that is the title of the book that my fiance and i are supposed to read.
from the moment it touched my hands, i knew i wasn’t getting my marbles back. There it is. on the front cover. Marriage? For Keeps? you betcha.
i should hope that people who are old enough to be getting married in the Catholic Church at least had somebody clue them in on the church’s doctrine regarding divorce a lot earlier in life. in fact, i’m certain that if there actually was somebody who slipped through the educational cracks, the weighty meaning intended by “For Keeps” would pass way beneath the radar.
On the other hand, if they would have put, “Marriage: Shackles, Locks, and Chains, Oh My! The Story of When Two People Become One Flesh, Forever,” we’d have a lot fewer Catholic marriages, simply through initial intimidation.
Of course, there are a lot of other important things to read in the book besides that particular topic, but verily, i say to you, every time i read that petty, simplistic title, i can’t decide whether it was meant to be a joke, or they were trying to be serious. And that is exactly the opposite of the author’s intentions, i should hope.
I would be lying if I said I haven’t been discussing this book and its contents with Des every time we get together. Like you, I am fascinated with the juvenile title – what were the author’s intentions indeed! (I quite like your title by the way – seems very in-keeping with the current papal regime if I am allowed to say so).
That the Church feels like it has a monopoly on western marriage practices remains a mystery to me. It was only adopted as a sacrament at the council of trent circa 1550 if I remember correctly from grade school. That’s a full, I don’t know 1,475 years *after* Jesus.
I think like many of the western catholic traditions, the import of marriage has its roots in greco-roman/near-eastern culture, not religious dogma.
Which is not to say that the sacrament is not legitimate. i just don’t understand its somewhat over-stressed sacramental role in modern catholic culture, especially considering the situation of religious orders throughout the world.
That the book’s title would so blatantly allude to divorce in a book about the sanctity of marriage is, to me, exactly what is wrong with the current trend in catholic/christian theological thought. A kind of force the good by implying the bad.
As long as the current papal college continues to view the world (especially other cultures or religious traditions) in black and white, it will struggle with having any kind of realistic legitimacy in contemporary (esp. American) society.
I guess it goes without saying, then, that I find the current “fundamentalist” trend that is sweeping all the major world religions deplorable, if not strangely fascinating.
You young whippersnappers are just going overboard on this month’s title de jour. We had the absolute monopoly on strange religion texts in the late 60s, early 70s. They were awful, trying to be hip, and almost avoiding being religious.
I wish I could remember some, but the entire contents of the books were drivel, pure modernistic yip yap.
And hey, fundamentalism is not all bad. God is a fundamentalist, but has more mercy and patience than we can conceive.
Congrats again Dave… I’ll call you about fall break – its still in the plans!
Does God communicate like a fundamentalist? How can you be “fundamentalist” if everything you say is a metaphor for the divine truth? Let’s assume fundamentalist means, “everything said must be taken literally.”
Think: God cannot possibly communicate His perfect truths in our imperfect language. There is no way to translate God other than through metaphor.
I see the problem you are having with my brief statement “God is a fundamentalist.” My definition of fundamentalist is “God sets down the fundamentals of faith.” I don’t use the word in the distorted way people today take it.
Think: God’s communication may or may not be perfect, but it is sufficient. There may not be proof, but there is evidence enough for the truth-seeking skeptic.
The Pharisees, chief priests, and scribes asked Jesus what was the most important commandment, and his ready answer silenced them: To love God, and to love your neighbor.
Perhaps because I started it, I should jump in for a clarification:
When, I used the term “fundamentalist” in my original comment, I had a very specific meaning in mind.
Here at the university (and in the realms of academia worldwide), “fundamentalism” refers to a specific twentieth/twenty-first century phenomenon among religious groups. It is usually closely tied to the advent of “modernity” (whatever you might take that to mean), globalization, and other rather complex contemporary social issues.
An excellent definition and exploration of “fundamentalism” and the various movements associated with it can be found in Accounting for Fundamentalisms edited by Marty and Appleby. It’s quite a weighty read, but well worth the time for anyone interested. (It’s also the text used by the religious studies program here at the university).
A kind of abstract of the major themes in the book can be found here.
The other comments here reflect how ambiguous the term can be, and I believe this partly because it has frequently been used in recent years to describe all kinds of people and activities. However, I had a rather obnoxiously academic definition in mind when I posted the first comment – clearly different from what others are thinking in this thread.
I guess then, I would partly agree and partly disagree with the previous poster’s statement that this term has been distorted “today”. In common parlance, I would agree – people throw it around to mean all kinds of things. However, religious scholars, social scientists, and others are using this word in a way that is meaningful, technical, and logically consistent. Would it be too much to hope that others outside the ivory towers could do the same?