Why you should not home school your kids

Home schooling has become a trend for numerous reasons.  One of the reasons is quality of education.  Some studies have shown that home schooled children are generally above average against their public school peers.  Some of these public school peers have the potential to be bullies or sell your kids drugs, so you want to keep them home and let them have more control over who they mingle with, subject to your approval.  And speaking of your approval, you approve the texts and the reading and the instructors and the experience of religion.  Not to mention you can sleep in and go to bed at a reasonable time.  And, if you so choose – and many do – you can utilize the same classes and programs offered to all the other kids.  You can send your kids to the public school for P.E., or to a local college for some of their high school classes for credit that they can use later to skip unnecessary years towards a degree.

Some individuals and governments resist the home school trend.  Families that come to the U.S. specifically for the freedom to give their children an education risk deportation.  They come here because America does allow home schooling, albeit begrudgingly.

Maybe the U.S. is so cranky because they're concerned for the children.  They wouldn't want your kids to be at a disadvantage when they get to college.  After such a good education at home reading Shakespeare and Frost and writing a dissertation on Plato, the first year or two of college is a review of middle school.  Home schooling means risking brain damage when your children bang their heads repeatedly against the wall of their dorm rooms.

Sure, not every home school is excellent, but why take that chance?  Don't risk raising your students to be too smart for college at the undergraduate degree level.  Think of all the money you'll spend on those first two years – maybe three! – of college before everyone catches up with your little scholars.  Think of their strong, healthy brains slowly turning to mush day after day, going through the motions of writing ten page papers that are so hard they can't wait to get to graduate school.  Just think!  You're setting your children up to spend years of their adult life in universities before they are finally satisfied with the challenge they find getting their doctorate in English.  You're raising your children to be academics!

Let's face it.  College will only put a strong hand on your budding child's shoulder and tell them, "It's time to conform, son.  Bwahaha we've finally GOT YOU!"

Right when your kids thought they were ready to fly, too.  You set them up to think that college is the time to soar mentally and academically and, of course, the reality is that college will teach them to slow down and match everyone else's mediocrity.  Please spare them that cruel punishment.  Spare them the pain of that horrible adjustment and protect them from haunting questions like, "What am I doing with my life?  Why is America so dumb?"  And that of course leads to anarchy.

So if you love your kids, do them and your country a favor.  Don't teach your kids to be smart and love learning.  We all know it's a dead end after high school, and the hill to interesting courses gets steep.  Why would you raise your kids to question the status quo?  You'd lead them to disappointment and disillusionment and despair.  They'll have to realize sooner or later that they need money and no one will stop to listen to all that advanced knowledge they accumulated.  There will be no circles to sit in and discuss Nietzsche or C.S. Lewis or Alex Haley.  Home schooling teaches your kids that life is smart.  Life is not smart, it is dumb.

Could be you'll be a lucky one and your home schooling will be mediocre, or your child won't be set on fire to learn.  But when your kids are at stake, you probably shouldn't take the risk.

Look Out for the Babe on Facebook!

Facebook is a dreadful pain in my side these days.  Truth be told, I have removed most of my "friends" from my newsfeed so that I can still look at posts from friends who update with meaningful, important statuses and not be bogged down with couple picture after personality quiz after "You Know You're a Writer When…."  I am so fortunate as to not have too many friends who are big into "selfies," but I have a couple and I quickly removed them from my feed.  But my feelings about selfies are actually stronger than just a simple Facebook setting can settle.

One, I am greatly discomforted when a girl posts a picture of herself and all her girlfriends comment on it to the effect of: "You're so goooooorgeous!  You're such a babe!  Looking fine!"  Last I checked, none of my Facebook friends are models and none of them are super incredibly stunning.  Neither does a well aimed angle or a well angled light make them look superbly more captivating than they usually are (unless it goes so far so to actually tell a lie about how the person looks, which is not good for fairly obvious reasons).  But also, what kind of standard does this set?  And this selfie posting gets easily to the point where you have to ask yourself, "Am I just showing off to hear how gorgeous I am?"  Girls like to take pretty photos of themselves, and when they get an especially good one, they of course want to show it off.  It sounds reasonable but truly how conceited!  Many girls go to a famous place and take an oddly-angled shot of their face kissy-facing the lens to mark the occasion.  And no girl can tell me that they won't care whether they get "Likes" or not.

In fact, not being one to gush myself, I once commented on a friend's "artsy" photo – not reflecting on her beauty but on the interesting composition of it.  Take note that this friend was perhaps not doing so well as she could have been; in any case, she instantly took offense at my comment because it wasn't following the pattern of "soooo purty girrrrl."  (I like to think I had more respect for her than her other friends did, but my judgment might be affected by my personal investment in the case.)

Here is my other problem with selfies:

I am a very pretty girl.  And no matter how I look on the outside, I am beautiful objectively.  (I am very fortunate to have a man in my life who recognizes it and is careful to remind me often.)  But seeing selfies of my friends on Facebook triggers something in my head that says, "I can look pretty too.  I've got to look pretty too."  I have never been big into magazines or followed pop culture but I'm guessing this is similar to that phenomenon.  Perhaps this latter case is worse because it is people you know, people you encounter, people who have something you don't and can hold it over you when you walk out the door tomorrow.

Facebook has so many grievances against it, I have begun (unintentionally) looking at it a lot less.  But unlike sharing political updates, memes, and baby photos, I think selfies have a deeper, more meaningful, and actually hurtful impact.

If a young woman thinks, "I have such a low opinion of myself, this is will boost my self-esteem!"  Either it will test and "strengthen" it when she doesn't get "Likes" or it will "boost" it because of all the flattering compliments (really, it is only flattery, and flattery is flat).  Affirmation! – such a trigger word these days.  But affirmation only works if the girl can believe it in the first place.  A girl will appreciate being recognized for her good looks now and then, but the gesture does nothing if she doesn't first believe it herself.  Ways to help her believe it exist, but posting selfies on Facebook is not one of them, as evidence concretely concludes.

I could focus more specifically on details related to guys doing this, but everything simplified down to a nutshell, how has it become okay to brag on Facebook, "Look everyone how beautiful/awesome/cool I am!" when that would otherwise seem vastly inappropriate?

People are People

http://darksilhouetteonblueskies.blogspot.com/2014/01/have-we-been-desensitized-by-television.html

What do you think?  Have you had an experience where a person becomes mere gossip and mystery.  You forget about the hurt and turmoil involved, and you just think about what you know and don't know – the dirty details.  You forget that they are just like you

Living Lent

Today's readings are, I think, very relevant for the beginning of Lent.  I especially had in mind emulators of St. Francis of Asissi and other charismatic Christians when I heard this reading.  Of course, I examined myself, too, and it made me think.

Lent is a time of preparation to renew our baptismal vows.  I know that for me, Ash Wednesday is a real test of my faith.  I have fasted many times before, even voluntarily, but something about Ash Wednesday every year, I realize that my faith is not necessarily going to be easy.  I have been especially focused on the martyrs lately and it just made me realize... I could be faced withe choice to suffer greatly.

I was in the city today and I wanted so badly to buy food as I walked through the city and try different delectables.  But it is Ash Wednesday.  The Church decreed that Catholics must fast on Ash Wednesday.  And I didn't wanna.  But I did anyway -- and this was not even that big of a sacrafice really.  I was just choosing to not eat between meals.

So if that speaks to you this year, reflect on it a bit.  There are Christians who were flayed alive, dipped in oil, cut in pieces -- and they could have averted their torture easily but did not.  I hope I could be that strong, but I certainly do not want to be flayed alive.

But that is not what today's Gospel got me thinking about.

"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven."

I have found -- maybe you have experienced this -- that some people brag about their Lenten sacrifices or just go around like it is a status symbol.  St. Francis said, "Preach the Gospel at all times.  When necessary use words."  This is very good advice, but I feel like we can throw it out the window when it comes to Lenten sacrifices.  We'd run the risk of approaching Lent the wrong way.  My goal is to discourage the idea that Lenten sacrifices are about showing the world something.

Because ultimately, the point of Lenten sacrifices is to prepare ourselves and our world for Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection.  It is not about telling ourselves and everyone around us that, "IT IS LENT."  It is more important to get to the root of our sins and the root of what distracts us from Christ.

A priest at Mass today told us, "I don't care about how many times you did it.  I care about why you did it.  What is the source?  That's what you need to repent."

During Lent, you can give up chocolate or Facebook if you want to and if it would be effective for your spiritual life in some way (which I am sure it would be).  But more importantly, maybe you should focus on your sins, on reevaluating your spiritual life and your relationship with God.

We do not "disfigure our faces" but we sometimes get caught up in the thrill of Lent, if you could call it that.  "Argh!  I can't eat that!" or "Aw man, I gave that up but I want it so bad!"  What kind of sacifice is it if you complain about it and boast to your friends?  Or if you make a big show of your Holy Hour or your extra Masses and prayer?  Are you doing it for the show and the way it will outwardly and superficially effect your life?  Or are you doing it to become holier and prepare to be more properly receptive to the fullness of the Triduum?

I don't know if I am getting my point across.

If you are amongst other Christians or Catholics especially, it is tempting to make Lent a thing of show.  And yes, of course, your faith shouldn't be a private, hidden activity; but your faith should not become visible during Lent.  It should be becoming real.  If it is real, it will come through on its own.

"So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven."

Light the light and let it shine.  Don't let your spiritual life be recognized for your sacifices but for your love and joy:

"By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

"The prospect of the righteous is joy."

A Letter to Singles

I want this post to be personal.  Being single can be so hard, but I'd like to convince you that it's not a big deal.  And I've seen so many people try so hard to get into a relationship or to make a troubled relationship work out.  The truth is that dating, in and of itself, does not guarantee happiness.  So many people have to tiptoe around their partner, or don't trust each other, or don't even spend time together – but hey, at least they have a relationship status!  And in case you didn't hear... even the best relationships have their rough moments.

Some people may feel that what I have to say on this topic is not relevant, because I am now dating.  But to be fair, I have only been dating three months (by the publication of this post), and I was single for a long time before that.  And in some respects, I will still feel single for a good while into the future because I'm studying abroad and my boyfriend isn't.

But I have to consider the other possibility – some may not think what I say is credible because I am still so young and have not been in a relationship long.  To that, all I can say is… well… you can't please everyone.

And anyway, they'd be right.  I don't really know for sure.  I haven't been in a relationship long, even though it is (in my estimation) an incredibly healthy relationship with real potential.  In all honesty, I can't see into the future and say that my sentiments prove true.

Furthermore, I can't say that my single life was at all happy.  Most of my life suffered from extreme loneliness and moodiness.  At college, I began to make friends and my self-esteem and opinion of life got a little better.  But I was still extremely lonely, and I was deeply unhappy.

So to be clear, I am not saying that being single equals happiness.  I'm not even proposing a way to be happy that you're single.  But there are so many materials out there that try to help you through your single life, or to tell you why you are still single, or to give some meaning to it… that I wanted to throw my own two cents in – because I am not fond of the picture they paint.

For one thing – oh! how I hate this one.  This post by "rabidhunter" is an interesting read to look over, although there are many inaccuracies.  But one sentence stood out to me: "First we have to love God completely, fully, and absolutely before He will bring the one He has promised to you."  Don't fall into the trap of thinking that God is holding out on you until He's satisfied with your devotion to Him!  Look around you!  Not to judge, but lots of unholy people get married.  Even atheists find soul mates that they live happily with to the end of their days.  Clearly, God doesn't wait for us to get our hindquarters in gear before He leads us to our intended.  Some people might meet their beloved while prostrate in prayer before the Lord or on a mission trip – but that won't happen to all Christians.  That you don't have a significant other is not because you are not good enough.

What's more you don't have to "love yourself enough to be happy living with yourself alone" or love everyone perfectly.  However much you may have learned to depend on God and live solely for Him, it can still be hard to be alone, it can still be hard to know how to love.  They say to "love as Christ loved us," which ideally is all you need to know.  But it's not every day that you will have the chance to die on a cross for a friend.  It can be hard to know how to love unless we share God's love with people and experience it for ourself.  Some people haven't had enough opportunities to practice, through no fault of their own.  Does that mean they will never find love?  Certainly not.  Love does not wait for you to be perfect.

And please, don't make a list.

So many girls, and not just Christians, make a list of traits they must have in a future spouse.  I have many reasons why I think this is a bad idea but I'll start with perhaps the most potent one: you may not know yourself as well as you think.  Do you think you know what you need better than God does?  So unless the list looks something like this:

• male
• masculine
• not female
• breathing

…you might want to leave the rest up to God.  Even if you have a list of traits that you've found work best with your own personality; even if you've gone over the list with a spiritual director, lots of premeditation, and prayer; even if you had an unusually clear dream of yourself and your husband living together in your dream house – try to leave it up to God.  (And remember, spiritual directors aren't God.  I deeply respect them and you should take their advice seriously, but they can sometimes be misguided.)

Even if you list virtues and describe a very admirable character, you risk getting too caught up in the details and failing to see the real beauty of the man offering himself to you.  He's not going to be perfect.  Despite his best intentions and your reasonably high standards, he may have a tendency that doesn't quite match what you have always insisted on.  You maybe wanted a confident man, but your boyfriend has lots of doubts about himself.  But answer this, does he believe in you?  Is he there for you no matter what?  Is he aware of his unworthiness but wants to keep trying to be a better man so you will never be let down?  That might not be exactly what you had on your list, but it might turn out to be your match after all.

Obviously, I was talking to girls just then, but men, if you've made a list or were thinking of making one, reconsider.

I encourage you to read this post by Mandy at Forte E Bello for more information.  She further explains what you should really be focused on in your search for a spouse.

But besides that, and this next part may especially apply to guys, don't waste yourself.  No one is right for everyone else.  Don't exhaust yourself trying to be the right guy for the wrong girl.  And also, a lot of people have serious baggage – it doesn't have to hold you back.  It doesn't make you less able to love or receive love.  It rather seems to increase that ability if you let it.

I fully believe that your past, your experiences, the good and the bad – they all helped to make you completely unique.  You have something to give that is unlike anything anyone else has.  This is true of everyone.  If God has marriage in your plan, there is someone out there who needs exactly what you have to give, who needs exactly who you are.  You will make someone happy simply because of who you are to her, not just because of what you do for her.  Simply by being yourself and loving her the way you know how to love, you will win her heart.

That doesn't mean we all don't have something to learn about ourselves or about how to love; it doesn't mean that there won't be doubts, that there won't be rough spots; but God has a plan for you, and He's not just sitting around waiting on you.  The date is already set.  And it's blind.

What's more, in the meantime – enjoy being single!  While you're single, enjoy mingling with lots of good people of both sexes.  During my "singlehood," I learned to let them teach me, in the little things, how to better love other people.  And let them teach you, in the little things, how to better accept love from other people.  While you're single, it can be hard to interpret your heart – don't let it run away with the first special gestures of kindness.  Deeply value all of your friends, and enjoy the freedom of being able to hang out with almost anyone without jealousy or commitment.

I'm not trying to encourage a flirty, hookup behavior, but enjoy platonic relationships.  These other relationships are learning experiences.  Each person has a tendency to think a little too well or a little too poorly of people, but meeting lots of different people can really teach you about people and about yourself.  And you can meet some really good people that truly care about you.  Being single doesn't mean you're unloved and unloveable.  Take this opportunity to make good friends.  You'll need them later.  Spend your single life praying to become more of yourself so you are ready to love your other half.

Dignity in the Skin, part II

(Click here for part one.)

What many people get hung up on is how much skin a bikini shows.  Often times, they will say that the skin damages a person's dignity, that is is inappropriate, or that it is provocative.  All seemingly valid arguments.

What isn't taken into consideration is how dress codes have changed over the years.  Much of what we wear in America these days would not be up to standards one hundred years ago.  What is commonplace was not always commonplace.  Rev. Thomas J. Higgins, S.J. says in Man as Man, "Social custom may change a proximate occasion of sin into a remote occasion.  The ordinary man now is not lasciviously affected by women wearing shorts.  People have become accustomed to them.  In 1905 such dress would have been a proximate occasion of sin."  The styles of swimsuits have changed to suit their purpose.  Bikinis are not designed for swimming laps.  Speedos are not designed for sunbathing.  For many, bikini's are the most comfortable option for the goal of dressing light in the sun on the beach, maybe getting a little wet.  But to some, the midriff is a "sexual" area.  It doesn't have to be.  In our culture, more and more skin is being exposed, and to some extent, it can be inappropriate.  But do you know what you would be wearing right now if we had never changed our fashion ideas?

If we assume for the moment that bikinis are modest, are they always appropriate?  No.  Bikinis are common on the beach.  They are expected and wouldn't make most people think twice.  Wearing a bikini into a bar or to window shop or to attend a sports event is not so expected, normal, or appropriate.

If we assume for the moment that bikinis are not inherently immodest, are all bikinis appropriate attire at the beach.  This is "wear" it gets a little tricky.  Some bikinis don't leave much room for complaint: 

The swimsuit in the above photo doesn't show off a whole lot.  But some bikinis have so little material that you'd have to organize the complaints by column and row.

But regardless of what we decide is appropriate to wear around other people in a certain situation: "This discussion will always come down to a heart issue. God knows our hearts and intentions. If our intentions are to draw attention from guys and men, head back to the changing room. We can say whatever we want, but our intentions in wearing what we wear speak volumes" (Rachel Lee Carter at Modeling Christ).  What that doesn't mean is that anything is appropriate as long as our heart is in the right place.  But what it does mean is that modesty isn't a dress code.  A dress code dictates what attire is appropriate, such as at the work place or at a school.  Modesty has more to do with when you're reeeeally pushing the dress code rules in order to show off your body in, well, an inappropriate manner.  Especially as a Christian (but a universal truth), it is not appropriate to use your own body as an object.  You should not purposely try to arouse others.  It is pleasurable, but creates a lot of unhappiness.

Sometimes what seems appropriate isn't immodest, and sometimes it is.  Because modesty has to do with intentions!  That's the whole point.  Now, charity includes being concerned about what arouses others.  So even if you are not dressing to draw eyes and quicken heartbeats, it is courteous and even your duty to be aware of your society and culture.  And as a point, if you are going into circumstances where people usually dress such a way in order to get certain attention – just because you're going there, doesn't mean it is perfectly alright to do what everyone else is doing.  You may want to dress a little differently if fitting in with the crowd means that you aren't respected.  (But depending, you may need to question the wisdom of going into this situation in the first place.)

And yes, behavior can be modest or immodest.  I don't think I need to go into too much detail explaining this, but since immodesty is (in my own clumsy wording) the intentional attempts to arouse, inappropriate behavior can be immodest.  By dictionary definition, someone who is immodest lacks humility or decency.

Let’s make a commitment this summer to ditch the skimpy swimsuits, earn self respect, and help our brothers in Christ.  –Rachel Clark

I realize that no one really wants to think about swimsuits in February (at least not where I'm from) – and I'm not saying that everyone must love it and buy it and wear it for every occasion – but I propose a slightly altered commitment for your consideration until the hot weather returns:

Anything skimpy that makes you feel dirty – don't buy it.  Realize that your body, your skin can never rob you of your dignity, but that how you view your own body can effect how you are treated by others – and can affect your happiness.  And ladies, never stop loving and respecting men.  They need it as much as you do.

However you stand on the bikini, I ask you to pause and reflect on this issue.  I think this little known view of modesty satisfies far more confusion than the common responses many girls have been fed.

Dignity in the Skin

Modesty is a big thing – in this age and every age, it seems.  The expectations have changed over time; fashions have changed.  But one thing has not changed, and that is the capacity of busybodies to criticize and belittle those people who are not dressed respectably.

I have written briefly about modesty before, but I would like to address a particular issue that has many criticisms and has caused much confusion and bitterness.  And this issue, I am proud to announce, is the bikini.

There are several arguments against the bikini and I am sympathetic to all of them.  However, I do not agree with the conclusion, based on these arguments, that the bikini is inherently detrimental to the dignity of women and the purity of men.  I assure you, though, that I have reasons for this, reasons that I will do my best to explain.

I would like to refer you to this article, which, I have heard, made its rounds on social media some time ago.  Called "The Bikini Question," guest blogger Rachel Clark attempts to convince girls (and has done well accomplishing this goal from what I hear) that they should never wear bikinis.  Her first reason is that she is "making a sacrifice for the guys" around her.  This is well-intentioned and I am very glad that she is able to sacrifice herself in such a manner; but this mindset is incorrect.

Let me first, however, establish that girls do indeed have more self-knowledge than we are sometimes led to believe.  What I mean is that girls almost always know when a hem or a v is going to attract special attention.  They may not know that they are deserving of so much more than this type of attention; they may not know that there is so much more – but they know full well when their attire is a little scanty.  If they did not, they would not be able to do it intentionally.  Women that seek to be modest don't necessarily need to have strict dress rules given them; to an extent, what to wear comes down to common sense.

An essential idea behind modesty: women should not dress to look sexy.  They are theoretically dressing to look appetizing, if you will, to the menfolk.  But I personally think that women shouldn't have the mindset that they are dressing for men, period.  I think that, contrary to what some people realize, women should dress for themselves.  They should dress according to their personality and to encourage, within themselves, self-respect and a proper realization of their dignity.  Dressing to be sexy is dressing "for men."  But if only women were taught to dress in accordance with their dignity, which is unchanging, rather than to dress for men, other women, or anything besides their true identity.  And girls have an important and difficult task respecting their own bodies; they ought to focus on protecting their own opinion of themselves through their attire, and with that down, they can sacrifice for other people with other gestures.

This does not address all the hangups related to modesty, but it is an important concept to understand.  Even without it, however, many are more concerned that women have the responsibility to look out for the man, to protect his imagination.  As Rachel Clark wrote:

"I’ve heard the excuse, Guys just have an imagination, it’s not a girl’s problem. Frankly, I think that’s stupid. Part of it is our problem. The way we dress impacts those around us, especially guys. I don’t really want a guy to look at me and notice me for my butt, upper thighs, or chest. I’d rather him notice my smile or God-loving personality. Well sure, you say, that’s all fine and good, but guys should be able to control their imagination and look beyond our bodies. That’s true, they should control it. But it’s important for girls to help them as they try and do so."

She's right.  "Guys just have an imagination; it's not a girl's problem," is a very sad excuse, and not just for the reasons Rachel Clark has pointed out, although she's mostly right.  The Holy Fool at The Holy Fool put it this way:

" … there exists a false stereotype which claims that men are, as a general rule, grimier, more carnal, and more predisposed to lust than any woman could ever be. The problem with this “chocolate cake” mindset, this “boys will be boys” mindset, this “Women should help men because men can’t help themselves” thought process is that it is damaging to the entire male gender. Sure, it might be a little easier for men to feign chastity if everyone around them is enabling and catering to their weakness. But in addition to stripping men of any moral responsibility, it also strips them of the nobility and well-deserved pride that comes with achieving continence for themselves. It forces men into a negative, self-hating stereotype which ensures that, no matter how much self-mastery they obtain, they will always feel gross or lecherous. On a personal note, I actually know of certain boys who have doubted their own masculinity when they don’t have major issues with lust, so potent is the stereotype that to be masculine is to be lustful. This is just one example which illustrates that negative stereotypes which belittle a gender – however well-intentioned – hurt everyone."  ["The Bikini Question: a Rebuttal"]

The thing is that, although our generally broken society has helped many men and boys to see a woman and define her incorrectly (and vice versa), I have often found that the real world is not quite like a sitcom, where everyone sees someone new and automatically chalks them up to their sex appeal.  That is, certainly, a problem – I won't deny that.  But it is not the case that all men, each and every one of them, is subjected against their will to carnal lust every time they see a woman who is scantily clad.  Will they experience some level of arousal?  Maybe; but that in itself is not a sin or even unhealthy.*  And truly consider a moment: what is "scantily clad"?

Rather than focusing on the (literally) surface details, the root of the problem is that so many people don't know that they aren't objects to be used and that no one else is either (which is a concept at the root of many issues, not just lust).  Furthermore, fantasies are something a person consents to.  Sudden ideas, images – those can't always be helped.  But fantasies, lusting after a person – yep, they can.  All due to the incredible gift of free will, a person chooses.  (Admittedly, the choice is not easy or easily followed.)

Where is this leading us?  I will explain, in a special post next week, in part two.

* see http://theholyfool.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-bikini-question-rebuttal.html if you'd like more information

Theology of the Body or Love?

Have you heard of "Theology of the Body"?  It's a teaching of the Roman Catholic Pope John Paul II that seeks to explain man's relationship with God and with himself and with his fellow man.  It attempts to describe true love and the purpose for our physical bodies, and how we serve our fellow man with our bodies.  To this end, JPII's writings and the various studies based on it have done a fair job doing just that, for anyone who is interested.

Those who have been personally affected by Theology of the Body revere JPII, adore Christopher West, and the teaching is their answer to all the trouble and strife in the world.  They carry it on their person like the Bible.  They feel like the enlightened few who have been released from the shackles of the world into the freedom of true sexuality as God created it.  All the silly relationship drama can surely be solved by this teaching!  If only people knew how to truly love!  It's revolutionary!

Theology of the Body is…

• a collection of definitions
• a drawer full of descriptions
• a balanced view of sexuality, somewhere between never-ever-ever and always-whenever-however

It could not exist – could not, could not, could not – if God did not exist.  Even if the theology is based on the existence of a fake god, it must have a god.  It must be the study of something.  Theology of the Body is the study of the particular aspect of God we call Love.

And so I propose that something cannot be an example of Theology of the Body.  Theology of the Body is a collection of definitions and ideas, trying to comprehend the vastness of God.  So how can a movie be an example of Theology of the Body?  The writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas are an example of theology.  And you could say that something you do every day is an example of a concept that Saint Thomas described.  You could say that making your friend dinner is an example of a concept that Theology of the Body describes.  But dinner is not an example of Theology of the Body.  It's an example of love.

The two Disney movies Tangled and Frozen have been pointed to as examples of Theology of the Body.  Not only is this as silly as saying that a tree is an example of Saint Thomas Aquinas' theology, but it is unreachable by many.  And pointless.  It is simply sufficient to point out that the characters in the movie demonstrate an example of true love.

This may seem, to many, to be a pointless nuance, an insignificant distinction.  But people are so eager to grasp onto anything incredible, they sometimes miss the simple mark they aim for – in this case, love.

But it is also sad.  Merely associating that teaching to those movies seems, to me, to rather dumb down the depth of the reality.  Theology of the Body is not only about willing to go to great risks for our fellow man.  Theology of the Body is a magnificent study to better understand who we are in light of God, and it is no simpler than God Himself.

To Be Human

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2013/12/millennial-misery.html

With people all the more accessible, it is possible to lose oneself in messages and statuses that really mean nothing.  In text messages, the language has evolved to include emoticons, new formatting, and new expressions; but the messages are still largely impersonal.  A personal connection is stronger even in a phone call, because tone and emphasis can be better manipulated; physical presence is even better because body language and an understanding silence can be used.  Body language and, further, physical touch is what makes separation so hard.  And separation can be very hard, but with social media today, separation isn't necessarily true separation.  So do text and social media messages really help to strengthen and deepen relationships?  I have sometimes wondered if social media and text messages haven't rather spoiled relationships by depriving them of separation, of longing and appreciation.

Is this connectedness really bringing us closer?  Is it helping us to understand one another, to love one another?  It may, perhaps, actually be closing some of our doors.  With so little effort necessary and so many people to chose from, I think we may have lost our empathy, our desire to try to really connect on a deeper personal level with the people we are with in the moment – which leaves us and everyone around us feeling very empty and alone.  And silly, meaningless little messages can be sent off effortlessly to people we love, without much personal investment.

I'm not the least bit against social media but I do think it should be used almost as a supplement, rather than the norm for connecting with people, especially for connecting with people you could see every day but don't (like classmates or friends in town).

Food for thought, and something, I'm sure, we could all reflect on in the coming year.

Modesty is About Self-Objectification

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/05/24/what-do-dress-codes-say-about-girls-bodies/

Girls usually know, when they dress, that a low-cut or a short seam is going to draw special attention.  Even if they are "good girls" and have no intention of losing their virginity, girls know when their clothing is seductive.  They may not think in those terms, but they know when their cleavage is going to be distracting.

But what will be distracting also depends on the time, occasion, and culture.  What is acceptable in some warmer-climate cultures is not in a New England town.

The importance of modesty lies in whether a girl is objectifying herself.  It's not really about whether men are going to be turned on – they need help learning to respect women as persons.  Modesty is really about women being seen as objects, and that starts with their own self-image.

#NoFearNovember

There's a new month-long event going around on Franciscan campus.  It's called No Fear November! What is this thing, which has a name so enticing?  Franciscan University students wondered, waiting for the first of the month to come.  Rumors whispered about from one person to the other – and finally they were proved to be true.

No Fear November is a dating awareness month.  That's right, dating awareness.  Now, that's my term for it – I haven't seen it officially described that way – but I think the designation more-or-less accurately describes the hopes and dreams resting on this month's theme.

"Dating awareness month"?  If whatever this means to you doesn't seem like a bad idea, let me explain why it seems so to me.

First, I suppose, I need to explain what it is.  Here are a few websites to check out:

http://nofearnovember.tumblr.com

http://kyletmurphy.blogspot.com/2013/10/no-fear-november.html

http://kyletmurphy.blogspot.com/2013/11/no-fear-november-part-2.html

Keep in mind when you're reading these pages, that I have not read every word.  I believe them to be safe for a general teenage+ audience, but I will not address all their points in this article.  Perhaps another time, I will read them through and write my thoughts on them, word by word.  But for now, I've only skimmed them quickly; if you read them and wish to bring up some of the arguments, please leave a comment.

Basically, the idea is that the dating scene at Franciscan sucks.  Not only are the numbers severely unbalanced (far more women than men), but also, the number of mature young women and men is pathetic.  This includes women from freshmen year to graduate students!  I've been very disappointed to not find enough role models here at this Catholic college.  This manifests itself in a lot of areas, but one of the most painful areas is the the dating scene.

The reasons for this may be many, but it is not fully clear.  Relationships, as anyone ought to know, are not black and white.  People in a relationship give of themselves in a special and especially trusting way – or so it should be.  It follows that if the relationship goes sour, one or both of the parties is hurt in a uniquely painful way.  But also, the whole "Christian dating" thing has become very confusing over the years.  Some guidelines have said that Christians should not date unless they plan to marry the other person.  Some guidelines have very strict gender roles.  Physical and emotional boundaries, as well as how to do what when, might even be laid out with given time expectations.  Couples should increase how often they pray individually and spend plenty of time praying together.  Since these rules do not take personal maturity into account and severely limit the possibilities of a relationship (which should be based on the gifts and limitations of the two), perhaps Frannies are having a hard time developing real and mature romantic relationships.

And so that is the first objection to these "new dating rules" – they are rules.  To be fair, they are proposed as "guidelines," and I suppose that some people need them.  But I balk at rules for relationships.  If you still need rules to help you interact with people at age 20, I fear for your future.

And that's the other part of it.  I am in college.  I am supposed to be an adult.  Everyone here is supposed to be an adult.  Granted, many are not.  I cannot even claim that I am always as mature as I should be.  But there is a common complaint about the Franciscan campus, that it is like being stuck in high school.  Student Life instructing the student body how to date seems to only intensify that feeling.

Now on the other hand, the men on this campus are not really men most of the time.  Many could use a nudge, or a push, or even a shove in the right direction.  And the same goes for women!  Since, however, there has been so much controversy around No Fear November, I have to wonder if the theme has done anyone any good.  It seems a good guess that the good guys are going to continue to be great, and the not so great guys are not going to learn from posters hung up in strategic locations all over campus.  Grown-up ladies will continue to keep their heads on straight… and bulletin notices will not calm an anxious and hormonal teenager.  No Fear November has sparked such controversy and negativity, too, forcing me to doubt that these guidelines will be taken seriously at all.

That all being said, I would like to admit that I recently started dating.  My boyfriend was very upfront about how he felt, but not pushy.  He was honest but he did not demand anything from me.  On the flip side, I tried to respect his feelings, while at the same time I wanted to be honest with him about how I felt (and I have to admit I didn't exactly jump on the bandwagon right away).  Eventually, we got to the point where we both decided it was time to be official.  But the relevant detail here is that it was built on communication – and I don't mean a passionate out-pouring of our souls, which could only have been embarrassing (and not, I think, very mature); rather, I mean an honest, straightforward, and simple explanation that, hey, "this is where I'm at right now."

And I think – ultimately, ideally – that is what No Fear November is hoped to encourage.  Two people being open to each other within the boundaries of respect.  Will the students at Franciscan University ever figure that out?  I don't know.  Do the students at any college have that figured out?  Debatable.  I consider myself very lucky, because I didn't necessarily have it figured out, but I seem to have met a man who does.  May you all have the same good fortune.

So after examining the situation, I have come up with my own solution to the dating problem.  It is not very complicated.  It does not take that long to comprehend, but perhaps a lifetime to learn.  It is something that toddlers cannot have, teenagers all too often seem incapable of, and most adults need to have in order to live a functional life.  It is a good friend of mine called MATURITY.

And wisdom.  Pray for wisdom.

Halloween is EVIL

Did you miss Halloween this year because it's devil worship?  Read this article:

http://www.ucatholic.com/blog/the-catholic-origins-of-halloween/

(I do not claim any credibility for this article.)

But outside of that and simplifying the issue, dressing up as something does not worship anyone.  Sometimes, when you dress up as someone or something, it is in a mocking manner.  Children can become obsessed and devoted to someone or something in many different ways.  I think if children are taught that such an alluring practice as dressing up as a ghost is an evil act, during rebellious stages, they will be inclined to throw themselves further into such things than if they had been brought up moderately.  That which is forbidden is more enticing.

I know some families allow their children to dress up as a monster for Halloween as long as they dress up as a saint for All Saint's Day.  I suppose that is one way to handle the situation.

But remember, on Halloween, some people dress up as angels or dinosaurs – neither of which are evil.  (Halloween can simply be a time when the kids get to take dress-up to a whole new level.  And get candy for it!)  I know that some families miss out on Halloween because they refuse to take part in something with evil origins.  But others just don't like the idea of their children dressing up as something evil.  I propose to you that since true evil is so different from a costume you can find at a store, it doesn't really have any correlation.

It's also rather small to assume that if someone does not abhor and cannot stand representations of evil, that they are not sensitive to it and have no moral awareness.  Such is not always the case, in my experience.  I cannot personally endure horror films and certain Halloween decor makes me squeamish.  But I am very close to some people who are very familiar with this stuff and it doesn't affect them.  Are they insensitive and cruel?  No, and you know why?  Because they are able to distinguish the representation from reality.  True stories of abuse and corruption anger them; but representations mean little to them because they are representations.  They are fake.

Such is Halloween.  I think – and you may contest this – that if children are brought up celebrating Halloween, taught that it is fake, and warned against the real thing, that Halloween will lose a lot of that potency some create for it out of fear.  Laugh at the devil – he has no power over us, Christ has won.

[the one titled] You Can Totally Be Content Being Single

Oh What We'll Do

It's a pain only a Spotify listener can know.  It aches; it throbs; and it goes on and on.  It's called the Endometriosis Spotify ad.

"Stop right there – something spoke to you?"

The ads on Spotify annoy me incredibly.  Sometimes you hear the same two ads over and over and over again for three hours.  And often times, it appears that you can listen to music for half-an-hour without a single break for an ad.  Other times, only two songs play before a commercial pops in.  And do I even need to mention the condom ad?  And how are half these commercials relevant to me?

Many of them are creative, I'll give them that.  An orange juice playlist to get me dancing?  That certainly stood out to me.

But oh, the things we'll put up with in order to listen to our music.  And it's funny, because there are many other listening options.  FM radio is the traditional one.  Pandora is a convenient option, with playlists all set and ready to go for you; and Songza is your ever ready slave, presenting time- and day-relevant genres.  And Songza doesn't have audio ads.  And there are more and more online stations and phone apps every day.

But music snobs would much rather put up with the same three annoying commercials than lose their music selection.  They would much rather slave for hours to perfect their playlists than play one already set to go for them.

We are such bratty, spoiled snobs after all.

Feminism Makes Women Miserable

Wait, women don't have to have a career to be happy?  Who'dathunk?

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/23/godfather-of-hipsterdom-feminism-makes-women-miserable/

Ridiculous Facebook

Hello world. I have something oh so important to share with you. Let's see who reads this to the end. Please copy and paste this onto your own wall. We'll see who my friends are and really reads this. DO NOT SHARE – copy and paste. Because that is a true sign of friendship. You might ignore me every single day but if you copy and paste this then I will know you are my friend. Even if you have been through all my rough moments with me, this will be the sure sign of our friendship. And just to make this more fun, use one word to say how we first met (because I don't remember).

Confidence Quotes

...And why I hate them.

"In order to be irreplaceable, one must always be different."  But each of us is different.

Now, if I met a guy and I found myself trying to be like him to get his attention – or the same with a girl – then this quote might be useful.  But most of the time, we are different just the way we are.  But it's  our similarities, not our differences, which bring us together.

I understand the point of this quote – it's to say that you shouldn't be ashamed to be different.  But I think the only people who care about this quote are taking it for more than that.  I've seen far too many people using quotes like this to back up behavior that needs to be reigned in.  We've all seen it – in real life and in movies or television.  It's ridiculous.  They're super opinionated, loud, obnoxious, and too strong-minded.  These people were born this way, anyway, but quotes about being different make people forget that there is such a thing as rudeness, such a thing as relating to other people.

"If you've never lost your mind then you've never followed your heart."  So my heart is trying to send me to a lunatic asylum?

The times that I have lost my mind have not been pleasant.  Yeah, I guess you could say I was following my heart….  If that's the way you want to put it, then I'm not totally sure that following your heart is a good thing.

This quote could mean something else by "lost your mind," I suppose, but I'm not sure what.  If it is trying to tell me that I will feel insanely happy and light as a feather, then I will believe that when I get there.  But I hardly think that feeling is guaranteed to come with following my heart.  I might do something dumb, but again, this quote is based on the presumed premise that following your heart is the epitome of great things!  And so far, the evidence is pointing to the opposite.

"I like flaws and am most comfortable around those who have them.  I, myself, and made up entirely of flaws, stitched together with good intentions."  This one just blows my mind.

You're most comfortable around people who have flaws?  …Do you have a limit?  Like, if you're with people who don't give a darn about you or anything else, doesn't that bother you?  Are you comfortable with murderers and thieves and whatnot?  Are you comfortable with people who swear and disrespect people?

Okay, anyone who stands behind this quote probably doesn't mean it to that extent.  But this quote seems to show to me only the most refined pride.  "I've made mistakes, but I'm proud of them because I meant well.  Who cares that I've hurt people, sold myself short, or reaped consequences?  I meant well. And no one is perfect."  No, no one is perfect, but I'm going to keep trying to be, if you don't mind; and I'm sorry for my mistakes.  If I meant well, that only shows a lack of wisdom on my part….

I understand the good intentions behind motivational quotes, but after a point, they work against their own end.  If all you ever hear is that you are fine the way you are, that you should be as different from everyone else as you can, that following your heart is the most important thing in the whole world – you start to fall short even of what you yourself want for yourself.  You stop striving for more; stop striving for a better you, for unity with creation, for wisdom and righteousness.

I've mentioned before that affirmation drives me crazy because it feels extravagant and fake.  It's kind of the same thing going on here.  These are great ideas to ponder over, but I cringe whenever I see people gluing their lives to them.  When people are married to quotes that glorify these shallow ideas, I want to cry.  These people are on a road to self-destruction, and I'm also finding them very hard to get along with.  Some people get a long way on these things, I realize, but I can't help but wonder what kind of existence that is.

Not to mention that psychology says that it rarely helps to overly build up the ego.  It often has the opposite effect ultimately.

I'm all for bettering self-images and improving society's message, but something subtler and more penetrating and better balanced would be so much better.

Busting Franciscan Myths

"I mean, I'm mostly going to college to find a husband."

Don't come to Franciscan.  According to THIS SITE and one other, the boy/girl ratio is between 40/60 and 30/70.  There are a lot of girls.  A lot of girls, especially compared to so few guys!

I know: "I'm hoping to find a good Catholic husband, so where better than at a great Catholic college?"  Yeah, well, good theory, but Catholicism doesn't come with automatic awesomeness.  It'd be nice if it did, wouldn't it?  You may know a person who is Catholic and seemingly devout but has so many character flaws you wish they were atheist so you could "convert" them.  From my view on this campus, Franciscan seems to be the preferred and chosen college for this type of person.

Smoking and drinking are not foreign to this campus.  You have to know the right people in order to get really stoned, but it's not hard to find them – just listen to the right people talking about, well, the wrong people.  Smokers stand outside every building.  …Not constantly, but you'll see a few on a daily basis if you're paying attention.

Smoking is not inherently evil, so far as I can figure (although I hear tell that cigarettes are really, really bad for you).  But it has been my limited experience that most of the guys standing outside in "smoking rings" on a regular basis – cigarettes, cigars, or pipes – are charter members of the group of guys that smart girls are learning not to dream about.

So smoking is directly related to weak character?  Well, no, I can't prove that.  It could be that the majority of the campus male population is of weak character; in which case, it would naturally follow that the campus male smoker population would be largely dominated by this type….  After all, there are plenty of stay-away-from-hims that don't smoke or drink every Friday night.

But that's just a taste of what you'll find on the Franciscan campus.

City on a hill?  Salt of the earth?  Light of the world?  Certainly, all those things.  The Franciscan Friars are so adorable and so powerful and so life changing/challenging.  The witness of a chapel full of young adults singing to God four Masses a Sunday, three a weekday is breathtaking.  Perpetual Adoration, Students for Life, The Harmonium Project, Red Light Ministry… and whatever else we have going on 'round here – sometimes it's hard to keep track of it all.

At the same time, we've got Households that are known more for their off-campus parties than for their spirituality; we have sexual assault investigations and guys banned from certain all-girl's dorms; we've had students kicked out for drug activity; there are Freshman couples hooking up within the first one or two weeks of school and breaking up because one or the other is "struggling with their spirituality;" we're overflowing with flirt action hidden under the pick-up line: "I want to guard your heart."  (See THIS page for campus crime statistics.)

Finding a man on campus?  The majority of the girls in my acquaintance who will be graduated this year are going out into the world without marriage plans, without an engagement ring, without even a boyfriend.  A lot of relationships that happen are not particularly mature or prepared for marriage.  Yes, there is the occasional sophomore marriage – but believe me, it looks more insane than it does romantic.  A lot of people collapse, after a long day here, among their closest friends, and admit, "This place is like high school all over again."

If you want diversity, you won't find it here.  There are only a few black people; most people are moderately chill Catholics split about equally between the charismatics and… not charismatics; a lot of geeks and nerds, as well as geek and nerd wannabes; hardcore partiers and smokers, rebels, and cool people are the severe minority; and then there are the small populations of blatantly "traditional" Catholics and "full-length-skirt-addicts."  Most people more or less dress the same – the jocks and drama queens being pretty much the only exception – and frisbee is the thing.

Babies are cute; friars and other religious are celebrities; discernment into religious life merits a huge celebration; and a day when it isn't raining is everyone's dream.

Oh – and I should mention the huge homosexual community.

In some respects, it's just like any other campus.

But a good girl with all her ideals intact… is more likely to get hurt here.

See, the bad guys here are hidden because everyone goes to Mass, signs up for an Adoration hour, goes to Theology classes, and has some kind of "lightning bolt of providence" story.  And I'm sure these guys are essentially good people – they're juststupid when it comes to relationships.  So they lure you in with tales of their struggles for holiness – and then they just stop talking to you.  Or worse.  (And then the respective Households get involved….  It can be messy.)

Brother-sister relationships abound.  Which I'm happy about – I'm putting together a whole family over here!  But girls actively seeking their knight-in-shining armor get hurt real fast.

So if you're going to college for your MRS degree, you may want to look elsewhere.  I mean, my philosophy is to not look for an MRS degree.  I think they're earned on a basis of merit, not effort.  More like a scholarship.  I like that – a scholarship to life: 'The MRS Scholarship, funded by Heavenly Father.'

But I digress.

Franciscan University has a lot of problems.  And there are days where the only reason I'm still here….  It's Catholic.  And if you are honestly doing your best to follow God and discern His plan for your life, you can find a very supportive and healthy spiritual community here.  For all its flaws, this school is run on the idea that you can leave this place with a stronger relationship with Christ and a solid foundation to fall back on.  So far, I'm finding that part of the school to be excellent (though it obviously isn't perfect).  And I've got a pretty good head on my shoulders and a lot of grace on my side, thank God.

I've slowly been changing my perspective.  I have to assume that I just might not leave this school on the arm of a man.  With that in mind, I think I can get the most out of and give the most to this school.

But yeah, girls shouldn't come here assuming that their degree won't be terribly important when they graduate – it may be the only thing they have to live on when they leave this place.