Author: Msgr. Charles Pope

Posted on

Lost in a World Without Courtship

In today’s Washington post Michael Gerson wrote a piece entitled “Lost in a World Without Courtship”. I would like to put excerpts here with my own comments in RED. You can read the full article HERE.

 By Michael Gerson, Wednesday, September 16, 2009, The WASHINGTON POST

There is a segment of society for whom traditional familyvalues are increasingly irrelevant, and for whom spring-break sexual liberationism is increasingly costly: men and women in their 20s. Interesting. He describes them as disaffected with the “casual sex” culture but not ncessarily convinced to return to more traditional family values. Here too is another sign that we as a Church have  not presented God’s plan for sex and marriage in a compelling manner. OR even more significantly, we have not communicated with many young people AT ALL. Our world view may not even be on their radar.

This is the period of life in which society’s most important social commitments take shape — commitments that produce stability, happiness and children. But the facts of life for 20-somethings are challenging. Puberty — mainly because of improved health — comes steadily sooner. Sexual activity kicks off earlier. But the average age at which people marry has grown later; it is now about 26 for women, 28 for men. Yes, I have noticed this quite clearly. When I was first ordained 20 years ago most of the couples I prepared for marriage were in their early 20s. Now they are in their early 30s. Also the number of weddings I celebrate has dimished by more than half.

This opens a hormone-filled gap — a decade and more of likely sexual activity before marriage. And for those in that gap, there is little helpful guidance from the broader culture. Notice here again the author makes no mention of the Church as offering helpful guidance to young adults. I do not observe this by way of a judgement of him. Rather, here again is more proof that we are not on the radar of most young people and to the extent we are, if our author is right, we have no compelling message or vision to offer young adults. Actually we do, but we have not communicated it well. Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, argues that the “courtship narrative” in the past was clear: dating, engagement, marriage, children. This narrative has been disrupted without being replaced, leaving many 20-somethings in a “relational wasteland.” I remain struck at how many young people tell me this same thing. In this “communication age” it seems harder and harder for young people to meet on a meaningful level.

The casual sex promoted in advertising and entertainment often leads, in the real world of fragile hearts and STDs, to emotional and physical wreckage. But it doesn’t seem realistic to expect most men and women to delay sex until marriage at 26 or 28. Such virtue is both admirable and possible — but it can hardly be a general social expectation. So religious institutions, for example, often avoid this thorny topic, content to live with silence, hypocrisy and active singles groups.  Alot of hard truth here. It is difficult to remain sexually abstinent all  those years. However, I am not quite as pessimistic. I have been faithfully celibate since ordination and even before. However, I’ll admit that I am helped by the expectations upon me and by the fact that I do not date and am never alone with women. This is not usually the case with young adults. It is also true and sad that many clergy and religious leaders avoid talking frankly about sex before marriage. Growing up in high school and college, I never had a priest, deacon or catechist say a word to me about sex before marriage. As a priest, I have tried to remedy this terrible silence by speaking frankly and clearly that the Scriptures and Church teach that pre-marital sex is a serious sin. I am not unaware that young people have a difficult time fully living this and counsel them to be serious about chastity but to seek God’s mercy if they fall. But under no circumstances should they ever thing that pre-marital sex is “no big deal.” It is and infractions should be brought to confession. Gerson’s point about silence of the Church is however tragically the case for too many young people. We need to be clear, encouraging and helpful as well as understanding of the difficulty young adults face.

In the absence of a courtship narrative, young people have evolved a casual, ad hoc version of their own: cohabitation. From 1960 to 2007, the number of Americans cohabiting increased fourteenfold. For some, it is a test-drive for marriage. For others, it is an easier, low-commitment alternative to marriage. About 40 percent of children will now spend some of their childhood in a cohabiting union.Yes, as usual it is the children who suffer. I often grieve for children today who have to live with such confusing circumstances: mom here dad there, they have since split and are now with other partners; a mess and a terrible burden for children.

How is this working out? Not very well. Relationships defined by lower levels of commitment are, not unexpectedly, more likely to break up. Three-quarters of children born to cohabiting parents will see their parents split up by the time they turn 16, compared with about one-third of children born to married parents…..

So apart from the counsel of cold showers or “let the good times roll,” is there any good advice for those traversing the relational wilderness? …

First, while it may not be realistic to maintain the connection between marriage and sex, it remains essential to maintain the connection between marriage and childbearing. Marriage is the most effective institution to bind two parents for a long period in the common enterprise of raising a child — particularly encouraging fathers to invest time and attention in the lives of their children. And the fatherless are some of the most disadvantaged, betrayed people in our society, prone to delinquency, poverty and academic failure. Cohabitation is no place for children.  Amen! Just the point I have been trying to make in previous blog posts here. Marriage is fundamentally about children and what is best for them. We have to change our thinking today that so overemphasizes the emotional well being of the spouses (or co-habiting adults) and get back to being sober about the effect that this has on children. They deserve better. Marriage is meant to be a stable, lasting union where a man and woman cling to each other because that is what is best for children. God does not make arbitrary rules. He establishes them for good reason.

Second, the age of first marriage is important to marital survival and happiness. Teen marriage is generally a bad idea, with much higher rates of divorce….But people who marry after 27 tend to have less happy marriages — perhaps because partners are set in their ways or have unrealistically high standards. The marital sweet spot seems to be in the early to mid-20s.  Early 20s is still early for many young people. We take a long time to grow up in our culture. But I think mid 20s is reasonable.

Third, having a series of low-commitment relationships does not bode well for later marital commitment….Serial cohabitation trains people for divorce.

[Bottom Line is]….Delaying marriage creates moral, emotional and practical complications…..The answer, even in the relational wasteland, is responsibility, commitment and sacrifice for the sake of children. There we go again, CHILDREN, responsibility and commitment for their sake. We have to be more serious and realize that my lfe isn’t merely about me and what makes me happy.

Posted on

The Martyrdom of St. Cyprian

Today is the feast of St. Cyprian the patronal saint of my parish.  What follows is an account of his martyrdom.

In the year 258 AD severe edicts were issued from Rome indicating that those who persisted in their refusal to worship the pagan gods were to be put to death. Knowing his end was near, Cyprian spent his final days encouraging his flock and expressing his affection for them. He also undertook personal penances in preparation for death.

 Sentenced to Death – Cyprian had already been imprisoned and exiled to the City of Curubis the year before for his refusal to burn incense to the Roman gods. Soon enough orders came and Cyprian was brought back to Carthage to stand trial once again. When word got out among the populace that Cyprian was in custody, a large multitude gathered and lamented him. Even a great many pagans protested on his behalf for they remembered his kindness, courage and generosity during the recent plague. But it was to no avail, the new proconsul, Galerius Maximus, seemed anxious to enforce the death penalty.

We are blessed to have received from antiquity the account of St. Cyprian’s final trial which is substantially reproduced here:

  • Proconsul: Are you Thascius Cyprian?
  •  Cyprian: I am
  •  Proconsul: Are you the person who has been bishop and father to men of ungodly minds?
  • Cyprian: I have been their bishop.
  • Proconsul: The most sacred emperors have commanded you to conform to the ceremonies of the Roman religion.
  • Cyprian: I cannot
  • Proconsul: Consider again for your own safety.
  • Cyprian: Obey your orders. In so manifestly just a case there is no need for me to reconsider.
  • Proconsul: Long have you lived with an irreligious heart and have joined great numbers with yourself in an unnatural conspiracy against the Roman deities and their holy rites. Nor have our sacred and most pious emperors…been able to claim you to their ceremonies. Since you have been a ringleader in crimes of such a heinous nature, you shall be made an example to those whom you have seduced to join with you and discipline shall be established in your blood. I will that Thascius Cyprian be beheaded.
  • Cyprian: Blessed be God

Many Christians who were within the room cried out, Let us be beheaded with him! As Cyprian was led out to die a large crowd pressed in on all sides so that a strong cohort of soldiers was required to escort him. They led him outside the city to an open field ringed by large trees. Many onlookers climb those trees to better see him.

Martyred – On arriving at the spot where he was to die, Bishop Cyprian took off his mantle (or overcoat), and fell to his knees and prostrated himself before God. Then, arising he took off his dalmatic which he gave to his attending deacons and remained in his long white robe. He payed his executioner the sum of 25 gold denarii. While this gesture was not unheard of especially for a person of some means it nevertheless tells us of the graciousness and forgiveness in the heart of Cyprian. He himself tied the blindfold over his eyes after which his hands were tied. Kneeling again he awaited the final blow. At length the sword passed and Cyprian ended his pilgrimage here. It was September 14, 258.

We have solemnly renounced the world and therefore, while we continue in it should behave like strangers and pilgrims. We should welcome that happy day (of our death) which is to fix us, everyone, in our proper habitation, to rescue us from the embarrassments and snares of this world, and remove us to the kingdom of heaven…. There we shall meet with the glorious choir of apostles; with the goodly company of the prophets; with an innumerable multitude of holy martyrs; there we shall be blessed with the sight of those triumphant virgins who have subdued the inordinate lusts of the flesh; and there we shall behold the rewards of those who, by feeding the hungry and consoling the afflicted have with their earthly treasure stored up for themselves treasure in heaven. To these beloved brethren let us hasten with eager longing! Let us pray that it may befall us speedily to be with them; speedily to come to Christ. (St. Cyprian,  De Mortalitate, 26)

Posted on

The Beauty of Music

Laura wrote a post on the beauty of food a few posts below. Her reflection prompts mine also on the magnificence of music.

Where does music come from if not the soul? Animals do not sing. Oh perhaps the birds do sing in an ambling sort of way that sounds more like communication than true song. But only the human person has produced the majesty of music and surely it emerges from the deep mysterious places of our soul. Music can stir, it can call forth tears, it makes us swell with healthy pride and exuberance, it can instill joy, provoke our deepest thoughts and it make us want to dance. Music unites, it also divides, some love what others hate, it can make you mad, it can make you sad, it can make you glad but seldom are we merely neutral as to it’s quality or influence.

The genius and variety of music is astonishingly remarkable: from country to classical, modern to medieval, blues to ballads, solos to symphonies,  jazz to jewsharp, renaissance to rap, and polyphony to parade music.

And consider this, music is unique to the human person. In the Bible, only once does it mention that God sings (cf  Zeph 3:17) and NO WHERE does it mention that angels sing. But Father, but Father, of course angels sing! Sorry, despite the notions of popular culture the Bible does not describe that angels sing. Even in the classic Christmas scene where we think of the angels singing Glory to God in the Highest and On Earth peace to men of good will, the text does not say they sing this but that they say it! (Look it up at Luke 2:13). So singing is a special trait of human beings and part of our dignity. Angels say, they cry out and declare (cf Rev 5:12) but only humans sing. And to some extent only humans grasp it. I have often marvelled at how unaffected by a great song my pets have been. I can be tapping my toe, be moved to tears, filled with zeal  by a song and the dogs and cats I have had just lie there bored. Proof again that music is distinctly human and requires an immortal, God breathed soul to grasp it.

Music is the soul’s way to exhale, to express itself beyond words. It bespeaks the soul’s longing, its sighing, its joy and its sorrow, words are optional.  Appreciate anew this miracle of human existence, this unique gift to the human person, this flash of beauty and dignity in the soul of every human person.

Here are my two favorite scenes from the movie Amadeus, a movie about my favorite composer, Mozart. In video one, his rival Salieri describes the exquisite and subtle beauty of a Mozart Sonata. In video two Mozart is working to compose part of his Requiem at the words Confutatis maledictis flammis acribus adictitis, Voca me cum benedictis (When the wicked are consigned to woeful flames, call me to be with your blessed ones). Watch as the notes come forth from his very soul, his soul exhales and sighs, the notes! It starts slow then builds.

Posted on

What Was A Prophet Like?

We often like to read from and quote the prophets. But if you’ve ever met a real prophet you know that being in the presence of a real prophet can be very disturbing. Prophets were famous for goring every one’s ox. No one left the presence of a prophet untouched. So troubling were the prophets of old, including Jesus, that most of them were persecuted, jailed, stoned, exiled and killed. Most of the Biblical prophets were beyond controversial they were way over the top. Prophets denounced sin and injustice in the strongest language announcing doom to a nation that refused to repent. Many Israelites thus considered them unpatriotic and downright dangerous. They justified throwing them into prison for their lack of patriotism and for the way their words questioned and upset the status quo and the judgements of those who held power. To many,  these were dangerous men who had to be stopped.

Jesus, though essentially our savior, also adopted the role of a prophet. Listen to these words as he denounces the people of his day for their rejection of his prophetic message. In this they are just like their fore-bearers who rejected the prophets:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous, and you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have joined them in shedding the prophets’ blood.’ Thus you bear witness against yourselves that you are the children of those who murdered the prophets; now fill up what your ancestors measured out! You serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you avoid being sentenced to Hell?!  (Matt 23:29ff)

Many of us today like to think that, had we lived in Jesus’ time we would surely be on his side. But, truth be told, prophets can be hard to endure and Jesus had “difficult” things to say for everyone. Honestly, most of us struggle with the truth to some extent. And especially we moderns who prefer a more gentle discourse with large doses of honey and very little vinegar.  We probably would wince as we walked along with Jesus. Jesus was more “plain spoken” than we are usually comfortable with. If we are honest, when we read the prophets and Jesus we will come away with much to repent of.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Consider this video clip. It is of a modern prophet named Vernon Johns. In the early 1950s he was Pastor of the Dexter Avenue  Baptist Church in Montgomery Alabama. The Black Congregation that hired him was a rather sleepy congregation. In the face of rather awful racial discrimination, they preferred to remain silent and therefore safe. Vernon Johns tried to wake them from their sleep, but to no avail. They were too afraid (yet) to take a prophetic stand. Eventually Vernon Johns was arrested as a trouble maker and the Board of Deacons fired him. But Johns had laid a foundation for the next Pastor of Dexter Baptist, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Within a few years Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and the Bus Boycott was on. The rest is history. This clip is of VernonJohns final sermon where in finest prophetic tradition he denounces racism. But NO ONE escapes his vivid denunciations. Watch this clip and behold what it must have been like with the prophets of old, even Jesus. Behold the prophet!  No one escapes! In the end of the  clip, his daughter who had stood against her Father’s zeal sings “Go Down Moses.” The choir director who had also opposed him likewise stands to sing. The seed is planted even as the prophet is led away by the police.

Posted on

Take Up Your Cross

The Gospel for today has Jesus clearly telling us he must carry his cross and we must carry ours. Generally we flee the cross. But somewhere deep inside we know the need for the cross. Where would you be today without the crosses you learned to carry. The cross is more than suffering, it is self discipline, it is generosity, it is obedience, it is doing what is right even without immediate reward, it is working hard when we’d rather sleep. Where would you and I be had we not learned to accept corsses like these. Most of our progress comes at the cost of  sacrifice, ours and others for us. We know,  deep inside,  that the corss is necessary.

The following video is a little silly but it makes a good point, so learn while you laugh at a corny but clever video:

Here’s another rather clever but corny video which I’ve posted before. In it a pastor and his cat try to explain suffering.

Posted on

Thoughts on 9/11 – On Turning the Other Cheek and Legitimate Self Defense

Most of us remember well that terrible  day 8 years ago when terrorists ruthlessly attacked us. Although that day is etched deeply in most of our memories, what may have slipped away is how we experienced September 12 and the days that followed. We wondered, was this the first of many more attacks? Was another shoe about to drop? How would we protect ourselves from new attacks? There was a lot of anxiety in the days and weeks that followed.  But most people agreed, this nation had to protect itself from further attack. We needed to identify our enemy and end the threat that enemy posed.

In the weeks, months and years that followed this Country undertook significant actions to end the threat posed to us by Al Qaeda. The problem was that this enemy did not live in a single region or country. The field of battle was difficult to define. The army we faced wore no uniforms and lived among non-combatants. Opinions began to differ widely as to the best way to address the threat posed to us.

Among Christians who reflected on what to do, Biblical teaching, the example and words of Jesus present definite challenges  to those who proposed a strong military solution. Jesus seems so clear and unequivocal when he teaches in this regard:

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well….”You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, (Matt 5:38-44)

What a text! It is so radical as it seems to exclude self-defense. What does it mean to offer no resistance to one who is evil? When you are attacked Jesus does not say “defend yourself” he says “turn the other cheek.” So radical does this text seem to most that they are overwhelmed and simply turn the page. Is this a call to radical pacifism? Does it mean that a Nation should have no police force, no judicial system, no army?

Instead of turning the page, we might do well to reflect on the message of a text like this. Perhaps some observations and clarifications are due here:

  1. The text seems to be more about matters of personal dignity than actual physical attack. True, the strike on the cheek seems quite physical, but in the ancient world such attacks were understood as an attack on one’s personal dignity no so much a grave physical threat. This is true even today. Being slapped on the face is not a devastating threat to our physical well-being. Rather it is an insult. In the ancient world one who wished to humiliate struck (always with the open right hand) the left cheek of the person. This was an indignity but not the worst one that could be inflicted. The worst insult was to strike the right cheek of a person with the back of your right hand. So what Jesus is describing here is a question of dignity. His basic teaching then is that if some one tries to rob you of your dignity by a slap on the cheek, realize that your dignity is not in what others think of you. Realize that your dignity is given by God and no one can take from you. Show this by offering your other cheek. Don’t stand on your precious dignity, don’t retaliate to regain your dignity. The one who struck didn’t give you your dignity and they cannot take it away.
  2. Hence this text is not about defending from life threatening physical attack, it is a text about personal dignity. All the getting back at others because they offended you or did not praise you, or poked fun at you, or did not give you your due, all the revenge for stuff like that ends because it no longer matters to you, at least not when Jesus starts to live his life in you.
  3. So this text has a cultural context that would not necessarily require us to interpret Jesus’ words as an absolute exclusion of legitimate self defense in moments of serious physical threat.

But any distinctions I have made above by way of explanation cannot remove the core of Jesus’ message which is meant to limit our retaliation and remove from it anything “personal” other than the protection of life from imminent threat or significant injustice.

This then serves as background to the Church’s very careful and thoughtful approach to necessary self-defense. The Catechsim sets forth this teaching in its exposition of the 5th Commandment (Thou Shall not Kill). Here are some excerpts:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor…. The one is intended, the other is not.”

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:  If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful….

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the state.

2266 Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge.

2267 ….the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If however non-lethal means are sufficient…authority will limit itself to such means….the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity  are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However…governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.”

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: 1- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; 2- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; 3- there must be serious prospects of success; 4- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

So, some reflections on 9/11. How have we done? It seems we had a right to defend ourselves by discovering our enemy who so threatened us and removing this threat. I do not claim that we got it all right and that every action of ours was right. Indeed, if I can leave you with one “take away” from this reflection it might be this: Self defense and the ending of unjust aggression can never be something we do lightly and without reflection. The Lord and the Church require of us serious reasons for bringing lethal blows even to enemies and we should never undertake such measures without considering carefully other less lethal means. Respect for life means that it is right that I demand my enemy respect my life but also means that I must respect his. Recourse to war or other lethal means may sometimes be necessary but we do well to carefully consider our motives and means in such a serious undertaking.

Have we done this? I leave this to your prayerful consideration. Pray for also our leaders who have important decisions to make in the protection of this great nation of ours.

Posted on

The First Blow to Marriage: No-Fault Divorce

This Year marks the 40th Anniversary of No-Fault Divorce. With the signature of Governor Ronald Regan on Sept 5, 1969, the State of California became the first State to enact “No-Fault Divorce.” Other states quickly followed and within 15 years it was nationwide. In effect this law simplified divorce and streamlined it by allowing only one party to petition for divorce. By this act Marriage became the easiest contract in civil law to break.

Prior to 1969 the States processed divorce requests but the process was long and difficult.  Shouldn’t it be? The breakup of marriages has potentially powerful implications for families and for society. It is especially children who suffer from unstable family situations. The State and the wider society has good reason to insist that couples remain faithful to vows they have made (to use Church language) and to “contractual obligations” binding on them (to use the language of civil law).  With the introduction of “No-fault Divorce” the notion of obligations and duties toward Children and the wider society was set aside. Marriage became a whimsical arrangement subject to easy and rather sudden end – no questions asked. “Irreconcilable differences” is all that needs to be said.

Late in life, Reagan admitted his son, Michael that, signing the bill was one of the worst mistakes he ever made in public office.

How have we done since 1969? Well no one would say marriage is a healthier institution as a result. Divorce has skyrocketed. Now more than half the children of this country no longer enjoy a stable nuclear family but instead are sent back and forth between the households of divorced parents. Often they have to endure the confusion and turmoil of their parents’ second marriages, half brothers and sisters, moms and step moms, dads and stepdads and every other sort of relationship you can imagine. What sort of a toll has this taken on children in terms of things like drug use, suicide rates, premarital sex, SAT scores, etc.? Well, you know the answer. And how do we fare as a society, as a nation, as Church when our most basic pillar is on shaky ground? Here again, you know the answer, we have not fared well.

There was a time in this land when divorce was rare. When it occurred people were shocked and whispered about it. Really it was not so long ago. I who am only 48 remember those times from my early childhood. It is not as though every marriage was happy before 1965. Indeed, there were many “unhappy marriages.” But people had a different outlook which emphasized the importance of staying true to commitments that had been made and to sticking them “for the sake of the kids.”  These attitudes were enshrined in law which made divorce difficult. Marriage was for the Children and children had needs for stability and for parents who stuck to their commitments. Today, the attitude is that marriage is for the adults and the needs of children are somewhat secondary.

Do you also see how this had led to the current trend to “redefine” marriage. If Marriage is essentially only about the relationship of the adults involved and children are only an optional accessory, who is to say that marriage should be stable or even heterosexual? Or so the thinking goes. But if, as the Church continues to teach, the procreation and rearing of children is an essential end of marriage then it makes sense that God would establish marriage as between one man and one woman till death do them part. As God puts it, “This is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh.” (Gen 2:24) God goes on further to command them to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28).

So here we are today, marriage, family, and children are all on the ropes. Our own strength as a civilization depends on us getting this right again. The first major and serious blow took place 40 years ago this month. God invites us to return.

To those who are divorced, I mean you no disrespect. Many are divorced today due to complicated reasons. Not all wanted the divorce they had. Others made decisions early in life that they now regret. Still others had unique situations too complicated to speculate about here. But I’ll bet most who are divorced would be the first to describe its pains and ramifications in the family. Easy divorce has not made life easy. “Amicable solutions”  are seldom pain-free and they are seldom solutions at all. Rather they unleash a whole new set of problems. Somewhere in the midst of all this God is calling to us and he invites us all to rediscover his plan for marriage and the family.