Congeries of cross connected concepts
So people are mocking Maureen Dowd’s column on marital advice, some because hey — it’s Dowd! — and others because the actual source of the advice is a 79 year old priest. But I wonder at the automatic presumption that a priest would have no detailed understanding of marital relations because he’s celibate. Wouldn’t a good priest have heard hundreds, if not thousands, of marital stories by the time he’s 79? If people are willing to trust scientific researchers who claim a deep understanding based on surveys and other observations of human interactions, why not a priest?
| Hey Skipper Sunday, 13 July 2008 at 12:22 |  |
If are willing to trust scientific researchers who claim a deep understanding based on surveys and other observations of human interactions, why not a priest?
Just because priests believe all kinds of fairy tales does not mean they are incapable of properly analyzing material evidence. So, no reason why not a priest.
I have read that that by far the most reliable predictor of a successful marriage is that the husband does what his wife tells him to.
| erp Sunday, 13 July 2008 at 15:39 | |
Skip, that certainly confirms my research.
| Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 13 July 2008 at 16:03 | |
I should have mentioned that a priest may well have some good longitudinal data, since he would be in continuing contact with the couples for whom he has provided confession or a counselling.
| David Cohen Monday, 14 July 2008 at 16:07 | |
It’s odd to me that the objection to Priestly advice is chastity. Dowd, as far as I know, has never been married but has presumably had sex. (Great, now I have to go wash out my brain.) Is it really our position that sex is at the core of marriage. Most married people, I think, would see a problem there.
| Annoying Old Guy Monday, 14 July 2008 at 16:17 | |
Mr. Cohen;
| Robert Arvanitis Monday, 14 July 2008 at 16:25 | |
We ought not mock Dowd for the marital advice.
Rather, we mock her for saying that Hillary must not “mau-mau” Obama for help to repay her campaign debts. Imagine if a Republican made reference to the Kikyu separatists in Kenya.
Also, we pity Dowd. The one thing history will remember of her is that she gave her name to the concept of “Dowdification.” Sad legacy.
| Peter Burnet Tuesday, 15 July 2008 at 05:07 | |
Folks who say they object to priestly marriage counselling because of celibacy are being dishonest about what really bugs them. I mean, you generally don’t hear them say: “Why not consult that nice Protestant televangelist down the street instead?” And they will advise distressed couples to seek professional marriage counselling at the drop of a hat, even though the counsellor may be a twenty-eight year old single or twice-divorced partner-from-hell. Nobody cares or even asks, they’ve got the sheepskin.
But with all due respect to Father Connor, one might have hoped for a little more profundity after a lifetime of contemplation on the eternal quest for marital bliss. Ann Landers could have whipped out most of this advice before noon on an average day.
| Hey Skipper Tuesday, 15 July 2008 at 11:21 | |
It’s odd to me that the objection to Priestly advice is chastity.
That is the wrong word for the main objection. What could priests, by definition never married, possibly know about what goes on inside a marriage?
Even (or especially) a twice-divorced partner from hell knows more about marriage — from the inside — than that.
NB: Although it is a fair one to make, I don’t share this objection. Outside observers often perceive a lot more than one would think.
| Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 15 July 2008 at 11:52 | |
A priest could know because hundreds of married people told him? I understand that you don’t agree with the thesis you state, but I don’t see how any one can hold that view and have any confidence in any sort of social research.
| Hey Skipper Tuesday, 15 July 2008 at 15:31 | |
but I don’t see how any one can hold that view and have any confidence in any sort of social research.
Well, because one doesn’t have to be something in order to assess that thing, if one has sufficient relevant evidence.
I have never been a woman, but should that stop me from observing, and attempting to understand female behavior?
NB: I think most social research is bunk. But priests, over a long enough career, probably see enough different marriages to draw conclusions based upon the patterns they observe.
| Peter Tuesday, 15 July 2008 at 16:28 | |
priests…probably see enough different marriages to draw conclusions based upon the patterns they observe.
Undoubtedly, but then so do cleaning ladies and gardeners. But, Skipper, that is not what modern marriage counselling is about. To be honest, if you buy into the validity of the formal, semi-therapeutic nature of the profession, I’m not sure priests have any particular stature here either. Somehow I don’t think people traditionally consulted priests about their marriages in order to pick up tips on sharing financial decision-making and how to respect each other’s space.
