New York State’s redefinition of marriage is the latest domino to fall in the trend sweeping the nation of legally recognizing so-called “gay marriage.” Many people, especially younger people, are prone to shrug and wonder what the big deal is about all this. Many, too, of all ages, have bought into the notion that this is all about fairness, and being unbigoted.
Perhaps part of the reason for this is that we in the Church, and other defenders of traditional marriage, have allowed this to become a discussion about gay “marriage” only, rather than about the overall and devastating effects of the sexual revolution, and the sexual liberationist movement in general.
Gay “marriage” is only the latest battleground. It was preceded by the no-fault divorce wave that swept the country, beginning in 1969. The battleground is also about the explosion in divorce rates. It is about rampant promiscuity and shacking-up (or more politely “co-habitation”). And gay “marriage” is now the latest coffin nail, as secular culture buries traditional marriage.
Sadly too, in many of the other “nails” mentioned in the previous paragraph, even Christians have long engaged in these practices and the Church has been too silent in the last forty years and lacked the prophetic voice we are only lately (too late?) rediscovering.
To those who are dismissive or minimizing of concerns related to the State defining marriage out of existence, we must re-articulate, in a credible way, that traditional marriage does matter, and that its demise is not only lamentable, but devastating for the future of Western culture as we have known it.
Consider the following quote from Robert P. George, a Professor at Princeton University and interview in National Review. He is answering the question, “Why should people care” :
Well, people should care because the whole edifice of sexual-liberationist ideology is built on damaging and dehumanizing falsehoods. It has already done enormous harm — harm that falls on everybody, but disproportionately on those in the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of our society. If you doubt that, have a look at Myron Magnet’s great book The Dream and the Nightmare: The Sixties’ Legacy to the Underclass, or some of the writings of Kay Hymowitz and other serious people who have examined the social consequences for the poor of the embrace of sexual liberalism by celebrities and other cultural elites. Marriage is a profound human and social good; its weakening and loss is a tragedy from which affluent people can be distracted (and protected) by their affluence for only so long. The institution of marriage has already been deeply wounded by divorce at nearly plague levels, widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation, and other damaging factors. To redefine it out of existence in law is to make it much more difficult to restore a sound understanding of marriage on which a healthy marriage culture can be rebuilt for the good of all. It is to sacrifice the needs of the poor, who are hurt the most when a sound public understanding of marriage and sexual morality collapses. It is to give up on the truth that children need both a father and mother, and benefit from the security of their love for each other. [1]
I have personally experienced what he is describing about the poor being the first to be hit with the effects. Having lived, as I did, in the one of the poorest sections of Washington DC, the breakdown of marriage and its effects were very clear. In that neighborhood, 80% of the homes were headed by single mothers. It was not unusual for women in their late 20s to be grandmothers already. The effects on the children of having no father, of children having children, and living in dysfunctional situations plagued, with many layers of promiscuity and confusion was very clear. 60% of the children in that neighborhood never graduated high school. Of those that did, 40% of them, were functionally illiterate. Over 70% of the young men had police records by age 15 and the teenage pregnancy rates hovered near 65% for girls by their 15th birthday. STDs are quite high and the District of Columbia has the highest AIDs rate in the nation.
Some want to blame all this merely on poverty. But prior to 1965, when poverty rates were worse in the Black community, more than 80% of children lived with two parents, graduation rates were much higher, teen pregnancy rates were quite a bit lower along with STD rates. The sexual revolution is a huge factor in the devastation of the poor, and it is rightly said, from a statistical point of view, that single motherhood has the highest correlation to poverty of any other factor.
And the fact is, this breakdown is reaching the suburbs where gang violence, youth crime rates, promiscuity, STD rates, teen pregancy, abortion rates, and many other deleterious effects have been on the rise for decades. And sure enough, all of this is happening at a time when the numbers of suburban children who no longer with both both parents is approaching 50%.
We who live and work in the “inner city” like to say, “We’re the canary in the mine.” This image goes back to coal mining days when the miners brought a canary down in a cage. If gas levels rose, the canary died first, signaling trouble, and sounding an alert that it was time to get out. So for years as the wider US population either shook its finger at the inner city, or pitied those living there, the fact is they were ignoring the canary in the mine. The gas has now reached the suburbs, and the effects are spreading. And the main ingredient of the gas is the breakdown of marriage and the traditional family.
We ought to care that traditional marriage is in crisis. It is clear that children thrive best under the care of a mother and a father, and that removing this fixture from our culture is devastating to children and to our culture. The canary is not lying. If we do not fix marriage and family, we are doomed.
As professor George states above, legislators defining marriage out of existence is going to make any restoration of it quite difficult. Some may argue that the phrase “defining marriage out of existence” is too strong, and that judges and legislators are merely widening its scope. But at some point, if anything is marriage, nothing is marriage.
This juggernaut will not stop. The polygamists are next (just google polygamy and see that the steam is building). After them come the incest crowd and other odd combinations. And there will be little legal basis to resist them. And in a secular culture that has lost any basis to morally reason, or determine right from wrong, who among the secularists will be able to say “nay?” Yes, in the end, if anything is marriage, nothing is marriage. Marriage, as a culturally recognizable institution seems doomed, it is being legally defined out of existence.
Tomorrow on the blog I want to revisit a notion I raised more than a year ago, when I wondered if we need to find a new word for what we mean by Christian Marriage. For it would seem that the word is losing any meaning with each year that goes by in the secular world. More on that tomorrow.
For now, we have every reason to be very alarmed at the demise of marriage in modern times. Those who want dismiss or minimize the effects of the loss of traditional marriage ought to think again. Try visiting my prior inner city neighborhood, look at the devastation. Heck, try visiting my old high school in the suburbs where the drafting lab, where I learned mechanical drawing, is now a nursery for all the single high school “moms” to park their kids while they try to finish high school. What was once unthinkable is now the “new normal.” And as traditional marriage and family continue to take a beating we are foolish to think that we are headed anywhere but into serious trouble and ultimate ruin.
Good post, Msgr. Re: “Tomorrow on the blog I want to revisit a notion I raised more than a year ago, when I wondered if we need to find a new word for what we mean by Christian Marriage.”
How about “Holy Matrimony”? The etymology may mean “making of mothers” (although it’s somewhat disputed), which puts the procreative function of marriage front and center. It’s also historic.
You and I are on the same page here.
I like it
I understand your deep concerns; they are well founded. The 40 year matter is also deeply disturbing because it speaks of a biblical benchmark. Today we see the problem and it is huge. Larger than we can hope, by ourselves, to overcome. Yet there is hope. Today we need to begin anew the process of education and catechesis and our priests need to be involved up front and not sitting in the back of the room letting befudled catechists make ship wreck of the faith. Often today I hear our priests pointing to us in the pews and telling us to get out there and evangelize. Well we can but that is only a small part. Our priests need to be involved directly in the teaching of morality in the classroom and youth groups and pre-cana instructions. It is fine to have the laity help but we are not ordained our authority rests on the authority of the priesthood and if the priest is not there to back us up or correct our blunders the disaster will continue. I know that priests are busy but they need to be busier and they need, in many cases to return to class and learn the TRUTH instead of the nonsense many of them learned in seminary during the 70’s 80’s and most of the 90’s.
If the Jewish priests from the Temple could learn the TRUTH as proclaimed in Hebrews then our priests can humble themselves and learn it as well.
Yes, I think if I were a bishop I would gather my priests for a mandatory retreat wherein a catechesis on human sexuality would be reproposed to all of us (remember, many priests have been away from formal education for many years, even decades). Then I would require them to present this catechesis to the people of God on the Sunday’s of october or some other chosen time.
Some people are going overboard, saying marriage is dead. It’s not dead until the Church is dead, and the Church will never be dead because, even if her members all die, she’s already living in Heaven right now.
You might wish to distinguish here a bit. In so far as my blog is written, I opine that marriage is dying in the secular world. In tomoorow’s post I hope to develop further that we in the Church are going to have to rearticulate what we mean by marriage using a new word, and a sharp distinction from the world. For as you point out, marriage is not dead in the Church.
Here’s a good document on matrimony: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html
I don’t think a new word is needed, just a better understanding of matrimony. Perhaps, too, an illustration of marriage, like what Saint Patrick did with the clover to illustrate the Trinity.
Since the Christian idea of marriage is as old as the church, when did civil society get to define it? I found one attempt here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Anti-Catholic_Kulturkampf
Now along with explaining the idea of sin, repentance and absolution, the church has to define Holy Matrimony as well, to every child and couple. In a way, isn’t that good? The church is claiming back what is her own.
Thanks for this link. It makes sense that the State would have interest in marriage and family since that institution is the bedrock of civilization. But States are clearly messing with things badly now. I think we are going to have to get to the point where the Church has noting to do with interacting with the State insofar as marriage goes.
Thanks for the post one again! I am hoping you might post on a couple of concerns I have so I can adequately resolve things in my own heart and explain it to my secular friends.
This is a issue that I really struggle with; your last line of the first paragraph sums the intense pressure I get from my peers about it–I feel like a bigot when I even remotely express my views and because I want to follow the teaching on this matter (and sincerely feel that gay marriage weakens the holiness of my own marriage). My sole retort to them is that matrimony is not about my right to express my love to my spouse and the world, but that it is my vocation to express it to God–it is not between me and the world, but between my wife and God (sort of using Mother Therea’s prayer.
1) Proponents of gay marriage say it does not weaken the institution of marriage. Although I am considering the source, my peers who refer to me as unfair quote this article (I am considering the source) in rebuttal: http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/
This seems to say that things improve in the marriage.
2) I am a psychiatrist, and my child psychiatry peers ask me to find evidence that gay parents do a worse job in childrearing, and I cannot. In fact, many of the literature articles published in the past year seem to show that psychiatric problems are less in children of gay “parents.”
3) What about civil unions? I tried to follow the Illinois experience, but was lost a bit in the rhetoric (no negative connotation meant here–using the correct verbiage of rhetoric here).
Thanks for any comments you might have on these matters in improving my ability to evangelize this very important issue. And thanks for the post to keep giving me the courage to stand up to these issues. I have many gay friends who are very charitable people; I don’t want to alienate them by improperly expressing my views (by appearing to be overly dogmatic).
Why not ask your peers how it came to be that homosexuality was deemed normal? Go back to the beginning. Take a look at Traditional Values Coalition website http://www.traditionalvalues.org. See the article on the myth that psychiatry proved that homosexuality is normal. It will start you on your way.
1. I think the current post attempts to anwer this question. In redefining marraige the is undefining it. When we are not even clear what marriage is supposed to be, then it is hard to reform it. The other problem, listed before your # 1 is that most people have shifted the object of marriage away from children to the adult and what they want. When sex is just for pleasure and marriage just for love, and children are moved to the periphery, then nothing makes sense anymore and we get absurdities like gay “marraige”
2. We want to do more for shildren than make sure they don’t have psychiatric problems. We want to make sure they are properly influenced and riased in the way nature intends, with a male and female parent who model both complementary aspects of humanity. Two fathers or two mothers cannot do what a father and mother do in modelling feminiity AND masculinity and how the sexes should interrelate. I also doubt we have enough data to really conclude that children of gay “parents” actually have less neuroses or sociopathic issues. The phenom. is just too new and the sample too small it would seem, for us to draw conclusions.
3. Civil unions avoid the usurping of the word marriage. However, it still follows that there ARE reasons to favor traditional marriage for the reasons stated in # 2. Thus, it still seems misguided as social policy to demote traditional marriage and sanction alternatives.
About the effect on children not raised by two parents of the same sex. The evidence will take time to see. Just as the evidence of the devastation that has been the effect of children raised in a broken home through divorce. Kids are resilient and I have done well despite my parent’s divorce, but it is STILL something that affects me today, and it’s very hard sometimes to get through the baggage that no one seems to acknowledge. There is still pain and difficulties in my dealings with my parents today and I am in my mid thirties with a family of my own. So I am basically saying as with the effects of divorce on children and adults that were not present when the whole social experiment started, the detrimental effects of being raised by two parents of the same sex may take years to really see, but those poor children if we cannot figure out how to do something to reverse things sooner.
Without an objective standard then society is only left with subjective criteria to make decisions about right and wrong and redefining words as the culture changes. Without a thoroughly secular defence of traditional marriage then it is doomed in society as a whole, though a few religious people/churches will, to some degree, always hold out, and practice and believe in traditional marriage. But is there a rational secular argument for traditional marriage that the non-religious can respect and therefore be brought to join our side?
Natural Law used to fill this role, but most seculars have now rejected the notion that our bodies or nature have anything to tell us. All that matters is what we think and feel. The Post Cartesian disconnect with reality is currently in full flower. Still it seems we can only keep going back to natural law and continue to build a compelling case. I have tried to do that in previous posts on this blog.
Great post. I really enjoy reading your posts. And I am partial to your last name.
My wife and I have 5 children, and are just now pregnant with our next. As we have moved into the ranks of being a large family, I have started to come to the opinion that large families are necessary for the health of a nation; I like to joke that it’s no coincidence that the generation that Tom Brokaw called the Greatest Generation typically came from large families. Large families also make a lot of sense when having and raising children is viewed as the purpose of the institution of marriage. Unfortunately, marriage has not been viewed as an institution for a long time, but as something two people do when they are in “love”.
It also seems to me that whether or not society views marriage as an institution, and whether or not it values large families, are canaries in the mine as well.
Good job Tate! Your family is catching up to ours(my wife and I have a half dozen young Pope’s also). More Pope’s for the Kingdom!
Yes, the “Greatest generation” is great in terms of taking on the cahllenge of the war and winning it with enormous sacrifice. But the greatest generation did a terrible job, collectively, in raising their children for they raised one of the most selfish, egotistical and iconoclastic generation ever known: the baby boomers. They blew up things alright and had their selish little drug and sexual revolution. Born in 1961 I am at the very end of the “worst generation” (aka baby boomers).
Epistle 182
My some ideas of “the homily” of Msgr. Charles Pope are here below:
Firstly, reading and comprehension of Msgr. Charles Pope’s homily are very essential.
In the homily, phrase “canary in the mine” is image of coal mining days when the miners brought a canary down in a cage. If gas levels rose, the canary died first, signaling trouble, and sounding an alert that it was time to get out.
Here, phrase “demise of marriage matters” is synonymous with “effect of divorce matters”, and “effect of divorce matters” is synonymous with image of “canary in the mine”.
General idea of the homily is if parents divorce, then their kids will die first as canary will die first when gas levels in mine rose.
Secondly, now we discuss additionally about the Father’s homily.
I quite agree with Msgr. Charles Pope about the homily.
The homily was written to base on facts of America where sexual revolution devastated many families and also leaf many bad consequences for their kids and for our society.
In video at the bottom of the homily showed that if you choose divorce but your kids did not choose it, then you did not divorce.
That the reason why Msgr. Charles Pope wrote the homily.
Really, Msgr. Charles Pope wants to recommend us to keep the Ten Commandments so that each of us will have a happy family.
We can read the Ten Commandments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
On a special meaning, I and Msgr. Charles Pope will never divorce each other./.
Thanks for continuing to spread the word!
I have a dream. In my dream our priest says clearly and unashamedly that “those people that are living together are sinning. That we must accept the teaching that sex outside of marriage is serious, grave, mortal sin. Marriage as defined by our Lord and taught by His Church is True”. From the priest, from the ‘pulpit’ I think my children would be impressed. I think that it would be so important to have my children hear this from a priest. Someone other than ‘preachy papa’. Alas, it will never happen. Its only a dream.
Well. it is heard from my pulpit and in marriage prep, and in middle and High school religious ed.
In a struggle between the Tower of Babel and gravity, I’ll take gravity to win in the end. Gravity remains, and no one is quite sure where the tower used to be.
In a struggle between the state of New York and marriage, I’ll take marriage to win in the end. The consequences for New York may be the same as for the Tower of Babel, though. Forces of nature are powerful things, and unlike human fads, they don’t go away.
Yes, the tower will collapse, but as one who loves his country and western culture (in its better attributes) I’d like to see them survive along with the truth. But you are right the truth will out
Yes, it would seem the politically correct great societal orgia has succeeded in reducing marriage to a concept of lowest common denominator. Marriage is now stripped of any constructs of holiness and vocation leaving participants mere orgeônes. I suppose reestablishing the concept of Holy Matrimony is a start.
indeed.
Well written, Msgr. Not many clerics are talking about divorce and cohabitation as the roots of this demise. Unfortunately, many (perhaps most?) priests have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding the enonormous majority of young couples preparing for marriage who are cohabitating. In all honesty, how can the bishops be so loud over the gay marriage issue (which on a scale is much, much smaller) but turn away from the real problems facing marriage in society and the Church? It seems somewhat hypocritical to me. How can the bishops literally do almost nothing about cohabitation and divorce within their Church, not to mention society, but be so loud about this issue? As an example, just recently the NY state legislature passed a bill giving multiple marriage-type rights and benefits to cohabitating couples. Where was all of the noise from the hierarchy then? It makes the bishops seems as though they are targeting homosexuals only and not the larger issue.
I speak to couples rather directly on the matter of shacking up and warn of hell. The bishops actually have issued a document on cohabitation. It is not that they have done nothing. However, more can be done at the parish level by priests. I know that locally when cohabitors got recognition the local church here was vocal. But the news cycle drives some of this and frankly this has also magnified the stakes. Lastly, this is one bridge further, since previous legislation did not redefine marriage, only extended certain legal benefits to others.
But, my remarks ameliorate your points, they do not entirely answer them. And the fact is, the Church is just waking up from a forty year Navel-gazing, inward-focused period where we were trying to figure out who we were and where to put the tabernacle, altar, what song to sing etc. During this period we lost the culture. And now that we awaken, some do see us hypocritical. I prefer to see it as finally waking up and seeing also, younger, more sober leadership stepping up from a period of uncertain clerical leadership.
Thank you for this post, Msgr. I’m curious, and would love to see a post from you that describes how priests deal with the many couples who are sleeping together, contracepting and/or cohabitating and come to them to be married. Do they look the other way, knowing that if they attempt to intervene the couple will likely leave to find a more liberal priest elsewhere? Or gradually work with them so they can understand the church’s teachings and change? I wonder how often a couple is open enough to fundamentally alter their views. Do priests have qualms about participating in these marriages? I understand that they don’t want to turn people away, but it must be a tricky position to be in, especially if there isn’t much guidance from the upper levels.
Some do look the other way. Some, such as myself teach the couple of the sinfulness of their way and urge them to seperate. Some dioceses require couples who are shacked up to have only a small wedding in a chapel with 25 or fewer present, unless the sperate. I supposrt this, though it is not the policy of my diocese. At some level we have to help them since they are trying to do the right thing. So we have to help them get ready by repentance, and proper sacramental prep. I have had some success in getting couples to live chastely before marriage, not just the cohabitors, but also the fornicators. I do this by reasoning with them from the word of God, esp. Eph 5:1-18.
This is an excellent piece. I might suggest, however, that one angle on this story that goes unmentioned is, in fact, the all-important one … Namely, that the lynch-pin of the sexual revolution was the separation of procreation and sexuality! Therefore, the American Church’s failure to accept Paul VI’s prophetic encyclical, Humanae Vitae, is THE watershed moment that has helped give rise to the innumerable evils discussed above: higher rates of pre-marital sex, cohabitation, abortion, and unwed parenting, as well as the normalization of homosexual sex, etc. etc. It is terribly sad that so many priests, and even bishops, were disobedient to the Church’s teaching in this regard and led others into such disobedience. Satan has undoubtedly reaped the ‘benefits’ of such infidelity. Any program of restoring the true definition and beauty of marriage and sexuality to our culture will have to start with a new appreciation for, and fidelity to, the teachings of Humanae Vitae
Yes, Father, this very well said and a good addition to this article.
Father, I would suggest that the lynch-pin of the sexual revolution was not the separation of procreation and sexuality, but the separation of authentic love and sexuality. Fruitfulness, that is, procreation, biological and otherwise, is part of the fullness of authentic love, which also involves communion of persons. As is evident with the Creator, as well as the virgin marriage between Jesus and His Bride, the true procreative action is love, not necessarily sexuality.
It is love — real love — that is sorely lacking in this world, but most especially in the areas of human sexuality and marriage and family.
A same-sex couple might have a certain affection and even a degree of love for each other. But if it is a sexual relationship, it is not the fullness of love, which requires, among other things, conformance with truth. Rather, it is an imperfect love, a distorted love, a counterfeit love because it is also contrary to the truth of man, male and female. Being false, both with respect to the human person, and false with respect to man made in the image of the Triune God, it cannot be unitive, it does not involve two-become-one, it cannot be a loving communion, and being false, it also cannot be fruitful, it has no potential for biological procreation or spiritual children, and any other fruits of such relationship are tainted.
Woody have done well to attempt to respond to the article that Chris showed instead of just throwing up a link to a group which faced serious allegations from the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Southern Poverty Law Center has a fairly strict definition of a hate group–not merely disagreeing, but promoting known vicious lies. That allegation is serious, is it not?
First, go look up the definition of “allegation.” Second, the SPLC doesn’t like anyone who doesn’t agree with them so they violate their own “tolerance” rule. Third, go read the article referred to in the post and point out the “lies.”
Hmm….well I am blissfully unaware of what either of you are talking about.
The analogy of the canary in the coalmine is appropriate. A lot of the these foundational changes began their life as a supposed act of “compassion” or for rights. Look at abortion. Initially it was “sold” as a compassionate act. How can one force a woman who is raped to have a baby that may result etc? 40 years later how many of the millions of abortions were the result of rape? Compare that to the number that resulted from “inconvenience”. If you go even further back look at eugenics. Post WWI eugenics was seen as a compassionate act. A number of governments then undertook the forced sterilization of those with various mental illnesses or handicaps to save the individual and any potential offspring from a life of misery. This was all put to an end when post-WWII we saw the frightening logical conclusion of eugenic thought in the acts of the Nazis. (Chesterton’s “Eugenics and other Evils”, written in 1936 was chillinging prophetic.)
Well said.
From Bill Foley
Dear Msgr. Pope, I believe that you did not go back far enough in your analysis. We are now far down the slippery slope that Pope Paul VI predicted in Humanae Vitae. Once contraception is accepted, then all kinds of sexual practices are approved because sexual activity is now separated from procreation. The importance of the child is demoted. The child can now be killed by abortion; the child becomes a desired object for same-sex couples living together; there is no consideration for the primary welfare of the child–especially the optimal milieu for the nurturing and educating of the child with a mother and a father. As Dr. Jennifer Morse has stated: “The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to children and to each other.” Any personal reasons for getting married do not override this.
We should not speak about “same-sex marriage,” which is really a parody of human bonding. We must not give ground in the debate; we must continue to speak about “redefining marriage.”
Also, in light of Blessed John Paul the Great’s teaching regarding marriage, which is a most wonderful and timely development of doctrine, a “same-sex marriage” is not only a violation of chastity but is also a blasphemy. This is so because marriage is a communion of persons that reflects the transcendent reality of the communion of Persons in the Holy Trinity.
I agree with you. My article is not complete. However, in my own defence, it is not a theological article, just a blog post to open discussion. And you, like others, have added well to it.
People saying “gay marriage is going to destroy marriage!” always did surprise me. I find it difficult to imagine killing something that is already dead, and indeed has been so for quite some time.
The lifelong, sacramental view of marriage was tossed away many years ago by culture, like you said. It was then that it was dealt its lethal blow. Marriage stood there, like a victim in a cheesy action movie, bringing its hands up from its chest and staring at the blood on them. Marriage was already dead standing there, its mind just hadn’t realized it yet.
All the defense is accomplishing now, to stay with the movie simile, is to crouch over the body of marriage, using our shirt as a wound compress, alternately between whispering to marriage that ‘everythings gonna be ok’ and screaming ‘MEDIC!!!’ while the body goes cold and the eyes go dark.
To the modern mind, once you get past their talk of the dresses, flowers, music, wedding on the beach, etc. stuff, marriage boils down to the following:
Marriage: Official government recognition that two (at this time) individuals will be roommates for approximately 5 years and engage in various sexual activity on fairly regular occasions (at least most of the time, probably, with each other). At the end of the period one party will vacate the premises and, in the case of a woman (sorry, I mean’t ‘womyn’) will collect regular monetary amounts as back payments for said sexual activity as required by the courts. This amount may increase greatly if the womyn was not regular about taking her ‘pills’.
That, sir, I submit to you, is the modern definition of ‘marriage’. It will be denied, but all denials will be based purely on emotion, not fact.
So why bother fighting anymore? I know we must. It also reminds me of a line from C. S. Lewis’ poem: “The stupid, strong, unteachable monsters are sure to be victorious in the end, and every man of decent blood is on the losing side.”
I am so dreadfully tired of the modern world.
Ah, but the Lord put you here so as to be a prophet! We can all get weary in the work, but let us not grow weary OF the work!
If, as so many of us believe, it has gone too far down the wide path, then the most important thing to do is to pray. Perhaps this should be your 50 million Rosary call. Surely if “holy matrimony” is sanctified again in the hearts of the people, it’s fruits will not be aborted.
OK: 50 Million folks, let’s get started!
Thinking about it more, I believe my last post may have given the wrong impression.
No, I don’t believe much will happen to save things here, in this country. But that doesn’t mean I am hopeless. As the saying goes, we’ve read the last chapter. We know how the story will end. We WILL win in the end. That, of course, doesn’t mean that we won’t lose many, if not all, the battles until then.
Fight on
Msgr: In addition to a new name for marriage, I think we should consider making some very public celebrations of marriage and of every married couple in the Church.
I wish the church had been as vocal when no-fault divorces came into being, when adultery became legal. Now these are not only legal, they’re “politically correct” and socially acceptable. I feel that all I can do is pray for my own teenagers
One factor that I have noticed in my generation (I’m 23) that has contributed to the demise of marriage is the focus on the day of marriage itself instead of the lifetime afterwards. So many women that I know are caught up on the ring, the dress, and the day rather than a lifetime with their sweetheart. After the wedding day, they are let down a bit (or a lot) because they spent so much time focusing on the wedding day that they didn’t even think about the life after it all. It’s not all women my age, but most. I feel rather alone if I have to talk with them because with the man I am in love with and know I will marry, I don’t really care about the ring, or a fancy wedding. I just want to spend the rest of my life with him. To me, the wedding should be just a day, and it shouldn’t change your relationship. It should be a milestone in a relationship, but not something so big or stressful that it ruins things. If it’s the right relationship, everything works out!
Contraception has been around for a long time and marriage was never in as bad a shape as it is today with gay marriage. That is not to say that contraception is not a big contributer to the demise of marriage, but it is not the primary reason.
I am just formulating my thoughts on this matter, so forgive me if I am not real clear. Someone else can chime in and help develop it.
The demise of marriage as we are currently witnessing it began with the idea that romance is everything and whomever one “feels” love for is who one should have sex with. One should marry the person one feels strongly attracted to. Feelings are everything. When feelings ebb, then it is time to find someone for whom the feelings are positive again. If the person for whom one has these feelings is married or if you yourself are married it does not matter. (Look at some of our thrice married politicians).
In addition, one has a right ot have sex whenever the urge arises with the one you have strong feelings for. Therefore, contraception has to be available to exercise that right so that no children result.
If the person for whom one has strong feelings is the same sex as you or if the person is a minor or is unwillling so what? The right to have sex with whom you feel attracted has become literally absolute. Contraception only facilitates the exercise of that desire where one of the parties is fertile. I refuse to call the use of condoms etc. as a barrier against disease contraception, but that use also facilitates sex iwth the desired
That is why the homosexual community says that they have a right to marry the person they love. Sex with someone you love is the measring stick for marriage.
Help anybody.
Ann, your third paragraph almost makes it appear that you would support marriage for economic reasons (the woman becoming property of the man, only existing to bear children, etc.) rather than for reasons of love. There has to be love in a marriage — and I’m not talking about the sexual (eros) or a very close friendship (HELP – I blanked on the Greek word here), but rather, self-sacrificing (agape) love. IMHO, that really is the true definition of a marriage.
Your fourth and fifth grafs expound on the thought much better. In our society, love has become mostly about feelings of attractiveness, of sexual compatability — eros. Unfortunately, sexual/physical attraction often fades, and if there’s no other type of love there, the marriage is toast. I think some (not all) Generation Y kids understand that a lot better than their parents (the baby boomer generation) did. But a lot of the Gen Y’s — as Msgr. Pope points out — need to have that concept explained to them. The lack of proper catechesis on marriage (and other things) during the last few decades will hurt for a long time — and not just Catholics, but peoples of all faiths.
Mark, thanks for helping with this post.
I certainly do not dismiss the need for love in choosing one to marry. What I was trying to say is that many today marry for only the way they feel.
You are correct in saying that when the feelings fade, the marriage is toast. We will see that with homosexual “marriage’ also.
I have read a number of the post here and am somewhat puzzled and appalled by the assumption that because one doesn’t suscribe to your same christian values then we must be wrong and that we are some how responsible for the demise of the insitution of marraige. The problem is that everyone is blamin
Luke 11:23
blaming everyone else for the issues that arise in a marriage. Parents for ex. don’t show their children that marriage is alot of work and it doesn’t just work its self out, just like life doesn’t work itself out, you have to be dilligent and tend a marriage like you do a newborn or a flower. The problem with divorce is that people think that if the relationship ( and I say relationship not marriage because you either have made a commitment to each other or not and no amount of ceremonies or paper will change that) has become difficult then it must mean that is was the wrong partner and you move on to the next one. But life is hard and difficult and you have to work at it to keep it going. my partner and I have been together for 17 years and only 4 of then have been in marriage. we choose everyday to be our partners in life and have choosen to have chldren and bring then into the relationship and become to one of it’s main focuses, but we still have to work everyday at remembering that we are the example that our children will see first hand of how a partnership/relationship should work. Ontil we stop blaming the rest of society for the demise of the institution I think we should look to our own lives and start their and not worry so much about what is happening in someone elses bed and look at our lives and not through rose coloured glasses.
Both the big picture and little picture are relevant. You choose only the little picture but the big pictures matters too, otherwise wyou wouldn’t be trying to influence “us” with your self defined lifestyle.
Because exceptional situations exist (e.g., my father’s death at 37 leaving my mother with seven children under 10 years of age to raise as a single parent) doesn’t mean that the normative ideal ought to be abandoned, watered down, etc.
The research regarding the effects on children of being parented by same-sex parent-partners is still in its infancy (no pun intended). The research validating the benefits of a mother and a father in a stable relationship parenting their offspring is robust.
Our nation and much of Europe is conducting a large-scale experiment in sociology. We already have seen the results of widespread divorce, never-married mothers, etc., and it’s not good. We’re only now going to start to see what’s going to happen with the children of single parents who used reproductive assistive technology to become parents.
Because many children and families find themselves in less than ideal circumstances doesn’t mean we should stop striving for the ideal. Not all children of single parents grow up to be less educated, more susceptible to depression, etc., than their counterparts who enjoy the benefits of a two-parent (mother and father) household, but the exceptions don’t disprove the basic argument.
Further, monogamous, committed, heterosexual relationships correlate with robust health. Contrast that fact with the need to have ’safe sex’ guides for promiscuous heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior of any type.
Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World seems less and less a fantasy with every passing decade.
WELL SAID,
WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. LUCIA, ONE OF THE VISIONARIES OF FATIMA SAID THERE IS NO PROBLEM THAT CANNOT BE OVERCOME BY THE ROSARY. WHEN OUR LADY APPEARED IN FATIMA IN 1917 SHE REQUESTED THE ROSARY TO BE SAID DAILY. THIS IS A MANDATE FROM HEAVEN. THE ROSARY IS OUR SPIRITUAL WEAPON, IT CAN PREVENT WARS AND STOP HERESY.
THE TIME FOR BEING LUKEWARM IS OVER, OUR LORD HIMSELF SAID HE WOULD SPIT OUT THE LUKEWARM. START THE ROSARY TODAY, IF YOU ALREADY SAY ONE, INCREASE IT.
PARENTS, IF YOUR CHILDREN NO LONGER PRACTICE, START THE DAILY FAMILY ROSARY.
IF JUST 10% OF CATHOLICS DID THIS WE WOULD SEE A NEW WORLD.
ITS UP TO YOU,
GOD BLESS,
ANNE
God bless you for posting this! I am a 25 year old Catholic woman living in IN. It is so amazing (and refreshing) to know that others out there feel that marriage is so incredibly important. I was beginning to feel like I was the only one… :\
The best place to find a great partner for life in a real marriage (man and woman) is in an institution that upholds the sanctity of marriage. Your future children, or grandchildren, will be grateful you cared enough to make a careful decision on who to marry.
In the current pool of young adults ready to marry at around age 23 to 28, the percentage from a broken home is very high. This group will struggle even more with the sacrafice needed to stay together. Society, TV, and greedy lawyers will be trying to pry them apart. Their outlook for success is grim.
Religion and tradition are looking pretty good!
How much longer will our bishops remain silent while Catholic politicians scandalize the faithful and continue to flaunt Catholic teachings regarding gay marriage and abortion??