don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

In a trial, a southern small town prosecuting attorney called his first witness to the stand -- a grandmotherly, elderly woman. He approached her and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know me?" She responded, "Why, yes I do know you, Mr. Williams. I've known you since you were a young boy, and frankly, you've been a big disappointment to me. You lie, you cheat on your wife, you manipulate people and talk about them behind their backs. You think you're a big shot when you haven't the brains to realize you never will amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher. Yes, I know you."

The lawyer was stunned. Not knowing what else to do, he pointed across the room and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know the defense attorney?" She again replied, "Why yes, I do. I've known Mr. Bradley since he was a youngster, too. He's lazy, bigoted, and he has a drinking problem. He can't build a normal relationship with anyone and his law practice is one of the worst in the entire state. Not to mention he cheated on his wife with three different women. Yes, I know him."

The defense attorney almost died! The judge asked both counselors to approach the bench, and in a very quiet voice said, "If either of you bastards asks her if she knows me, you'll be jailed for contempt."
Source: Anonymous E-mail humor.

Some subjects are so delicate and touchy that they are avoided, as if you could be held in contempt for addressing them. I have often heard that religion, politics and sex are off limits in polite society. Personally, I think these are among, if indeed, not THE three most interesting topics available! Why impoverish communications with their omission?

Yet, I also suspect that it is nearly impossible to have a fruitful discussion about religion with most true believers, biblical fundamentalists and zealots. One reason for this might be that the language of religion does not translate very well into secular English. Take, for example, the phrase "sanctity of marriage." Since "sanctity" is a religious word (a noun with such dictionary meanings as "holiness of life and character, godliness, the quality or state of being sacred, inviolable"), it leads a secular person into mind-numbing "spiritual gobbledygook." When secular folks try to find common ground with religious defenders of "the sanctity of marriage," these kinds of explanations arise and we are left looking quizzically at each other, wondering how best to express "Huh?"

Take the following explanation of sanctity, helpfully provided by "New Advent," a Catholic website. "The term "sanctity" is employed in somewhat different senses in relation to God, to individual men, and to a corporate body. As applied to God it denotes that absolute moral perfection which is His by nature. In regard to men it signifies a close union with God, together with the moral perfection resulting from this union. Hence holiness is said to belong to God by essence, and to creatures only by participation. Whatever sanctity they possess comes to them as a Divine gift. As used of a society, the term means that this society aims at producing holiness in its members, and is possessed of means capable of securing that result, and that the lives of its members correspond, at least in some measure, with the purpose of the society, and display a real, not a merely nominal holiness. The Church has ever claimed that she, as a society, is holy in a transcendent degree. She teaches that this is one of the four "notes", viz., unity, catholicity, apostolicity, and sanctity, by which the society founded by Christ can be readily distinguished from all human institutions."

Well, thanks a lot, "New Advent!" Now, not only is the term "sanctity" muddled but we're exposed to and caught up in the far deeper quicksand of additional godtalk, such as "absolute moral perfection," "His" nature (no clues on how we might objectively know what that might be), "holiness" ordinary and "nominal," "essence," "divine gift," a "transcendent degree"--Sheesh, all I wanted was the meaning of "sanctity" so I could decide if marriage was, is and should be so considered. I'd be afraid to ask about the other three of "four notes" (in other words., unity, catholicity and apostolicity) of distinction within the Catholic Church--I'm confused enough as is without opening that can of verbal worms. (Don't forget--I'm a Ph.D. with 12 years of Catholic education and yet I haven't a clue what the "New Advent" believers are going on about! What chance do unschooled heretics and infidels have to comprehend people like George W. Bush when he gets holier than thou about the "sanctity" of marriage, let alone make sense of such sanctified jargon as served up by the scholarly New Adventers?)

It is some comfort to know that I'm not the only one who enjoys addressing sacrosanct topics. Besides all those committed to reason and critical inquiry, there are late-night comics willing to do so, such as Dave Chappelle. His form of "sly, transgressive humor" on the cable "Chappelle's Show" has been described as "an audacious half-hour sprint that keenly mocks everything from the absurdity of public-service announcements to the complexities of race relations in the United States." "There are no sacred cows," says Mr. Chappelle. His program has been called "America's No. 1 Source for Offensive Comedy." (See "Time to Stop Joking" by Byron Williams, January 9, 2004.) Maybe, when I grow up, this website will offer wellness essays redolent with "sly, transgressive humor" (whatever that is--it sounds hilarious) and Don's Reports will be considered "audacious sprints that keenly mock everything in the spirit of no sacred cows." When that day arrives, the Wellness Center might then be "America's No. 1 Source for Offensive Wellness Comedy." Oh well, we all need our daydreams, now and again.

What then, should we make of this "sanctity of marriage" business? Personally, while some marriages seem to turn out well and anyone who wants to consider the institution as holy, godly, sacred, inviolable or anything else should be entitled to do so, I think a lot of marriage is anything but sanctity-like!

For one thing, about half of them end in divorce. (The last-reported U.S. divorce rate for a calendar year is 0.40 percent per capita per year, the provisional estimate for the year 2002 from the National Center for Health Statistics. Since every divorce involves two people, the percentage becomes somewhat more meaningful if you double it. A rate per married people, instead of per straight population, would be even more helpful. Source: Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths: Provisional Data for October-December 2002.) Where's the sanctity in that?

The hollow ring of the phrase "sanctity of marriage" is sometimes deafening, as suggested in the recent nuptials of Britney Spears (55 hours in duration) or those of such characters real and imagined, like Henry VIII, Elizabeth Taylor, Pablo Picasso, Dennis Rodman or Oliver and Barbara Rose (played by Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner) in the movie "War of the Roses."

In any case, though I am not gay, lesbian, trans-gendered or otherwise ineligible for marriage anywhere in the US, I have trouble seeing what the big deal is in allowing two same sex people who love each other and want to celebrate a lifelong commitment to marry. Heterosexuals have been doing so in highly non-sanctimonious ways for centuries--why not give gays a chance? How about a little "live and let live" on this issue! Now THAT is something I consider worth sanctifying!

Be well. Look on the bright side of life.

(Note: This essay will be filed in the archives in the MEANING DOMAIN under the skill area of relationships. Additional articles related to this theme may be found there.)

(Ed. Note: Views expressed in this and other columns are those of the author and not necessarily those of the SeekWellness Editorial Board.)

 Send e-mail to Don Ardell