Posted on

Is your love mature or immature?

It took three years and three tries to read (and comprehend) Love and Responsibility, the epic book by John Paul II that made my world a better place.

It took fewer than 24 hours to read Men, Women and the Mystery of Love: Practical Insights on John Paul II’s Love and Responsibility by Edward Sri (which, as of tonight, is the twentieth book I’ve read in full in 2012!).

Men, Women and the Mystery of Love makes the same fabulous points Love and Responsibility does, but uses modern language, fewer words, and less paper. It’s Love and Responsibility explained, and its subtitle isn’t kidding: it is totally practical.

While I wholeheartedly implore anyone – Protestant or Catholic, denominational or non, male or female, in church or out – who is now or might someday be a spouse to read Love and Responsibility, Sri’s explanation of it is a close second, an easier-to-read (and quicker!) alternative to hold you over until you can read the real thing. But for now, read on for some of my favorite insights:

On friendship:

“According to Aristotle, there are three kinds of friendship based on three kinds of affection that unite people. First, in a friendship of utility, the affection is based on the benefit or use the friends derive from the relationship. … Second, in a pleasant friendship the basis of affection is the pleasure one gets out of the relationship. One sees the friend as a cause of some pleasure for himself. This friendship is primarily about having fun together. … Aristotle notes that while useful and pleasant friendships are basic forms of friendship, they do not represent friendship in the fullest sense. Useful and pleasant friendships are the most fragile. They are the least likely to stand the test of time because when the mutual benefits or fun times no longer exist, there is nothing left to unite the two people.” -pages 12-13

“For Aristotle, the third form of friendship is friendship in the fullest sense. It can be called virtuous friendship because the two friends are united not in self-interest but in the pursuit of a common goal: the good life, moral life that is found in virtue. The problem with useful and pleasant friendships is that the emphasis is on what I get out of the relationship. However, in the virtuous friendship the two friends are committed to pursuing something outside themselves, something that goes beyond each of their own self interests. And it is this higher good that united them in friendship.” -pages 14-15

“With this background in mind, John Paul II gives us the key that will prevent our relationships from falling into the self-centered waters of utilitarianism. He says the only way two human persons can avoid using each other is to relate in pursuit of a common good, as in the virtuous friendship.” -page 15

On friendship in marriage:

“Pope John Paul II reminds us that true friendship, especially friendship in marriage, must be centered on the bond of a common aim. In Christian marriage, that common aim involves the union of the spouses, the spouses serving each other and helping each other grow in holiness, and the procreation and education of children.” -page 16

“John Paul II explains that being united in this common good helps spouses ensure that one person is not being used or neglected by the other. ‘When two different people consciously choose a common aim this puts them on a footing of equality, and precludes the possibility that  one of them might be subordinated to the other’ (28-29). This is so because both are equally ‘…subordinated to that good which constitutes their common end’ (28-29).” -pages 16-17

On the sexual urge:

“…the sexual urge is not an attraction to the physical or psychological qualities of the opposite sex in the abstract. John Paul II emphasizes that these attributes only exist in a concrete human person. For example, no man is attracted to blonde or brunette in the abstract. He is attracted to a woman – a particular person – who may have blonde or brunette hair.” -page 23

“The reason John Paul II emphasizes this point is that he wants to show how the sexual urge ultimately is directed toward a human person. Therefore, the sexual urge is not bad in itself. In fact, since it is meant to orient us toward another person, the sexual urge can provide a framework for authentic love to develop.” -page 24

On sensuality:

When “a man is attracted physically to the body of a woman, and a woman is attracted to the body of a man, (the pope) calls this attraction to the body sensuality.” -page 32

“…an initial sensual reaction is meant to orient us toward personal communion, not just bodily union. It can serve as an ingredient of authentic love if it is integrated with the higher, nobler aspects of love such as good will, friendship, virtue or self-giving commitment.” -page 33

“Especially in a highly sexualized culture like ours, we are constantly bombarded with sexual images exploiting our sensuality, getting us to focus on the bodies of members of the opposite sex.” -page 37

On freedom:

“…freedom is given for a purpose, for the sake of love. God gave us freedom so that we could choose to live for others, not just ourselves. The purpose of freedom is not to equip us to live a selfish life, slavishly pursuing whatever pleasurable desires come our way. We have freedom so that we can choose to rise above those self seeking passions and commit ourselves to other persons, serving them and their needs.” -page 64

“Matthew Kelly writes in his book The Seven Levels of Intimacy: ‘But in order to love, you must be free, for to love is to give your self to someone or something freely, completely, unconditionally, and without reservation. It is as if you could take the essence of your very self in your hands and give it to another person. Yet to give your self – to another person, to an endeavor, or to God – you must first possess your self. This possession of self is freedom. It is a prerequisite for love, and is attained only through discipline. This is why so very few relationships thrive in our time. The very nature of love requires self-possession. Without self-mastery, self-control, self-dominion, we are incapable of love… The problem is we don’t want discipline. We want someone to tell us that we can be happy without discipline. But we can’t. … The two are directly related.” -page 66

On immature love versus mature love:

“When love is immature, the person is constantly looking inward, absorbed in his own feelings. Here, the subjective aspect of love reigns supreme. He measures his love by the sensual and emotional reactions he experiences in the relationship.” -page 79

“A mature love, however, is one that looks outward. First, it looks outward in the sense that it is based not on my feelings, but on the honest truth of the other person and on my commitment to the other person in self giving love. The emotions still play an important part, but they are grounded in the truth of the other person as he or she really is (not my idealization of that person). … Second, a mature love looks outward in the sense that the person actively seeks what is best for the beloved. The person with a mature love is not focused primarily on what feelings and desires may be stirring inside him. Rather, he is focused on his responsibility to care for his beloved’s good. He actively seeks what is good for her, not just his own pleasure, enjoyment and selfish pursuits.” -pages 79-80

– – – –

Click here to learn more about Men, Women and the Mystery of Love.

Disclosure: This post contains affiliate links. So, if you click the links and purchase the products I recommend, I earn a little commission at no extra cost to you. And when you do, I am sincerely grateful.

Posted on

Books in 2012: Bible Basics for Catholics.

A week ago, at a Life Teen core team* meeting, each core member received a copy of Bible Basics for Catholics: A New Picture of Salvation History by John Bergsma, a convert to Catholicism, biblical scholar and professor at Franciscan University of Steubenville. As of tonight, it’s the nineteenth book I’ve read in full in 2012.

The book is, in Bergsma’s words, “a whirlwind tour of the biblical storyline.” The author draws out the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and new covenants (figuratively, but also literally, using stick figures) and ties them each to each other and to what he calls the Eucharistic covenant (which is the new covenant. “However,” Bergsma wrote, “for the sake of learning salvation history, I like to call it the ‘New’ when it’s being prophesied and ‘Eucharistic’ after its fulfillment.”).

The book is equal parts incredibly easy to read and incredibly informative. And I may or may not have thrown a fist in the air in a fit of joy and shouted “boom shocka locka” when I finished reading the part about what Jesus did for us. How awesome is He? Just sayin’.

Here are some of my favorite excerpts:

On each of the covenants to be discussed in the book:

“When the priest prays at mass, ‘Time and again you offered them covenants,’ it means, ‘God repeatedly tried to make us his family.'” -page 4

 On the arrival of woman:

“The Bible tells us there was found no ‘helper fit for (Adam)’ among the animals, so the LORD put him into a deep sleep and made the woman for him out of his rib. The next morning when Eve was brought to Adam, he bursts out in rather nice poetry:

Bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.

Some consider this to be the first poetry found in the Bible. Through it, we see the civilizing effect that Eve has on Adam. Up to this point, he’s just been sitting around naming animals: ‘Dog!’  ‘Ape!’ ‘Salamander!’ Now he sees this woman, and he becomes the Bard, belting out sonnets in iambic pentameter (well, not quite, but you get the point). Perhaps the author wants to point out that the arrival of woman is a high point in God’s creation, and that woman brings out the best in the man.” -pages 23-24

On Adam’s roles:

“This gives us our final portrait of Adam according to Genesis 1-2: firstborn son, king, priest, prophet and bridegroom.

 So what’s the point? Why bother talking about Adam’s roles? We began this chapter with the question, ‘What is the meaning of life?’ What is our purpose here on earth? The Bible addresses this question in the first chapters, by painting a picture of Adam that is a model for every human being. All of us are called to be sons (or daughters) of God, and therefore kings (queens), priests, prophets, and bridegrooms (brides).” -page 25

On sin:

“…the line between good and bad does not run cleanly between groups of people; it runs down the center of each person. Sin has infected every human being. St. Paul puts it like this: ‘All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God’ (Rom. 3:23)…” -page 44

On the significance of the Temple:

“For the ancient Israelite worshiper, the importance of the Temple can hardly be overemphasized. The Temple was a standing reminder of the covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and David. It summed up all salvation history and represented all God’s relationships with his people. There was nothing greater than the Temple except God himself. Many years later, Jesus will describe his own presence by saying, ‘Something greater than the Temple is here’ (Matt. 12:6). When we understand how great the Temple was, we realize Jesus was claiming to be God.” -page 106

An important comparison between Jesus and Isaac:

“Calling Jesus ‘the Son of Abraham’ sets up a comparison between Jesus and Abraham’s son Isaac. The parallel is strong, especially when we think of the most important event in Abraham and Isaac’s life: the near-sacrifice on Mount Moriah. We have already discussed how this was a ‘mime’ of Calvary: the one-and-only-son carried the wood of his sacrifice up the mountain, where he is laid on the wood and offered to God out of love for his father.” -page 132

A summary:

“At the end of this book, we can now make a summary of the message of the Bible: the sonship Adam once enjoyed with God has been restored to us by Jesus Christ. Just as God breathed the ‘breath of life’ into the nostrils of Adam and made him a living being, so through baptism Jesus shares with us the ‘Spirit of Life,’ the Holy Spirit that makes us living children of God.” -page 154

And back to Adam’s roles and what significance they have for us:

“Our faith teaches us that, as children of God through Christ, all the rights and privileges of Adam have been restored to us. Like Adam, we can call God ‘Father’ (Luke 3:38). As royalty, we rule over our passions and possessions, rather than being ruled by them. As prophets, we speak God’s word to the people around us. As priests, we offer our very lives on a daily basis, as a ‘living sacrifice’ for the salvation of the whole world. Finally, as grooms and brides, we find our love and joy in embracing our true Spouse every time we come forward to receive communion.” -page 155

– – – –

Click here to learn more about Bible Basics for Catholics.

* The Life Teen core team is the group of adults who help the youth minister at church run our youth group. I joined the core team this summer. Click here to see how awesome our teens are (and click here to learn more about our ministry).

Posted on

Sex ed: abstinence only?

Whilst browsing the interweb recently, I stumbled upon a column called “‘Abstinence Only’ Exposed as Subversive of Actual Evangelical Values” by best-selling author Frank Schaeffer.

It’s def worth the read. In it, Schaeffer sums up a book he read, called Making Chastity Sexy: The Rhetoric of Evangelical Abstinence Campaigns by Christine J. Gardner, which I really want to read now. In his analysis of the book, Schaeffer – who agrees with what Gardner wrote – makes several points, including these: that abstinence only programs make sketchy promises and, in the long run, don’t achieve what they’re designed to achieve.

Schaeffer says:

“…abstinence only programs like True Love Waits, Silver Ring Thing, and the Pure Freedom are selling virginity as a sexy choice of personal affirmation using consumerist techniques that are promising ‘better sex,’ in fact ‘great sex’ and perfect marriages if virginity is maintained as a ‘gift’ for the prince or princess …”

I have never been to a legit True Love Waits rally, nor to Silver Ring Thing or Pure Freedom events (although I did play the part of “teen 1” in a radio ad for a Silver Ring Thing rally on Spirit FM, the radio station where I interned in college. Memories!). But from what I’ve heard and gathered, what Schaeffer says is true. The teens who sign the pledge and buy the rings often are told that because they wait, sex for them will be “amazing,” and better, in fact, than the sex their friends have who aren’t waiting.

Amazing in what way?

Better how?

No one defines these terms, so the assumption – and naturally so – is usually that if one saves sex for marriage, sex will (instantly and intuitively) be fabulous, as early as the wedding night.

The problem with this is twofold.

1. When the focus is on how the reward for waiting is sex that’s more gratifying than other peoples’ sex,  it promotes “world sex” (or the phrase I just now made up to describe sex as the world sees it). To quote what I wrote about it in a column for RELEVANTmagazine.com,** “its primary purpose is pleasure, and it is often utilitarian in practice (‘I’ll use you, you’ll use me, and it is good as long as both of us enjoy it.’).” World sex, therefore, does not always require love, and isn’t necessarily selfless, which is the ultimate reason we – and by we, I mean people who worship Jesus Christ and follow his teachings – choose not to participate in it. Anyway, my point is this: If in promoting “saving sex for marriage” our primary focus is on the pleasure (i.e., how much of it, or how much more of it, we’ll experience if we’ve waited), what we imply (even if unintentionally) is that the primary purpose of sex is the pleasure, and that the reward for waiting is maximized pleasure. But a) not necessarily, and b) there is so very much more to this than that.

and

2. When abstinence only organizations promise people knock-your-socks-off sex (in terms of physical pleasure) at marriage because they waited, there are a lot of people who’ll be pretty disappointed on their wedding nights. Obvs, I don’t know this from personal experience, but there are some fabulous people who have courageously stepped up and said a) sex will not necessarily initially or always be effortlessly gratifying, b) just because you save sex for marriage doesn’t mean sex will be “amazing” right away and c) that it is ok if it isn’t. People need to hear this.***

So this brings us to sex education.

How much information should young people be given about sex? And what kind of information? Is the amount and kind of information given in abstinence only programs enough?

In his column, Schaeffer calls out abstinence only education for falling short of actually teaching about sex, and for not accomplishing what it sets out to accomplish. He says:

“The abstinence only program not only fails but sets up young people to fail doubly. First, as the book notes, at best sexual activity is delayed only by a few months or years and then when the young person enters into sexual relationships, they are more exposed to pregnancy and venereal disease, not less.”

His point, and the book’s point I think, is that kids who signed the pledge but had sex anyway are more likely to conceive a child, more likely to acquire an STI because, a person who pledged not to have sex didn’t plan to have sex and as such, isn’t prepared to have sex “safely.” And that’s true. (For the record, I am not for the use of contraception, but that’s for another post.)

And so in my observation, people who aren’t proponents of abstinence only education are often in favor of the kind of sex ed that involves free condoms. But do we only have two choices?

I think there is probably something better in the middle. Something that covers the biology and spirituality and psychology involved. We act like if we talk about sex with young people, young people are going to go have sex right now. But do you think sex is treated the way sex is treated in our culture because too many kids got good sex talks?

Maybe it isn’t because kids know a lot about sex that they decide to have sex. Maybe kids decide to have sex because they don’t know enough about it. And – here’s where else we have to step up – maybe kids decide to have sex because they don’t know enough about love.

– – – –

*Click here to read Frank Schaeffer’s column.

**Click here to read the “erotica in Christianity” column I wrote for RELEVANTmagazine.com

***Click here to read one woman’s story about sex as a challenge.

Posted on

Our call to counter-intuitive love: How do we respond to people who commit crimes?

Last month, I stumbled upon a blog by a guy named Chris Schumerth. From it, I found a column he wrote for a newspaper, about his brother Shane.

On March 6, 2012, the principal at the Jacksonville school where Shane taught Spanish fired him. Shane left the grounds, but returned with a gun and fatally shot the principal and himself.

“Given the tragic events at Episcopal School of Jacksonville on March 6, it is certainly fair for the impacted communities to have questions about who Shane Schumerth was and why he would do what he did,” Chris wrote. ” … But like so many questions, perhaps the first step to answering who Shane was is to pose another question: Which Shane Schumerth are we talking about?”

Chris went on to tell Shane’s story–a truer story than the one our culture might have told about him otherwise.

What Chris wrote really moved me, and I invited him to write with me about why true stories like his brother’s are important. He agreed:

Arleen: Last month, I watched a video of James Holmes in a jailhouse jumpsuit in a courtroom, accused of killing 12 and injuring 58 others in the movie theater shooting in Colorado. After I watched it, I overheard somebody else who saw it share his opinion of Holmes: “What a piece of trash.”

A couple years ago, in the middle of the night, I watched Tampa cops corral the crowd that surrounded a man named Dontae Morris. Morris was in cuffs, arrested for fatally shooting two police officers. A cop led him through the crowd, from the police station to a squad car on live TV. The crowd erupted. People yelled obscenities. Shouted “dead man walking.” Spat at him.

The affected (directly and indirectly) respond. There is anger and grief. There are calls for justice (if not retribution). In it all, there is commentary. The community calls it as it sees it: “The perpetrator deserves the needle. Is scum. Evil. A monster. A loser. A street rat. A piece of trash.”

But in the wake of a tragedy, one truth unchanged by it is forgotten: The perpetrator is a person.

Chris: First of all, I should say that in the aftermath of my brother’s death, my family’s experiences with Episcopal High School in Jacksonville have been positive ones. They have honored Shane’s humanity and respected that we, too, were experiencing loss. But that does not in any way diminish what you say; the kind of discourse you mention is very common and real.

You hint–correctly, I think–that the anger serves as a way for people to cover up their pain or vulnerability. We certainly can understand those feelings after something like Aurora. People have lost someone they care about (or at least are reminded of a time when they did) and they feel more scared about the world they live in, so they lash out. Our cries for retribution are often just that: a way for us to not have to feel our own weakness or tenderness. It’s easier to hate than it is to say “You hurt me,” isn’t it? I have certainly been guilty of this myself at various points in my life, more often than I’d like to admit.

To offer up another situation for comparison, think about the sex scandal at Penn State. It is certainly right to advocate for victims and to seek some sort of justice for those who either acted violently or inappropriately with children, or knew it was happening. But too much of the discourse–both publicly and privately–is so much more than that. It’s dehumanizing. We forget that even criminals have fears, insecurities, questions, dreams, and perhaps what we might be able to connect with the most, pain. People don’t just wake up one day and decide to kill someone. There is a whole series of complexities that lead a person there. This does not in any way “excuse” a crime like murder or rape or terrorism, but I think there is a certain way we can talk about people that honors their dignity. And I also think there is a drastic difference between disciplining or convicting from a position of love–which is possible but difficult, for sure–and doing those things from hate, which is what usually happens.

Sometimes it doesn’t even take death or tragedy for us to resort to this kind of oral or written dehumanization; it may just be that a person is on the other side of the political spectrum. Listen to certain Democrats talk about Rush Limbaugh or Republicans about President Obama, and too often you will hear language that suggests there are no redemptive qualities whatsoever about the person in question. If policy disagreements are enough for us to completely dismiss other people, you can imagine that we only escalate when a tragedy occurs.

Arleen: Sincerely. And I think it’s counter-intuitive in our culture to imagine after a tragedy that the person responsible for it had a childhood, hobbies, a personality, a sense of humor, a family that loves him or her no matter what. It’s counter-cultural to admit that he or she has dignity, let alone to talk about him or her in a way that honors it.

Instead, we rob them of their humanity, and of their intrinsic value. We reduce them to trash or we spit on them (often even we who aim to model our lives after Christ’s, who would never do that). We are afraid, really, to relate to them (and when we deny their humanity, disregard their value and distort the truth about them, we don’t have to admit that we can.).

But if we don’t let ourselves relate, how can we forgive? How can we reconcile? How can we love? To which (my gut says) the world would respond with this: Why should we?

Maybe we should love because love is what we’re made for. Or because a crime does not erase the humanity or dignity of the person who commits it. Or because in acknowledging that people who commit crimes can be loved (and by loving them), we model the kind of love the world desperately needs.

Chris: It’s interesting that you mention Christ, who was betrayed, spit on, whipped, and crucified. Real love and forgiveness certainly are counter-intuitive in our own culture, but these things are more perennial than we’d like them to be. The human condition is, indeed, very fallen. Still, it’s sad, and we all feel the effects in our broken relationships.

We particularly feel the effects when we are the ones dehumanized or dismissed–some people unfortunately spend their entire lives there–but I think we also lose when we do the dismissing. I recently read a book called The Wisdom of Stability by Jonathan Wilson-Hargrove, and I was struck by his referring to people as “gifts.” I grew up in the church, and yet, why hadn’t I been taught that, or better yet, why hadn’t it been instilled in me? That I am a gift, and so, too, are the people in my life around me. Too often we treat each other as burdens, and that message gets ingrained into our psyche. If Shane had believed and known with his whole being what a gift he was, he wouldn’t have done what he did. It is certainly not all my responsibility, but in some ways Shane’s final act was as much my failure as his own.

Yes, we are flawed, blatantly so. We will make mistakes, hurt each other. And if we’re going to talk about love and respect and dignity and forgiveness, let’s not be naive. It takes a ton of work to forgive. You don’t just take two warring sides the day after a huge battle and have them hug and sing Kumbaya together. Not to mention, it takes two willing sides to reconcile, and it’s usually hard enough to find one. A willing individual or family or community or nation is ready to put in the intentional time and effort and heartache to work things out together. That’s a lot different from what we usually see, which is that we put all the onus on one particular side to change, and when they’re willing, then we can move forward.

Meanwhile, we avoid, or we fight, and we part ways, because frankly, it’s easier to live that way. And yet, I trust that there is in fact a better way. I, for one, cannot afford to move forward with my own life without having been changed by the loss of my own brother.

– – – –

Click here to read what Chris wrote about Shane in the Florida Times-Union.

Click here to follow Chris’s blog.

Posted on

Lust v. Love.

In a dream I had one night, I stood across from a man in an empty room, on a black floor, under a black ceiling, surrounded by black walls.

“Strip clubs shouldn’t exist,” I said to him.

“But men like that stuff,” he said.

“But that stuff causes people to lust,” I said. “And when you lust, you can’t love because when you lust, you take and take and take and when you love, you give and give and give.”

Then I woke up.

My gosh, what a dream.

May we live like love is a choice in a culture that calls it a feeling.

And in this world that tells us to take, may we give and give and give.