America’s Marriage Debate Depends on Civil Society
July 22, 2011
Ryan Messmore
As recent events in New York show, the marriage debate in America takes place amid serious political and legal fault lines. But efforts to defend and strengthen this bedrock institution ultimately depend on how marriage is understood, articulated, and practiced in civil society.
As an undergraduate at Duke University, I spent the better part of senior year preparing for two related challenges: my senior thesis and marriage. My thesis, written for the public policy department, focused on the effects of marriage and divorce law.
While I was writing it, my soon-to-be fiancée and I were going through pre-engagement counseling with our pastor. A month before graduation, I submitted the thesis for Duke’s approval and popped the question to Karin.
Thankfully, both said yes.
Since those days, social scientists have mounted more and more research confirming the substantial social and economic effects of marriage and divorce. Studies show that a healthy marriage is associated with higher income, home ownership, and accumulation of assets and savings.
Strong marriage also correlates with positive outcomes for children, including higher academic achievement; improved mental and emotional health; lower risk of substance abuse and violent delinquency; and delayed sexual activity and risk behavior. Being raised by married parents reduces a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 80 percent. And according to a joint report from the Institute for American Values and several other organizations, family fragmentation costs U.S. taxpayers at least $112 billion each year.
On these social and economic grounds alone, government has a significant interest in safeguarding, respecting, and protecting traditional marriage. In his new paper, “A Marshall Plan for Marriage,” Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Chuck Donovan outlines how federal and state officials could do just that.
Such policy recommendations send important signals about the significance of marriage for the welfare of society. But when it comes to strengthening marriage, government can do only so much.
Marriage, after all, is a pre-political institution. It wasn’t created by civil government, and doesn’t depend on civil government for its existence. Marriage is a relationship that deserves the protection of government, but the current debate is about much more than the public benefits and legal definition of marriage.
At its heart, the marriage debate in America is about the meaning of a certain relationship. This is a conversation about the purposes of a particular kind of commitment and how our most basic views about the meaning and purpose of love, sex, and marriage are formed in civil society—by what we observe from our parents growing up, what’s discussed around the dinner table, what’s heard and practiced in our places of worship.
Any hope of strengthening marriage and reducing the prevalence of divorce and out-of-wedlock births must rely on institutions such as the family and church. These are the kind of institutions that are well equipped to form habits, shape opinions, mold desires, cultivate healthy relationships, and exercise moral authority. Pastors and church leaders, especially, wield great influence in shaping parishioners’ understandings of and expectations for marriage. Premarital counseling likely is where they encounter the most pointed instruction. This was true for Karin and me in the months before our engagement and marriage.
Unfortunately, only 25 percent to 33 percent of marrying couples receive premarital counseling. Although a majority of clergy rank premarital counseling as high in importance, couples often don’t leave enough time before the wedding date to go to more than three one-hour counseling sessions.
This is one reason why, in the attempt to strengthen marriage in America, the nonprofit organization Marriage Savers focuses primarily on pastors and the way they prepare members of their congregations for marriage. Since 1986, Marriage Savers has helped more than 200 churches form Community Marriage Policies. Participating pastors pledge to recruit and sustain “mentor couples” within their congregations. The pastors also agree to refuse to marry any couple who hasn’t had significant premarital preparation from both clergy and a mentor couple. The results are impressive: Churches with Community Marriage Policies have seen reduced divorce rates and improved marital relationships.
By strengthening marriage, private counseling sessions significantly contribute to the common good. Successful community-based efforts such as Marriage Savers not only shape hearts, minds, and relationships, but also help provide spouses and their children with a buffer against poverty or other social ills.
Policymakers need to understand the public good of traditional marriage. They need to work to protect and encourage it in law. Winning the public debate over the meaning of marriage, however, also requires the effective engagement of civil society.
Before Karin and I married, my research on the negative economic and social effects of divorce sobered me. But even more effective was the positive instruction about successful marriage that we received in pastoral counseling before we got engaged. We learned not only the purposes of marriage, but also how to create a budget, communicate effectively, and avoid personal insults when arguing. Just as important as public efforts to fight for marriage may be the need to train couples to fight well within it.
Ryan Messmore, D.Phil., is the William E. Simon fellow in religion and a free society at The Heritage Foundation.
RESOURCES
FamilyFacts.org
Robert Rector, Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty
The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing [PDF]
A Marshall Plan for Marriage: Rebuilding Our Shattered Homes
Catherine Latimer and Michael J. McManus, How to Give Marriage Insurance to Premarital Couples
J. Robin Summers and Jo Lynn Cunningham, Premarital Counseling by Clergy: a Key Link Between Church and Family [PDF]
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
7.22.2011 | 8:43am
Randy says:
Two hundred years ago, married couples understood that they were not just raising 2.1 children, who will grow up, move away, and communicate with them on holidays. They were raising the faithful guardians they would depend on (for food and shelter) in their old age. In that situation, the penalties for divorce are huge. What if the children pick a side in the divorce, and it's not you they pick? Best stay together.
7.22.2011 | 10:37am
Michael PS says:
Randy,
In Europe, the mutual obligations of financial support between ascendants and descendants (and between parents-in-law and children-in-law - Art 206 of the Civil Code) are, not merely a moral duty, but a strict legal obligation imposed by the Civil Code and one which is a vigorously enforced by the Procurator of the Republic, where there is any risk of a person becoming a charge on public funds.
In France, Article 210 of the Civil Code provides that "Where the person who must provide maintenance establishes that he cannot make periodical payments, the"family causes judge"(Act no 93-22 of 8 Jan. 1993) may, with full knowledge of the facts, order that he shall receive in his home, feed and maintain the one to whom he owes maintenance." It is amazing how quickly people discover the means to make payments to avoid such an order
In Europe, the mutual obligations of financial support between ascendants and descendants (and between parents-in-law and children-in-law - Art 206 of the Civil Code) are, not merely a moral duty, but a strict legal obligation imposed by the Civil Code and one which is a vigorously enforced by the Procurator of the Republic, where there is any risk of a person becoming a charge on public funds.
In France, Article 210 of the Civil Code provides that "Where the person who must provide maintenance establishes that he cannot make periodical payments, the"family causes judge"(Act no 93-22 of 8 Jan. 1993) may, with full knowledge of the facts, order that he shall receive in his home, feed and maintain the one to whom he owes maintenance." It is amazing how quickly people discover the means to make payments to avoid such an order
7.22.2011 | 11:04am
EWH says:
There are two ideas in this essay, one useful, but one not so helpful. Engaging the government is unhelpful and will ultimately be self-defeating. Public policy arguments are squarely within the wheelhouse of those who seek to undermine traditional marriage. "Studies" produce the desired outcome of those who fund them. If I can marshal 50 studies for traditional marriage, and if you can marshal 50 studies showing how non-traditional arrangements turn out "just fine," then the studies become a wash. Thus, the public is left with the impression that government support for traditional marriage is arbitrary and non-necessary.
Civil engagement, however, is a useful idea. People hear studies and statistics thrown at them all the time; but experience produces more powerful beliefs. If people come to see the purported salutary effects of premarital counseling, traditional marriage, et al. in their neighborhoods and schools, then you might see real change.
The politicians will always follow the voters. Start with the actual people these things affect, and the politics will follow. So long as things remain in the abstract and/or hypothetical - as studies, public policy arguments and the like necessarily are - then the undermining of traditional marriage will continue.
Civil engagement, however, is a useful idea. People hear studies and statistics thrown at them all the time; but experience produces more powerful beliefs. If people come to see the purported salutary effects of premarital counseling, traditional marriage, et al. in their neighborhoods and schools, then you might see real change.
The politicians will always follow the voters. Start with the actual people these things affect, and the politics will follow. So long as things remain in the abstract and/or hypothetical - as studies, public policy arguments and the like necessarily are - then the undermining of traditional marriage will continue.
7.22.2011 | 11:54am
David Nickol says:
I would be interested to hear what people think of covenant marriage.
From Wikipedia:
**********
In some parts of the United States, a covenant marriage is a legally distinct kind of marriage, in which the marrying couple agree to obtain pre-marital counseling and accept more limited grounds for divorce. The covenant marriage laws emphasize the belief that marriage is more than just a mere contract between two individuals, contending that without marriage, there would be no foundation of family in society and, in turn, no civilization or progress to follow.
The movement sets out to promote and strengthen marriages, reduce the rate of divorce, lessen the number of children born out of wedlock, discourage cohabitation, and frame marriage as an honorable and desirable institution. As a law, covenant marriage is technically written neutrally with respect to religion, however it quickly became marked as a religious form of marriage, due to its historical background. . . .
In 1997, Louisiana became the first state to create covenant marriage as a legal category; since then Arkansas and Arizona have followed suit. People who are already married in these states may change their marriage to a covenant marriage.
Legislation has been introduced to create legal covenant marriage in a number of other states, including California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia; these efforts have not to date been successful.
**********
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage
From Wikipedia:
**********
In some parts of the United States, a covenant marriage is a legally distinct kind of marriage, in which the marrying couple agree to obtain pre-marital counseling and accept more limited grounds for divorce. The covenant marriage laws emphasize the belief that marriage is more than just a mere contract between two individuals, contending that without marriage, there would be no foundation of family in society and, in turn, no civilization or progress to follow.
The movement sets out to promote and strengthen marriages, reduce the rate of divorce, lessen the number of children born out of wedlock, discourage cohabitation, and frame marriage as an honorable and desirable institution. As a law, covenant marriage is technically written neutrally with respect to religion, however it quickly became marked as a religious form of marriage, due to its historical background. . . .
In 1997, Louisiana became the first state to create covenant marriage as a legal category; since then Arkansas and Arizona have followed suit. People who are already married in these states may change their marriage to a covenant marriage.
Legislation has been introduced to create legal covenant marriage in a number of other states, including California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia; these efforts have not to date been successful.
**********
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage
7.22.2011 | 12:06pm
Julia K says:
An interesting perspective on same-sex premarital counseling:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/serene-jones/why-im-not-marrying-any-g_b_905087.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/serene-jones/why-im-not-marrying-any-g_b_905087.html
7.22.2011 | 12:19pm
Randy says:
I'm starting to think that government should get out of the marriage business altogether, and just stay in the child protection business. If you live under the same roof with a spouse, or close friend, and combine your financial resources and obligations, apply any remaining legal distinctions on that basis. Now that we have DNA testing, the responsible party for child support can be determined on that basis alone. Beyond that, marriage is up to you and your church to define. Put a ring on your finger, don't put a ring on your finger, government leaves that entirely up to you.
7.22.2011 | 12:23pm
jason taylor says:
"in some parts of the United States, a covenant marriage is a legally distinct kind of marriage, in which the marrying couple agree to obtain pre-marital counseling and accept more limited grounds for divorce. The covenant marriage laws emphasize the belief that marriage is more than just a mere contract between two individuals, contending that without marriage, there would be no foundation of family in society and, in turn, no civilization or progress to follow"
The church marriage recognizes NO grounds for divorce. Adding the word "covenant" dilutes, it doesn't help because it implies that your word isn't good enough in a "non covenant" marriage. Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay.
The church marriage recognizes NO grounds for divorce. Adding the word "covenant" dilutes, it doesn't help because it implies that your word isn't good enough in a "non covenant" marriage. Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay.
7.22.2011 | 12:25pm
jason taylor says:
"Two hundred years ago, married couples understood that they were not just raising 2.1 children, who will grow up, move away, and communicate with them on holidays. They were raising the faithful guardians they would depend on (for food and shelter) in their old age. In that situation, the penalties for divorce are huge. What if the children pick a side in the divorce, and it's not you they pick? Best stay together. "
That one tenth of a child must have been a bundle to raise.
That one tenth of a child must have been a bundle to raise.
7.22.2011 | 1:50pm
Michael PS says:
Randy
"Now that we have DNA testing, the responsible party for child support can be determined on that basis alone"
This would undermine the policy of making civil status certain and incontestable - "The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father" and "Investigation into paternity is forbidden" (which are two sides of the same coin)
Moreover, it would effectively nullify the obligation of financial support between parents-in-law and children-in-law. It would also require changes in the law of succession regarding the revocability of gifts between spouses and the surviving spouse's reserved share of the estate
"Now that we have DNA testing, the responsible party for child support can be determined on that basis alone"
This would undermine the policy of making civil status certain and incontestable - "The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father" and "Investigation into paternity is forbidden" (which are two sides of the same coin)
Moreover, it would effectively nullify the obligation of financial support between parents-in-law and children-in-law. It would also require changes in the law of succession regarding the revocability of gifts between spouses and the surviving spouse's reserved share of the estate
7.22.2011 | 1:55pm
David Nickol says:
Randy,
You say: "Two hundred years ago, married couples understood that they were not just raising 2.1 children, who will grow up, move away, and communicate with them on holidays. They were raising the faithful guardians they would depend on (for food and shelter) in their old age."
Where was this? Think of Pride and Prejudice, for example, which represents life almost exactly 200 years ago, and where what is important is to *marry off* the children, not rely on them in lieu of an old-age pension.
You say: "Two hundred years ago, married couples understood that they were not just raising 2.1 children, who will grow up, move away, and communicate with them on holidays. They were raising the faithful guardians they would depend on (for food and shelter) in their old age."
Where was this? Think of Pride and Prejudice, for example, which represents life almost exactly 200 years ago, and where what is important is to *marry off* the children, not rely on them in lieu of an old-age pension.
7.22.2011 | 4:25pm
pentamom says:
David, the scenario in Pride and Prejudice was EXACTLY about relying on them for an old age pension. The daughters had to marry well so that the mother and any remaining unmarried sisters would be provided for after the father's death. Had they had sons, whose money would have stayed in the family, the marrying off would have been far less important. This wasn't true for every family; many families had property arrangements that allowed surviving wives and daughters to draw a sufficient income until death. Mr. Bennet's forbears, for whatever reason, had chosen to arrange matters differently.
Furthermore, this is an upper middle class family with private income from rents. The common folk, of whom there were about eight times more, most definitely relied on moving in with kids (or having the kids stay on in the family home and care for them, depending on the situation) after they were no longer able to work hard enough to support themselves. The Bennets' situation, besides not being a counter-example to depending on offspring for late life support, was a situation only pertinent to the relatively wealthy.
Furthermore, this is an upper middle class family with private income from rents. The common folk, of whom there were about eight times more, most definitely relied on moving in with kids (or having the kids stay on in the family home and care for them, depending on the situation) after they were no longer able to work hard enough to support themselves. The Bennets' situation, besides not being a counter-example to depending on offspring for late life support, was a situation only pertinent to the relatively wealthy.
7.22.2011 | 4:33pm
Gil Costello says:
The bedrock of every truly progressive culture will always be the nuclear family: man, woman, child(ren) and its extended family. From this foundation we move out into the world to fulfill what we learned about love and sacrifice (the latter in most cases anathema to the modern secular mindset). The widespread attack on the nuclear family is an assault on a truly progressive society (where change is inevitable, but not at the cost of human dignity embedded in love and sacrifice, best learned in all its complex interrelatedness in the nuclear family).
Barry Levinson's film "Avalon" was one exploration of how nuclear/extended family can move into disintegration (the child left with his mind being sucked into a monitor, the trade-off for all the complex discernment involved in family interrelatedness). But there is much more today. It is Satan's field day, getting his last laugh before the finale of his defeat.
Barry Levinson's film "Avalon" was one exploration of how nuclear/extended family can move into disintegration (the child left with his mind being sucked into a monitor, the trade-off for all the complex discernment involved in family interrelatedness). But there is much more today. It is Satan's field day, getting his last laugh before the finale of his defeat.
7.22.2011 | 6:06pm
David Nickol says:
pentamom,
There is truth to what you say about Mrs. Bennett's situation. Should Mr. Bennett have died before she did, she would have had only what she brought to the marriage to support herself and any unmarried daughters. However, what I took Randy to be saying was that parents looked upon children as meal tickets for their old age. ["They were raising the faithful guardians they would depend on (for food and shelter) in their old age."] It seems to me that was a sweeping generalization. As long as Mr. Bennett remained alive, he had sufficient wealth to support his wife and daughters quite nicely. So Mr. Bennet himself did not need children in lieu of an old-age pension. Mrs. Bennett in the novel has little money of her own, but other women in Mrs. Bennett's situation might have had more, and therefore would not have been dependent on marrying off their daughters to rich men in order to provide for their old age, should their husbands die.
The idea of having children to provide for your old age certainly did not work in Jane Austen's own case. She accepted a marriage proposal from a very wealthy man who could have provided for her entire family, but she turned him down one day later and lived her whole adult life as a financial burden to her family. And she was adamant in warning others not to marry for money, so if daughters were to be married off to provide for parents' old age, Jane Austen was throwing a monkey wrench into the system!
I would hate to have to undertake the research on how rich, poor, and middle class lived two hundred years ago, but I still think it is a sweeping generalization to say what Randy said. It also bothers me to hear people regard the low birthrate in the United States nowadays as lamentable because it means fewer young people will be paying into Social Security. The motive for having children should not be providing for your old age!
There is truth to what you say about Mrs. Bennett's situation. Should Mr. Bennett have died before she did, she would have had only what she brought to the marriage to support herself and any unmarried daughters. However, what I took Randy to be saying was that parents looked upon children as meal tickets for their old age. ["They were raising the faithful guardians they would depend on (for food and shelter) in their old age."] It seems to me that was a sweeping generalization. As long as Mr. Bennett remained alive, he had sufficient wealth to support his wife and daughters quite nicely. So Mr. Bennet himself did not need children in lieu of an old-age pension. Mrs. Bennett in the novel has little money of her own, but other women in Mrs. Bennett's situation might have had more, and therefore would not have been dependent on marrying off their daughters to rich men in order to provide for their old age, should their husbands die.
The idea of having children to provide for your old age certainly did not work in Jane Austen's own case. She accepted a marriage proposal from a very wealthy man who could have provided for her entire family, but she turned him down one day later and lived her whole adult life as a financial burden to her family. And she was adamant in warning others not to marry for money, so if daughters were to be married off to provide for parents' old age, Jane Austen was throwing a monkey wrench into the system!
I would hate to have to undertake the research on how rich, poor, and middle class lived two hundred years ago, but I still think it is a sweeping generalization to say what Randy said. It also bothers me to hear people regard the low birthrate in the United States nowadays as lamentable because it means fewer young people will be paying into Social Security. The motive for having children should not be providing for your old age!
7.22.2011 | 11:14pm
mike says:
A marriage license is still part of what I (and most others) consider to be the 'social contract'. Indeed virtually every marriage ceremony reminds us that .. marriage is an institution ... marriage is a contract ... marriage is a foundation.
A house built on a strong foundation will never fall.
The only problem is that even the strongest foundation can survive the onslaught of a jackhammer for only so long.
I seriously doubt that we are another sodom and gomorrah or an ancient Roman orgy; and yet ... we are at the brink.
We have a chasm of disaster to fall into if we stumble, or an escalator to the top if we come to our senses.
Should the institution of marriage become mutated into an 'any two of anything' will be certified, we are, unfortunately stumbling and tripping into the chasm and a domino effect may cause more than the social fabric to rip apart.
The solons may legislate that any marriage between any two consenting adults, regardless of similar or opposite sex is permissible, and the courts may condone and uphold such legislation, but in the long run it will come down to society as a whole to take a stand and say 'No'. 'It is not acceptable. Marriage is and will continue to be a union between only a man and a woman'.
If we fail in this duty, we fail in all duties and are doomed to repeat the disasters of sodom and gomorrah and ancient Rome.
Truly, Heaven Help Us!
A house built on a strong foundation will never fall.
The only problem is that even the strongest foundation can survive the onslaught of a jackhammer for only so long.
I seriously doubt that we are another sodom and gomorrah or an ancient Roman orgy; and yet ... we are at the brink.
We have a chasm of disaster to fall into if we stumble, or an escalator to the top if we come to our senses.
Should the institution of marriage become mutated into an 'any two of anything' will be certified, we are, unfortunately stumbling and tripping into the chasm and a domino effect may cause more than the social fabric to rip apart.
The solons may legislate that any marriage between any two consenting adults, regardless of similar or opposite sex is permissible, and the courts may condone and uphold such legislation, but in the long run it will come down to society as a whole to take a stand and say 'No'. 'It is not acceptable. Marriage is and will continue to be a union between only a man and a woman'.
If we fail in this duty, we fail in all duties and are doomed to repeat the disasters of sodom and gomorrah and ancient Rome.
Truly, Heaven Help Us!
7.24.2011 | 1:27am
Ayodele says:
@Mike
You say: "I seriously doubt that we are another sodom and gomorrah or an ancient Roman orgy; and yet ... we are at the brink."
I have bad tidings. Its already too late in the day to doubt this. We have no evidence that even in sodom and gomorrah same sex marriage was legalized, so its clear that as it is we've surpassed them in that regard.
Right now, the earthquake that precedes the tsunami of social disintegration to come has already occurred, and in the present time we are in the immediate calm just before the 200-foot waves sweep ashore in all their destructive power. For those of us who still hold stedfast to our belief in the sacred union of man and woman in holy matrimony as the bedrock of civil society, our only recourse is to remain secure on our (moral) high ground in the midst of the disaster that is sure to come.
You say: "I seriously doubt that we are another sodom and gomorrah or an ancient Roman orgy; and yet ... we are at the brink."
I have bad tidings. Its already too late in the day to doubt this. We have no evidence that even in sodom and gomorrah same sex marriage was legalized, so its clear that as it is we've surpassed them in that regard.
Right now, the earthquake that precedes the tsunami of social disintegration to come has already occurred, and in the present time we are in the immediate calm just before the 200-foot waves sweep ashore in all their destructive power. For those of us who still hold stedfast to our belief in the sacred union of man and woman in holy matrimony as the bedrock of civil society, our only recourse is to remain secure on our (moral) high ground in the midst of the disaster that is sure to come.
7.24.2011 | 10:12am
bill bannon says:
I rarely see Ayodele's apocalyptic view but it strikes me as more biblical than the "we can transform the world" group. Millions die each year from starvation in the third world while we all eat above the sustenance level each week and that starvation reality seems more fixable than worldwide crimes like drug and sexual trafficing.....but we seem no where's near solving even the first one...starvation. Gay activity and civil wedlock for it is just one more wave that we can't solve. The 2 TV family (isolating individuals in their own world) and no fault divorce weakened marriage way prior to gay unions doing so. I don't remember churches zealously fighing against either. And now in a world of gadgets that isolate easily even young couples on a date (when the smart phone rings), I don't see warnings against smart phone abuse.
Christian discourse is simply very sexual and our warnings are then sexual.
Can you imagine a church taking a strong stand against TV shows that tempt toward coveting like one real estate cable tv show in the US that shows couples shopping for a second home in Costa Rica or in Fiji and they're hoping it will be below a million dollars which is their limit. I can't imagine a Church zealously warning in regard to the 10th commandment....but sex and the 6th commandment somehow became the prime focus. Ten million people are now at risk of starvation in the horn of Africa. Now count the Christian articles on the net on the African plight versus the Christian articles on how gay marriage is weakening real marriage.
For whatever reason, the West is about sex...despite there being much more in the Bible than sex.
Christian discourse is simply very sexual and our warnings are then sexual.
Can you imagine a church taking a strong stand against TV shows that tempt toward coveting like one real estate cable tv show in the US that shows couples shopping for a second home in Costa Rica or in Fiji and they're hoping it will be below a million dollars which is their limit. I can't imagine a Church zealously warning in regard to the 10th commandment....but sex and the 6th commandment somehow became the prime focus. Ten million people are now at risk of starvation in the horn of Africa. Now count the Christian articles on the net on the African plight versus the Christian articles on how gay marriage is weakening real marriage.
For whatever reason, the West is about sex...despite there being much more in the Bible than sex.
7.24.2011 | 7:10pm
Gil Costello says:
If it weren't for the apocalyptic views of persons like Ayodele I might have succumbed to despair a long time ago. Nothing is as spiritually encouraging for me than those who speak the truth as it is in and out of season, not succumbing to a false prudence, a prudence that calls itself detachment when in fact it is a violence called indifference, a false prudence that amounts to lukewarmness with a self-aggrandizing pride that ends in priests inviting those who are pro-abortion and pro-gay-marriage to be spokespersons for their parish.
I have never met a pro-abortion advocate, a sex education advocate that encourages teens to experiment with dangerous sexual practices, or a gay marriage advocate who has sinned more than me. The depths of my sinfulness humble me in most every moment. But being humbled does not mean one has to submit to any status quo, an idealized lukewarmness. Christians can speak the truth without judging others, for more than likely those others know not what they do. But how the hell are those others ever going to have an inkling of what they are doing to themselves and others (especially children) as an opportunity for reflection that would enable them to progress in their spiritual lives if no one ever elaborates on what their sinful life is made up of? The major problem with the widespread idealization of lukewarmness in our culture is that it assists in killing children with spiritual pride.
Nothing is as maddening as priests, bishops and pious Christians who remain silent on moral issues that are killing children from the womb through the teen years. And it was precisely this widespread indifference (lukewarmness) within churches that taught Harvard students that the highest form of holiness is to not judge behavior that kills, and why they invited Mother Teresa of Calcutta to speak at a commencement ceremony, where they learned that this saintly woman did not live up to the view that so many priests and bishops taught them (that one should not judge destructive behavior) when she spoke on the evil of abortion.
The point that most priests miss is that any virtue, even a cardinal virtue like prudence, if used to suppress other virtues, most especially cardinal virtues, becomes evil.
I have never met a pro-abortion advocate, a sex education advocate that encourages teens to experiment with dangerous sexual practices, or a gay marriage advocate who has sinned more than me. The depths of my sinfulness humble me in most every moment. But being humbled does not mean one has to submit to any status quo, an idealized lukewarmness. Christians can speak the truth without judging others, for more than likely those others know not what they do. But how the hell are those others ever going to have an inkling of what they are doing to themselves and others (especially children) as an opportunity for reflection that would enable them to progress in their spiritual lives if no one ever elaborates on what their sinful life is made up of? The major problem with the widespread idealization of lukewarmness in our culture is that it assists in killing children with spiritual pride.
Nothing is as maddening as priests, bishops and pious Christians who remain silent on moral issues that are killing children from the womb through the teen years. And it was precisely this widespread indifference (lukewarmness) within churches that taught Harvard students that the highest form of holiness is to not judge behavior that kills, and why they invited Mother Teresa of Calcutta to speak at a commencement ceremony, where they learned that this saintly woman did not live up to the view that so many priests and bishops taught them (that one should not judge destructive behavior) when she spoke on the evil of abortion.
The point that most priests miss is that any virtue, even a cardinal virtue like prudence, if used to suppress other virtues, most especially cardinal virtues, becomes evil.
7.24.2011 | 8:12pm
Ayodele says:
@bill bannon.
I agree that sexual issues appear to receive undue attention among a host of other pressing matters out there. But the reason for this is simply because it is THE issue that defines every other issue that the world faces. No sex, no procreation, no continuity of life, NO MORE HOMO SAPIENS, end of story. By extension, correct sexual practices equals stable procreation and stability of civil society. Therefore condoning wrong or unnatural sexual practices results in debasing social attitudes to sex, the cheapening of human dignity and the ultimate disintegration of civil society.
If this is hard to swallow, consider the structure of active volcanoes as the closest possible illustration of the power of sex in society. The lava eruption comes through the center of the volcano, but in reality originates form a deep reservoir of magma within the earth's crust. In a stable volcano, the lava eruption follows a predictable trajectory, and hence the outcome of lava flow can be predicted. Not so with an unstable volcano, where such calculations cannot be made with certainty, because it may erupt at an unexpected position and flow in uncharted directions, wreaking havoc.
Therefore if one must live near a volcano, its far better to choose a stable one.
Such are the forces that sex unleashes on society, they are so powerful that it requires us to have a high level of stability and predictability in its flow, otherwise it would totally consume everything that we cherish. That is why we pay such close attention to those forces that would impose instability and unpredictable practices into the long-cherished ideals that have held society together for thousands of years.
I agree that sexual issues appear to receive undue attention among a host of other pressing matters out there. But the reason for this is simply because it is THE issue that defines every other issue that the world faces. No sex, no procreation, no continuity of life, NO MORE HOMO SAPIENS, end of story. By extension, correct sexual practices equals stable procreation and stability of civil society. Therefore condoning wrong or unnatural sexual practices results in debasing social attitudes to sex, the cheapening of human dignity and the ultimate disintegration of civil society.
If this is hard to swallow, consider the structure of active volcanoes as the closest possible illustration of the power of sex in society. The lava eruption comes through the center of the volcano, but in reality originates form a deep reservoir of magma within the earth's crust. In a stable volcano, the lava eruption follows a predictable trajectory, and hence the outcome of lava flow can be predicted. Not so with an unstable volcano, where such calculations cannot be made with certainty, because it may erupt at an unexpected position and flow in uncharted directions, wreaking havoc.
Therefore if one must live near a volcano, its far better to choose a stable one.
Such are the forces that sex unleashes on society, they are so powerful that it requires us to have a high level of stability and predictability in its flow, otherwise it would totally consume everything that we cherish. That is why we pay such close attention to those forces that would impose instability and unpredictable practices into the long-cherished ideals that have held society together for thousands of years.
7.24.2011 | 10:38pm
bill bannon says:
Well I have to fall back on Christ who talked about sex but not so much. When it came to His sermon on those who would enter Heaven or Hell, He doesn't mention it at all but talks of whether people fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty etc.
His ( by origin) epistles through Paul etc. do address where fornicators and sodomites will be going but it is interesting that in His iconic sermon, Christ chose to stress the works of mercy. Twice He speaks of procreation but there is a balance
in that He speaks of a woman's great joy despite labor pains that a child is born into the world...yet He realistically speaks of the circumstance of those women who will be pregnant in calamity in the last days/or Jerusalem's fall...which the mothers of Somalia by extension are going through right now as some carry dead babies for days as they trek to Kenya....here is Christ on pregnancy under duress:
Matthew 24:19 "Woe to pregnant women and nursing mothers in those days.
20 Pray that your flight not be in winter or on the sabbath, 21 for at that time there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will be."
So I would simply say that we might do well to roughly replicate Christ's rythmn of speaking of one particular topic lest we rationalize it's predominance. The world growth rate has slowed but growth is still there. If China sometime in the future abolishes the one child policy one of these years (two children are allowed in some areas now)....well then, you can forget any fears of mankind disappearing.
What you may be fearing is the number of the baptized not growing. There we can learn from the Amish and other anabaptists....if you have real interdependent community, you will have procreation without a law ordering procreation. Parents among the Amish know that they will be taken care of with a little grandparents' house on the offspring's farm....they receive no social security. They can trust in their custom whereas such trust levels may vary greatly in Catholic or Lutheran out-in-the-world families. The anabaptist culture leads to big families because their insurance is each other....in fires and in sickness even. With no Pope, they have the large families that the modern Italian Popes...the Pius's....were used to.
Oddly (since both Fathers opposed birth control) when you read Jerome and Augustine, they saw the large family as a Jewish phenomenon not Christian
("Against Jovinianus" Bk.I sect.37 and "The Good of Marriage" sect.19 respectively) with Jerome exclaiming that how do you know they will not be reprobate whereupon he gives examples from the OT of just men who had evil children, a topic never addressed anymore. How could men who opposed birth control look askance at large families? They thought the end times were near and neither was empathetic to I Corinthians 7:5 wherein some very physical married couples are told not to abstain overlong lest Satan enter in. And Jerome thought the earth was full ("Against Helvidius" PL 23:215) as did another Father...Chrysostom who saw marriage mostly in terms of avoiding fornication as a result and in line with parts of I Cor. 7.
His ( by origin) epistles through Paul etc. do address where fornicators and sodomites will be going but it is interesting that in His iconic sermon, Christ chose to stress the works of mercy. Twice He speaks of procreation but there is a balance
in that He speaks of a woman's great joy despite labor pains that a child is born into the world...yet He realistically speaks of the circumstance of those women who will be pregnant in calamity in the last days/or Jerusalem's fall...which the mothers of Somalia by extension are going through right now as some carry dead babies for days as they trek to Kenya....here is Christ on pregnancy under duress:
Matthew 24:19 "Woe to pregnant women and nursing mothers in those days.
20 Pray that your flight not be in winter or on the sabbath, 21 for at that time there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will be."
So I would simply say that we might do well to roughly replicate Christ's rythmn of speaking of one particular topic lest we rationalize it's predominance. The world growth rate has slowed but growth is still there. If China sometime in the future abolishes the one child policy one of these years (two children are allowed in some areas now)....well then, you can forget any fears of mankind disappearing.
What you may be fearing is the number of the baptized not growing. There we can learn from the Amish and other anabaptists....if you have real interdependent community, you will have procreation without a law ordering procreation. Parents among the Amish know that they will be taken care of with a little grandparents' house on the offspring's farm....they receive no social security. They can trust in their custom whereas such trust levels may vary greatly in Catholic or Lutheran out-in-the-world families. The anabaptist culture leads to big families because their insurance is each other....in fires and in sickness even. With no Pope, they have the large families that the modern Italian Popes...the Pius's....were used to.
Oddly (since both Fathers opposed birth control) when you read Jerome and Augustine, they saw the large family as a Jewish phenomenon not Christian
("Against Jovinianus" Bk.I sect.37 and "The Good of Marriage" sect.19 respectively) with Jerome exclaiming that how do you know they will not be reprobate whereupon he gives examples from the OT of just men who had evil children, a topic never addressed anymore. How could men who opposed birth control look askance at large families? They thought the end times were near and neither was empathetic to I Corinthians 7:5 wherein some very physical married couples are told not to abstain overlong lest Satan enter in. And Jerome thought the earth was full ("Against Helvidius" PL 23:215) as did another Father...Chrysostom who saw marriage mostly in terms of avoiding fornication as a result and in line with parts of I Cor. 7.
7.25.2011 | 5:45am
edmond says:
@ Gil-"Nothing is as maddening as priests, bishops and pious Christians who remain silent on moral issues that are killing children from the womb through the teen years."
I do respect our priests and bishops but the day of congregation has come. It's time to put our faith practice where our mouths are. Priests and bishops are not going to mulitply into a critical mass, not in ten or twenty years. The clergy benches are emptying. Yet many members today as in this blog site are so learned and skilled in matters of the faith but sadly isolated in the virtual world. The battlefront can only be aptly manned by the members of the churches. We speak of family and marriage, and look in the direction of government and the clergy for hope. Hope is in the Holy Spirit as explained by Christ before His ascension. Of course the Holy Spirit will work where people willingly receive His guidance.
I do respect our priests and bishops but the day of congregation has come. It's time to put our faith practice where our mouths are. Priests and bishops are not going to mulitply into a critical mass, not in ten or twenty years. The clergy benches are emptying. Yet many members today as in this blog site are so learned and skilled in matters of the faith but sadly isolated in the virtual world. The battlefront can only be aptly manned by the members of the churches. We speak of family and marriage, and look in the direction of government and the clergy for hope. Hope is in the Holy Spirit as explained by Christ before His ascension. Of course the Holy Spirit will work where people willingly receive His guidance.
7.25.2011 | 7:18am
goldiewin says:
Marriage is sacred. Be sure to choose the right partner because this is forever. I believe successful marriage relationship will tighten the relationship among the children and unites the whole family. Live happily together with LOVE and GOD.
7.25.2011 | 8:32am
Desiree says:
Are there substantive differences, on the whole, between straight, gay and lesbian relationships. Of course. But there’s a great deal of variance in these categories, and there’s probably a good bit of overlap—some gay/lesbian relationships are probably very similar to some straight relationships.
7.25.2011 | 7:09pm
Gil Costello says:
@ Edmund - "I do respect our priests and bishops but the day of congregation has come."
For almost 25 years my singular focus in parish life has been lay formation, which doesn't exist in any parish that I know of, except nominally. Every parish priest I have talked to rejects lay formation, except in an educational model which in no way achieves the most important aspect, unity (how they will know us as Christians). There are many reasons for this, but I will not outline it except to say that lay formation cannot begin until we resurrect assembly life (the only way possible to have a legitimate congregation).
Because every priest I have ever talked with over the last 25 years has rejected assembly, I wrote a lengthy letter to Cardinal Avery Dulles not long before his death and asked him if I were mistaken (because of his intellectual depth and his holiness I decided I would embrace his decision). No, he wrote: he agreed with all that I wrote, emphasizing what I emphasized: that lay formation via congregational life (assembly) cannot exist except through the pastor. Many factors make this so, but most especially the unity required can only be achieved through the pastor (comes under governance in the pastor's three-part mission: to teach, govern and sanctify).
So I agree with what you write. Unfortunately the forces that oppose its actualization come unanimously from the clergy (even those consciously pursuing holiness in their calling). I believe that Beloved John’s main concern in Revelations was the unity of the various Christian communities that he perceived as threatened. This is especially true of Ephesus, the most actualized of all the Christian communities that had accomplished all its missionary responsibilities EXCEPT in its failure to love, which is the fundamental requirement for unity that reveals who we are as Christians. John warned them if they did not correct this, their lampstand would be taken from them. In other words, as it stood they could not be a light to the world even though they more than any Christian community had fulfilled every other responsibility. And if we cannot as Christians find a way to love each other as a congregation, how could we ever imagine we could go into the world to unite others in love?
A pastor cannot be political, although he must speak on the important moral issues of our time, as in abortion/sexual revolution (this is the preeminent holocaust of our time), genocide (including the starvation of masses of people, including children) and war. His governance most importantly means uniting all the parishioners through assembly life, his teaching making it clear that every lay person has a missionary responsibility in the world, and that whether one is liberal, conservative, independent or whatever is not the issue. For God doesn’t discriminate: he wants us to go to the ends of the earth for all people, and we Christians must embrace our diversity to accomplish this.
@ Desiree – “…some gay/lesbian relationships are probably very similar to some straight relationships.”
Only if those straight relationships are a superficial attempt at the union of man and woman.
For almost 25 years my singular focus in parish life has been lay formation, which doesn't exist in any parish that I know of, except nominally. Every parish priest I have talked to rejects lay formation, except in an educational model which in no way achieves the most important aspect, unity (how they will know us as Christians). There are many reasons for this, but I will not outline it except to say that lay formation cannot begin until we resurrect assembly life (the only way possible to have a legitimate congregation).
Because every priest I have ever talked with over the last 25 years has rejected assembly, I wrote a lengthy letter to Cardinal Avery Dulles not long before his death and asked him if I were mistaken (because of his intellectual depth and his holiness I decided I would embrace his decision). No, he wrote: he agreed with all that I wrote, emphasizing what I emphasized: that lay formation via congregational life (assembly) cannot exist except through the pastor. Many factors make this so, but most especially the unity required can only be achieved through the pastor (comes under governance in the pastor's three-part mission: to teach, govern and sanctify).
So I agree with what you write. Unfortunately the forces that oppose its actualization come unanimously from the clergy (even those consciously pursuing holiness in their calling). I believe that Beloved John’s main concern in Revelations was the unity of the various Christian communities that he perceived as threatened. This is especially true of Ephesus, the most actualized of all the Christian communities that had accomplished all its missionary responsibilities EXCEPT in its failure to love, which is the fundamental requirement for unity that reveals who we are as Christians. John warned them if they did not correct this, their lampstand would be taken from them. In other words, as it stood they could not be a light to the world even though they more than any Christian community had fulfilled every other responsibility. And if we cannot as Christians find a way to love each other as a congregation, how could we ever imagine we could go into the world to unite others in love?
A pastor cannot be political, although he must speak on the important moral issues of our time, as in abortion/sexual revolution (this is the preeminent holocaust of our time), genocide (including the starvation of masses of people, including children) and war. His governance most importantly means uniting all the parishioners through assembly life, his teaching making it clear that every lay person has a missionary responsibility in the world, and that whether one is liberal, conservative, independent or whatever is not the issue. For God doesn’t discriminate: he wants us to go to the ends of the earth for all people, and we Christians must embrace our diversity to accomplish this.
@ Desiree – “…some gay/lesbian relationships are probably very similar to some straight relationships.”
Only if those straight relationships are a superficial attempt at the union of man and woman.
7.25.2011 | 11:10pm
edmond says:
@Gil- Keep it up, and may you be an inspiration to other lay people who are brave and patient enough to learn how to teach the faith. Some of the clergy may resent laity-led formation because they haven't done the math. What is the ratio on priests to a lay person? Today it may well be 20,000 people to one priest. I also believe that many priests and bishops are wary about the doctrines being taught, there are quite a few "progressives" out there who deliberately distort church teaching to the point of heresy. I experienced this up close, when I met a theology teacher from a catholic girl school who taught that God was a female and other stuff that disregarded church teaching. Imagine how many school years and students this teacher misdirected from the high school. How does the school administration rectify this? On that situation alone which has been replicated in other schools, the apprehension by some of the clergy on lay teaching is valid.
The other side of the coin is when the priest acts as spiritual director of a lay community allows the lay leaders of that community to "experiment" with the congregation, knowing how vulnerable the community members are. The situation is only saved by a few members who have taken pains to read and learn church teaching under qualified theologians. These folks make the errors known.
I am sure if the laity received instruction from the same theological schools as some of the priests have there would be less apprehension about lay teachers of the faith. This is how the church began, Jesus was the only high priest around, his followers were just fishermen empowered by the Holy Spirit.
The other side of the coin is when the priest acts as spiritual director of a lay community allows the lay leaders of that community to "experiment" with the congregation, knowing how vulnerable the community members are. The situation is only saved by a few members who have taken pains to read and learn church teaching under qualified theologians. These folks make the errors known.
I am sure if the laity received instruction from the same theological schools as some of the priests have there would be less apprehension about lay teachers of the faith. This is how the church began, Jesus was the only high priest around, his followers were just fishermen empowered by the Holy Spirit.
8.14.2011 | 9:36am
Gearldine Ticas says:
in that He speaks of a woman's great joy despite labor pains that a child is born into the world...yet He realistically speaks of the circumstance of those women who will be pregnant in calamity in the last days/or Jerusalem's fall...which the mothers of Somalia by extension are going through right now as some carry dead babies for days as they trek to Kenya....here is Christ on pregnancy under duress: I rarely see Ayodele's apocalyptic view but it strikes me as more biblical than the "we can transform the world" group. Millions die each year from starvation in the third world while we all eat above the sustenance level each week and that starvation reality seems more fixable than worldwide crimes like drug and sexual trafficing.....but we seem no where's near solving even the first one...starvation. Gay activity and civil wedlock for it is just one more wave that we can't solve. The 2 TV family (isolating individuals in their own world) and no fault divorce weakened marriage way prior to gay unions doing so. I don't remember churches zealously fighing against either. And now in a world of gadgets that isolate easily even young couples on a date (when the smart phone rings), I don't see warnings against smart phone abuse.
11.10.2011 | 11:47am
Carlos J. Pierce says:
Government and churches could help with regards to strengthening marriages. there strategies and programs used are essentially helping couples to do their part in marriage and in raising their children. However, the couples is still the key to a stronger marriage and those programs only serves as a tool for couples to make it.
Too much importance is being placed on government's role in the protection of marriage. Government policy makers?! I beg to disagree. Legislation cannot give what it does not have. Maybe government would be more effective if it penalized failed marriages...