about this practice because of the Titanic disaster. The primary arguments against it are as follows:
It devalues women because it says they are not capable of fending for themselves.
It devalues men because it makes their lives dispensable
In 1931, a memorial by women to the men on the Titanic was unveiled to the public. The inscription is pictured below
Of course, the feminist would see this as a memorial funded by men for men. All of this in the great conspiracy of men against women. What is missed is that men inexplicably DID give of their lives to save women and children on the Titanic.
I argue that first and foremost this is a matter of the laws written into our hearts. The counter to the arguments above are certainly obvious for children. They are incapable of fending for themselves in the face of grave danger, freezing waters and sharks. It is often thus that they are left out of the equation when discussing this. It is fair to argue that men are, in general, more capable of handling these extreme circumstances. Only the foolish would not recognize the greater body mass and strength of a typical man over a typical woman. The results of this basic fact was sadly obvious in the sinking of the Estonia ferry in 1994 (source).
Very few of the survivors were women, children or - the elderly. "There is no law that says women and children first," said Roger Kohen, spokesman for the International Maritime Organization, based in London. "That is something from the age of chivalry."But it shouldn't remain something only "from the age of chivalry." Some have argued that there may have been no time for chivalry in 1994. Still it indicates that when no preference is given, women and children are the ones that stand to lose the most.
For men the call to be sacrificial is great. It is a matter of their right purpose. Men are designed by God to uphold the family and to ensure that generations go on. This is clearly indicated both by our own nature and by Sacred Scripture. Women, as the ones designed by God to bear children carry with them the womb, a manner by which all of mankind enters into the world and the way in which our Savior also entered it. It is telling that the memorial erected was done in such a manner as to suggest the crucifixion of Christ. There is a reason for that. St. Paul states in Ephesians 5:25-27
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends.Denying men the right of sacrifice is denying them the right to love, as Christ did the Church, their wives and children. It isn't that women should be denied that right and many women chose the route of sacrifice on that fateful night in 1912. It is simply that their value in the carrying on of the generations is more obvious. Yes its true this is all the more imperative when the dire circumstance of extinction faces us, but by nature we know it to be true and we act accordingly. The women must go on. The children have all their lives ahead of them. Its why men go to war. The future of all generations passes through women, to children. A dwindling number of men has a lesser effect in sheer numbers. Their sacrifice becomes the basis of legends and gives us a good image of right example best exemplified by Christ.
See also Was Chivalry Lost with the Titanic?
Obama Secret Catholic?
The basic attitude of the Dem party leadership is "Christianity is crap and Christians are an enemy to defeat." The basic attitude of the GOP leadership is "Christianity is a useful form of crowd control, and must be exploited so that we can attain money, votes and power." Obama's principal contribution to Dem political thought is, "Hey! Slow down! We might be able to exploit Christians too!"
Or as Mark Shea puts it, "because we do not issue fatwas"
Richard Dawkins Rallies Support for Minnesota Prof
Please take care to write in a good, literate, adult style, in order to increase the contrast between the letters of support and the incoherent, juvenile flaming that will doubtless characterise the letters from the Catholics.For such a serious matter its almost comedy gold that he has to request this. First, they are encouraging theft of something which a clear violation of common decency and the law. From what I have read it is a punishable crime -- even a hate crime (which is an action I would oppose on the grounds of thinking hate crimes ridiculous) ...
Still, if it happens to go that route, who is the Inquisitor? The guy (Catholic League) who complains about it or the state who enforces sensible laws to protect the common good? I find it most compelling that over centuries Catholics and Protestants for the most part have managed to iron out all that killing, burning of churches and whatnot that has marred our histories. Over time the majority have grown a sense of respect for the basic fundamental right to choose religion despite their very strong disagreements with each other. It takes the modern day atheist to pull out the torches, head for the churches, light the fire in indignation all the while crying "see this is what religion causes". I am not sure I understand the means here but hey if they want to demonstrate hypocrisy and undermine their own cause that would be the good that comes of the evil God allows.
Catholics have a responsibility -- by legal means -- to protect the Eucharist. Saints have given their lives up for it. While I think the rhetoric of people can get out of line quickly, this is an important matter. Prayers and forgiveness are in order. "Forgive them father for they know not what they do".
I expect we will be seeing an increase in this type of heinous offense to our faith. IMHO in light of this we should return to receiving on the tongue without exception. Its a sensible and simple solution.
To see how the Catholic League responded:
Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded as follows:UPDATE: Apparently its all just a joke. I guess he didn't REALLY mean he would do it.
Myers, in an interview today, explained that the blog entry is more "satire and protest" than an actual threat to defile the Eucharist. (source)which of course follows his blog which stated
Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? ... I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare.Those nuanced "brights". Just so much smarter than us religious simpletons.
Just remember, the Catholic Church is rich just like museums and libraries are rich.
The Council of Cardinals that studies the Vatican's organizational and economic problems announced that the Holy See has reported a deficit of 9 million euros –more than 14 million U.S. dollars- for 2007.To sell its treasures would be a disservice to all of mankind. It would work for temporary gain at the expense of permanent loss.
Just a thought ...
posted this on a forum I visit
That's fine that you don't agree with me. I've met many who do not and many who do. I've got friends of both mindsets.Excellent point although I made a slight modification to your statement.
There are four labels often used to define parenting styles (think a graph based on expectations and involvement or "affect") ... one is hardly cited because few, if any, parents actually use it (neglectful)
Authoritarian - high expectations, low involvement
Authoritative - high expectations, high involvement
Neglectful - low expectations, low involvement
Permissive - low expectations, high involvement
Many people who spank presume parents who do not are "permissive" to the extreme and thus abusive. Those who do not spank presume parents who do are "authoritarian" to the extreme and thus abusive. It never gets beyond that. Both sides set up a false dichotomy between the two and it all seems to hinge in the minds of parents on whether or not people spank.
If I had to guess the parents who demonize each other both fall into the "authoritative" camp as their ideal but tend towards authoritarian or permissive styles in practice. They thus see each other as polar opposites -- or even opponents and presume that the other is wholly permissive or authoritarian with maybe even a tinge of leaning towards neglect.
Quite frankly I have never seen a civil discussion on the topic of spanking. People place WAY too much weight on its significance. The most telling thing about the statistic that 90% of people in jail were spanked is that it likely mirrors the percentage of people in the country who were spanked as kids. That tells me that there is far more to parenting than spanking and that spanking itself likely had very little to do, one way or the other, with someone ending up in jail.
As far as doctrinally you will have a difficult time producing a statement from the Magisterium in full support of spanking or in full rejection of it. Subsidiarity. The Church will likely always leave this discussion in the hands of Christian parents.
I have written a tome on this topic. I will likely post it eventually.
Opinionated Catholic has a post on breastfeeding in public that I wanted to make a quick comment on.
The problem is how we, as Americans, are culturally conditioned. Most 16 year old boys have a hard time looking at breasts, even those of nursing women, without tying it to sex. People innately knowing this are quick to assume this is the main issue. To cause another to sin
Romans 14:21 it is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumbleis problematic on the part of the woman breastfeeding. In that sense to be discreet is simply being modest. Most women I know who breastfeed in public take care to cover most of the breast so that this aspect is not an issue.
The main people who are offended by breastfeeding, I find, are those who are uncomfortable with the idea of the breast being used for something other than sex. The idea of it being used to feed a child, the fruit of the natural and properly ordered marital act is challenging. Furthermore breastfeeding is hard. To tie the breasts to any act of sacrifice is even more challenging. All of this -- life, nurturing, sacrifice -- is a direct offense to the idea that breasts serve the sole and primary purpose of pleasing "me". That concept of purpose falls well within the subset of the world of selfish and non-fruit bearing sex. The real indignant response to breastfeeding comes from those who could care less whether or not they can SEE the breast.
In that sense it is a powerful ally in the cause of life.
I personally believe it should be highly encouraged because even for the abuses of some, it tells the truth about our purpose.
See also The Anchoress on the topic.
Futhermore see Steve Skojec at InsideCatholic.com as well.
The original post that started this all was Why I Nurse at the Mall... and at Mass by Kate Wicker
The publication of two articles is timely given my query the other day?
So is it fair to say that the modern notion of tolerance revels in acceptance of many forms of personal behavior but rejects most aims to simply state what behaviors are and are not acceptable under any philosophical or religious system? ... The second question I have is, given our free speech rights in this country, can we get where Canada is today?(source)The first from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel discusses recent judicial decisions in the United States NOT Canada: Your beliefs are going to be called “hatred”
Now we see what happens when this newly redefined right to have strangers regard one’s relationship as particular and intimate crashes into the reality that most of the world’s religions regard such intimacy between two women or two men as wrong in one way or another – as “fundamentally disordered,” as the Catholics put it.Of course a restaurant can deny service to patrons for any of a number of reasons ... just don't let one of those reasons be religious belief. In Correctly Squelched ** they state:
In short, political correctness is being used as a form of fundamentalism, and fundamentalisms, especially "warring" fundamentalisms as manifested in the battles between religious fundamentalists and neo-atheist fundamentalists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, are a grave danger to democracy. They vastly widen the divides between us, creating an unbridgeable "us" and "them" when what we need is a "we".** -- I highly recommend a regular reading of MercatorNet. Their purpose as stated on their site is as follows: "We place the person at the centre of media debates about popular culture, the family, sexuality, bioethics, religion and law. ... But the arguments advanced in MercatorNet are based on universally accepted moral principles, common sense and evidence, not faith. We're proud to have enemies and we attack them repeatedly by confronting them with evidence. Here they are: moral relativism, scientism, crass commercialism, utilitarianism, materialism -- in short, any ism which reduces persons to ciphers and treats them as soulless machines. We delight in dissecting media cliches."
As I mentioned in the previous post, I was fascinated with Thomas Byles not just because he was a Catholic priest and apparently demonstrated tremendous courage as the ship went down but also because he was a convert. A letter to Fr. Byles (his name was Roussel before he took Thomas as a name) from his brother William who converted before he did is shown below. I wanted to present in its entirety:
Dear Roussel,The Angelus Online summarizes what we know as follows:
Dissatisfied with the theological shortcomings of his Congregationalist upbringing, he converted to the Church of England. He soon became dissatisfied with Anglicanism, and wrote his brother William: "The fact is I find myself unable to recognize the Anglican position. I do not, however, feel myself anymore satisfied with the Roman position. I have given up going to Anglican communion, and have postponed my ordination as a deacon."I am always fascinated with correspondence from this time frame. There is something we have lost with the informality of email, Facebook and blogs. The effort required to communicate more formally is very appealing to me. It strikes as more genuine just in noting the effort required to only to write but to make the effort with regards to spelling and grammar. Today our short quips seem like effortless minor maintenance. Whether our efforts are so genuine in our technical world is hard to tell. Nobody knows when you have rewritten paragraphs. Maybe you just scrolled out five paragraphs in a matter of seconds and clicked send. With written correspondence, you know the effort of love put into it. Anyone who has written a lengthy letter knows that sometimes you have to rewrite it, especially if you want to get things right and make sure your meaning is understood. That is an act of love. I am not saying that doesn't happen in email. It happens a lot I am sure, but there is always the evidence of words erased and letters thrown in the trash bin.
I guess in some ways I prefer the analog equivalent to its digital counterpart.
My children spent several days last week fascinated by the Titanic. During the process I learned of a few of the priests on board, specifically a Fr. Thomas Byles. I think everyone should take a moment to read about this priest ...
Fr. Thomas Byles of the Titanic
He interested me because he was a convert and a fan of St. Thomas Aquinas and obviously his courage was incredible. From the link above:
Of the very few passengers willing to brave the cold, Father Byles had been reciting the Breviarium Romanum, fully dressed in his priestly garb, while walking back and forth on the upper deck at the moment the Titanic struck the iceberg.14 He acted bravely in his capacity as a spiritual leader of men. Descending to the third class and calming the people, Father Byles gave them his priestly blessing and began to hear confessions; after which, he began the recitation of the Rosary. He then led the third class passengers up to the boat deck and helped load the lifeboats. He gave words of consolation and encouragement to the woman and children as they got into the boats. As the danger became even more apparent, he went about hearing more confessions and giving absolution. By all accounts, Father Byles was twice offered a seat in a lifeboat but refused. After the last lifeboat was gone, he went to the after end of the boat deck and led the recitation of the Rosary for a large group kneeling around him of those who were not able to find room in the boats. Father Byles also exhorted the people to prepare to meet God. As 2:20 a.m. approached, and the stern rose higher and higher out of the sea, Father Byles led the more than one hundred people kneeling before him in the Act of Contrition and gave them general absolution.In the face of great tragedy Fr. Byles is an encouragement to all of us to keep our eyes on the eternal. As one of the letters stated about him, it might do us well to seek his intercession.
HMS has been discussing this and since I am doing a talk on marriage in a month and half I figured I would post it here even if only for reference ...
Its easy for me, a married guy who never lived with anyone other than my spouse, to jump up on a box and rail against the evils of cohabitation. Those who cohabit could charge that I do not understand having never made that choice. I can easily respond that not living with my spouse before I got married has worked. Statistically speaking the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of those who do not live together before they get married. Still, people insist they are better than all those other couples living together. As I got more serious about my relationship with Christ I became increasingly shocked by it. There was a time in my life that I could have made this mistake but by the grace of God I did not. I was fortunate to see it for what it was worth prior to getting married. My wife and I attended an Engaged Encounter. The fruits of people living together were there for all of us to see -- and be very afraid of.
"I'll call you a liar if you say that you are not sleeping together before you get married"This points out some of the attitudes that the HMS cited article Living Together Dangerously also reveals. It further outlines several statistical and anecdotal findings regarding this now modern day norm.
Typically in cohabitation the two individuals are more concerned on obtaining satisfaction from the other person, they write. In marriage, by contrast, spouses tend to focus more on giving satisfaction to the other person.So much for liberating women from the slavery of marriage. This is further compounded by the modern mindset of many men who say "I will never get married because a wife poses a risk to half of my financial assets".
We have our capitalistic mindsets that like to reduce everything to "100% satisfied or your money back". We have our objectification of persons who become assets like a house or a car. Men and women become a means to the end of satisfying our appetites. With those mindsets its all about attaining the next best accessory. Its all about building up the individual.
But that's not how marriage works ...
In the citation above, I bolded what we want ... In marriage, its all about everybody else. You decrease or it doesn't work. "He must increase; I must decrease." (John 3:30) -- Ephesians 5, for men, is the pinnacle of understanding this. Most directly "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her" (Ephesians 5:25). Think about what Christ did for the Church. Marriage -- lasting marriage -- is about sacrifice.
You can read more details on this study at the Rutgers website.
Transalpine Redemptorists regularized
Our community now truly rejoices in undisputed and peaceful posession of Communion with the Holy See because our priests are now in canonical good standing.Good news indeed!
Judge: Disruptive autistic teen can be barred from church
Adam's mother, Carol Race, of Eagle Bend, said today that she found Robertson's ruling "very shocking."Okay ... then why did you take this to court in the first place?
Race said she is exploring whether to continue challenging the restraining order, either through the courts or within the church hierarchy.The Church has courts for this
I Corinthians VI - How can any one of you with a case against another dare to bring it to the unjust for judgment instead of to the holy ones? Do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world? If the world is to be judged by you, are you unqualified for the lowest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? Then why not everyday matters? If, therefore, you have courts for everyday matters, do you seat as judges people of no standing in the church? I say this to shame you. Can it be that there is not one among you wise enough to be able to settle a case between brothers?I have to admit that the specifics of this case escape me. It seems this child is very unruly however something must be done to ensure he and his family have access to the sacraments. I think she should pursue action within the Church hierarchy. That said, if the Church rules against her then the state interfering would be a GROSS offense to freedom of religion.
If anyone has more insight on this story I would like to hear it.