Catholic Singles -- Why Such A Hot Topic In The Church?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='southern california guy' post='1824989' date='Apr 5 2009, 03:18 AM']About the only "charitable" work I've done was with "Singles Serving Orphans" and you're right I'm going to try and find my own opportunities to do so in the future. I definitely want to do more. The Catholic church may not be the best place to find service opportunities.[/quote]

You can always make your own opportunities, whether it's a Bible study, charity work, or whatever... it's not easy getting people involved, but a core group of just four or five can do a lot and, if nothing else, that's more than was happening before.

Glad to hear about your background in working to defend life in California... certainly a very different setting from Kentucky. I had an interesting experience recently, though, when an ice storm knocked out power over much of the state and literally half of Louisville. I ended up staying at my cousin's house with one of her friends who was also without power. After noticing a flyer on her fridge for a training class to become an abortion clinic escort, I asked my cousin if she knew any of the escorts. Turns out she does because she is one... and so is her friend who was with us! Sooo... that turned into at least an hour-long conversation/debate from abortion to the intersection of science and faith/beliefs to human rights and finally the very question of how we know and define Truth.

[quote name='southern california guy' post='1824989' date='Apr 5 2009, 03:18 AM']Don't worry I've got non-Catholic, and Catholic friends, and I still date. And I even date Catholic women And I love sports and fishing.[/quote]

Then it sounds like you have little to gain from these singles events. Why not pursue involvement in a men's ministry? Or pro-life ministry? Visiting the sick and elderly, taking Communion to them, etc.? These can all be rewarding, life-giving, and plenty of fun. And there are always a few cute nurses at the hospitals...

[quote name='southern california guy' post='1824989' date='Apr 5 2009, 03:18 AM']I don't think that the Catholic church makes the groups "Adult" groups because the members feel more comfortable in a group labeled "Adult". And I don't think that they avoid singles groups because single men cause trouble. I don't think that they're worried that being "single" isn't much to form a group out of.

I think the problem stems from the vows of celibacy that the Priests and Nuns take. Are you really going to ask a man, or a woman, who have taken a vow of celibacy -- to run a singles ministry???!!!! That's like asking a person on a hunger strike to work as a cook.[/quote]

That's a valid concern, and I don't think you are bordering on heresy by any means. Sexuality is very real and we absolutely need to be honest about its role in every vocation to make our witness effective and powerful.

I partially agree with you... but I think the problem is related to celibacy, not directly tied to it. Before Vatican II, the Church was highly clerical with a strong dividing line between ordained ministers and laypeople. Over 2,000 years, the Church has often cycled between periods of high and low clericalism and it just so happens we're currently experiencing one of those transitions. Today we I think we truly need "lower" clericalism, but the problem is most of us don't know how that should be expressed with fidelity to the Church. We end up with abuses like the passing of peace at Mass becoming a social gathering, partly because many priests abandon Christ and the altar to shake hands with their constituency. On top of that, we don't have a lot of experience with laypeople heading up parish ministries. Celibacy isn't the root of the problem: in most cases, it's probably a simple lack of training and experience (this is pretty much what I've been told by some laypeople in these roles).

What we need (and this is the positive change that seems to be occurring) is a sense from the diaconate and priesthood that they are ordained for the service of the Church. Their celibacy is a gift of themselves to all the married couples and singles in their parishes. So, yes, we should ask priests to head up singles ministries and marriage ministries, or serve as spiritual advisers for ministries headed by laypeople. But in order to do that well, we first need men who pursue priesthood in response to a genuine call from God that defines "who" they are. These are the kind of men who exhibit celibacy in such a way that Christ is the One people see through them, so that the rest of realize we have put ourselves on the hunger strike and need the food and drink Christ is offering.

[quote name='southern california guy' post='1824989' date='Apr 5 2009, 03:18 AM']No wonder they're more comfortable with "homosexual" and "divorced" ministries. There's no threat there. Those ministries won't make them feel like they've missed out on something in life. And it's easy to see why the Catholics would avoid it while the Protestants don't. The Protestant ministers can marry and lead a normal life. In a singles ministry they can speak from experience. A Catholic priest sure couldn't...[/quote]

There's probably some truth there. Still, one priest friend of mine joked once that celibacy becomes easier as you get older because all his married male friends are also becoming celibates. But jokes aside, the point is that every vocation is a cross to bear. Marriage is a cross as much as priesthood or religious life (if not more so... priests go home to get away from their spouse while husbands go home to face her). The ones "missing out" are those who love their life, because they will lose it in the end.

[quote name='southern california guy' post='1824989' date='Apr 5 2009, 03:18 AM']And is it really any shock when a young Priest or nun drops out of the order and becomes sexually out of control?[/quote]

It's not a shock following poor discernment. All people are susceptible to sexual addiction and perversions. We are all sinners. More than a few marriages and families are torn apart by these problems. They just aren't as visible as the problems among priests and religious, but they are every bit as real and hurtful. Just look up the stats on sexual abuse, rape, etc...

[Socrates]

I know this is off-topic to the main discussion, but I saw this and couldn't let it slide.
[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1824570' date='Apr 4 2009, 07:16 PM']The conservative political agenda (as a whole) is incompatible with Catholicism, so I'm not sure how that's a good thing for them or anybody.[/quote]
I'm sorry, but that statement is patently ignorant, false and slanderous.
It shows you in fact understand very little about either conservatism or Catholicism.

I'm about as politically conservative as they come, and don't consider myself any less Catholic because of it.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "the conservative political agenda," but I don't consider political conservatism in any way incompatible with the Catholic Faith.
(And, btw, conservatism and the Republican Party are not synonymous.)
In fact, almost all the orthodox Catholics I know are political conservatives, including many men and women more devout and learned in the Faith than you or I.
In fact, those who taught me the Faith were of a conservative political/philosophical bent.

In fact, many of the founders of the modern American conservative movement were Catholic, including William F. Buckley Jr., and the great Russell Kirk, as are many current conservatives such as Patrick Buchanan, Joseph Sobran (though he's lately taken a more libertarian/anarchist turn), and George Weigel, to name just a few.

Speaking of Russell Kirk, I think you'd do well to read up on his "[url="http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html"]Ten Conservative Principles[/url]" (possibly the best summation of conservative principles around).
Perhaps you can tell me which of those conservative principles are incompatible with Catholicism.

I'm not claiming that Catholics must be politically conservative in all things, but to claim that conservatism as a whole is "incompatible with Catholicism" is wrong.

It would be much more accurate to say that the liberal political agenda (as a whole) is incompatible with Catholicism. Modern liberal ideology is built around support of abortion, homosexuality, and other sexual immorality, as well as socialism, and its social agenda is at odds with the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.
And "liberal Catholicism" is virtually synonymous with heterodoxy, dissent, and support of various forms of immorality and heresy. The same is true of most forms of "religious liberalism" as well.

Implying that being "less conservative" is somehow an inherently good thing for Christians is pure nonsense.
Liberalism has been the cause of untold damage in the Church.


[quote name='southern california guy' post='1824989' date='Apr 5 2009, 02:18 AM']I think the problem stems from the vows of celibacy that the Priests and Nuns take. Are you really going to ask a man, or a woman, who have taken a vow of celibacy -- to run a singles ministry???!!!! That's like asking a person on a hunger strike to work as a cook.

No wonder they're more comfortable with "homosexual" and "divorced" ministries. There's no threat there. Those ministries won't make them feel like they've missed out on something in life. And it's easy to see why the Catholics would avoid it while the Protestants don't. The Protestant ministers can marry and lead a normal life. In a singles ministry they can speak from experience. A Catholic priest sure couldn't...[/quote]
That's nonsense.

There's no official hostility to singles ministry by the Catholic Church. Like I said before, it seems this problem is more of a California thing than applying to the Church as a whole.
In my diocese, for instance, there are a lot more singles ministries than divorced and homosexual "ministries."

And if you're trying to make this an attack on the Church's discipline of celibacy, you've come to the wrong message board.

Okay, back to the normally-scheduled bickering about singles ministries . . . Edited April 7, 2009 by Socrates

[picchick]

Some side notes from a by-stander

[quote name='southern california guy' post='1824989' date='Apr 5 2009, 02:18 AM']Don't worry I've got non-Catholic, and Catholic friends, and I still date. And I even date Catholic women And I love sports and fishing.[/quote]

I love how you left fishing out of sports...like it isn't a sport. I am probably the only one who finds this funny.

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1825229' date='Apr 5 2009, 03:19 PM']Then it sounds like you have little to gain from these singles events. Why not pursue involvement in a men's ministry? Or pro-life ministry? Visiting the sick and elderly, taking Communion to them, etc.? These can all be rewarding, life-giving, and plenty of fun. And there are always a few cute nurses at the hospitals... [/quote]

at least a few...

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1826837' date='Apr 6 2009, 10:18 PM']I'm sorry, but that statement is patently ignorant, false and slanderous.
It shows you in fact understand very little about either conservatism or Catholicism.

I'm about as politically conservative as they come, and don't consider myself any less Catholic because of it.[/quote]

I'm speaking from observing people around me... those who are really conservative seem to put their politics above their faith. For example, one girl I know who is faithfully Catholic in almost everything remains uncertain about IVF because she sees it as promoting life. Looking at the last election, we didn't see McCain (or many of the other "conservative" candidates) taking a strong stand on these life issues. Why would I call myself a conservative if I'm forced to clarify that I disagree with virtually all the other conservatives? It makes more sense to simply be Catholic and forget the political labels, especially since they get redefined with every generation.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1826837' date='Apr 6 2009, 10:18 PM']I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "the conservative political agenda," but I don't consider political conservatism in any way incompatible with the Catholic Faith.[/quote]

I'm not real sure either, but I know nothing gets someone riled up like accusing them of being part of an "agenda." People hate that word, but they love using it against the other side.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1826837' date='Apr 6 2009, 10:18 PM']It would be much more accurate to say that the liberal political agenda (as a whole) is incompatible with Catholicism.[/quote]

Oh... conservatives don't have an agenda, but the liberals do

[quote name='Socrates' post='1826837' date='Apr 6 2009, 10:18 PM']And if you're trying to make this an attack on the Church's discipline of celibacy, you've come to the wrong message board.[/quote]

I think he was asking an honest question.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1826837' date='Apr 6 2009, 10:18 PM']Speaking of Russell Kirk, I think you'd do well to read up on his "[url="http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html"]Ten Conservative Principles[/url]" (possibly the best summation of conservative principles around).
Perhaps you can tell me which of those conservative principles are incompatible with Catholicism.[/quote]

Having read the Ten Conservative Principles, I noticed Kirk's statement that "most conservatives would subscribe to most of these maxims," which goes right back to my point that conservative political stances are not always compatible with Catholicism. Also, none of these principles conflicts with Catholicism because they aren't saying anything practical about ethics and morality. I imagine Ten Liberal Principles could be written that would also not conflict with Church teaching... just a matter of choosing the right words.

[Socrates]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1827493' date='Apr 7 2009, 10:11 AM']I'm speaking from observing people around me... those who are really conservative seem to put their politics above their faith. For example, one girl I know who is faithfully Catholic in almost everything remains uncertain about IVF because she sees it as promoting life. Looking at the last election, we didn't see McCain (or many of the other "conservative" candidates) taking a strong stand on these life issues.[/quote]
You. Have got. To be. Kidding me.

You make the claim, "those who are really conservative seem to put their politics above their faith." Really?

As opposed to the hordes of liberal and so-called "moderate" Catholics who voted for, and in many cases enthusiastically endorsed, Barrack Obama, far-away the most militantly pro-abortion president in our country's history?
Were the Catholics who voted for the FOCA-supporting Obama--unlike those awful conservatives who voted for McCain or conservative 3rd party candidates-- putting their faith above their politics?

First of all, there was no strongly conservative viable candidate in the 2008 presidential election. Most serious conservatives do not consider McCain to be a real conservative.
The election offered a rather disappointing choice of candidates for conservatives (just ask any of us "evil conservatives" on phatmass). Remember, McCain ran to the left of GW Bush back in the 2000 election. Most of us conservatives gritted our teeth and supported McCain against the radically left-wing and pro-abortion Obama.
I voted for Ron Paul in the state primary and for McCain in the election. McCain leaves a lot to be desired for the conservative voter, but I definitely consider him the lesser evil to Obama.
And a number of hard-core conservatives less pragmatic-minded and more idealistic than myself voted for 3rd-party Constitution Party or Libertarian Party Candidates, or wrote in a name.

In any case, singling out "conservatives" for criticism for voting for McCain who did "not take a strong pro-life stance" for "putting their politics above their faith," while many liberal "Catholics" supported Obama-- who takes a blatantly and strongly pro-abortion stance-- is the height of hypocrisy and absurdity.

If you don't mind sharing, who did [i]you[/i] (presumably a Catholic who puts faith above politics) vote for in the election?
Perhaps your choice can enlighten us dumb conservatives as to how we should vote in future elections.


As for the girl confused about IVF, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. True, there are far too many "cafeteria Catholics" of all political stripes, but support of IVF is hardly a "conservative" stance. In fact, most of the Catholics I know who strongly oppose IVF and such are conservative, rather than liberal.
Do you really mean to imply that conservative Catholics are more likely than liberals and others to support IVF or to disagree with Church moral teaching?
While I don't know your personal experience, that is certainly contrary to my own, and, from what I hear, that of most Catholics.


[quote]Why would I call myself a conservative if I'm forced to clarify that I disagree with virtually all the other conservatives? It makes more sense to simply be Catholic and forget the political labels, especially since they get redefined with every generation.[/quote]
I honestly could care less what you call or don't call yourself.

However, it was you who originally insinuated that those of us Catholics who [i]are[/i] politically conservative have beliefs incompatible with Catholicism.

I regard that as a rather serious accusation, and one which you have utterly failed to back up in any way.
You can't even say what it is that you disagree with conservatives so much about, or that is incompatible with the Catholic Faith. (Other than IVF, which I have [i]never [/i]heard of as being part of a "conservative political agenda")


[quote]I'm not real sure either, but I know nothing gets someone riled up like accusing them of being part of an "agenda." People hate that word, but they love using it against the other side.



Oh... conservatives don't have an agenda, but the liberals do [/quote]
It appears you want to start quibbling over the word "agenda" - a word which you yourself introduced into this debate - rather than addressing any of my actual points.

You have made a foolish and baseless claim which you can neither defend, nor do you retract.

And of course everybody has an agenda. . . . (except me).

Edited April 9, 2009 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1828036' date='Apr 7 2009, 06:39 PM']Having read the Ten Conservative Principles, I noticed Kirk's statement that "most conservatives would subscribe to most of these maxims," which goes right back to my point that conservative political stances are not always compatible with Catholicism. Also, none of these principles conflicts with Catholicism because they aren't saying anything practical about ethics and morality. I imagine Ten Liberal Principles could be written that would also not conflict with Church teaching... just a matter of choosing the right words.[/quote]
Did you read his introduction to the Principles?
He begins: "Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata."
Conservatism is not a set of defined dogmas.

However, you would probably do well to pay attention to the number one principle:
[b]"First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent."[/b]
This "enduring moral order" refers to timeless moral truths (if you were familiar with Kirk, you'd realize he is referring to tradition Judeao-Christian morality). This is in opposition to the moral relativism which is at the core of modern liberalism, both political and religious, which believes in no enduring moral order, and thinks morality changes with the times or with popular opinion.

If you actually took time to carefully read the principles and think about what he's saying, you'd see that they are not empty words, or evasive, but have real wisdom and substance, unlike your own glib statements.

Kirk has always said that the core of true conservatism is fighting to preserve these "permanent things" as he calls them.

And Kirk is not some hack trying to "justify" conservatism to a Catholic audience, but was one of the intellectual "founding fathers" of the modern conservative movement. His Ten Principles are a revision/condensation of an article he first published in the 1950s.
Dr. Kirk was a man of vastly greater learning, experience and wisdom than yourself, as well as a devout Catholic - so I find your cheap dismissal silly.

If you're really interesting in educating yourself, you may want to read some of his other works such as [i]Roots of American Order[/i], and [i]The Conservative Constitution[/i]. (Just search under his name on Amazon).

Again, you have still utterly failed to explain how conservatism is incompatible with Catholicism.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1829379' date='Apr 8 2009, 10:28 PM']You. Have got. To be. Kidding me.[/quote]

Taking writing lessons from Madame Vinegar, are we?

[quote name='Socrates' post='1829379' date='Apr 8 2009, 10:28 PM']You make the claim, "those who are really conservative seem to put their politics above their faith." Really?

As opposed to the hordes of liberal and so-called "moderate" Catholics who voted for, and in many cases enthusiastically endorsed, Barrack Obama, far-away the most militantly pro-abortion president in our country's history?
Were the Catholics who voted for the FOCA-supporting Obama--unlike those awful conservatives who voted for McCain or conservative 3rd party candidates-- putting their faith above their politics?[/quote]

Yes, they too put their politics above their faith. I'm just speaking from my obserations, and I see the people who strongly identify with either political side find ways to justify their stance using their faith instead of simply following their faith. There are a number of pet liberal causes (abolishing capital punishment, protecting the environment, etc.) that politically conservative Catholics are reluctant to get behind because it makes them appear less conservative (at least that seems to be the reason).

[quote name='Socrates' post='1829379' date='Apr 8 2009, 10:28 PM']And a number of hard-core conservatives less pragmatic-minded and more idealistic than myself voted for 3rd-party Constitution Party or Libertarian Party Candidates, or wrote in a name.[/quote]

All 1% of you... good job

[quote name='Socrates' post='1829379' date='Apr 8 2009, 10:28 PM']In any case, singling out "conservatives" for criticism for voting for McCain who did "not take a strong pro-life stance" for "putting their politics above their faith," while many liberal "Catholics" supported Obama-- who takes a blatantly and strongly pro-abortion stance-- is the height of hypocrisy and absurdity.[/quote]

My issue is with political identification. Most of us are registered with a political party and lean towards one party or the other for various reasons, but it's quite another thing to champion the conservative/Republican or liberal/Democrat cause to the point that other people can't tell if you love your politics or your Church and faith more.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1829379' date='Apr 8 2009, 10:28 PM']If you don't mind sharing, who did [i]you[/i] (presumably a Catholic who puts faith above politics) vote for in the election?[/quote]

What side I'm on isn't the point, yet for conservatives and liberals, that seems to be all that matters. Why is it that a Catholic who is against abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and IVF yet for whatever reason voted Obama sooner an enemy than another Catholic who favors research on embryos and IVF and voted for McCain sooner a friend? When you look at the beliefs of voters on either side, there is such a disparity that it just seems ridiculous to boil it all down to which way the vote went.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1829379' date='Apr 8 2009, 10:28 PM']Perhaps your choice can enlighten us dumb conservatives as to how we should vote in future elections.[/quote]

I never called anyone "dumb" or used any derogatory language against anyone. You're reading into what I'm saying by the mere fact that I don't agree with you.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1829379' date='Apr 8 2009, 10:28 PM']As for the girl confused about IVF, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. True, there are far too many "cafeteria Catholics" of all political stripes, but support of IVF is hardly a "conservative" stance. In fact, most of the Catholics I know who strongly oppose IVF and such are conservative, rather than liberal.[/quote]

That's probably because they are Catholic first and conservative second. Those who are conservative first and Catholic second are easily confused with issues like IVF and even embryonic stem cell research because people make slick "pro-life" arguments in favor of them, and if the Church doesn't come first, you're on your own.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1829379' date='Apr 8 2009, 10:28 PM']Do you really mean to imply that conservative Catholics are more likely than liberals and others to support IVF or to disagree with Church moral teaching?[/quote]

I don't know... it's difficult to discern that because of these mixed allegiances. While it's probably accurate to say a conservative Catholic is more likely to be obedient to the Church, I often wonder if such people are faithful to the Church because it's convenient to their political ideology rather than the other way around.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1829379' date='Apr 8 2009, 10:28 PM']However, it was you who originally insinuated that those of us Catholics who [i]are[/i] politically conservative have beliefs incompatible with Catholicism.[/quote]

Political conservatives are, by and large, in favor of capital punishment, careless about the environment, and consider improved healthcare for those in poverty and the third world to be relatively low priorities (or at least they don't make a strong case that combats this well established image).

[quote name='Socrates' post='1829379' date='Apr 8 2009, 10:28 PM']It appears you want to start quibbling over the word "agenda" - a word which you yourself introduced into this debate - rather than addressing any of my actual points.[/quote]

I only used that word to light somebody's fire... and it worked

[Norseman82]

Looks like the bus has been hijacked to Cuba...

Edited April 9, 2009 by Norseman82

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1830242' date='Apr 9 2009, 08:01 PM']Looks like the bus has been hijacked to Cuba...[/quote]

southerncal hasn't been back to re-route his bus...

[picchick]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1830242' date='Apr 9 2009, 07:01 PM']Looks like the bus has been hijacked to Cuba...[/quote]

Yeah I was going to say...we are now arguing liberalism vs. conservatism. I just want to know what happened to that lone peep that was sitting on my desk. I don't care if you are liberal or conservative. You don't take one of Meg's Peeps...

In fact, I am very CONSERVATIVE in saving my peeps and enjoying them but am quite LIBERAL when sharing. There was no reason that someone should SINGLE me out and take my LONE peep.

There I think I combined the whole thread in one post. Either that or I am get extremely sleeping and this medication is starting to take effect. In that case, was the peep in question really existing?

Oh and excuse any misspellings....please

[LouisvilleFan]

Meg, thank you for summarizing all these issues into a beautifully written and succinct summarization of things that we perhaps argued too endlessly about, although we certainly shouldn't belittle how some single people may feel, especially if they are really hard core conservative or liberals, but I for just love to start stuff with people because it's fun to get them all bent out of shape and make fun of me for not being as smart as the founding fathers of the modern conservative movement when I'm just trying to make it through eight hours in a cubicle with my sanity relatively intact. With that introduction out of the way, the only question that remains is... do you receive your peeps in the HAND or on the TONGUE?

Edited April 10, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[picchick]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1830958' date='Apr 10 2009, 03:10 PM']Meg, thank you for summarizing all these issues into a beautifully written and succinct summarization of things that we perhaps argued too endlessly about, although we certainly shouldn't belittle how some single people may feel, especially if they are really hard core conservative or liberals, but I for just love to start stuff with people because it's fun to get them all bent out of shape and make fun of me for not being as smart as the founding fathers of the modern conservative movement when I'm just trying to make it through eight hours in a cubicle with my sanity relatively intact. With that introduction out of the way, the only question that remains is... do you receive your peeps in the HAND or on the TONGUE?[/quote]

Neither...they willfully jump into my mouth.

Agreed...no belittling. Being single is hard at times. At times it is great. But it should never be belittled.

Edited April 11, 2009 by picchick

[LouisvilleFan]

I've heard that even Jesus was single...

[picchick]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1832117' date='Apr 11 2009, 05:23 PM']I've heard that even Jesus was single...[/quote]