Divorce, Sanctity of Marriage

Monomakhos, a web-log I don't particularly like, quite frankly, posted a piece about OCALaity's resolutions that they are submitting at the All-American Council this fall. The author's intro text says, "All are well aware of the continued assault on traditional marriage due to fornication, adultery, divorce, and same-sex unions." Emphasis added. I do like that he included divorce in this list.

The resolutions, however, do not contain the word "divorce" at all and only allude to it. It is of course true that, in certain circumstances, the Church allows divorce and remarriage. However, I would certainly argue that divorce is a far greater threat to "traditional marriage" than "same-sex unions" - though certainly far less than fornication and adultery - and therefore deserves at least an explicit mention in any resolution about the "sanctity of marriage". If George Michalopoulos can find room in the intro text on his web-log for the word, I'm sure the actual resolutions can as well. Divorce is the only thing on George's list, after all, that will end a "traditional marriage". I realize it's tricky to mention appropriately, but if you're going to tackle tough subjects, you have to actually tackle them. Otherwise, it's just political posturing.

EDIT: Of course, the big issue is not so much divorce but remarriage after divorce. If somebody divorces and remains celibate perpetually, there's not much to object to. However, neither Michalopoulos nor the resolutions refer to remarriage after divorce and only Michalopoulos mentions divorce.

What I'm Reading Right Now

I'm reading A Change of Heart, a book about the Framingham study, a groundbreaking longitudinal study which unraveled many of the mysteries surrounding the causes of cardiovascular disease. They're the people who coined the term "risk factor". It's amazing how far science has advanced in the last few decades. I got it for a penny off of Amazon, but it seems that the used price is now slightly more. I don't know that I would recommend seeking it out unless you are interested in the subject matter, but it is very good if you are. Of course, how can all these scientist jokers compare to an exercise cult? They will obviously be dwarfed.

Before that, I read The Fatal Shore, which is about the founding of Australia up to the end of the transportation system. This book is not only a wonderful history, but it well-written and enthralling. I highly recommend it even if you are not terribly interested in the subject matter. As a bonus, you can still get it off of Amazon.com for a penny (plus shipping). I first heard about this book while reading the Aubrey/Maturin series. O'Brian mentioned it as a valuable resource when writing about their trip to Australia and highly recommended it. It was a good recommendation. Interestingly, the author is an art critic, not a historian. There is some overlap in the training for the disciplines, to be sure, but it is not what I would expect.

Besides that, some chess books. Before all that, the Flashman novels, which you'll either love or hate. The last few get a bit redundant, but are interesting for their historical details, just like the boat books.

I haven't been reading much theology lately besides the lives of the saints and the OCA tabloids.