Skip to main content
My family was watching 'The Bachelor' the other evening; I could get judgmental about it and talk about the culture going to Hell in a handbasket, but in truth, I watched the whole season last time. Brad & Emily. You could see it coming a mile away. It was adorable! She had lost her fiance in a tragic plane crash while pregnant with her now 5 year old daughter. Well, naturally, it didn't work out and Emily will be the next 'Bachelorette.' If you've never seen either of these two shows, our protagonist is presented with 25 members of the opposite sex, whittling them down a few at a time until the final show, whereupon the protagonist proposes. Anyway, one of the things that makes me uncomfortable (other that dating and proposing on national TV) is that right before the finale, the contestants are invited in turn to spend the evening alone with our star in the 'Fantasy Suite.' One aspect of this is that it's away from the cameras for the first time. It also allows people to fornicate if they wish. The other uncomfortable thing is all the making out. I said out loud, "There's no way I could kiss three different people like that." And it got me thinking: How would this show be different if JK were the Bachelor?
Well, you could kiss your bikinis goodbye. It's definitely not that I don't like them, but you know. I don't think we need to have a drinking party before every decision of who stays and goes. Maybe every other one.
Going to Mass would definitely be part of the group dates. So would baseball games. No cattiness. You're getting sent home if you swear more than I do. If you're smarter than me, don't throw it in my face. If you're not, don't act like you are. I hope you have at least shoulder-length hair. No "progressives." But I repeat myself. Don't wear too much make-up. In fact, A No Make-Up Day will probably happen. Not so I can see your faces, but so I can see how you react. I want to see your music collection. I reserve the right to judge you based upon this. You'll do better if you read books. If you're vegetarian, you'd better be really awesome. I'm not vegetarian, so that needs to be OK. I'm a nerd. It's better if you are, too. Obviously, there will be no Fantasy Suite. If I kiss you, you're going to win. In fact, I'm not sure I will at the end. I haven't decided. I like it. Let's make it happen! [Will there be Protestant girls on the show?--ed.] Sure, but they would absolutely know in advance what would be expected of them, should they become my wife and remain Protestant.

Comments

What would be expected of a Protestant wife, do tell...
Jason said…
To raise the children Catholic, and to observe all the teachings of the Catholic Church. Otherwise, it could not be a canonically valid marriage. It still needs the bishop's permission.
Might as well become Catholic if she's going to observe all the teachings, yes? Hmm...
Jason said…
Largely, yes. Might as well. But I'm thinking mostly of ethics, not theology. (Like contraception.)
μη γενοιτο! :-P

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un