Why the Church Needs Gay People

With all the discussion about same sex marriage going on within the Church and in response to the culture, the aspect that tends to be overshadowed is the role that homosexuals can in the Church.  If they cannot be married, then what possible vocation and role can they have in the Church?  Is there any way they can feel at home in a place where they are so easily prone to feeling judged?

The Church does not ask anything greater from those with same sex orientation than it does from the rest of its believers–a life of virtue–chastity, temperance, faith.  It asks a life of sacrifice.  It asks a life lived outside of one’s self, thoughts, desires, and passions.

It asks the alcoholic to abstain from alcohol, the common believer to occasionally abstain from meet, and the unmarried to abstain from sex.  But what the Church asks homosexual individuals to abstain from can appear to those individuals as incredibly more hard than alcohol or meat–the Church asks them to sacrifice what the world holds as the only form of fulfilling love–sexual union.

And this itself is one of the greatest problems of the modern world–that the sexual union has come to overshadow the greater union, the greater love, between man and God.  Priests and religious are called to be the earthly examples of this greater love.  The Church teaches that men and women who are celibate for at least three years can join these vocations.  This would be an extremely challenging and sanctifying vocation for people with same sex attraction, but the person would need to be extremely strong in their chastity, as any fall from grace would be more scandalous than the common believer.  Thus the Church should seek to especially pray for, train, and encourage those men and women who find themselves in such a vocation.

Where we especially need these men and women however, is in the Single Vocation.  This is an especially challenging vocation because it is both the least accepted by the laity as well as the least taught by magesterium.  It is difficult to live a life in service to the Church when there is confusion about what that life should look like.

And this is why the Church needs gay people–to be an example and a light to the world about sacrifice, single-life, chastity, and holiness.  The Church needs a modern gay Saint.  The Christian Church, and the world need to know that a life of chastity can be lived, that God can be fulfilling, and that being help homosexual is not a sin, but can actually help one be holy.  They can also be examples of how the single life can be lived in the 21st century, and help other faithful believers, gay and straight, be more accepting and understanding of how to live that vocation.  If we can get even one homosexual man or women to live this life, they could not only show its possible, but make it attractive and convert others to live this life as well.

What can the Church and the faithful do to make gay people more welcome in the Church?  Is it possible for a homosexual to feel at home in the Church?  Am I being to idealistic with this idea?  Should homosexuals not be part of the Church?


The Feminized Liturgy: A Response to The Catholic Gentleman

The Catholic Gentleman recently posted his arguments about why the Catholic Liturgy has become somewhat more effeminate since Vatican II.  His basic argument seems to be that various changes in liturgical practice (music, vernacular language, female liturgical ministers, etc.) have caused the liturgy to be something that men have greater difficulty engaging in fully.  While I agree with some of his arguments, I believe that the problem has for more to do with the type of men we are raising, rather than the liturgy we are celebrating.

My theological leaning.

Since The Catholic Gentleman was kind enough to give you his spiritual bias, I shall give you mine as well.  I consider myself neither Liberal nor Conservative.  If pressed I would have to say I have conservative leanings.  I value Church Tradition and the authority of the Magesterium, but also see the value in theology as continually unfinished and the development of doctrine.  I prefer a relatively conservative liturgy, but dislike the Latin Mass as well those that I believe are fundamentally misguided in their interpretations of Vatican II.  I receive communion in-hand because I believe it represents the fullness of the sacrament and sacramentality of the Eucharist.  However, I always make sure I get all of Jesus off my palms.  I prefer modern hymns that I can sing along to, over Gregorian Chant or instrumental music, but as personal preference, prefer not to have modern Christian rock as part of the liturgy (however, I recognize that in certain situations, it may acceptable).

What we agree on.

I wholeheartedly agree with The Catholic Gentleman that abrogations, perversions, and misinterpretations have manifested themselves in the various liturgies of various parishes since Vatican II.  I agree that the liturgy has become overall less appealing to men, and that women have begun to “dominate” the various roles of the Church.  I also of course, agree with all the doctrinal and dogmatic principles implied and expressed in his post–that women should not be priests, that the Eucharist should be received with reverence, etc.

What I disagree with.

Perhaps it would be easiest to take this point by point:

1) The “Novus Ordo” lacks order: While I agree that the “New Order” Mass lacks the regimentation of the Tridentine Rite, I believe that the argument that it lacks a proper sense of order to be misleading.  Yes, the priest can choose various Eucharistic prayers, but that does not take away from the order of the ritual that is occurring.  Each mass is essentially the same with the same formula, the same parts, the same number of readings, the same Eucharistic Sacrifice.  Besides, even if it was less ordered, it would not necessarily make it less masculine.

2) The Role of Women in the Liturgy:  This one is hard for me to comment on, because I’m still trying to decide where exactly I stand, and a lot of this argument consists of nuance and distinction.  However, I agree with the point that involving women in the Liturgy in certain ways can cause it to be less masculine.  I also agree with the point that certain activities and practices should separate men and women.  Boys need boy time, girls need girl time.  I also, in general, tend to be against (or at least hesitant about) the use of any lay people (male or female) when not needed in the liturgy.  That being said, I realize that many times the participation of the laity in such ways is necessary and allowed for by the Church in said circumstances.  I also must ask the question–is the lack of men participating in the liturgy in this way a cause of the feminized liturgy, or is it a consequence of it?  Correlation is not causation.

3) The Music is too Sentimental–I partially agree with this, although I believe that much of the argument about this, as well as some other things that will come up, is about preference.  Some men may actually like some of the music that is played at Mass (and most of them are written by men).  Much of the modern worship music listened to by devoted youth could be considered “sentimental”, but still we have many young men giving their life to God because this music is drawing them to Him.  Furthermore (and more on this later), shouldn’t we be raising men who are OK with being sentimental at the appropriate times?  Does God not want us to embrace him with our emotions as well as our intellects and obedience?

4) The Orientation of the Priest–I think this is much about perspective as well.  I think as long as the priest maintains clear duties and roles separate from the people it should be clear that he is leading us.  Any lack of understanding from this is not inherent in the orientation of the priest, but rather in the catechesis, collective conscience, and paradigm of the people who seek to put the priest on same sacramental and ontological level as the congregation.  Don’t get me wrong, the priest is part of the community, but even more so he is the head of it, and by Holy Orders is “ontologically” different from the congregation.  Does it really matter which way he faces, or is it more about the faithful’s duty to educate about the role of priesthood?  As far as I can tell, Vatican II says its ok for the priest to face the congregation.  At some level we have to accept that.

5) The Ancientness is Lost—ummm… sorry, but my understanding is that we are still participating in the saving act of Christ on the Cross which happened once and for all two-thousand years ago.  The Mass we celebrate today (Yes, the Novus Ordo) has many of the same elements it had both in its Jewish roots, and as the early Church Fathers celebrated, which can be seen from the writings of Justin Martyr.  The Eucharistic prayers we use date back to the words of Paul or the very first believers in the middle east.  We still use the Sign of the Cross, say the “Nicean Creed, and have elements of the Mass in Latin and Greek.  That seems ancient enough for me.  Perhaps this is another case of perspective?  Either way, the focus of the Mass is the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is just as ancient as it will always be.

6) No More Latin–Yes, Latin is important and is a crucial part of the culture, spirituality, and sacredness of the Church.  However, that does not mean it is essential to the liturgy.  I actually prefer not to celebrate in Latin, because I believe the vernacular cultivates a higher degree of participation than the Latin.  In Latin Masses I get distracted trying to figure out what is going on, in vernacular Masses I am free to allow my full understanding of the words to lift me up into worship and assent my intellect to God.  Is that not what ritual, liturgy, and Sacrament, is suppose to do?  Latin is actually detrimental to some.  Perhaps the idea that it sounds masculine is another matter of perspective.

7) Sacrifice is Downplayed–OK, I’ll grant you this one.  In the majority of Parishes the liturgy has become some sort of “feel good” “coca-cola Catholicism” that doesn’t speak to the sacrificial nature of a Man’s heart.  Some places have still got it, and it is encouraging to still hear parishes that support a spirituality of suffering.  However, the Liturgy itself cannot be blamed for this because it is not a universal problem–it is a decorating and homiletics problem.  The Liturgy itself is still very clearly the sacrifice of Calvary, and any misunderstanding again comes from bad Catechesis or paradigms.

Concluding Thoughts (The Real Problem).

I truly appreciate the intent of The Catholic Gentleman in exploring this difficult topic and for putting himself out there humbly and with the best of purpose.  However, I propose that a different question is actually at stake.

Is the Liturgy more feminine than it used to be? Maybe… especially in certain parishes.

Is it a really a problem?  Only insofar as it is inauthentic to the true teaching of the Church and causes a Mass to be illicit or invalid or fails to call the community as a whole to authentic worship.  When priests and lay people disregard crucial elements of the faith and liturgy as a matter of either personal preference or as blatant disobedience when both should be subject to the authority of the Church.

What is the real problem here?  We are failing to raise and catechize adequate men.  We are simultaneously raising men who are too feminine (and thus “feminize” the liturgy) and men who cannot comprehend or rejoice in true beauty.  Men should be able to embrace the sentimentality of the Catholic Liturgy.  We need men who can cry in front of their children, or who can say “I Love You”, but we also need men who can sacrifice their lives not only on a major scale, but in the little everyday things.  We also need to Catechize our men (and perhaps even more so our women) on the role of priesthood, the value of sacrifice, and the virtue of obedience.  Finally, we need to treat women properly and with a clarity of purpose so that they start feeling less obligated to act like men.  The Mass is beautiful and true in any form because it is the efficacious sacrifice and communal worship of God.  But how many of today’s men see the truth for what it really is, even if they are Catholic?  The problem is not the liturgy, its that men have forgotten how to recognize beauty in the everyday and worldly, and for many, truth has lost its appeal except for in the very depths of their hearts, which they have forgotten how to listen to.

If I Speak with the Tongues of Angels…

There is something I’ve been wrestling with in the theological and vocational aspect if my life for a while: How should I “do” theology?

I am almost done with my masters in Systematics, and God willing, will get my Doctorate in it. I have a relatively sufficient philosophical background, probably an above average vocabulary, and when I put effort into it, the ability to write with a grandiloquent thickness often valued by the elite of academia. And indeed, this is the pull I feel from the institution at which I matriculate and most of my peers who are in the same field. My general perception is (and please tell me if I’m mistaken) is that those who are educated in theology should practice a “high theology” that celebrates theological distinctions with infinite regress and jargon “up the wazoo”. And I’ll admit, there is a necessary place for that–among the high-minded academics who’s job it is to discuss these issues. I am occasionally one of these, and I’m honored that I am gifted enough to be able to do so when needed.

However, most of what I write, especially online, is simply worded and simply put. This leaves me with somewhat of an interior dilemma: am I doing a disservice to my field if I remain simple and clear in my teachings?

An answer to my own question, and in an explanation as to why I prefer to speak on the level of the theologically “less educated”, is because I believe that good theology that properly evangelizes is spoken only in love. This includes meeting the audience where they are at and speaking to them in ways they can understand.

Jesus exemplified this by tailoring his teaching to his audience. When he was speaking with the priests and scribes he would use the passages they were familiar with and speak with their jargon. And he had the ability to impress them with his wisdom even at the young age of 12. However, the majority of the time he spoke to the “masses” and he used parables-simple analogies that used everyday life to communicate a basic truth. And while a different method of communication has been used by Greats like Aquinas, Rahner, and pretty much any church father (and rightfully so), other “theologians” whom I would consider influential spoke mostly with simplicity–the Gospel writers and C. S. Lewis to name a few.

Perhaps Lubac said it best: “Complication does not always indicate progress in thought…Obviously one must not…systematically reject every analysis, every distinction, every new precision which results from the need to avoid errors…But it must be admitted that often the force and even depth if a doctrine are more diminished than increased by over-enthusiasm.”

Regardless of whether you tend to speak “high” or “low” (and I cannot stress enough that both have their merits) what is essential is that when you speak, you so so with love. We speak not to praise ourselves, but to praise God and uplift our fellow believers. This is why theology and ministry/evangelization are so closely linked, and why the value of simple words or actions can not be mitigated.

Choice Without Freedom?

Freedom has become a loaded buzz word not only in the Church but also in politics, and especially in the dialogue between the two realms. In the secular sense, freedom has become nearly synonymous with choice, and we have lost the necessary distinction between the two.

So, can you have a choice without actually having freedom?

Pretend I have a daughter (I have not yet been blessed with children) and every night I say, “Abigail, you have a choice. You can go to bed now or in 10 minutes.” Is she really “free”? She has choice, but she has no control over the ultimate outcome. This shows that choice is not always the same thing as freedom.

So what is freedom? Rather, first we must ask… what is it not? Freedom is not the ability to choose what ever we want. In fact, this ability sometimes actually restricts our freedom. The most obvious way in which this secular notion of freedom is the example of addiction. When you choose something addicting it actually begins to control and enslave your future decisions, meaning you become less free in options because you can’t even conceive of choosing something else. This is what the Church (especially the early church and Paul) is talking about when it uses the language and imagery of sin as slavery. Addiction, sin, and vice keep us from choosing what actually makes us happy.

Thus, this is what the Church teaches is freedom–the ability to do the good, or in other words, the ability to choose that which makes us truly happy unimpeded by the shackles of sin. This is perfected when we can choose this quickly, easily, and joyfully… When we make it a good habit. A virtue. Therefore, true freedom is exemplified in the cardinal virtues, when one consistently chooses what is prudent, just, temperate, and courageous. If freedom is supposed to make one happy, than virtue is the way to be free. This is why the “truth will set you free“, it allows us to see the good, and thus choose it in virtue.

In my last post I talked of feminism. As pointed out by a reader, one of the major flaws in that post was that I didn’t give feminism credit for allowing women to “choose”. After considering this post, it becomes clear that feminism is good in so far as it gives freedom to women to become more fully feminine, but not all the choices women are given are good or enable them to be free. Abortion, birth control, and an over-obsession with succeeding in the work force, all could prevent a woman from choosing what is actually best for her and her family. And, before you cry bigot on me, these are all poor choices men can make as well.

One more note: I’ve recently been struggling with this issue of religious freedom…Is it a conservative agenda? What do they mean by religious freedom? Is it really in danger in America? I don’t think myself informed enough to authoritatively speak, but in the context of this discussion it would seem that, while Christian freedom is not in danger in the context of private worship, insofar as liberalism and secularism keeps the Christian from being able to choose the moral life, religious freedom is indeed in jeopardy.


Feminism: The Good, Bad, the Lie.

Radical Feminism is a cancer of the modern church…and one that has gone largely undiagnosed (and is even championed) in today’s society. It is at least partially to blame for many of the moral crises society faces and is a perversion of truth. So what is it about feminism that makes it so dangerous yet appealing? Is there anything good about feminism in general?

The Good

Like cancer feminism grows from a cluster of normally life-giving cells and mutates, perverts, and grows them into something damaging and contagious to the larger organism.

The radical feminism we have today has grown from something beautiful and life-giving to the church–Feminine Sexuality and Dignity. Without this sexuality the church would literally be lifeless, as women would not have as many children. Without this feminine spirituality families and households in the church would start to degrade. Sound familiar?

Women and femininity are of essential importance to the survival of the Church, and so to think that the church doesn’t value or treat women well is mostly a misconception. Granted, the church has made mistakes in the past about how it communicates the role of women, and an authentic “feminist theology” has yet to be adequately developed–this we must admit if we are going to get anywhere–but the importance of women in the church, from the time of Mary and continuing through to the parousia, cannot be under-stressed, especially by a hierarchy that is necessarily and permanently patristic.

The Bad

What are some of the assumptions that modern feminism asserts and how are they damaging? Sometimes these assumptions are stated explicitly, but most often they’re implicit. Some radical feminists may even deny believing these assumptions even though they essential to upholding their other beliefs.

(Note: my intent in discussing these are not to condemn feminists, I don’t even realistically expect to change their mind.  Rather, I merely aim to raise awareness, both among feminists, those who are apathetic about it, and those who are uninformed about it, as an attempt to help them engage in introspection and examination of their beliefs which often times people don’t adequately practice today.)

Women are the Same as Men— Modern Radical Feminists don’t just want to be equal to men, in many ways they want to be the same as them. They want to lead in the same way, parent in the same way, even love in the same way. For some reason they don’t realize that they can be equal without being the same. The unfortunate side effect of this position is that, not only women are completely destroying what makes them unique (and thus special), but they are ironical affirming that the masculine lifestyle is the best. Instead if reclaiming the strength if the truly feminine, they are simultaneously criticizing and grasping for what they see to be the only strength–masculinity.

All Men oppress women–Most feminist women will also inherently believe that men oppress women. The first effect of this is that even the good acts of men (ie. chivalry) become seen as tools of oppression, thereby removing any chance men have to redeem themselves. Furthermore, this leads to the common belief among women that all men are pigs, leading them to preemptively be on the defense. In a sense, feminist women are looking for a fight from men, perhaps as an attempt to validate their own preconceptions.

(If you disagree with me about these feminist preconceptions, please comment so we can dialogue)

The Lie

There exists inside most many women, to varying degrees, two disparate and opposing desires. The first is the desire of the world, to be powerful and respected in the same fashion as men. The second is the desire of the spirit, to be loved, powerful, and respected as a woman. The first is the desire to control–to dominate, emasculate,and be served– the second to be more fully “self”–to be beautiful, romanced, and alluring. The reason why these two desires compete is because Feminism is a lie.
We’ve addressed up above two of the lies that Radical Feminists believe, but there are some practices that are more insipid lies than those above, and women are only hurting themselves by believing them.

The primary and most damaging lie (yes even more so than abortion) of “women’s rights” is birth control. It is most ironic because while women believe it gives them the “freedom” to be unburdened by children and allows for “sex without consequences”, not in the last 100 years has there been a tool more efficient for male domination of women. If women can have sex with no emotional attachment or commitment involved, then so can men, and women become only a sexual object for men to use and discard. You want to explain the rise in divorce, infidelity, premarital sex, infertility, breast cancer, and teenage pregnancy? BC is the primary cause. Just take a look at everything your doctor doesn’t tell you about BC, check and see if your motives for taking it aren’t actually selfish, and then, make an informed decision about whether or not to use it. The good news is the Natural Family Planning method has become more effective than condoms (99% when done correctly), has been shown to promote a .2% divorce rate among users, leads to more satisfying sex, and takes only training and some will-power.

Feminism, while based on the truth that women are deserving of dignity, equality, and posses a special and valuable uniqueness, has damaged church and society. We need both women and men to examine their beliefs and practices to ensure that they are not participating in a worldview that, while attractive, will leave the Church lacking in authentic feminine spirituality.  We need to reclaim true feminist theology for the Christian Church, uphold the glory and dignity of women (especially in their uniqueness from men), and develop and increase their role in the Church without compromising the necessary traditions. We can do it together, not divided.

Is Religion Disappearing?

Recently, “noted” biopsychologist Nigel Barber published a “study” saying that by 2041, religion will be all but irrelevant to the majority of people, and the rest of us who still believe will just be viewed as silly, poor, crutch-wielding, peasants eating the scraps of more the more “civilized” (or “evolved”?) and wealthy of societies finest.

Lets examine 2 of the assumptions embedded in this study, and a couple problems he seems to overlook.

1) Religion is only for the uneducated, poor, and “loud”–Giving a shout out to all those who think religion is just a crutch or an opiate, Barber conducts and interprets the study from the viewpoint that religion is beneath him–probably because he’s a hotshot scholar who is so successful at life, that he doesn’t need religion.  Consider his quote, ““…Yet, noisy as they can be, such groups are tiny minorities of the global population and they will become even more marginalized as global prosperity increases and standards of living improve.”  In his view, religious believers are already in the minority, and though they are loud, they hold no real influence into the ways of the world.  According to him, they are already on their way out.  Is it possible that he conducted a study that was unbiased enough to show accurate results, or did he just conclude what he wanted to see?

2) Wealth is the Antithesis of Religion–Well duh… it doesn’t take a Ph.D. in anything to figure this one out.  Jesus was saying it from the very beginning of his ministry.  Why does wealth decrease religious devotion?  Because whereas wealth is mostly centered on the “I” (what I can have for myself), religion is mostly centered on the “other” (how can I serve, Christ, Allah, Yahweh).  So yes… obviously as wealth increases in a country, religion decreases…. the only reason you would find this a good thing is if you hate religion already.  I would like to believe there are still those “unbelievers” who, while atheist themselves, think that religion has its merits and should generally stick around in one form or another.

3) Causation Vs. Correlation–This scientist is breaking one of the first rules they teach you in science–Correlation is not Causation.  In other words, just because B follows A, doesn’t mean A causes B. Therefore, just because religion declines as wealth increases, doesn’t mean that wealth causes (at least not exclusively, completely, or definitively) the decline in religion.  Yes they are correlated, but that does not mean the increase in one will lead to the decrease in the other, only that there is some common factor which to some extent influences both.  There are rich people who are religious, and there always will be.  Just because wealth increases, does not mean that religion will become inconsequential.

4) The Foundation of Civilization–This is “speculative”, but I don’t believe that society as we know it, as a functioning body of people gathered collectively as a nation, would be able to flourish without religion.  I a sense, our country would destroy itself and some sort of anarchy or mini-apocalypse would ensue.  This could look something along the lines of what happened to Rome (and many other civilizations), and there are numerous theories about how a country’s “deteriorating moral fiber” can cause it’s society to crumble.  While this doesn’t mean that religion won’t disappear, it does mean that if it does, it won’t result in an awesome society where everyone is happy because they’re atheists.

5) Religion’s Influence–Religion cannot be erased or become irrelevant because of its inherent influence in relation to the human person.  From a historical perspective, religion’s influence has become inseparable from our history, development, and human narrative–it has been present in various forms since the rise of civilization, has shaped both the good and the bad of human thought, both hindered and saved technology.  Whether you think religion is good or bad in and of itself, it has become an inseparable part of the human experience.  Even deeper than that however, religion (at least in a broad sense) is actually intrinsically connected to human nature.  While it may be feasible that someday particular religions will “die out”, the human person’s orientation towards the “religious” will never die out.   This is not to say that every person believes in a “higher power” and worships it, but rather that humans in general tend to 1) believe in something greater than themselves (love, money, power, etc.), and then 2) orient their lives around it.  This is religion in the broad sense, and because it is so deeply ingrained in us as humans, there is some part of religious sentiment that will never truly leave us, even if we deny it.

So what do you think about this study?  Do you think he’s correct?  Or do I think I’m correct (for either the right or wrong reasons?

Love is love?

There is an axiom going around that I think needs examining if we are going to continue to use it–especially for Catholics. The axiom is “love is love”, and while it is most often used to support same sex marriage, there are many implications that we need to examine if Christians are going to use it responsibly.

The Essence of Love

Of course on some level this axiom holds true–there are some things that all love has in common. All “true” love is 1) allowing the “other” to influence your actions, 2) wanting the best for the other, and 3) committing to the good of the other.

In other words, all love is Love when we allow it to commit us to the best possible treatment of the one which we love.

What Love is Not

Love is not just a feeling, although it should be at times.
Love is not all about sex, but all sex should be about love (a notion that is nearly gone in secular society)
Love is not giving a person whatever they want or never telling them no.
Love is not always easy, it is sacrifice, sometimes painful, and counter-intuitive after someone has hurt you.

Yet society, in general, says that love is all these things at one time or another.

Different Forms of Love

The most obvious way in which this saying falls apart is that there are different forms of love which are neither same nor equal.

The Greeks distinguished between at least three types of love–unconditional, passionate/sexual, and brotherly. Tradition teaches about a self-giving, oblative love, and a more possessive, sublative love. Even the individual, in their everyday experience, can recognize that, barring some psychological abnormality, one loves their sister differently than their wife, and their brother differently than their “neighbor”. And yet, ideally, we love them all.

Nor are these loves equal (which is different than being the same)–love of family is higher than love of stranger, love of spouse higher than love of brother, and love of God above all other loves. To say that all loves are equal is to say it is just as important to love God as it is the the man who mugged you. Both are important, but one flows from the other and it is more important to have a good foundation before you raise the walls or decorate the room.

Thus, the implication of, and problem with “love is love”, is that it’s a short hop to “all love is the same (or equal)”.

“Love is Love” and Society

What are the effects of this axiom that we see manifested in our society today?

Parenting–Parents don’t know exactly how to love their kids.  Should they do what’s actually best for them and risk being “hated” during the teen years, or should they spoil them and give them what they want?  Should they be their parents, or their best friends?  Does it matter? After all… love is Love, right?

Sex–Not only has sex been separated from love (because according to society, sex is 100% about pleasure) and now its generally not frowned upon to have sex with someone you don’t actually love.  Sex has become about pleasing one’s self.  Still, we WANT to have sex with people we are attracted to (and thus love), so sex isn’t completely separated from love…but there seems to be a blurring of boundaries crossed.  I’ll just leave that as that, for now.

Marriage/Divorce–Marriage, if entered into at all now in the secular world, has become a temporary engagement (pardon the pun?).  It has been something you only do for as long as you feel love.  There is no understanding that marriage is about Eros (your spouse as your lover), Agape (Loving your spouse UNCONDITIONALLY), and Philia (yes, even your spouse as your brother/sister) and once the eros fades the marriage ends.  Society has begun to think that your “soul-mate” is the one who makes you feel the best, rather than the one that will make you the holiest (and thus challenge you the most).

There are others, I am sure, but this is enough for now.  While “love is Love” in some senses of the word, I hope that Christians will start thinking about its implications before using it or accepting it in a argument.  Don’t just speak–think.