Skip to content

How would *you* explain the Church’s teaching on marriage?

July 29, 2012

I had what was , for me at least, a most interesting conversation the other day.

I have a friend, an otolaryngologist in Memphis, who likes to “stir the pot” with his colleagues in his operating room.  He invited me into his room the other day to continue a conversation we’d been having on the topic of politics, and as that would down, the nurse anesthetist staffing his cases said, ” Why don’t you ask that marriage question, Dr. B?” She then explained that the topic was same-sex marriage, so I held forth.  And the reaction was interesting.

I took my explanation from (my admittedly weak understanding of) John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.  I explained that, while I understood the desire on the part of my same-sex-attracted brothers and sisters to legitimize their relationships, marriage isn’t the way to do it.  I then explained that marriage isn’t something that is just a whim; it represents a total gift of self to the other, both emotionally and physically.  The meaning of marriage is written, literally stamped into our bodies as male and female; this “nuptial meaning of the body” is the way we are configured as male and female.  The male and female bodies, by design, bear the mark of that meaning, and they reflect and symbolize the completeness of the love of God, which is so complete as to be life-giving (the human analog of that completeness is the life-giving potential of sexual intercourse between spouses (I hate the term “marriage act”, even though it is so perfectly descriptive).  This  leaves aside the question of the morality of various ways of using our sexual faculties, many (most, these days) of which are just wrong; that’s another discussion.

Needless to say, they looked at me like I had spoken Chinese, then said “Oooookay…thanks!” and sent me on my way.

So the question:  How would you explain it?  Just curious.

The comments are open both here and on Facebook; don’t be crude or cruel, or you’ll get “moderated”.

  1. Misty B permalink

    Wow. I promise to be nice, but those were just a series of statements that imbued human sexuality with a collection of arbitrary non-biblical mystical properties. Then you declared those properties to be incompatible with same-sex love, somehow proving that gay marriage isn’t legitimate.

    – Marriage isn’t a gift at all. It’s a partnership.
    – Sex isn’t a gift. It’s a way to come closer to one another, even procreate.
    – The meaning of marriage isn’t stamped anywhere. This is a (flawed) human interpretation of the human anatomy and how it relates to marriage.
    – The human bodies don’t symbolize the life-giving love of god. This is another flawed human interpretation.

    Human beings are just one more species of animal on this planet, and you’ve sprinkled glitter and magic onto their sexuality in order to rationalize excluding same-sex couples from a “legitimate” partnership.

    “Gift” “meaning” “design” “stamped” “symbolize”… These are all ideas that you project onto something that you (or the church) has a desire to control. This is what bigotry looks like. It hides behind “symbols” and “meaning” that can’t be challenged in order to deny rights to others.


    • Well, thanks for the comment.

      Let’s go one at a time.

      Um, no. The characteristics I’m imbued marriage with are precisely biblical. That may be the problem, and it’s fine to reject its Biblical source, but nope, it’s right there.

      Marriage isn’t a partnership. It’s a covenant. Partnerships can be dissolved, but (Biblically speaking, marriage is permanent (“a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two become one flesh” (Gen 2:24)).

      Sex is a gift, as humans experience it. Animals don’t “have sex”. They mate, it’s driven by instinct, and it’s purpose is to procreate. Period. People, on the other hand, bring an entire other dimension to the party. Procreation is an important part of it, but it is also intended to Be the one-flesh union that Genesis, and Jesus in Matthew, talk of.

      The question of the interpretation of human anatomy and its nuptial meaning may be a mystery, but please show me how genitals that are designed to fit together one way (again, I assume a Purposeful Creator, you are free to reject that notion) are not “stamped into our bodies”. Of *course* one can use an elbow for something other than articulating the arm at its midpoint. But the fact remains that the elbow’s purpose, by design, is to enable the arm to bend. Likewise, one can use a penis for a multitude of fun and fascinating tasks, but none of those uses changes its primary purpose: to fit into a vagina to deposit semen near a cervix, which, if done during a woman’s fertile 100 or so hours, will result in a new life being conceived. To insist on anything else might qualify as wishful thinking.

      You speak multiple times of “flawed human interpretation”. Are you privy to some other revelation that allows you to dismiss the Church’s interpretation? Let’s be fair; when I talk about Church teaching, it’s backed up by, oh, 2,000+ years of reflection. When you say “Is not!”, why would I be wrong to just shout, “Is too !”? I’m not talking a bunch of mystical jumbo jumbo; phenomenologically speaking, what I’m saying can be observed. But that’s outside the scope of a combox reply.

      Human beings are *not* just “one more species of animal”. And you know that. Animals cannot make moral judgments, humans can. Humans, unlike *every* other animal created, can reason. That’s why morality applies to us, and not to Fido; “Bad dog!” may feel good to say when Fido poops in the house, but it is really not reasonable.

      Finally…to resort to an ad hominem attack on the Church doesn’t bolster your argument. You have a right to do whatever you wish with your genitals, or anyone else’s. You have a right (if you want to call it that) to do as you please, and to reap whatever consequences, good or bad, you perceive yourself to reap.

      But how does calling a relationship something it isn’t “legitimize” it? I can tell you how naming just any old relationship marriage damages marriage (again, too much for this post). If marriage isn’t something specific, why isn’t it just anything at all?

      I give you credit. You were pretty nice, all things considered. Thanks!


      • I know I’m coming at this, not only as a Roman Catholic woman, but a Roman Catholic woman who works for the Church and a majority of my job has to do with the Sacrament of Marriage and sexuality. I’m sure I’ll just get lumped in with the “crazy Catholics”…. and my beliefs and ideas about the purpose of sex may very well be another addition to the to the “glitter and magic” of church control. But I’ll just add to the sparkly noise any way 🙂

        At the end of the day Truth is Truth. All this stuff Love, Marriage, and Sexuality aren’t true because the Church teaches it…. The Church teaches it because it is true.

        That whole marriage and sex thing…. who came up with that? God did. Yeah, I’m looking at this from a religious standpoint, but it’s really hard for me to take the Divine out of the covenant of marriage and the sexual act. God designed us for love and union and he did that has a reflection of his love for us. When we manipulate that, or when sex becomes a recreational sport or marriage is just a contract/agreement… we see consequences.

        For me the damaging effects of birth control (, the sky high divorce rates, pornographic culture, 40+ STDS, etc.. are a signal that perhaps something went wrong… Maybe taking the GIFT of the human person out of sex is causing more harm than good?

        How can sex, an act of completely and totally giving yourself to another person, NOT be a gift of self and a receiving of the gift of the other?

        I think we have to ask ourselves, “Do we want to be happy?” What the Church teaches about sex and marriage is not a “means of control” but rather a ticket to freedom. Glitter and magic? Not so much… True genuine happiness? I’ll have more of that please 🙂


  2. Misty B permalink

    Deacon Chip:

    It sounds like your problem with homosexuality hinges on the idea that humans were designed by a creator for a specific purpose that does not include same-sex relationships. My atheist friends argue that everything we see and know is the result of one big cosmic accident, which I find very hard to wrap my head around. So for argument’s sake, I’ll grant you a creator. But every different culture has its own creation story and it’s own creator with its own purpose for our design. So why is your story right?

    Hinduism, Islam and Mormonism have their own unique creation stories and each teaches polygamy. Why is polygamy wrong then? We were designed and created with a purpose, but not by any of these creators? Just the particular one you believe in, got it. Why is that? Because of 2,000 years of reflection? Well by that logic Hinduism trumps Catholicism with its 7,000+ years of reflection. So then you buy into Catholicism because it “feels right” or “comports with you”? Or was it because your parents assigned you a catholic identity as a child before your critical faculties had a chance to wire up (this is also called indoctrination).

    You are a Catholic for your own personal reasons, not because there is a rational argument that leads from “there must be some creator” to “the catholic church’s teachings are infallible”. And that’s perfectly fine.

    Research shows that humans are not the only animals with morality. Wolves, primates, whales, dolphins, elephants and others have sometimes strict, complex codes of morality as well as empathy and compassion. And dolphins, bonobos, elephants, giraffes, monkeys, lions and sheep demonstrate homosexual and recreational sexual behavior. Gayness is just a part of nature, sorry. You’re trying to impose your own “divinely revealed” culturally unique flavor of morality on other people, impinging on their rights.

    It fascinates me how you can think that two married guys moving in across the street from you will somehow change the nature of your relationship with your wife and that they must be stopped. If your relationship is some kind of holy agreement before your god, why is it threatened by what anyone else does and what they call it? Are you that insecure or easily threatened?

    This is what I’m talking about. My God didn’t design us for the gayness, so stop the gayness. Gods are like elbows. Everyone’s got one (except atheists). Only the really unbearable people use their God as an excuse to beat other people over the head and withhold rights.


    It’s great that you’re able to provide guidance to couples who are married or will soon be married. I hope that you’re able to add enough of your own personal experience to be helpful to people that can benefit from it. My college girlfriend went through a pre caina class taught by a woman in her thirties who’d hardly dated, had never married, had sex or even experienced an orgasm on her own. She spent hours talking about human sexuality, what sex was like and what a committed relationship should be like without any personal experience in the matter. She was just a mouthpiece, regurgitating the church’s teachings and her own idealized view of sex and marriage rather than what it actually was to her.


  3. @Misty OMG does your friend live in Minnesota? I went through the same thing. My fiancee and I went through pre-cana and were lectured by a girl in her twenties with no experience with love, sex or marriage. She went on and on about how wonderful love, sex and marriage will be as part of a covenant before God, etc.

    It totally creeped me out. It was like a french food expert giving a talk to a bunch of chefs about how to roll dough to make a croissant so the texture is just flaky enough. How to pair food with the right french wine so it pops on the tastebuds. What tastes good and what doesn’t and why. When in fact the “french expert” has never set foot in a kitchen before. Never been to an open air french market. Hell, never even tasted a croissant w/ hot cafe before. The “advice” from the “expert” was just some giant international cooking school handing the girl talking points to indoctrinate aspiring chefs so they’d cook in a way that the school approves of.

    That’s why it was soooo creepy. It was nothing more than the church telling married people why to have sex, how to have sex and under what circumstances they could try to plan their families.

    CREEPY I SAY! Orwellian even. How ironic is it that I was born in 1984? lol


    • Man, I wish I had more time to devote to this!

      Seriously, ladies…do you think that love, and sexual expression, and. All the ways both right and wrong to exercise our sexual faculties were just invented in the 21st century? You cat as I several thousand years’ experience dealing with sexuality has nothing of value to teach anyone.

      “Orwellian” is a bit extreme. And it would only apply if you wee being sold some big lie.

      Wanna see Orwellian? Look at the way oral and injectable contraceptives re advertised. Tell you what: TiVo the next contraceptive commercial you see. Then slow it down and listen to the warnings at the end. Or better yet, scroll down the blog and read the entry on the 5 things your doctor never told you about your. Contraceptives. Orwellian? How about the Big Lie you’ve been sold all your adult life about how great contraceptives are (lie), and about how free they make you (lie), about how they’re so good for you, and the only responsible way to have sex (lie, lie).

      No…a supposed “sex expert” in Cosmo is much creepier than the Church telling you something. I don’t have to have built a rocks to tell you how to build one. And certainly, someone who’s never used their sexuality *correctly* is even less qualified to give you advice.

      If you choose to Buy the Lie, that’s fine. But how can you knock what the Church *knows* is true…if you’ve never tried it? How do you know what your body is going through *on* contraceptives…if you’ve never been *off*. How do you know what a relationship can be without people sexually using one another …if you’ve never had a chaste relationship? How would you know what noncontracepted sex with a spouse is like…if you’ve never had it?

      How could one reject being, and receiving, a total self-gift of another, if every sexual encounter has that big NO of contraception imposed on it?

      “Orwellian”? Who’s being sold a lie? Bet it ain’t me…


      • kaitlyn moore permalink

        LOL I see what you did there. I said that it was Orwellian that the very church I was baptized in used a woman with no experience with sex, love or marriage to tell me what to think, how to feel and what to expect about intimacy like some unsuspecting tool. There are also “pure” and “unpure” thoughts about sex that God will judge me for. Propaganda and thought crime are straight out of “1984”, sorry.

        Then you kind of did a judo move there and went on a rant about birth control.

        I don’t know you very well deacon but you seem a little fixated with the birth control. I keep hearing this kind of talk from my parishioners too. Like you, the people behind it pretend to be overly concerned about the women’s health aspects of hormonal contraception. Yes, health. Are you just as concerned about other important global health issues like the 800 million people that don’t have access to clean drinking water? Or the 925 million that are starving or malnourished? Do those people get as much of your attention and outrage? How many blog posts have you dedicated to these issues versus the health risks of hormonal birth control?

        It doesn’t appear that those things bother you so much. The church has a history of over-enthusiastically regulating women’s ladyparts and you’re marching right along with them like a good soldier.

        My best friend from high school was married in our church and has popped out 5 kids already at 28. She was discouraged from using birth control of any kind and told that children are a blessing. Her husband works for a hotel, travels most of the time and barely makes $40k. Now she’s stuck at home feeding 5 kids by herself. She was told by our priest that “God would provide” every time she got pregnant but she’s applying for public assistance now. How does one family go about helping 5 kids with homework? Or having 1-on-1 time with 5 kids? Addressing the very specific needs of 5 kids or giving them every bit of the individual love and attention they deserve is a very big, nearly impossible effort in many cases and the church encourages families to balloon to sizes that guarantee a degree of neglect and emotional starvation.

        It’s ironic that you bang on and on about morality whilst fighting so hard for something that is immoral.


      • I have neither forgotten nor given up. Life is a little crazy.

        I will address your points tonight.


  4. Noelle permalink

    I didn’t read all the comments on here because I find it incredibly annoying to read anything on my phone but I got the gist and wanted to chime in quick. So here is my two cents.

    Marriage in secular terms is a contract. There are certain obligations and legal requirements for someone to enter into this contract. For example, a father cannot legally marry his daughter despite the fact that they may be two consenting adults and even in love. Hence two people who love each other do not have the “right” to marry. Marriage as redefined to include homosexual relationships is not really a marriage at all. It’s something different. Homosexuality is a disordered behavior- not that people with same sex attraction are bad- that’s not at all what the church teaches. It says in the catechism that people with ssa should be treated with loving compassion! Not banished like some churches believe, but I digress. Anatomically our bodies are not made for homosexual union. Just as anatomically our bodies are not made for incestual relationships. Love is simply not the only criterion for marriage even in a secular sense and even if marriage was legally redefined to include homosexual relationships.

    Marraige in Christian terms is a covenant. It is unitive anatomically, physiologically, emotionally, biologically, spiritually. When lived out according to Christian principles it is the image of the Triune God, life-giving (holding nothing back/not contracepting) and faithful.

    Check out too — it’s a very informative site!


    • Thanks, Noelle.

      And could you please, as an old married lady (what are you, like 29?) address the comments on the validity of unmarried people advising couples on the wisdom ofmthenCurch’s teaching on marriage and sexual expression?


  5. kaitlyn moore permalink

    I know you’re busy, but my my curiosity won’t leave me alone.

    I’ve listened to some of the homilies you’ve posted. You’re very well spoken. What other duties make up your service to the church?

    – ministry to the poor?
    – ministry to people with drug and alcohol problems?
    – ministry to prisoners?
    – ministry to physically and mentally disabled?

    Are you passionate about helping people in any way that doesn’t involve human reproduction? Or is that your specific calling?

    It’s got to be easier to just throw a rant out to a sympathetic audience than to defend your point of view with substantive evidence.

    Ah, now I know why you have the moderation feature turned on.


    • I have moderation on mainly to prevent random postings by strangers. I’m pretty sure your last comment and mine are both out there.

      i’lll address your questions about my ministry later. We are 5,500 or so people in my parish. Some of my duties involve Ministry to the sick (you forgot them). Some involve ministry to the poor. Some (nor many) involve ministry to other constituencies.

      But as my reply to your last comment will point out ( it’s at 2 pages and climbing), there are hundreds/thousands/millions of us. I don’t have to do everything. I have to do the thing I’m called to do, and do it to the best of my ability. I don’t minister to pregnant young ladies (much). I don’t minister to prisoners. I don’t minister to children of divorced parents, except incidentally, nor do I minister to crack hoes down on Third St in Memphis (which is where they hang out).

      I just tell the truth. And the amazing thing is that the Truth really does set people free.

      Now I have to go finish my reply to your prior post. It will answer more than this does.


    • And you should look. Your comment wasn’t moderated.


    • Kaitlyn,

      FINALLY have time for this.

      See, you did what many people who disagree with what they THINK the Church teaches do: You threw all your grievances down on the table at once, with a “so, THERE!” flourish, looking to overwhelm me. It doesn’t. It just takes longer to respond. So let’s begin.

      Let’s go back to the basic premise of George Orwell’s book, 1984. The basic premise is that Big Brother is telling everyone what to think, how to think, and putting in place these huge penalties for thinking differently. Poor synopsis, but that’s the piece you brought to the table, so let’s go with it. While her delivery, and some of her content, were faulty (God does not “judge us for impure thoughts”; our sins separate us from Him by being obstacles to grace, but that’s another lesson), her basic message, there is nothing strange or weird about a representative of a 2,000 year old institution relating the experience of the lives of the tens of millions who have been a part of her. Frankly, I’ll take an “n” of 10,000,000+ over an “n” of 1 any day, if I am trying to make a decision about how best to live my life.

      The Orwellian aspect of our conversation is, rather, this: that you, as a representative of a, let’s just say *different*, advocacy group, are accusing the Church of doing something wrong by relating to you the Truth. You see…Big Brother isn’t God. He isn’t the Church. Big Brother, in our little drama, is whatever entity, force, cultural movement, however you want to identify it that has convinced you of the workability of the Big Lie. I call him Satan, because that’s what Scripture and the Church call him; you might not, because in the same breath you tell me that “what’s right for you isn’t necessarily right for me”, you will deny the existence of an entity like that. Funny thing: that’s part of the Big Lie. But again, that’s for another post.

      You say I’m a little “fixated with birth control”. Interesting observation. Perhaps I am, because it lies at the root of so many issues (and none of them are the ones that folks think like you seem to (judging from your later examples) think they are). You’re pretty good at whipping around (unsubstantiated) numbers, but let’s go with it. You said, “The people behind it pretend to be overly concerned about the women’s health aspects of hormonal contraception. Yes, health.” Then you went on to pull in other health issues, and asked if I was as concerned about those. Interesting maneuver, but off point. Briefly, yes, I am. And our 1.25 BILLION-member Church has people working on both clean drinking water AND food issues. The beauty of belonging to a family is that not everyone has to devote their life’s work to EVERY issue; we can work together to solve a BUNCH of things at once. But I digress (as did you).

      I’ll just answer by saying that no, they get neither as much attention nor as much outrage. They get, instead, my money and time. I can’t create access to drinking water for “800 million people”. In fact, I can’t do better than to give two bottles of water to the guy at the bottom of the off ramp to the expressway. And writing ten blog posts about the need for access to clean water and food will not add to the debate, because NO ONE thinks people should be denied either. People DO, however, think that ignoring the intrinsic value of a single life is OK, when it definitely ISN’T. So what good does it do for me to talk about it? Precisely this: I CAN have an impact by doing this. I can tell one person the Truth, and by doing so, hopefully help her. Or him. Thus, my investment here.

      See, Kaitlyn, this is the funny thing about artificial contraceptives: they kill people and ruin relationships. Wow…that sounds harsh, Deacon Chip. How can you say that?

      And that’s where the Big Lie starts to mess everything up.

      Because…if you haven’t given any thought to when human life actually begins (at conception, everything that will ever be true about the genetic make-up of that individual person is present, except for some mitosis; nothing else but nutrition and time get added, but again, another post), then knowing that one of the three mechanisms of actions of hormonal contraceptives is abortifacience. In other words, they cause the abortion (ending) of a pregnancy. This is not a problem if the products of conception are just a blob of tissue (cue: the Big Lie); of course, if they’re something else, we have a problem.

      Now…what if all three mechanisms (prevent ovulation, prevent fertilization, prevent implantation (remember, that’s the one I term “abortifacient”)) fail, Kaitlyn? Well, we have another problem! Sometimes (often…usually?), we view that problem as a medical one, requiring surgery. That surgery is what we term in Church-speak a “direct abortion”. Of course, what’s wrong with that? Nothing…if it’s just a blob of tissue that my contraceptive failed to prevent from implanting in my uterus. But what if it’s a life that just survived two attempts to prevent it coming into existence, and one to end it? Well…that’s another problem.

      Now, let’s leave the child out for a minute, and turn to the relationship question.

      The Church proposes that there is a right and a wrong way for people to relate to one another. It goes back to understanding who we are, as beings who are subjects, rather than objects, “someones” versus “somethings”.

      The Church proposes that we are all created to LOVE, and to be LOVED. Ultimately, we are created to know, to love, and to serve God in this life, and to be united with Him forever in heaven in the next, that is, if you believe in all that. We know we are created to love and to be loved, to be in relationship, because it is observably built into our make-up. Everyone longs to be in relationship with another “someone”, another subject who can respond to that love. Animals don’t fit that bill for us because, like Adam, we ultimately realize that they are not enough like us to be able to respond with the free, fruitful love that is human love (or at least is supposed to be). So the love to which we are oriented by our very nature is only possible with a complementary creature.

      The problem with that orientation to love and be loved is that it can turn into objectification, mutual utilitarian use for sensual enjoyment. And that, at root, is the problem. No human being is ordered to being used as a tool for another’s pleasure, enrichment, gratification, or labor-saving. And no matter what emotions one brings into a sexual relationship outside of marriage, the sexual act is going to speak, with “the language of the body”, sentiments that are at root a lie. Sexual intercourse is ordered to communicate, to “speak”, the free, total, fruitful, and faithful gift of each spouse to the other. A “hook-up” is none of those things. And contraception facilitates the Big Lie by helping to ensure that there are no “consequences” to a sexual act, thereby removing what used to be a natural deterrent to the misuse of the gift.

      Now, introduce contraception into a marriage. It now becomes possible for the spouses, who are supposed to be free, total, faithful and fruitful gifts to one another, to take a utilitarian approach toward their relationship. And now we see the gnawing away begin: now, spouses are “free” (have license – not the same thing) to treat each other as objects for their own sexual gratification, instead of as persons to be respected. This license demotes sexual intercourse between spouses to the same level as fornication, in that it isn’t ordered toward the other, as much as it is ordered to the self. Does it always end badly? No. But about half the time it does. How could I possibly know that? Look at the divorce rate. About half of all marriages end in divorce. About 75% of second marriages end in divorce. About 80% of third marriages end in divorce. Correlation, not causation, you say? I accept that critique. But it’s awfully suspicious to me that, when couples choose to NOT contracept, the divorce rate falls to something on the order of 4%. Probative? Not yet, I’ll admit. But it makes me wonder.

      So. Why do I spend so much time on the topic of contraception, and the right ordering of our sexual faculties? Because the greatest threat to our society is the destruction of the family. And though I am sure you will not get the reasoning behind it, contraception, and the attitudes toward life, toward marriage, toward children that it engenders, are at the root of that threatened destruction. And it’s all because of the Big Lie, in which we believe what we like, as if doing so changes reality. Contraception promotes a utilitarian approach toward the people in our lives. Contraception turns us inwardly toward ourselves. Contraception makes us believe we can live as we like. And when contraception (inevitably) fails (because life will struggle to survive, even against bad odds), it leads to the rationalization of the ending of a life. Which is bad for society.

      I’ll close with this. Slavery in the early history of our society was tolerated because the humanity of the Negro was placed in doubt. It was justified to enslave the Negro, because it was what he was ordered to; he wasn’t capable of learning, of reasoning, of participating in civil society. The Negro was just a dumb animal, ordered to use by superior beings (like white folks).

      Fortunately (for me; I would have made a bad slave), we woke up to the inhumanity of the practice of slavery, and the humanity of the slave. Thus, I have the chance to live a life free of the threat of capricious moves away from my family, of torture and even death at the whim of the White Man. I can be free to pursue what dreams I may have.

      But there are about 50,000,000 children who will never have that chance. And I lay their deaths at the feet of the contraceptive mentality that has facilitated the Big Lie. So why do I focus on it? Because people are dying physically, in the womb, because their mothers have bought the Big Lie. Because people are dying, spiritually, because they believe the load of crap, the Big Lie, that is being foisted on them. Because I care about your soul, the souls of the parishioners I serve, and the souls of all God’s children in the human race. You’ve been bamboozled, Kaitlyn. I am simply trying to wake you, and others, to the Truth.

      The empirical evidence in on my side. And from experience, whether you will admit it or not, what I propose rings true to you on some level. The Big Lie will try to force you to dismiss all I’ve laid out. But the Truth has a nasty habit of making itself known, and of wiggling its way into the consciousness of thinking people.

      All this screed isn’t designed to shout you down, Kaitlyn. We have so lost our philosophical framework, that it takes a novella to lay out foundational principles from which to have a discussion. I’m perfectly happy to debate this with you for as long as you care to remain engaged. I ask only that you stay on topic. No, I don’t expend my energy in pursuit of every just cause there is. But I will expend myself for this one. I hope something above has been of use to you.

      God bless.


    • Oh. One more thing.

      If you think I’m “ranting to a sympathetic audience”…you must go to a different Catholic Church than I’m a member of. I get far more glares than Attaboys when I talk or write about these things.

      Fortunately, I am not in this racket for.either or the approbation. There is little.of.either.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: