The Way

I liked the film, The Way. It illustrated what life is like outside of one's "little world"; this journey was mostly without mainstream technology or amenities, but instead required the pilgrims to literally carry everything they needed on their back. I learned that life really is a journey- it's about the destination, the journey itself, and the people you meet along the way. The movie's general concept and storyline was inspiring; the relationship between a parent and child is still so strong even after one of them is gone. The idea of a pilgrimage is usually associated with a religious journey, but in the movie it was seen that this type of journey could be taken for other reasons as well. Therefore, I agreed with the concept that a pilgrimage can be taken for many different purposes and is meaningful in different ways to different people. Some of the characters purpose for their journey changed throughout the pilgrimage. Tom started walking the Camino alone and unsure of the purpose behind it. As he continued on, he realized that the purpose was to do it for Daniel, his son, and see what Daniel had meant by him saying he wanted to live and experience the world instead of just learning about it. Tom also became more open to talking about his life and his son as he continued on in the pilgrimage. Sara, another pilgrim, said that she was walking the Camino because she wanted to quit smoking. As her journey continues, it becomes apparent that her purpose for the journey is to reflect on her life and forgive herself for choices she made in the past. The Way truly revolved around relationships- the ones between families, between strangers, and with oneself. Maybe one would go into this pilgrimage thinking that being alone is the best thing for one because one wanted to get away from one's current life; after beginning the journey, though, one could eventually realize that having others to share the experience is part of that experience. Finally, if life's journey is anything like traveling along el Camino, there is sure to be much more out there in the world to experience.

Mixed Messages?

The Church sends positive messages to young women by trying to enforce the teaching that all people are equal- that women are equal to men. In relationships, the teaching that one needs to respect one's partner helps to solidify equality among genders. Healthy relationships require one, especially a woman, to take care of oneself, respect oneself, and truly know that one's life is valuable. Also, the Church should try to send positive messages to young women by helping them to understand the traditions of the faith and allow them to ask questions regarding issues that they're faced with in today's society. Gender complementarity means that men and women complement each other both physically and in personality; one balances out the other and they "become a unit together." But this idea can also serve as a negative message that women are supposed to be one way and men are supposed to be another way. Emily Reimer-Barry thinks that we need more feminist husbands, or men who "recognize their wives as equals, more men who are excited by the idea of mutual give-and-take in relationships relationships and mutual responsibility for work inside and outside the home." These men would send a positive message by way of the Church enforcing equality between the sexes, making it so that wives and husbands share traits, not enforcing stereotypes or adding additional pressure to the partners in the marriage.
There are examples of ways I have been taught, in a Catholic school environment, about what it means to be a woman. One of these ways is constantly being told that women are just as capable, if not more so, as men to do anything in life. If a woman sets her mind to a task or goal, she can achieve great things in life. Essentially, being a woman doesn't hinder you in any way if you don't let it, but does come with some extra responsibility, per say. I have been taught that the "hope of the harvest is in the seed," meaning that educated young women, and men, are going to eventually deal with the fate of the world, deciding the future of society. Also, being a woman may cause one to have struggles and road blocks that men don't have, but it only makes a woman stronger and more determined to overcome future hindrances.
I don't think I have personally received any, but there are some possible negative or 'mixed' messages that can be received. One is the idea of constantly giving to the Church and/or others. If one is constantly told to give, despite the cost on the individual, one could eventually just become a "doormat" for others, which is obviously not a good thing. The idea of giving, especially in a relationship, can lead to physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner; worldwide, 30% of all women who have been in a relationship have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner. One would hope that the Church isn't trying to set women up for forming "patterns of accepting abuse." Unlike Jesus, women shouldn't have to suffer through a situation because that's what the savior did. Another 'mixed' message concerns feminists; women who identify themselves as so are looking out for women and trying to bring to the forefront women's concerns and issues. However, feminists aren't usually cited or consulted with on issues concerning women, especially within Church discussions. Women are also not in any positions of leadership or decision making in the Church, and therefore young women who look to the Church only have male figures to turn to for guidance.

Worldwide, 30 percent of all women who have been in a relationship have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by their intimate partner. - See more at: http://www.uscatholic.org/articles/201405/mixed-messages-what-do-women-hear-church-28862#sthash.1tFxVYtR.dpuf

Worldwide, 30 percent of all women who have been in a relationship have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by their intimate partner. - See more at: http://www.uscatholic.org/articles/201405/mixed-messages-what-do-women-hear-church-28862#sthash.1tFxVYtR.dpuf

Abortion

In Bryan Cones' article on US Catholic he questions how the Catholic Church must respond to the rates of abortion in developing countries. He refers to the following statistics from a World Health Organization study: rates of "unsafe" abortions in Africa is 97%, in Latin America is 95%, in Asia is 40%, and in Oceania is 14%. He also says, referring to the 2008 numbers, that 86% of abortions occurred in the developing world, while in the developed world the numbers dropped from 36% to 26%. Yes, one of the differences between developed and developing countries is access to modern contraception, but I don't believe that this fact is the main reason for "unsafe" abortions. Rather, it is believable that the rate of "unsafe" abortions would be higher in places that do not necessarily have access to the highest medical advancements or necessities for abortions. In the US, women have abortions for different reasons, some of which may be the same as women in other countries. Some of these reasons are as follows: women are not financially or emotionally able to support a child, a child is a result of sexual assault, women simply don't want any children, or the child will have some kind of defect or disease, etc. Abortions are legal in the US, so therefore they are usually safer; sometimes, if done in the third trimester or done in an unsanitary or unsafe way, abortions can cause severe complications or death. Abortions can be direct or indirect, but indirect ones are the only ones seen as acceptable in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Women in US, if trying to prevent pregnancy, will either use a form contraception or use Natural Family Planning (NFP).

The author of the article only gives one alternative to decrease the abortion rate of women in developing countries, which is giving them access to modern methods of contraception. This may be a way to decrease the rate of abortions, but there are other ways as well. Another potential solution to solve this problem would be to educate women in developing countries about pregnancy in general. Education on how their body works and ways in which they can naturally avoid pregnancy, such as NFP, would give women a chance to understand that there are other ways besides abortion. Also, information could be given to women about adoption and alternative ways to give up a baby, instead of aborting the baby. Lastly, developing countries could try to provide an environment where women can feel like they have a choice in matters of importance, so they don't feel trapped or pressured. Overall, there are ways in which developing countries can decrease the abortion rate.

IVF

There are both pros and cons of in vitro fertilization, or IVF as it is commonly known. The main pro of IVF includes allowing a couple that cannot conceive naturally to still have a child that is theirs. According to the article, "every year in the United States, one out of every 100 babies is born with the help of IVF." Couples who want to bring new life into the world are able to do so if they have the resources to do so. Also, IVF has shown the advancement and progress in technology and treatment regarding infertility issues. One of the main cons of IVF is that the Church doesn't support it in its teachings. The Church believes that procreation should occur just between husband and wife, no third party allowed. This causes some tension between very religious couples who really want children, but cannot have them without help. Another con of IVF is that it's not 100% guaranteed to work for any given couple. It could also result in medical problems if done incorrectly, etc. A controversial con is that it could cause selective procreation because one has choices in the IVF process that could lead to selective abortions, etc.

The Church's teaching about IVF partially influences my opinion, but doesn't completely determine it. Because the Church believes how children should be conceived, as mentioned above, it would be seen as a sin. Also, because the Church "states that human life begins at the moment of conception," any of the unused eggs in IVF could be destroyed and that would be seen an unnecessary ending of human lives. With this information, my opinion of IVF would be poor, but it isn't all about the Church and its teachings. I believe that IVF is an option for couples who believe that having children is meant to be part of their lives. There are other ways for people to have children, but only those in the situation can make that decision. The financial cost of IVF doesn't greatly affect my opinion on the morality of the practice. If a family has the financial means to use IVF with genuine and good goals, they should be able to give it a shot. It is only if people are using the procedure for inhumane or unmoral reasons that shouldn't use it. Human life is most precious in the eyes of God, so why should there be a restriction on how that human life comes to be?

He's Just Not That Into You.

The movie He's Just Not That Into You follows several people and their relationships, with all the characters somehow being intertwined. Gigi, one of the characters, opens the movie with a monologue about how little girls are told that when a boy makes fun of a her or treats her poorly it's because he likes her. I'm sure I was told that at one point when I was younger. Then she goes on to say that many girls actually continue to believe that statement through their adulthood and that's where the problem starts. Gigi is one of the girls who struggles with this idea. Throughout the movie she goes on dates with men or meets men some place and then obsesses over every detail about the encounter, wondering if the guy really liked her. In the beginning, she has a date with a guy her friend sets her up with, Connor, and then constantly waits by the phone for him to call and eventually calls him a couple times because she hasn't heard from him yet. Gigi has certain ideas about dating; these ideas include that dating will lead to her finding the guy of her dreams and getting her happily ever after. Like we discussed in class, there are many different views on the purpose of dating. Gigi happens to have a more positive view of dating because she believes it will lead to an eventual great relationship. When she meets Alex, a bartender who also happens to be Connor's roommate, he gives her a lot to think about. He says if a guy wants to talk to you or be with you, he'll make it happen; she's the rule, not the exception. He also tells her that if she thinks that a guy doesn't seem to care, its highly likely that he genuinely doesn't care and she should move on to the next one. As Gigi's relationship with Alex develops, she see "signs" that make her think he likes her and then acts on her feelings, but gets rejected. At the end, Alex realizes that he actually did like Gigi and acts on his own information and makes it happen. Alex was too busy experiencing what's now called the hookup culture to recognize his feelings for Gigi. As we discussed in class, the hookup culture can be some people's idea of fun, but it can also hinder one from developing meaningful relationships. I feel that Gigi and Alex's type of relationship happens more in today's modern society because people tend to be friends first and a relationship comes later. In addition, I know people who think that if boys pick on them that it's because they like them; although this may be so every once in awhile, it's not reality. Also, the information that Alex gave Gigi is practical in most cases today. Why should a girl chase after a guy that doesn't want to give her the time of day?

He's Just Not That Into You also contains a storyline about Neil and Beth, a couple who has been together for seven years, but are not married. Neil doesn't believe that marriage is absolutely necessary for the two of them to be happy. In today's society there are people who are very happy together and aren't married, but it is obviously not as common as marriage. Beth wants to get married, but doesn't really push for it until Gigi tells her about the "rule, not exception" knowledge; Beth starts to think that she's the rule because if he doesn't want to marry her now, he never will because she's not the 'exception.' Beth asks Neil if there's a reason why he doesn't want to marry her, but he just says the same thing each time. Because Beth believes that Neil will never marry her, she breaks up with him because she can't get understand why he'd live with her for so long but won't marry her. Later, when her father has a heart attack, Neil shows up and cleans and puts away dishes. When she see this, Beth realizes that he does more for her and is more of a husband to her than her sister's and friends' husbands are to them. She has the realization that she doesn't care if they're not married, as long as they love each other and she has him by her side, she'll be happy. At the end, he asks her to marry him because he wants to make her happy. Both of them could've had their doubts about what marriage would do to their relationship. In the Catholic Church, people aren't supposed to get married unless they have full knowledge of their significant other and only if they do it out of their own free will. Neil could have not wanted to marry Beth because he felt like he was being pressured to do so. Unlike Beth and Neil's outcome, there are people who are together for long periods of time that end up splitting due to problems or one person not wanting to marry the other. I knew a couple that was together for five years and ended up splitting up because they realized that as they matured, they were too different and wanted different things. As people grow up, things change and the ideas that people have about relationships also change. As discussed in class, in people's mid-20s to mid-30s, relationships are thought of as something that could turn long-term and possibly lead to marriage. Overall, the characters and the relationships portrayed in the movie relate to the topics we have been discussing in class.

The Changing Face of Marriage

Despite the fact that both my parents aren't Catholic, my experience with the 'domestic church' has been ongoing. When I was younger I remember going to church with my mom and sister every weekend; even now, every weekend my mom and I go to church. My whole immediate family always goes to Christmas and Easter mass together and until such time as it wouldn't be possible, I think it'll stay that way. I have also made the sacraments of Reconciliation, First Holy Communion, and Confirmation. My mom is the parent who wants me and my sister to have a strong faith and belief in God and my dad supports her in the decision they made to raise us Catholic. It's an interesting dynamic to have one parent who is very religious and the other who is not as religious. Despite the ongoing 'domestic church,' since my sister went to college, the strictness of praying before dinner, etc. has basically been nonexistent. Although this is true, I am still required to go to church, even if it may be something I don't particularly want to do. On one hand I understand the importance of the 'domestic church' and why it is deemed important to start when children are young.  On the other hand, despite being brought up as part of a religious community, I believe that you can't make someone believe in something in which they don't want to believe. I think that after a certain point, maybe after receiving Confirmation or the equivalent in other religions, parents should let their children choose if they want to continue on with the current beliefs, discover a new religion, or to not have a religion. Even without forcing a child to be part of a religion, the parents can still illustrate the 'domestic church' by their words and actions. Additionally, I'd say that love, forgiveness, and trust are almost always experienced at home first, at least I know it happened like that for me. In order for children to know what any of those concepts are they have to learn them from someone. These concepts do not have to religiously-linked, so they could be taught just as well by a non-religious parent. 

He's Just Not That Into You is an entertaining movie that makes some good points about some of the topics we are discussing in class. There are some pros that are illustrated in the movie, such as how married couples are able to settle down together and start their life as a couple quicker. Another pro would be the extra support of friends and family when making life changing decisions. In the movie, Gigi, Beth, and Janine are there for one another to talk about their problems, insights, and/or situations with the men in their lives. Also, the importance of family is shown when Beth's dad is there to tell her that she's still a good person, even though Neil didn't want to marry her and that her choice to breakup with him was okay (even though he liked Neil). There are also some cons shown in the movie, such as the sped up dating process. It is seen that Gigi meets men at happy hour or for drinks and automatically thinks what their life would be like together. Also, despite not following their story, Ben and Janine's relationship shows the ugly side that marriage could possibly have at any moment. Some men who either rush into marriage or just get bored with their marriage, could have an affair and ruin the relationship all together; they may still love their wife, but still end up cheating. There are also some situations that could be considered both a pro and a con. One such situation involves Beth and her boyfriend of seven years; they've lived together for awhile and he's committed to her, but he doesn't want to get married. This could be seen as a pro because couples sometimes genuinely don't want to get married but know that they love one another; their love doesn't need a 'marriage' label. It could also be seen as a con because sometimes the women in these relationships, such as Beth, believe that there's an underlying reason to why their significant other doesn't want to marry them. Also, another character in the movie (which we're not following the story of) uses online dating. Online dating can be a good way to meet your future life partner, but it also could be dangerous, as we have seen or heard stories about kidnapping and people not being who they say they are.

I think the study's results make logical sense. Like the BustedHalo article states, people who have a college degree are more likely to have a stable-paying job that would allow one to feel secure enough to be able to provide for a family, as well as themselves. Personally, I believe that having an education is important in general. Not to be mean or rude, but I don't think I'd be able to have a relationship with someone who did not value education or care to further educate themselves in some aspect of life, not necessarily having to be in academics. I think the study has some validity to it, but I also believe that a relationship will work if the two people involved make it work. Hopefully, since I will be attending college and post-baccalaureate education, the study will prove true in my future relationships and I will not have to experience divorce or multiple marriages. I am torn on whether or not I would establish the 'domestic church' in my home in the future. There are obvious pros to doing so, such as children being able to have something to believe in as they get older. There are also cons as well, such as choosing children's beliefs before they have a chance to do so themselves. I think that decision would be something my future husband and I would decide together, but there will definitely be love, forgiveness, and trust in the home.

Dating & "Hooking Up"

There are arguments within Christianity in favor of dating and opposed to the practice of dating. Some of the arguments that oppose the practice of dating revolve around the idea that dating is competitive. Those who believe this want to return to a "more formal system of dating" that's purpose to "identify a good marriage partner" and places "strict limitations on sexual intimacy." I don't agree with the 'anti-daters' who argue that dating in our current social context is "essentially practice for divorce." The arguments in favor of dating contest the 'anti-daters' theories; these arguments revolve around learning from people that one dates, preparing one to care for another on a deeper level, and providing the grounds for "personal transformation." I agree with the 'pro-daters' theories because they are more realistic. If one doesn't date, how is one supposed to find out the type of person one is looking to have as a future life partner? What would happen if one got married to someone one later found out that had nothing in common with one? I believe it is important, especially as one matures, for one to be able to decide what qualities and characteristics one believes will make a suitable partner to fit where one wants to go in life, individually and collectively. Also, when one dates, one learns how to care for someone on a different level than one cares of oneself or one's family; it is a life skill that is needed in order to make connections. Through the arguments/disagreements/hard times during dating relationships, one will learn how to handle oneself and difficult situations, another life skill. Most prevalently, one can learn about oneself in a new way. When one dates, one discovers latent ideas possessed by oneself that were not apparent till needed and other things about oneself. Dating shapes a person's perception.

This argument compares with the experience of my peers and 'contemporaries' in an interesting way. The "dating period [can be divided] into three eras: high school, college, and emerging adulthood." In high school, people tend to be influenced by their friends, the expectations of society, and the expectations of their parents. In college, people have more freedom to experience dating in their own way, but it becomes more confusing and leads to conversations about serious commitment. The period of emerging adulthood is the most complicated because it involves deciding what one is going to do the rest of one's life and who, if anyone, one wants to spend that time. Generally, I feel that my generation is pro-dating because people like to get to know another person, especially if there is a possibility of a romantic relationship ensuing. People I know have learned qualities that they do and don't like in other people by dating; they have also learned more about themselves in the process and to what length they believe romantic relationships should play in their lives.

The article "Conflict Over Hook-Up Culture" from Busted Halo described the 'hook-up' culture prevalent in colleges and universities. The article compares to the earlier described arguments by showing how dating has changed over the years, including how it is seen by some groups of people. A 'hook-up' can be described as six or more different things, ranging from kissing to sexual intercourse. Any type of hooking-up first can lead to a 'awkward' situations, starting relationships off on the wrong foot, or horrible acts such as date rape. Since most people believe a 'hook-up' should be meaningful, the after effects can be devastating or great, depending on the outcome; this is especially true for women because men tend to participate in the act for just pure pleasure. The media and rumors inflate the ‘hook-up’ culture, but in actuality, not everyone is doing it; one should follow one's own path - morals and values - and participate in what one is comfortable. As seen throughout time, if one doesn't like something, take action to change what one wishes to see in the world.