"Some say love..." Response

When I thought about love, I always used to think that there is only one person meant for you—the “other half,” your “soul mate.” Our society repeatedly enforces this ideal through movies, “ideal” love stories, and fairytales until it is so engrained in us that a differing opinion is immediately seen as non-romantic or cynical. I have to admit, I used to have the opinion that there is only one person out there that is meant for you. But as I grow older, I am slowly starting to shift away from this ideal. It is a romantic idea—that one day you will meet someone who you will stay with for the rest of your life and love forever. However, this ideal lifetime relationship does not always happen. Because of my experience with divorce in my family, I know this firsthand. The thing with divorce is, it shapes your experiences. If my mom was not divorced, she would not be the person she is today. And the relationships she has had since have all taught her very valuable lessons. Just because she wasn’t with one person her whole life, does that mean that any of those relationships were not happy? Does that mean she should be unsatisfied and on the hunt for someone who will finally “complete her?” I think not. There’s no such thing as “Mr. (or Ms.) Perfect.” Everyone, as human beings, has flaws in one way or another. Marriage, as the article says, is not a state of bliss—it is a relationship, and any relationship can change with time and needs commitment and input in order to be successful. Think of it like this—no garden can grow and prosper if the gardener does not put any effort into it. Of course, I’m not trying to be cynical. I do believe that a lifelong loving relationship is possible—however, it’s just not the reality for everyone. As for the qualities and characteristics I seek in a relationship, it’s hard to say since I’m still very young and I’m no relationship guru. However, things that draw me to people include intellectuality, humor, compassion, and creativity. Things that are essential to any long-term relationship are usually found out a little later since they are less “on the surface”— like communication—but no less important in a potential long-term partner. I like that Taylor Swift’s “You Belong With Me” talks about how looks aren’t so important—it’s if you “click” with someone that counts, even if they’re not your friends’ favorite or not “popular.” I like Snow Patrol’s “Chasing Cars” because one of the verses reads “I need your grace/ To remind me / To find my own.” I like this line because it shows that a good relationship can bring out the best in each person and that your partner can be a positive influence and inspiration. I also like these lines from Adele’s “Make You Feel My Love”: “I’d go hungry, I’d go black and blue/ I’d go crawling down the avenue/ Go to the ends of the earth for you/ To make you feel my love.” This is a reminder that relationships sometimes involve self-sacrifice and that it’s not always effortless to be in a relationship. In addition, I like Alicia Keys’ “No One” because it talks about working through tough times and being strong together. Lastly, Barcelona’s “Colors” says that even as an adult, it may be difficult to communicate your words and emotions.

The Changing Face of Marriage

Do you feel compelled to someday establish the domestic church in your home? The "domestic church" is meant to be a microcosm of the Church-- in the family, where "love, forgiveness and trust should be first encountered." I think that I did experience this domestic church to some extent in my household when I was young. I was raised Catholic, and my family went to mass on a regular basis. However, I feel like the domestic church is not as common as it used to be. It seems that there are less practicing Christian or Catholic families in this generation than some years ago. For example, my experience with the domestic church is very different than that of my best friend, who was raised athiest. Clearly, there was a very different experience in my house than in hers. I think that with the media today, it is not "cool" to be a religious Christian. Nowadays the media seems to be picturing more and more diverse families. Diversity is a great thing, but I definitely do see a decline overall in the media's portrayal of Christian families (and sometimes, these portrayals can even be stereotypical and negative). Some of the pros, however, of this changing dynamic is that more diverse families are being pictured in the media. For example, same-sex parents, multiracial families, multi-religious families, and even non-religious families are being represented in the media. It is good to see a more representative sample of families across the U.S. Personally, I am not sure if I feel compelled to establish the domestic church in my home, because I haven't really thought about it much yet. Maybe as an adult I will have a better idea. Although it may seem a bit stereotypical, I understand why those with a college degree tend to experience less divorce and remarriage than those without a degree. Those who have graduated from college tend to be more mature and experienced, and also are usually more financially stable than those without a degree. In addition, those with a degree are probably more ready to "settle down" after they have established a career. Since the marrying age is getting later, the likeliness that people are getting college degrees before marriage is increasing.

Marriage and Vatican II

Compare and contrast the Church's teachings from Vatican Two on marriage with current trends/perceptions of marriage in society (the media, politics, etc). Today it seems that, especially with the argument for same sex marriage, people are starting to ask more questions about the definition of marriage. While some people reaffirm the sanctity of marriage, such as the Church and Vatican, some ask just when it started being considered sacred. They point out that marriage in medieval times was more of a property exchange than a holy union. In addition, they point out that an imbalance of power was usually prevalent-- whether in age difference or female inferiority. The Church, however, seems to be unwavering in its belief that marriage should be an equal and loving union between a man and a woman. Marriage, according to the Vatican, is a "vocation." I think that that is an interesting way to look at marriage, because I feel that in our modern world most people do not view marriage as such. "Vocation" is considered a cheesy term by a lot of people. Also, I think a lot of people today view marriage as something that happens to everyone eventually. Vocation, however, implies that is a calling to live one's life in a certain way, and one could also be called to religious life or single life. I think that this is an interesting perspective, since most people do not seem to consider marriage a vocation. The article also says "Conjugal love is not a fleeting event, but the patient project of a lifetime." If one subscribes to this belief, the media's portrayal of "love at first sight" may not be entirely accurate. In movies and TV shows falling in love is often portrayed as instantaneous and unexpected. Think of the popular scene of seeing someone from across a room full of people. Is this really true love? It may be physical or romantic intrigue, but is it automatically deep love upon first sight? I think, however, that a point that many people can agree upon, whether Christian or not, is that the marriage should "grow and ripen" with time. I think that if you were to interview long-married couples, the vast majority would attest that their relationship has changed since they first met. Love is dynamic, as are people; as people change over time and age, so will their relationship. I think that this point of Vatican II is something that most people will agree on. Article: http://foryourmarriage.org/what-did-vatican-ii-say-about-marriage/

Response to "Dating: What's the Point?"

In David Cloutier's book "Love, Reason, and God's Story," Chapter 5 examines the position of "anti-daters" on today's culture. These anti-daters say that dating is essentially practice for divorce. Personally, I do not agree with the anti-daters. I think their view can be pretty pessimistic at times; a solid dating relationship should involove mutual interest, trust, and, over time, true love could happen. Dating can be a good learning experience in who and what qualities you are attracted to, learning your own faults, and improving communication skills, to name a few. However, when put into the context of today's "casual dating" or "hook-up culture," I can more clearly see where the anti-daters are coming from. The hook up culture, which is prevalent in the college scene, basically envolves a casual sexual encounter-- usually with "no strings attached"-- that could vary from kissing to oral sex or sexual intercourse. These hook ups, usually instigated at parties with the help of alcohol, often involve little to no communication afterward, as Christine B. Whelan's article shows in a survey of college-aged young adults. With these casual encounters, I can see where the anti daters make their point: after a while, the hook ups may lead to desperation and an inability to form meaningful relationships. Serial hook ups, with the lack of commitment on one or both sides, could be one of those habits that is a "practice for divorce" that the anti-daters bring up. The reason, however, that I do not agree 100% with the anti-daters' position is that to me, there is a fundamental difference between hook ups and dating: Dating (usually) involves emotional commitment, whereas hook ups are much more casual, brief physical/sexual encounters. Both dating and hook ups are common in the adolescent and young adult age group; however, I think that hook ups are much more common in college than in high schools. I do, however, see the prevalence of this attitude towards relationships when visiting my friends in college.