Great post … Friends and so much entertainment from the ‘60s to present has filled our collective imagination so much pride, envy, wrath, sloth, lasciviousness, avarice, and gluttony that those sins have become our “friends” …. both in media and real life… RIP Matthew Perry
Thank you Katherine. I read your former colleague’s piece on this program and even if there is some truth in his perspective, it does not account for the destruction of the lives of young people influenced by this hedonism. A destruction you have highlighted admirably. I doubt many young viewers were looking at it from a theological or philosophical standpoint.
Brilliant; just brilliant. The truth written about with total conviction, passion and urgency. Thank you and God bless you. (I would just add that weak clergy are not solely to blame; some who enjoyed ‘Friends’, should have known better, but decided to set aside what they knew was not good. They turned a deaf ear and excused themselves by not allowing their minds to dwell on the issues too much).
Thankyou so much for this apocalyptic, timely reflection Katherine. You have expressed many of the observations I have been pondering on. If I could wind back the clock I would never have naively consented to let my teenage daughter become obsessed with the ‘Friends’ sit com. I’m praying that after contemplating on your article, I will be granted the grace and wisdom to turn the cultural/spiritual phenomena of this ‘sit con’ into an opportunity for informal Catechesis with my adult children who no longer practice their Catholic faith.
Excellent reflection and extention of your earlier "Friends" piece. I fear our cultural institutions now might be taken over by a false and twisted feminine used for power and control, not the theological feminine of receptivity of love and self gift that B16 and JP2 show us.
Well said, Katherine. As you rightly point out, the element of the feminine is a fundamental element of the Church, particularly as emphasized in Paul's letter to the Ephesians (5:25-32).
Sadly, it seems that men struggle with reconciling with this message of bridal mysticism.
Really enticing to read. Though of course more context here is needed. I believe the Second Vatican Council missed a point by not building on the ecclesiology that emerged after the First Vatican council when the Holy Family was pointed out by Leo XIII as ‘the scarce-born Church’ (Quamquam Pluries). In this regard, the Church is the extension of the Holy Family, and Woman Finds her place in the heart of that family. If the Christian family is to be shown as the model of the Church, then the dignity of woman has to be lived in imitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I am of course no expert at ecclesiology but…. I wonder who shares with me the idea that the council in Lumen Gentium should have expanded the narrow bounds of ecclesiology by building on Leo XIII rather than focusing on collegiality and what have you? The Blessed Virgin Mary is given suitable scope in the document, but that too is eaten at by a sort of ecumenism that holds back from calling her 'mediatrix of all graces.' In any case, some people argue that the council was unnecessary, but that is closing the debate too early. The council happened, and that is now a fact of history. How to face its ecclesiology? Aren't the documents Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes a pair of thesis and antithesis or opposing ecclesiologies-- one holding out a Church somewhat conservative and sacramental in nature, another holding out a church that is an extension of the modernist-technocratic mentality, a creature of dialectic with Auguste Comte's positivism?
Great post … Friends and so much entertainment from the ‘60s to present has filled our collective imagination so much pride, envy, wrath, sloth, lasciviousness, avarice, and gluttony that those sins have become our “friends” …. both in media and real life… RIP Matthew Perry
Thank you Katherine. I read your former colleague’s piece on this program and even if there is some truth in his perspective, it does not account for the destruction of the lives of young people influenced by this hedonism. A destruction you have highlighted admirably. I doubt many young viewers were looking at it from a theological or philosophical standpoint.
Thankyou Katherine. I’m so saddened by what we were led to believe, and what that caused us to squander. 💙
Wow you are on fire.
I knew ‘Friends’ was off, now I know why.
Thank you . On All Saints , in Canberra
Brilliant; just brilliant. The truth written about with total conviction, passion and urgency. Thank you and God bless you. (I would just add that weak clergy are not solely to blame; some who enjoyed ‘Friends’, should have known better, but decided to set aside what they knew was not good. They turned a deaf ear and excused themselves by not allowing their minds to dwell on the issues too much).
Thankyou so much for this apocalyptic, timely reflection Katherine. You have expressed many of the observations I have been pondering on. If I could wind back the clock I would never have naively consented to let my teenage daughter become obsessed with the ‘Friends’ sit com. I’m praying that after contemplating on your article, I will be granted the grace and wisdom to turn the cultural/spiritual phenomena of this ‘sit con’ into an opportunity for informal Catechesis with my adult children who no longer practice their Catholic faith.
True, all true.
Excellent reflection and extention of your earlier "Friends" piece. I fear our cultural institutions now might be taken over by a false and twisted feminine used for power and control, not the theological feminine of receptivity of love and self gift that B16 and JP2 show us.
Well said, Katherine. As you rightly point out, the element of the feminine is a fundamental element of the Church, particularly as emphasized in Paul's letter to the Ephesians (5:25-32).
Sadly, it seems that men struggle with reconciling with this message of bridal mysticism.
You would appreciate this piece: https://open.substack.com/pub/thomasobrien/p/the-church-effeminate-men-without?r=1wocq8&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Really enticing to read. Though of course more context here is needed. I believe the Second Vatican Council missed a point by not building on the ecclesiology that emerged after the First Vatican council when the Holy Family was pointed out by Leo XIII as ‘the scarce-born Church’ (Quamquam Pluries). In this regard, the Church is the extension of the Holy Family, and Woman Finds her place in the heart of that family. If the Christian family is to be shown as the model of the Church, then the dignity of woman has to be lived in imitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I am of course no expert at ecclesiology but…. I wonder who shares with me the idea that the council in Lumen Gentium should have expanded the narrow bounds of ecclesiology by building on Leo XIII rather than focusing on collegiality and what have you? The Blessed Virgin Mary is given suitable scope in the document, but that too is eaten at by a sort of ecumenism that holds back from calling her 'mediatrix of all graces.' In any case, some people argue that the council was unnecessary, but that is closing the debate too early. The council happened, and that is now a fact of history. How to face its ecclesiology? Aren't the documents Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes a pair of thesis and antithesis or opposing ecclesiologies-- one holding out a Church somewhat conservative and sacramental in nature, another holding out a church that is an extension of the modernist-technocratic mentality, a creature of dialectic with Auguste Comte's positivism?