Is Natural Family Planning Bearing a Cross or Hell on Earth?

It's not often I do two posts in one day, but it's not often I get such extremely varied accounts on a subject. Not only is the internet full of accounts for or against NFP, but my initial concerns on this matter seem to have been justified.

Not only does NFP appear to be something that places the onus on the women in marriage, it also appears to have significant emotional, mental, and physical effects upon the two individuals in the marriage.

Clearly, my understanding of this is limited -- and it appears the understanding of it is just as limited in the hierarchy of the Church. The imagery alone speaks volumes. We have the one above, and then we have this one below (sourced from the archdioceses of LA:

We have heartwrenching blog posts like this one (and more, I encourage you to read the series of them) which says, in part, the following:


After #6 was born, my husband—who had never, ever in all our years of marriage suggested using any form of artificial contraception–told me he was going to have a vasectomy.  I was shocked.  I told him he needed to be very, very sure.  That I would NEVER ask him to do such a thing.  But that I also was afraid to have a tubal ligation because of my health problems and because if a tubal fails, I could end up with an ectopic pregnancy, and I would morally have a hard time with the thought of a baby of ours not being able to grow to term and having to be removed from my body because of something I had done to my body by choice.  He was sure, and I felt nothing but gratitude to him and awe that he loved me enough to do something that was clearly a sacrifice to him.  He told me enough was enough; he had seen the damage and the toll all those pregnancies had taken on me, both physically and psychologically, and that God had blessed us with six healthy children for which he was eternally grateful.

I cried the night before he had it done.  It was so final.  I asked him repeatedly if he was sure, absolutely sure, that I didn’t want him to ever feel pressured or forced into it in any way.  We talked about the morality of it.  He basically decided he would do it, he would confess it, and it would be a done deal.  Isn’t that the sin of presumption?  He said it was simply being hopeful in the mercy and understanding of an ever-loving God.  He went through with it.  We both confessed it—I was completely and totally honest with the priest, told him the only reason I had any real contrition for it was that I was afraid of burning for all eternity.  He absolved me anyway and told me to be at peace.

That series of blog posts is an eye-opener if there ever was one. But, for every heartwrenching story like that, there's a take like this (which I also encourage you to read fully) that acknowledges the difficultly of NFP, but also the beauty of it:

As for Natural Family Planning, which involves complete abstinence during the fertile period, there are some things I really like about it.

I agree with the philosophy behind natural family planning. No, it’s not because I am afraid of going to hell for using a condom or think that the best sex advice comes from a celibate man.

I agree with this philosophy because it speaks about the nature of sex. Sex is designed to be unitive and procreative. It is designed for making love and making babies. Not every sex act leads to conception, in fact, frequently conception is impossible. The problem is with actively removing the procreative element from sex. Because when you remove the procreative element, you change sex, meaning that also lose much of the unitive element as well.

In cases of natural infertility, such as during pregnancy and postpartum, after menopause, and during the infertile part of the cycle, sex is as it is: Nothing is removed from sex and nothing is changed.

Which is right?

"Wait, why do YOU care?! You're a guy! This has nothing to do with you!"

And that thinking is exactly the reason why I'm researching this as in-depth as I am, why I'm writing about this, why I'm putting it out there. The teachings of the Church don't really say much -- that I'm finding so far -- about the man's role in this other than "abstaining from sex."

But the toll that takes on both people in the marriage, even ones who have been Catholic all their lives (unlike I, a soon-to-be convert), is great. And further, there's some serious misconceptions out there about it what the Church says vs. reality.

All of this reading, all of this research has led me to one conclusion so far: there's not enough discussion or education on this prior to marriage for men. That's an issue because, from what I'd reading (and what I can speak of due to accounts given to me by others), NFP does have detrimental effects on the marriage -- specifically the relationship between husband and wife -- that are going unaddressed, at least in a real way, by the teachings of the Church.

Wives feel guilty about preventing their husbands from making love to them because it's during their fertile period. Husbands feel guilty asking their wives to make love when they're not in the mood. Schedules don't align, pressure builds up, physical intimacy evaporates and is replaced by terror at an unplanned pregnancy.

That is absolutely not how marriage is intended to be. It can't be. Nothing I've read on the subject -- which is admittedly not as much as many -- says that marriage is supposed to be like that. The Church holds up marriage as a vocation of great joy, but one with many crosses to bear.

"This must be one of those, right?"

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that there will be times when the husband and wife must abstain from sex in marriage. No, in the sense that living in fear of something, instilling guilt and hatred into the relationship between husband and wife, breeding resentment, is not the way marriage is.

It is a vocation. It is tough. But it's not meant to be filled with so many negative things, to drown a marriage in misery because a husband and wife can't be physically together.

The teachings of the Church gloss over or over-simplify too much of this. The large majority of the work is placed on the women, which is simply wrong. But what's the solution? Where's the answer?

I have a few thoughts.

1. Natural Family Planning should be taught much sooner than Pre-Cana.

As great a thing as it can be, in practice is seems to result in far more misery than it does in holiness. If it is the solution to the problem of contraceptives, than it shouldn't just be taught in Pre-Cana. It needs to have it's own classes geared not towards just people preparing for marriage (or already married) but towards the younger -- teenagers entering puberty, probably, and to both boys and girls.

There's a severe lack of understanding from the view of the males with NFP. From everything I'm getting, it seems to them like a denial. It's "No" when they want "Yes" and though some may understand at first, I'd wager the repeated denials build resentment -- towards NFP, the Church, and then the wife.

Knowledge is power. If males are taught about NFP earlier on, helping to understand why it's so important, some of these issues will be prevented. Not all, for sure, but some.

Yes, that's asking a lot of the teachers -- it's daunting to teach teenage boys anything, let alone how a woman's body works. But if you want to weed out who's going into the vocation of marriage or the priesthood, this would do it I think.

2. The Church needs to have a serious discussion about this across the board.

This should not be limited to the corners of the internet. This shouldn't be something women/men feel ashamed of talking about. An open discussion needs to be had by all parties -- from the congregation, to the priests, to the bishops, to the cardinals, and to the Pope. This is being ignored -- the Church is pushing NFP with all these pretty ads and great stats, but it's ignoring the REAL accounts of the people who follow it.

Ignorance isn't bless. Trust me, I know, it only leads to a hard fall.

3. Married couples should be able to decide for themselves what to do. 

This last one I'm most conflicted about, but it's happening anyway. The Church should allow each couple to decide for themselves what is right for them. The picture below is my main point:

There seems to be a double-standard on this very simple thing. The Church says that God will provide for the needs of married couple, even if they have a large family, if they trust in God.

But what if they trust in God and, through prayer, discern that NFP isn't for them? That it'll simply put too much strain on the marriage for either of them to be anything other than miserable? What's their option?

The only option would be contraception, of some form. Whether that be a vasectomy, condoms, or something else, those would be the immediate options. And those options are condemned by the Catholic Church. What then?

It leaves married couples in a very tough place, one that the Catholic Church is failing to address from all accounts on the matter. I simply don't know how they'd address it, but at least an attempt is required.

I don't know if NFP will be the way to go for me and my theoretical-hypothetical-future wife. By Church teaching, it must be. By practical reality, will it be possible? Will she have the type of fertility cycle that's easy to chart? Will the measurements be accurate?

All of this leaves me feeling powerless. No matter how much knowledge I have, no matter how much I study the Church's teachings, there doesn't seem to be much I can do.

But I can bring awareness. I can ask questions. I can learn. I don't think that's even remotely enough, but it's a start.

Thanks for reading everyone. God Bless.

The Sarcament of Marriage OR The Single Scariest Thing You Can Possibly Do

Today's lesson in the Catechism was one that I've been looking forward to for many, many months; it was about the Sacrament of Marriage. Now, to recap, I've been dancing around the idea of marriage for many years now on this blog -- what it means to me, what I see it means to others, but I've never had the opportunity to approach it from a faith-based standpoint.

That is, until today. Lesson 35 of the Catechism didn't tell me anything that surprised me, but it only reinforced the things that I had always thought about marriage: that it calls those in it to sacrifice and be faithful to one another, to provide for their children (if they are so blessed to have them), and to honor the laws of God in their marriage.

That was pretty cut and dry. What I hadn't expected was the realization that marriage is the ultimate "All-in" thing for one overarching reason.

1. You're putting all your trust in God. 

Human beings aren't particularly trusting individuals, at least when it comes to things that we can't see or touch. As Catholics, we're called to put our trust in God that we'll get the special graces we need to bear the many crosses of marriage. We're called to surrender ourselves to God's plan.

And, in marriage, God's plan may be children. Catholicism calls all Catholics to be "open to life." We're called to embrace fertility, to have faith in God if we -- as a married couple -- are blessed with a large family.

It is here, when children are concerned, where I think the trust factor plays the biggest role. In the lead-up to marriage there is some element of control in our lives about how things are going; we're dating someone, we're evaluating if they'd make suitable partners, we're juggling our feelings, our jobs, our lives separate from one another, our lives together: it's a hectic, hot mess sometimes but it's our mess.

But when you take the Sacrament of Marriage, God goes from taking a bit of a backseat to being a big part of what's going on between you and your spouse. No longer are you keeping the option of ending things in your back pocket, you're in all the way. You're saying to the Church, to the people in your life, to your spouse, and to God "I accept the duties and responsibilities of marriage, I accept the crosses and blessings you will bestow on me, and I accept that you, Lord, are in control of everything."

What's included in that everything is life; specifically, the life that may be brought forth due to the union of man and woman. One of the questions at the end of the Catechism lesson asked, "Why should married people not worry about whether they will be able to support their children if God sends them a large family?"

The answer to that is this: God will provide. He guarantees married people all the material things they need as long as they keep His laws in marriage, trust Him, and pray for their needs.

Yet, that HUGE trust in God -- and it is huge -- is something that is difficult for some to acknowledge. Some couples use contraception (which is forbidden in the Catholic Church, by law), and others use Natural Family Planning (Church approved method of planning out a family without the use of chemicals/hormones/preventive methods), which is actually catching on in the mainstream.

For myself, I know contraception isn't the way I would go (unless exceptional circumstances demanded it, I wouldn't do it). The "use a condom, have sex, and don't worry about the consequences!" mantra of our culture is one of the reasons why marriage and healthy relationships are crumbling around us.

I wouldn't want my theoretical-hypothetical-future-wife to use contraception either, because the chemicals that are in birth control pills and other birth control methods are just horrid for the body. It doesn't do good things (as the linked article above from CNN details a bit).

So, is NFP the way to go? As far as Church approved methods go, yes. But it places a lot of the onus on the women in the marriage. From the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops comes this explanation on NFP:

Natural Family Planning is an umbrella term for certain methods used to achieve and avoid pregnancies. These methods are based on observation of the naturally occurring signs and symptoms of the fertile and infertile phases of a woman's menstrual cycle. Couples using NFP to avoid pregnancy abstain from intercourse and genital contact during the fertile phase of the woman's cycle. No drugs, devices, or surgical procedures are used to avoid pregnancy.

NFP reflects the dignity of the human person within the context of marriage and family life, promotes openness to life, and recognizes the value of the child. By respecting the love-giving and life-giving natures of marriage, NFP can enrich the bond between husband and wife.                                          (Standards for Diocesan Natural Family Planning Ministry, p. 23)

These "methods of observation" are, almost always, performed by the women (as it probably should be), but it's a lot of work. From everything I read there are a lot of measurements, a lot of charting, a lot of data tracking ... all things which I fully endorse (I like doing those things) but it seems very one-sided.

"But wait, the couple has to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period! That's basically saying the guy can't get any during that time, that's a sacrifice on the man's part!" you say. To which I agree with, partially, but really being chaste shouldn't be that much of a sacrifice.

As Catholics, we're called to be chaste until marriage. That basically means a minimum of two decades without sex. I myself am a virgin, have never gotten close to having sex, and will very likely never be put in a situation before marriage where I am close to that. So, as far as this concerns me, being chaste during the fertile phase doesn't seem like a big deal.

Of course, I also haven't had sex so sex doesn't seem like a big deal. I imagine my stance on this will probably change should I be married in the future.

But the point of all this is to say that the women in the marriage seem to do the majority of the work in NFP and I know, from various accounts over the last four years, how difficult and demanding NFP can be.

As a matter of fact, NFP and how it's used by Catholics was one of the first deep conversations I had about Catholicism. I was of the opinion, at the time, that NFP was basically contraception in effect, if not in name. But the other two Catholics in the room, both female, told me that wasn't so.

Here we are now and I'm in agreement -- it isn't so. The biggest thing about NFP is that it "promotes openness to life" and that's something that contraception simply can't claim; contraception, by it's nature, is a prevention/destruction of the possibility of life. There's no way around that.

Even if you do NFP and do it in such a way that you avoid pregnancy, there's no guarantee that it'll work -- success rates are high, if you go by the stats, but I'm wary of going by just the stats alone. Stats can be made to reflect almost anything. Personal testimonies could be twisted ... so I'm on the fence at just how viable it is.

There's more that I need to research on it, no doubt, but NFP -- and the potential of children in the first place -- is where the biggest trust factor in God's plan comes in. You're not just trusting him with your life, the life of your wife, the life of your marriage, but also the lives of your possible children ... and that's a lot of control to give up.

I think that's the main reason why things are so tough for married folks today; it's that some of them don't realize that they have to give up control. They have to give it up fully to God and that's scary.

But I think this sums up perfectly why I and others shouldn't be so scared.

Thanks for reading, folks. God Bless.

Moms Do Too Much Work

Is there a more thankless job in society, in life, and in the family than being a mom? Anyone? Bueller?

As I was cruising the store tonight, knocking out some meager duties, I stumbled upon a thought that surprised me. Maybe it was just because I wasn't looking for it or maybe it was because I've had similar thoughts in the past, but never quite encompassed it all in one singular phrase.

Moms do too much work. That's it. It's there.

"That's brilliant, Zach! Did you discover the sky is blue, too?" you say. Okay, admittedly, it's not a wholly original thought. There are countless posts on the Internet about moms being overworked, under-appreciated, ect. And those posts are right to varying degrees, but my main point has a few sub-points to it -- which, in my opinion, makes this whole venture a different beast.

I'm not here to talk exclusively about how much work moms do. They do too much and the problem is we let them. We don't let them out of the graciousness of our hearts but, rather, we let them because we'd rather someone else do it, but not us. We're lazy. We're incredibly lazy, as a society, and yet we expect the mothers in our society to ...

Look like supermodels (you can't be a fat mom anymore, you have to be a thin and trim mom! Don't you dare not workout and get back to your pre-baby weight!), work at home and outside the home (no, you're not allowed to choose one, you have to do both, you need the income to support your family!), go shopping for the food (you're the cook, you have to pick up the ingredients, too!), cook the food (who else is doing that? The children are too young and the husband is tired!), do the housechores (yes, this has to be done in order to keep things looking good for unexpected guests and to keep your family safe from falling avalanches of laundry and dishes!), be a taxi driver (kids can't drive themselves!), keep the pets alive (children need companions, even if you're doing all the work, at least the kids are happy!), find the time to be an active parent in the school/church community (you have time for that! You can't not be part of your kids lives in the school, they need you there, too!), keep the husband happy (you better look like a supermodel and you better stay on top of the housechores, that way your husband doesn't leave you for someone younger and thinner! You have to keep his interest in the bedroom and outside it, take up a new hobby for him if you need to!), and be the number-one option for all holiday/vacation planning and packing (no one else can do it, it's just you!). 

All that barely scratches the surface. Does anyone else feel overwhelmed? Is it any wonder mothers in our society just seem to burn out?

Notice something about all that I listed above; everything the mom was doing was for someone else. Not a thing in there was directly related to herself. Being a mom, you have no time for yourself in today's world. None. And if you try to make time for yourself, you're categorized as a selfish person.

Moms have an absolutely insane amount of things to do and exactly who steps up to help them?

"The children do when they get old enough!" you say. True point, but when exactly is "old enough"? Seven? Eight? Nine? Ten? It's unfair moms are waiting that long for aid.

Meanwhile, the husband is chilling in the living room, feet propped up, tea in hand, and he's complaining about not being able to find the remote.

The husband is where the help needs to come from. The husband is called to help. But it's like the husband gets a free pass here and I can't really understand why. The husband goes to work, comes home, and relaxes. Apparently, that's perfectly fine for the husband to do, even with children in the mix.

But the wives, the moms? They get no such luxury. "Look sexy, cook great food, shop, take care of the kids, clean the house, plan our social life, DON'T SCREW UP OR WE'RE DOOMED!" Society screams. The messages to moms basically boils down to "Do everything or nothing gets done" and moms step up, take the burden, and do.

Amazingly, they do. But we're killing them. We're killing them as individuals, as people who existed before being a mom, before being a wife, and we're taking that individuality, locking it in a dark room, and starving it to death. Slowly. Achingly.

We are failing our moms. Husbands -- men, males, guys, boys, dudes -- are failing the moms in our lives, whether that be our wives or own mothers. What exactly is our excuse?

"We work --" Yeah, so do the moms.

"We're tired --" Yeah, so are the moms.

"We have other things --" Yeah, the moms have other things to do, too!

It's failure, across the board. We demand SO MUCH from the moms and virtually nothing from the fathers. Society has given the green-light for guys to just kick back and let the women do the work.

And it's wrong. And I absolutely, positively, swear to the Internet (and the moms in my life, past, present and future) that I won't continue this trend. The workload for a mom is absolutely crushing and hardly anyone steps up. And, when someone does, the mom either feels relief (followed by guilt that they couldn't do it themselves) or frustration with herself for being less.

The mom is not less. And the father, the husband, should be much more.

Speaking from a religious point of view (since I've converting to Catholicism and all), marriage is a vocation -- a sacred duty. It's not easy, it's tough. It's two people working to build a life together with God as a very important component. It's here, in marriage, where children come about and the miracle of motherhood shows up.

"Yeah, and?" you say.

The father should do more than just contribute his genetic material to the whole thing, right? Sure, the father protects and takes care of the wife during the pregnancy period (and after it as well, one can easily argue) but it seems that, as the father, the male just kinda takes a hands-off approach when it's all said and done.

And that simply isn't the way things were intended. Christ and the Church are married, in a sense -- Christ is the groom and the Church is his Bride. Christ is present in the Church always; as Catholics, we are called to model ourselves after Christ.

We certainly can't be present in the lives of our wives/moms all the time (we're not divine beings, after all) but we certainly can strive to be more present in the lives of our wives/moms and to help them as Christ helps the Church.

"Well, what if I don't care about the religious stuff?" you say. Fine, junk that if you want to: are you telling me the 95/5 split that society has placed on the mother/father dynamic is right? That's 95 percent of the work is done by the mom and 5 percent by the father -- maybe a tad over-dramatic an estimate (probably closer to 90/10 or 80/20) but the large majority of the work in the family is done by the mom.

Why is that right? I don't understand why. As I sit here and type I just got off a seven-hour shift. I spent my day off yesterday cleaning out the garage, working out, and playing football. I spent this morning doing some studying (Catechism Lesson 27), troubleshooting some tech for my brother, and attempting to find a gift for an upcoming birthday (no success as of yet).

I am 26. I am a male. I work 30+ hours a week, usually. November and December killed my social life (little there was to kill). I do work, I do chores around the house, I do things outside the house that I don't have to do. I have plenty of energy (evidenced by this very post at this very hour). Why is it that I can do these things now but, if/when I get married and if/when I am blessed with children, my abilities will falter?

"You'll be older. Life will take it out of you by that point," you say. Granted, a possibility, but I'm in the best shape of my life. I've been in the best shape of my life every year since I turned 24. I don't plan on going back to this.

I will never be that again. It's dead and gone. I will, quite literally, die first before going back to that. Quote me on that. Hold me to that. Count it as fact.

I don't plan on being one of those fathers who kick back and get large when kids enter the picture. I'm going to stay in shape. I'm going to stay fit and healthy, I'm going to get better as I go along. I'm aiming to age like fine wine.

That said, I won't be a husband who lets his wife do all the work. I'm not that. I can't be that and I challenge all the guys out there to not be that. Don't let her do all the work, don't let her drown under the crushing weight of it all fellas, we're better than that. We've been designed to be better than that but society and our own inherent laziness has made it easy to just shrug.

I promise the following (and Internet, hold me to this -- you know how I like being held accountable, wouldn't be here if I wasn't held accountable before):

1. I'm not going to let my wife do all the work. I'm aiming for a 50/50 split, ideally, and, really, I could probably do 70/30 of it and be fine -- I just plug away at chores and stuff, and adding the madness of children won't kill me. I thrive on madness.

2. If I get so lucky to have kids, I will encourage them to follow my example -- you put in your share of work and don't be lazy. It's easier said than done, I grant you, but I won't be the father who comes home, kicks back, and watches the mom do everything. I can do things and I will.

3. I'm going to preach this as often as opportunity allows. Gentlemen, there needs to be a reality check amongst the males of the species. We're placing far too much on the shoulders of the moms and not enough on the fathers. The split is skewed, society is allowing it to skew, the guys aren't correcting the skew, and it's wrong. Spread the word: Moms do too much work.


That's it for me. Thanks for reading and God Bless.

What's the Point of Being Honorable?

When I think of honor, I think of one man (well, Klingon): that would be Worf. Worf, if you're unfamiliar with him, is from Star Trek: The Next Generation and also later starred in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. If you need a quick brush up on why he was awesome, this video will get you up to speed.

Now, with out of the way, let's get to the meat of this: is there really any point in being honorable in this day and age?

I ask the question simply because, over the last few days, I've wondered myself if there was. This all spawned late one night as I was talking with my best friend on the phone. Many references were made and many things were said, but one of the things she said stuck with me: she said it was a good thing that I wanted to keep my promises to people.

And, after the call ended, I kept revisiting that and the thought occurred to me that not only was it a good thing, but it was an honorable thing and that it was something Worf would totally do.

In the intervening days, I've been studying the Catechism and the word "honor" has appeared a lot in it of late. As Catholics, we're called to honor God. We're called to honor Mary and the Holy Family. We're called to honor Christ and to honor our parents. We're called to honor our husbands and wives (depending on which you have). We're called, in some respects, to honor our neighbors.

That's a lot of honor. But, all added up, I find myself comparing "being honorable" to something else: "being a nice guy."

As everyone knows, "being a nice guy" is a death knell. Whatever follows that phrase is almost always not something you want to hear. Is "being honorable" actually "being a nice guy?" Being "honorable" isn't exactly a popular thing. Honor, as defined in the Catechism, is "to praise or show respect and courtesy for someone."

It's tough for me to come to the conclusion that that's happening a lot in this day and age, especially in the realm of dating/marriage. I work in retail, so I see plenty of couples go through the store, and there just doesn't seem to be a lot of that going around. Are the couples nice enough? Usually. But it's the little actions that get me -- whether it's the guy sneaking a look at another attractive girl nearby or the girl ignoring the guy for something on her phone, it just doesn't seem like "honor" is in great supply or demand.

Yet, everything I read tells me that "honor" is desired in multiple facets of our lives, including (but not limited to) dating. But I have to ask, is it really desired at all? It seems like it's an optional requirement.

I mean, if the people who aren't "honorable" are getting all these things they want, what's the point, right? You can just act like a jerk and you get what you want. No need for pretense or trying to be a better person, you just do as you do and stuff happens to you that's good.

Again, if "being honorable" is in the same category as "being the nice guy" than shouldn't we just avoid that all together? "Being the nice guy" is not a great thing to be in the world. You don't get much credit and you get taken advantage of sometimes.

It seems like "being honorable" will only result in being hurt.

But, there's Worf. Worf was an honorable dude; he was honorable to the core. His honor resulted in many great successes and -- sadly -- many great tragedies. He lost not only one woman he loved, but two. He had a strained relationship with his people (the Klingons) and his son. He was a man of strict moral code whom, when it came down to it, defaulted to that code, even though it resulted in at least one significant career setback.

Worf had a tough go of it. His honor required something else that "being the nice guy" doesn't: it required sacrifice.

And here is where Star Trek and Catholicism cross paths. Worf was honorable to a fault and he sacrificed a lot for that honor. As Catholics, we are also called to sacrifice for those we honor -- whether it is God, our parents, or our spouses. Sacrifice is part of the requirements for this way of life. Sacrifice is the defining characteristic in all things that are great.

You can't achieve greatness without sacrifice -- it's a historical fact.

It's no secret what I want in life. It's sprayed across this blog and other corners of the Internet: I want a wife, a family (if it's in God's plan), I want to build something. And you know what? That requires sacrifice. It's going to require me to sacrifice time, money, effort, and only God knows what else. But it'll require sacrifice.

Which is why "being honorable" isn't "being a nice guy." Being nice doesn't require sacrifice -- it requires human decency and the ability not to be a jerk, but it doesn't require sacrifice (maybe sacrificing your more primal human tendencies, but that's debatable).

So, that said, does being honorable have a point? I will say it does. Being honorable is something that is above us. It's beyond us in a lot of respects because to be honorable we have to be able to sacrifice, we have to be selfless, and we have to be willing to suffer. As Catholics, we are called to do that.

And, though technically I am the unofficial-official-converting-Catholic, I'm called to do that. Being honorable teaches us how to think, just a little, like God. It's a tiny sliver into his thought process, but it's a very important sliver. The point of being honorable is to teach us how to treat those we love in life -- like those we are dating or those we are married to.

It's a point that's being missed a lot, I think. It's tough to learn. It's tough to do. It's tough to hold yourself accountable to. But is it worth it? I would say it is, just based on limited observation. Even though there are certainly days where I wish I could suspend my own moral code and just reap the rewards everyone else seems to reap, I know that there are better things.

Those so-called rewards that everyone else is reaping aren't really rewards -- they're teases, tastes of things that those people will never be able to fully enjoy (I think).

Honor is required to fully enjoy them and, though it's certainly easy to confuse "being honorable" with "being a nice guy", don't: the two are different things. Honor is worth it, I think. At the end of the day, at the very least, it'll keep your soul in good shape and that's probably the most important benefit of honor there is.

Thanks for reading, folks. God Bless.