Valentine's Day Linkfest of Love! UPDATED

Gather ye rosebuds while ye may, and send ‘em all to me for St. Valentine’s Day! And in return I will give ye a linkfest of love, and a useful app, free for Valentine’s Day

Start with Deacon Greg: Who was St. Valentine, anyway?
He also offers a poem about lovers being alive together!

For film buffs and lovers of screwball comedies (Me! Me! I am one!): Joseph Susanka writes “Divorce Granted,” a fun stroll through three Cary Grant films that gives us food to ponder about divorce in our age.

For those who feel “left out” on love: Marcia Morrissey remembers a painful Valentine’s Day and shares a moment in her life when she realized that we are all known and loved as unique individuals. Also read A Valentine for Single Folks

For those struggling with virtue: A story about a couple who make a valiant stab at it with God as their wingman.

For those who don’t think it’s possible: Red Hot, Catholic Love and the Myth of Romantic Love

For those who need a little controversy: Marriage, the other vocation

For those who need a bit more controversy: Meg Riley on creating blessings for divorce

For the socially conscious who have a few hours free: a noontime bit of activism

For the parents who are tired: the love that sacrifices, and stays strong

For the philosophers and analysts: love means exposure, uncertainty and fidelity, and it only grows when it transcends desire

For those who want to jump in with both feet, for life

For those looking for a sign

One for the Nutella Fans!

And no cussing!

UPDATE: And from Kathryn Jean Lopez, Sticking With I-Do.

Also, more VDay reading on New Advent

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • dry valleys
  • AB

    A momento mori for St. Valentine’s Day? Are we in Chicago?

  • Joseph Marshall

    “Denis de Rougemont….offered a useful vocabulary for analyzing the meaning most often attached to the term “love” in literature, theatre, and cinema today. Central among these is the fact that it consists in falling in love with love, not with a concrete person. In its pure form it scorns mere bodily, erotic, sexual love. It prides itself on being “above” the biological love that is satisfied by pornography or by groping interaction with another human being.”

    It is worthy of remark that this passage is about “literature, theater, and cinema”. And I think the whole issue of “romantic love” is a chronic confusion of literature with life.

    I have fallen head over heels in love three times in my life, and I can say unequivocally that I didn’t fall in love “with love”. I fell in love with three very sexually attractive women and in the process I found no real separation between the emotional and the carnal. I also found the same lack of real separation between the emotional pull of these women and the fact that they all tested far above average in both intelligence and emotional self-respect. And, finally, I found no difference between my feelings of love and the fact that all three routinely made me laugh.

    As far as I can see, whatever exclusivity and discrimination romantic love may have in literature, it actually destroys such boundaries in real life. In all other cases of durable sexual attraction that I have experienced, my head, my heart, and my privates were all on the same page, but each had a different copy of the book.

    I never for a moment thought that any of these cases were a matter of “falling in love”, and, because of this, had circumstances permitted, I probably could have very happily married any one of these women. I’m not so sure about the ones I actually fell in love with.

    The real quandry of Love and Marriage is marriage and not love. We think we know what marriage is and that love is a mystery. Actually, it is the other way around. Love is no more mysterious than the color blue. We know perfectly well what blue is, but when we try to explain what “blue” is, it evades our capacity to use language.

    We also know quite well, I think, what love is. Love is what happens when you fall into it. “Explaining” love is essentially a literary problem and “romantic love” a literary trope. And a discussion of romantic love is a discussion about literature and not life.

    Marriage, however, is absolutely mysterious. There is a large body of people who keep calling it “sacred” and “in need of defense” without being able to explain responsibly and intelligibly what they mean by “sacred” and what they mean by “under attack”.

    There is a somewhat smaller body of well trained Catholics who know that sometimes marriage is a “Sacrament”, but not always. And they are perfectly capable of explaining responsibly and intelligibly what a Sacrament actually is. I stand open to correction from the better and wiser, but I believe that, as a non-Christian, no marriage I might ever have made would have been a Sacrament.

    In law marriage is a contract, and professionals of the law can also explain very clearly what a contract consists of. However, this explanation has no real relation [other than mere coincidence] to what Catholics mean by a Sacrament and to whatever it is the other people mean by “sacred”. For, by and large, Holy Matrimony is a mere idiomatic expression like Holy Smoke.

    And, as some of your links point out, “being married” is really not anything like “being in love”. It is also not anything like being party to a contract , being a Sacrament, or being either Holy Matrimony or Holy Smoke.

    See what I mean? An utter mystery.

  • RandomThoughts

    Quite possible the most comprehensive list of Valentine’s Day links I’ve ever seen. I especially appreciated the Deacon’s homily on marriage; thank you for including that.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Marriage isn’t really all that mysterious.

    It’s something that needs to be experienced in order to understand it. Kinda like the difference between reading about the ocean and actually going swimming in it.