It is great that you mentioned music in that way. Like “sexiness” or attractiveness in the other, I personally don’t think there is one thing that makes a person attractive, but all the little details. People NEVER agree 100% on which piece is great or not, and what makes it great. There should never be one example for sexiness. Let us throw a bit of Saint Therese philosophy in here. She said that she understood how the world is God’s garden, and we can’t all be one kind of flower. It would get very boring. Each of us is called to be a different kind of flower and live accordingly. Each has her own perfume, her own kind of beauty. To say that sexy is just to be a rose means that we are blind to all the other scents and colors. We’re technically 99.9% blind then. (I know it drifts off from Saint Therese’s purpose, so I hope it is clear.)

Also the message from this fallen world is such poison: “It’s sexy to be thin like a prepubescent! It’s sexy to want someone already committed to someone else! Its sexy to show as much skin as legally possible!”. Ug. And those sexy shots on magazines are totally fake anyway . . .

Thanks for the wisdom, Simcha.

Perfect timing.  Very relevant. Thanks.

And what about, as a corollary, if we all stopped imitating the world and using “sexy” as an all-purpose positive descriptor for everything from cars to tomatoes (sorry, Anna-Lisa, and I know everybody does it, but still. . .).  Despite whatever Theology of the Body rationale one might make up, the usage is just rather. . . cheap and tawdry. I know it’s intended to give emphasis, plus a touch of frisson, but isn’t it a real impoverishment of language and culture, that we can no longer think of any other strong words for the beautiful and good?

How on earth do you come up with these topics? That was great! I love the analogy with music- and how loving one key can be a nightmare. Very clever and well put. I’m in the not-so-sexy phase of my life now- pregnant with baby no. 3 and constantly sick (yes I hear the violins playing in the background).
I suppose that’s my excuse anyway- haha.
I’m hoping I’ll come out the other end with a newfound sexiness- and more time to style my hair….that’s the hopeful plan anyway.
Thanks for the post oh sexy Simcha.

Friends:-

The following is off-topic.

In the spirit of the Olympics I thought you might like watching and listening to this truly gifted artist (among others) of our time:

  Hilary Hahn: Prokofiev Violin Concerto (2/3) Scherzo

[Please type the above title in search. I don’t know how to do links].

This isn’t just a blog post. This is a post that you frame and meditate on until it sinks in. Kudos.

“At least the poor sap knew enough to go away and shoot himself.  Today, he’s probably have a blog.”

Ahahahah!

But seriously, this is so true.  People—including good Catholics—including friends of mine—throw that word around as if it were a compliment.  And every time they do I feel like drawing my imaginary rapier, poking it in their eye and saying “You keep saying that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means!”

Spot on! It would seem that the new virtue for our society, besides “tolerance,” is sexiness. Every commercial sells it, every movie glorifies it, every magazine promulgates it—we are bombarded on every side! TV commercials are inundated with it: Regrow your hair and feel good about yourself again! Use this toothpaste and share hot, passionate kisses! Wear these clothes and end up in a steamy embrace! Use this cologne and the buttons on women’s shirts will literally pop off!
.
It’s a little scary sometimes how much emphasis we put on sexiness. It’s sad that a lot of guys will use THAT as their opening bid to get a girl’s number. It’s heart-breaking to see little girls wearing things designed to draw attention to their bodies—and then we wonder why pedophilia is especially rampant. But when you live in a world where sex has no (perceived) consequences and denying yourself that pleasure is inconceivable, then it actually makes sense that you would improve your “chances”, so to speak, by being as alluring as possible. And I feel such pity for them.

And, what about that show on cable, “Toddlers and Tiaras”? I lasted 30 seconds dialing by that car crash.
My wife says we’re fortunate we didn’t have a daughter, but sons. I don’t know about that. I believe she and I would have learned from each other, laughed, cried, and spent a ton of “dad/daughter” time exploring the world.I certainly would have done my part to counsel her about being attractive and being “sexy” and why it’s important to differentiate. I would have explained (for the umpteenth time) that I was attracted to her mother’s EYES, powerful blue EYES before anything else, and her confident expression..I HAD to know this person. 36 years later,that’s still true.

To be honest, no Catholic should be worrying about “sexiness” in the first place. Whether we are aware of it or not, that word has only one purpose: to instill lust (and lust is a sin). It is a disgusting word that has been utilized by largely secular society, for largely promiscuous purposes, for largely superficial ends. The more we ponder this word without realizing what exactly it means and is intended for, the harder it’s going to be for us to stave off temptation. Playing in Satan’s sandbox will get sand in our shoes. Beauty goes way beyond “sexy” in all things. The imprudence of adopting secular terms to describe sexual goodness is a near pandemic in Catholic society.

We as Catholics have compromised far too much to secular ways of thinking. I am not a griping old man. I am a twenty three year old young man most likely called to marriage. And I have seen first hand, growing up and during my long time away from the Faith and in the muck of the pit, the effects of this verminous way of thinking. Satan uses this stuff like ammunition for a Gatling gun. If we want to solve this problem, then we need to stop thinking about “sexiness” and start thinking about true love, which banishes all perversion and basks endlessly in purity. This is not mutually exclusive with sexual attraction, it merely secures this moral good within its proper boundaries of linguistic and practical prudence. It is ten times easier to sustain that purity and fidelity when reverence is exercised in this fashion, in the way we define things, the way we talk about things. Considering ourselves “sexy” is far from a pass on that litmus test.

“For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few are they that find it.”

-Matthew 7:14

Modesty of language, behaviour and dress would go a long way to alleviating the problems of “sexiness” outlined above.

You know what’s cruel?  To get to our local Apple store (aka Mecca), my teen-geek son has to walk past the front windows of the local Victoria’s Secret store, whereupon is emblazoned a picture of boobs bigger than his head.  Watching him die a thousand deaths of embarrassment makes me laugh every time.  “They’re all like that,” I want to whisper to him. “Stay away.”

Simcha, I look forward to your articles. But I am more than surprised that you would say this “The proper reaction is to give thanks to God for making life so frickin’ interesting”. I believe this is totally uncalled for and should never have been used in a Catholic site. And if you don’t know which word I find objectionable then I am saddened even more.

@Paul Hewerdine - you know, I actually gave that word a lot of thought before I posted this.  It’s not a swear word (although it’s obviously derived from one: f**king—> fr*gging—> fricking—> frickin’ . . not sure how much the Register’s censoring software is going to let through . . .).  I wrote it as a first draft since that’s how it popped into my head, since that’s how I talk when I’m tired and hot and aggravated.  I left it in because it’s slightly vulgar, and seemed appropriate for a discussion about how to walk that line between praising God and relishing His earthly gifts.  Yes, I could have written around it, but I thought it added a little zing where a little zing was called for.  No harm, no foul, IMO.

Oh, Fisher! I was with you up to “At least the poor sap knew enough to go away and shoot himself.” While I understand you to say it toungue-in-cheek, but it seems to me unfair fodder to the mentally already over-challenged. As in dress, please be mindful of others sensibilities in speech. (and as in dress, this point may also admit debate, but methinks thou the line hast crossed.)

Well, the more mindful I am, the less I say.  It’s very much the equivalent of when I used to wear long skirts every day:  it didn’t make my holier, it just made it harder to walk.  Now I sometimes wear skirts, and sometimes wear pants, depending on what the situation calls for.  Sometimes I speak delicately and carefully, sometimes I talk the way I want to talk, because I have a job that needs to get done.

Young Werther committed suicide because he did not have God in his heart. So too with all such passions—insaitable need to be “pretty”, compulsion for speed, need for adrenaline, need for anything other than God. Humans seek the “other”, the “more”, the “better”, etc—that is innate because the end of what we seek is actually God. There is no infinite here, among created things. There is only one infinity, only one thing that satisfies, and that is God. The central problem, discussed in this article and many like it, is that people are not turning to God. The solution to this problem is simple—turn to God.

About two years ago I was awakened to “reassuring attractiveness”. Sexiness gets attention, but many many women carry on their days with a reassuring attractiveness that no one particularly notices, but were she absent, we would be so sad.

I noticed it among all the ladies (young and old) who staff the library. My daughter’s teachers. Women who dress in such a way that their presence inspires trust and a sense that the world is a stable place. The beauty of these women is often ignored. No one is composing songs about them. Advertisers never use them to sell products. They probably aren’t super-fit. They may or may not color their hair. They don’t wear much make up. And I would never ever call them ugly! They simply look nice! And I (and I believe others) are lifted up by their goodness.
I am 33 and it took me this long to concretely “see” this beauty and sincerely appreciate it.

Oh dear, the Sorrows of Young Werther, and his disillusioned ilk made me turn from English literature to books that actually made dense of this drama called life.  I remember sitting in a library cubicle, having a crisis of vocation over those alcoholic, opium imbibing non-romantics called the romantics.  Which brings up the point of when things or people are described by words *that are untrue*.  Simcha, I have a feeling you understood what I meant when I said the word “sexy” had been sadly commandeered by modern society. @ARM, I hate to scandalize you when I admit that I positively *love* when my (foodie) husband comes across a lovely tomato at the farmer’s market and in his lilting Latin accent says “Good God, what a sexy tomato!”  I’d kiss him right then and there if I wasn’t laughing already.  He also confuses other words in the English language, like Obese = “Obeast”, “Alzheimers= “oldtimers”  Or how about this one: “she’s really off her *rocket*”  Classic.  I couldn’t say any of those words or phrases in Spanish!  You know what our problem is in our family?  Not always suppressing the urge to feel contempt for those that are so lacking in taste that they become fodder for verbal entertainment.

Lol, I meant “make sense”, though life can seem “dense” indeed.

I will admit that I laughed at the last line, because I did see it as very tongue-in-cheek.

I agree with Paul Hewerdine. We all know what frickin’ means, and it doesn’t belong in a sentence thanking God.

Good column. As a man, I’m so confused by the contradictory dynamic here: you naturally want to look at women, and yet you are told by society not to look, however women apparently want to display themselves to men, but only the right men!

Whew! Wish I were 7 or 77.

While I utterly forgive the notion of “sexy” vegetables, I will gladly be forthcoming with another phrase that my husband is *guilty* of: 
(I’m walking into the room in brown loafers with a small heel.  They are a good brand and leather.)  He,regarding my sensible shoes with a look of mild disgust:
“What?  NUN SHOES?! *None* of this?  *None* of that?!”
Yeah.  I laugh about it, but I suffer a higher heel at times because of it.  No, he’s not a sexist pig.  He’s charmingly simple at times.  Am I allowing male pressure to be objectified?  Nope.  I’m way to ornery for that kind of simpering foolishness.  I wear a higher heel because it *delights* him.  Monks get their hair shirts…

Wow - quite the scathing remarks on such a classic work as “Sorrows of Young Werther”.  I cherish my copy - it’s the only book I ever actually shed tears over whilst reading. 
As I have grown older, I have learned to read it for what it is…certainly.  But it remains a classic for a reason.

Just some thoughts.

This was excellently done! I only wanted to comment on the use of the word ‘frickin’. I love words. I love the pictures they create in my mind as I’m reading. I love the different pictures different words, even with similar meanings, will conjure in my mind. We are, all of us fallen, vulgar beings. Vulgar meaning common, not obscene, which is the original etymology of the word (think Latin Vulgate). And sometimes, when I am at loss for more poetic praise, our God is, in fact, pretty frickin awesome, and life is pretty frickin interesting.

@Captain America, that about sums it up.  (Some/All?) women want men to find them attractive/appreciate them for their beauty, but then women are not supposed to want that, especially if the woman is married.  Same with a man as he is not supposed to look at women to notice if they are attractive especially if he is married. 

But in our society it seems both men and women feel “left out” if they are not “allowed” to play this game of “do you think I’m attractive/sexy.”  So there is the conundrum that Simcha so accurately portrayed.  Is it okay for a woman to properly/modestly display herself as an attractive woman or does she have to “hide” in her clothes.  Is a woman asking a man to lust after her just by wearing an attractive outfit?  Is it wrong for a woman to want men to find her attractive whether or not she is married?

Just like Simcha spoke of her trip to the store, these questions can becoming raging debates as you simply decide what to wear when you leave the house.

I have gone through many phases myself as a young mother of 5.  When I am pregnant or nursing I can put all efforts into functionality of my attire.  My body is busy being a home/nurser to a tiny life.  But when those times are over I come out of the haze as if surfacing from under the ocean.  Where do I belong now?  Am I to pretend I don’t care about my body and looks?  Am I to wear clothing that profusely announces my proud motherhood?  Am I to not exercise and try to tone my body?  If I think about my attire, even chose something to show off my better qualities am I being sinful?  Is it wrong to want polite compliments from strangers?  Does any of this even matter?

So it’s difficult to hear, but refreshing to hear “just stop it!”

Just wanna say: I wish I could ‘like’ all the great comments on this post!

@Simcha, thanks for resisting the pressure of others to reduce you to a sugar-coated-saint-statue.

Paul Hewerdine - you might want to consider investing in larger sizes of underwear.
.
Home run, Simcha! You made my fracking day. :)

Does anyone ever write about purity anymore?

Timely post. Here’s my .02c…When my adorable, precocious and very imaginative four year old niece glides by me (her Uncle) and whispers: “I’m sexy and I know it…” I think we all realize we have a major, MAJOR problem in this world: our children are too soon IN the world, rather than being just OF the world. We all have a responsibility to FILTER from them what is not appropriate, but sadly that would require a new age of enlightenment and a step toward re-establishing firm and steadfast morals. (Yeah, I know—dream on!). But hey, that’s what rosaries, novenas and prayers are for. (Werther’s need not apply)

I don’t know why but after reading this column my 6th month preggo derriere feels the need to turn on LMFAO’s “Sexy and I Know It” and dance. 

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.  ;)

And I swear I wrote my comment before I saw JP’s!!! I really did!

I would never…never have guessed Ryan was a young, unmarried man. ;)
-
Say what you want about Simcha’s word choices, but I maintain that if the line was “Frankly, my dear, I don’t care” hardly anybody would remember it.

Wonderful article. But I do think you meant Jillian Michaels instead of Gillian Anderson. Gillian Anderson is the beautiful red head Dana Scully in the X Files. Jillian Michaels is the gal from Biggest Loser I curse relentlessly while engaging in my postpartum workouts.

The neo-Puritan brigade of blog police may want to consider the broader meaning of the word catholic and reflect on the fullest lessons of the Incarnation, or, more simply, find writers who work best within their restrictive style guidelines? But, they do tend to be killjoys in otherwise wonderful comment streams. :)

For Captain America (and other age-ignorant folks):  Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes at age 95 was walking a street in New York with a friend who told this story.  They passed a Drop-Dead Beauty walking in the other direction.  Holmes turned to look again, sighed and said, ” Ah…to be SEVENTY FIVE again !”

Unless “frickin” is spelled with a double g, it is a charming but meaningless euphemism. Euphemisms exist so that people can have the fun of “colorful metaphors” without vulgarism or the physical and mental charge.

And indeed, studies show that cussing in euphemisms doesn’t provide the same mental and physical effect of distraction from pain that cussing in cusswords does. There is a qualitative difference, because words matter, and their true meaning matters. You can yell “Fiddlesticks!” and “Fire trucks!” all day, and it really won’t be the same, unless you can somehow convince people that H-E-double-hockeysticks is a vile, vile cussword in itself.

So people who complain about euphemisms are obviously trying to widen the pool of vulgarism, obscenity, and blasphemy by creating new swearwords; but the pureminded and -tongued should ignore them for the good of everyone’s brains.

@Bekah - oh my goodness, you’re right!  The only thing any of us really knows about Gillian Anderson’s bod is that it has really, really big shoulders.  Gee, and I was so proud of myself for making sure I had the spelling right, too.  Off to correct it . .

Karen, I think most women know when they look s**y, and most women know when they look attractive.  To me, s**y and attractive are two different things and both are easily achieved.  Think of June Cleaver.  She always looked attractive but not necessarily s**y.  On the other hand, think of Pamela Anderson—usually always s**y, but not necessarily attractive.  This is probably a really bad example, but maybe it gets my point across.

Also, there is nothing wrong with wanting to look attractive.  Most women have always wanted that.  You try to look your best out of respect for yourself and others.  Decent women also try to not look s**y for the general public or casual acquaintances out of respect for themselves and others.

Regarding Anna Lisa’s comment—My foreign stepmother once saw me in a denim shift with embroidered sunflowers on it and exclaimed how sexy I looked. I’m almost certain she had her words mixed up!

Not always easy not thinking about it, but it is good advice.

Posted by Paul Hewerdine on Tuesday, Jul 31, 2012 9:56 AM (EST):Simcha, I look forward to your articles. But I am more than surprised that you would say this “The proper reaction is to give thanks to God for making life so frickin’ interesting”. I believe this is totally uncalled for and should never have been used in a Catholic site. And if you don’t know which word I find objectionable then I am saddened even more. “
***************
I thought it was short for “freaking” which in my mind harkens back to hippy days & doesn’t really signify much.Didn’t Sarah Palin use that expression once?
Now your post makes me think of another, actually obscene word….

I don’t know about “sexy”.  Never really liked that word.  I’ll take “skinny” though :)

@Jenny, well if put that way then I am only speaking of attractive dressing (though not quite of the June Cleaver quality, I get your drift)  Because I have never dressed in the Pamela Anderson realm, don’t have the body, time or interest in that type of thing.

I am NOT in any sort of objectively impressive shape.  I had my 3rd three months ago, and have just gotten rounder since then.  My husband thinks I am fabulous for the blessed reason that he is not objective; I have born his children, I have given my life to share with him, and he his for me.  We are in this life together and he is thrilled about the “sexy” person with whom he found himself foxholed.

What I realized the other day, though, is that according to another objective standard I am in perfect shape.  I have conceived, nuourished, given birth to, and continued to nourish 3 children so far.  Has that added weight, sags, stretch marks, and wrinkles to my frame? Sure, but I why pretend that my body hasn’t completed these tremendous feats? And will continue to do so God willing, because that is what my body is in shape for.

Nope, Anna-Lisa, I’m not “scandalized.”  I just think the universalization of “sexy” is a cheapening of things (and especially of sex, actually).  And what do you mean when you say the word sexy got “commandeered”?  What was its former, non-commandeered use?  As I recall, it started being used of women as a substitute for “beautiful” or “attractive” around the time I was in high school - but generally for beauty of a slutty kind, in an objectifying context - , and made the jump to cars and tomatoes when I was in college.  The original implications were what gave it its cachet as I recall - that little thrill of transgressiveness. Though in our pan-sexual culture, there can’t be much of a thrill left at this point.  But regardless, the original meaning was “inspiring or provoking sexual desire,” no?

Women don’t understand how a man sees true beauty because they’re women, and many won’t even believe it when their husband declares it; but, a man DOES fall head over heals in Love when he allows God into his mortal heart and lets Grace decide for the man what Desire it.  The point is the decision to allow God into the heart and rule the will of the soul.  There will always be temptation of the flesh, but the Confirmation of remaining in Holy Communion with Jesus Christ makes it easier to resist and defeat temptation—turning such occassions into opportunities for Holiness.

Seems like you are missing something Simcha.  The boys have not changed one iota, nor the girls, since before the great “feminist awakening”.  All the things you mention existed in both before, likewise all the stupid and damaging errors.

What happened Simcha is this.  Girls fought tooth and nail to reject all that “old fashion, Victorian” wisdom that “old white men” repeatedly warned served a very valuable purpose.

The “women” won.

You are just seeing continual proof, on many levels and through many forms, why those old white men warned so emphatically to respect what history had created.

There’s a reason Christ did not choose any women to be His Apostles, what that reason is I do not know for certain.  But I do believe it was not some of His to avoid offending the sensibilities of the Jews or Romans.  Nor an omission because man “was not ready” for such radical example.

No, I think the answer can be seen by the smoke rising from the fires of feminism and all that it has consumed and continues to consume.

Smoke as you know is merely made up of millions of tiny points of blackness, particles of carbon, remnants of fire’s feasting. 

Each of the “little” points you point to, may seem to be tiny little errors, tiny little sins, deserving of the “teaching” of “just stop it!”  Funny how it sounds so similar to those ten little “just stop it” Commandments. 

Half of those sitting in a Catholic Mass think abortion is something that should be left to a personal decision.  I wonder how many Catholics in the 1800s thought that way about slavery?  I wonder how many Catholics in Germany of 1939/1940 thought that way about the Nazi party’s policy toward Jews?

Here’s my advice to you.  Just stop it, stop treating the errors of feminism as if they were quaint little venial mistakes rather than the grave errors that consume the flesh and souls of women.  Whose ashes swirl through society like a black cloud of Satan, blinding the young to the truth of man’s nature.

Just stop it.  Your treating the smoke like it was a wafting of haze after a firework celebration only serves to conceal the fire that is the source of the smoke and the real danger consuming spirits and souls.

AMDG

ARM, I have given birth to ten. babies.  Thank God my husband still appreciates that I “work at it”. Ha ha, I consider the tolls on my body to be merit badges of sorts. I have three teens, two twenty somethings, everything in between and a toddler who cops a lot of “tude”. If I’ve put on some extra pounds she’ll tell me so. Not taking the English language too anally (oops! sorry!)(and everything else that needn’t be worshiped) is what keeps me sane. You’ll notice I could tighten up my punctuation as well.:)  Yes, likening “sexy” to the almighty God is NOT a word that I would personally choose to limit God to.  This is why I apologized before I even said it, that I was using “the lingua franca”. I was trying to prove a startling point, and was clearly misunderstood at first.  What I personally try to understand is what makes people tick—what they are truly attracted to, what they yearn for.  I try to see the good, before I have to face the evil, and then act and speak accordingly.  I try to teach my kids the same things, so they don’t turn into hot house flowers, and so they don’t judge people too harshly.  I want them to understand the deepest yearnings of *their own hearts*.
.
To answer your question more directly, I will state again what I tried to express previously:  I don’t think cheaply dressed girls are very “sexy” at all.  The word “sexy” has too much to do with that wonderful invention of God (NO! Not the Devil!)called “sex”, which is divinely inspired.
.
I refuse to decide to be offended if *creative energy*,great design, fluid lines, incredible art, fine sculpture, and volumptuous tomatoes are likened to that which is Godly.

Thank you Simcha, that is an excellent point. Too much time wasted thinking about what we look like! I have found that having enough clothes that I like has freed me from dressing in something that I know is going to ride up or down, and then worrying about it all day. I’ve also found that finally getting contacts and figuring out a 2 minute beauty routine has made me attractive-seeming enough for me to just get over myself. I used to not care enough to put any effort in, but cared plenty while feeling like a frump all day. ~Does anyone else have this experience of being distracted by a lack of attractiveness? Sometimes it seems like people think the solution is to tell women to frump it down until men aren’t tempted, but I at least then face temptations against charity. It’s hard to think nice thoughts about someone who is a holy roller, and dresses and grooms poorly. (Yes, you young lady, over there with the greasy hair parted down the middle and Little House on the Prairie dress, I’m looking right at you.) Clearly I need to work on that, but I think it’s worth noting that “being ugly enough” isn’t a good option either. In college I always admired the way the FOCUS missionaries were dressed nicely, but not provocatively. They were so beautiful, but I think most of it had to do with how joyful they were. Their clothes weren’t distracting in either direction.

HCSKnigh—very well put.

If that was very well put, I’m a chinese jet pilot.  I have no idea what HCSKnigh is talking about, or what it has to do with my post.

@HCSKnigh…Wow. I say that as a very conservative, very pro-life, very Catholic mother and wife, open to a large family and eager to let my husband lead our family. Just wow.
~
How about we stop equating women who are bad dressers with Nazis? Or sin itself? Or black smog darkening the entire culture? Christians, not just Christian women, are called to be the light of the world. Christian men can be a light to the world by the way they treat all women, not just good Christian ones, with dignity. I get it that hussies make it harder for men to be holy, but guess what? A-hole men make it harder for women to be chaste before marriage and open to life after it. Clearly that’s not your problem, and you don’t want to be lumped in there with the frat boys. So don’t lump Simcha and the rest of the NCR readers in there with the hussies.
~
Also, don’t flatter yourself. It wasn’t old white men telling women how to dress themselves, and all women rejecting it. Women were just as much, if not more, invested in the handing down of family values, including modesty. Feminists make up a tiny, but damaging minority.
~
Simcha, I knew it! You never cease to amaze us with your mad skills. Let me know when I can hitch a ride in your jet.

Simcha, your posts are always right on point with what I need to hear. About 15 minutes before logging on I was lamenting my unplucked eybrows, messed up self-attempted pedicure and tightening clothes from just having a baby.

I think it’s important to be well-groomed and put together; it can give an extra boast of confidence to get through the day and people take you more seriously than when you’re in your beloved but raggedy sweats. However, this doesn’t mean slaving away for hours on end for attractiveness. I once knew a woman who had never swam, biked, ridden horses, etc with her children (in their 30s!!) because it would destroy her blowout. What a sad existence. My eyebrows are overgrown this week, but I took my baby swimming and my husband’s still around. Thanks Simcha for showing me there are normal women who think like me. Sometimes doing this whole Catholic mom thing can feel lonely :) Much love!

“People—including good Catholics—including friends of mine—throw that word (‘sexy’) around as if it were a compliment.  And every time they do I feel like drawing my imaginary rapier, poking it in their eye and saying ‘You keep saying that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means!’”
-TGWWS (8:43 AM)

The first definition listed by the Bing search engine for ‘sexy’ (adjective) is:

1. arousing desire: arousing or intended to arouse sexual desire

Listings from other dictionaries are similar.

Bottom line: The (typically female) desire to be ‘sexy’ entails a desire to place oneself and others in the near occasion of sin.  There’s something sick about females who simultaneously scold men about “keeping custody of the eyes” while taking for granted a female right to stomp all over the libidos of men and even boys.

Thank you, MightyMighty.  I could not form the words to answer HCSKnigh.  I’d also like to point out that the farther away from generation-changing decisions we get the less the people of the younger generations had to do with those decisions.  I wasn’t part of the “revolution”.  I’m just trying to make it in today’s society.

As I near 50 and am no longer in the midst of the busyness of the fertile years, I seem to get more focused on my appearance. “Focused” as in lamenting and worrying, but not actually doing anything. I don’t color my hair (my husband likes gray), paint my nails or toes (life is too short) or doing exfoliating or work-outs (I do take a daily walk with hubby). So I mumble often “Dang, I’m getting old. Where did the time go?” I got in a depressed funk after a family wedding, when I heard a lot of comments (from women) about how great a relative who is my age looked (from abundant styled dyed hair to sexy pumps). I did not receive such enthusiastic compliments. Although my 5yo did tell me later when I spoke of myself as “his fat mama”: “You’re not fat! You just have a very squishy tummy.” I think he’s me favorite child now.

What really disturbs me about the tyranny of sexy is how young girls - even good Catholic girls - compliment one another. The most used word I hear is “hot,” which of course means sexy. So the new standard becomes “hot” not “pretty” (which is not exciting) or “attractive” (which is even more boring.) I don’t how it will change or how it will effect my girls’ future view of themselves as mothers. If someone has a solution, please post.

@MightyMighty re Tuesday, Jul 31, 2012 4:24 PM (EST)

“How about we stop equating women who are bad dressers with Nazis?”
- Obviously you have an agenda, or have very poor reading comprehension skills.

“Christian men can be a light to the world by the way they treat all women, not just good Christian ones, with dignity.”
- True.  But the point regarded feminism, the feminization of Western culture, and all the resulting errors, and shrill, that has been its fruit.

“I get it that hussies make it harder for men to be holy, but guess what? A-hole men make it harder for women to be chaste before marriage and open to life after it.”
- Utter garbage.  Women almost completely control the sexual dance.  That you want to blame men for the effects of promiscuity and the competition women engage in among themselves, only serves to re-enforce some of the points I made.  In short, it is utter ridiculousness to assert it is the fault of “a-hole” men that women are unchaste before marriage.  Any honest person can see the “weakness” of attention seeking and desire for “affection” that bring young women to dress as they do, and play the games they do.  Like I said in my first comment, the boys haven’t changed one iota.  The girls however, have very deliberately walked too far down the path, and taken off too much of the fabric of modesty to leave your assertions sounding, at best, like a pro-bono defense attorney fresh out of a back-water JD program.

“So don’t lump Simcha and the rest of the NCR readers in there with the hussies.”
- Again, you must have poor comprehension skills.  First, most “hussies” are very intelligent and shrewd.  I was pointing to the lack of appreciating the gravity of the situation; something far too common by those who claim to be apologists for the Faith and the cultural wisdom of traditional Catholic culture.

“Also, don’t flatter yourself. It wasn’t old white men telling women how to dress themselves, and all women rejecting it.  Women were just as much, if not more, invested in the handing down of family values, including modesty.”
- True, but again you fail to understand the reason for my choice of words.  The “old/dead white men” refrain was, and still is, an extremely common characterization around which feminists and their supporters rally.

“Feminists make up a tiny, but damaging minority.”
- Okay, then why the relative silence by your legions of women who “were just as much, if not more, invested in the handing down of family values”?  On a percentage basis, it is men who speak more often, more loudly, and more strongly against the errors of feminism.  Not women.  I believe this fact is part of the nature of a woman; less combative, more concerned with having a “relationship” with another person than fighting for/against principles; it’s also one of the reasons I believe Christ choose men to be Apostles - not a knock against women, just a different role for the different natures.  Men are much more to speak and defend a principle, even if it means the end of a friendship, than women.  Women are more likely to remain silent to “maintain” the friendship/relationship.  Of course that all goes out the window in the world of blog comments - women attack my comments far more personally and viciously than men.  Likewise, when I make a comment regarding the failings of men, men do not take to attempted personal attacks as quickly. 

Good luck riding in Simcha’s jet though.

AMDG

On September 7, 2011, Jennifer Fulwiler wrote an excellent NCRegister article: “In Contraceptive Culture, Women Can Never Rest.” You can search for it here. The premise is that from babies to grandmothers, women are expected to be sexy. So desperate for acceptance that some 83 year-old women are getting breast implants. Bikinis for babies, and push up bras for 8 year-olds. Jennifer says the church warned this would happen in Humana Vitae. Her article is a must-read for further explanation.

@HCSKnigh

I think you make some interesting points.  I certainly don’t disagree with all you say, but as far as what MightyMighty termed “A-hole” men they do exist.  Please do not say:

“- Utter garbage.  Women almost completely control the sexual dance.  That you want to blame men for the effects of promiscuity and the competition women engage in among themselves, only serves to re-enforce some of the points I made.”

I DO think there are women who do what you say—fight among themselves, but hold on! 

I was out on my own dressed in T-shirt and Long shorts and a man came up to me and said things Way worse then “frickin” about my appearance.  Those are the A-hole men.

I wish I were better able to convey more of the feelings and thoughts I’m having when I read your posts, but really I think you are off base for what Simcha was getting at.  The article is not about why society is like it is, but giving women, regular whatever kind of women, the permission to not be so hard on themselves about how they look ie not having to think about “sexy”.  I know you’re saying we should never be thinking that anyway except in the confines of the marriage bedroom…  I get what you’re saying, but that’s not the point.  It’s out there.  And we’re dealing with it, even though “we didn’t start the fire”

If I were the devil, I’d fast track HCSnigh to speak on behalf of the church.  I’d make sure his wife wore sweater vests that represent the season—or the Holiday! I guess the skirt goes without saying.

“The proper reaction to all of this is not to freak out, and make any grand pronouncements about What Women Ought To Be Like.”

This.  May I suggest this is probably good advice for almost everything about appearance?  The same thing can happen with “pretty” or “feminine”, when it becomes about getting the right sort of look instead of having the right sort of life.  Or even “modest”, if it becomes a list of do’s and don’ts rather than a reflection of our attitudes.

I’ve seen what happens with young women being pushed to be “sexy.”  I’ve also watched a friend of mine lamenting being unable to wear any sort of feminine clothing without being seen as “slutty”, because she happens to have DD breasts.  And as a career woman, I often find that there’s a whole new level to dressing - how do I look smart and professional without being dismissed either as “too sexy” or “too sweet”?  We’ve made it a catch-22 for women: Look pretty but not sexy, get all your work done and still look nice, have kids but don’t let it affect your figure.  Some days it feels like you just can’t win.

I’m glad somebody also mentioned “hot”. That’s the one I hear all the time on TV (What Not to Wear, when I used to watch it) and at work. What’s wrong with wanting to look attractive and yet not have to be constantly adjusting and checking to make sure clothes have not shifted to an embarrassing degree? I have a theory that some of this is abetted by clothing manufacturers who want to see how much they can charge for how little actual product.

I’d like to congratulate That Hat Lady for really trying and coming up with a comment that is merely passive aggressive as opposed to her usual naked hostility. Oh rats, I said naked, now HCSKnigh is gonna get all worked up.

Hey, The Jerk!  You are a man, right?  Where did all the new male commenters today come from?...and what drew them to this post in particular? Help my tiny lady brain figure that one out! Is there some sort of an RSS that tunes into the Internetz for a combo of the words “Catholic” and “Sex”?  Do most Catholic men roam around online looking for women to chide?  What is it?!!

Also, my theory is that That Hat Lady *is* Jen Fulweiler!  That perky, klutzy redhead thing is allllll an act.

I am so confused.  What on earth is going on here?  Why do people keep reading into Simcha’s posts things which she clearly did not write?  Am I missing something?

Anyways, I just asked my husband what his definition of sexy was and he looked and me and said, “My wife!”  (who happens to be barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen).  So that settles that.

Hehe, my capcha is hot71.

Kay, thanks for bringing up my guilty pleasure, “What Not to Wear.”  I am torn about watching that show because it’s a fun show but I hate that they are always saying that you have to dress sexy instead of frumpy (as if those are the only two choices).  Granted, they also say you shouldn’t dress slutty but I guess my question is what is the difference between sexy and slutty?  To me they are synonymous.  I think what has really happened is that the definition of sexy has changed in common parlance.  The way people use it is not the way the dictionary defines it or the way it used to be defined.  When people say sexy today I think they really mean “good-looking” not “I’m looking for sex.”  Language evolves and the dictionary doesn’t always keep up.  I still won’t use that word because it connotes something sinful to me, but I also recognize that others are using that word in a different way.  But the word “sexy” aside I do think there is more and more pressure for all women to look youthful and sexually attractive.  I am not completely against a young woman looking for a husband showing off a little bit of sexuality in her dress in order to attract someone.  Even though I felt I always dressed modestly as a single woman I did have some shorts and skirts above the knee.  Now I don’t go there.  My knees are in fine shape but I am not trying to attract someone as I am married.  This is similar to the European custom (in place for hundreds of years) that a maiden would wear her hair down to attract a suitor but when she got married she wore her hair up and hidden in a veil, wimple, or hat which she only took off for her husband.

Circa 1945, I heard a definition from a 6th grade teacher:  “Sexy”, from the Latin word for “Six”, means that a woman can lead one man to do what is permitted by the Sixth Commandment; or a number of men to do what is forbidden by the Sixth Commandment.
Considering why God created sex, perhaps the sexiest woman is one like Simcha who has cooperated with her husband and God to create a number of children, and is doing her level best to instill good values in them.  Of course, this is NOT how the world thinks; but IMO a woman who dresses provocatively and reaches age fifty without having children has wasted whatever degree of “Sexy” that she had.
TeaPot562

Priests and nuns can be sexy too!!

It’s like I told an old friend: ah you girls.  Always trying to show off your parts.  Then when we fall for you, you bemoan that we don’t love WHAT’S INSIDE….THE REAL YOU….um…...so for you girls I say: Simcha, whom I have never seen except for her face posted on this blog, is SUPER DUPER SEXY, and I kid you not….peace out, sexy homies….

Reading the comments, I’m not even sure if people have even read the book! 
It’s a beautiful work - sure it is adolescent, it is tragic, etc. but I never looked at it as a work of almost-pornographic whatever.  I just don’t get it. 

Sorry, I just totally disagree with this article.  It does injustice to a fine work - pick on some garbage tripe like Fifty Shades of Grey or something Simcha, not a classic like this.

It can all be said so much more simply, as did a Sunday School teacher so many years ago when I was 12.  I’m now 75.  We were told…Little girls, always remember, an ice cream soda is a wonderful treat now.  It is because you don’t have it many times a day, all week long.  ‘Nuff said?

I very much enjoyed this article, thank you! It reminded me of an insight that was given to me a few years’ back: “In the battle between good and evil, women are the battlefield.”  What this meant to me was that, if women can be convinced that evil is “good,” then women will go on to win the battle FOR the enemy, because by their very nature women wield much influence over children and men.  When “evil” becomes “normal,” it is all the more difficult to combat it.

I choose to take comfort in the fact that, like all horribly overused and abused words, “sexy” will soon reach the point where it means nothing at all. It can then join all the other verbal tics and mindless utterances that people like to use in place of actual communication these days.

I’ve never read Goethe, but I read this many years ago….

The Sorrows of Werther

WERTHER had a love for Charlotte
Such as words could never utter;
Would you know how first he met her?
She was cutting bread and butter.

Charlotte was a married lady,
And a moral man was Werther,
And for all the wealth of Indies,
Would do nothing for to hurt her.

So he sighed and pined and ogled,
And his passion boiled and bubbled,
Till he blew his silly brains out,
And no more was by it troubled.

Charlotte, having seen his body
Borne before her on a shutter,
Like a well-conducted person,
Went on cutting bread and butter.

William Makepeace Thackeray

Posted by Jason on Wednesday, Aug 1, 2012 10:20 AM (EST):Reading the comments, I’m not even sure if people have even read the book! 
It’s a beautiful work - sure it is adolescent, it is tragic, etc. but I never looked at it as a work of almost-pornographic whatever.  I just don’t get it. 

Sorry, I just totally disagree with this article.  It does injustice to a fine work - pick on some garbage tripe like Fifty Shades of Grey or something Simcha, not a classic like this.”
******************
I’m one of the great unwashed who’s never read the book, but since Miss Simcha has & since it’s her blog, I guess she’s allowed to pick on whatver literature she chooses.And you have the freedom to disagree with her.

JUST STOP IT What should we stop?  What should we allow?  What should we reject?  What should we cultivate?
.
We all wonder these things.  I wrote this, not as a reflection on the “sexpot” post, but on my own struggles to balance Catholicism with popular culture.
.
What should we do when faced with a clearly dysfunctional culture?  Face the dysfunction in ourselves first.
.
John Paul the Great taught that the opposite of love is not hate, it is *indifference*.  Human beings that are inclined to self centeredness are easy to fool.  The moral dilemma can become less: “how am I of service to my neighbor”, and more: “how does this make *ME* feel”.  What do I personally want to *deal* with?  What are my responsibilities in their *entirety*?
.
Even saying a rosary at the wrong time can be a less legitimate choice than cultivating love and friendship with our spouse at a moment when it is (critically?)called for.  The evil one seeks to separate and divide.  He wants us to see good as evil and evil as good, to justify uncharitable behavior, to cloak it with a self righteous mantle.  The evil one offers a substitute for “the real thing”.  His best trick is when he pulls it off to appear pious. This is easy to do when we become more and more “sense” oriented, and rely exclusively on how things make us FEEL.  We make compelling excuses for all kinds of behaviors that are lacking or fractured in virtue.  “My (tired) wife was lacking in physical affection…My (tired) husband grabbed my—- before he looked at me above the neck…why should I—- when I’m tired after a whole day of—-with needy kids?  Why should I bother to—-when he/she doesn’t appreciate me enough to—-?  That’s her/his job…that’s not my problem…Boys will be boys…girls will be girls…
.
Ask yourself: Did I tweeze/cut/color/shave/keep a trim figure/shower/wear attractive clothes/laugh at the jokes/smile /play/dream/kiss/handhold/gaze into the eyes/talk about the inner recesses of the soul/PRAY together… when we were “courting”?
.
Just DON’T stop it. KEEP DOING IT within realistic parameters, after prayer. Keep adding all the virtues that you have won painfully together through the years.
.
Don’t give up.  Don’t let go. Don’t make unrealistic comparisons. (She has a trainer—that’s her job!) Choose delicacy.  Cherish the loving details.  Be young at heart.
.
That hidden effort is a prayer.  That charity will win souls.  That extra cross is a well spring of graces.
.
The opposite of being in love is being indifferent…self righteous, indignant, holier-than-thou, cruel, jealous, mocking…
.
Perhaps that laborious effort to look pleasing to your wife/husband/children/society will be the grace that “sexpot” needs to save his/her shallow, misguided soul.

I really love what wife said.

“...the opposite of love is not hate, it is *indifference*.”

Be that as it may, my life would improve much more vastly if those who hated me became indifferent, as opposed to those who are indifferent beginning to hate me instead.

@Micha Elyi

Thank you for your very mature and sober response. I am referring to:

“The first definition listed by the Bing search engine for ‘sexy’ (adjective) is:

1. arousing desire: arousing or intended to arouse sexual desire

Listings from other dictionaries are similar.

Bottom line: The (typically female) desire to be ‘sexy’ entails a desire to place oneself and others in the near occasion of sin.  There’s something sick about females who simultaneously scold men about “keeping custody of the eyes” while taking for granted a female right to stomp all over the libidos of men and even boys.”

That is exactly what I was getting at. I am delighted this notion is not merely considered a “neo-Puritanistic scrupulosity” by a fellow Catholic. On the topic though, to be honest, I believe Catholics could benefit a lot from certain elements of Puritan philosophy (i.e. strong work ethic, stringent morals). Where Puritan thinking harbors the danger of going awry is in the obsession over things that are actually fundamentally good, but only sinful in the context of their abuse or misuse.

However, I argue that much of the Church’s crisis in the modern age comes from a lack of honest consideration of the good “Puritan” values. The massive failure in catechesis, evangelization, “city on a hill” spiritual economy (which indeed includes a natural aversion to “sexiness” and all these crass definitions of the secular world), and in passing on the Faith effectively can be traced in part to a rejection of the “Puritan” call to hard work, stringent morality, as well as clear, productive, and uncompromising fidelity to the clear and concise mandates of the God of the universe. None of the aforementioned qualities contradict Catholicism in the least bit. It only becomes a contradiction when we, for example, say that alcohol in and of itself is evil or similar things.

As I said before, many of us Catholics compromise WAY too much, even in otherwise orthodox circles. Whereas such compromises are not always sins, it does not mean we should engage in them. St. Paul speaks about this topic specifically:

“All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful to me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.”

(1 Corinthians 6:12)

Indeed, that something is not sin does not mean we ought to do it. All things may be lawful, but not all things are expedient. If we want to see a revival in the Church and turn around the culture of death as well as our own massive failure to evangelize the modern world properly, then we need to start realizing the truth about these kinds of things and work vigorously to destroy all the hooks that can be used in temptation to drive us away from the fullness of the Light of Truth.

These ideas are not merely my ideas, but are fully Biblical. Nowhere in the Gospel does Jesus imply that we should not be hard laborers toward the Kingdom of Heaven, that we should not worry about compromise. And certainly St. Paul is beyond clear with regard to custody of the senses and like issues for the sake of keeping us away from the near occasion of sin. To be a hard laborer involves casting out all the garbage that impedes the fullness of that vocation (which is a universal vocation). To encourage anyone to do any less is to be complicit in teaching them a Faith that will not push them to accomplish the most of what God expects of His children. Those of us who do so will be held accountable before God for not doing what we easily could have done had we cared enough to do it. We need to wake up.

Anyway, just my two (or more like four) cents.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more this post (moreso than the pants thing, for example) illustrates the absolute war of voices in my conscience about how to live as an embodied being…I don’t fight the urge to dress slutty or to pay more attention to my appearance than my husband, but I do feel the fight between the poles of the extreme religious idealist and the soft, “take-care-of-yourself” therapist…and neither of them is totally wrong, but they can be the wrong person to consult in a given circumstance.  And, geez it is soooo easy to be an anonymous commenter on someone else’s blog, in which they write under their own name and talk about their own real thoughts and feelings and family life, and you are able to come along and tear it to pieces or snark about it, or offer your idealized portrait of spirituality.  Not that it is wrong to do so..but it’s an easy thing to do.  Living with that ideal and being real, and not perpetuating every broken lie the world has to offer: that is hard; I think *that* is what our real spiritual battle is.

re “John Paul the Great taught that the opposite of love is not hate, it is *indifference*.”

Another example of the grave disorder existing in lay Catholic thought.

First of all, John Paul said “use” is the opposite of love. 

Secondly, though it sounds quaint, the indifference thought is flat out wrong. 

Hate is in no way indifferent to love. Indifference walks away from love and lets love exist and grow. 

Hate is Satan prowling the world seeking to destroy love. 

Hate is the exact opposite of love, it unto its death continually seeks out love destroy.

AMDG

Corita, I’m not sure to whom you are referring, and I can’t speak for anybody else here, but the term “on the rocks” has a special meaning for me.  After crawling off of them and being pounded by the waves a bit, I had to be honest with myself, and retrace some steps. If I ever add my voice to a conversation here, it is with a sincere hope that I can help others avoid some of the mistakes I made in the three decades I’ve been working on my own relationship.  It IS true that we must carefully discern who gives us advice.  I’ve learned that one the hard way too.  Simcha has a special gift.  Sometimes I simply marvel at it, at other times I add my voice, hopefully not to be part of a cacophony but to help fine tune. I also hope I’m not wrong, which I most definitely may be.  Some of my biggest leaps of faith came when I listened to my confessor, at a critical moment, when I would have seriously gone down a road in the opposite direction.  It was usually when I erred on the side of being too hard on myself or others. It’s a rocky road at times.  The good news?  I’ve been through some pretty hair raising stuff.  His grace really does suffice.  That I know for certain.

Sometimes I think I live in a bubble.  I’ve only been to a mall once in the last few years.  We watch almost no commercials (children’s programming, Netflix, and the DVR), and my kids’ friends families are very family oriented.  Most are Catholic, but some are Jewish or not really religious, Democrats and Republicans, but all of them consider sex to be special and private.  And certainly NONE of them would allow their 4 year old daughters to sing, “I’m sexy and I know it.” 
.
So with this article and its comments in mind, I was in our local convenience store today and looking at all the women.  None of them looked provacative.  Mostly they looked attractive and I’m guessing their husbands would be very pleased with their appearances.  It’s hot here so there were lots of sleeveless arms and a lot of above the knee skirts and shorts, but none too short.  But no plunging necklines or overtly suggestive dress.    Some were dressed (like me) rather slovenly.  I was returning from an early morning carpool drop off in yoga pants and a tee shirt and ran in to get some milk for my other kids’ cereal.  Anyway, we certainly weren’t dressed provacatively.   
.
I’m not sure what my point is, but I think it’s that I’m not struggling with the line to dress attractively but not suggestively and I’m wondering how many busy wives and mothers really do?  I’ve been looking around at women I assume are moms (mostly at BJ’s and my kids’ activities), and I’m just not seeing the issue.  But sometimes I hear things or read things online and I think I live in my own little world and maybe that’s what’s happening again here.

@Karen on Tuesday, Jul 31, 2012 6:22 PM

Thank you for your noting some of my points interesting.

re >>> but as far as what MightyMighty termed “A-hole” men they do exist.  Please do not say: “- Utter ... I made.”  I DO think there are women who do what you say—fight among themselves, but hold on!  I was out on my own dressed in T-shirt and Long shorts and a man came up to me and said things Way worse then “frickin” about my appearance.  Those are the A-hole men. <<<
- Agree whole heatedly, there are many “a-hole” men out there.  But that is wholly beside the point.  None of the acts of these men create the desire among women to dress provocatively, or are the type of men women seek for attention.  So they can not be blamed for the demon’s women fight, can they? 

Men can not, and do not create the desire in women that seeks to be desired or seeks attention.  Just as women do not create sexual drive in men. 

re >>> I really I think you are off base for what Simcha was getting at. <<<
- I think I understand what Simcha is talking about better than Simcha.  That is why I’m pointing out her focus is like a child following the sound of the flute played by the piper.

re >>> The article is not about why society is like it is, but giving women, regular whatever kind of women, the permission to not be so hard on themselves about how they look ie not having to think about “sexy”.<<<
- Listen to your words, “the permission”.  The fact is permission is central to much of what is wrong regarding women’s self image.  Women should not seek permission to not be so hard on themselves!  This behavior and attitude of women to see validation and direction from people rather than God and Christ is exactly what’s wrong.  This is an issue women seem to continually fight in both the public and private realm.  This condition originates and is largely driven from within the woman.  It is also very likely deeply tied to their nature/condition.  Much like a sex drive is in a man.  Women <-> attention, men <-> sex drive.  The fact that women respond to articles that either state explicitly the concept of “permission” or implicitly by saying “it’s okay to/not to ____” are by their very focus perpetuating a perspective which is very damaging to women spiritually, psychologically and emotionally.

re >>> I know you’re saying we should never be thinking that anyway except in the confines of the marriage bedroom…  I get what you’re saying, but that’s not the point.  It’s out there.  And we’re dealing with it, even though “we didn’t start the fire”<<<
- I never said the first part, that’s a different can of worms and much more difficult and subtle to deconstruct.  However, though women many not have started the fire, just as men did not for they did not create their sex drive, but behavior from either a man or a woman that fans the fire IS not something women can run away from like Jessica in Who Framed Roger Rabbit with a “don’t blame me, I was drawn this way” game.

AMDG

@anna lisa re Tuesday, Jul 31, 2012 7:24

>>> If I were the devil, I’d fast track HCSnigh to speak on behalf of the church.  I’d make sure his wife wore sweater vests that represent the season—or the Holiday! I guess the skirt goes without saying.<<<

Very classy and filled with Charity. Glad to see you follow so closely to Mary’s example.

@HCSKnigh. Points taken.  Thanks for the thorough read. It’s a lot to take in, but I think I understand what you are saying.

Just a young lady here(and a mother of 5, but I like to think I’m young ;), working it out with God. 

Thanks

@Corita re Wednesday, Aug 1, 2012 4:20 PM

re >>> And, geez it is soooo easy to be an anonymous commenter on someone else’s blog, in which they write under their own name and talk about their own real thoughts and feelings and family life, and you are able to come along and tear it to pieces or snark about it, or offer your idealized portrait of spirituality.  Not that it is wrong to do so..but it’s an easy thing to do.<<<

Corita, I understand your thoughts.  They are very common.  But I’d like to explain why I choose to post under pseudonym.

First, it helps break the “personal” link to the comments.  The Federalist Papers were written under pseudonym for the very same reason.  It helps turn the focus onto the ideas expressed as opposed to the person.  Obviously it’s not always successful.

Second, let me assure you that in person, with family, friends and strangers who venture on these topics I speak in virtually an identical way.  However it across much less belligerent; much inflection and tone is lost in written communication.  Not to mention my comments are almost always written in a single pass with little no re-read/edit; I can also type so it generally comes out in a flow.  I’m sure I could improve on some things if I did so, but the time from my other endeavors and responsibilities would increase dramatically.  Furthermore, one learns a lot from the feedback received through readers who “hear” something different than what was intended to be expressed; always an interesting experience, though often frustrating since I’m rarely clear ;)

Don’t let the passion of the discussion dissuade you; they are merely reflections of how deeply the desire to find and share the truth resides in each person who posts their thoughts.  Even Hitler had this drive, though his soul obviously became gravely perverted and formed.

That last point, formation of the soul, is something that became infected with the same “let the children discover” philosophies that began to infect the secular educational system in the 1960s.  It infected Catholic and non-Catholic Christian thought, and it has wrought great damage.  E.g. the “the opposite of hate” thought.

Keep the Faith & God Bless,
AMDG

@CatholicByChoice re Wednesday, Aug 1, 2012 10:30

>>> t reminded me of an insight that was given to me a few years’ back: “In the battle between good and evil, women are the battlefield.”  What this meant to me was that, if women can be convinced that evil is “good,” then women will go on to win the battle FOR the enemy, because by their very nature women wield much influence over children and men.  When “evil” becomes “normal,” it is all the more difficult to combat it.<<<

- Never heard that one CBC.  It sounds very wise though.  Of course, the fact the evil of abortion roams the world the way it does not bode well for mankind.

Personally I place far more “blame” on the Bishops & priests than “women”.  Their relative silence for so many decades on abortion, their literally turning their backs to Christ Crucified during Mass and the Sacraments, and their idolatry of “social justice” issues, I think calls out for uncountable numbers of prayers from the Faithful for their souls.

AMDG

@HCSKnight, I have a couple of sincere questions for you:

.

You say, ‘This behavior and attitude of women to see[k] validation and direction from people rather than God and Christ is exactly what’s wrong.’

.

Can you explain to me why it’s wrong for me to give validation and direction to women in a blog post, but it’s okay for you to do it the comments box?  Is it because you speak directly for God?  If so, is this because you’re a man, or just because you’re right?

.

Second, what’s the deal with saying “God and Christ?” I thought Christ WAS God.  Are you a Mormon?

@Simcha Fisher re Wednesday, Aug 1, 2012 6:36 PM

Wow Simcha, no I’m not Mormon.  I’m decidedly Roman Catholic with a Jesuit education in which I studied quite a bit of theology and philosophy.  And my reading in the former has not ceased in the 20+ years since leaving school.

re >>>You say, ‘This behavior and attitude of women to see[k] validation and direction from people rather than God and Christ is exactly what’s wrong.’
Can you explain to me why it’s wrong for me to give validation and direction to women in a blog post, but it’s okay for you to do it the comments box? <<<

- Certainly, though the fact you can not understand the distinction is a bit troubling.  And you seem to be trying a classic, but weak, philosophical form of debate.

- First, there is nothing wrong with your writing to help others in their direction.  The point I made focuses on what is internal to the woman who is “seeking”.  Not on your attempt to provide direction.

- Second, your error in validation has to do with the way you treated the subject matter.  You treated it as if it was no more grave than choosing the correct dress for a ball vs a night club.  Such a lightness of approach to the truth of sexuality and the feminist ideals and idols embraced by society and that underlie the issue is where you implicitly validate the attitude I mentioned.  It’s akin to arguing against stealing based on economic theory as opposed to the truth revealed by God through Christ and the prophets. 

re >>> Is it because you speak directly for God?  If so, is this because you’re a man, or just because you’re right?<<<

- Well Simcha, I’ll let the above pass without comment.  Simply because your words are not at all fitting of a woman who publicly presents herself as a Catholic and implicitly as a defender of the Faith.  Mother Church and the Faith deserve better than your implicitly snide and feminist attitude that slaps John Paul II’s ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS in the face.

re >>>Second, what’s the deal with saying “God and Christ?” I thought Christ WAS God.  Are you a Mormon?<<<

- Yes of course Christ is God.  However just as the Church teaches the mystery of the Trinity, and she repeatedly during Mass uses similar language, e.g. Holy Spirit and God in the same sentence/prayer, but does not error.  Nor do I in doing the same.  It is troubling to see you use such jejune attempts to invalidate my thoughts and implicitly give direction to your readers that my thoughts are some how less “permission” worthy than your own.

Does that help clear things up for you Simcha?

My God Bless you even more than he already has…

AMDG

Okay.  You and a few others seem to think that I’m arguing that modesty is no big deal, that chastity is some kind of obsolete, puritanical fad that neo-Catholics don’t need to sweat.  You are wrong.  This is not what I’m arguing.  I’m not suggesting compromise, and I’m not suggesting riding roughshod over men’s consciences.  I’ve been at great pains in past posts to alert women to the power they have over men. 

.

That’s not what this post was about, however. I think it would be nice if I could occasionally write something different besides “modesty is extremely important” from time to time, but every time I do, someone screams, “How can you say modesty isn’t important?”

.

This post was about modern people getting into a certain frame of mind which makes it impossible to remember what they are trying to achieve in life.  I’m not trying to speak to absolutely everyone; I’m trying to speak to people who have fallen prey to a certain type of destructive thinking.  It’s wonderful for you that this is not your particular problem, but you’ve no right to tell people that I’m leading them astray just because you can’t read carefully.

.

I’ll save you some time here and just post your response:  “Simcha, you don’t sound like Mary!”  And that is because, as I mentioned, I’m a Chinese jet pilot.

lol @Simcha You spoke to me, so thanks. :)

Goodness. Maybe I’m just tired after my 1km after-work swim (my stroke is comically inefficient, so that’s more like 2km worth of energy expended), but some of the word salad above is frightfully difficult to get through.

I shall have to remind my better half to smack me the next time I’m threatening to let loose a 500-word stemwinder in someone’s combox.

Oh, almost forgot to include the mandatory accusation that Simcha is being mean and leading people astray. So here:

My first twenty years in Purgatory are going to be all your fault, Fisher!

Will that do?

(CAPTCHA: “lay86”. Curses…you’re making me think of people getting laid! I’m blaming two years of Purgatory on you too, automated CAPTCHA system!)

Simcha, you can give me direction and insight any time - I need it.

The Augustinian view is very helpful and enlightening.  He maintained, so many years ago, that sex (between married people) is OK for the purpose of procreation; acceptable in order to keep your partner from sinning (in thought, word or deed) - although this motivation is highly suspect; and a vicious depravity for all other purposes, including sexual pleasure.  If you think about it, it makes a lot of sense.

Sexiness is also the chief abettor of that most fallacious of illusions, that youth is eternal.  The necessity of this lie is that it keeps alive the bargain that people make with the devil over sensual gratification:  Sex uber alles.  If satan is lucky, he delivers the bad news to you in person that there’s no copulation in hell.  That’s the entire meaning of diabolical!

@Matt B:  Yes, well, that’s why we’re Catholics, not Augustinians.  Augustine wasn’t married, and never experienced sex within a sacramental marriage. Here’s a tip:  if sexual pleasure is entirely separated from fostering union between spouses, YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG. 

St. Augustine was a huge mama’s boy.

@HCSKnight, I think that 1.) you didn’t understand that Simcha wasn’t posting about how modesty is unimportant. I’ve been reading her for a few years now and it’s very clear that she thinks it is important. She even destroys (rather than donates) slutty girl clothes that people hand down to her kids because such things “shouldn’t exist.” 2.) I’m not sure if you want to anger people, or you’re just really unaware of how you sound when you talk, but it sure looks like you want to make people made. Likening women to a black smoke that chokes society is simply offensive. For one, it’s stereotyping, for two, it’s misogynistic. Even though sexual sins are horribly damaging to society, and you’re right that all women raising the bar would end the sexual revolution, it is still wrong to liken females to sinful smog. We are God’s daughters!

As for what I said about a-hole men, the issue is this: the Pill has made it possible for people to fornicate with little consideration for marriage/babies. Since most people fornicate, and there is no shortage of willing females, men do not have to wait around for the women who won’t put out. Helen Alvare gave a GREAT talk about this at the Georgetown Cardinal O’Connor Conference on Life in 2010, and discussed how even economists agree that women are stuck in a prisoner’s dilemma. Because they can’t talk to each other and form a big cohort that agrees to no sex before commitment, they end up having to have sex if they even want a crack at getting a boyfriend who one day becomes a husband. Women on average would prefer 1-2 partners, preferably 1 after marriage or engagement. On average they have 3-4 partners. Men are getting way more of what they want because there are so few of them willing to put up with a woman who won’t put out.

I got lucky and found an atheist who thought I was worth waiting for. He’s now a devout Catholic and we want a billion kids. But I have a lot of really noble, beautiful, holy female friends who are just out of luck. The really good guys are largely snapped up by their mid to late twenties, and women who haven’t found a good guy by then are, on average, settling for “good enough”, which is part of why they end up initating 70% of the divorces. (Again, according to the very bright, very Catholic Helen Alvare.) I think you’ll agree that based on their native sexual drives, chaste women will always outnumber chaste men. So even if 80% of women are running down this path that you’re talking about, the 20% who aren’t are left with about 5% of men to fight over.

So I hope you can understand why the kind of women who read the register, and who have plenty of friends who can’t find a husband really dislike having our entire sex blamed for the cultural ills. It is so true that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, but we are in a prisoner’s dilemma. We need more people, of both sexes, to loudly proclaim their intent to stay pure. This will give so many women courage to demand more. Once the free sex dries up, you’re right, those boys will straighten up and seek brides. But don’t blame all of the unchurched women who think that having sex is the only way to get a boyfriend who could become a husband; for many of them, that’s true, and they’ve not been taught that it is objectively wrong to have sex outside of marriage. Try to realize that women reading the NCR (and thus your comments) are probably praying the Rosary and open to having kids whom they will rear to be cultural changers. It just makes us sick to have another guy out there deciding that we won’t mind having our sex maligned some more. If we want women to act with dignity, we need to remember their dignity when we speak about them. Remember, prisoner’s dilemma! These women feel trapped now! (And I really don’t think you can prove any of that stuff about men speaking more loudly or women not objecting to the degradation of sex. Doesn’t sound right to me and it’s unverifiable either way. Remember, men do have more public positions, so pointing to Popes isn’t really fair to women who have the smaller congregations called “families” and don’t really go down in history for what they do with them.)

The jet ride with Simcha was amazing.

O.K.  So I was scrolling down the comments to avoid the war at my left elbow.  My three-y.o. is on her back screaming “I don ‘t want to go to the big potty!” She prefers the ritual of me having the extra step of emptying the little potty into the big potty.  She’s quite the control freak. So it became more an issue of her telling me what to do, and me, servant that I teeter on being, succumbing to her bullying pressure. I was one step away from threatening that she have to sleep with the dog, but I told her instead that she wouldn’t go to the zoo tomorrow afternoon if she didn’t stop the tirade. O.k.,I won.  But not without a shrill fight. Sometimes I feel like God, wanting the best for my kids, but having to resort to threatening them with the dog house when they get all high and mighty.  I haven’t read the comment from Mr. Jesuit expert yet, but after I read Matt B.‘s comment I was about to swear off com boxes and blogs forever. Thanks for sweeping in and renewing my flagging spirit.  Yes, St. Augustine was truly great, but he had all those body hating Gnostics to color his thinking, and a bit of a guilty conscience to make things worse, eh?  Anyhoo, I had to laugh over Eileen’s innocent comment about her simple T shirt and yoga pants.  Yes, Eileen, you are in an innocent bubble.  You have no idea what’s out there.  Stay in your innocent, decent bubble. Sidling up to the bar at the NCRegister was more than I bargained for.

No doubt.  I think the Saint was saying that sex solely for sexual pleasure serves to objectify your partner and degrade both them and you.  Besides, this “unitive” thing has become a complete cover for just such behavior.  (I wonder if this was true during the decline of Rome?)  If you look beyond the sensualist bias, and Augustine’s no-holds-barred bluntness, you see that his often misunderstood statement is really quite perceptive, and provides a good “bright line test” for sexual motivations. 

But if you’re intent on glorifying “the wonder of sex,” no amount of succinct advice will help.  My question is, “You really need to sell that position?”  Any child who watches TV will tell you that sex is the be all and end all of life.  Why push the point?  Subtlety?  Finesse?  Understatement?  Paradox?  Irony?  So many literary devices, and so little time!  And those Fathers of the Church were so heavy handed!

I’m sorry about your despair, al.  There comes a time when we graduate to bourbon from chablis.  My mother felt that way too, God rest her soul!

@Matt B:  So, what you’re saying is that you’re not married.

@MightyMighty: What you say is largely true and you make many good points. There’s one thing I have to comment on though.

Single men of a certain age are liable to explode in frustration whenever they hear the “there are no good men left!” lament. Good men get ignored and passed over all the time because of the paradox that women today are both too picky and not picky enough.

The “not picky enough” part dominates in their teens and twenties, because young women may *say* they want to find a nice guy to settle down with, but what they really dig are jerks.

The “too picky” part comes into play later, when women have been burned enough times, or have just been marinading in the “it’s all about you; you can have it all” stuff long enough, that they’ve come to equate dating a man who is in any way non-ideal (including in entirely superficial ways) with the sort of “settling” that will doom them to misery.

When men grow bitter enough over all this, they become prime bait for the preposterous impresarios of “The Game”. Because if you can’t love women, but don’t want to do without them, why not simply use them instead? It’s sexually gratifying…and as a nice bonus, it feels a little like revenge.

@MattB.  Save your condescending attitude.  It is readily apparent to me that I understand the subject in a way that you can’t, because you have a severe roadblock.  That is lamentable.  I’m sorry your dear Mom could only handle Chablis.  (What IS Chablis?  Sounds like something a grandma in the Midwest would order)  It’s as if you argue something so ...stunted?  Like believing poetry serves the purpose of rhyming words together.

“But truly, Werther was a pioneer in the worst way:  he blazed the trail for the full blown foolishness we have today.  At least the poor sap knew enough to go away and shoot himself.”

This doesn’t exactly seem like a charitable attitude.  At least he’d go kill himself?  Seriously? 

And he blazed the trail?  Are you kidding?  Have you been around the singles scene in a while?  Do you know how people talk about each other?  Not in the way Werther does, nor is there anything chivalrous about it.  We’re talking pure vulgarity towards women, using them for sex and ditching them, etc. 

I’ve got to stop looking at this post - it just ticks me off.  No offense meant, but this is a bit much.

SF - I don’t know how you adduce such a thing from a discussion of patristic philosophy.  Perhaps I’ve allowed too much of my personal life to interfere with my ratiocination.  I also apologize to anna lisa for being overbearing.  If the truth be told, I haven’t had a glass of either bourbon or chablis for over 24 years - so I’m talking from a distant recollection.  Cheers to both of you!

It’s weird to me that “sexy” is now treated as a synonym for “valuable.” Not very long ago, when I was young, it was considered odd to want too badly to be sexy; in fact, sexiness was just one of many possible fashion statements. You could even be sassy, attention-getting and rebellious, without necessarily trying to be sexy. But in the 1990s suddenly everyone and everything was judges as being valuable to the degree that it was sexy. The alternative to being sexy was suddenly low self-esteem, depression and unpleasantness. How did that happen?

I’ve learned that it’s important for a woman to know her man only really has eyes for her.  Drawing comparisons between her and other women can truly wound her spirit and may take a very long time to repair that trust.  I might add one other point (IMO) —no matter how attractive a woman is, her beauty is always enhanced by her devotion to Christ, not that she simply goes to church each Sunday.  Any woman who is sold out to Jesus as priority #1 in her life is part of the countenance about her.  A lot of men are jealous if they are not #1.  But those men (who are also sold out to Christ) totally understand the dynamics.  For those of Christian faith, when you find someone you are physically attracted to and also connect in the Spirit of Christ —this is what Lord intended from the beginning.

Casting Crowns: a veritable sea of glass!

@Simcha Fisher re Wednesday, Aug 1, 2012 7:18

re >>>Okay.  You and a few others seem to think that I’m arguing that modesty is no big deal, that chastity is some kind of obsolete, puritanical fad that neo-Catholics don’t need to sweat.  You are wrong.  This is not what I’m arguing.<<<
- Again Simcha you fail to understand what I, and maybe some others are talking about.  It is not that we think you seem to think it’s no big deal.  Its that your piece treats something very grave in a trite manner.  What you are doing is far too common among lay apologists.  Maybe it is done in attempt to be more “approachable” and hence more “evangelical”.  But as well intentioned as that might be, and just as the road to hell is “paved with good intentions”, that doesnt mean it’s the best course or even an appropriate course.  Think about this, when did Christ, or any of the Apostles ever speak in a “light” tone.?  Christ more than any other spoke of hell.  Granted Christ might not have spoken in a fire and brimstone manner, but Christ didn’t speak lightly with whimsical quips sprinkled about.  E.g. “And that is because, as I mentioned, I’m a Chinese jet pilot.”  Now your jet pilot cutesie quip doesnt make you a bad person, but it DOES detract from the seriousness of the discussion.  In fact it is exactly the kind of tactic an immature adolescent uses to “walk away” from something difficult or a discussion they know they’ve lost or met someone who simply out-guns them; a pun to stay with your jet pilot quip. 

- This point of the lightness of some blogging laity has a historical parallel.  Hilaire Belloc wrote of it in his book on why the Protestant schism occurred.  In the period before the schism the Church, in its enthusiasm to spread the Word ordained many priests and dramatically increased the numbers of monks/brothers.  Remember this was before Gutenberg’s printing press made the bible and education far more available to common people.  Well, the rush to save souls via increase in numbers of priests/monks/brothers was done at the expense of their proper formation.  So as these men spread through Europe, the fruits of their poor formation spread and took root.  Now they all may have meant well, and they arent necessarily to blame for their poor formation.  But the fact remains their enthusiasm to evangelize a poorly formed understanding of the Faith created tremendous confusion and misunderstanding among the Catholic community.  Now of course that is not the primary or only reason why the schism occurred.  But it did play a big role. 

- Today’s parallel is laity blogging.  And Simcha, I have no doubt of your heart and soul’s intentions, or your love for Christ and the Church.  Nor am I saying your understanding of the Faith is poor.

- What I am saying is the gravity in which matters of Faith are approached matters gravely.  It is not by mistake that today’s Novus Ordo Mass has been at times greatly perverted and fallen far short from the intentions of Vatican II regarding the solemnity of the Mass.  And I’m not saying all that do are a creation of priests/laity who seek to subvert the Mass.  But I do know this.  Mass has “fallen” to the egos of priests and laity who become more enamored with what their emotions see.  If you doubt that consider this.  The offering of the Mass is the bloodless Sacrifice of Christ on the Crucifix.  Next time you are at Mass and the Eucharistic Pray phase of the Mass begins, ask yourself, how would this look if above all gathered Christ was hanging Crucified above you.  His blood and sweat dripping down upon all.  Swirling around Him, angels and daemons fighting for Him and souls.  Can you look up, and then look down and say “yes, this offering we are making is appropriate”?

re >>>I’m not suggesting compromise, and I’m not suggesting riding roughshod over men’s consciences.  I’ve been at great pains in past posts to alert women to the power they have over men. <<<
- Thank you for doing so.  That power is great.  It’s also why I think Mary’s example is so important.  If you will, a form of “to whom much is given, much is expected”.  Men need help only women can give. 

re >>>I think it would be nice if I could occasionally write something different besides “modesty is extremely important” from time to time, but every time I do, someone screams, “How can you say modesty isn’t important?”.<<<
- Sorry but Christ never said to go out and be “interesting” or “exciting”.  His stories really weren’t founded upon trying to appeal to man via sounding “different”.  Trust in what He promised.  He said to spread His Word.  It’s one thing to use story to try to explain the Word, or give personal testimony.  Mother Teresa prayed to be “a pencil” in His hand, not a screenwriter or the lead supporting actor/actress.  That’s partly why I comment anonymously, I don’t want to tempt my ego with the affections of people who do not know me at all.

- Simcha, this brings me to another point.  The path you have chosen is very similar in its temptations to Hollywood stars.  Think about this spiritual/psychological dynamic.  Most actors feel “loved” by their fans, they go through feelings similar to what adolescent’s experience during a first love, or crush/infatuation.  But here’s the big problem, that emotion has zero/nada/nil relationship.  It is a completely internal emotional experience.  Likewise for the crazed fans.  Neither the actor or fan REALLY knows the other.  Sometimes actors who are not spiritually/mentally mature enough, or narcissistic, can become very bitter, like the “woman scorned” metaphor.  But the key is there is really no true “knowing” of the object of their emotions.  The same thing lies as a temptress for bloggers, and those who comment.  It’s another reason why I choose to remain anonymous.  Plus, I dont want anyone to attribute anything “positive” I say to me.  I want any gratitude for any Grace that may come to be as much as possible directed to where the Grace came FROM not THROUGH.  Pencil’s are never thanked, and never nominated for Grammy’s or Tony’s or Oscar’s.

re >>>This post was about modern people getting into a certain frame of mind which makes it impossible to remember what they are trying to achieve in life.<<<
- Great, good goal.

re >>>I’m not trying to speak to absolutely everyone; I’m trying to speak to people who have fallen prey to a certain type of destructive thinking.<<<
- Okay

re >>>It’s wonderful for you that this is not your particular problem, but you’ve no right to tell people that I’m leading them astray just because you can’t read carefully.<<<
- Okay, but maybe I DO know this “particular problem” well because in the pass I have fallen to it so deeply?  Maybe I understand, like an alcoholic understands alcohol?  Granted you may be directing your piece to a different group.  But just as many alcohol abusers do not develop into alcoholics, it does not mean their attitudes and “lightness” to the subject is right.  Again, you are talking of a mortally grave sin.  This is not a light matter.  Consider this analogy: alcohol is a venial sin, crack a mortal; do you talk about crack like you talk about drinking?  The subject of “sexuality” is crack.  Don’t kid yourself otherwise.  Mary at Fatima warned of the gravity in which man considered sexuality.  Now no Catholic has to believe in the message of Fatima.  But considering the Popes, Saints and others who do not take Fatima lightly, one would not do wrong applying Pascal’s Wager.

Simcha, you don’t sound like Mary.  But you CAN.

God Bless
AMDG

@Simcha Fisher re Wednesday, Aug 1, 2012 10:45

re >>>@Matt B:  Yes, well, that’s why we’re Catholics, not Augustinians.  Augustine wasn’t married, and never experienced sex within a sacramental marriage.<<<
- Simcha!  Listen to yourself talking about a SAINT so flippantly.  Please stop it.  Just stop it.  You are hurting yourself, hurting the Church by publicly degrading a Saint, and possibly hurting souls who may be searching and stumble upon your blog/comments - by helping to form a negative attitude about a great Saint who wrote the great work - “Confessions”. 

If your spirit and soul is so weak and thin skinned that you can not conduct yourself with greater Charity toward a Saint, then maybe YOU need to blog anonymously? 

Seriously.  Ask yourself, do you want to go before Peter with such a heart?  Do you or NCR really need or want to promote a public image of treating Saints like they were merely historical op-ed writers?

Just stop it.  Please.

God Bless & prayers
AMDG

@HCSKnight:  well, thanks for taking the time to write all this out.  I have to admit that part of the reason I got so annoyed at you yesterday was because a tiny part of me thought you might be right; but now that you’ve explained your point of view more fully, I’m not worried anymore.  I can see that you and I just approach life differently.  I hope that we will meet in heaven some day and have a good laugh at just how far off the mark both of us were.

,

There is one thing I’d like to ask you.  This is the third or fourth time that you’ve said to me or another women, “You don’t sound like Mary.”  Do you ever adminish men by telling them that they don’t sound like Joseph, or like one of the other saints, or like Christ?

Oh, I just saw your other comment.  I don’t understand why you say I was being flippant about Augustine.  It’s a plain biographical fact:  he never experienced sex within a sacramental marriage.  His entire experience of sex was within the context of sin, and that goes a long way to explaining why he has such a warped view of human sexuality.  Look, he’s a saint, but he’s not infallible:  he’s human, and he was wrong about some things.  He was gloriously, world-changingly right about others.  It’s not ‘hurting my soul’ to use my brain and think about whether I agree with him about everything.  My stars.

@Simcha Fisher re Thursday, Aug 2, 2012 7:45 AM

re >>>@Matt B:  So, what you’re saying is that you’re not married.<<<
- A low class, arrogant, reply with zero Charity.  Congratulations Simcha. 

As you’re walking up to Communion this Sunday, literally as you are walking up, ask yourself, is that what Jesus WANTED me to do and what He WANTS me to be? 

And dont try to turn it around and ask me that question, I do it every day and time.  That moment to answer Matt B was yours and yours alone.  At the gate, there’s going to be no finger pointing to the behavior of others.  As a mother, you know very well why.

AMDG

@Simcha

re >>> Posted by anna lisa on Thursday, Aug 2, 2012 10:36 AM (EST):  @MattB.  Save your condescending attitude.  It is readily apparent to me that I understand the subject in a way that you can’t, because you have a severe roadblock.  That is lamentable.  I’m sorry your dear Mom could only handle Chablis.  (What IS Chablis?  Sounds like something a grandma in the Midwest would order)  It’s as if you argue something so ...stunted?  Like believing poetry serves the purpose of rhyming words together.<<<

- Do you see the type of woman your spirit is drawing and fostering?  Ask yourself, is this the voice of a woman you want your boys/girls to see around you during a summer picnic?  Or after Mass?

@AnnaLisa
- You project too much.  Much like actresses who believe they are the part they play in a movie.

AMDG

@Serena Rainey re Thursday, Aug 2, 2012 11:07 AM

>>>It’s weird to me that “sexy” is now treated as a synonym for “valuable.” Not very long ago, when I was young, it was considered odd to want too badly to be sexy; in fact, sexiness was just one of many possible fashion statements. You could even be sassy, attention-getting and rebellious, without necessarily trying to be sexy. But in the 1990s suddenly everyone and everything was judges as being valuable to the degree that it was sexy. The alternative to being sexy was suddenly low self-esteem, depression and unpleasantness. How did that happen?<<<

- Very observant.  Have you read C.S. Lewis’ “The Screwtape Letters”?  Or his “The Great Divorce”.  If not you might find them helpful to answering your question.  Just a thought.

God Bless
AMDG

Oh, boy. I just read through your comments and this:  “Sorry but Christ never said to go out and be “interesting” or “exciting”.  His stories really weren’t founded upon trying to appeal to man via sounding “different”—this may be the funniest thing I’ve ever read.  Yep, I remember that part of the New Testament, where Jesus said, “I’m here to tell you the same old thing.  Nothing new here, nothing exciting.  Move along.”

@Casting Crowns re Thursday, Aug 2, 2012 1:23 PM

>>> I’ve learned that it’s important for a woman to know her man only really has eyes for her.  Drawing comparisons between her and other women can truly wound her spirit and may take a very long time to repair that trust.  I might add one other point (IMO) — no matter how attractive a woman is, her beauty is always enhanced by her devotion to Christ, not that she simply goes to church each Sunday.  Any woman who is sold out to Jesus as priority #1 in her life is part of the countenance about her.  A lot of men are jealous if they are not #1.  But those men (who are also sold out to Christ) totally understand the dynamics.  For those of Christian faith, when you find someone you are physically attracted to and also connect in the Spirit of Christ —this is what Lord intended from the beginning.<<<

- So true, well said.  I’d add we men have to remember what a tremendous weight a woman’s external beauty can be.  Especially if she’s bitten the apple and has fallen like a Caesar looking at his own reflection. 

- And ladies, the above does not mean I am not aware of the many “falls” which come from the many apples men bite.

AMDG

@Simcha Fisher on Thursday, Aug 2, 2012

re >>>@Do you ever adminish [sic] men by telling them that they don’t sound like Joseph, or like one of the other saints, or like Christ?<<<
- Yes, absolutely; when appropriate.  You act as if your choosing to hold yourself out in the role you have, i.e. a Catholic blogger/evangelist/apologist, has no bearing on anything you do. 

re >>> I don’t understand why you say I was being flippant about Augustine.  It’s a plain biographical fact:  he never experienced sex within a sacramental marriage.  His entire experience of sex was within the context of sin, and that goes a long way to explaining why he has such a warped view of human sexuality.  Look, he’s a saint, but he’s not infallible:  he’s human, and he was wrong about some things.  He was gloriously, world-changingly right about others.  It’s not ‘hurting my soul’ to use my brain and think about whether I agree with him about everything.  My stars.<<<

- Again, you fail to see what YOU have done with yourself.  You act as if you said something in a private conversation.  [not yelling here, just cant underline] YOU ARE HOLDING YOURSELF OUT PUBLICLY AS A CATHOLIC WITNESS.  Like it or not that’s what you did by starting to blog and associating yourself with NCR. 

- Secondly, your “biological fact” is seriously flawed as an argument.  Not only do you know for a fact all the states and relationships St. Augustine experience, there may be some that are very relevant to understanding sex in a Sacramental marriage.  Regardless, receiving the Sacrament is NOT required for one to experience sexuality in a marriage.  First of all the Church is merely a witness to the Sacrament.  Second, it is possible for a couple to join into a Sacramental marriage without the Church present; just as the Church teaches there can be a Baptism by desire.  Take for instance a couple in the jungles of Brazil who have never heard of Christianity or Catholicism.  Would you deny that God and the Holy Spirit can not work within them to form a Sacramental union?  Yet they could experience the very thing you deny based on the authority of your opinion of the state of Grace existent in the soul of another person.  Really?  Well congratulations Goddess Simcha!

- You may fancy your thoughts well considered and wise.  But you consistently make arguments that were old well before they were re-born in the false spirits of post-Vatican II, and equally flawed.

re >>> Oh, boy. I just read through your comments and this:  “Sorry but Christ never said to go out and be “interesting” or “exciting”.  His stories really weren’t founded upon trying to appeal to man via sounding “different”—this may be the funniest thing I’ve ever read.  Yep, I remember that part of the New Testament, where Jesus said, “I’m here to tell you the same old thing.  Nothing new here, nothing exciting.  Move along.”<<<
- Seriously, do you know how emotional and unreasoned you sound?  Did the Apostles go out and “liven up” the Word?  No. They treated it with the gravity of men who were willing to be thrown to the lions, tortured, and crucified. 
- That you find my thoughts to be “may be the funniest thing I’ve ever read”, which by the way are not my own but rather very common among the Saints and Doctors of the Church, is something that should give you pause.

- I honestly recommend, if you do not do so already, to sit in Adoration with Christ for an hour over that simple thought. 

Christ, if false, is of no importance.  Christ if true, is of infinite importance.  The only thing He cannot be is moderately important. [CS Lewis paraphrased]

Again, these things you find “funny” are speaking of things which are gravely mortal to the souls of His Children. 

AMDG

What do priests, or even bishops, know about married life?  After all, they’re celibate men, or whatever.  And how can you depend on a bronze age, or even an iron age book to determine how you live your life?  We’re into silicon now.  And how do I pretend to speak or even know the truth, when all I’ve ever done is error?  I have the running sores to prove it!

Hey, Knightyknighty,

What’s your pedigree? Why should anyone listen to you? You have a charism you’d like to share?

To me you sound like a bitter, frustrated wash out who seeths with jealousy. What else can explain the thousands of wourds you’ve posted here with you shifting sand arguments. They all get back to you, you know. Everything you’ve written is about you. That’s either huge ego or insecurity. My money’s on the insecurity.

Knight- “Do you see the type of woman your spirit is drawing and fostering?” You’re missing the point.  I’m out for bear.  The grizzlier the better.

“A low class, arrogant, reply with zero Charity.  Congratulations Simcha”  Nothing I’m unaccustomed to.  Zero apology required.

“Now your jet pilot cutesie quip doesnt make you a bad person, but it DOES detract from the seriousness of the discussion.”  Do anything.  Defect. But don’t stop being funny.

Jesus was indeed very funny. And he told the world’s funniest joke. I still get a chuckle every time I think about it, Mr. Dark Knight.  Come on and join the light.

@ The Jerk on Thursday, Aug 2, 2012 9:27 PM (EST)

re >>> To me you sound like a bitter, frustrated wash out who seeths [sic] with jealousy. What else can explain the thousands of wourds you’ve posted here with you shifting sand arguments. They all get back to you, you know. Everything you’ve written is about you. That’s either huge ego or insecurity. My money’s on the insecurity<<<

Lame try.  Wrong on all counts. ;)

AMDG

@Matt B on Thursday, Aug 2, 2012 9:54 PM (EST):

Well, I think you mis-read my post.  It was directed to Simcha. 

Re >>> “Do you see the type of woman your spirit is drawing and fostering?” You’re missing the point.  I’m out for bear.  The grizzlier the better.<<<

- A sad bully for you.  Don’t you know it’s a weak man that goes looking to fight women.  And not it doesn’t apply to my comments here.  I’d much rather not “fight” with the folks on this board or Simcha.  But it’s called “defending the Faith”.  I suggest if you seek the same that you focus on that and not bear.

re >>> “A low class, arrogant, reply with zero Charity.  Congratulations Simcha”  Nothing I’m unaccustomed to.  Zero apology required.<<<

- You realize this makes no sense.  I was speaking toward Simcha’s behavior.  Unless of course you are Simcha?

re >>> “Now your jet pilot cutesie quip doesnt make you a bad person, but it DOES detract from the seriousness of the discussion.”  Do anything.  Defect. But don’t stop being funny.<<<

- Are you on medication?

re >>>Jesus was indeed very funny. And he told the world’s funniest joke. I still get a chuckle every time I think about it, Mr. Dark Knight.  Come on and join the light.<<<

- Ah see there you go giving rational atheists a bad name.  Have you ever noticed how as you get older the crass jokes, especially the political and religious ones get less and less funny?  With aged maturity they become down right, well pathetic sounding.  Yet the young, immature, and naive kids think they are a riot.  Psst, which do you think are the atheists? ;)

Cheers & may God Bless you deeply,
AMDG

Ok peoples.  Let’s take a breather!  I think everyone said their piece.  Let’s live and let live, pack our bags and move on. 

Peace and love to you all.  :)

A woman is most desireable when experiencing her fertile period.  When matched with a partner committed to renewing the life within them, this is ideal, both morally and aesthetically.

The long absences involved in Augustine’s second scenario sharpen desire, even in periods of non-fertility, rendering this type of engagement nearly as satisfying as 1/ above.  However, the propensity is to accept something less than a fully sharpened appetite when choosing the time for an engagement, and could border on sensuality, below.

Merely engaging in marital relations in order to fulfill the demands of pleasure renders this activity an ennervating waste of life, demeans the couple, and makes them completely insensitive to the spiritual aspects of mutual love that come with physical discipline.  In the same way, you might reserve ice cream as a treat for your children, if you were interested in their physical health or emotional development.

While I’m not wise, I’ve been beaten up enough to recognize wisdom.  Good luck to all you to whom this sort of thing still matters.

Absolutely!
How many
Who’s to say what sexy is anyway. One persons sexy is another’s nightmare. Most people we see in the media who portray what is ideally thought to be sexy, have huge problems….drugs, depression , poor self esteem, relationship issues…..to name but a few. You can’t please every one so just try to please God. Look after yourself, respect yourself. That way you will find peace knowing that your creator accepts you just as you are.

@Karen on Thursday, Aug 2, 2012 11:33 PM (EST):

Re>>Ok peoples.  Let’s take a breather!  I think everyone said their piece.  Let’s live and let live, pack our bags and move on. <<<

Hmmm.  Reminds me of “shake the dirt off your feet” and “all’s it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to….”

Of course the latter is a secular lie.  To to be a “good man”, there’s a prerequisite obligation of non-silence in the face of evil.  It is impossible for them to be silent for more than a moment to catch their breath, much less remain silent.

AMDG

frick frick frick frick frick
That is all.

His poor, poor wife…

@Matt B, I never tire of receiving Jesus in the Holy Eucharist every day.  Why must *love* be so demeaned, as to compare it to ICE CREAM?  The love I have for my husband is a prayer.  Every time I say “I love you” in word or deed it is new and fresh and life-giving whether a child results or not.  In Augustine’s day people rarely received the Eucharist.  The majority of Christians waited until death for baptism in order that their souls be washed clean.  Rather a backwards approach to matters don’t you think?  Thank God the Holy Spirit continues to teach and enlighten.

anna lisa.  Regarding St. Augustine, I am the redactor, not the scribe.  However, I’m profoundly impressed with the power and simplicity of his analysis, which to my mind has not been bested in 1500 years of wordy attempts.

HCSknight, tacking “God bless” onto the end of everything you write doesn’t automatically make it charitable. Coming from you, it just sounds sarcastic. God bless. (See what I mean?)

@Matt B.  I am a fan of St. Augustine.  My fourth has his name (middle).  My ninth is named after the one who converted him: Ambrose.  While one of the greatest minds that ever lived—still a man, with his weak points…

Wise choices, anna lisa.  My mother was seriously devoted to St. Monica - a devotion I taught her.

Love your column.  As a senior in her sixties I’m revolted by women still agonizing about their figures, wrinkles and men!  It’s even more ridiculous for women our age wanting to look like we did twenty or thirty years ago.  And yes, I’ve been watching the Olympics and wonder why the volley ball or beach ball women are wearing such skimpy clothing where the women who are swimmers and gymnists look so healthy.  Years ago, they too looked anorexic just like the “popular” stars do today.  I think back in the fifties when our mothers looked like mothers. and I’m not talking about the “June Cleaver” women, but ones who wore modest dresses to church, maybe wore gringy clothes while cleaning but knew the difference between the two.  Wish that some of that would rub off on the women today.

Posted by rosemarie kury on Monday, Aug 6, 2012 8:34 AM (EST):Love your column.  As a senior in her sixties I’m revolted by women still agonizing about their figures, wrinkles and men!  It’s even more ridiculous for women our age wanting to look like we did twenty or thirty years ago.”
*****************
The British call it “Mutton dressed as lamb.”
:)

@MattB, I too can relate to St. Monica.  She had a sweet tooth, and liked to dip into the wine among other things.  I have too many kids to obsess on just one of them though. I pray my guts out for them, peck them when they need pecking, hug them a lot, make them roll their eyes when I turn into a holy roller and laugh with them when the holy rollers that are serious offenders want to reduce women to ridiculous caricatures of human beings.

@rosemarie kury:  [“As a senior in her sixties I’m revolted by women still agonizing about their figures, wrinkles and men”]  Tsk Tsk.  That does not absolve you from taking care of yourself, your body and your health.  Women who just “let themselves go” are not attractive and neither are men.  You’re revolted?  Frankly, I’m revoted by how FAT some people are.  God expects you to disciple yourself and do the very best with what He provided you with.

Casting Crowns ,
Revolted, true, is a strong word choice,but she was speaking about older women “agonizing” over their appearance.
I doubt she was endorsing slovenliness & obesity as alternatives.

I was not talking about letting yourself go.  I swim 3x a week and do a lot of exercise.  What I meant was women dressing like 20 year olds in tight pants and tops, having plastic surgery to get rid of the wrinkles,etc.  As Mother Angelica commented once on her show, no matter how much makeup you put on, the wrinkles are still there.  and women come in all shapes and sizes.  I wouldn’t expect all women to be wearing a size 6-8 all through their lives either.  To stay healthy is one thing, to be obsessed with your image and weight is another.

@Paul H.:  I totally agree!  Very inappropriate.  And Simcha’s excuse of wanting some “zing”?  How IRONIC!  Isn’t that how we went into this cesspool in the first place?  By some less-than-grownup deciding that they needed to put some “zing” into their life?  A shame that right-mindedness doesn’t have enough “zing”, but it’s very telling about the person searching for ever more.

@Ryan:  “The imprudence of adopting secular terms to describe sexual goodness is a near pandemic in Catholic society.”

I totally agree.  Catholics bend to secular society FAR too much.

Our colleges do much the same thing…elevating esoteric academics above developing character…more worried about their academic rankings rather than ensuring graduates are measurably and truly better Catholics in their behavior than when they arrived

@rosemarie kury:  “What I meant was women dressing like 20 year olds in tight pants and tops”

And I hope it crossed folks minds here that neither we nor our daughters should, as Catholics, be seeking to wear tight clothing in the first place!  If you need to flaunt the intimate details of your shape in public, perhaps you should cut to the chase, girls, and display a price list, as well.

@Jane:  Just curious.  Are women who are able to flaunt it, dressing for the attention of men—or are they dressing in competition against other women?

Casting Crowns,
My thought is all 3: They can flaunt it, and enjoy it. They enjoy the attention of men, even if they don’t necessarily understand what that can mean. They can feel superior to women who for what ever reason are not able to “flaunt”.

@Kay:  Very likely it is all 3.  Frankly, if you’ve got it Honey, go with it.  If you can wear it, why not?  You’re God’s creation with that special blessing.  It does not mean that the eyes of all men are necessarily tuned into something unholy.  A godly husband, though, should only have eyes for his spouse.  Problems arise because fathers do not properly train their sons in this regard.

@Jane: Snarky, self-righteous comments like, “If you need to flaunt the intimate details of your shape in public, perhaps you should cut to the chase, girls, and display a price list, as well” confirm what I’ve long suspected about women who scrutinize other women’s modesty, or lack of thereof.  These women are jealous, insecure “mean girls”, disguised as defenders of virtue, who lord their supposed moral superiority over others.  I have been guilty of this attitude myself, but thankfully I was able to recognize my motives for what they were. 

So what’s so wrong about women who are able to wear clothes which flatter their body?

Casting Nets - Modesty is still a virtue.  “Virtue: True for so many reasons that it defies adequate expression.  A logical solipcism deployed for practical living.  A word of God distilled into axiomatic form.  The commonest of common sense.  Foundational of social order and basic human relations.”

Strangely, no one asks if they should hang their finest apparel on the clothesline in a rainstorm, store that leg’o'lamb in the toilet, or let the kids bring candy bars to the prisoners half-way house.

Your average pretty woman in a short black dress probably gets more looks on an afternoon urban streetcorner than there are drops in a rainstorm.  Each one is individually inocuous; but apparently she has more concern for her wardrobe than her person.

Even a bathroom has it’s appropriate usages, as does an office or an arena - but you would never celebrate a sacramental meal there.  That’s why people have fine china and pay extra for that detached dining room.

Moreover, older women seem content or even compelled to encourage their daughters to flaunt it, merely because beauty’s rose is flush upon them.  But really, the height of religion is to have it, and keep it to yourself.  Not that beauty is bad, just “reserved.”

In the same way, the most beautiful of all women is reserved to only brief mentions in about 5 lines of scripture.  “Paradise” literally means enclosed or secret garden.

Also, why do we not have a physical description of God-made-man in holy scripture?  Apparently beauty has more to do with spiritual qualities than with physical.

@MattB:  [“Apparently beauty has more to do with spiritual qualities than with physical.”]  You nailed it.  Physical attraction is quite important between the sexes, but when you connect on the spirituality of Christ within both of you, it is there where Heaven on earth is found.  It is also your strongest hedge against divorce.  Recent studies show what “Christian” women desire most from men is love for Christ first before other things—including their wife.  Covenant marriage should be undestood to have the same meaning for any couple considering marriage.
They are under the authority of Christ.  If one partner doesn’t see it that way they are going to have problems. 

What does it mean to be under the authority of Christ, I wonder?  Your typical evangelical does wondrous lip-service towards that end, but fails in the knowledge of Christ. 

“Covenant marriage” is not a magic bullet against unhappiness and divorce.  What you really need is an habitual practice of subjection to Christ and your spouse.  This constant and relentless tempering of will to the will of the beloved is what elevates marriage to the level of sacrament. 

Of course, such self-denial is a horror to modern principles of pleasure-seeking and ego assertion.  But realistically, the current view of marriage as consensual pleasure-seeking is complete and utter phantasm.  Married people who do make it become steely dan through countless iterations of self-abnegation, and their happiness is fireproof.

@Matt B: Please explain failing in the “knowledge of Christ” by your definition and by what bar are you setting that standard?

Christ espouses his Church through his passion and death.  As Christians, we follow in his way: the way of the Cross.  Through our discipleship of the cross, we enter into the knowledge of Christ.

Too many non-Catholic christians idolize the glory of the resurrection while paying short shrift to the way of the cross.  However, this way is precisely our call.  “Where I am, there will my disciple be.”

Many non-Catholic christians idolize the mighty works of Jesus, as if these were something in and of themselves.  However, these miracles merely illuminate the mystical sacrifice of our Lord the way a medieval text is illuminated: around the edges.

I have nothing against miracles, and glory, and connubial bliss.  You just can’t get there from here.  You can’t escape the “scandal of the cross” if you’re any kind of Christian.  And you can’t know with the mind of Christ, unless you share a sacrificial meal with him, in fact and in truth.

@MattB:  Why are you so hostile to me?  I’ve done nothing to you.  The sacrificial meal is also to drink the cup—and to deny self and take up our own cross daily in submission to Him.  As for “getting there from here,” everything starts at the cross.  You can’t get anywhere without first coming to the cross.  So why are you so hostile to me?  Where are we disagreeing?

I wondered why I was so interested in Olympic beach volleyball. I thought I liked the sport Hmm !

MattB, You make many true statements, ones that any good Catholic of good will would agree with.  Modesty is a trickier topic than the black and white, obvious truth that lamb should not be stored in the toilet.  Standards of modesty change constantly. I’m afraid your own dear grandmother would have failed in modesty by Victorian standards.  What we need to be honest about is that modesty is not static like the Truth of Transubstantiation.  It is up to the individual to decide in the light of faith, reason, their private circumstances, and their relationship with God, how they must govern themself or their daughter(s).  What troubles me the most in the whole modesty debate is at times a discernible malice toward women, often by other women, who want to set an unreasonable standard for *others* to abide by, as if they themselves were in possession of some “truth” that all the other dumb Catholics are not elevated enough to understand.  The older I get, the more I see how pride and evil tempt from both ends of the spectrum.  It also makes a heck of a lot of sense to me why the devil would also want to manipulate an “Amish” version of Catholic womanhood in order that the gospel be pushed even further away from the mainstream.  The pagan that thirsts for something more,is logically put off by those who spurn what is perfectly permissible in modern dress and culture, unless of course he or she also has a deep, warped need to consider himself or herself superior to others.  Bottom line on all of this, as far as I am personally concerned?  Charity.  Please realize that this might mean something different for my family, my husband,in the town I live in, in the part of the country where we live—than *yours*.

@anna lisa:  Amen.  Men can easily watch the Women’s Olympic Beach Volley Ball that Rosemarie Kury (above) complains about without their minds going nuts.  The clothing they wear is what you wear at the beach.  I certainly don’t expect to see women at mass all wearing burkas either.  Women should be able to wear what they want without people passing judgment.

Great.  Thanks Simcha! 

C#minor analogy - genius!  The used-to-be musician in me giggled and giggled!  Very effective point. 

I apologize for the stridency of this writing.  But at the back of it is passion, not hypocrisy.  When you read a brief comment on a charged topic, it triggers so many associations that may or may not apply.  Sometimes I launch off into rhetorical excess that could be completely off-point. 

I’m not really sure what the function of a forum like this is: personal chat, intellectual exchange, or hortatory soapbox?  Certainly the content of the blogs encourages all of these.  Unfortunately for me, there’s almost nowhere I can go to restlessly ruminate, and piously pontificate, like a college sophmore over beer and cigarettes, anymore.  The beer and cigarettes are definitely out.  The rhetorical excess is probably next to go.  Bad for the heart.

anna lisa, I love that strain of enlightened relativism.  You must be a “left-coaster.”  I’d like to hear the newsflow of relativisitic rationalizations when California tumbles into the sea.  But God forbid, though.  Think of all those people who can’t tell their right hand from their left.

Seriously though, you seem to be a thoughtful and spiritual woman.  My take on scripture is that God demands more from “his holy ones,” and will render a stricter accounting from those he has blessed the more.

How do you think he will respond to the “community standard” thing?  And really, do you think the olympics are anything more than a glorification of pagan values and materialism.  If you can find anytdhing amenable to Christianity in any of it, I have a needle I lost in that haystack.

Ohhhhhhh MattB, you’re funny and I like you, it’s just that I used to follow some really “out there” right winger stuff when I was young and impressionable.  It was lousy for my marriage, and even worse for my oldest two sons.  It’s downright “cultish” to be frank. Now that I’m free of all the pharisaical wisdom these people obsess about, I’m free to soar to God, without a dog collar of morbid fear on.  And *no* I don’t dress like a hussy.  I usually wear a skirt, heels etc. to mass.  I iron my husband’s shirt too.  Should I have more “demanded” of me than the ten I’ve given birth to, the eight I got to keep here, and the cooking, cleaning, and loving that is my joy to correspond to?  Matt, I just don’t think Jesus wants me to do anything other than joyfully accept others.  This doesn’t mean I bend rules or question church teachings.  I love the church, her wisdom leaves me breathless with admiration.
Please show me where it says we aren’t allowed to really like sex with our spouse.
Please show me the handbook that mandates which form modesty must take.
I really. think. the. devil. is. trying. to. rob. legitimate. Christian. joy.  He wants to make us guilt ridden, scrupulous, and sanctimonious.  What a terrible bummer to get up to heaven, and have God say, “What on EARTH was your pent up problem?  So you’re above that amazing gift of sex that I gave *legitimately*, for spouses to ENJOY?  To make their earthly sojourn *sweeter*?  You chose instead to be holy in what you *DON’T DO*?”
Now I go to daily mass with joy
Now I pray the rosary with my husband with joy
Now I’ve stopped judging the hearts of others based on their looks.  Everyone is on a different stretch of the road.  I’m not afraid to speak the truth nor will I Hammer others with Truth!
...Even the altar boy with the blue mohawk, even all the girls in their jeans, even the kid with hair to his waist, who’s such a new Catholic that he hasn’t figured out we don’t wear the rosary as jewelry.  This morning there was a young woman in work out spandex at mass.  She was praying piously. I was just delighted she came…you know what I mean?  She’ll get it soon enough.

@anna lisa.  Good for you.  If you can carry it off, I say wear it.  Men are responsible for their own imagination.  And women who judge other women’s motives are equally guilty.  Very likely the complaining women are jealous they, too, can’t wear the same clothes.

P.S. As for the Olympics?....I suggest you read the writings of St. Josemaria Escriva.  He’ll straighten you out on that one.  Blessings!

@casting crowns, I honestly think that beautiful women, in beautiful clothing, that flatter their figures should be a cause for *joy*.  Let the creepers practice custody of the eyes until they stop objectifying people.  Otherwise the Burka is not even a solution to their evil thoughts…nor are fig leaf decals for sculpture and art.

anna lisa - it sounds like there’s a little Saul in you.  “Yes, I made a few missteps when I was young and naive, but since then I’ve had considerable success with sanctity, and a good deal of self-satisfaction.” You even condescend to those “newbies” who just don’t get it, even the altar boy with purple hair.  (He was at my wedding.  The pictures came out great!)

I guess anyone with 10 children is entitled to be a little patronizing (or matronizing as the case may be).  I for my part congratulate you for having a great relationship with your husband; I bless all your children(and grandchildren, if applicable); I envy your joy; and I ask for your prayers.

If I’m not seeing what you’re saying, it’s because I surround myself with broken people, and I myself am broken.  If I actually encountered a real “whole person,” my head would explode with astonishment and disbelief.

People swimming back and forth to no effect seems kind of vain.  Show me a father swimming across a pirhanna-filled river dragging his infant son in a life vest by his teeth, and I’ll take notice.  The difference between 9.43 and 9.57 seconds is just not material to me, and indicates a “golden humanity” intent on congratulating itself.

@MattB:  [“If I actually encountered a real “whole person,” my head would explode with astonishment and disbelief.”]  Oh, these people are out there, you just have to really look hard,—very hard before finding them.  And when you do, keep those friendships forever or (better yet) take him or her for a spouse.

@Matt,Saul? Ouch. Lol,I don’t think Saul would put up with much. Now, Paul?  there’s a man I’d like to hang out with.  I’ve grown up a lot since I was a 21-y-o with a brand new baby.  I wanted his world to be perfect. Mea Culpa.  I’m not following you on the “swimming back and forth” thing, so I’ll just say, hey!  Say ‘no’ to brokenness.” One of my favorite prayers is: “Lord, if you want, you can make me whole.” I know His answer.

Sincerely, anna lisa, I wish it were that easy.  Even within my family circle there are spiritual, emotional, psychological and physical wrecks - walking wounded, or walking dead.  And when I reach out beyond my rather narrow circle, all you have to do is scratch the surface just a little to find a wellspring of, not pain, but of desparate yearning, *anguish.* 

We’re in a world where the sighs can been seen and heard emitting from deep within people - just as you walk down the street!  It reminds me of the “Atlanta Burning” scene from Gone with the Wind. 

I myself experience deep, irrational moments of joy - so I don’t deny you your supremacy.  But we’re living in a falling apart world, amongst a falling apart people.  Maybe you’re not?

Matt,This time last summer I was burying a sweet baby boy—Ambrose.
My husband was out of work, he got screwed over by the company he’d invested the prime of his life in, and his brother-in-law.
We lost our house(s).
My oldest son, (24 at the time) literally didn’t want to continue living because his wife cheated on him twice. He is still angry with God. He married a girl he met at a fine Catholic University, an only child who had withstood four fathers and abuse. My second son walked in on her the second time and beat the guy to a pulp.  The police came.  No charges were pressed.
I myself didn’t always have a glorious marriage…
Matt, when a good Catholic friend of mine asked me why I wasn’t depressed, I told her that I *choose* to offer my wounds with HIS wounds. I find solace in this. I find solace in love. If someone had told me that all of these things would happen to me and my family I might have been tempted to believe that I would succumb to shock and despair.  I am the living proof that His yoke is gentle, and that He gives His little ones rest.  I never would have put Him to the test.  *HE* put His words to the test.  He was with me through it all.  Now, when I have painful reminders of so much loss, I look at Him wordlessly, and I show Him the pulpy wound—for souls.  My wound is transformed. I remembered years and years ago reading about the wound of Teresa of Avila, placed there in her heart by an angel with a burning spear.  In my youthful impetuosity, I asked God to wound my heart too, so that I wouldn’t remain so cold and indifferent…
I don’t resent God for what anyone else would call “wreckage”.  I am united to Him like never before, as is my dear husband.  What a blessing.  I am so grateful. I’ve never been this happy.  What freedom!  I trust completely.  I look at God and say: “Do with me, as you wish, I trust you, I love you.  Just give me your heart in exchange.”  This is the secret of my happiness.
.
Matt,my husband and I prayed our rosary and Mass for you this morning.  It is always an honor to pray for those that ask prayers. Please pray for us too.  Especially my son who continues to grieve for his wife.
Peace.

There’s nothing I like better than a game of chicken.  But here I am beating around the bush, and you take me right to the edge of personal revelation and pain.

If you were one of my prayer-friends, I’d have to put down my styrofoam cup of watery decaffeinated tea and enfold you in a massive bear hug.  It would be the kind of hug I reserve for “the holy people.”  I would hold you a long time, despite the fact that I don’t ordinarily like that sort of thing.

As I felt your head on my shoulder I would be compelled in my mind to dispatch a legion of angels to build a sturdy parapet around your son’s home, to set up a series of way-stations for you and your husband on the road towards your eternal destination, and to arrange for a celestial cellphone service between your dear Ambrose, and his mommy.  Watch for those calls.

I can feel the effects of your prayers already, and I thank you for offering them on our behalf.  Your obvious peace and fire-tried faith are seeping into my soul, making it possible for me to sleep.

God bless you, Anna Lisa

@Matt, Thank you for your kind words and prayers—one can never know how urgently they are needed.  We had a hair raising trip to the ER this weekend at 3:30 am.  Our son is fine.  He was horsing around with cousins, at a community camp out. They were jumping from the roof of an old boarded up beach house.  He fell 10 feet from the wall he was jumping to and landed on his side and head onto concrete (and exposed rusting rebar!)At least he could give us his alibi that this was his first trip to the hospital, other than being born. Other than bruises and a smashed phone, we are shocked that he was unscathed. Needless to say, your timely prayers were much appreciated!

Thanks, and you are welcome!