Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church in a year.

A thousand pages of awesome.

It’s with delight and excitement that I report the following:

YOU CAN GET THIS BOOK EMAILED TO YOU.

As part of the Roman Catholic Church’s impending Year of Faith, @CatechismAPI has partnered with flocknote.com to deliver the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church to your email inbox.

If you aren’t Catholic, but you’ve wondered what exactly it is that the Catholic Church teaches, this is your most convenient chance. And if you’re Catholic, how big this book is might concern you (mine’s about a thousand pages). But if you sign up, you’ll receive only a little of the book at a time, in one email a day from Oct. 11, 2012 through Nov. 24, 2013.

I signed up. Will you? Click here.

Comment of the day, 9/18/12 (re: saving sex!)

I believe it is important to reserve sex for marriage, but I also believe it is deeply flawed to put it in terms of ‘Saving it for my future spouse’.

I’m single. I hope there’s a future spouse in the picture–but I don’t know that. I’m not guaranteed that. ‘My future husband’ is a poor motivator, because he may not actually exist. I don’t want to struggle through self-control for decades in pursuit of a fantasy, only to end up burned out and bitter that it was all for nothing.

But if I ‘save sex’, as you put it, because I honor God (and not an imaginary man) with my body, and because I respect what He created sex to be–that’s a different story entirely. That’s a motivation that is sustainable through every season of life. That’s something that can actually lead me into gratitude and awe at the plan of God, rather than resentment for blessings seemingly withheld.

Thanks very much for bringing this perspective to the table.” -Amanda B., as commented today on I am not saving myself for marriage. (I’m saving sex.)

“Arleen Spenceley Writes About Sex.”

It was an honor this week to receive an email from fabulous fellow blogger Edmund Mitchell with an invitation to be interviewed for his blog. I answered questions for him last night. The finished product – a post called “Arleen Spenceley Writes About Sex” – appeared online today. Click here to read it (and to learn the role fried chicken played in my career).

Grateful for the opportunity. Thanks, Edmund!

Breaking up and making up.

In a substance abuse counseling class I took in the spring semester, I learned a lot about withdrawals.

“Withdrawal” is what happens to a person’s body and/or mind after he or she stops using certain drugs. Withdrawals could include the sweats and the shakes, nausea and diarrhea, insomnia and anxiety, depression and restlessness, a rapid heart rate, hallucinations, delirium tremens (DTs).

It sucks, in other words.

But the return to homeostasis (equilibrium) requires allostasis (the process by which the body achieves it).

And allostasis isn’t always easy.

This is (one of several reasons) why some people who are mid-withdrawal relapse before it’s over.

The discomfort starts as soon as the person calls it quits. And if the sudden absence of the drug is what triggered the discomfort, it is understandable that some people will go back to the drug. Going back to the drug alleviates the discomfort (but doesn’t give the user time to stop craving it).

This is not unlike what I sometimes watch happen when certain relationships end. And that is not to say people are addicted to each other (although sometimes that’s debatable).

But upon breaking up, a guy or a girl – especially the rejected, but often also the reject-er – grieves the loss of the relationship. There’s crying, and coming up with all the things you wish you’d said (or hadn’t). There’s emotional eating, or emotional not-eating, and heartache.

It sucks, in other words.

And I think this is (one of several reasons) why people do a lot of breaking up and making up (and breaking up and making up again, and again, and again). If the sudden absence of [insert applicable person’s name here] is what triggered the discomfort, it is understandable that some people will go back to him or her.

But is your response to rejection necessarily a good gauge for whether the relationship should have ended?

I’d say that it’s as good a gauge as withdrawals are for whether a user should have stopped using a drug.* Because the truth is, withdrawal symptoms are not signs that walking away from the drug was a bad idea. Withdrawal symptoms are natural, and necessary.

Grief over the end of a relationship, then,  is not necessarily a sign that walking away from it was a bad idea.

Grief is natural and necessary.

Give yourself time (to stop craving).

– – – –

*This is not to say that no couple that breaks up should ever ‘make up’. Many couples who break up can and do get back together for good reasons. This, however, is to say that the existence of post-break-up grief is not as sufficient a reason to resume a relationship as some people interpret it to be.

Updates, 9/13/12.

It is with gratitude and excitement that I report the following:

Big changes to the blog! [Insert celebratory air guitar solo.]

For the record, I made most of the changes awhile ago (so some of you may have noticed). But it’s time, officially, to announce them:

1. My URL is now arleenspenceley.com (but my old url – arleenspenceley.blogspot.com – still works!).

2. R.W. Harrison, a friend and colleague, graciously created a fabulous new site header for me. (If you’re reading this via Google Reader, click here to see the site’s new look!)

3. Friends of mine, mentors and siblings in Christ – Renee Johnson, Bob Rice, Abby Brundage, Brandon Vogt and Jesse Rice – each have endorsed my work, for which I am wholeheartedly grateful. Click here to read their blurbs about me (by which I’m sincerely moved).

Check out the changes and keep checking back.

And if I haven’t said it before, please know:

I am honored you read what I write, and so thankful for your support.