Pages

Showing posts with label dating. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dating. Show all posts

Monday, December 1, 2014

Why not live together before marriage?

One of the resources people ask me for are articles or pamphlets about cohabitation. Why not live together before marriage? It's virtually assumed today that two people planning on marriage will share the same address before exchanging rings.

There are quite a few articles and summaries of the problems with cohabitation, but today's IBelieveinLove.com article, "Why I Don't Live With My Fiance" was one of the best, simple explanations I have seen.

I don’t want to live with my fiancĂ© because his title says it all. He’s still my fiancĂ©. He’s not my spouse. He’s not the man I married—he’s the man I will marry. And when we’re married, we will move in together. Why then?

Because then I will know it won’t be a decision based on finances or split rent. It won’t be a decision based on the desire to sleep with each other. It won’t be a decision based on a trial run to see how things go and with an easy out when the going gets tough.

Rather, our decision to move in together will be based on a public profession to love each other in good times and bad, in sickness and health, until death do us part. It will be a decision based on mutual self-respect in a way that says, “You are worth more to me than a split rent check. You are worth more to me than any self-gratification. I don’t need a trial run of living together because I already know I want to spend the rest of my life with you,” that’s what dating is for!

Read the rest of the article here. It's worth bookmarking and sharing when you need a handy answer to a common question.

Monday, November 10, 2014

An uncoupled, open "marriage's" biggest victim



 OK, so let's get this straight ... Clark and Valerie want to protect their son Jonah from divorce, so their solution is to host an "uncoupling ceremony" on a California beach, live in the same home together and date other people.  For Jonah.  

Apparently seeing Mom with her boyfriend ... or not seeing her while she spends "private time" with him at another location is not damaging.  And, I guess knowing that Dad doesn't want a third divorce but that Mom is keeping her options open doesn't hurt either.

What is it about divorce that is damaging for children?  A broken covenant, a love that has "ended," a break in fidelity ("if you promised to love Daddy forever and didn't, then do you really mean it when you tell me you will love me forever?), a turbulent, unknown rollercoaster where there should be a secure foundation.  

So, what about Jonah's situation is supposed to be different?  His parents are dating other people and divorce is still a viable option, at least for Valerie.  Clark doesn't want to get married a fourth time, but he has trouble convincing other women to see where their place will be in the relationship.  Apparently, Mom's boyfriend Joseph has no problems with greeting Valerie for a date ... and then Valerie's husband.  And apparently Jonah is "fine" with it.  Why would he say otherwise?  Does this little boy feel like weight of his parents' happiness is squarely on his shoulders?  And might be feel that he shouldn't say a word because this odd little arrangement is being done "for him"?

It's just so sad!  Who does "uncoupling" benefit?  It would seem it benefits no one.  In the end, while Clark and Valerie say they want what is best for Jonah, it would seem that this uncoupled, "open relationship" is hardest on Jonah.  Splashing in the waves together after returning wedding rings can't possibly convey the same security and love that lifelong fidelity (even if clearly sacrificial) could give a little boy who just wants (and deserves) to know authentic love. 


Saturday, April 14, 2012

"Enjoy life while you can!" -- Are we being well prepared for marriage?

It’s not every day your run across a piece like this: Harvard law graduate turned mother shares her thoughts about young women today being groomed to be executives with no real training for wife and motherhood. She shares thoughts like this:

Recently, a possibly tragic event took place: a highly educated young woman I know got married. Radiant in her delicate lace dress, full of joy and optimism about the future, this blushing bride was not yet aware of the reality of her situation: that she has been groomed through her many years of education to be, well, the groom – and this fact is very likely to cause friction for her and her family as she tries to achieve the deepest hopes and dreams of her heart.

My post doesn’t directly deal with Lea Singh’s thoughts, so I highly recommend at the conclusion of this, that you take a detour to her entire post, “The bride who was groomed for a career.”

She is quite courageous for speaking of this. But many Catholics might read it and say, “That really doesn’t apply. We’re quite pro-family here, thank you very much.”

But I have to wonder how much this really is the case.

To boil it down to the two extremes, (which of course are not the only two options on table), there seem to be two types of single women in the Catholic world. On the one hand, there are the husband hunters who are so intent on capturing a new last name that the man who is going to give her the title of “Mrs.” becomes a means to an end, an ironic object in the quest for marriage and motherhood.

On the other hand of the spectrum are the single women who want nothing to do with being a husband hunter and so are focused in pouring their all into where they are now – career, friendships, adventurous expeditions. And at first glance, this second option seems a good one – to be fully present to the place one currently is, to experience life with joy and creativity.

Such is all the case, and yet there is an inherent danger that must be avoided. In seeking to not self-identify by what is lacking in one’s life, one may become used to, trained in a sense, to view life in terms of what I do and what I experience – my job, my friends, my hobbies, my freedom. And the “my” mentality can lead to a tyranny of unintended selfish consequences.

So that when Mr. Right waltzes onto the scene, the single in the second situation may find it difficult to pry her hands off of her career, which she may love, or her weekend adventures, which a family may make a bit difficult.

But, at the same time, Single Lady #2 is doing something right in living her singlehood in joy and peace. But when she hears people say at every turn, “Enjoy it now, honey, because when you get married, your freedom will be GONE,” it can be difficult to envision marriage and family life as something attractive or worth making sacrifices.

I think the question boils down to this – why is one embracing her career, investing in hobbies, etc? Is it to truly live out this time of single life that God has given, or is it to escape something? Is it to take the attachment of Single #1 to the man of the future and to attach it instead to things – career, clothes, girls’ nights? Or is to live fully, to live present, to live with a detachment that says, “I am ready to sacrifice this when God invites me to do so.”

Instead of eagerly dishing out advise to Catholic singles to pour forth everything into career and “all of the opportunities you will no longer have when you’re wearing a ring,” perhaps we need to reconsider how to properly prepare for a married life of giving all away. How do we live singlehood in a way that doesn’t view marriage as a prison of “no more freedom” but as a lifelong gift of sacrifice and gift of self for others? Perhaps it’s as simple as occasionally skipping that $3 coffee and tithing the money instead, or of spending girls’ night in the soup kitchen to serve others.

Whatever the concrete details may be, I think we need to examine how the desire of Single #1 to live for Mr. Right in the future and the desire of Single #2 to live for something in the present can meet in Single #3 whose singlehood is very much a preparation for a vocation of service, without instrumentalizing Future Husband as the tool to achieve the goal. And if perhaps single life is perpetuated longer than planned or hoped for, then one can rest assured that she has been learning to live for God in a selfless way even though her concrete circumstances are not within an objective “Vocation.”

Now, if you’ve forgotten where that tangent began, you can return to Lea Singh’s thoughts here.

Monday, February 13, 2012

What should I do?

Another recent high school question: "If I'm in a relationship and I don't think my boyfriend really loves me, what should I do?"

Short answer: Break up.

Long answer: Why are you in this relationship? Are you staying and settling because you aren't confident that "anything better" is waiting for you? Are you comfortable where you are now? Are you hoping that your love for your boyfriend will miraculously transform him into a man who loves you?

Chances are, staying in this relationship is not going to "make" him love you. In fact, you can't make anyone love you. Love has to be freely given.

If your boyfriend is abusive, disrespectful, rude, selfish, or any other characteristics that are the opposite of authentic love, the pain of the break up will be less than the pain of staying together for a longer time.

The truth is that we learn how to love in our friendships and relationships, including our dating relationships. If a pattern of authentic love is not in your current dating relationship, this blueprint will remain with you in future relationships. The sooner you end it, the sooner you will be able to strive, with God's grace, to a new and more complete pattern for love.

Staying in the relationship is also not doing your boyfriend any good. He will be learning love from this pattern too, and if you allow him to continue in selfishness, abuse or any other non-loving practices, then you are (unintentionally) allowing him to become comfortable in a pattern that is not really love.

So, do both of yourself a favor and end the relationship. Wait for someone who will truly love, respect and cherish you. Begin developing the virtues that you will need to learn love and to help another person to grow in love in the future. Pray for your (ex-) boyfriend, that God will lead him to become the man He wants him to be.

Friday, February 3, 2012

Should women pursue, Part 2

The following is the rest of my answer to the question, "Is it wrong for a woman to take matters into her own hands (in her relationship with a man)?"

OK, now on to dating and who should pursue who. Here’s the deal … men are initiators, providers and protectors. Now this doesn’t mean that women have to stand in a corner and do absolutely nothing, but if women are aggressive or start pursuing the man, then I think that’s where a lot of our problems in society come from. If women are pursuing, then men don’t have to rise to the challenge. They don’t have to risk. They don’t have to be vulnerable. They can basically sit back and get what they want without having to do anything.

And maybe that seems nice to some guys at first, but over time I think they feel like they’ve been robbed of their masculinity. I think they can feel like their ability to provide/protect/initiate has been questioned, and this can lead to resentment of the woman. Because she didn’t trust him enough to let him lead, or because she is taking matters into her own hands, he can feel like he’s not even a necessary part of the relationship. He can feel used.

And his response could be expressed in a number of ways. A) He could sit back and bask in laziness (ala most sitcom men these days). B) He could become violent or abusive in order to gain control. C) He could leave the relationship because he’s not sure if he ever wanted to be there in the first place, or if he wanted it for the right reasons, etc.
So, on the other side, what happens when a woman allows the man to pursue her? First, she shows that she respects the man and appreciates/respects the gift of his masculinity. She shows that a relationship is not just about her, but that she acknowledges the need and the good of the presence of the man.

Secondly, she shows that she trusts the man, and that she trusts God – “let it be, Lord, according to Your word.” She is willing to entrust herself to God’s care and to His will, knowing that His desire for her is so much better than her own. I think it encourages her to see God as the Giver of a good relationship, instead of making a relationship her god. She is able to grow in prayer (and this is one of things that the woman is able to “do” – pray for the man to have the courage, clarity and strength to pursue a relationship, if it is God’s will).

Thirdly, in giving the man the “space” to pursue/initiate, she allows him the opportunity to determine if he is really interested in her without being manipulated. He is able to stand on a more firm foundation before risking a relationship. I think that’s a big part of it … because she doesn’t throw herself at him, he has to take more of a risk, so he wants to be sure he is doing the right thing before proceeding. If the woman is pursuing, then a man can take a relationship a lot less seriously, but if he has to put himself on the line, then he is going to give it a lot more thought, prayer and discernment. This makes for a better relationship for both the man and the woman.

Now all of this is making relationships sound like a big deal. They are! Our culture treats dating like just another random activity. So, we don’t tend to think about all of these things or consider why casual dating may not be the best training for our future vocation. So, all of this talk about giving the man “space” to discern God’s will, etc., plays into dating as being purposeful. It ties in with the idea of dating/courtship as a discernment of marriage. It doesn’t mean marriage to this person is inevitable or that it should be assumed that it will occur, but that if these two people did not believe in the possibility of God calling them to marriage, then they wouldn’t be in a relationship.

I think women can signal that they are interested, but this is done in different ways. Sometimes women do this by flaunting themselves (not good!) and sometimes they might think they are expressing their interest, but the guy has to be very in tune to pick up on her interest because it may not be super explicit/obvious. But girls can signal their interest by saying yes when the guy asks them to go out. And they can signal their interest by not hiding their interest. Some of the “signaling” can be rather subtle. Again, a lot depends on the girl. But she has a responsibility to ask herself in all of her actions/words/thoughts whether she is grasping for a relationship or receiving the possibility of the relationship.

So, should a girl ask a guy out? I strongly believe the answer should be “no.” If she does, it sets up a pattern for the future with her taking the lead, being in control, etc. And it leads the man to question why he’s in this relationship, etc. (See three points about man’s response above.) From a secular perspective, there’s a book called, “He’s Just Not That Into You” that explains that women should really wait for the man. They say that if he doesn’t ask the woman out or if he doesn’t risk something and initiate, then he’s not really interested in the girl, and she should drop her interest. They say if he doesn’t take the lead, then he’s not really interested, and so a strong relationship is out of the question unless he’s really interested. Therefore, the girl is better off being interested in someone who is really interested in her. This perspective is not only religious, though our faith plays a huge role in understanding our masculinity and femininity.

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Should women pursue?

We were recently speaking at a local high school where time ran short to answer all of the students' questions. I promised to answer as many as possible on the blog in the coming weeks.

So, to begin: "Is it wrong for a woman to take matters into her own hands (in her relationship with a man)?"

I find that many people today don’t understand the concept of receptivity/being pursued, partially because they don’t want to understand it. They aren’t open to even hearing the message because they’ve already decided that receiving is bad and pursuing is all about power and control. So, it’s hard to even begin the conversation!

Hopefully we can all agree that love involves both giving and receiving. And both people have to give and receive. But there is also an “order” to love. If two people are dancing and both are trying to lead, then it’s not going to go so well. It will be a bit messy. So, there is a kind of “priority” to one person giving/leading/pursuing and one person receiving/being pursued. Now for ages and ages, philosophers (and random people) assumed that receiving made someone “less” or inferior. And that’s why for years people thought that women were the “second sex” and were inferior, because they received, so they didn’t have the same “power” and were therefore not as good as men.

Well, then Thomas Aquinas got involved and he noticed something about God. God is a Communion of Persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and God is love. If love is giving and receiving, then that means there is both giving and receiving in God. God is perfect. Other theologians since concluded that if there is “receiving” in God, then it can’t be bad or inferior for human persons.

If we look at Christ, and specifically if we look at Philippians 2 (the verses on which Kenosis is based), we see that He “received” Himself from the Father, but He is not “less” than the Father. He is “equally” God. And over time, philosophers and theologians were able to see that if Jesus Christ, who is fully God, could receive Himself from the Father and not be any less than the Father, then receptivity does not make someone less.

So, if we get back to the man/woman thing, we see that a woman receiving/being pursued doesn’t make her inferior. But there has to be an “order” to love, and both giving and receiving. Now, women also give; they don’t just receive. But the way that they receive is also a form of giving. For example, if a man opens a door for a woman, and the woman receives his gift, then she is also giving to the man, by allowing him to give, affirming his masculinity, etc. I think this is a lost art. We tend to want to outgive and never receive, because we are so afraid that if we receive something we are “less,” or it makes us vulnerable or we feel like we “owe” something.

And here’s the really amazing thing … when we ladies allow men to pursue us, instead of pursuing men, the guys respect us more, they cherish us, they really love us, they are willing to sacrifice for us. It invites them to see our value and dignity and to fight for it. It invites them to decide that we are worth the sacrifice and the risk. It enables the man to see that he is really interested in the woman – he is interested in her for who she is, and he is interested himself, instead of feeling pressured into it by her. And a woman allowing herself to be pursued invites the man to grow in masculinity, to take a risk, to initiate a relationship with her. So, it’s a win-win situation because both the woman and the man are invited, challenged and inspired to grow in the gift of their masculinity and femininity.

Now, at the same time, waiting to be pursued is not easy, and I think that’s the other reason why a lot of women give up on the idea. They decide the wait is too long or too difficult, and they decide to start pursuing (grasping) for a guy. But this is lose-lose, because the woman and man switch their “order” or their roles, and they don’t stay too happy where they are. Men may feel discontent or consider that they didn’t initiate the relationship and therefore lose interest. Women are forced to keep grasping in order for the “relationship” to continue.

It brings up another very important point – the purpose of initiating/pursuing is not power but service. If it’s just a power trip or an opportunity to boast about how strong one is, then people are right to be disgusted by the idea. But when men properly understand the idea of pursuing as a matter of love and service, then both the man and the woman are able to thrive.

So, practically speaking the whole pursue/being pursued thing involves giving and receiving from both the man and the woman. The woman has to open a space for the man to be able to pursue (instead of her pursuing/initiating/grasping), and then man has to open a space for the woman to consent to his gift of self by giving herself.

More on this topic soon ...

Friday, June 17, 2011

"Courtship: A Journey Toward the Love that Moves the Stars"



I highly recommend reading the opening remarks from a colloquium held at the John Paul II Institute in 2009. My professor Dr. Margaret McCarthy offers some thought-provoking analysis of authentic courtship vs. today's general view of dating and relationships.

For example:



The first theme concerns what life is for, where it is going. Implicit in the idea of courtship is the (almost imperceptible) idea that human life has been placed on a path (an “Odyssey”) that is going somewhere. And that where it is going is something to be “stepped into.” There is nothing about it that is simply “made to order,” in the manner of improvised make-it-up-as-you-go tour (“walk-about”). Indeed neither the being on the path nor the nature of the destination are simply “choices.” Its terms are given, even if, then, consent will be asked, and even required!

And that requirement of consent indicates another factor, and that is that the “being put on the path” is not a forced march toward bondage, but a liberating journey—an adventure—toward an awaiting presence, love, a home (Ithaca).
In the absence of courtship we are not given an alternate path, but rather a kind of aimless wandering—a kind of vagabondage. If there was the idea of a “ladder” with courtship, there is now the idea of a “cyclical relationship system,” serial relationships, which may or may not lead anywhere (Barbara Dafoe Whitehead). This new generation has been called by David Brooks the “Odyssey Generation,” because there is now no longer an idea of growing up into an adulthood defined as getting a job, finding a mate, and having children. Significantly, it is an Odyssey Generation because it is on an adventure and on an adventure because it avoids bonds. For this generation, if there were an Ithaca, there could by definition be no odyssey, no adventure.

And:



Implied in the courtship idea is that the most fulfilling things (at the end of the path) are had through the taking of a risk.11 Happiness and joy are associated with engaging oneself whole and entire with the life of another (Another), and into the mystery of another who is beyond one‟s grasp. One looks forward to, and eventually consents to, a future which is “in the hands of another,” not a “life goal” achieved through the discipline of time-management skills.
On the contrary, in the post-courtship world it is almost impossible to think of such risk as anything but “unsafe.” One must in the very movement toward the other already prepare for separation. “The energies people should use in the common enterprise are exhausted in preparation for independence”12 with conditional attachments and “pre-nuptial arrangements.” And this, again, as Bloom suggests, is not a mere moral failure. It exists on account of the fact of separation assuming, that is, an anthropology of the whole and self-sufficient individual (of “social solitaries”) in which “one cannot risk interdependence. Imagination compels everyone to look forward to the day of separation in order to see how he will do.”13

Also:



If indeed there is this coincidence between “being in want of a wife” (or of a husband) and the desire for God, then we have much more than a moral problem on our hands. Absent a desire for the eternal—and the perception that it is the depth of the world, of this woman and of this man—there can be no love, only “relationships.”18
Read it all here.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Fake dating

Well, the New York Times has done it again. I'm quite certain that I should avoid sipping my coffee when I venture onto their Fashion and Style page. My computer would probably fail to operate, as the coffee would likely land on the keyboard in my shock.

So, what is it this time?

"Cloud Girlfriend" -- a new website that allows users to create a fake profile in order to find other people with fake profiles to begin a fake relationship, with the thought that perhaps the fake relationship could become real.

No, I'm not kidding.

From the story:



The new incarnation of the company raises interesting questions: Can two consciously misrepresented people flirt privately and rewardingly? And can that experience blossom into a relationship?

The online gaming world indicates there’s potential. Mr. Fuhriman has described the site’s current iteration as a combination of Match.com and Second Life, an online role-playing game wherein users create avatars — idealized selves — to navigate virtual worlds. Players in such games have fallen in love and even married.

Sarah Smith-Robbins, a professor at Indiana University specializing in social media, said that because avatars are highly customizable forms of self-expression, other players can infer things about the player’s true personality from them.

Relationships starting with total fabrication could succeed, she guessed, but perhaps not often in meaningful ways.

“It’s going to be the equivalent of a nightclub,” she said, adding, “Maybe you hit it off, and you go home together, but the next day it’s a completely different world.”

It looks like this new venture into online dating has completely missed the magic ingredient of a relationship -- two human persons. How can there possibly be a relationship in which two people are knowingly and willingly attempting to be someone else? But the website's promo video advises, "Feel free to be creative. Remember, you're creating the ultimate you."

There is inherent risk and vulnerability in a real life relationship. Difficult? Certainly. But to take this important ingredient out is to ensure that one's "relationship" will be meaningless, unfulfilling and ultimately degrading. Instead of a relationship that affirms the value of both people, this website can't help but enhance a lack of confidence in who one truly is. And if we can't find ourselves except in a sincere gift of ourselves, and if we can't give of ourselves unless we have an awareness of who we are and what we are giving, then how can a site like this be anything but a dead end street, walking us right into heartache, disappointment and futility?

The logic of "Cloud Girlfriend" is a far cry from the beauty of "Love and Responsibility," in which the future John Paul II ponders the dignity of the human person and how this inherent beauty and goodness can be best affirmed in a loving, chaste relationship. After all, a person can only be loved and never used as an object.

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Modern Love: The forgotten gift of presence

When I read this year’s New York Times’ Modern Love college essay contest winner, I cried. It wasn’t to be unexpected, I suppose, because I cry every time I read the 2008 winners as well. They are heartbreakingly honest and chillingly despairing. But somehow I allowed a spark of hope to form in my heart that maybe, just maybe, this year’s winners would capture a more shining spirit.

And then I read this description of the entries:

When we first held this contest three years ago, the most popular essay topic was hooking up: the “no strings attached” sex that for many wasn’t turning out to be so carefree. The question that seemed to hover over hundreds of such accounts was: How do we get the physical without the emotional?
What a difference three years make. This time the most-asked question was the opposite: How do we get the emotional without the physical? The college hookup may be alive and well, but in these entries the focus shifted to technology-enabled intimacy — relationships that grow and deepen almost exclusively via laptops, webcams, online chats and text messages. Unlike the sexual risk-taking of the hookup culture, this is love so safe that what’s most feared is not a sexually transmitted disease but a computer virus, or perhaps meeting the object of your affection in person.

I felt a knot in my stomach, but I slowly clicked on the winning essay – “Even in Real Life, There Were Screens Between Us.”

As always, the winning essayist, in this case, Caitlin Dewey, articulates herself with exceptional word choice. But the crispness of her words do not indicate beauty in the message.

It’s heartbreaking, really, to read the personal account of a young woman whose relationships are mediated by a screen. It’s not to say that Skype is bad, texting is evil, facebook is unbearable. But to root one’s relationships in a technologically-based foundation ultimately leads toward treating the other as an object, an instrument, a lifeless tool for emotional connection.

So we read Caitlin’s account of g-chats and Skype nights, and eventually her real-life encounter with Will, the young man with whom she had spent hours communicating.

Caitlin philosophizes:


The Internet brings these people together with hash tags and message boards, but it never satisfies them. No matter how much you love someone’s blog or Twitter feed, it isn’t their posts you actually want.

But when it came to real life, for Caitlin and Will, technology was still in the way.


“But after we kissed and ate pizza and went back to his house, we struggled for things to talk about. In real life, Will stared off at nothing while I talked. In real life, he had no questions about the drive or my work or the stuff that waited for me when I went back to school.

He took me out for dinner and read his e-mail while we waited for our food. He apologized profusely, but still checked his Web site’s traffic stats while we sat in his living room.

He took me to a party at his friends’ house where they proceeded to argue for hours about Web design while I sat on a futon and stared at the ceiling, drunk and bored and terribly concerned that I looked thinner online. At points, he grabbed my hand and gave me small, apologetic smiles. It seemed like a strategy game: a constant dance of reaching for me and pulling back, of intimacy and distance, of real life and Internet make-believe.

Although many of us may have not participated in a Skype-only relationship, our society at large deals with many of the same issues, particularly the inability to be truly present to another person.

It’s a lost art – the gift of presence. We think our value lies solely in what we do, what we can accomplish, what we can describe or list or materially give. We’ve forgotten that the very presence of another – just being – is a tremendous gift. And if it’s even remotely presented to us, we get scared and run because to give and receive the gift of presence is to be vulnerable. There is no screen behind which to hide. There is no keyboard on which to pound out 160 characters worth of feelings. There is simply real life.

The key is that real life isn’t so simple after all. It’s quite profound, and beautiful, and possesses its own fullness and depth that can only be responded to with wonder and gratitude.

Somehow we’ve lost that.

We talk to friends and simultaneously text another. We tweet the funniest lines at a party. We update our facebook statuses in the middle of dinner to avoid an awkward silence. We talk about meaningless, superficial things in order to avoid conversations that might make us uncomfortable, conversations that might challenge us.

And we downplay the gift of presence – both our own and of others.

But what would life be like if we looked around us and strove to see others as unique, unrepeatable persons loved into existence by God? People who didn’t have to exist, but who God wanted to exist. People with an unfathomable depth, an incommunicability, a never-ending mystery. If we saw others in this way, then surely we would view any encounter with another – even without conversation or accomplishing anything on a To-Do list or being “productive” – as a gift. Because in that presence of another, I can catch a glimpse of the gift of another, a gift from God, and a gift to me.

It breaks my heart that the Modern Love college essay contest underscores that our society has forgotten the art and gift of presence. If we live this gift in our own lives, however, then slowly it can transform the world.

And in three years when the New York Times sponsors another contest, maybe the essays will echo with hope instead of despair.

Friday, March 25, 2011

Ways to show affection and maintain purity

At Kenosis on Tuesday night, the teens compiled lists of ways to show affection for a boyfriend or girlfriend while maintaining purity. Many of the suggestions were similar from small group to small group. One trend that struck me was the importance of in-person interaction that values the person. In a world that understands dating in terms of texting and facebook messages, the importance of valuing another person enough to have real life interaction is often a lost art.

Enjoy the list from the teens of Kenosis: Teen Disciples for Love and Life:

Alternative ways to show affection that maintain purity:

- Compliment your boyfriend/girlfriend’s purity
- Learn to swing/salsa dance rather than grind
- Go to Mass/Adoration with your boyfriend/girlfriend
- Court them/be courted
- Pray for and with your boyfriend/girlfriend
- Write your boyfriend/girlfriend handwritten letters.
- Get to know your boyfriend/girlfriend’s friends
- Dress modestly
- Introduce your boyfriend/girlfriend to your friends
- Speak purely
- Be proud of your boyfriend/girlfriend’s good qualities
- Call the person instead of texting!
- Dance lessons
- Make a handshake
- Volunteer together
- Write a love letter
- Go to Mass/Adoration together
- Take a TOB class at Ruah Woods
- Write a poem.
- Family parties.
- Tandem bike riding (builds trust and good communication
- Hugs
- Holding hands
- Smiling
- Small gifts (teddy bear, rose)
- Notes and letters.
- Young men opening doors, pulling out chairs and paying for things on dates.
- Talk to and get to know his/her family – spend time with the family
- Go for a walk.
- Hobbies together
- Chivalry!
- Girls: Be modest, be pleasant, not dramatic, be respectful
- Write letters.
- Exchange Bible verses
- Challenge each other to become the best version of yourself
- Dress modestly
- Go to Church/Adoration together
- Write Valentine’s Day cards to your future spouse
- Hang out in groups with friends or family
- Talk one-on-one, face-to-face

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Raising the bar

When I first looked at the headline of an article sent to me yesterday, I couldn't imagine what could be so exciting about the "Wedding of Gareth Warren and Lindsay Marsh." Despite my misgivings, I decided to take the time to read.

Apparently, Lindsay is the author of a book about purity. Her journey to marrying Gareth is encouraging in a world where standards are constantly declining and those with strong views of chastity and marriage are told to be more realistic.

You can read the article from the Washington Post here.