ah, i dunno... :::shrug:::: i personally enjoyed it and don't think you need to be ashamed of anything at all. i wouldn't second the whole gay-people-marrying-straight-people idea, which we've discussed here before with Nathan Sheets, but of course i'd never refute your right to suggest it - here's the quote i'm referring to, just for the sake of conversation - maybe others want to throw in their thoughts, and maybe i'm misconstruing the remark:

"Under your philosophy, only married people can have sex that is not a "lie." So that would mean gay people should never have sex, right?"
"They can have sex with people of the opposite sex if they get married. Nobody's preventing them from doing that."

i still believe that in most cases such a hypocritical marriage would be a prescription for heartache for all concerned, including the offspring of this union. but, hey... that's just mho. if both parties involved were fully informed about the others' proclivities and wished to wed nonetheless, i wouldn't necessarily feel they were fully honoring the (gay OR straight) ideals of marriage, but i suppose i'd have no choice but to buy them a nice gift and hope for their happiness....?

anyway, don't be ashamed for speaking the truth about your feelings and your situation. everyone else does these things, or at least thinks about doing them... and who wants to read about a Barbie doll's life, anyway??? not me!

p.s. cute photo by Nick Rhodes!!
serpentyn | 12.03.06 - 3:18 am | #

The challenge is to accomplish that in interviews, where there is a great deal of pressure to perform.

Then again, perhaps the challenge is to realize that you can never please everyone; someone is always going to complain that you went too far. There are always going to be people who feel the need for a fainting couch. But in this area, to communicate the idea effectively, you necessarily are going to have to use some pretty blunt language. Now when you start sounding like some of the folks on some of the more "left" websites, or some XXX porno site, getting into really raunchy language and ideas, then you will have crossed the line. But in this instance, I thought you did quite well.

Perhaps I'll see you on the 13th?
Bender | 12.03.06 - 3:32 am | #

I thought it was a great interview; no, scratch that -- I thought you were great in a lame interview.

Like I'd tell my writing students: consider your audience. We, the Dawn Patrol fans, will be reading all your interviews wherever they appear. However, the Radar interview is for Radar readers (hell, your photo was right above Paris Hilton's). The Radiant interview, on the other hand, is for Radiant readers. The interviewer will craft his or her questions to appeal to his or her audience. If you feel you need to "shape" your answers to fit the circumstances, there's no end, and you may as well change your name to Hillary Rodham Eden.

Is masturbation the big deal here? I loved the answers: happy fun-time Beavis interviewer lobs a hipster special at you, and you knock it out of the park by responding as an adult. Which is great: you, as the Christian, are supposed to be the uptight prude, but you moved the conversation forward and sent man-of-the-world Hyman back to his drumkit in his parents' basement hoping to score. Great work.
saintkansas | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 6:12 am | #

Caution: saltiness follows...

The more I think about this whole approach to interviews in 2006, the more clear it becomes that, throughout time, there are only two questions that cannot be asked of a man: "How much do you make a year?" and "How big is your penis?" It strictly is not done.

It does seem unfair that men enjoy those special exceptions. Maybe you should ask those at the beginning of every interview to set the tone.
saintkansas | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 6:36 am | #

I find that the uber-Catholic is utterly clueless about communicating with a secular audience. It is not a case of wallowing in the gutter with people, but it is a realization that if you speak the choir's language to the folks out on the street who never come into the church, they won't get the message. After all, you're only communicating if your message is both received and understood.

For instance, the concept of "modesty" is so completely foreign that you have to get specific (your comments about choosing a blouse were quite specific; had you merely said you purchased modest clothing, the point would not have been made to those who have never thought to take such things into consideration).

As for "when was the last time," I would wonder out loud if you really need to get baited into answering this question (at least if it were me, I wouldn't give a straight answer). You could spin this by saying, "You know, that really doesn't matter. Chastity is a daily commitment and it requires a lot of work, especially when you first resolve to accept the challenge. I tell people they may have failed to keep that commitment yesterday, but the commitment can be renewed today."

Although it's a somewhat weak analogy, there are parallels to going on a diet. A diet takes discipline and determination. And oh, the temptations! Sometimes we fall off the wagon. But we get up, admonish ourselves, and carry on. If we're serious in our resolve, we don't fail once and give up.

That having been said, this interviewer tried to make someone look like an idiot. He succeeded, but not in the way he had planned.
C.J. | 12.03.06 - 7:41 am | #

The questions made ME flinch, but you held your own without a stumble, which came across as both gutsy and completely honest. You told the truth, which I do not believe should be construed as "doing evil"--you said what you had done, you said you were sorry, you said what you now believe. (I don't know how many devout cradle Catholic girls would have the guts to allow their sexual peccadillos into print, risking the loss of their Good Girl status forever.)Ergo, you rock.
Seraphic Single | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 8:53 am | #

Serpentyn, I think you missed the point of the argument re marriage, which is simply to say that no right is being denied to gays. They can't marry the same sex; well, neither can I. They can't marry a tree; well, neither can I. That's not what marriage is.

C.J., I appreciate your advice re the "how long" question, as that is one that I know will come up again. Re the diet analogy -- you really must pick up my book and see where I take that!

I just changed the "Suzy Creamcheese" line to make it clear I have nothing against the Suzies of this world.

Really appreciate all the encouragement. Bender, hope to see you on the 13th!
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 9:13 am | #

i think the "Suzy creamcheese" line is unintentionally inappropriate -- when I was in college, it did not denote a "goody-goody", but rather the opposite, a girl who (R-rated kitchen metaphor omitted).
Joseph | 12.03.06 - 10:08 am | #

My take, for what it's worth, is that your book needs to be read and considered by the very people you reach with your candor. Yes, it's jolting.

Good.

Don't change a thing.
Robert N G | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 11:36 am | #

Agree with the general thoughts expressed above. You did just fine.
Robert | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 12:06 pm | #

The don't-do-evil-that-good-may-come doesn't apply because answering a question truthfully and frankly is not objectively evil. It may be imprudent, or even wrong in circumstances, and bad might even come of it. But the act was good, the intent was good, and there was an anticipated good end.

P.S. I notice more wolves with poisonous breath circling in the combox of that article. I will request divine protection for you in my prayers tonight. Meanwhile,

Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle;
be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him we humbly pray.
And do you O prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God
thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world for the ruin of souls. Amen.
Scott W. | 12.03.06 - 12:13 pm | #

hm, okay, Dawn - thanks for your explication - i'm glad i asked. to follow along with all the diet and food metaphors (yikes, Joseph, i've never heard that one), it seems that if one wishes to live by your words, then a gay person must go through life eating his or her salad and vegetables, but never getting to have any dessert! to your immense credit, it's not a fate you yourself are unwilling to accept, but i've a hunch it would prove the dealbreaker for some who might otherwise take your advice into consideration. however, i realize this is not by a long shot your target audience, so these musings are probably moot. again, i value your courtesy and patience.

agree with Robert...uh, both Roberts... see no need to muzzle yourself to spare anyone's sensibilities. best preparation for interviews would be to make sure your arguments are well thought-out. get some friends, or even better, some enemies to interrogate you mercilessly... hey, Robert N G's a law professional! :D
serpentyn | 12.03.06 - 12:59 pm | #

I don't know; I thought it was a very good interview, even taking dissenters points under consideration.

However, as with your blog entry a few weeks ago about the "sign of contradiction" that they didn't teach you in RCIA, may I give a gentle warning not to reveal what you tell a priest in confession? Sort of cheapens the sacrament; and given the priest scandals of late, the fact that you state the priest didn't bat an eyelash at your particular transgression may provide fodder down the line for exactly WHY he didn't blink. Best left under the seal of confession...

Otherwise, you're doing great!

J.
J. | 12.03.06 - 1:28 pm | #

Do evil that good may come? What, exactly, is the evil here? Your act, in itself, is telling the truth.

It might be an evil act as scandalous, leading other people to sin, but then, it might be a good act, leading other people from sin. That is always a prudential judgment in these matters.
Mary | 12.03.06 - 2:12 pm | #

A lot of media personalities whose success is heavily dependent on some aspect of their persona then act as if it's a major affront to ask any non-fawning questions about said aspect (e.g., Russell Crowe and his bad-boy antics.) I really like your willingness to engage fairly and honestly. A couple of the Radar questions were borderline rude, but your forthrightness was the best response I can imagine.
the15th | 12.03.06 - 3:38 pm | #

I thought it was an excellent interview, although a couple of those moments were a bit...startling. Given the topic, the venue, and the interviewer's tone, it was a good tactic--indicated a hard-headed realism. Keepin' it real, as it were. To have seemed at all prim would have been to feed the snideness the interviewer kind of wanted to go for.
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 4:01 pm | #

I think it's safe to say you can expect interviewers to play on what they anticipate will be your hypersensitivity about sex and sin. They have a little cartoon bubble in mind of you as Dana Carvey's Church Lady.

So when you nuke that caricature, you are in an advantageous position to frame your point as not about running away from the naughty bits, but ultimately about trying to acknowledge that God made us, and gave us a human nature, and that we have a sacred obligation to embrace it, and how that's what it means to be a Christian.

I join the others in cheering you forward.
Geoff | 12.03.06 - 4:26 pm | #

I read the interview. I don't know what people who think you were somehow inappropriate are talking about.

To me, you sounded gutsy and honest. I wouldn't change a thing.

What did bother me was the supid questions from Romenesko [you mean Peter Hyman - Ed.]. From the beginning it's obvious he was out to show what a cute, clever guy he is.

I'm sure his comments come of as oh-so-darling to some 24-year old Radar reader, but to me, at least, he just comes off as self-serving.

In the long run, your responses to interviewers like that will leave them looking silly, and you can walk away classy.
Dean | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 4:30 pm | #

I second Dean's opinion on your gutsy and honest answers. I really doubt that I would have the same confidence in placing my life out there who all to see and question. Your answers were definitely not too much as they demonstrate that you have made your decisions through thoughtful consideration on life experiences. If you had not spoken as you did your opinions would most likely have be pushed aside as just a "Catholic/Christian" rule follower.

Thank you also Dawn on your continuing comments on how special our Catholic faith is. Quite often us (speaking for myself) Catholic born need the words of converts to remind us of the richs our Church holds.
Peter - Australia | 12.03.06 - 5:10 pm | #

Overall, Dawn, I thought you handled the interview quite well. However, I agree that sharing the dates of your most recent stumbles was too much information. I fear that some Christian legalists will use this information to judge and condemn you.

I hope and pray all goes well in your upcoming book tour.
Rusty | 12.03.06 - 6:15 pm | #

I'm so very sorry, Dawn. I wish I could agree with the other posters and back the way you handled the interviewer. But because I have such enormous respect for you and your apostolate for modesty, I can't.

Your intentions were, no doubt, nothing but pure and good. And, I have to say required huge helpings of the sort of honesty and humility I wish I myself had.

However, I think that to say that we must "speak the language" of a certain crowd in this way to reach them, in truth though without meaning to, actually insults the dignity of the persons whose lives we are hoping to touch. And, it's usually not very effective. I remember when I was a teenager, I was always embarrassed for adults who tried to act and talk like one of my peers. I honestly couldn't respect them because I wanted them to be what they were supposed to be whether I was conscious of it or not. I couldn't respect their positions of authority and leadership if they didn't.

Talking the secular talk sends the false message that the way one speaks and the way one comports one's self doesn't have to change when one makes a choice for chastity. But it really does.

And, most sadly, you also inadvertently sent the message to women that it's okay for them to be asked such innappropriately lurid questions by the most ungentlemanly of men by giving your interviewer the dignity of a response.

Church Lady primness is a false alternative to tell-all honesty. I think you'll find your best examples for telling the story of God's mercy and His love for you in the Lives of the Saints.

People today are not very different from the people of previous generations. Not really. I'm sure St. Augustine had very interesting stories of a colored past which he could have told in great detail. But his "Confessions" only hints of the specifics of that past -- but we all get the picture.

Truth is attractive because it is truth. It doesn't need to come wrapped in flashy this-world packaging. I think you would be surprised how far being a little more circumspect (not puritanical) would get your message, so long as you are sincere and empathetic toward your audience.

Just my thoughts. I think you're wonderful, and I so much admire your courage to change your life so dramatically and speak out about it. You'll continue to be in my thoughts and prayers.
Suzanne | 12.03.06 - 6:40 pm | #

Dawn,

You gave a great interview. I'm forwarding the link to friends.

It's great to see someone applying theology so skillfully and concretely.

Regards,
cantemir
cantemir | 12.03.06 - 7:27 pm | #

Thanks very much, everyone -- really appreciate your thoughts, support, and most of all your prayers.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 7:45 pm | #

J., there is no law against talking about what went on in confession - if you're the penitent. The "seal of confession" is binding on the priest. Certainly you have to be prudent in these matters, but Dawn was within limits. As for the priest's reaction "providing fodder for speculation," it does no such thing. It's well known that Catholic priests have heard just about *everything* after being ordained for all of one year.
Meredith | 12.03.06 - 8:38 pm | #

As for the priest's reaction "providing fodder for speculation," it does no such thing. It's well known that Catholic priests have heard just about *everything* after being ordained for all of one year.

Meredith, you've hit upon my intent in saying that; I was trying to find the humor in the fact that it is really not that easy to shock a confessor.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 8:55 pm | #

Quote of the week, if not year: "I don't believe many viewers identify with a woman who knows how to make the perfect jello salad for every occasion but has never in her life worn an outfit intended to show off the contours of her butt." This is why I like your blog so much; you are so down-to-earth.
blahblahblah | 12.03.06 - 9:14 pm | #

Having given my approval above, please be advised, however, that should you choose to be interviewed on my one kilowatt radio show there is a substantial chance that my questions might be, ah, somewhat different and there are, um, certain areas that we would not be covering and I, uh, can't seem to find my way out of this sentence without offending someone, so ah . . .

Maybe you should just ask your own questions.

Whew.
Robert N G | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 10:55 pm | #

The interview was good. I admire your courage and wit, Dawn. And honesty. Prayers as you face attacks from all sides. In the process you are reaching people that most of us can only pray for. I look forward to reading your book.
Fr. Phil Bloom | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 1:39 am | #

Really appreciate the prayers, Father.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 6:41 am | #

Ms. Eden I was delightfully impressed with your answers. I have the duty to take the abstinence message into an urban public school system and the answers you gave resound more with folks that are in a sex saturated society than more careful answers. People need to hear that you can go from sex obsessed to chaste not just that they shouldn't have sex. There will always be haters but you have a special gift and a special story that you need to share and I commend this quote from Saint Francis de Sales to you: Be who you are and be that well.
Aaron da Fish | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 8:53 am | #

OK, I finally got around to reading the comments at the end of the interview in "Radar". What a pathetic bunch! They automatically hate you because you challenge their views on sexual morality, and then pretend to discover bad things about you from your blog that are not actually evidenced there.

The commenter who thought you shouldn't talk about what went on in the confessional is completely off base, all you did was say "I committed sin X and confessed it and the priest didn't bat an eye".

The rest of the commenters are obviously unable to process what you actually say and write because your existence as someone who opposes their worldview HAVING PREVIOUSLY EMBRACED IT is prodding their sleeping consciences and making them extremely nervous.

The reporter was snarky but you treated him correctly.
Joseph | 12.04.06 - 10:05 am | #

When in Rome...
Faith | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 10:41 am | #

Interesting comments.

I read your article and wondered if perhaps it had too much information, in a way, also. But I don't think it did.

Here we must keep in mind that we Christains are in the world, but not of it. And we aren't perfect. Those who are completely in the world, as the interviewer appeard to be, will naturally ask questions seeking to reaffirm their view that living a sinful life is the dictate of nature.

We can wall ourselves off from that, but I don't know that it doesn't do more to confront it, and that's what your responses boldly did. I think it achieves more to note that you haven't always lived a pure life, and that it made you miserable.

St. Augustine, I'd note, hadn't exactly been pure all his life, but overcame it. But he didn't deny his past life, he only noted its errors, and why he was in error. He also, like you, noted that his sin was his misery, and his self denial in this world brought him happiness.

Also, fwiw, I appreciate your cander, as the scales have only come off my eyes on some things recently myself. Its too easy to believe that correction is impossible, but by knowing the error, and that it can be overcome, we learn that's not true.
Yeoman | 12.04.06 - 12:11 pm | #

so, what should we do?

i've got it!

we all order a case of books and hand them out for christmas - even to the clergy we know, so they can learn the candid truth to share those who need to hear it - or put a stack of them outside the confessional and in the book-racks at church, etc.

the message is the mission!
uncle jim | 12.04.06 - 12:47 pm | #

Dawn, I just read the interview. Great job...I was a bit disturbed by the comments that followed...have there actually been protesters at your signings? Talk about a bizarre, backwards world we live in.

Anyway, awesome stuff. I still have to pick up your book.
JV | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 12:49 pm | #

I'm with you Dawn:

Sometimes a frank answer to an impertinent question is exactly what is needed.
angelic doctor | 12.04.06 - 3:01 pm | #

I felt a little guilty knowing such intimate things about you when I have never been similarly honest. Yes, I am a Church Lady . But you told the interviewer you've lived the kind of life that seems so desirable to so many, and you found that life wanting. We are blessed by the gifts you use,especially your gifts of intelligence and experience. Thank you for a courageous interview.
Emkay | 12.04.06 - 3:45 pm | #

Following in Augustine's footsteps or those of Dorothy Day or of so many others is not such a bad thing. Sometimes we must share some of the facts of our sins with those to whom we are called to witness so that they see themselves, see the possibility of forgiveness for themselves.

Dawn, the complaints against you have to do with delicacy of feeling not content. But just as some identify with St. Teresa of Avila's references to unspecified sins, others read her and can't possibly imagine that she ever committed any real sins and feel little connection with her. You have a job to minister to others who will see themselves in your story, who will believe they too can find forgiveness and new life just as you did. Just continue doing your job.

PS - I couldn't resist posting a comment on Radar.
Drusilla | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 5:29 pm | #

Really good to come home and read everyone's comments -- thanks, all. Drusilla, I appreciated the comment you left on Radar. Another commenter brought up the anti-Semitism of the commenter who insisted on calling me Goldstein, my last name, instead of Eden, which is my middle name as well as my professional name. Wish I could say it was unusual for a person to use my last name in a pejorative fashion, but I've gotten that many times before people as they -- ironically -- attempt to malign me for not adhering to their view of tolerance.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 7:08 pm | #

I thought the interview was fine. I didn't read anything that needed to be changed. Besides,when is it sinful to tell the truth?
Tom | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 11:26 pm | #

we have a small little christian bookstore in our town - i went in and asked for your book; clerks at counter said they hadn't heard of it - I asked to oredr it. as one started to enter my order into their computer, they found they did indeed have it - and I stress IT ... they had ONE - I bought it and told them to get lots more in because it was going to be BIG!
uncle jim | 12.05.06 - 10:29 am | #

The more I think about this whole approach to interviews in 2006, the more clear it becomes that, throughout time, there are only two questions that cannot be asked of a man: "How much do you make a year?" and "How big is your penis?" It strictly is not done.

It does seem unfair that men enjoy those special exceptions. Maybe you should ask those at the beginning of every interview to set the tone.

Q: "How much do you make a year?"

A: "A sufficient amount".

Q: "How big is your penis?"

A: "Sufficiently big"

How'd I do? :)
Tony | Homepage | 12.06.06 - 12:53 am | #