Priests seek ideas to help newlyweds | The Columbus Dispatch

Judged:

1

1

1

liberal AND proud wrote:

<quoted text>
A person can give himself to others and not need or want religion in the mix. I have been married for 30 years, taking care of my mentally disabled wife for the last 11, and doing just fine as an atheist, thank you very much. I know many happily married couples who are not religious. If religion helps you in your marriage, great. Don't speak for others in which it is equally irrelevant. I might add I also know a fair number of couples who were religious and later divorced. Whether the religion was an act for outsiders, I can't say, but it is what it is.

Judged:

1

1

Old Time Baseball wrote:

Am I the only one seeings some irony in this? Maybe the veggans can help the carnivores figure out the best ways to cook beef.

Judged:

2

KJB wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe we should take away the licenses of all oncologists who have never had cancer?

Judy Jones wrote:

This by far is the most hypocritical statement of all, by Rev. Mark Froehlich : "The major problems that break up a couple are money, alcohol and abuse, he said, with perhaps immaturity being the most destructive to marriages."
Where on earth does this priest get off, preaching to married couples about "MONEY, ALCOHOL, ABUSE, AND IMMATURITY"
It is very curious as to HOW Rev. Froehlich knows so much about these problems?
Judy Block, also a student at St Sylvester's School, Woodsfield, Ohio

Jim wrote:

I think the Catholic Church has good intentions. But I will admit, as a Catholic myself, it often depends on the type of priest you get. I've seen some really excellent compassionate priests who exude warmth and who are really there for people. But I've seen others who are very cold and uptight and too rigid.
Even though I consider myself fairly religious, I've considered possibly avoiding a 'traditional' church ceremony in the future. Too over the top.

Judged:

1

liberal AND proud wrote:

<quoted text>
Apples and oranges. You are comparing human-object interactions to human-human interactions. You CANNOT have a clue what other people are going through unless you've been through it yourself. And even then you can only approximate. Consider:
Is a never-played-the-game couch potato gonna tell Brett Favre how to throw a football?
Is a man gonna tell his wife he knows what she's going through in child birth?(I wanna be there when you try THAT one!)
Can a man who's never been in the armed forces tell a front-line combat soldier he knows what it feels like to get shot at?(Tell my 87-yr-old dad THAT one, and he'll still tear your head off and stuff it where it belongs, where the sun don't shine.)
How many civil engineers do you know who have managed a Major League Baseball team? How many baseball managers have designed a bridge? We are who we are because we know what we know.
A priest can perform a counseling function, and facilitate between an engaged couple and a mentoring older couple, but he CANNOT presume to know how to advise people in marriage. It makes no sense on the face of it.

KJB wrote:

<quoted text>
We are who we are because of parents, our families and our communities, not because of what major we chose in college!
An engineer couldn't have studied engineering unless someone taught him or her to read. They couldn't read if there was no language. There would be no language if there aren't other people, specifically parents.
You assume that a doctor is only dealing with an "object," the body and that the spirit/emotional side is something separate.
This is not logical because we are who we are, both body and soul. You can't separate the two. You can't have one without the other. This is why your philosophy will always be incomplete.
Another area you are wrong is your assumption that a civilian would want to tell a combat soldier they know what it's like to get shot at. Where does this come from? The only thing a civilian can do is bring up a time when he or she was scared or faced a dangerous situation. Can't this help establish a connection? This is where you are misinformed about the Priesthood. He doesn't claim to know exactly what a married couple is going through. He can only counsel them after they have told him what's going on. If it's a sexual matter he might refer them to counseling. If it's a moral issue, he will advise them as he is trained to do. A priest deals with many issues involving people from all walks of life. I feel sorry for you, because you will have a hard time finding help if you are only going to accept it from someone who has been in "your" shoes. That would be NO ONE! Even another married couple can't tell you what to do because they haven't been in your shoes.
I am glad our soldiers during the revolutionary war were willing to follow commanders who had no military experience. I am glad our first congress was made up of lawyers, doctors, merchants, farmers, bakers, sailors, printers, married, single, widowed, rich and poor. Why were these differnt people with different specialties able to listen to each other and accept what each had to offer? We wouldn't have a country if everyone thought like you and your Dad.
BTW, no need to threaten me with ripping my head off. That had no place in this discussion. I will say what I want to you and your Dad whenever I want. I appreciate his service, but it doesn't give him the right to assault anyone for having differing views.

liberal AND proud wrote:

1. I agree that priests are not the best to explain how marriage works. For the person who says you have to date before seminary, dating is NOTHING like marriage.
2. Being mentored by older married couples is a better idea. Talking with your parents is a good idea too, if people are comfortable with that.
3. People have to drop some of their selfishness for a marriage to work. You have to be more committed to "Us" than to either of the individuals.
From a guy who's been married 30 years.

joe kello wrote:

this is not priests giving advice they are trying to pass along instructions the lord jesus christ gave us in the scriptures