Weblog
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
-
WIT, PLAYFULNESS, IRONY & SATIRE
The Lost Art of Conversation
January 2008By Mitchell Kalpakgian
Mitchell Kalpakgian, a Contributing Editor of the NOR, is Professor of Humanities at Wyoming Catholic College in Lander. He is author of The Marvelous in Fielding's Novels (University Press of America), The Mysteries of Life in Children's Literature (Neumann Press), An Armenian Family Reunion (Neumann Press), and the forthcoming Wisdom Ever Ancient, Ever New (Neumann Press, 2008).
As ordinary people spend more hours before television screens and computer monitors, as video games and the Internet occupy more and more leisure time, and as academic life develops a greater number of online courses and degree programs, the social art of conversation -- human interaction and friendly exchange -- diminishes. As participation in these unsociable, isolated diversions increases, the hospitable, gregarious experiences of convivial celebration, robust laughter, and dialogue animated by mirth, wit, and wisdom decrease.
True conversation is not gossip, babble, or the mere exchange of information. Like other purely liberal activities enjoyed for their own sake, conversation encourages the lighthearted, spontaneous play of minds that enjoy the company of others in the round of talk that gracefully jumps from topic to topic in no regular order and moves easily from the comic to the serious, from the ideal to the practical, and from the factual to the anecdotal. Conversation requires no agenda and no Robert's Rules of Order. Where genuine conversation flourishes, wit, banter, and repartee fill the air; ideas are exchanged and clarified; and wisdom and prudence conveyed. Conversation expands the heart, nourishes the mind, and refreshes the spirit, for man by nature is a social animal who desires to know. While news outlets and information highways relay facts and events, they do not cultivate the common sense, perennial wisdom, or self-knowledge that the art of conversation does.
In his famous biography The Life of Samuel Johnson, James Boswell acknowledges the hallmark of his book: his assiduity "to preserve his [Johnson's] conversation in an authentick [sic] and lively manner," and his scrupulosity "by which so many conversations were recorded." Renowned for his immense learning, remarkable wisdom, lively conversation, and honest talk, Dr. Johnson illuminates the meaning of the art of conversation. His many remarks on the topic indicate a hierarchy of various degrees of conversation ranging from pleasant talk to intellectual invigoration.
First, simple conversation promotes charity, good will, and friendship, and does not demand scintillating wit or learned sophistication. "That is the happiest conversation where there is no competition, no vanity, but a calm quiet interchange of sentiments," Johnson remarks. When Boswell once complained about the absence of stimulating conversation at a sumptuous banquet, he asked: "Why then meet at table?" Johnson explained that good conversation did not demand intellectual substance: "Why, to eat and drink together, and to promote kindness." Boswell also records another comment of Johnson that highlights the social, civilizing dimension of simple conversation -- not its educational content: "The happiest conversation is that of which nothing is distinctly remembered but a general effect of pleasing impression."
Second, good conversation invites playfulness and cultivates mirth and laughter. In the spirit of pure fun Johnson easily assumed the role of "the greatest sophist" and the most subtle devil's advocate, and his quick wit was unparalleled. Boswell recalls the famous actor David Garrick's remark: "Rabelais and all other wits are nothing compared with him. You may be diverted by them; but Johnson gives you a forcible hug, and shakes laughter out of you, whether you will or no." Boswell's lifelong friendship with Johnson provided copious examples of the great sage's fun-loving good nature: "He frequently indulged himself in colloquial pleasantry; and the heartiest merriment was often enjoyed in his company."
Third, civil conversation enlarges the mind and develops the power of thinking in the spirit of friendly competition. Notorious for his passion for victory in argument ("sometimes too desirous of triumph in colloquial contest"), Johnson enjoyed the sharpening of his mental acumen that honest discussion and lively debate provoked. Boswell elaborates: "He had, however, all his life habituated himself to consider conversation as a trial of intellectual vigor and skill." Especially in his exchanges with Edmund Burke, the eminent statesman, Johnson exercised the power of his mind to the utmost. As Boswell recalls, Johnson said of Burke: "That fellow calls forth all my powers. Were I to see Burke now, it would kill me." Explains Boswell, Johnson was "accustomed to consider conversation as a contest, and such was his notion of Burke as an opponent."
Thus, the art of conversation cultivates charitable fellowship, elicits playful wit and innocent laughter, and broadens the mind.
Johnson, the epitome of the kindness, mirth, and learning that conversation evokes, also distinguishes between genuine and counterfeit conversation, and he recognizes the bad manners that spoil the enjoyment of true conversation. He warned that idle curiosity and officious meddlesomeness do not nourish the spirit of friendly conversation: "Questioning is not the mode of conversation among gentlemen. It is assuming a superiority, and it is particularly wrong to question a man concerning himself." Johnson also objected to exhibitionism in conversation, a type of self-glorification that boasted of notorious deeds: "A man should be careful never to tell tales of himself to his own disadvantage. People may be amused and laugh at the time, but they will be remembered and brought out against him upon some subsequent occasion."
Likewise, it is poor manners to confine the subject of conversation to one topic and exclude the general interests of the many. Boswell writes: "Being irritated by hearing a gentleman ask Mr. Levett a variety of questions concerning him [Johnson], when he was sitting by, he broke out, ‘Sir, you have but two topics, yourself and me. I am sick of both.'"
Johnson, a "clubbable" man always eager to engage in conversation, commended this quality in others and considered taciturnity a form of incivility. Johnson delighted in Mr. Edwards, an old acquaintance from college, even though his friend lacked the breadth of learning and knowledge of life as a whole: "Why, yes, Sir. Here is a man who has passed through life without experience: yet I would rather have him with me than a more sensible man who will not talk readily. This man is willing to say what he has to say." Boswell notes that Johnson, even in a state of illness, "had none of that unsocial shyness which we commonly see in people afflicted with sickness. He did not hide his head from the world, in solitary abstraction; he did not deny himself the visits of his friends and acquaintances; but at all times…was ready for conversation as in his best days."
Johnson also judged it bad manners to host an occasion for conversation and friendship and neglect the serving of refreshments, objecting that "it will never do, Sir. There is nothing served there, neither tea, nor coffee, nor lemonade, nor any thing whatever; and depend upon it, Sir, a man does not love to go to a place from whence he comes out exactly as he came in."
The particular virtues that the art of conversation instills -- the ability to listen, the practice of self-forgetfulness, the habit of tact, the exploration of another's mind, and the desire to enlarge one's world -- all suffer a lack of development today. Emotional and mental impoverishment follows, and the habit of graciousness and delicacy receives less cultivation. If the art of conversation is not learned and practiced, proper respect and thoughtful consideration are neglected, and the chance to acquire the wisdom and prudence of others is foiled. Pleasing one's self assumes greater importance than tending to others. And the virtual reality of chat rooms, online instruction, and TV and radio talk shows gives the illusion of the exchange and interaction of dialogue, but these electronic imitations do not represent the reality of actual conversation that Boswell's biography captures.
Conversation not only develops the mind and increases knowledge -- an essential ingredient of human happiness -- but it also cures nonsense and flights of fancy that assume the form of utopian ideas and unrealistic theories. In his conversation Johnson on many occasions exposed what he called "cant," affectations and pretensions that contradict common sense. In one instance, Boswell claimed that David Hume and Samuel Foote boasted that they did not fear death. Johnson replied, "It is not true, Sir. Hold a pistol to Foote's breast, or to Hume's breast, and threaten to kill them, and you'll see how they behave." On another occasion, Boswell asked Johnson if he would eat his dinner if a friend were apprehended for a crime and hanged, implying that close associates claimed they would fast. Again Johnson's rejoinder ridicules this sentimentality: "Yes, Sir; and eat it as if he were eating it with me. Why there's Baretti, who is to be tried for his life tomorrow, friends have risen up for him on every side; yet if he should be hanged, none of them would eat a slice of plum-pudding the less." In another example, when Boswell asserted that a life in public affairs would "vex" him extremely if Parliament acted contrary to his wishes, Johnson replied, "That's cant, Sir. It would not vex you more in the house, than in the gallery. Public affairs vex no man." He concluded, "My dear friend, clear your mind of cant." Likewise, Johnson advised Boswell not to "cant" on behalf of the cult of the noble savage, the idea of primitivism popularized by Rousseau that equated the ideal of happiness with the desire to "return to nature" and learn from the noble Indian: "Do not allow yourself, Sir, to be imposed upon by such gross absurdity. If a bull could speak, he might as well explain, -- ‘Here am I with this cow and this grass; what being can enjoy greater felicity?'" Thus, good conversation at its best restores common sense and cures folly, dispelling exaggerations, clichés, and silly ideas with its sobriety.
When virtual classrooms and online instruction replace actual oral human communication, an essential tool of education -- discussion -- has disappeared. The pure enjoyment of a person's personality is never discovered, and the amiability, charm, or mirth in the quality of a person's voice is lost. One of life's exquisite pleasures has been omitted. When family members watch television during their meals and fail to interact in the normal exchanges of conversation about the day's happenings, the joy of discovering and knowing one's family history, culture, and religious heritage is lost. As individuals consume time on the Internet and spend their hours playing video games and watching movies as their primary sources of recreation, the virtues of civility and graciousness are not habitually practiced. Fun is no longer spending time with the people who are loved and befriended, but is an isolated, individualistic activity that never contributes to the happiness of others. The verbal arts of wit, repartee, storytelling, and joking become obsolete without the normal, natural experience of human conversation on a myriad of subjects. Indeed, vocabularies themselves diminish in quality and quantity.
Without the enjoyment of conversation as a normative means of learning, the pursuit of learning grows ever more impersonal and mechanical. All the gifts of language that Johnson excelled in -- wit, playfulness, repartee, irony, satire -- reflect a highly developed sense of humor that follows from a life rich in conversation. The most genuine sources of laughter flow from lively conversation. In one of the spontaneous outbursts of this wit, Johnson remarked, "Sir, it is no matter what you teach them [children] first, any more than what leg you shall put into your breeches first. Sir, you may stand disputing which is best to put in first, but in the meantime your breech is bare."
Leon Kass writes in The Hungry Soul (1994) that the appreciation of friendship and love in the midst of sharing a meal and enjoying the conversation of others naturally leads to "the meeting and cherishing of souls," a movement "through playful conversation and wit in the direction of the pursuit of wisdom." In this atmosphere of the enjoyable companionship of family and friends, "one person's speech turns another's mind around," as conversation "enables us to taste, indeed to savor, the souls of our fellow diners" and to discover "that wonderful side of the soul at play, when it is unself-consciously and immediately being its open, companionable, and responsive self." Without the art of conversation in homes, schools, and social occasions, the memorable reality of people, the sheer enjoyment of the play of speech, the liveliness of the truth, and the medicine of common sense vacate the realm of ordinary experience and become the vestiges of an ancient past, and the whole quality of life is reduced to the banal and the bathetic.
Friday, August 15, 2008
-
Newsmax.com
Zogby: 'First Globals' Are Redefining America
Wednesday, August 13, 2008 8:44 PM
By: David A. PattenA demographic earthquake is taking place in America that is transforming our traditional society, argues pollster John Zogby in his newly released book, “The Way We’ll Be: The Zogby Report on the Transformation of the American Dream.”
[Editor’s Note: Get your copy of John Zogby’s book – Go Here Now.]
And these changes could have seismic implications for the coming 2008 election showdown.
This new ascending group of Americans Zogby calls the “First Globals,” and unlike other demographic groups such as “Generation X” or “baby boomers,” this group is making some radical departures from traditional American ways.
As Zogby defines them, the First Globals are simply Americans between the ages 18 and 29. A broad group, but one he says shares several remarkable characteristics, according to his polls.
For starters, narcissism seems to be a major descriptor. Zogby sees First Globals as “materialistic and self-absorbed” individuals who also “want to look richer than they are.” Like a daytime soap opera, these young people “obsess about relationships.”
Not surprisingly, they also tend to be more socially liberal. He notes they are “far more likely than their elders to accept gays and lesbians.” The only anomaly to their otherwise progressive approach is on the issue of abortion, where Zogby finds that “two out of three of them say that abortion is always or usually morally wrong.”
“For all practical purposes, they are the first color-blind Americans and the first to bring a consistently global perspective to everything from farm policy to environmental issues to the coffee they buy, the music they listen to, and the clothes they wear,” Zogby writes.
And they are the first demographic group of Americans who no longer identify themselves as primarily American and focused on America. Instead, they bring “a consistently global perspective to everything” from politics to work to social reform, and even which brand of toothpaste they buy.
The First Globals, Zogby says, expect to travel to exotic locales such as Capetown and Dubai.
“A quarter of them think they’ll end up living for some significant period in a country other than America,” he says.
The Jarring Political Divide
While just a subset of the nation’s population, the First Globals are already playing a role in re-defining the American ethos. The jarring divide between the First Globals and their elders reflects the greater political polarization that exists in America today.
Zogby describes this as a battle between the Wal-Mart and Dunkin’ Donut customers on one hand, and the Starbucks crowd on the other.
Dunkin’ Donuts patrons gave Bush a resounding show of support in 2004, 60 percent voting for him over Kerry’s 39 percent. But Starbucks customers did the opposite, backing Kerry over Bush 57 percent to 42 percent.
Like the Dunkin’ Donuts voters, weekly Wal-Mart shoppers, are more likely than those who never shop at the retail giant to be Hispanic, live in a rural areas, and attend church at least once a week, Zogby posits.
But he notes their “greatest point of distinction” — they identify themselves as either conservative or very conservative.
In 2004, for example, John Kerry came close to winning the election. But among Wal-Mart shoppers he lost by a whopping 52 percentage points — 76 percent to 24 percent.
Another example of the political divide is among church goers and those who don’t attend.
Zogby found that those who attend religious services backed Bush by 25 percentage points over those who never attended church. Much has been made about the “gender gap” among voters, but Zogby says that is less important than the gap between singles/never married and married voters. Kerry won big among the single/never marrieds.
New American Ethos
Despite the political divide, Zogby argues that a new cultural and political consensus may be developing, influenced largely by the First Globals.
“More and more . . . for all our differences and oddities, we are coming to agree on a simple set of principles, equally applicable to candidates, products, politicians, and business,” Zogby writes.
He spells these principles out: “Be fair. Be honest. Practice ethics; don’t just talk them. Appeal to what is best in our character, not to what is worst in it. And never forget that for new Americans as well as for the descendents who arrived here on the Mayflower, the seed bed of our beliefs can still be found in the meritocracy the founding fathers worked so hard to create.”
In “The Way We’ll Be” Zogby lays out a framework of the new America:
The vital center reasserts itself — Americans, Zogby writes, are “ditching the demagogues and finding common ground.” Zogby links this shift to skepticism toward government generated by the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. People are tired of division, and are searching for “areas of commonality,” he says.
The discovery of limits — The American Dream is changing, he writes. Consumer indebtedness, globalism, and environmental concerns have changed American optimism. “We still dream great things for our children,” Zogby writes, “but today we do so within the context of the new limits in our own lives.”
Authenticity trumps spin — Consumers and voters are hungering for authenticity like never before. They’re sick of products, and politicians, who don’t live up to the hype. The demand for authenticity will require a new approach to political campaigns, to product marketing, and even Hollywood’s dream machines.
The rise of energy innovators — The First Globals are willing to adjust their lifestyles substantially in order to conserve energy and go easier on the environment. They’re open to alternative fuels and, while they can be as greedy and materialistic as any other generation, Zogby writes “their global perspective has given them a larger-than-myself aesthetic.”
Implications for McCain vs. Obama
How will the reshaping of the American ethos impact the election?
Perhaps it is too early to say if the First Globals as a rising force can overcome the more traditional America that has long been dominated by red state thinking.
In the past politicians could appeal to patriotism as a symbol and buzzword. But even that idea is fading.
McCain, who could hold claim to the patriotism mantle, may find is not as important as it was in the past, for example, when Ronald Reagan ran for president in 1980.
In a 2007 poll, Zogby asked Americans what they felt were “very important” traits for their president.
These were the winners: “competent manager,” 82 percent; “can bring the American people together,” 80 percent; “can command the military,” 76 percent; “has personal morality,” 76 percent; “can promote the image of the US abroad,” 73 percent.
Arguably McCain will be able to lay claim to most of these “very favorable” traits. For example, Zogby discovered that McCain “stood all alone” among the presidential candidates for his military experience.
And the traits Americans least valued for their president included: “Has state experience,” – 35 percent; “is a charismatic speaker” – 32 percent; “has been a legislator” 21 percent. These attributes seem closely associated with Sen. Barack Obama.
But there are cracks in a McCain candidacy, according to the Zogby data. Zogby finds that the religious right, once a solid voting bloc for the GOP, is splintering with a “growing moderation among evangelicals and born-agains.” “It’s a very real phenomenon,” Zogby writes.
And on another matter, Obama’s foreign policy views appear to be more in step with Americans.
“Virtually every poll we have taken on the matter over the past three years shows Americans have tired of the lone wolf superpower mindset that still holds such sway on Pennsylvania Avenue,” Zogby writes, suggesting Americans may not want to continue President Bush’s policies vis-à-vis Iraq.
Whatever the election holds, Zogby’s overall outlook for the United State remains optimistic.
“The America of 2020 will be a more tolerant nation,” he writes. “Our people by then will have lived for two decades in a new world of less . . . We will expect our leaders to talk straight: Hype, hokum, and hooey — in politics, in advertising, wherever it appears — will be punished.”
[Editor’s Note: Get your copy of John Zogby’s book – Go Here Now.]
Newsmax Interviews John Zogby
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax, Zogby talks about the thirst for authenticity and how it will impact the 2008 campaign. He also explains why Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama represent two very different visions of what America will become.
His gut instinct tells him that Obama rather than McCain represents the wave of the future. But the key question, he hastens to add, is whether Obama can ride that wave of the future all the way to the White House.
And that’s one thing Zogby’s polls haven’t told him. At least not yet.
Newsmax: You write that the Internet makes us better citizens. How so?
Zogby: We don’t have the village square much anymore, or the gathering place, the Rotary club, the church building, but Americans are recreating these communities. What we see happening is the creation of virtual communities.
The Internet allows us, in a 21st century mode, to create communities, communities of the like-minded, broader coalitions, and allow us to participate at the click of a button: to write to our legislator, to interface via networks with the like-minded. You’ve seen the impact already. It’s generated a tremendous amount of enthusiasm, particularly among young people. It’s allowed whole interest groups to spring up. MoveOn.org is one example, but there are so many others. It has resuscitated the whole notion of political participation in this country.
Newsmax: Your book explores First Globals and the impact of the first generation that is truly aware of global priorities. Will their enthusiasm motivate them to drive to a polling place, wait in line, and actually cast a ballot?
Zogby: From the Iowa caucuses to the last primary, there was an outpouring among young people. In most of the primaries, it was unprecedented. And while there’s a huge interest in Obama, that’s a two-edged sword. Because if for some reason he disappoints their hopes and expectations, we could be talking about losing a lot of that enthusiasm — and even losing a large portion of a generation of voters.
For now, however, we’re talking about a resuscitation of democracy. The book on young people generally is that they’re self-centered. They’re concerned about relationships, careers, and their identity. These young people today are no different, except they have a global sensibility which has never existed before, among young people or, for that matter, any previous generation. That alone makes them citizens of this planet. Among those 18- to 29-year-olds, 42 percent of them have passports. This gives them a global sensibility, and with that comes heightened responsibility.
Newsmax: You also talk about a growing thirst for authenticity. How will that impact the 2008 campaign?
Zogby: On the one hand, we see Americans starting to live within limits, and seeing themselves as part of a larger planet. There’s a quest for a cleaner planet, a quest for talking about global poverty and so on. These movements aren’t just taking place on college campuses and liberal chi-chi suburbs, but are very much taking place among Christian evangelicals as well.
Just as all of that is taking place, there are Americans saying, “Let’s cut to the chase. We’re tired of products that don’t deliver the fantasy they promise, and we’re tired of a government that’s broken down.” This is a real crisis. I’m on record saying Katrina was as much a defining moment in recent history as 9/11, because Katrina was a huge failure, and caused serious questioning about government and its ability, and it triggered a crisis of confidence about government.
In that sense, candidates have to present themselves as the genuine thing. In the book, I say sell the steak not the sizzle, because that’s what the voters want. There is clearly a sense that negative campaigning will be less impactful. Arguably, McCain has the most authentic story of any of the Republican candidates. And Obama is the most authentic, from whence he has come, of any of the Democratic candidates. So you have a battle between the two genuine things, and it will be interesting to see if either, or both, of those candidates can maintain that authenticity.
Which of the two will win, I don’t know. But we seldom have an election where two guys stand for two real things: McCain for an earlier generation of community, duty, and patriotism; and Obama representing diversity, a globalism, a new face literally and figuratively. It doesn’t get much more interesting than that.
Newsmax: Is there much encouragement you can give to conservatives about the future? Will conservative values survive?
Zogby: Absolutely. For every new mentality or sensibility that’s created, there are always conservatives who see, not the flip side, but another way to maintain traditions as they move forward. Conservatives care about the environment, they care about global poverty, and give a lot of private money to that cause. Conservatism is not going to go away. This is just a forward march, and an adjustment to a new set of realities. Conservatism has always done that, just as liberals have.
Newsmax: You point out that McCain and Obama represent two very different worldviews. Which world view is probably better reflected in future trends?
Zogby: I’ll give you a genuine exclusive on this: I don’t know. My gut sense tells me that Obama is the wave of the future. The issue is whether the wave of the future is this year. And a lot of that is going to depend on the campaign.
[Editor’s Note: Get John Zogby’s book – Go Here Now.]
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Friday, August 08, 2008
-
Cohabitation: Ten Facts

September 2007By A. Patrick Schneider II
A. Patrick Schneider II, M.D., M.P.H., who holds boards in family and geriatric medicine and who received a Masters in Public Health from Harvard University, is in private practice in Lexington, Kentucky.
"Cohabitation -- it's training for divorce." -- Chuck Colson (1995)
1. Cohabitation is growing: 35 to 40 years ago cohabitation was rare; it was socially taboo. Growth by decade was: 1960s (up 19 percent), 1970s (up 204 percent), 1980s (up 80 percent), 1990s (up 66 percent), but up only 7.7 percent between 2000 and 2004. All told, cohabitation is up eleven-fold (U.S. Census Bureau, "Unmarried-Couple Households, by Presence of Children: 1960 to Present," Table UC-1, June 12, 2003).
2. Relationships are unstable: One-sixth of cohabiting couples stay together for only three years; one in ten survives five or more years (Bennett, W.J., The Broken Hearth: Reversing the Moral Collapse of the American Family, 2001).
3. Greater risk of divorce: The rate of divorce among those who cohabit prior to marriage is nearly double (39 percent vs. 21 percent) that of couples who marry without prior cohabitation (ibid.).
4. Women suffer disproportionately: Cohabiting women often end up with the responsibilities of marriage -- particularly when it comes to caring for children -- without the legal protection (ibid.), while contributing more than 70 percent of the relationship's income (Crouse, J.C., "Cohabitation: Consequences for Mothers and Children," presentation at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Oct. 11-14, 2004, U.N. Tenth Anniversary of the International Year of the Family).
5. Greater risk of STD: Men in cohabiting relationships are four times more likely to be unfaithful than husbands (ibid.). In 1960 there were only three STDs; now there are two dozen that are incurable. Cases of STD have tripled in the past six years. The rate of STD among cohabiting couples is six times higher than among married women (Crouse, J.C., Gaining Ground: A Profile of American Women in the Twentieth Century, 2000).
6. Greater risk of substance abuse and psychiatric problems: A UCLA survey of 130 published studies found that marriages preceded by cohabitation were more prone to drug and alcohol problems (Coombs, R.H., "Marital Status and Personal Well-Being: A Literature Review," Family Relations, Jan. 1991). Depression is three times more likely in cohabiting couples than among married couples (Robbins, L., Rieger, D., Psychiatric Disorders in America, 1990).
7. Higher poverty rates: Cohabitors who never marry have 78 percent less wealth than the continuously married; cohabitors who have been divorced or widowed once have 68 percent less wealth (Cohabitation Facts website).
8. Children suffer: The poverty rate among children of cohabiting couples is five fold greater than the rate among children in married-couple households (Bennett, op. cit.). Compared to children of married biological parents, children age 12-17 with cohabiting parents are six times more likely to exhibit emotional and behavioral problems (Booth, A., Crouter, A.C., eds., Just Living Together: Implications of Cohabitation on Families, Children and Social Policy, 2002). Likewise, adolescents from cohabiting households are 122 percent more likely to be expelled from school and 90 percent more likely to have a low GPA (Manning, W.D., Lamb, K.A., "Adolescent Well-Being in Cohabiting, Married and Single-Parent Families," Journal of Marriage and Family, Nov. 2003). Children find themselves without grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins; the family tree is pruned (Bennett, op. cit.).
9. Society pays: The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with two million souls in federal and state prisons and local jails. In 1980 the figure was just over 500,000 (Bennett, op. cit.). Seventy percent of juveniles in state-operated institutions are from fatherless homes (Drake, T., "The Father Factor: Crime on Increase in ‘Dad Free' Zones," National Catholic Register, Jan. 2007). Three-fourths of children involved in criminal activity were from cohabiting households (Crouse, op. cit.).
10. Cohabitation breeds abuse, violence, and murder: Abuse of children: Rates of serious abuse are lowest in intact families; six times higher in stepfamilies; 14 times higher in always-single-mother families; 20 times higher in cohabiting biological-parent families; and 33 times higher when the mother is cohabiting with a boyfriend who is not the biological father (Crouse, op. cit.). Abuse of women: Compared to a married woman, a cohabiting woman is three times more likely to experience physical aggression (Salari, S.M., Baldwin, B.M., "Verbal, Physical, and Injurious Aggression Among Intimate Couples Over Time," Journal of Family Issues, May 2002), and nine times more likely to be murdered (Shackelford, T.K., "Cohabitation, Marriage, and Murder: Woman-Killing by Male Romantic Partners," Aggressive Behavior, vol. 27, 2001). This data is consistent with similar data on children.
Cohabitation is bad for men, worse for women, and horrible for children. It is a deadly toxin to marriage, family, and culture. With great insight and wisdom Pope Benedict XVI has recently written in Sacramentum Caritatis (March 13, 2007) that among the four "fundamental values" that are "not negotiable," second only to respect for human life is "the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman."
Friday, July 11, 2008
-
Interview with an Exorcist
Reported by: Eric Glasser
Email: eglasser@wptv.com
Photographer: Jim Sitton
Last Update: 7/08 6:31 pmClick the video player to the right to watch the story.
WEST PALM BEACH, FL -- "Not everybody's inclined to do this sort of thing because it's not for the faint hearted."
Father Tom Euteneuer says he has faced the devil. That he is real. And that he is among us.
"The manifestation of demons can be very frightening, but you never have to be afraid of the devil because we always have the power of Christ to deal with him."Father Tom, a member of the Palm Beach Diocese, a man raised in Boca Raton and priest who still calls South Florida home, says he has been performing exorcisms for the past five years.
"I find it very satisfying. I wouldn't use the word pride," says Father Tom, "Because pride is something from the devil and the way you can actually do this is kind of work is to be very humble."
This hometown boy turned exorcist now travels the country -lecturing about
the ritual, and may soon have a lot more to talk about.You see, Pope Benedict XVI has announced his intention to drastically expand the use of exorcism in a way the world has not seen in centuries.
"The Pope isn't inventing anything new," says Father Tom. "And he's not actually bringing anything out and dusting it off. It's always been there. Maybe less practiced than it could be - or should be - but right now he sees that there's a greater need for it."
For most of us, our only brush with demonic possession comes through the eye of a Hollywood camera. Perhaps the most famous depiction is the 1973 film The Exorcist, in which Linda Blair portrays a teenager possessed by evil.
But if you scour the internet, you'll also find clip after clip of so-called 'real exorcisms' on websites like Youtube, video-taped by people in countries around the world.
Pope Benedict's plan to expand the ancient ritual also has its critics who worry that many people suffering with mental illnesses may be mis-diagnosed. To that end, a spokesman at the vatican's university says a ten-week course would be offered for priests who want to learn how to conduct exorcisms.
The classes would include sessions on rites, how to talk to the devil, and how, they say, to recognize the 'tricks' he uses.
Students would also attend psychology classes to help them distinguish between what the church calls genuine cases of possession and psychiatric disorders such as Tourrettes Syndrome, Bipolarism and schizophrenia.
"Actually, we're in a better position than in all of history to discern and determine what is spiritual and what's not spiritual," says Father Tom.
Pope Benedict XVI, say those closest to him, believes believes the devil's influence has grown in recent years through rock music, children's literature, even the internet.
But how skeptically will such an ancient ritual be received in a modern-day society?
The answer, says father Tom Euteneuer, may ultimately be a matter of faith.
"When a society doesn't believe in demons, it therefore doesn't believe in exorcism. So, it's really only people of faith who will understand this for what it is."
Father Euteneuer is currently wrapping-up a book about his experience as an exorcist, entitled "Exorcism and the Church Militant".
It will likely be released by the end of summer.
Friday, May 09, 2008
-
EVOLUTION-LOSSERVATORE May-6-2008 (390 words) xxxi
God made pre-humans into people, Vatican newspaper says
By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- While apes evolved naturally into pre-human creatures, it was the will and desire of God that turned them into humans, an article in the Vatican newspaper said.
"The formation of human beings necessitated a particular contribution by God, though it remains that their emergence was brought about by natural causes" of evolution, it said.
The article, published in the May 5-6 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, was written by Italian evolutionary biologist Fiorenzo Facchini.
The article said that, "when the biological conditions necessary for supporting a being capable of reflective thought were attained, the will of God, the creator, freely desired it, and man came to be."
The article posed the question: Does this mean that humans evolved from chimpanzees?
"No, it might be better to say that at some point God willed a spark of intelligence to light up in the mind of a nonhuman hominid and thus came into existence the human as a being, as a subject capable of thought and the ability to decide freely," it said.
So rather than picturing it as humans descending from the apes, it said, humans ascended or rose up from the animal kingdom to a higher level, thanks to the hand of God.
As Pope Benedict XVI wrote in 1968 when he was Father Joseph Ratzinger, God wanted to create a being that could know him and be able to turn to him, the article said.
The emergence of the human is neither a casual or accidental event, nor is it something that was "strictly necessary," demanded by God or the evolutionary process, it said.
Evolution could have ended at the pre-human stage, it said, but thanks to "the free choice of God," humans emerged from their pre-human ancestors.
This divine intervention "does not represent an unwarranted intrusion (of theology) in the field of science -- as is the case with intelligent design -- but is called for in order to explain the presence of man's spirit" which cannot come from or evolve out of the material world, the article said.
The movement from being a creature of the animal and physical world to also the spiritual was a gift from God "even if it came at the end of a natural process of evolution," it said.
END
- browse entries:
- older »




Chatboard (0)