In Pursuit - The Survey Says

It's true. I'm a long-term, unintended single. Possibly the bane of the Catholic Church!

Okay, that may seem a bit harsh. But it's also true that the Church has been and is yet, unprepared to handle the numbers of adult singles and our unique struggles living faithfully, counter to the culture.

One area working to address the problem, are the Catholic-focused online dating sites. They serve as a gathering place for like-minded Catholics who place priority on their faith life in any potential love match. Reasoning that we won't have to wade through the secular crowd, explaining why we're not game for sex on the third date! (we hope).

There's a delicate balance in caring for the needs of the Catholic Single. Where both the Church ministry and Catholic Dating websites flounder, is understanding the difference between young singles and long-term, older singles.
I've been both. I think I can help.

After a lengthy break from online dating, I recently started a membership with Catholic Match. Prior to joining, I did have a profile up for a few months, getting ready for a release date!
Until I had membership privileges, I was not eligible to take the survey used to formulate matches.

Image Source: greatwithtalent.me

The survey asks a series of questions which are meant to evaluate the member's backgrounds for compatibility. I recall similar evaluations on other comprehensive online dating services.

The survey questions focus pretty narrowly on one's family life growing up. I can't recall the questions exactly, but they were along the lines of family dynamics. How frequently did you go to church as a family? How did your family discuss issues, solve conflict. Offering multiple choice options like A) Calm discussion, B) Heated discussions, yelling. Additional questions hone in on influential relationships from our formative years, which may or may not be relevant in adulthood.

I answered the questions with a vague sense of futility. I don't think I quite caught it at the time, but when I considered it later, I realized that these family dynamic concerns make sense for people in their early 20s, but they're not so relevant for singles older than say, 35.
A marriage-minded couple in their 20s is still quite influenced by their childhood household, as they are just coming out of it, as they venture out on their own. Learning how to navigate life with the tools and resources from their family life. The basis of their family life will, indeed, be the foundation of their new family.

For singles over 40, well, we've been on our own for 20 years. We've established our own traditions, and learned how to work around some of the habits we learned from our family. We've made relationship mistakes and hopefully learned from them, growing in the process.

If we've raised children, that experience is likely more pertinent to a new relationship than how we were raised.

Also, by 40 some of the most influential people in our lives have died. Possibly gone for 15 or 20 years already. The family relationships connected to the people we lost change dramatically after a death as well.

Let me say this; answering those survey questions, I couldn't even remember how family conflicts were handled in my childhood home, with my nuclear family. After all, that was 20 years ago!

In the past two decades I've learned different strategies. Some of the same strategies and lessons that might have happened within a marriage, we also learn from life alone. It's part of maturity, growth, and life. Even if you didn't have a spouse with whom to negotiate changes, learn from and grow.

All of that to say, that the creators of Catholic Match (and other serious dating sites) aren't taking into consideration the dynamics of the people who need them the most.

What good is the matching system if we're answering irrelevant questions?

image source: gizmodo.com

So maybe I match with a man whose parents always gave rational explanations of their discipline. In reality, we may not be able to have children together. How does that factor into a potential relationship?

I'd like to suggest a variety of questions based on age range. Maybe questions that ask how we've handled conflicts with roommates or neighbors. How we've dealt with losing friends to marriage or moving. How we anticipate adapting to life with partner after living alone for a lifetime.

What would you suggest? What questions do you think would be more suitable for matching couples in your age range?
I love to see your suggestions in the comments.

In Pursuit of Something Special

At some point, we all reach our fill of dating. Quickly followed by our fill of not dating.
Then maybe we get a subscription to an online dating site - again.

Hey, it just happened to me.

It sure seems like it should be simple, but there's so many opinions out there about online dating. Do this. Don't do that. They suggest women should let the man pursue, but is anyone telling men how to pursue?

Adding to the confusion and consternation, is that dating sites set up their rules of engagement for a single, expected experience, but it's likely each participant has a different strategy. Do you respond to everyone who contacts you? Is it kinder to email back a "Not Interested" or to simply not respond? Is one more hurtful than the other? When someone piques your interest, should you play hard to get? Can you type too much? Is aloof alluring?

For purposes of discussion, I'll use Catholic Match as the example. I mean, if you're going to search for a needle, you'll have better luck in a pin cushion than in a haystack, right?

Based on past experience, the most serious dating sites function in mostly the same way.
Here's the basic layout of features and ... uh... bugs:

• There's a way to see who has viewed your profile and when.
• Which means, if you return to a profile to learn more about someone, they can see it.
• You get matches, and in CM's case, you can mark whether you're interested, not interested, or undecided.
• From what I can tell, we don't get to see the rejection, or the acceptance. Only whether they've viewed our profile.
• You can utilize email or chat functions for communication.
• Email doesn't seem to reveal to the other participant whether or when you've read their email.
• When you're logged onto the service, other users can see a green notice that you are indeed online.
• Awkward.

So each dater has the same features, but may differ how they intend to use them.

Allow me to share an unfortunate example: The chat feature is not my preferred way to communicate, so I was pleased to learn that you can click "unavailable for chat". On the downside, the website doesn't seem to remember that preference from log in to log in. Already, this has caused a problem.

While I was logged on, and composing an email response to one suitor, I received a notification from another suitor I had been communicating with, requesting a chat. Of course, I didn't want to divide my attention, so I dismissed the chat and switched off my availability as not to be disturbed again.

When I checked my messages later, I learned the suitor was quite upset, accusatory and he dismissed me outright, quite rudely.

Clearly, different expectations, or simple online habits may interfere with the ability to connect. Just as the lack of vocal inflection, facial cues and context have plagued internet users for years.

It would be impossible to make universal guidelines for how to interact online. Perhaps that's part of finding the right mate, someone who shares or at least understands your approach is more likely to be a match.

Even so, with matching tactics and the best of intentions, negotiations may still stall. We need to know how to nudge gracefully, don't we?

That's when I turn to one of my favorite single's bloggers who offers advice on this very subject. Cindy from Veil of Chastity has been in my shoes. She met her husband, later in life, on a dating website. She has such a beautiful, calm demeanor, and advocates for women to be ever-gracious and sweetly demure. If that doesn't sound like you, don't run off just yet. Cindy wants you to be yourself, even if yourself is silly, blunt or jaded. Well, maybe not jaded. Just always add graciousness to your formula.

Suffice to say, I went searching for Cindy's specific online dating advice.  She has a real gift for ministering to singles, (I presume of any age, but I know she relates to my long-term, unintended single status).

Along with visiting the Veil, I asked a couple who is very dear to me, and who demonstrate wholesome, Godly values in their marriage, to look at my profile and offer suggestions.
Between Cindy and my friends, much of the advice was the same. They told me to take out some specifics about what I want in my ideal man. Not because it's irrelevant, but because perhaps the way I word something might leave a potential suitor wondering if he's that guy. Maybe he is, but based on my words, he might determine he is not, and I would lose out.

I also want to stress, that you know who you are. Remember that, when others give suggestions, and don't erase your personality. I think it's best to use such advice as a guideline, and perhaps reconsider how tightly you're clinging to certain ideas.

More on that in an upcoming post.
Just be sure to on-line date as thoughtfully as you would in real life. Everyone is in a different stage in their lives, so compassion is essential.

If you need a second opinion, there are people to help. Cindy, of course, and I'm willing too!

Good luck out there.

Check back next week for another post on this subject, looking deeper into dating later in life.

What? Me Worry?

What, me worry?

As a teenager, I was always annoyed when my mom would talk about how worried she was when any of us kids were out doing something fun or adventurous.  What point is there in worrying? I thought. Worry accomplishes nothing. Worry won't prevent an accident. Worry won't change the course of events.

That's easy for a kid to say, isn't it?

There is much in life that we can't control and worry makes us feel, at least, that we can put handles on our fear and maybe steer it a bit.
That's a feeling we much desire when we hear about natural disasters like wildfires, earthquakes, flooding or hurricanes.  We know enough about what can go wrong that it's only natural to worry.

When one such disaster hit her home state, after having moved cross country, my friend Kristin learned that her dear friend's parents were stranded in the midst of it. Evacuation was impossible because the only road out was demolished by the elements. Conditions for survival were not favorable. The first report she received was that they didn't have cell phone service, internet or land-line connections, and had not been in contact with anyone for a full 24 hours, which turned into 48 hours.

After two days passed without contact, concern grew. It was likely the home was wiped out. Would the elderly couple have had a chance to find a safe place to go?

Everyone who knew them, hit their knees in prayer.

My friend, explaining the situation to her husband, grew frustrated when he commented, "Don't worry. They'll be fine. I'm sure they are safe and just can't call out to let anyone know."

While it was a definite possibility that everything was fine, the worst was also possible.
She shared with me that she didn't like having her worries dismissed. It seemed to her, even more careless not to worry about their safety and the effect on the rest of the family.

I told her there is a difference between worry, which is pointless - and being concerned to the point that one is driven to prayer. I'll admit, I surprised even myself with that one! (Clearly, the Holy Spirit used my mouth!)

Prayer is what works. Prayer is what changes lives. Prayer is what allows the heart to relax when it just feels too much. Prayer brings us closer to God.

Our lazy language resorts to naming that frustrated feeling "worry".
Is "concern" a better word? Or is it seeking comfort from God?

Why is worry useless? Worry is a kind of fear that separates us from God. If we trust in God there is no need to worry. Worry is an insult to God. Prayer is always appropriate.

Oh, and there is a happy ending to the story. The couple were, in fact, alive and well. The situation wasn't always safe, far from it, but they were okay and rescued days later.

Certainly, an answer to prayer.

I Watched Don Jon So You Don't Have To

When I first saw previews for Don Jon - a movie somewhat about p*rn addiction, written and directed by Joseph Gordon Levitt, I felt compelled to see it. One, because I thought it would address the real problems of p*rn in our culture. Also because Levitt is an actor I admire for what seems like a genuine persona. I had hoped he had good intentions in the concept of the film, in part to get society to think about the devastating impact of p*rn.

The trailers for the film bring up one argument, the suggestion that romantic comedies are perhaps as damaging to the female psyche, and relationship expectations as p*rn is to men.
That is what caught my attention. That the movie might address strong impediments to male-female relationships in this day and age.

My friend and I made tentative plans to see it, and in the meantime, I saw that Sister Helena Burns wrote about it on her movie review blog HellBurns.blogspot.com. I was eager to see what a Theology of the Body, and media scholar would say about it (and curious as to whether said Sister would see such a film).

Her clarification from her blog post:

The more I read about the film, the more I realized I could NOT go see it (and not because I'm a nun, but because I'm a human being). A simulated porn montage is featured along with “strong graphic sexual material and dialogue throughout, nudity.” Porn is simulated sex and this film contains simulated porn. These are definitely postmodern times. Therefore, this “review” of “Don Jon” will be my second “historic” review, i.e., the second time I have “reviewed” a movie without watching it.

That made me realize, that I too, could not unsee such images.
As a single woman, teetering on middle age, it's enough effort to not focus on all the s*x I'm not having in my life - no point leading myself into temptation. I shared that concern with my friend, who agreed she also didn't want see images she would want to unsee - so we passed on that film when it came out.

But behold, it popped up on my Netfix feed months later, making me reconsider. Admittedly by now, I was distanced from Sister. Helena's warning.
I prayed about it, and determined that the combination of own media background and years of exposure, and my jaded nature as both an old maid and an old journalist, that I might be objectively immune to the images. If I found I was not so immune, I would abandon the film.

So I'll tell you what you missed and didn't miss. Yes, I may spoil the story - since I'm saving you from seeing it yourself!

There are lots of graphic images, which go by quickly and not for too long - almost entirely of women. The images are shocking mainly because they are so contrived as p*rn. One can't help but think that such relations within the covenant of marriage, a respectful Catholic marriage, wouldn't be so contrived and ridiculous.
They were not arousing or offensive to me, partly because they were so stupid and partly because it causes a woman to compare her looks to those "actresses".  (That's a major turn off!)

What was offensive was the portrayal of Jon's weekly confession. Over and over he admits his sins to the priest who orders three Hail Mary's as penance.
I hated that it might give the impression to non-Catholics, that confession is actually that mindless. That confession might be seen as motivation to continue sinning, instead of it's real, redemptive qualities.
I hated that the priest in the movie never called Jon out on his lack of contrition - that he's not the least bit sorry for his sins which are treated as a habit. He's not trying to reform, and in his mind and culture, its a justifiable habit.

What I did appreciate about the movie was the real admission that men, addicted to p*rn, do prefer it to actual intercourse, which is the most disturbing truth.
Gentlemen, that should be your first clue that it's wrong and harmful to your soul as well as to your body.

As the Don Jon character says, with p*rn, he completely loses himself. With a woman, it was somehow never good enough. Not enough to lose himself.
The viewer can surmise, it's because he treats sex with various women, and even his steady girlfriend, as a wham bam - heated, yet impersonal experience. In that manner, it's just a bodily function, which is completely disturbing.

He meets an older woman, played by Julianne Moore. When she catches him watching p*rn on his cell phone, she calls him out on his addiction. She learns he prefers p*rn to intercourse, and challenges him further.  Moore's character, a widow, explains to him, specifically, that's part of the problem. You're supposed to lose yourself in another person. Not in yourself.

Don Jon tallies his porn free days, and reports back to the confessional. When the priest again prescribes penance, he's shocked. Doesn't he get points for his "sacrifice"?!

Eventually, he learns (from Moore's character) how to "make love". How to lose one's self in the one you care about. This is still off the mark from the true purpose of intimacy. Within the bonds of matrimony, intercourse is not a device to get lost in, but to honor your spouse. Yes, we're allowed, nay, expected to enjoy it. But losing oneself is not the objective, unless in reference to complete giving.

But these scenes, I'll admit, not so surprisingly, were a bit arousing. Perhaps I put my chastity at risk by watching the film, but by doing so, I can confirm it's further proof that graphic, mad, crazy images aren't what sex is about. Knowing that the intimate scenes are a truer expression of what sex should be - I guess I felt validated that p*rn doesn't cut it for me.

It's really not meant for human consumption. It damages relationships. It breaks what binds a couple together. So do, I believe, cheesy romance novels or worse, which also set women up to be disappointed in reality, to be disappointed in men who don't have writers. (Sorry folks!)

In all, it was a well-produced film with a compelling story. While I don't recommend it to a wholesome person trying to live chastely, I can see where it may be a starting point for those people who already indulge in p*rn. Perhaps it can start conversations, between friends, or spouses. It may spark inspiration that they too, can give up this damaging vice, and find their way back to meaningful relationships. If so, the effort may be worth it. Sometimes, someone has to speak the language that the deaf can understand.

Quiet Light - Yet Quite Like Me?

On the feast day of the Annunciation, I want to share a new reflection on Mary our Mother.

Annunciation at the Cathedral Basilica
of the Immaculate Conception

Is it enough that Mary is the Mother of God, mother of all of us on earth, the Queen of Heaven, and the Crowning Glory of Creation?
She is magnificent and holy, yes. But I believe there is more. I am about to tell you something about Mary that may open your heart to hers in a real, personal way.

We Catholics focus on Mary mainly as Jesus' mother. Some are far too focused on her perpetual virginity. Understandable, because that is quite counter-cultural to society today. But we can also consider her kinship to the single, and the alone.

Really.
Bear with me. It's going to take some time to get there!

First, let us look at the reason for the Immaculate Conception. Very many people are confused by this, and believe that the Immaculate Conception refers to the manner in which Jesus was conceived. It does not.

Rather, the Immaculate Conception is in reference to Mary being conceived and born into the world free from the stain of original sin. (Unlike the rest of us sad mortals) She is the only one, besides Jesus, to be completely free from sin.
Mary's soul was and is Immaculate. Spotless. Pure.
It had to be so in order for Jesus to be born of her womb. Her virginity (forgive me for saying so) was not what made her so special. Instead, it was that she was a vessel so pure that not even a little bit of evil could dwell there. Light and darkness cannot co-exist. What other vessel could be fit for God Made Flesh?

A little more background comes from Isaiah 7:14
When the Jewish people were promised a messiah they were told that the messiah would be born of a virgin. Over time, it became very important to society to ensure that there were enough virgins available to fulfill this prophecy. Families would then send their young daughters, as they approached adolescence, to the temple to be sure they would be protected, trained up, and preserve their virginity.  


This was not as dire as it would seem in today's age. (Oh no, in today's American culture, lawmakers want to be sure that 11-year-old girls have access to the Morning After Pill even without consent from their parents because it is expected that every girl be available for sex. Oh how far we have come! Shudder at the thought.) To become the mother of the king, the messiah, would be an ultimate reward for the sacrifice - though it was surely not considered a great sacrifice in that day.

Swinging back on topic - it was not uncommon for girls to be consecrated to the temple for this purpose.

Let us remember that Mary was born to Anna and Joachim - who by that time were quite old. (Like Sarah and Abraham, they spent much of their life without children and certainly didn't expect children at such an impossible age.) 
Therefore, Mary had no siblings, and her parents knew it was best to dedicate her to the temple where she would be raised after their death. It is likely that both of Mary's parents had died by the time she was about seven years old.

Then when she came of age, Mary was betrothed to Joseph, visited by the angel Gabriel, and agreed in her fiat, to become the Mother of God Made Flesh.

Joseph too, was an old man, likely over age thirty - possibly mid-30s by the time Jesus was born. He too, had intended to vow his virginity for the glory of God, so that helps explain the question of Mary's perpetual virginity in case that was bothering you. (It's an obstacle for many.) This arrangement allowed them to be servants to God and serve each other and the world in a remarkable way.

It is believed that Joseph died by about the time Jesus reached age twenty - that would put him in his mid-50s which is quite old for that time period - and would leave Mary widowed by her early 30s.

Then, upon Jesus' crucifixion, He spoke to His mother and His beloved friend John, "Son, behold your mother. Mother behold your son." 
This was an instruction that John should care for Mary, as it was necessary in those days for a woman to belong to a family of some type, lest she become destitute and uncared for.

Now, let's look back at the timeline of Mary's life.
Orphaned in her youth.
Married at age 12 to 14.
Widowed by age 34.
Then her only begotten son was out, traipsing around, preaching and teaching his disciples - where was Mary? Who took care of her and who did she hang out with? 
Her son crucified as she reached age 45 or 50.
Depending how long she lived - Mary was likely alone, without family, for much of her life.

Mary spent much of her life alone.
What does that mean to today's single adults?

For me, it is profound.
It's easy to think that someone so full of Grace, blessed with a devoted husband and let's face it - a perfect child - has nothing in common with me!
Of course knowing that she saw her son suffer a horrific, cruel and unspeakable death, we all have sympathy for her. We know her heart was deeply pierced, and that she can relate to and understand our puny little earthly sufferings.

But to think that she also understands what it is to be alone - that for me, personally, is a game-changer. Mary does understand the suffering of the single.

That is a comfort for me. I hope it may be comfort for you or someone you love. Because, I'll be honest, the whole, "Jesus was single." attempt at consolation is not much comfort at all!

It is Still Not Good for Man to be Alone! (part three)

As much as I'd like to think that everyone is wondering how to serve single adults within the church, I know that they're not. 

The overwhelming response is generally, "This is something the singles need to do for themselves." 

Which is extra funny when you consider, they're single. If they were good at convincing people to do things with them, they would have convinced someone to marry them. 

But I digress.

How can the Church serve singles? 

Let’s start with married women. 

Please stop blogging about how hard it is to have and raise kids. You’re scaring men and women away from parenthood. 

Many women have the grace to know that childbirth and parenting is painful and scary, yet they’re willing to do it anyway. But when men hear that their lives will be forever changed into something terrible, with everyday sacrifices and no more money – well you don’t have to do any more convincing. Thanks for making single men afraid of marriage and family. That helped. (sarcasm)

Parents: 

Please stop telling teenagers that their lives will be over if they get pregnant too young. That’s a good way to convince them to end their unborn child’s life as alternative to “ruining” their own. 

At what point do you expect them to change their minds and think babies won’t ruin their lives? 

Yeah, I’m not the only one stuck dating grown men who still think babies are the worst thing that could happen.

Priests: 

Include examples of the single life in your homilies. Make a your parish a welcome place for the lonely. Really, really think about why there are no single men in attendance at Mass, and encourage the few that are, to linger after Mass rather than dashing out the side door. This may mean approaching and talking to them.

Include intercessory prayers for those singles who are called to marriage, but suffer for years in the waiting. 

Also, work on a response other than nervous laughter when an adult suffering from prolonged singleness cries out in loneliness. 

Couples: 

When a Nice Catholic Girl (or middle-aged woman as the case may be) asks if the marriage-minded two of you have a single brother or friend or co-worker, and you respond with, “Not one that I would set you up with.” consider it your duty to bring that bloke back to church, so that he will one day be a suitable partner. Come on. Do your part here! 

This "I got mine." attitude among marrieds isn't helping anyone. Your marriage should be a witness to others. If you socialize with people who see your Godly marriage, and they continue to live a life unworthy of a Nice Catholic Boy or Girl or Man or Woman... then just how strong is your witness?

Oh and be careful of the company you keep.

Singleness is not contagious. Divorce is.

I've seen it happen, at least one part of a faithful Catholic couple starts spending time with a newly divorced friend, trying to be supportive - and before long their own marriage is falling apart. 

Please stop being afraid of single people. You are afraid right? That’s why you don’t talk to us. Or extend us the sign of peace during Mass. Or invite us over for dinner. Or out for Sunday brunch with your sweet, sticky little kids? 

We could be incorporated into your family, since we live so far from our own. We’d be a great example of holy, chaste living for your kids – who, if the Church continues as it is going – will likely be unable to find spouses either.

It is Not Good for Man to be Alone (part two)

The first thing God saw, and identified as "not good" was the human He created, alone. 

If that's first thing that really concerned the creator, shouldn't it matter more to the Church? 

As it stands, if a long-time, unintended single expresses their pain and burden of being alone to a representative of the Church, they are met with either uncomfortable laughter, or stoney silence. 

The Church is woefully unprepared for the effects of the sexual revolution on the faithful. The latest data indicates, that for the first time in history, single adults nearly outnumber married adults, yet the Church continues to serve the married, with families, nearly exclusively. Isn't it time we acknowledge the single elephant in the room? 

Two years ago, on Valentine's Day, Catholic writer, Simcha Fisher got a taste of the fury of the slighted single when she dared to grumble about the overwrought holiday in her column in the National Catholic Register online.

The unveiled response from singles: ”You’re married. You don’t get to complain about Valentine’s Day.”  This either amused or irked Mrs. Fischer, so in response in a subsequent column, she asked what it is that singles need from the church.

Whoo boy. Then it blew up. There were hundreds of responses from single Catholics, explaining their marginalized status in the Church and in society.

There, in one place, were tons of suggestions, reasons and ways for the Church to reach out to single adults. (Let’s be clear, we’re not talking about singles in terms of twenty-something’s. We’re talking prolonged singleness for which there seems to be no cure. Other than a call for all the divorcees to get annulments and a heart transplant.)  If one or two churches in every diocese would have implemented just one idea, the plight of Adult Catholic Singles might have eased, just a bit.

The singles flooded the comments with descriptions of the agony of their single life, the loneliness and isolation. The lack of accountability, as daily, they return to an empty house, where it would be nice to just have someone to bounce their thoughts back and forth. 

Sadly, among the wealth of suggestions from those experiencing prolonged singleness, were glib - nay ignorant - condolences from the smug marrieds;

Um, Sebastian honey, we’re over 40, the only impending diapers are our own and most of us already have a mortgage, thankyouverymuch.  World Youth Day? Can 35+ year-olds go to World Youth Day? Wouldn't we be arrested for being creepy predators?!  Oh and don’t forget. Yay! I get to go to the dentist!

Soon? Many singles have been anticipating "soon" for more than 20 years. Every year or two, one thinks, "This is it! God can't hold out much longer. I'm sure I'll meet someone soon and my waiting will be over." Rinse and repeat. Suddenly you're over 40 and invisible to the world.
Soon may never come.

All of this, makes it clear that the Church does not see the adult singles. In the minds of Church-going Catholics, all single people are in their 20s!
  

Insert flashing arrow pointing to obvious problem right here.

Worse yet, the smug marrieds who think all adult singles are perverted, lazy slobs:

Wait a minute, after we're all done being gravely insulted, we need to finish laughing at the absurdity of this comment! 

No distractions yet?!  Har har. If we're not counting the ticking biological clock, does a mortgage, or burying one's parents, or sitting all by yourself in an emergency room count? 

So, what has happened since Simcha’s figurative olive branch? Well, the National Catholic Register promised a single’s column – of which I’ve seen two (2) offerings. One by Emily Stimpson and another by some guy who never managed to complete his thought.  (Although, I was recently at a friend’s house – married of course – who showed me a column by Emily that was really quite good… so maybe the NCR has been publishing these columns in the hard copy, leaving the easily accessible online version to play cricket reruns…  ignoring the fact that the single’s scene is online – but I’m glad my one married friend and someone’s grandma got to see it.)

Where was I? Oh yes, what happened after Simcha extended an olive branch to Adult Catholic Singles? After the roar died down? Pretty much nothing. At least on the NCR, there's not been another word about it. 

All the smug marrieds went back to their Creighton charts, the mommy bloggers went back to writing about the tribulations of mothering. The Catholic husbands who insist that their single brother or nephew or cousin isn’t suitable for a relationship with a Nice Catholic Girl, went back to being okay with that.

It’s time to stir things up. How can you help?

(I'll share thoughts on that in my next post, but I'd love to read yours in the comments.) 

 Read part one of this series here.