In this century the church has made at least a token effort to bring its views on sex at least a little more in line with the view of society in general. Almost from its beginning the Church has taken a very dim view of sex as an end in itself. It still today, fancy words to the contrary, sees human sex in a most negative light.
I need not cite here the almost universal condemnation of sex by the early church Fathers.
from Augustine through Aquinas sex as pleasure brought forth the most vitriolic censure. There are philosophical reasons for this, of course. The idea of the spiritual as superior to the material coming from some aspects of Greek philosophy and gnosticism had a dominant influence until most recently. The only real purpose of sex was procreation, even inside marriage.
This century brought to the faithful two small wholes in the the wall of "sex is bad." The so called Natural Family Planning movement said, in what seems a clear contradiction of its basic teaching, that sex without procreation might be acceptable. If sex in marriage were had only on certain days when conception was almost impossible then it was acceptable. So having sex without procreation, by avoiding sexual intercourse totally on certain days was Okay. A type of birth control, this NFP was just fine. And here we see the church endless ability in the sex area to play games. Avoiding sex on certain days to block procreation was approved, but blocking procreation by any "artificial" means was a dire sin. The overwhelming number of catholics who do use some type of "artificial" methods, shows the laity is not fooled by such sophistry.
The second small whole in the "chastity" wall, and to show a more benevolent attitude toward human sexual nature, was to bring to greater importance the "unitive" effect of sex between married couples. If the sexual act brought the married couple' closer together' then sexual intercourse could be positive, provided of course procreation was not hampered. John Paul II bought this unitive principal much to the fore. Putting procreation and unity of the principals in sex as double benefits took some of the severity out of the old sex is bad but necessary theme.
This dual approach has excited many catholics to believe their church has a more realistic attitude toward sex. Of course, questions still remain. What is the status of sexual intercourse between a couple if, as we all know does happen, the unitive principal is not present. Is sexual activity still bad if the procreation element is still present, if not the unitive. As far as I know the church does not consider such sex a mortal sin. Sex without the unitive effect is not a sin, but sex without the possibility of procreation is a sin. And, of course the paradox that sex must be "open" to procreation when the advocates of NFP insist their method of birth control is even more certain to prevent conception than the use of "artificial" means!!
Obviously sex has more manisfestations than sexual intercourse. The Church still holds masturbation to be a sin. Aquinas, that great doctor of the church, acclained in cannon law, argued that masturbation was worse than or as bad as fornication or rape, in that the latter at least had the possibility of procreation. We must assume that as a spiritual advisor Aquinas would tell a 14 year old boy: Don't masturbate; go rape!! Such is the folly of beginning with the premise that the only function of sex is procreation. Even an anti-sex church sees that absurdity so today, as far as I can understand, the 'correct position is masturbation is a sin or, let's be nice and call it a grave disorder---unless, unless it has become a habit. I'm not clear on this. Is the Church saying if it is a habit it's alright?
What should an unmarried person do about sex? Well the Church is clear. They must refrain from all sexual activity or anything that would arouse sexual passions!!! Sexual thought are themselves sinful!!
Celebacy is clearly superior to marriage. Why? Because the church assures us the celebate has a greater opportunity to know God. Marriage is a blessing, but the gift of celibacy is even a greater blessing.
But, of course, the most obvious give away as to the church's attitude toward sex is that only those pledged to celibacy can have any position of authority in the church. Why is that so? The answer is very clear: Not having sex or sexual thought is a higher value than marriage. Realizing the weirdness of this position the Church hides behind a celibate clergy is a "discipline" not a dogma.
Those of us who love the Church need to speak out. The church's view on human sexuality, in the past and today, is in total opposition to human nature, yes, even to natural law. Such negative stance toward sex is simply a perversion of what being human is all about. Jack
Monday, March 31, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
The Illative Sense and what people believe
I have written in an other post that we 'believe' things which might not appear to be true. For example, if we assume every event has a cause, the idea of 'free will' would be absurd. Also since all our obsevations of the world are in the final analysis in our minds, it is impossible to "prove" there is a world outside our perceptions. However, almost all sane people believe there is a 'world' outside our minds, and that I have a choice to sit down or stand up. Free will and the existence of a 'world' outside our minds cannot be proven but we accept these ideas as almost certain. (See as suggestive, Newman's Illative Sense.)
Now the Catholic position on abortion, starting with the idea that human persons come into being at the time of conception is simply not believeable to the very great majority of perple. I believe it was Cardinal Hume who said when he was in a room with fertilized eggs in a petri dish he was there with each dish containing a person. Now assume a fire were to destroy this laboratory, and it had 15 fertilized eggs would we say 15 people were killed. Cardinal Hume would say "yes." The overwhelming majority of people would say "no" because it affronts their belief that what was in the dishes were "persons".
Most people do not accept that a tiny number of undifferentiated cells are "persons". Most people do not accept that human matter that has no brain waves, no feeling, no ability to experience pain etc. is the same as a human being.
And in the practical emotive sphere, a person who has a miscarriage at 6 weeks does not react as if they had lost a born child. (Although I did find one person in my blogging, who argued that a miscarriage was just as traumatic as the death of a one year old.) A women who exersizes while pregnant and loses a fetus is not charged with involuntary manslaughter.
Obviously endless examples could be given e,g. fetus' are not counted in the population. But the point is clear. No matter how many clerics fulminate that 1 or 2 cells are a person, people just don't buy it. Let me make it clear, these cells are POTENTIAL persons, but the modifier shows that they are not persons. The cell or cells are human life, but so are my fingernails, so are cancers and on and on.
In sum then, common sense makes a clear distinction human life and a person. My kidneys are human life; they are not a person. Sophistry about potentiality does not change our thinking. After all every acorn is a "potential" oak tree, but when I throw away an acorn no one says I threw away an oak tree. Jack
Now the Catholic position on abortion, starting with the idea that human persons come into being at the time of conception is simply not believeable to the very great majority of perple. I believe it was Cardinal Hume who said when he was in a room with fertilized eggs in a petri dish he was there with each dish containing a person. Now assume a fire were to destroy this laboratory, and it had 15 fertilized eggs would we say 15 people were killed. Cardinal Hume would say "yes." The overwhelming majority of people would say "no" because it affronts their belief that what was in the dishes were "persons".
Most people do not accept that a tiny number of undifferentiated cells are "persons". Most people do not accept that human matter that has no brain waves, no feeling, no ability to experience pain etc. is the same as a human being.
And in the practical emotive sphere, a person who has a miscarriage at 6 weeks does not react as if they had lost a born child. (Although I did find one person in my blogging, who argued that a miscarriage was just as traumatic as the death of a one year old.) A women who exersizes while pregnant and loses a fetus is not charged with involuntary manslaughter.
Obviously endless examples could be given e,g. fetus' are not counted in the population. But the point is clear. No matter how many clerics fulminate that 1 or 2 cells are a person, people just don't buy it. Let me make it clear, these cells are POTENTIAL persons, but the modifier shows that they are not persons. The cell or cells are human life, but so are my fingernails, so are cancers and on and on.
In sum then, common sense makes a clear distinction human life and a person. My kidneys are human life; they are not a person. Sophistry about potentiality does not change our thinking. After all every acorn is a "potential" oak tree, but when I throw away an acorn no one says I threw away an oak tree. Jack
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
What people think of Catholic position on abortion.
What do Americans and Catholics think of abortion. This has been 'polled' many times and I select two at random.
First ABC/Washington Post Poll. Abortion should be:
Legal in all cases:21 percent
legal in most cases: 36 per cent
Illegal in most cases:25 percent
Illegal in all cases: 15 per cent.
Fox News Poll 2007.
Abortion should be legal when:
Caused by rape or incest. 70 percent
Mother's life at risk. 73 percent
Mothers mental health at risk. 56 percent Illegal 28 percent.
Baby has fatal birth defect. 53 percent Illegal 30 percent.
Now Catholic opinion, CBS news. Abortion should be
Generally available. Catholics, 34 percent; not permitted 28 percent. All, 36 percent generally available, 25 percent, not available.
There are scores of polls on this matter and only a small percentage of people agree with Catholic position.
Now why is this so. Later I will write to the philosophy of this issue. But as of this point it seems clear that the great majority of Americans find the Catholic view unacceptable. A Catholic rule laid down by celibate, supposedly asexual clergy, none having experienced the delights and fears of child bearing, none having raised a family, none having been married.
First ABC/Washington Post Poll. Abortion should be:
Legal in all cases:21 percent
legal in most cases: 36 per cent
Illegal in most cases:25 percent
Illegal in all cases: 15 per cent.
Fox News Poll 2007.
Abortion should be legal when:
Caused by rape or incest. 70 percent
Mother's life at risk. 73 percent
Mothers mental health at risk. 56 percent Illegal 28 percent.
Baby has fatal birth defect. 53 percent Illegal 30 percent.
Now Catholic opinion, CBS news. Abortion should be
Generally available. Catholics, 34 percent; not permitted 28 percent. All, 36 percent generally available, 25 percent, not available.
There are scores of polls on this matter and only a small percentage of people agree with Catholic position.
Now why is this so. Later I will write to the philosophy of this issue. But as of this point it seems clear that the great majority of Americans find the Catholic view unacceptable. A Catholic rule laid down by celibate, supposedly asexual clergy, none having experienced the delights and fears of child bearing, none having raised a family, none having been married.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Church and Sex
I have always said the greatest weakness of the Catholic Church is its position on sex. I indend to discuss this on my blog in the next few posts. But before that I need to clear the air on an issue that my good commenter, Anna, thanks I am bitter about. Bitter is the wrong word; disappointment is the word to describe the blogs that pretend to be not what they are. Excuse me, Anna, but I am going to list them. Each blog or blogger I mention brings to mind the words of Joseph Welch to Joe McCarthy: 'Sir, have you no decency.' The blogs or bloggers below have a reckless disregard for that decency Welch spoke about. In no particular order;
Jeff. Can't be disagreed with. Incredibly arrogant. Encourages rather distateful emails.
William. "Cowboy" something. Invites you in and then is told by someone to block commenter. Apparently William is someones "patsy."
Liam: Had possibilities, but became so enchanted with Obama that even Obama supporter is 'out' if even a suggestion is made that Obama might do something different.
"Sandlestrap" something. Combines arrogance and bigotry. Claims to be working on some kind or religion degree. Warning churches. Watch out for this guy.
Garpu. The ultimate sycophant.
Per Christum. Fearful Catholics crowd together on this blog/forum. Probably make their living by selling holy cards or pieces of the True Cross.
Now on to Church and sex. Having defended Catholocism for well over a half century let me state my starting point. The following statements might be disputed but they are agreed to by thinking Catholics, Protestants and non-faith advocates.
One. There is no evidence that Catholic clergy abuse children more than any other occupational group.
Two. There is no evidence that celibacy leads Catholic clergy to more sexual abuse.
Three. There is clear evidence that Catholic clergy abuse males vis-a-via females to an very high degree.
Four. There can be no dispute that the Catholic clergy has a much higher number of homosexuals in its ranks than any other vocation.
I will discuss the church and sex in my next few posts. I am proud to be Catholic. Church and sex issues must be discussed, not be covered by saying "Others do it." Jack
Jeff. Can't be disagreed with. Incredibly arrogant. Encourages rather distateful emails.
William. "Cowboy" something. Invites you in and then is told by someone to block commenter. Apparently William is someones "patsy."
Liam: Had possibilities, but became so enchanted with Obama that even Obama supporter is 'out' if even a suggestion is made that Obama might do something different.
"Sandlestrap" something. Combines arrogance and bigotry. Claims to be working on some kind or religion degree. Warning churches. Watch out for this guy.
Garpu. The ultimate sycophant.
Per Christum. Fearful Catholics crowd together on this blog/forum. Probably make their living by selling holy cards or pieces of the True Cross.
Now on to Church and sex. Having defended Catholocism for well over a half century let me state my starting point. The following statements might be disputed but they are agreed to by thinking Catholics, Protestants and non-faith advocates.
One. There is no evidence that Catholic clergy abuse children more than any other occupational group.
Two. There is no evidence that celibacy leads Catholic clergy to more sexual abuse.
Three. There is clear evidence that Catholic clergy abuse males vis-a-via females to an very high degree.
Four. There can be no dispute that the Catholic clergy has a much higher number of homosexuals in its ranks than any other vocation.
I will discuss the church and sex in my next few posts. I am proud to be Catholic. Church and sex issues must be discussed, not be covered by saying "Others do it." Jack
Sunday, March 23, 2008
The Old Man Is Back.
Frank is safely in our Church. As you know I have let him have my blog for several weeks. Now sceptical, mean old Jack is back. Got tossed off several blogs for not kissing the blog owners a..---excuse me, foot. So my first question: In our diocesan paper there was a chart put in by some Catholic church group that was showing progress in the war against clergy abuse. But one thing puzzled me. Percentages were use in the graphic and one said 19 per cent of sexual abuse cases involved clergy and females. No figure was given for male abuse. Now my question is simple; why did it pick only the female percentage? I am aware, of course, that the Church, at least some leaders, have been really excited to find that there is no more sex abuse in the Church than in(as I like to say) Alabama prison guards. I was naive enough to think (fool, that I am) that maybe Catholic clergy might LESS frequestly involve themselves in such abuse. That mistaken notice is probably due to my age--75. It seemed to me that the female figure and not the male figure for abuse might be the Church saying:Listen, we are not sexist, we abuse both sexes. Take that! you feminazis!! The last blog/forum I went to refuse to discuss the issue unless I produced the article. Well, Alice, my wife, threw the paper away. But just assume for a moment the chart did say that, and don't try to squirm out by saying produce the article, any more than I ask the experts on that blog/forum to show me their diplomas. An easy out---produce proof of everything you say.
Anna, I went to Frank's confirmation and alas the wicked old man(me)did shed a tear. You should be so proud to help this young man. Jack
Anna, I went to Frank's confirmation and alas the wicked old man(me)did shed a tear. You should be so proud to help this young man. Jack
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Amazing Grace
Last Christmas I posted a kind of thank you note for some people. I want to do that again although it is probably not what the teachers are looking for. Guys, some of you may not know what I am saying, but the profs will since they have read my other short esays from another class.
I know in this class we have a big range of philosophies. I respect you all. Each of you is completely free to say something or someone was sent to me or these things I mention were just coincedences.
When I came out of high school I was not in the gutter. Nothing that dramatic. But I had hurt myself and had fallen hard, physically and mentally, down in the dust. And a couple, Jack and Alice, came by and picked me up, dusted me off and helped heal my wounds. When I was in my worst pain a priest came by and brought me medicine and made a sign on my forehead and I felt so much better.
But, as I said above, I had more than physical hurts. My self respect was almost totally gone. Then I found an organization (a church) that did not make me feel guilty when I went there. They did not talk about how bad I had been, but how I might help others. And Alice who took care of me taught me when she changed my sweat- stained clothes not to be ashamed even of my unclothed body which I had misused. Alice and the priest taught me the importance of being touched by hands that just wanted to help me.
This college took a chance and let me go here when I really didn't deserve it. Jack and Alice who took me in pay all my expenses and let me live with them and ask for nothing in return. And a woman, hundreds of miles away, found or was sent to me; she said I was not trash and was worth something. She came through the internet and what she did for my self respect I will never forget.
And the guys at school, you guys, didn't laugh at the physical scars from a whipping on my back when I was fifteen or my character scars. You might not know how you helped, but I want to say thanks. The professors I have had here, probably not into religion very much, never put me down. I thank them.
I found or someone sent me a girl to help me heal. I knew she cared for me when she wrote "I more than like you." Maybe not the most passionate words, but words I knew were true.
Many more people have helped me, but maybe an incident that occurred yesterday can partially sum up what I am trying to say. Two friends of mine, 18 and 19, came by the house of Jack and Alice (and I am going to call it my home.) They both had on 'cut off' tank tops to show their strong biceps and necks because that was important to them like it used to be to me since we all played football. Jack had gotten them jobs for the summer and they wanted to say thanks. The priest who brought me the medicine was there to say goodbye since he was going to another town. We all talked about basketball for a few minutes;then the priest had to leave. He came across the room to where I was sitting and put his hand on my head and said as he had many times before"Frank, Jesus loves you." And then he added in a low voice with a slight quiver in his words"Frank I hope I have helped you a little. I know you have helped me." Then my adopted father said "these two young men (Mark and Art) are starting on a journey, will you say something to them?" That from old skeptical Jack! And Father Welch went to Art and Mark and placed his hand of each ones head and said "Jesus loves you. God be with you."
Well that's it. I hope Mark and Art get to live part of there boyhood over again as I got to. I mean by that to be cared for and helped by others before they become men.Maybe some day the three of us will be the helpers who ask for nothing in return. Our city has a nationally known Methodist minister who always talks about 'grace' which he says means"unmerited love." So I say to all of you and to that Other One, thanks for your Amazing Grace, that saved a wretch like me. Frank
I know in this class we have a big range of philosophies. I respect you all. Each of you is completely free to say something or someone was sent to me or these things I mention were just coincedences.
When I came out of high school I was not in the gutter. Nothing that dramatic. But I had hurt myself and had fallen hard, physically and mentally, down in the dust. And a couple, Jack and Alice, came by and picked me up, dusted me off and helped heal my wounds. When I was in my worst pain a priest came by and brought me medicine and made a sign on my forehead and I felt so much better.
But, as I said above, I had more than physical hurts. My self respect was almost totally gone. Then I found an organization (a church) that did not make me feel guilty when I went there. They did not talk about how bad I had been, but how I might help others. And Alice who took care of me taught me when she changed my sweat- stained clothes not to be ashamed even of my unclothed body which I had misused. Alice and the priest taught me the importance of being touched by hands that just wanted to help me.
This college took a chance and let me go here when I really didn't deserve it. Jack and Alice who took me in pay all my expenses and let me live with them and ask for nothing in return. And a woman, hundreds of miles away, found or was sent to me; she said I was not trash and was worth something. She came through the internet and what she did for my self respect I will never forget.
And the guys at school, you guys, didn't laugh at the physical scars from a whipping on my back when I was fifteen or my character scars. You might not know how you helped, but I want to say thanks. The professors I have had here, probably not into religion very much, never put me down. I thank them.
I found or someone sent me a girl to help me heal. I knew she cared for me when she wrote "I more than like you." Maybe not the most passionate words, but words I knew were true.
Many more people have helped me, but maybe an incident that occurred yesterday can partially sum up what I am trying to say. Two friends of mine, 18 and 19, came by the house of Jack and Alice (and I am going to call it my home.) They both had on 'cut off' tank tops to show their strong biceps and necks because that was important to them like it used to be to me since we all played football. Jack had gotten them jobs for the summer and they wanted to say thanks. The priest who brought me the medicine was there to say goodbye since he was going to another town. We all talked about basketball for a few minutes;then the priest had to leave. He came across the room to where I was sitting and put his hand on my head and said as he had many times before"Frank, Jesus loves you." And then he added in a low voice with a slight quiver in his words"Frank I hope I have helped you a little. I know you have helped me." Then my adopted father said "these two young men (Mark and Art) are starting on a journey, will you say something to them?" That from old skeptical Jack! And Father Welch went to Art and Mark and placed his hand of each ones head and said "Jesus loves you. God be with you."
Well that's it. I hope Mark and Art get to live part of there boyhood over again as I got to. I mean by that to be cared for and helped by others before they become men.Maybe some day the three of us will be the helpers who ask for nothing in return. Our city has a nationally known Methodist minister who always talks about 'grace' which he says means"unmerited love." So I say to all of you and to that Other One, thanks for your Amazing Grace, that saved a wretch like me. Frank
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The Cross
Jack and Alice Haynes the people I live with had two children, John and Meg. They were all close but Jack was a little closer to Meg and Alice was closer to John.
About 3 years ago John died of cancer. He was just the opposite of me. He was short, slender built, with a great mind and one of the kindest people I ever met. I was several years younger than John, but when he would go out with his friends he always would try to include me. He gave away practically every penny he had and always helped people.
Everyone took his death at 35 hard, but especially Alice. To this day she would rather not drive by the hospital where he died. But she knows she must go on, and so she smiles, and laughs and is loved by all.
Alice has had 4 deaths in her immediate family over the last few years. I do not know much about catholic practices but at each funeral a large cross with Jesus on it is placed on the casket. After the burial the cross is given to a family member; in all four of these cases Alice got the cross. She kept them in a box in a closet. After all what should you do with them; even Alice ( a life long Catholic) was not sure. It might seem a bit too much to place them on the walls.
Last week Jack and Alice saw the box at the back of the closet. Jack told me she asked "What should I do with these?" Jack said "Why don't you put John's cross at the head of Frank's bed." Alice at first said no. She doesn't want to think she did anything to make me a catholic. But John had a small cross in his room when he lived at home. Jack asked me if the cross with Jesus on it could be put at the head of my bed. I was pleased and immediately said "Yes."
That night when I went to bed I looked at the cross. It took a minute to get use to it because as a Baptist I had seen many crosses but none with Jesus on them. But after a minute or two I felt good. I have always wanted to be the son of Jack and Alice so I was pleased.
The next morning when Alice woke me by pulling my foot, as she and Jack do every day, I was still half asleep. I was sure I heard Alice say "John, it is time to get up." A little chill went down my back. I was lying on my stomach with my bare feet hanging off the end of the bed. I had thrown off my sheet and bed blanket.
Could Alice looking at that guy in the bed, who could not begin to fill John's shoes, think for a moment she had John back? Just a tiny moment. My feet are very large and Alice's hand can not reach around the arch of my foot. And my neck, through "pumping iron," was strong and big so I could run over people in football, or because I thought it made me look more like a tough man. Alice could not see John in my body, but maybe, just maybe, there was something that she saw for a second.
I was probably just half awake or confused, or maybe the cross with Jesus made me or Alice think of John. Oh, it is not a miracle. It can be explained. But it was sort of a miracle just to me. For the moment I did not think about myself. My only thought was for Alice. I pray she saw a faint reflection in me of John, her wonderful son. Could a lug like me be such a reflection?
When I was ready to leave for college, Alice gave me a hug as she often does. But this time it seemed a little longer and tighter. She said "we love you Frank." And Jack who is not much of a toucher put his arm aound my neck in a fake neck hold and said "Go get em, tiger."
Anna should I leave out the part of the last paragraph beginning with 'When I was ready' Does it hurt the rest. or should I leave it? Frank. Anna I have not (still a little afraid of conjunctions) proofed this well but I will after I hear from you . Does it seem too short? I could add details .
About 3 years ago John died of cancer. He was just the opposite of me. He was short, slender built, with a great mind and one of the kindest people I ever met. I was several years younger than John, but when he would go out with his friends he always would try to include me. He gave away practically every penny he had and always helped people.
Everyone took his death at 35 hard, but especially Alice. To this day she would rather not drive by the hospital where he died. But she knows she must go on, and so she smiles, and laughs and is loved by all.
Alice has had 4 deaths in her immediate family over the last few years. I do not know much about catholic practices but at each funeral a large cross with Jesus on it is placed on the casket. After the burial the cross is given to a family member; in all four of these cases Alice got the cross. She kept them in a box in a closet. After all what should you do with them; even Alice ( a life long Catholic) was not sure. It might seem a bit too much to place them on the walls.
Last week Jack and Alice saw the box at the back of the closet. Jack told me she asked "What should I do with these?" Jack said "Why don't you put John's cross at the head of Frank's bed." Alice at first said no. She doesn't want to think she did anything to make me a catholic. But John had a small cross in his room when he lived at home. Jack asked me if the cross with Jesus on it could be put at the head of my bed. I was pleased and immediately said "Yes."
That night when I went to bed I looked at the cross. It took a minute to get use to it because as a Baptist I had seen many crosses but none with Jesus on them. But after a minute or two I felt good. I have always wanted to be the son of Jack and Alice so I was pleased.
The next morning when Alice woke me by pulling my foot, as she and Jack do every day, I was still half asleep. I was sure I heard Alice say "John, it is time to get up." A little chill went down my back. I was lying on my stomach with my bare feet hanging off the end of the bed. I had thrown off my sheet and bed blanket.
Could Alice looking at that guy in the bed, who could not begin to fill John's shoes, think for a moment she had John back? Just a tiny moment. My feet are very large and Alice's hand can not reach around the arch of my foot. And my neck, through "pumping iron," was strong and big so I could run over people in football, or because I thought it made me look more like a tough man. Alice could not see John in my body, but maybe, just maybe, there was something that she saw for a second.
I was probably just half awake or confused, or maybe the cross with Jesus made me or Alice think of John. Oh, it is not a miracle. It can be explained. But it was sort of a miracle just to me. For the moment I did not think about myself. My only thought was for Alice. I pray she saw a faint reflection in me of John, her wonderful son. Could a lug like me be such a reflection?
When I was ready to leave for college, Alice gave me a hug as she often does. But this time it seemed a little longer and tighter. She said "we love you Frank." And Jack who is not much of a toucher put his arm aound my neck in a fake neck hold and said "Go get em, tiger."
Anna should I leave out the part of the last paragraph beginning with 'When I was ready' Does it hurt the rest. or should I leave it? Frank. Anna I have not (still a little afraid of conjunctions) proofed this well but I will after I hear from you . Does it seem too short? I could add details .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)