Jegsy Scarr

Administrators
  • Content count

    1,623
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jegsy Scarr

  1. Yeah, I agree with Jasmine. You go to church to worship Jesus, not to look for women. If you're coming out of church "more lonely and depressed" because you didn't talk to any women there, then you're doing it wrong. Don't go to church expecting that you're going to meet women there, and then get disappointed when you don't get to talk to them. They're probably not there to look for guys. Go to church to pray and talk to Jesus. If you saw any women there that you liked, then why not introduce yourself after the service is over? I don't know, just go up and ask them what they thought of the sermon, or something, and maybe start a conversation. That's how you'll get to know people over time. Maybe look and see if your church hosts any social events, too. But keep church services to focus just on Jesus. I mean, I used to do what you did a few years ago when I was worried I'd never find someone. Sitting in Mass, looking up and seeing a guy, "oh, is he single? Is he looking over here at me? Is that his girlfriend next to him or just his sister?" That's how you make yourself feel lonely. xxx
  2. I just think that if you're too young to have a baby, then you're also too young to be doing the thing that makes babies. It seems pretty logical to me, especially since the failure rate of contraception is what it is. I wouldn't want my child to take that risk, and I certainly wouldn't be telling them that it's "safe" to have sex using contraception when it's not. I just found a study that found that 14% of teenage girls using the Pill got pregnant after two years, and nearly 9% in the first year alone. For condoms, the pregnancy rate was 27% in two years. That's not "safe", and like I said, it doesn't protect them at all emotionally. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the OP stops them seeing each other just because her daughter was honest with her about her feelings. I'm saying that if the conversations with her don't work, then that might be a last resort if she really can't trust her not to have sex with him. Like I said, from what the OP's described, it sounds like they've got a good relationship, and that a conversation might be all that's needed. xxx
  3. Okay, I'm pretty surprised with some of the responses so far. She's 15 years old. She's a child. Children cannot consent to sex, whether it's with an adult or with another child. It's illegal. Saying, "Well you can't force her not to have sex if she wants," would people be saying that if she was twelve? So what if the sex is "protected"? Does it protect her mind, her heart, her soul? No. She's a child. Children shouldn't be having sex. Look, if your kid was telling you they were going to start taking heroin with their friends, would you really tell them, "Well, make sure you use clean needles, and only do it at home," or would you tell them, "You're not seeing those friends again, and if I have to take your phone, your laptop, and escort you to and from school to make sure you don't see them, then I'll do it."? Saying, "They'll just sneak out, so I'd better just teach them how to reduce the risks with taking the drugs," is silly. Why is sex any different? Birth control fails. The failure rate is even higher for young teenagers. And there's no condom to protect a child's heart from the effects of having, quite frankly, non-consensual sex. She's not old enough to fully understand what sex is, nor is he. If she's coming to you and telling you her plans, then you've obviously got a good relationship. Is she the kind of person who'd betray your trust and sneak out behind your back? Probably not. You didn't say in your post that she was threatening to have sex anyway, just that she wants to have sex. If you know them both to be "good Christians", then you'll know yourself whether or not you can trust them. Talk to her. Explain why she can't be having sex, and why she's too young to get married - the fact that she's wanting to get married so she can have sex shows that she doesn't understand it. You might have to limit how they see each other - only seeing each other in groups, public places, with someone as a chaperone, and so on - if you don't completely trust them. That might be as far as you have to go, if even that far. xxx
  4. Well, we did read Katherine Dunn's Geek Love as part of our course. You could try that. It's got rape, incest, murder, fetish strip clubs, people purposely deforming their children for monetary purposes, dead babies in jars of preservatives, a cult in which people cut off their own limbs to achieve spiritual enlightenment, and of course, biting the heads off of live chickens. I think everyone felt sick reading that one. Actually, if you can get past all of that, it's a pretty enjoyable read. Although i think I skimmed over quite a few sections of it... xxx
  5. Ask a Catholic! (i.e, me...)

    Slayer's posted some good stuff, and I've said quite a lot about contraception and NFP in this thread already, but if there's anything else, let me know! I'll just address some of the main points... As Slayer said, Catholics can use NFP. Strictly speaking, NFP is a type of birth control, since you're using it to space or avoid pregnancy (but then, it depends on how you're using the term "birth control", I guess). Catholics can use NFP as long as they've got a serious reason to avoid getting pregnant (e.g. can't afford another baby, have just had a baby, etc.). NFP isn't classed as contraception, because contraception would be defined as, any action taken before, during, or after the sexual act which was deliberately intended to render it sterile. In other words, God gave fertility as a gift, and you can no more deliberately make yourself infertile than you could deliberately blind yourself. The only thing you can do is respect the natural times of infertility that God's given you - women weren't designed to be fertile every single day, but only a few days every month, for about 35 years of her life, and are usually infertile for several months after giving birth. So with NFP, you're identifying when a woman is fertile and infertile so you can act accordingly. Even then, you've got to have a good reason for avoiding pregnancy, and not be acting for selfish reasons. It's fine to say to God, "We respect our fertility, and we're going to keep having sex to strengthen our marriage and express our love for each other when we're not fertile, but right now with our money worries we just can't manage another baby." It's not okay to tell Him, "Well, fine, we won't use contraception, but we don't want another baby right now. Otherwise, we won't get to go to luxury resorts any more, because they only take children over three in the Kids' Club. But we'll keep enjoying sex nonetheless." Incidentally, the Church doesn't have a list of "acceptable reasons to use NFP". Couples are expected to use their own common sense, perhaps consult with a spiritual director for advice, but ultimately, it's going to be between them and God, because there aren't any outsiders who can judge whether their reason to avoid pregnancy is "good enough". "Fear of morning sickness" might seem a trivial reason for most couples, but if the wife has extreme emetophobia and has panic attacks just thinking about being sick, then that might be a perfectly good reason to avoid having a baby for a while. Okay, I don't think this question has come up before, so I'll just make this clear... Catholics do not believe that "every sperm (or egg) is sacred". They're just cells in the body. They're no more or less sacred than any other bodily cell. If they were, then you couldn't have sex when a woman wasn't fertile, including after the menopause, or even delay getting married until you were older, because of all the wasted sperm and egg cells that would be dying off. The closest you'll get to "every sperm is sacred" is Catholics who say that fertility is a great gift from God, and shouldn't be taken lightly, but there's no belief that every individual gamete matters. The phrase "every sperm is sacred", to the best of my knowledge, is originally from a Monty Python sketch. Monty Python are a British comedy group, who once had a sketch in which a Catholic couple with sixty-three children are forced to sell their kids for scientific experimentation because they can't afford to look after them. The father, when asked why he doesn't use contraception then launches into the song, "Every Sperm is Sacred", which contains lines such as, "If a sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate," and "You're a Catholic the moment Dad came." It is, to be quite frank, a load of anti-Catholic drivel. But the phrase "every sperm is sacred" appears to have caught on. Apparently, the song gets sung outside abortion clinics by pro-choice protesters who are presumably oblivious both to the fact that the song isn't accurate, and that unborn children aren't sperm cells. xxx
  6. "How Secular Family Values Stack Up"

    I didn't say that sex needed to be a creative force. I said that it was designed to be creative, and to reflect God's creative nature. That doesn't mean that there can't be individual people for whom sex isn't going to produce children, even if it does for the human race as a whole. It's not a sin to be sterile any more than it's a sin to be blind. It would only be a sin if a person was deliberately thwarting the design of sex, by deliberate sterilisation or by changing the sexual act in a way to make it impossible to create new life. Incidentally, I've said much, much more about this in my "Ask a Catholic" thread, if you're interested. Again, I don't think it matters that God isn't male or female. That's how He designed humanity to be. If you want to think of God as being the fullness of masculinity and femininity, then He decided to have a race of people who would each be either male or female. So, yeah, it was His "will" that humanity be divided into two complimentary halves instead of us each to have the fullness of both sexes. But if you want to argue that because God designed us to be a certain way then the laws of morality are arbitrary, then I don't see why you couldn't argue that the moral laws against killing and maiming people aren't arbitrary, too, since God decided to design us with physical bodies that could be damaged, or that the laws against gluttony are arbitrary because God gave humans stomachs. You do realise that this website is for people who are waiting till marriage, right? So, yeah, that's kind of what I'm arguing. I wouldn't say that's the only reason sex outside of marriage is wrong, or that sex in a committed relationship outside of marriage is as bad as just sleeping around with anyone. But I'd still say, yeah, that's not how God designed sex to be used. You can disagree if you like. I'm just arguing my own position. I'm not saying that God doesn't possess both masculine and feminine traits. I'm saying that He's revealed Himself to us as masculine, and that's the kind of relationship He wants to have with us. Again, if you want to argue that He could have picked something different, or if there's something inherently masculine-feminine about the relationship between God and His creation, then that I don't know. But in any case, we've got to go with what God's revealed. Okay, I don't know what you mean when you talk about "sexed life where the roles of male and female are different than those of the Western Christian view". In all cultures, it's males who father children and women who give birth to them. If you just mean things like women working and men caring for children, that doesn't change the person's sex. You can argue about how much of that is culturally relative and how much is just how men and women are inherently. As for "asexual and hermaphroditic life", I'm not sure if you're talking about humans or animals, here, since we don't tend to call humans "hermaphrodites" but rather "intersex". If it's animals you're referring to, as with animals that can change their sex, then that's not relevant to human morality. Some species reproduce differently, and that's just how they were designed. Again, you can argue that God could have designed us differently, to reproduce differently. I don't know, maybe there are other species on other planets who are people like us but reproduce asexually, or are both sexes, or can change their sex. That is kind of irrelevant to us, though. Presumably, the laws of sexual morality would be different for them, just as the laws would be different for them if they didn't eat the way we do.. Now, if you are referring to humans who are, for example, intersex, then I still don't think that presents a problem for the male-female dichotomy. Just because someone has a medical condition that makes it difficult, or even in rare cases impossible, to determine what sex they are, it doesn't necessarily follow that therefore they don't have a sex, or are some third sex. Yeah, like Ringer says, I'm just talking about the God of the Bible (that's what my original post was addressing). If I've used examples like the earth and the heavens, then they're just illustrative examples, not a definitive statement about every single religion and culture. (I actually looked it up, and in some Norse mythological accounts, the earth IS personified as the goddess Joro, even though she was made from Ymir's corpse). Okay, I think I've probably derailed this entire thread, but anyhow... xxx
  7. Hey, guys! Found these articles on respect in marriage, wanted to see what people think of them. Personally, I think the author makes a lot of good points. He wrote two versions, one for wives and one for husbands. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davewillis/7-ways-a-husbands-needs-respect-from-his-wife/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davewillis/7-ways-a-wife-needs-respect-from-her-husband/ Thoughts? xxx
  8. "How Secular Family Values Stack Up"

    God doesn't have a biological sex because He's not biological. But it doesn't follow that therefore when He creates biological creatures in His image, there can't be any rules about sex. That's why sex has to be open to life - because God is by His nature creative, and therefore sex was designed to reflect that creative nature. That's why sex has to be in marriage - because God is by His nature faithful, and therefore marriage is a symbol of the covenant God makes with us, as is the marital act itself. That's why sex is supposed to be a total, free gift of self - because that's how God is in his nature: infinitely generous and respecting of free will. God's design for sex is essentially another of His ways of making His nature incarnate in the flesh. And even though God is genderless, it doesn't follow that we've got some kind of androgynous, gender-neutral relationship with Him, or that masculinity and femininity are purely biological constructs. When ancient cultures talked about goddesses of nature and the gods of the skies and heavens, and identified the heavens as masculine and earth as feminine, it's common for us nowadays to look back and say, "Oh, they were just projecting what they saw in men and women onto the world." But for Christians, that's exactly backwards. Humans don't project their own biological sex onto a genderless world. Male and female are just what happens when biology meets masculinity and femininity. Masculinity and femininity are real things, cosmic principles, if you will, working in relationship with each other. The clouds in the sky rain down water and bring life to the earth, which brings forth fruit. Maleness and femaleness just continue this pattern, and cultures were right to see the world around them as reflecting the same. God reveals Himself as having a masculine relationship with us. He is the King, the warrior, the husband who pursues His bride Humanity. God initiates, and we respond. That's why the Church is always described as feminine, as she, because the Church bears God's truth to the world, and is His means of bringing life to it. As a mother gives physical life to her child after being impregnated by the father, so the Church bears spiritual life in the world by receiving grace from God. God has a masculine relationship with us, which finds its fulfilment in Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity who is not just masculine, but has become male, in biological flesh. This is why marriage is described in the Bible as being an image of Christ and His relationship with the Church, where a husband becomes like Christ, and a wife like His Bride the Church. xxx
  9. Ask an Atheist!

    I don't think people go to Hell for simply not believing in God. There aren't a bunch of people in Hell right now because they lived on an island somewhere and never heard of God. There aren't a bunch of people in Hell right now because they were genuinely looking for the truth and just couldn't find reasons to believe in God. People go to Hell for rejecting God when the evidence comes to them, or perhaps for saying, "Well, I can see that the evidence might point to God, but I can't be bothered following up on it because I don't want to believe in God." And the argument that God "hasn't even made a minimal amount of effort" to reveal His existence, I've heard a lot, and it's incredibly subjective. What constitutes a minimal amount? For some people, the fact that the universe exists at all when it doesn't have to exist, that's plenty of evidence for them. For others, you could have Jesus Himself appearing and tap-dancing in front of them, and they'd still say, "Well, there's still the chance that this is just a vision, or an alien pretending to be God, so no, that's not good enough proof." And if someone is like that, then I can't think of anything in the world that would convince them to believe in God, because they don't really want to believe. Anyway, I guess my question is, those who identify as atheist/agnostic, what kind of resources do you like to look at for arguments for existence of God? e.g. watching online debates (I think those can be cool), reading religious texts, apologetics books, classical arguments for God's existence, etc. Do you tend to look at material making the case for God (e.g. Mere Christianity), against (e.g. The God Delusion), or a mix of both? xxx
  10. "How Secular Family Values Stack Up"

    That's the Euthyphro dilemma. Euthyphro argued that something is good because God wills it (e.g. He could turn around and make rape morally okay, and it would be). Socrates argued that God wills a thing because it is good (i.e. there's a moral system independent of God and above Him and He simply enforces it). Neither of those positions are the Christian position. The Christian position is that morality is based on God's own nature. Morality can't change because God can't change His nature, and the system of morality comes from God Himself. The Bible puts it, "Be ye holy, as I the Lord your God am holy." When you choose to do good, you're choosing to do something that conforms your nature to God's nature. That's why God can't just change what's moral, for example, by making it good to give poison to your neighbour and bad to give them pie. And it's not some moral system that's independent of God or greater than Him. I can't think of anything in the Bible that's "arbitrary". Even the old dietary laws forbidding eating pork weren't "arbitrary". God didn't just decide, "Well, there's nothing wrong with bacon, it's actually quite delicious, but just for a laugh, I'm going to make it so you can't eat it." He told the Jews, "You guys are important to salvation history, and right now, your task is to not corrupt the revelation I've given you by getting it all mixed up with other religions and cultures around you. To remind you all that you're not like the Pagans and Gentiles around you, I'm going to give you laws and customs to follow. They're going to encompass everything - what you eat, what you wear, how you worship, how you work - because I don't want you to forget that you're different from other people." That's why those laws didn't remain once Jesus came. The moral laws were the same, because morality doesn't change. But things like "Make clothes with one kind of fabric" weren't relevant any more. The whole idea of, "The clothes you wear should be symbolic of how you need to keep God's revelation pure and unadulterated from what's in the surrounding culture," - that wasn't needed any more. Now that the Messiah was here, that step in God's plan had been fulfilled. Now it was, "Good job in keeping the revelation pure and unadulterated until the time of the Messiah. Your next task is to go out into the world and bring all of the non-Jews the revelation, too. Therefore, don't worry any more about separating yourself from the Gentiles. You're all going to be one big family now. Remember the moral laws, though, because they've not changed." xxx
  11. Ask a Catholic! (i.e, me...)

    In and of itself, it's not a sin for them to live separately. They've likely got some very good reason for it, and since they're both devoutly Catholic, as you say, they've probably discussed this with a priest. Separation can sometimes be needed so that the spouses can get some distance and think about things, and hopefully get back together in the future (as long as it's safe to do so, etc.). Something really serious, like one spouse cheating on another, it might just be too difficult for them to ever be reconciled. The only issue I can think of would be that if their children are still minors, they'd need to take into consideration what's best for them. For example, I've got a friend whose parents split up a few years after she was born. They were both Catholic, and they didn't divorce or get into a relationship with anyone else. They just had issues they couldn't sort out. They arranged to have the daughter live with her mother, and visit her father at weekends, and they both stayed friends, didn't badmouth each other in front of their daughter, and so on. It worked out really well for them. You know, the sacrament of marriage isn't just about husband and wife living together and having a sexual relationship and raising children in the faith. Probably most importantly, it's about making a commitment to your spouse before God that you'll do your very best to help them in their journey to Heaven. So in some cases, that might mean you have to agree to separate, if that's what's going to be best for them. Again, hopefully there might be a way to get back together, but it's not always possible. xxx
  12. Engagement rings?

    1. Yeah, if it was too big, I think it'd just look kind of silly. But then again, if the gem is too small, that can look silly, too. I guess common sense, something kind of average-size is about right. [EDIT: just looked it up, and I think I'd agree with Steadfast - about 0.75 carat looks about right. Maybe 1 at most, but the big ones look kind of silly, and too big for me, I think.] 2. I'm pretty sure I'd like it to be a colourless stone, because I don't really like coloured ones that much. They're nice, but they don't really look like engagement rings to me. I hate how expensive the diamond rings are, though. A man-made diamond might be a good idea. I've just looked it up, and you can get white sapphires (about 1/3 price of diamonds), as well as moissanite, which looks even cheaper - one website gives a half-carat (man-made) moissanite stone as $89, or $179 for a "forever-brilliant" moissanite (which I assume is treated somehow to shine longer, or something). Actually, the more I think about it, that's probably a really good idea! I shall look more into this and let my future boyfriend know... 3. Eh, I'd like an engagement ring. It's kind of silly, I guess, but I'd like to have one. If not an engagement ring, I'd just not wear any ring - wearing a wedding ring before the wedding is a little weird to me. xxx
  13. Last year, I usually had at least two novels a week. One week, I remember I had three, and two of them were Romantic literature novels that were pretty long and hard to read. So I think the people who took our seminar classes were pretty lenient with you, as long as you'd at least read some of the texts. But no, I remember not reading The Faerie Queene because it was just obscenely long and boring and I had other stuff to read those weeks (two seminars). So I just decided to prioritise and read the stuff I thought I'd actually use in the essays/exam. Most nerve-racking seminars of my life. "So, what did everyone think of The Faerie Queene?" Saying that, we had an extract of the text to close read in groups, and I just said, "That looks like a disparaging reference to Extreme Unction for the anti-Catholic Elizabethan audience," and I just elaborated on what Last Rites were and the whole faith vs. faith+works thing, and I came off looking like I really knew the text and had done the research when really I was just talking about Catholicism. xxx
  14. The main issue I see is that it has sexual images in it. Depending on your beliefs, I guess you might argue that something like that is like pornographic, therefore you can't read it. Quick Google Images search, and I guess some of it looks kind of graphic, although it is a cartoon, of course. The problem is, once you've seen an image like that, it's often hard to get it out of your head. So I can see why they might object to reading it, if that's an issue for them. Do they have the right to say, "I'm not reading it"? I mean, sure, you can't force someone to read something. I'm taking English Literature, and it's not as if they check up on whether you've read the texts. They give you the list of set texts, and you go away and read them, and if you don't, then it's your responsibility. I take it their course is similar (although they described it as a "summer reading list", and I'm not entirely sure what that means as a course). Could they request to read a different book? Sure, they could ask. I don't think there's really an obligation though for them to assign a different book, since presumably when they signed up for the course, they knew what kinds of books they'd be expected to read. Steadfast, you've read it. Is it like Fifty Shades of Grey, or is it one or two vaguely sexual images? If it was just a book of cartoon porn, I'd say, fair enough if you want to complain it's too graphic and completely outside the usual for a literature course, but if it's just a book with a few scattered sexual depictions in it, then that's fairly standard. I mean, just thinking back to the stuff I've had to read in university over the past three years. I've never read graphic novels with images, mind you, but I think written descriptions can be just as graphic. Generally, if they're too graphic, you just skip over them. Again, we're not talking Fifty Shades of Grey. But I've had to read books with descriptions of sex, sexual violence, and so on. Most books have at least something in them, depending on the time period you're reading. That's standard for any adult literature course. It's not like this was assigned to a high school. So...Yeah, unless the book is outrageously graphic, then I can't say it's anything other than what you'd expect from an average literature course. I would say, yeah, they can obviously decide not to read it. But I think being offended by being asked to read it, yeah, that's a bit much. I've read books that had anti-Catholic slants (besides ones written during, for example, the Reformation), and that doesn't mean in and of itself they're attacking Catholics. It just means they've assigned it for discussion. Just from what's said in the article, it doesn't seem like they were deliberately "attacking" Christian students. lol! I'm not kidding, I know a girl who told me in second year, "Oh, I really liked this. It's the first text I've actually read all the way through since the course began," and she was referring to a 104-page play (and for a play with lots of dialogue, that's not very long at all). xxx
  15. Have you ever been arrested?

    Nope. Most I've had was being "questioned" by the policeman at our high school (yep, we had one on site) when a girl's phone went missing in gym. Basically, she got back to the changing room, couldn't find her phone and said someone must have taken it because it was definitely in her bag, so they pulled us all out one by one and asked us if we'd taken it, and had a quick look through our bags (although if I remember correctly, it was more just opening the bag and looking inside rather than looking through them). Anyway, as far as I know, it turned out she'd left it on the bus, even though she was sure she'd had it earlier. Gosh, I was terrified of that police guy, even though he was actually nice. He asked about three questions, and I was like, "Did you take the phone?" "No, I didn't" oh no, did that sound guilty? What if it did? But it was over in less than a minute, and I'm pretty sure the gym teacher with him gave him a look to say, "Yeah, it's not going to be her." xxx
  16. Eh, I guess it's the same as if you had two couples who had children and were living together, and one couple decided to get married while the other couple just made a private decision to stay together forever. Some people do make private vows of consecration, which I think Dawn's already done, but I guess it's more "real" to you if you've done it publicly. And it's inspiring to others, too, I suppose. Plus, it might make it easier for the person making the vow, since if it's public and the people in your parish can see it, then there'll be greater support for you than you might get otherwise. Plus, it's a sign of how when you dedicate your life to God entirely, you are by extension dedicating your life to helping others around you. Like when nuns and monks take vows, they usually serve their community through charity work or teaching and so on. Even cloistered orders, you're spending a lot of time praying for others, and people often send prayer requests etc. to you. It's one of those interesting paradoxical thingies, I guess, where you're working for others even as you live alone. As an aside, nuns do say that living with a bunch of other women helps you grow in holiness, just because it's so difficult to do and they get on each other's nerves sometimes. I remember a TV show about nuns where one of them told the interviewer, quite sincerely, "It's amazing to me that there hasn't been a murder yet." Ah, the Daily Mail... xxx
  17. The way I see it, I'm just "a normal Catholic person who happens to be a virgin". But I've not chosen to be a virgin forever. I'm just waiting around till I find a guy to marry. That's very different from deciding, "You know what, I'm not going to get married, and I'm instead going to dedicate my life to God entirely." There's a real commitment involved that isn't the case with someone who's just waiting till marriage (but might be a virgin their whole lives if they never actually get married). It might make more sense to you if I point out something the article didn't mention, which is that you don't have to be a virgin in order to consecrate yourself to God. This article is referring specifically to the practice of consecrating your virginity, but if someone isn't a virgin, it's still possible to be a consecrated single. I don't know much about it, but I imagine it'd be pretty much the same ceremony, but would just remove the references to virginity. I recently met a women named Dawn Eden at a Catholic talk who's hoping to become a consecrated single woman in the Church, although she's not a virgin. As someone mentioned, this is different to becoming a nun because you wouldn't be taking vows of poverty and obedience to a religious order, and wouldn't be living the typical "nun life" inside a convent. You'd just carry on living your life as you were before, in the community e.g. as a teacher, doctor, etc. Dawn is an author, journalist and public speaker, and that's what she's going to continue with if she's consecrated. (Dawn Eden is really cool, by the way, and she's really nice. The book she's reading from is really good, too.) xxx EDIT: I was on my way to bed. It's really late, but thank goodness I checked up on the site, otherwise this question would have gone unanswered until my return.
  18. Random Thoughts

    Darnit, people, Catholic apologetics is my job! Yeah, the hood thingies are capirotes. They date back to the Middle Ages, I think, and they also come in other colours besides white. Strictly speaking, if you compare them to the KKK hoods, capirotes are a lot taller and pointier. I'm assuming that the KKK didn't know these things existed (you only get them in some parts of Spain) when they came up with their costumes since the KKK are really anti-Catholic, unless it's meant to be a parody, or something. Otherwise, I love the thought of some Klansman turning up in Spain during Holy Week and getting all confused. xxx
  19. ^^^ I've got high hopes for the little novels in my head. Now, I just have to get them out of my head and into the world. I can think of at least three couples who I think would be really amazing love stories. No spoilers, though. Other than that, Phantom of the Opera is pretty romantic in the end. He knows he's going to die without her and spend the last weeks of his life alone, but he lets her go and marry the man she loves anyway. So sad... xxx EDIT: No, I can think of at least four, actually, although the last one is just going to be this ordinary married couple in their thirties who just love each other and stick with each other no matter what. Even that's pretty unusual in novels nowadays, I think...
  20. Appearance!

    Anyone else think that in all my old posts, I sound about twelve? xxx
  21. Are STDs a deal breaker?

    Yeah, it depends what it is, and how he got it. Some things can be cured, and some aren't dangerous. If it's something that could actually seriously harm me or even kill me, then I've got to say no. xxx
  22. what are your favourite Christian preachers?

    I second C.S. Lewis and Ravi Zacharias! I really like Fr Robert Barron and the Word on Fire videos. Some of them are really cool. Fr Mike Schmitz also has some good videos and talks. Dr Peter Kreeft Jason & Crystalina Evert (mostly chastity talks) Scott Hahn Steve Ray Jimmy Akin and Tim Staples are also great apologists, but they don't have so many videos on YouTube. Mostly, you just find them talking on Catholic Answers radio. xxx
  23. religion... Why?

    Well, "religion" in its broadest sense is just having a relationship with God. If you believe in God, you're religious. So the reason for having a relationship with God is because all of us were made for Him and are only truly happy when we're in a relationship with Him. We all long for happiness that this world can't fulfil. And frankly, we owe God a relationship with Him, since He created us. It's a matter of justice. And He wants us to have a relationship with Him because that's the only way we'll be truly happy in the end. xxx
  24. The Saint That is Just Me

    Hey, guys! Heard this song at Adoration last week and thought some of you might like it. It's quite Catholic, but I think the non-Catholic Christians will enjoy it, too. Oh, heck, the non-Christians will probably like it as well (it's so pretty!) Anyway, enjoy! xxx
  25. Going to Rome...

    Sorry, just saw this! We were staying in an apartment just a little way from the Vatican, close enough to walk there in 5-10 minutes. Just a few streets away from Ottaviano, so it was great for getting around on the Metro. xxx