The Role of Father in Raising Children

A father must “come between” a mother and her child to sever the child’s natural bond of dependence on the mother and to lead the child out into the world so that the child can develop his or her talents and take up a meaningful, productive life of honesty and integrity.

All of us have experienced the delight of being fed and protected when we were helpless infants. In fact, if we don’t experience it, we die. And the delight of this early infantile experience, which makes no demands on us and leaves us free simply to enjoy it, is at the root of our adult yearnings for a “utopia” in which all of our needs are taken care of effortlessly.

But to function responsibly as an adult, a child must pass beyond this care-free infantile state of dependence. If this task fails, the child will remain neurotically dependent on maternal protection and will be afflicted with doubts and anxieties about assuming personal responsibility in the world. Moreover, the child’s talents will either remain buried in fear or will be expressed largely through an unconscious grandiosity. And, in its most severe manifestations, alcoholism and drug addictions can develop in adolescence and adulthood, because all addictions have their roots in a desire to escape the demands of personal responsibilities and return to an idyllic feeling of care-free bliss.

A child, therefore, has three essential tasks which must be accomplished under the guidance of a father.

1. To learn how the world works.
The father must teach the child not only about the abstract—and often dangerous—dynamics of social relationships beyond the family itself but must also provide instruction in the practical rules governing the physical world, including honest, productive work in the world.

Imagine a primitive society of forest dwellers. To teach the child how the world “works,” the father must take the child out into the depths of the forest and show the child how to survive and eat by using weapons, building fires, and making shelters. Now, the modern world may not be a forest anymore—though it is often enough called a jungle—yet the forest metaphor aptly describes the process by which a father must teach a child “how the world works.”

2. To learn to trust.

Yes, a child will more-or-less “trust” a nurturing mother. This sort of trust, though, is a necessary part of mother-infant bonding for the sake of the infant’s physical survival.

Real trust requires that the child grow to depend on and respect the father, a person different from the mother from whom the child originated; that is, the father is a different body and a different gender from the mother. The father—and only a father—can therefore teach the child to enter the world and encounter difference confidently. But, to be a successful teacher, the father must teach this from the place of his own faith and obedience. In other words, the father must live from his heart by the rules he teaches to his children. In this way the children can learn to trust him through his own integrity. Otherwise, the children will see him for a hypocrite and will disavow—openly or secretly—everything he represents.

3. To learn to trust oneself.

As a child receives instruction from a trustworthy father and develops a sense of confidence under the father’s compassionate guidance, the child will then be able to function more and more independently, assimilating the father’s external guidance into an internal, psychological confidence.

First the father builds a fire, saying to the child, “Watch me.” Then the father encourages the child to build the fire. Finally the child goes off into the forest alone, and builds a fire on his own, confident in what he learned from his father.

*Lack*

Now, considering all of this about the role of a father, look about you and see how many fathers fail miserably in their responsibilities. How many fathers are absent from the family because they were nothing more than sperm donors in a moment of lust? How many fathers are absent from the family because of divorce? How many fathers are absent from the family because their adultery draws them away to another woman? How many fathers are absent from the family because they are emotionally insensitive to their children’s needs? How many fathers are absent from the family because they are preoccupied with work or sports? How many fathers are absent from the family because they are preoccupied with their own pride and arrogance? How many fathers are absent from the family because of alcoholism? How many fathers are absent from the family because of illness? How many fathers are absent from the family because a woman decided she didn’t need a man to have a child? It can go on and on. And it does.

And the sad thing is that when a father is absent—whether physically or emotionally—his lack causes a lack in the children. Lacking understanding of how the world works, lacking trust in others, and lacking trust in themselves, children—whether they be boys or girls—become lost, insecure, and confused. They lack confidence. They lack real faith. They lack a spiritually meaningful future. They lack life. All because their fathers were lacking.

Please note, though, that all of this lack resulting from the lack of a father is, in many cases, largely unconscious.

Yes, some persons are truly crippled—both emotionally and socially—by the lack of a father, and their lives become dysfunctional and stuck.

But other persons are able to keep up a surface appearance of functionality; they hold jobs, they get married, and they have children. Yet under the surface of normality a deep secret of anger and victimization is buried. Here are the dark roots of symptom after symptom of secret resentment for the father. Argumentativeness. Passive-aggression. Suspiciousness. Trying to make others “face the truth.” Being late for appointments. Procrastination. Learning disorders. Difficulty following directions or reading maps. Getting lost. Mental confusion at just the times when clarity of thought is needed. And all addictions—not just drug and alcohol addiction, but also obesity, cigarette smoking, and pornography. This list can go on and on. And it does. All because a father, in his physical, emotional, or spiritual absence, failed to instill in a child a sense of inner stability, trust, and confidence.

(This article is again a work of Dr. Raymond Lloyd Richmond.
For this and other writings by him, go to The Role Of Father .)

Abortion (Post Abortion Distress Symptoms)

Post Abortion Distress Symptoms
(Immediate and/or delayed symptoms may include):

* Anxiety/stress;
* Severe guilt;
* Regret;
* Sadness/sorrow;
* Feelings of loss and emptiness;
* Crying (sometimes for hours or days at a time);
* Depression;
* Inability to concentrate or work;
* Lowered self esteem/self-hatred;
* Desire for secrecy about abortion;
* Nightmares or flashbacks;
* Inability to sustain an intimate relationship;
* Anger or rage;
* Hatred towards anyone connected with the abortion;
* Emotional numbness;
* Severe emotional pain;
* Drug or alcohol abuse;
* Eating disorders;
* Sexual dysfunction (loss of pleasure, frigidity, and/or increased sexual activity);
* Desire to become pregnant again;
* Compulsions to touch or avoid babies;
* Repeat abortions; and
* Suicidal impulses.

(Women may experience some, all, or none of these symptoms. If these symptoms occur or persist, it is important to get help. )

[Taken from the internet site Abortion Concern . ]

Homosexuality (Catholic Moral Perspective)

Pick-&-Choose Cafeteria Catholics (#1)

Most of us, at one time or another, have enjoyed a meal in a cafeteria. Customers pass down the line of a great variety of foods, picking this or that according to their taste, and passing up other things they do not want. You might say it is a “pick and choose" kind of eating house.

It seems that some Catholics look upon their Church in the same way, that is, as regards the doctrines of the Catholic Church. They are sometimes referred to as “Cafeteria Catholics.” They feel they can “pick and choose” among the various doctrines and laws of the Church, some of which they accept, others they feel they are not obliged to obey. More and more today there are those who call themselves Catholic, who feel they can, and must, decide for themselves which of the teachings of the Church they will accept, and which they will not. How many, for example, do not accept the clear teaching of the Church in regard to such basic things as birth control, or premarital sex, or divorce and remarriage, etc. They look upon these teachings not as laws, but, at best, as ideals that they may not be able to live up to. Many things have changed in the Church, they say, since the second Vatican Council.

Yet, Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (now Pope Benedict), stated clearly and emphatically in the book “The Cardinal Ratzinger Report,” that it is absolutely incorrect to refer to Pre-Vatican Council II and Post-Vatican Council II, as if there were changes in the Church’s position in matters of faith and morals. The only changes in that respect have sprung from erroneous interpretations of the Council.

As regards the “picking and choosing” of what teachings of the Church some will follow or not follow, Pope John Paul II stated in his talk to the Bishops in Los Angeles in 1987:

>“It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church’s moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a “good Catholic,” and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere.”

If we can believe the polls, we are experiencing in the Church at the present time a considerable amount of dissent from the teaching of the Church. ... (All of the above was written in an article by Father Paul A. Duffner, O.P., The Rosary Light & Life - Vol 46, No 4, Jul.-Aug. 1993 )

Chastity Ring In British School (Rejected)

This is an update in the case of 16 year old "Lydia Playfoot" of England who has worn a small silver ring to school as a symbol of Christian purity. "The ‘Silver Ring Thing’ is a Christian education project aimed at helping teenage girls value themselves, make right choices about their futures, and reduce Britain's ever-increasing rise in sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancies amongst teenagers." (For the first post on this situation by "Catholic Psychology Blogspot", click on Silver Ring In High Court (Britain) .

Ms. Playfoot lost her case. Now she is considering if she should appeal. On Monday, July 16th, she said, "I am very disappointed by the decision this morning by the High Court not to allow me to wear my purity ring to school as an expression of my Christian faith not to have sex outside marriage.” ... “I believe that the judge’s decision will mean that slowly, over time, people such as school governors, employers, political organizations and others will be allowed to stop Christians from publicly expressing and practicing their faith.”

An article put out the next day by Reuters News Service stated: "Playfoot’s legal challenge was the latest in a series of disputes in British schools in recent years over the right of pupils to wear religious symbols or clothing, such as crucifixes and veils." ... "Playfoot’s parents are key members of the British arm of the American chastity campaign group the "Silver Ring Thing", a religious group which urges abstinence among young people. Those who sign up wear a ring on the third finger of the left hand. It is inscribed with “Thess. 4:3-4,” a reference to a Biblical passage from Thessalonians which reads: “God wants you to be holy, so you should keep clear of all sexual sin.”

"During the case, Playfoot’s lawyers argued that the ban by her school in Horsham, West Sussex, breached her human rights to 'freedom of thought, conscience and religion” which are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.' "

It is interesting to me how during the interview recorded in the video above, the man and woman presenting the questions to Lydia and her father, would not dare pose a positively directed question or comment regarding teenagers who wish to remain chaste and save sex for marriage. The questioning was more like an "interogation", as if young Lydia Playfoot had some how "set fire to her school", or arrogantly "adorned herself in Nazi war clothing".
.
Regarding an adult who wrote in saying she "had been a Christian for 50 years, and never had need to use a ring to represent her Christianity." I wonder if this woman was ever married. If she had ever been married, being married would have included the Christian ritual and tradition to use a "RING" to "SYMBOLIZE" sexual devotion to her HUSBAND!!! I assure you at the beginning of the Christian Church, most citizens of Rome had virtually no concern for remaining chaste and devoting the sexual act to their spouses alone!
.
Hmmmmm, it's interesting how history appears to come around full circle. I believe if this interview had been with a young lady who had been promiscuous given birth to a child outside of wedlock, the interviewers would have raced to the young lady's aide with nothing negative to say or question her about.
.
Let us keep young Ms. Lydia Playfoot in prayer for her courage to stand up for Chastity in what is, and always has been, true Christian belief and devotion.
.

*Internet Pornography ("Out of Control!!!")*

"One hears a lot about how pornography harms women, children, families, and society. And it does victimize these groups, no question about it." ... "Feminist rhetoric aimed at pornography is couched in the language of the ‘victimization of women.’ But what about the victimization of MEN? I rarely hear pornography spoken of in terms of the harm it does to men. There seems to be an underlying assumption that because men enjoy pornography, then it’s not really bad for them. It’s taken for granted that men are just doing what comes naturally, what they’re hardwired for, being the visual, testosterone-driven creatures that they are. I submit that men are not only victimized by pornography, but that they are the primary victims of pornography. Men are the targeted audience for pornography. If you’re a man reading this, you must realize that pornography is aimed at you, at your mind, your soul, and your pocketbook – to the tune of billions of dollars a year." (Aimee Milburn of the highly informative Catholic Blog Historical Christian.)

In her post Aimee Milburn says further: "And men are very susceptible to it. I think we’re all familiar with the reaction of the ordinary, healthy male to the sight of an attractive, half-clad female form: the eyes-wide instant double-take, faster than thought. Men are wired to respond, and they do. ... pornography is carefully filmed, airbrushed, glossed, manipulated in every way precisely to get the man hooked, so he keeps coming back for more, keeps on feeding the giant sucking hole of hell that pornography is – feeding it not just with money, but with the priceless currency of the eternal agony of souls, the real wealth of hell. ..."

"Pornography is a giant dragnet for hell. A man hooked on pornography not only becomes a slave of hell himself, he becomes a pimp for hell, feeding the demand for men, women and children to be used in porn, and victimizing them directly when, driven by porn, he acts on his porn-fed fantasies. And then everyone, men, women, children, and society, is victimized by porn."

In her post Aimee also quotes from a pastoral letter written by Bishop Paul S. Loverde of the Catholic Diocese of Arlington, Virginia, entitled "Bought With A Price: (Pornography and the Attack on the Living Temple of God)". In the pastoral letter Bishop Loverde states: "While husbands and wives share equal dignity as persons, they do not share temptations equally - especially the temptations associated with the scourge of pornography. It must be admitted that the use of pornography is largely, although certainly not exclusively, associated with males. If a marriage begins to be damaged by pornography, it will most likely be introduced by the husband."

In the pastoral letter he goes on, "Husbands, be aware that your solemn promise of faithfulness, which is the foundation of the formation of your family, is damaged by any use of pornography. Strive to bring honor to the promise you made at the beginning of your married life. The times where intimacy is difficult are opportunities to practice the sacrificial love of a spouse that only your noble vocation illustrates most perfectly." ... "Seeking comfort in the illusion of pornography will incrementally corrupt your understanding of self, your perception of your beloved wife, and the model you present to your children. It is futile to believe that this secret preoccupation can be contained and isolated from family life. In small ways, the self-centeredness and disrespect of self and others, which lie at the heart of this vice, will become manifest within your relationships with your family."

To conclude this post on "Internet Pornography", here are three minutes of counseling strategy explained by a counselor, George Collins, MA, the founder and director of "Compulsion Solutions" (an outpatient counseling service specifically for the treatment of men who suffer from the results of sexually compulsive behavior).

*Commercializing Of Women*

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end there of is the way of death." (Proverbs 16:25)

We are all greatly affected by the way we view women in our homes, our lives and society.

1. Women, used as objects to sale products, if not to sale themselves.

2. Women, made to appear as something they are not.

3. To fulfill fantasies in men. Fantasies women cannot live up to.

4. Women, left wondering what is beauty, not seeing their own beauty.

5. Women, unable to leave their homes for fear of how they look without make-up.

6. Women, when being loved, hate their lovers, for they know they are not being loved for what they truly are, but for what they pretend to be.

7. Women, living in society of fundamental dishonesty, inspired to place fantasy above what is true and real.

8. A society where men are no longer respected, and women are no longer cherished.

9. A society where teenaged girls call boys on their cell phones, and "going-on-a-date" means something different than it once did.

10. A socity where women are promised love, but are used instead, then left to swim in loneliness, despair and resentment.

12. A society where men hate themselves, having no examples to follow for knowing how to be men for their wives and children. Grasping for anything to fill the void of their own shame and guilt.

*The Perverting Of Catholic Religious (Part 2)*

There was another psychologist of high acclaim at the time Rogers and Coulson were pumping philosophies of relativism into the minds of a large number of American Catholic nuns and priests. His name was Dr. Abraham Maslow. Coulson said Dr. Maslow warned both of them (He and Rogers) that their problem was their "total confusion with evil". However, the documented research on innate evil by Maslow, a humanist himself, and the father of "Hierarchy Of Needs", was not published in journals until 1979. By then the damage had already be done.

Among other activities, Rogers and Coulson had distributed a teaching tape promulgating that "when people do what they deeply want to do, it isn't immoral." About this Dr. Coulson later stated that it became obvious to both he and Rogers that they had not waited long enough for the results of their pilot testing. "The lesbian nuns' book, for example, hadn't come out yet; and we hadn't gotten the reports of seductions in psychotherapy, which became virtually routine in California."

Regarding the intervention teams of therapists that were intitiated under his direct supervision, that eventually dotted parts of the nation, Coulson replied in an interview, "We had trained people who didn't have Rogers' innate discipline from his own fundamentalist Protestant background, people who thought that being themselves meant unleashing libido." ... "Maslow saw that we failed to understand the reality of evil in human life. When we implied to people that they could trust their impulses, they also understood us to mean that they could trust their evil impulses, that they weren't really evil." ... "But they were really evil."

"We did similar programs for the Jesuits, for the Franciscans, for the Sisters of Providence, Sisters of Charity, and the Mercy Sisters. We did dozens of Catholic religious organizations, because as you recall, in the excitement following Vatican II, everybody wanted to update, everybody wanted to renew; and we offered a way for people to renew, without having to bother to study. We said, we'll help you look within. After all, is not God in your heart? Is it not sufficient to be yourself, and wouldn't that make you a good Catholic? And if it doesn't, then perhaps you shouldn't have been a Catholic in the first place. Well, after a while there weren't many Catholics left."

One example of the negative effect of this "Therapy For Normals" presented as Truth to Catholic Religious, was in the Summer of 1965 when Dr. Rogers and Dr. Coulson did a workshop at a Jesuit University. One young Jesuit, about to be ordained, wrote a letter. Here are the words of that letter in verbatim:

"It seemed like a beautiful birth to a new existence. It was as if so many of the things that I valued in word, were now becoming true for me in fact. It is extremely difficult to describe the experience. I had not known how unaware I was of my deepest feelings, nor how valuable they might be to other people. Only when I began to express what was rising somewhere deep within the center of me, and saw the tears in the eyes of the other group members because I was saying something so true for them, too - only then did I begin to really feel that I was deeply a part of the human race. Never in my life before that group experience, had I experienced me so intently; ..."

Dr. Coulson, again I remind you, the supervisor of the entire Rogerian encounter group program at the time, said later the following in response to this letter by the soon to be ordained Jesuit priest: "The proof of authenticity on the humanistic psychology model is to go against what you were trained to be, to call all of that phoniness, and to say what is deepest within you. What's deepest within you, however, are certain unrequited longings, including sexual longings. ... We provoked an epidemic of sexual misconduct among clergy and therapists."

He went further, "... I'll tell you what Rogers came to see, and he came to see it pretty quickly, because he really loved those women (the nuns of "The Immaculate Heart of Mary"). They were a wonderful order, unconventional in the best sense, for example going around in their old habits playing Mozart for Catholic school kids; and that doesn't exist any more. Rogers came to call it, "this damned thing." I'm going to quote him in a tape that he and I made in '76:" ... (Thus the words of Dr. Carl Rogers himself:) ... "I left there feeling, well, I started this damned thing, and look where it's taking us; I don't even know where it's taking me. I don't have any idea what's going to happen next. And I woke up the next morning feeling so depressed, that I could hardly stand it. And then I realized what was wrong." ... "did I start something that is in some fundamental way mistaken, and will lead us off into paths that we will regret?"

Regarding more history in the movement of relative psychology into American leadership of the Catholic Church, Dr. Coulson stated: "Well, actually we started with the Jesuits before we started with the nuns. We did our first Jesuit workshop in '65. Rogers got two honorary doctorates from Jesuit universities. They thought we were saviors." ... "I don't know whether you remember, but in '67 the Jesuits had a big conference at Santa Clara, and there was a lot of talk about the"Third Way" among the Jesuits." ... "The first two ways are faithful marriage and faithful celibacy. But now there was this more humane way, a more human way - all too human as I see it today. The idea was that priests could date. One priest, for example, defined his celibacy for me as, "It means I don't have to marry the girl." (This was not a Jesuit priest. Dr. Coulson believed that at least the Jesuits could rebound from the teaching of relativism, because at list their history was immersed in strong Catholic tradition.) ... [Note: A "Father Becker" wrote a book on "the collapse of Jesuit training" between 1965 and 1975, documenting what he referred to as influences of Rogerian teaching.]

To conclude this post on "The Perverting of Catholic Religious", read the following two excepts as short recent examples of where the aforementioned Rogerian humanist relativism has taken some IHM's:

From "Turning Chapters" ... "The IHM Sisters began in 1845 steeped in Christianity within the Catholic Church. Now, we know we are rooted also in a much older story - that of the universe itself. Integrating the older universe story into our familiar IHM history and faith will play an important part of our next six years. Using the UN Earth Charter as a resource will inform our conversations, decisions and actions."

From "The Universe Story" ... "the universe story reveals that we carry within us the very energy that fashioned the stars, that we are related to all creation, that our ancestry is a family tree inclusive of all life forms, a family much larger than we have ever imagined possible." ... "We know now what was unknown to all the preceding caravan of generations: that we are only fellow voyagers with other creatures in the odyssey of evolution. This new knowledge should have given us, by this time, a sense of kinship with fellow creatures; a wish to live and let live..." ... "The IHM Sisters and many religious have begun to study the universe story through the lens of the Gospel." ... "The Body of Christ, rather than simply being a group of like-minded human beings, includes all of life" ... "The revelation in and through Jesus was not intended to be an end in itself, but instead was meant to usher in a new age of connectedness that Jesus called the "Kingdom of God," ... "This reign of God would unfold as the human species embraced a new way of living. The keeping of the memory and mission of Jesus is not about making him the object of our worship, but about making ourselves the locus of the reign of God."

All I will say now as the writer of this post, when I was a child, I attended a traditional Catholic school." The nuns there were Godly and they did me good. The above quotes "do not" represent those nuns, neither the Catholic Church governed by the Vatican in worship of Christ as He revealed Himself! ... I understand not all nuns of the Church, not even all IHM's, believe what is quoted above. However, I say for the increasing numbers of Religious who believe this is our mission, those who promote this gross distortion of our Lord's very words, they truly do not represent, nor do they deserve the title, the "Immaculate Heart of Mary"!

* Does Marriage Need "Luck" To Survive? *

Please click on "Does Marriage Need LUCK To Survive?" for Sister Mary Martha's creative and inisightful comments!

*The Perverting Of Catholic Religious (Part 1)*

The year was 1966. Psychologists Dr. Carl Rogers and Dr. William Coulson requested to conduct a "pilot study" of a new emerging therapy with nuns of the order of the "Immaculate Heart of Mary". The nunship, desiring to do a good deed, agreed to allow their schools to be the first to experience Dr. Rogers' "Therapy For Normals" (TFN).

Dr. Rogers and Dr. Coulson arrived at the initial "testing-of-nuns-to-improve-them" location to begin their therapeutic intervention, well funded from the "National Institutes of MentalHealth". Eventually they brought with them a total of 58 additional psychological testers and group facilitators. Dr. Coulson himself described years later in his own words, "We inundated that system with humanistic psychology." ... "They agreed to let us come into their schools and work with their normal faculty, and with their normal students, and influence the development of normal Catholic life."

The large team of well funded Rogerian psychologists, under the inventor and master of Rogerianism himself, Dr. Carl Rogers (shown on the right), began their TFN intervention with certain enthusiasm. What did Dr. William Coulson later conclude regarding the work of the psychological teams he personally supervised? ... He said, "It was a disaster!"

In a personal well documented interview he stated regarding the "Immaculate Heart Of Mary" order of nuns, "The IHM's had some 60 schools when we started; at the end, they had "one". There were some 615 nuns when we began. Within a year after our first interventions, 300 of them were petitioning Rome to get out of their vows. They did not want to be under anyone's authority, except the authority of their imperial inner selves."

In the summer of 1966 a "Sister Mary Benjamin, IHM" got involved with the Rogerian therapists. Dr. Coulson explained later in a book written by him, that Sister Mary Benjamin "... became the victim of a lesbian seduction. An older nun in the group, ‘freeing herself to be more expressive of who she really was internally,' decided that she wanted to make love with Sister Mary Benjamin. Well, Sister Mary Benjamin engaged in this; and then she was stricken with guilt, and wondered, to quote from her (own) book, ‘Was I doing something wrong, was I doing something terrible? I talked to a priest.' (Dr. Coulson interjects: "Unfortunately we spoke to the priest first!") ... ‘I talked to a priest,' she says, ‘who refused to pass judgment on my actions. He said it was up to me to decide if they were right or wrong. He opened a door, and I walked through the door, realizing I was on my own.'"

So how exactly did all this get started in the Catholic Church of America, the "destruction of tradition, break from the Vatican, defying original vows made by nuns?" ... Dr. Coulson goes on. ... "As I said, the IHM's were pretty progressive, but some of the leadership was a little bit nervous about the secular psychologist from LaJolla coming in, so I met with the whole community, some 600 nuns gathered in the Immaculate Heart High School gymnasium, in Hollywood, on an April day in 1967. ‘We've already done the pilot study.' we told them, ‘Now we want to get everybody in the system involved in no directive self-exploration. We call it encounter groups, but if that name doesn't please you, we'll call it something else. We'll call it the "person group".' So they went along with us, and that is partly my responsibility, because they thought, ‘These people wouldn't hurt us; the project coordinator is a Catholic. ..."

"Rogers, however, was the principal investigator. He was the brains behind the project, and he was probably anti-Catholic; at the time I didn't recognize it because I probably was, too. We both had a bias against hierarchy. I was flush with Vatican II, and I thought, ‘I am the Church, I am as Catholic as the Pope. Didn't Pope John XIII want us to open the windows and let in the fresh air? Here we come!' And we did, and within a year those nuns wanted out of their vows."

But once the 600 nuns were broken down into "encounter groups" (to make them better nuns, you know, ... psychologically) precisely how long did it take for most of those dedicated nuns to turn their backs on everything they previously held sacred? The project coordinator himself went further:

"Well, in the summer of 1967 the IHM's were having their chapter. They had been
called, as religious orders were, to re-evaluate their mode of living, and to bring it more in line with the charisms of their founder. So they were ready for us. They were ready for an intensive look at themselves with the help of humanistic psychologists. We overcame their traditions, we overcame their faith. ..."

In this same interview Dr. Coulson explained that there was a Father Elwood "Bud" Kaiser in the vicinity of this psychological implosion. He was a Paulist priest, who also wrote a book, it was called "Hollywood". In one of the chapters of that book the priest describes a "romantic involvement" he had with one of the IHM nuns afterwards. He explained in writing regarding the nun that "... she got in the spirit of Rogerian non-directive encounter," and "she propositioned him sexually." Further explanation of the event documents that the priest refused her sexual advances, but that "she got sexually involved with her Rogerian therapist."

Dr. Coulson explained further in the interview: "He (the therapist) got her (the nun) involved in sex games, in therapy. Rogers (Dr. Carl Rogers) didn't get people involved in sex games, but he couldn't prevent his followers from doing it, because all he could say was, ‘Well, I don't do that.' Then his followers would say, ‘Well, of course you don't do that, because you grew up in an earlier era; but we do, and its marvelous: you have set us free to be ourselves and not (be) carbon copies of you."

So how many years did it take to destroy the "Immaculate Heart of Mary" order, or at least drastically change it from what sacrificial, traditional devotion it was? And what came of the 615 nuns?

Dr. Coulson: "It took about a year and a half." ... " There might be a couple of dozen left all together, apart from whom, they're gone. The college campus was sold. There is no more "Immaculate Heart College". ... "One mother pulled her daughter out before it closed, saying, ‘Listen, she can lose her faith for free at the state college.' ... Our grant had been for three years, but we called off the study after two, because we were alarmed about the results. We thought we could make the IHM's better than they were, and we destroyed them."


Dr. William (Bill) Coulson went on to lecture, speak on interviews, write articles and a book. He's done whatever he could do to assuage the guilt and shame he felt for having created what he clearly has referred to as the destruction of Catholic Tradition and Sacramental Devotion among many Religious.


Dr. Coulson has a three tape series on the topic of what this post has merely touched on, but even more directly addressing humanistic psychological in both Catholic and Public schools. As you see, to the left the lecture series is entitled "". PSYCHOLOGY IN EDUCATION, FRIEND OR FOE

Please note that more will be said in future posts on this vital topic on CatholicPsychology.Blogspot. This post, "The Perverting Of Catholic Religious", is the first in a series of posts. Part Two will arrive soon.

(Comments, positive or negative, are welcome. If anyone wish to argue from the opposing side of this issue, feel free to do so. Only expect that what I refer to as the true "Catholic Psychology" will be staunchly defended.)

** Priests Who Molest Children **

As a counselor who has long worked in therapy with sexual abusers, as well as survivors of sexual abuse, let me tell you in short, what I believe about "Priests Who Molest Children":

(1) Statistically, less than one percent of Catholic priests have been accused of sexual abusing children. Of that amount, only a portion of that 1% have in fact done so.

(2) Thus, more than 99% of priests have "not" sexually abused children.

(3) What is said of Catholic priests is also said of Protestant ministers. In Protestant Christian denominations a very small minority of church leaders have been accused of sexually abusing, and a lesser amount of that portion has been substantiated as valid.in such accusations.

-

(4) Of the two, Catholic and Protestant, the Catholic Church especially is generally targeted as sexually abusive to children. At times in the media it is made to appear that the Catholic Church alone is plagued with problems of sexual abuse.

(5) Catholic priests are often accused to be sexual abusers, because they practice celibacy. It is purported in major media that because Catholic priests do not entertain a sexual experience in their lifestyle, their natural passions are suppressed, thus acted out in ways that are harmful to others.

(6) It is precisely "because" of both the "gift" and "sacrifice" of celibacy, that priests are chaste, and capable to perform their duties without preoccupation with personal sexual gratification.

(7) The more than 99% of priests who have "not" abused children, perform their duties amidst sadness and grief, having been falsely labelled as child abusers (or being united in service with other priests who are child abusers).

(8) It is the Catholic Church that remains united and committed, worldwide, on pro-life issues. Strongly advocating for traditional marriage and family, and against abortion, homosexuality, premarital sex and use of contraceptives.

(9) The small percentage of priests who have been proven to abuse children, are referred to as pedophiles. (Pedophilia is defined as an adult having fantasy, desire, and engaging in sexual activity with a child 13 years old or younger.)

(10) Until the mid 1980's, most professionals in the field of psychology believed and taught that sexual abusers could be rehabilitated through mental health therapy and treatment.

(11) Much hierarchy in the Catholic Church, particularly in North America, thought resorting to advice from the secular counseling community was wise on such matters as abuse to children.

(12) Cases of accused priests for alleged molestation of children were not always easy to substantiate.

(13) In most cases where possible sexual abusing priests were relocated to distant perishes after accusation of abuse, Catholic Bishops usually responded in principle to advice and general teaching of secular psychologists.

(14) The vast majority of cases where priests were in fact proven to have molested children, those cases did not include harm to young children.

(15 ) Sexual abuse by these priests were not found to have taken place against children who were "female".

(16) Sexual abuse by these priests happened against older teenagers who were "male".

(17) The proper term for these priests who have sexually acted out upon older teen aged boys is not "pedophile", but instead "homosexual".

(18) If a Catholic priest does, or ever had, heterosexual or homosexual tendencies, this is of little concern or consequence in his life, duties and service as a priest. Because a Catholic priest by pledge, definition, service and function is "celibate".

(19) Catholic priests who have transgressed sexual boundaries with anyone, including a child, is "not" a Catholic priest in that title's rightful definition. The one who claims to be a priest and has done these things, has broken the vow he made before God to be priest.

(20) A sexual abuser, by criteria and definition, chooses his or her profession, position, hobby and daily activities, to have access to those he or she wishes to sexually molest.

(21) Any Christian leader who has harmed a child in the manner described, never was a leader of a Christian church. His leadership of a church was only access to abuse, not a correct function of ministry.

(22) A priest who has abused a child never was of the Church. He is an "outsider", and in the truest sense of the term, always was. (Excommunication from the Catholic Church is a process of similar relevance, but general application remains functional for our cause here in my opinion.)

(23) For media or any other person to call a sexually abusing priest a Catholic, has scandalously misrepresented what the Catholic Church and Christianity in general stands for.

(24) Critics who are secularists and against the Church, cannot have it both ways. Which is it? ... "Does the Catholic Church stand for marriage, family, right to life and accountability to a moral God? Or does Catholicism stand for 'priests who practise their homosexuality lawlessly upon older teen aged boys'?"

(25) The answer to this final question is clear. A priest who has sexually molested a child, or anyone else for that matter, is not a priest or a representative for the Church. It is very possible he is not a Christian, thus not Catholic. This person is a "wolf in sheep's' clothing". Whatever vows this man has made while prostrate in holy ceremony before God, were instead lies and falsehood.

In conclusion to this post, consider the following scriptures, words spoken directly by the mouth of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself:

"Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me. But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!" (Matthew 18:5-7)

***

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name"' And then I will declare to them. 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" (Matthew 7:21-23)

** Silver Ring In High Court (Britain) **

Say a prayer for Lydia Playfoot who is today taking her school to the High Court over her claim to the right to wear the Silver Ring as a symbol of Christian purity.

The ‘Silver Ring Thing’ is a Christian education project aimed at helping teenage girls value themselves, make right choices about their futures, and reduce Britain's ever-increasing rise in sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancies amongst teenagers.

The case is being brought under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights which reads:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The Lawyers Christian Fellowship support Lydia in her challenge. Lydia will be represented today in Court by barrister Paul Diamond, who also represents Nadia of the ‘British Airways 'Cross' case.

The Governors at Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, banned Lydia from wearing her small silver ring, saying that it broke the school’s uniform policy. However, any "public order" argument on this basis is somewhat undermined by the fact that their uniform policy allows Muslims to wear headscarves and Sikhs to wear Kara bracelets. As Lydia has said, the school's uniform policy is 'discriminatory' as it allows all faiths, except Christians, to wear items symbolic of their beliefs.

This is an important case which highlights the general trend in public life that bans all forms of discrimination except discrimination against Christians. It is a good day for the case to be held as it is the feast of St John Fisher and St Thomas More. May their prayers aid Lydia and her barrister!
*****
This valuable information comes to us from Father Tim Finigan of "Our Lady Of the Rosary" parish in Blackfen, England.

** The "Thrill Of The Chaste" **

For those who valued the post ..............."CASUAL-SEX-IS-A-Con", note that the author will be appearing on "CATHOLIC ANSWERS LIVE" Wenesday, June 6th.. Click on "Radio" to see guests. Programs can be accessed by internet on EWTN . Here is the program schedule for internet radio programming on that site.
************************
Dawn Eden, a writer and editor, is a self-described "agnostic Reform Jew" and veteran of the New York City singles jungle who became an evangelical Christian and then a Catholic. In her new book, The Thrill of the Chaste: Finding Fulfillment While Keeping Your Clothes On, she describes her conversion from a "Sex and the City" lifestyle that made her miserable to a realization that saving sex for marriage was a liberating experience. She also encourages unmarried women to think of themselves not as "single" but as "singular"--defined by their relationship to God, not a man.
*************************
Thanks for this information being made available to "Catholic Psychology Blogpot" regarding Dawn Eden, by a listener of "Catholic Answers Radio".. Let us be sure to listen to the program (as well as others), either live, or download at a future date. This should surely prove to be valuable listening for the serious Catholic who has love for our Lord!

** Casual Sex Is A Con **

(From the author, Dawn Eden, comes these portion from an article where she admits, based on her own personal experience, that "Casual Sex Is A Con". )
******************

(***) The Sixties generation thought everything should be free. But only a few decades later the hippies were selling water at rock festivals for $5 a bottle. But for me the price of “free love” was even higher. I sacrificed what should have been the best years of my life for the black lie of free love. All the sex I ever had — and I had more than my fair share — far from bringing me the lasting relationship I sought, only made marriage a more distant prospect.
(***) And I am not alone. Count me among the dissatisfied daughters of the sexual revolution, a new counterculture of women who are realising that casual sex is a con and are choosing to remain chaste instead.

(***) I am 37, and like millions of other girls, was born into a world which encouraged young women to explore their sexuality. It was almost presented to us as a feminist act. In the 1960s the future Cosmopolitan editor Helen Gurley Brown famously asked: Can a woman have sex like a man? Yes, she answered because “like a man, [a woman] is a sexual creature”. ...

(***) As a historian of pop music and daughter of the sexual revolution I embraced Greer’s call to (men’s) arms. My job was to write the sleeve notes to 1960s pop CDs and I gained a reputation for having an encyclopedic knowledge base, interviewing the original artists and recording personnel. It was all a joy for me, as I was obsessed with the sounds of the era. ...

(***) ... the touring rock musician was my ideal sexual partner. By bedding them I could enjoy a temporary sort of fairy-tale bond; knowing it was bound to be fleeting as we would both move on meant that I never had to confront my own vulnerability about properly making a connection with someone. I could establish a transient intimacy and never have to deal with the real thing — and the real rejection that might entail. ...

(***) Of course the rejection would come as the latest lover moved on to the next town and the next woman — but somehow, being able to see it coming made me feel more in control. I was choosing, I thought, the lesser pain. ...

(***) But in all that casual sex, there was one moment I learnt to dread more than any other. I dreaded it not out of fear that the sex would be bad, but out of fear that it would be good. If the sex was good, then, even if I knew in my heart that the relationship wouldn’t work, I would still feel as though the act had bonded me with my sex partner in a deeper way than we had been bonded before. It’s in the nature of sex to awaken deep emotions within us, emotions that are unwelcome when one is trying to keep it light.
(***) On such nights the worst moment was when it was all over. Suddenly I was jarred back to earth. Then I’d lie back and feel bereft. He would still be there, and if I was really lucky, he’d lie down next to me. Yet, I couldn’t help feeling like the spell had been broken. ... — it had just been a game. ... The circus had left town.

(***) ... I’ve tried their philosophy ... and it doesn’t work. We’re not built like that. Women are built for bonding. We are vessels and we seek to be filled. For that reason, however much we try and convince ourselves that it isn’t so, sex will always leave us feeling empty unless we are certain that we are loved, that the act is part of a bigger picture that we are loved for our whole selves not just our bodies.

(***) It took me a long time to realise this. My earliest attitudes about sex were shaped from what I saw in the lives of my older sister and my mother — especially my mother, a free spirit who was desperately trying to make up missing out on the hippie era.

(***) ... This was the 1970s and early 1980s, the age of the Sensitive New Age Guy or aptly named “snag”. My mother attracted them because she was new age herself, doing kundalini yoga and attending lectures by various gurus.
(***) The snags treated her with what passed for respect in that world but they never gave much of themselves and didn’t appreciate Mom in the way I did — I wondered if there were any men capable of valuing inner beauty. In both her search for a husband and her quest for a fulfilling spirituality, Mom was, in my eyes, fuelled by a longing to fill the empty space.

(***) As a teenager with no moral foundation for my resolution to save my virginity for Mr Right — other than a fear of being hurt by Mr Wrong ... But in a wider sense, losing my virginity, far from being the demarcation between past and future, was just a blip on the continuum of my sexual degradation. The decline had begun when I first sought sexual pleasure for its own sake.

(***) Our culture — both in the media via programmes such as Sex and the City and in everyday interactions — relentlessly puts forth the idea that lust is a way station on the road to love. It isn’t. It left me with a brittle facade incapable of real intimacy. Occasionally a man would tell me I appeared hard, which surprised me as I thought I was so vulnerable. In truth, underneath my attempts to appear bubbly, I was hard — it was the only way I could cope with what I was doing to my self and my body.

(***) The misguided, hedonistic philosophy which urges young women into this kind of behaviour harms both men and women; but it is particularly damaging to women, as it pressures them to subvert their deepest emotional desires. The champions of the sexual revolution are cynical. They know in their tin hearts that casual sex doesn’t make women happy. That’s why they feel the need continually to promote it.

(***) These days I live a very different kind of life. I still touch base with old musician pals now and again, but I’m more likely to hang out with members of church choirs. I am chaste. My decision to resist casual sex was, once again, influenced by my mother — though not in the way she initially hoped.

(***) Although she was Jewish, she gave up her new age beliefs for Christianity when I was a teenager. ... As far as I could see, Christians were a dull, faceless mass who ruled the world. My mission in life, as I saw it, was to be different; creative, liberal, rebellious.

(***) Then one day in December 1995, I was doing a phone interview with Ben Eshbach, leader of a Los Angeles rock band called the Sugarplastic, and asked him what he was reading. His answer was The Man Who Was Thursday by G K Chesterton. I picked it up out of curiosity and was captivated. Soon I was picking up everything by Chesterton that I could get my hands on, starting with his book Orthodoxy, his attempt to explain why he believed in the Christian faith.
(***) That was the first time it struck me that there was something exciting about Christianity. I kept reading Chesterton even as I continued my dissipated lifestyle, and then one night in October 1999 I had a hypnagogic experience — the sort in which you’re not sure if you are asleep or awake. I heard a woman’s voice saying: “Some things are not meant to be known. Some things are meant to be understood.” I got on my knees and prayed — and eventually entered the Catholic church.

(***) My chances are better now than they’ve ever been, because before I was chaste, I was looking for love in all the wrong places. It’s only now that I’m truly ready for marriage and have a clear vision of the kind of man I want.

(***) I may be 37, ... “but in husband-seeking years, I’m only 22.”

******************************
(Consult "The Thrill Of The Chaste: (Finding Fulfillment While Keeping Your Clothes On)", by Dawn Eden, was published by W Publishing Group/ Thomas Nelson last month.

(***) To access Dawn Eden's blog click on "The Dawn Patrol" .)

To order Ms. Eden's book click on "The Thrill Of The Chaste"

******************************

(Much thanks to the blog The Art of Apologetics for the information received on this valuable article!)

Why One Woman Is Not Enough For Some Men

For the woman who reads this, you must understand that God made you beautiful. For the man who reads this, if you're a husband, you could spend all your life, yet never discover all the loveliness that is in your wife.

That's how God made us. The truth of what I'm saying here, the depth of it, has too much been forgotten.

Each solitary woman is a "galaxy" of experience, of stars, planets and heavenly bodies, waiting to be appreciated and cherished by the man who will love her. Only in that way is a man fulfilled, who's vocation it is to be a husband.

But, "Why is one woman not enough for some men?" The core reason is simple. Its because some men believe God is not as great as He says He is. As Adam used Eve to be God in the place of God, so these men believe God is not capable of placing in one woman, in one woman alone, all that a man could ever need.

When a man is not satisfied with one woman (As some men go from one woman to the next), the problem is not the women, but that man's relationship with his Creator.

All the man need do is look up to the heavens. As telescopes peer through the area within the small constellation of the Big Dipper alone, astronomers project their telescopes further beyond and literally count more than one million galaxies in that comparably small portion of the universe. Our sun is itself a star, a thermo-nuclear device ten thousand times the size of the earth. As each galaxy contains "billions" of these suns (or stars), the estimate in number of galaxies known to exists in the cosmos is estimated in the untold "billions"!

The colors in each galaxy is magnificent. The stars, the planets, the moons, the comets all rotate in intricate detail. Yet, any man knows, who has truly loved a good woman, her riches surpass the magnificence of any galaxy.

Check the math. Numerically, statistically, God has placed in the heavens, not a star, but an entire galaxy for every woman; each woman who has ever walked on earthly soil. Since our God made the galaxies, and holds them in there place with all their splendor and glory, has He not as well contained in each woman all that each man could ever want or desire for his basic human need? Oh, yes! For when a man, a husband, purposes intentionally to direct all his hopes, his fantasies, his dreams and his happiness in one woman, that woman will not only fulfill his visions of joy, but she will be free (more free), to open his eyes, his mind and his heart to more satisfaction, rest and wholeness than he ever thought possible.

Drink water from your own cistern, and running water from your own well. Should your fountains be dispersed abroad, streams of water in the streets? Let them be only your own, and not for strangers with you. Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of your youth. As a loving deer and a graceful doe, let her breasts satisfy you at all times; and always be enraptured with her love. For why should you, my son, be enraptured by an immoral woman, and be embraced in the arms of a seductress.

For the ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, and He ponders all his paths. His own iniquities entrap the wicked man, and he is caught in the cords of his sin. He shall die for lack of instruction, and in the greatness of his folly he shall go astray.

(Proverbs 5:15-23)

What Has Been Forgotten About Women

There is something forgotten about women. The thing forgotten about women, by not remembering, renders all chaos as ripples atop a country pond. ... No, I think as tsunamis upon all oceans. ... Societal suicide.

What we've forgotten about women, every woman, is anatomy, physiology, bodies formed and carried sacred, precious. Where inside beautiful sculptured bone, flesh, reside precise location, somewhere, a holy sanctuary, a divine tabernacle, where silently the miraculous hand of God reaches down from heaven, on cue, forming tenderly, delicately, bodies and breathing lives of our sons and daughters. Positioned. God. His Holy Spirit. Not for one moment, but for nine months. No, a lifetime, creating.
From here, somewhere in woman they spawn, our children, ourselves.. Mirrors of God's unique image. The angels marvel. Now and for eternity.

Before the burning bush, Moses removed his sandals by command of deity. While there in fire God spoke gently.

Yet, increasingly it seems, we, descendants of Adam, gravitate a million ways, for a million reasons, to this holy place among us. That is, to women, - to ravage, to rape, to use, abuse, forget, roll over to sleep, ... women, to market, to cheapen.

But what is holy in men, except that we approach with kindness, appreciation, reverence, that which is holy in women, then guard carefully, and teach others the same ... ?

God said it is not good for man to live alone, so He made for man a helpmeet. What God makes, He makes perfect. What God says is so, is so always. If women have failing; if wives, mothers, daughters, sisters and grandmothers have sin; the sin seems always the act of succumbing to the instinct to give men and boys exactly what they ask for. When to give them what they ask for, turns those men and boys into selfish beasts. Or if not beasts, then something of the same in lessor measure.

Hereby we set women up to forget the holiness inside them. When they do, humanity loses.

PORNOGRAPHY

In the 1970's, a federal study valued all hard-core pornography at ten million dollars. Today, the most common estimate of annual revenues are at ten "billion" dollars, or equivalent to the 2005 gross domestic product of Ghana. "You could say the culture of pornography has leaked into our lives, but it's more like a flood." said Julie Hanus in her article "The XXX Factor" (UTNE magazine, 2006) "Even as we attempt to delineate our relationships to modern pornography, the line between what is and is not pornographic is eroding, making the task daunting." ... "You could say the culture of pornography has leaked into our lives, but it's more like a flood."

What is frightening, is the availability of internet porn. At the 2003 meeting of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, some two-thirds attending said the internet played a significant role in divorces that year, pointing a finger at online pornography. Yet, "seven or eight years ago pornography had an almost nonexistent role in divorce.", reports author journalist Pamela Paul in "Time" magazine (January 19, 2004).

And what about our children? In 2001, a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, an independent national health organization, found that 70 percent of 15 to17 year olds admitted to stumbling upon pornography online, and 23 percent of them said it happens often.

But then there's the tragedy, continued trauma to both the one watched and the one watching. "Harm is being done to all our fragile sexual selves, which may be incapable of withstanding the relentless assaults of a multi-billion-dollar industry whose principle effect is to make a mess of our relationships." ("Damage On Parade" by Charles Foran, UTNE magazine, 2006)

Martin Amis calls it "the obscenification of every day life". Ariel Levy, author of the book "Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture" (Free Press, 2005), says this "Raunch Culture" may be hardest on adolescent girls. Blitzed with images of how to be "hot, young women, already prone to insecurities, have a difficult time distinguishing the fake from the real."

Pamela Paul, when interviewing American men and boys, learned how "obsessive porn surfing wreaks havoc on their conceptions of women and sexuality. "They become impatient with their real-life partners and numb to the pleasures of conventional sex. Pornography leaves men desensitized both to outrage and to excitement, leading to dissatisfaction with the emotional tugs of their own lives."

And again, there "is" great harm to those who are "pornified". In a study by Ms. Paul conducted in 1998, it was determined that "two-thirds of prostitutes suffer from symptoms identical to those of posttraumatic stress disorder - twice the percentage that was found among American soldiers returning from the war in Vietnam." She goes on, "There is something twisted about using a predominantly sexually traumatized group of people as our erotic role models. It's like using a bunch of shark attack victims as our lifeguards." ... "... people getting off on the acts of those who are themselves traumatized and are being traumatized by what they are doing." ... " ... Pornography may be stalking one emotion more than any other. That would be the shared feelings we have for fellow humans, along with the inclination to recognize kindred suffering, and even lend aid. ... ."

Pornography might well become the death of empathy ....

What Catholics Believe About Marriage (Part One)

There are Catholics who have stopped living their faith. Some have become comfortable with what the world offers them. Catholocism is a "culture" to them. Something they grew up under, but ignoring what was said to them. This has convinced others that Christian Catholics are hypocritics, believing in only "works" for salvation. The Church is rediculed, called too traditional, religious and without faith. ..... How they are so mistaken.

For we many Catholics who "are" serious about what we believe, let us read with our husbands and wives the purposes and means of our marital vocations as stated in the remarkable Catechism of our Faith:
(Note: This is prelude for where we're headed in our exhaustive discussion of Catholic Psychology in relation to the many circumstances that threaten peace and stability in our marriages and homes.)

1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84

1603 "The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage."87 The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. ...

1604 "... Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator's eyes. ..."

1605 Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone."92 The woman, "flesh of his flesh," his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a "helpmate"; she thus represents God from whom comes our help.93 "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."94 The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been "in the beginning": "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."95

1606 Every man experiences evil around him and within himself. This experience makes itself felt in the relationships between man and woman. Their union has always been threatened by discord, a spirit of domination, infidelity, jealousy, and conflicts that can escalate into hatred and separation. This disorder can manifest itself more or less acutely, and can be more or less overcome according to the circumstances of cultures, eras, and individuals, but it does seem to have a universal character.

1607 According to faith the disorder we notice so painfully does not stem from the nature of man and woman, nor from the nature of their relations, but from sin. As a break with God, the first sin had for its first consequence the rupture of the original communion between man and woman. Their relations were distorted by mutual recriminations;96 their mutual attraction, the Creator's own gift, changed into a relationship of domination and lust;97 and the beautiful vocation of man and woman to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth was burdened by the pain of childbirth and the toil of work.98

1608 Nevertheless, the order of creation persists, though seriously disturbed. To heal the wounds of sin, man and woman need the help of the grace that God in his infinite mercy never refuses them.99 Without his help man and woman cannot achieve the union of their lives for which God created them "in the beginning."

1609 In his mercy God has not forsaken sinful man. The punishments consequent upon sin, "pain in childbearing" and toil "in the sweat of your brow,"100 also embody remedies that limit the damaging effects of sin. After the fall, marriage helps to overcome self-absorption, egoism, pursuit of one's own pleasure, and to open oneself to the other, to mutual aid and to self-giving.

1610 ... the law given to Moses aims at protecting the wife from arbitrary domination by the husband, even though according to the Lord's words it still carries traces of man's "hardness of heart" which was the reason Moses permitted men to divorce their wives.101

1611 Seeing God's covenant with Israel in the image of exclusive and faithful married love, the prophets prepared the Chosen People's conscience for a deepened understanding of the unity and indissolubility of marriage.102 The books of Ruth and Tobit bear moving witness to an elevated sense of marriage and to the fidelity and tenderness of spouses. Tradition has always seen in the Song of Solomon a unique expression of human love, insofar as it is a reflection of God's love - a love "strong as death" that "many waters cannot quench."103

1614 ... The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it "what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder."107

1615 This unequivocal insistence on the indissolubility of the marriage bond may have left some perplexed and could seem to be a demand impossible to realize. However, Jesus has not placed on spouses a burden impossible to bear, or too heavy - heavier than the Law of Moses.108 By coming to restore the original order of creation disturbed by sin, he himself gives the strength and grace to live marriage in the new dimension of the Reign of God. It is by following Christ, renouncing themselves, and taking up their crosses that spouses will be able to "receive" the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ.109 This grace of Christian marriage is a fruit of Christ's cross, the source of all Christian life.

1616 This is what the Apostle Paul makes clear when he says: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her," adding at once: "'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church."110

1617 The entire Christian life bears the mark of the spousal love of Christ and the Church. Already Baptism, the entry into the People of God, is a nuptial mystery; it is so to speak the nuptial bath.111 which precedes the wedding feast, the Eucharist. Christian marriage in its turn becomes an efficacious sign, the sacrament of the covenant of Christ and the Church. Since it signifies and communicates grace, marriage between baptized persons is a true sacrament of the New Covenant..112

1620 Both the sacrament of Matrimony and virginity for the Kingdom of God come from the Lord himself. It is he who gives them meaning and grants them the grace which is indispensable for living them out in conformity with his will.117 Esteem of virginity for the sake of the kingdom118 and the Christian understanding of marriage are inseparable, and they reinforce each other:

1621 In the Latin Rite the celebration of marriage between two Catholic faithful normally takes place during Holy Mass, because of the connection of all the sacraments with the Paschal mystery of Christ.120 In the Eucharist the memorial of the New Covenant is realized, the New Covenant in which Christ has united himself for ever to the Church, his beloved bride for whom he gave himself up.121 It is therefore fitting that the spouses should seal their consent to give themselves to each other through the offering of their own lives by uniting it to the offering of Christ for his Church made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice, and by receiving the Eucharist so that, communicating in the same Body and the same Blood of Christ, they may form but "one body" in Christ.122

1624 The various liturgies abound in prayers of blessing and epiclesis asking God's grace and blessing on the new couple, especially the bride. In the epiclesis of this sacrament the spouses receive the Holy Spirit as the communion of love of Christ and the Church.124 The Holy Spirit is the seal of their covenant, the ever available source of their love and the strength to renew their fidelity.

1638 "From a valid marriage arises a bond between the spouses which by its very nature is perpetual and exclusive; furthermore, in a Christian marriage the spouses are strengthened and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and the dignity of their state by a special sacrament."140

1639 The consent by which the spouses mutually give and receive one another is sealed by God himself.141 From their covenant arises "an institution, confirmed by the divine law, . . . even in the eyes of society."142 The covenant between the spouses is integrated into God's covenant with man: "Authentic married love is caught up into divine love."143

1640 Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God's fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.144

Vital Oneness In Marriage

.

A fellow Catholic blogger, Shannon, wrote:

Jim,

Thank you, and I did read your response this morning. Actually, I read it a few times as I enjoyed what you said tremendously. You have a gift of communicating ideas in a simple, understandable way. I loved how you touched on men being tempted by women when all their needs are met within their marriage. I'd love to read more about that and about the impact of pornography on the psyche and on marriages. Your blog is fabulous; I have it in my 'Live Bookmarks' so I know instantly of any updates :) Keep up the Good work and God bless :)

My response:

Thank-you Shannon.

Yes, I would like to address in our posts the impact of pornography on the psyche of both males and females, as well as the affects of this increasing phenomenon on marriage from a truly Catholic Psychological perspective. To do this, we will continue to build a basis and framework for our discussion. (Please know that your responses of encouragement, questions, even challenges, are so appreciated.)

In our current high-pace, high-tech society, its easy to lose touch with what's important in life. One thing that's vital in our lives, is the priority of our marital relationships as we mentioned earlier. Through the Sacrament of marriage, God made you and your spouse "ONE". This means when the two of you as a married couple are separate in any of a host of ways, you and your spouse are each "less" of a person than you are when you are together, and in that togetherness, sharing in the experience as "one".

Much of the world fails to realize this. Much of the world doubts there is a loving, Christian God. Much of the world doubts the proper place of parents in the raising of children, doubts the proper place of families in general. Much of the world doubts the power of the Church to administer in things that are spiritual. Thus, inevitably, the world as we know it, will doubt, even resist, the concept of the spirit filled Sacrament, the holy psychology as it were, of a God directed Catholic man, and God directed Catholic woman, consummating their sacred marriage in a holy moment in sacred privacy, to no longer be "two", but be recognized in heaven to forever, while on earth, be "one".

Psychologically, it makes no sense. No current research or theoretical model explains it. I mean how precisely as the "Trinity" is ONE in the Godhead, the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit", so is a man and woman "One" in a trinity as "God, husband and wife"!

Its the reason we marry in a Church, and not on a "beach", or "parachuting out of planes".

You see, its not about "us". It's about "God". "He" did it. It's done. Finished. There's nothing to add nor take away. All there is now, is merely time to pass for the husband and wife to spend a lifetime "actualizing", "briinging into visuability" and "applying" what is already established, declared and completed in heaven.

Why is this important? ... "Because, when following the administrations Christ directs through His Church on earth, everything is made more simple!" ...

You see, What you THINK about yourself as a wife is "not" what's important. What you THINK of your husband as a man has little relevance. What you THINK of your wife as a woman carries little weight on earth and heaven. What you THINK about yourself as a husband in your marriage, accomplishes virtually nothing

It's what you "do"! It's what you "do" with what's been "given" you. But first you must be clear about what that is.

You know what I mean. Although marriage has "SO MUCH" wonderfulness, there are occasions when each wife wishes she had been a nun! And there are moments when a husband looks to the skies and laments that he had not chosen a life of priesthood, or chosen to have been a monk on some secluded mountain in the Himalayas!

But don't let that surprise you. Don't be shocked. It happens to "all" of us. We're each currently still in our flesh, and we're "human".

What matters first is not what you think or even what you feel, No, what you "think" and "feel" can change rapidly from one instant to another. What matters, and I mean "truly" matters first are two things. First, that in each moment "God is on His throne", and second, that you and your spouse are ONE in your God who is continually on His throne.

As Catholics, this is the first immovable, sure object we have to count on through the storms that do come through life.

I mean, like when your wife or husband turns over in bed at night in a state of anger, refusing to speak to you. You ask, "What's the matter, honey ... Did I do something wrong???" There is no answer, then you are lost for the rest of the night in thought, and maybe tears!

What do you do, then, as a man or woman? How does a Christian husband or wife respond, without first "falling-apart" and feeling ill-equipped to do anything at all!

It begins by recognizing with every molecule of your being, that we, as devout loyal practicing Christian Catholics, have something that most in the world do not have. You, wife, ... you, husband, ... are "full" and "complete", not based on what you "feel", "think", or "judge in yourself at a given moment", but instead of what the Holy Sacrament of marriage administered by the Church established you as being at every moment of the day or night, at times that are good and times that are bad. From that position, and from that position of alone, are we ready to proceed to discuss what a wife or husband can do about lies launched upon you by Satan. Things that surround you and your spouse, slyfully wishing to penetrate and destroy your marriage. Things like doubt, fear, gossip, injustice, cruelty, judgmentalism, coalitions of hatred, and pornography.

For now, in this post until the next one, remember that you and your husband or wife are "ONE". Everything the two of you ever could possibly need, are found in each other by the grace, mercy and power of God. For now, at some moment when your loved one least expects it, run and "tackle" him or her. Throw yourselves on the couch, the bed, whatever. As your wife or husband is shocked, no matter what surrounds the two of you in the confusing circumstances of life, say with a huge smile on your face, "Honey, I love you "sssssssoooooooo"much and share in a big, big, big, big wonderful kiss! ... With that, you will be fulfilling your holy vocation in life, and God "will" bless you!

(Remember, we have more we will be discussing soon, ...)

But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.