Posted on 12/03/2013 2:35:53 AM PST by markomalley
Many of you are aware that there is an Extraordinary Synod planned in Rome on the family. There is surely no hiding the fact that the family is in real crisis, at least in the modern Western World, if not throughout many other parts as well. We do well to ponder the reasons and roots of this crisis, and develop strategies to begin to address the many problems.
At the recent Bishops Conference Meeting here in America, Cardinal Sean O’Malley made some remarks that I would like to draw upon, even as I make some remarks of my own. Basing my reflections on the Cardinal’s remarks, it would seem that there are at least four fundamental factors that contribute to our current difficulties regarding marriage and family. Lets look at each of them in turn, even if briefly and also interweave the Cardinals remarks.
I. Family history - Two critical factors came together very difficult years of the late 1960s which together have had a very destructive effect on Holy Matrimony and the family.
The sexual revolution which began in the late 1950s picked up steam into the 60s and went boldly public in the year 1968, with the so-called “Summer of Love” in places like Haight Ashbury Park in San Francisco, and on many other college campuses and similar places. At that time there were many who boldly shed any pretense of shame or guilt regarding open sexual sin and unchastity. What people used to whisper about as something shocking, was now boldly celebrated by increasing numbers in the culture.
The following year, in 1969 the first no-fault divorce laws began to be passed. Divorce, which until that time had been a difficult and lengthy process in America, now become something that could be accomplished in a matter of weeks.
These two very crucial events began a process which rather dramatically and quickly eroded Matrimony and and the family, such that we are now into the second, and in some cases, third generation of younger people, who have never known a world is stable marriages, and two-parent families. Large numbers of young people have never experienced living with both their father and mother for the duration of their formative years. More and more of them have no real models of faithful, stable, traditional marriages to look to. Is very clear, that without these sorts of models, even young people who want to embrace traditional marriage, struggle to do so, lacking any experience how exactly is done.
For all the Church’s attempts at marriage preparation, and pre-Cana classes, without strong family models it is hard to apply whatever might be learned in such classes and formation.
Cardinal O’Malley says, Half of the children born to that demographic [working class families] are born out of wedlock,” a statistic that Cardinal O’Malley said would have been “inconceivable” a few decades ago. [1]
Indeed, in the African American community which I have largely served, in 1961 (the year of my birth) 80% of Black children were raised in two-parent families, Today that number is 20%. The statistics in the wider culture, as noted, are not much better and continue to drop. The change is nothing short of astonishing.
All of this leads to a dynamic of family history and personal experience that are not promising for traditional Marriage or the family.
II. Fornication - In the current cultural setting, following the sexual revolution that came out in the open in 1968, premarital sex, and cohabitation, have become epidemic. This has had a number of deleterious effects on Holy Matrimony and the family.
In the first place it takes away one of the stronger incentives to marriage that existed in the past, namely the desire of sexual intimacy and pleasure. Marriage in the culture of that time provided a context in which sexual intimacy was not only considered legitimate, but also honored and esteemed. Now, with the explosion of promiscuity and with such behavior no longer shunned, Marriage looses one of its draws. Most young people can obtain the sex they desire without the once demanded admission requirements.
Secondly a whole host of social ills accompanies fornication, and cohabitation (once called “shacking up” or living in sin). And these social evils and ills negatively impact Holy Matrimony.
Abortion has exploded on the scene. And whereas in the past a child conceived before marriage would move the couple to the sacred altar, now recourse to abortion, and even more viciously the expectation by men that women should “rid” them of the problem by abortion is the prevailing attitude.
AIDS, and sexually transmitted diseases like herpes, also make people less desirable as marriage partners.
And of course teenage pregnancy, single motherhood, etc, make many women less desirable for or prone to marriage and further the expectation that men should be able to move about sexually without commitment or responsibility.
Cohabitation also “permits” couples to play house, and the unwritten rule is that they can come as go as they please with little social repercussion to them.
Cardinal O’Malley says, The whole notion of family is so undercut by the cohabitation mentality, and these social trends are having a tremendous impact on the working-class communities who were once the backbone of the Church…This shift away from the bearing of children within wedlock is the “biggest threat to marriage. [2]
God lists fornication as among the sins that exclude one from the Kingdom of Heaven (e.g. Eph 5:3-9; 1 Cor. 6:9-11, inter al). Given the dreadful impact fornication has on Holy Matrimony and the Family, one can see why God takes sins of these sorts seriously. Of course the ones who pay the price for all this adult sexual misconduct, are children.
God links chastity to respect for Marriage, and promiscuity He regards as a dishonoring of Marriage: Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and adulterers (Heb 13:4).
III. Finances - In this matter Cardinal O’Malley says succinctly: Part of the problems are economic…Our educational system is so expensive, people graduate from college or graduate school facing huge debts. If you have a $150,000 debt when you graduate law school, are you going to marry a girl that has a $130,000 debt and start off your marriage with over a quarter-million dollars’ debt? So people are postponing marriage – are postponing a decision to go into the seminary or religious life – because they’re saddled under this tremendous debts which former generations didn’t have. [3]
We have discussed and debated on this blog before the notion that college is overrated and obscenely expensive. And for all the talk from the social liberals who dominate faculties and administration in these colleges, they seldom lift a finger to cut the costs of their overrated product. Instead they scold us for not caring enough about the poor and their burdens, while they live quite well off the future income of their students who are increasingly too poor to marry or raise children.
Almost no one among those who lecture us about justice will talk about this.
Student debt is becoming a huge factor in postponing marriage and also vocations to the priesthood and religious life.
IV. Formation struggles - Cardinal O’Malley says the Church needs “better marriage preparation” and outreach to help young people recover an understanding of marriage. He says the Church needs to “catechize our young people and instill in them a sense of vocation, and also to help them understand what courtship is about.”
He adds that this becomes even more important for: In combination with the misunderstanding of marriage, lack of attendance at Mass, and the shortcomings in the catechesis of young people, the Church also faces many challenges posed by the secularization of the culture. [4]
Indeed, the teachings of the Church on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony have been poorly conveyed to God’s people. And for many people, what they do hear unintelligible. For example they may well hear: Marriage is forever, but if it doesn’t work out for you we will get you annulment, and remember, an annulment is NOT a divorce! Or again they may hear that even though Protestants can get married while skydiving with a Justice of the Peace, and it valid, if a Catholic gets married outside the Church, it is invalid. Etc…
People struggle to figure all this out. And while there ARE answers to these puzzlements, they remain difficult obstacles in speaking coherently to people who are poorly catechized and more influenced by the secular world than the Church in this regard.
A chief place for us to begin rebuilding the case for traditional Marriage is resetting the premise of the discussion. Marriage is not first and foremost about what is best and most pleasing to the adults in the equation. Marriage is about children and what is best for them. Marriage is not about the rights of adults per se, it is about what is justly due to children.
Marriage takes its structure and mission as an institution based on the fact that every child deserves and has a birthright to be raised by by a father and mother, who have committed themselves to a stable and loving union, so as to give their child a stable an loving upbringing under the formative influence of both a male and female, that is their own parents.
This, it seems is where we must begin. More on this here: Getting the Marriage Conversation Right. Other things are surely required, but here is a good place to start, right where the modern secular premise goes 180° wrong.
And thus, in these four fundamental factors a perfect storm begins to brew that has severely damaged the understanding of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and the Institution of Traditional Marriage. Other factors also influence, but as we prepare to the Extraordinary Synod, Cardinal O’Malley’s remarks help frame a discussion of the problem and a way forward.
Later we can also discuss some of the questions put forward in the working document of the Synod.
We ARE about personal responsibility. But child support is mostly about giving women unaccounted-for money, not supporting children. The slut that married my brother took his money and built a house where the slut shacked up with its first cousin. Now the kids are grown and slut still owns the house. How did the slut's ability to build a house for itself and for its first cousin help the kids? Now that the kids are grown, why wouldn't my brother be entitled to partial ownership of the house, considering that any use HIS children have had of it is done, but the slut still owns the house? How does building luxury housing for sluts equate to responsibility for one's children?
You also stated that most folks you know who are divorced with kids have shared custody - two weeks here, two weeks there. Okay, great. Why do ANY of the women get ANY child support, if the men are taking care of their children half the time?
And why isn't shared PHYSICAL custody the default, rather than nearly 90% of women getting physical custody? Could it be these women don't want to let go of that child support check?
And how is sending a check once a month MORE of taking responsibility by a man for his children than seeking physical custody of his children (which many, many, many more than 10% of men actually do)? A man is MORE responsible to send a check than to keep his children in his home, feed them, clothe them, get them to school, make sure the homework gets done, etc.?
You have so many hidden premises, beg so many questions.
Oh, by the way - some women DO have to pay child support. About one woman is thusly sentenced for about every nine men. But men more reliably pay child support than deadbeat moms. Why are so many women unwilling to take responsibility for their children?
The system is inherently corrupt, and that corruption is tilted badly to favor women. With no-fault divorce, the initiator needs no serious reason to end the marriage. If the initiator is the wife, she can reasonably expect physical custody and significant child support, which is, essentially, free money for her to spend as she wishes.
Why should a man be held "responsible" for a situation he didn't create, and may have fought hard to prevent? Why do we give someone the right to unilaterally end a serious contract without cause? Why is the victim usually forced to pay for the outcome?
You talk about men taking responsibility for their children. How is it "responsible" for women to obtain divorces without cause and destroy the lives of their husbands and children? Does responsibility flow in only one direction? Is it not IRresponsible when one spouse unilaterally violates the marriage contract without cause, causing harm to all, and then foists the cost of the damages onto the innocent spouse?
Where divorce is truly necessary (and I've known a few circumstances where it really was), let the harmed party sue for divorce with cause. And prove in court, at least by the civil suit standard of a preponderance of the evidence that there are serious reasons for the action. Then, issues regarding money can be hashed out.
But nearly all divorces are no-fault, and about two-thirds of them are initiated by women who are little more than thieves out to steal from their soon-to-be ex-husbands. In these cases, let the initiating spouse go free, but without the loot he/she tries to wrest from his/her innocent spouse.
Without reforms of no-fault divorce laws, marriage is an extreme liability for men.
sitetest
Yeah, it seems like there are more divorces than should be necessary. Then again, I’m not close enough to anyone else’s marriage to judge.
And the principle, rightly IMO, is that custody should be decided in the best interest of the children. Often older children get to decide and may change from living with one parent to the other over the years. In general, it seems the older they get the more likely they are to want to live with dad, where supervision may be less close.
Likewise, child support should then follow according to the needs and interest of the child—not as punishment or reward for the parents.
Most women in marriages are the ones who compromise with lesser hours at the less demanding jobs so as to invest more time and responsibility for the kids. That’s simply how it is. So it’s not surprising that many divorce courts find it is in the interest of the kids to stay with the parent who has been doing the more involved parenting.
And I myself gave you an example of a woman paying child support, while saying that it was the exception rather than the rule.
Again, I’ve not been close enough in such marriages to judge, but I have certainly been told by women of their husbands actively trying to make them leave, so that the husband could get the upper hand in a property settlement.
The number of married households where the husband is the primary breadwinner is no longer anywhere 90%. Yet, physical custody is still granted to women 90% of the time. Why?
Because the law is inherently biased against men.
You, yourself said that in many cases, exes share physical custody - two weeks here, two weeks there. In that custody is roughly 50 - 50, why would ANY of these women receive child support? Would it not be more appropriate that each parent pay for the expenses they incur while the child is with them, and any shared expenses (tuition, unpaid medical bills, etc.) be split evenly? Why do ANY of these women get child support? ANY??
Because the law is inherently biased against men.
“Likewise, child support should then follow according to the needs and interest of the child—not as punishment or reward for the parents.”
If we're talking about the interests of the children, why is no-fault divorce permitted at all where there are children, now that we know the horrible deformation of children that divorce causes?
Because no-fault divorce is both an escape hatch for women and a way to milk men for all they have. The law is inherently biased against men.
As for punishment, how is it in the best interest of the child to see the majesty of the LAW reward people for unilaterally breaking the marriage contract without cause? Does that not damage the child's moral development? Why is the law-BREAKER rewarded, to the detriment of the child?
Because the law is inherently biased against men.
“Most women in marriages are the ones who compromise with lesser hours at the less demanding jobs...”
Not as much anymore. Most college degrees today, and most graduate degrees, are awarded to women. Women have made dramatic gains in jobs and wages in the last 40 years, and are much closer to par than they once were. By the same token, job opportunities for men have declined dramatically in the past 40 years. The traditional “mommy stays at home or works part-time and daddy is the primary breadwinner” might still apply in a majority of married households, but certainly, not in 90% of divorces with children. Certainly not in my brother's marriage and divorce. Yet, women still get physical custody nearly 90% of the time. Why?
Because the law is inherently biased against men.
“And I myself gave you an example of a woman paying child support, while saying that it was the exception rather than the rule.”
Big deal. You, yourself admit, it's the exception, not the rule.
“... but I have certainly been told by women of their husbands actively trying to make them leave, so that the husband could get the upper hand in a property settlement.”
This happens far more frequently to men by their lying, cheating, scum-sucking wives. It happened to my brother. The slut promised to seek joint marriage counseling if he would leave the family home, to give it, the slut, space. The slut wouldn't give him notice in writing that this is to what the slut agreed. It told him that it loved him, and he relented. That's how it got the first unjust child support agreement. When my brother brought this to the attention of the court, they didn't care. Why?
Because the law is inherently biased against men.
It has changed a little over the decades. Not that long ago, men had nearly no chance at custody. Now they get it about 13% of the time.
But basically, no-fault divorce is a legal vehicle available to women to screw their husbands legally when they get bored, or tired, or fall for someone else, or just want to be free from the obligations of marriage, and want a free ride paid for by their ex-husbands.
Men who marry today do so at their own peril.
REAL women, if there are any left after my wife, should be fighting to reform no-fault divorce law. Otherwise, many of the best men will not marry.
Or, they will insist on tight pre-nuptial agreements (especially men who either have earned any wealth or come from families with any accumulated wealth) that really aren't good for women, or anyone. Very sad.
Any way, far from being the misogynist of your unjust accusation, or a bitter divorced man of your overactive imagination, I'm just a happily married guy of 30+ years with two great sons and the best wife in the world who has seen the horrors of no-fault divorce up=close, and has researched the statistics, and see that the injustices that oppress men ultimately redound to the harm of women, too.
Many men are on strike against marriage, and it is the fault of the divorce laws and the evil women who use them for their own selfish gain and pleasure.
sitetest
Wow. I feel sorry for you for seeing things through that kind of lens. No-fault divorce was actually instituted in large part to protect children from messy divorces with dirty laundry aired.
If women have sacrificed professionally for child rearing, then yes, men should supplement their income with child support unless he has fewer resources than she.
If the law does not accord preferences by gender then it is not biased by gender.
And it’s not that long ago that houses were in the husband’s name only and thereby remained his property through divorce.
You feel sorry for me? *chuckle* Those who labor in delusion and fantasy are the ones who should be pitied.
“No-fault divorce was actually instituted in large part to protect children from messy divorces with dirty laundry aired.”
Even assuming the most positive motives for these laws, have you heard of unintended consequences? That's what we've got in spades with no-fault divorce.
“If women have sacrificed professionally for child rearing, then yes, men should supplement their income with child support unless he has fewer resources than she.”
Do you know anyone with shared physical custody where the man pays the woman child support? What is the justification for that? If a spouse throws the other spouse out of the house (which is essentially what happens in a unilateral no-fault divorce), the guilty spouse is saying, "I no longer want any part of you." Why should that person have the legal right to say, "I no longer want any part of you. Except the contents of your wallet."
If custody is physically shared, then each spouse does the best for the children when he/she has custody. Let each spouse stand on his/her own two feet, since the guilty spouse has otherwise rejected the innocent spouse. The innocent spouse owes the guilty spouse nothing. The innocent parent owes his/her children what he/she can provide for them WHILE IN HIS/HER custody.
If the guilty one says, "I can't support my children as well without stealing from my ex-husband/wife," then let him/her take that into consideration before throwing over the innocent spouse. You might want a Mercedes-Benz, but if all you can afford is a Kia, then you don't have the right to steal it from your victims. Talk about personal responsibility.
If one spouse initiates the no-fault divorce, and the other spouse doesn't want it, why does the innocent spouse have to pay for something he or she didn't want, and tried to prevent?
In what other contractual arrangement does one party get to break the contract without cause, and, by function of law, the other party is forced to pay for all the bad consequences? It's usually the other way around.
Since I've pointed out the fact that women have gained in the workplace and men have lost quite a bit, why do women still get physical custody nearly 90% of the time, and over 90% of child support?
“If the law does not accord preferences by gender then it is not biased by gender.”
If the law is enforced in a discriminatory way, then the law, as enforced, is biased.
“And it’s not that long ago that houses were in the husband’s name only and thereby remained his property through divorce.”
Most folks, when they buy a house, get a mortgage. Most folks, when they buy a house, apply for the mortgage together, in part, because even if one spouse's income is less than the other spouse's, their combined income may be necessary to qualify for the mortgage. Typically, if both names are on the mortgage, the bank wants both names on the title. Banks much prefer, in fact, they often insist, that folks on the mortgage are the folks on the title.
If the husband buys the house on his own, without the financial contribution of the wife (or vice versa), and is the innocent victim of a wife who no-fault divorces him (or vice versa), the guilty spouse should receive nothing of the innocent spouse's assets. At all. Ever.
And, in fact, increasingly, to coax men into a legally-disadvantageous relationship, women will have to accept pre-nuptial agreements that put them at a disadvantage.
You'd almost have half an argument if no-fault divorces were only available upon mutual consent. But New York is the last state to join that bandwagon, in 2010. All 50 states and the District of Columbia all grant unilateral no-fault divorce.
The victimizer doesn't have the right to loot the assets of the victim.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.