Divorce as the ‘other’ marriage crisis
R. Albert Mohler, Jr., is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and one of the best thinkers, in my view, on the so-called Christian right. He spoke to religion reporters on the future of evangelicalism at our recent conference in Denver, where Archbishop Chaput also spoke.
One reason I (and others — he is the cover story on the latest Christianity Today) find Al Mohler convincing and compelling is his fair-minded, level-headed approach to tough topics and his willingness to turn his critical eye on his own flock.
An example of that was Mohler’s blog column last week titled “Divorce — The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience.” The title tells it all, and in case that’s not enough, I also wrote about it at PoliticsDaily and put it in the context of a potential shift, or broadening, of the conservative Christian agenda beyond a focus on gay marriage.
That monofocus seems to still characterize the Catholic hierarchy — as evidenced by the earlier post and debate here over Archbishop Nienstedt’s campaign. I think that is unfortunate as the crisis of straight marriage is so great and the threat of gay marriage so small.
Mohler is not about to backtrack on his opposition to gay marriage, but his jeremiad seems well phrased and targeted. He concludes:
The sanctity of human life is a cause that demands our priority and sacrifice. The challenge represented by the possibility (or probability) of legalized same-sex marriage demands our attention and involvement, as well.
But divorce harms many more lives than will be touched by homosexual marriage. Children are left without fathers, wives without husbands, and homes are forever broken. Fathers are separated from their children, and marriage is irreparably undermined as divorce becomes routine and accepted. Divorce is not the unpardonable sin, but it is sin, and it is a sin that is condemned in no uncertain terms.
Evangelical Christians are gravely concerned about the family, and this is good and necessary. But our credibility on the issue of marriage is significantly discounted by our acceptance of divorce. To our shame, the culture war is not the only place that an honest confrontation with the divorce culture is missing.
Divorce is now the scandal of the evangelical conscience.
David G: Amen! You and Albert Mohler are right on. I haven’t had a chance yet to read your links, so apologies in advance if this covers the same ground, but just want to add that divorce itself is probably a symptom, rather than root cause. The root cause, in my view, is an inadequate and distorted approach to marriage. Thus, people who probably shouldn’t get married do get married (leading to high rates of divorce), while people who, perhaps, should get married don’t (the phenomena of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth).
Is he Nienstadt or Nienstedt? If he’s destined to become a household name, I want to learn it right.
“That monofocus seems to still characterize the Catholic hierarchy — as evidenced by the earlier post and debate here over Archbishop Nienstadt’s campaign. I think that is unfortunate as the crisis of straight marriage is so great and the threat of gay marriage so small.”
I agree. I assume the Catholic hierarchy seems so preoccupied with gay marriage because politically and legislatively there is a lot happening right now – it’s a battle in progress – while divorce and the cluster of issues that accompany it aren’t very controversial at present.
It is “Nienstedt,” corrected above. I used the spelling from the earlier post. Apologies.
Jim P: I note that Mohler does not offer any prescriptions for solving the problem, and it’s certainly not as easy to grasp as a same-sex marriage law. So the accessibility of the same-sex marriage debate is much greater than the messier, long-term catechetical and cultural battle over divorce. Still, it’s a battle that should be engaged, I believe.
I assume the Catholic hierarchy seems so preoccupied with gay marriage because politically and legislatively there is a lot happening right now – it’s a battle in progress – while divorce and the cluster of issues that accompany it aren’t very controversial at present.
Jim,
Actually, I think it’s homophobia. It’s not just same-sex marriage. It is everything to do with homosexuality. Abortion is the worst sin. Homosexuality is the second worst. Everything else can be tolerated. The divorce rate is sky high, and I have seen that 98% of requests for annulments are granted in the United States. What God has joined together, let no man put 2% of asunder. The out-of-wedlock birth rate is approaching 40% and is over 50% among blacks, and the Catholic Church (and other Christian Churches) are busy fighting same-sex marriage. They should be glad somebody believes in marriage nowadays! What is a realistic estimate of how many same-sex marriages there will be? Spain, which has had same-sex marriage since mid-2005 has a same-sex marriage rate of under 2%. It seems reasonable to assume it would be about the same for the United States. Compare that to a 50% divorce rate and a 40% out-of-wedlock birth rate, and you will see how ridiculous the focus of the Catholic Church on same-sex marriage is.
I noticed this in the Politics Daily article:
Of course there are no specific proposals. The Christian campaigns are always about correcting other people’s behavior.
Don’t mess with me today! :P
Divorce rates have been high for at least 30 years.
There’s more pressure now with economics being what they are.
Also, folks are marrying later and postponing childbirth in the family.
We really need to focus on the issues with an eye on historical developm,ents.
Barbara, where are you with your usual sound judgements.
Amen! Whenever I hear of a couple getting divorced, I feel very sorry for their children when they have some.
While the hierarchy is preoccupied with same sex marriage. Catholic sacramental marriages are plummeting. The church wedding is no longer a family ‘obligation’ imposed by the extended Catholic family and is easy dismissed. The decline since 1990 is almost 50% but this problem is not on the church radar. In business, if same store sales declined 50% it would be a sign of going out of business. [check the Kennedy for your diocese]The many Latino immigrants which bolster the entire Catholic demographic, are not seen in the marriage numbers because many Catholic immigrants go back ‘home’ to be married.
Hello David N. (and All)
In response to part of your post, “Abortion is the worst sin. Homosexuality is the second worst. Everything else can be tolerated.”, I disagree slightly. Contraception is tied with “homosexual lifestyle” (the terminology of US Catholic bishops, not my terminology) for second worst.
I wholeheartedly agree that divorce is in most cases a tragedy and that it makes little sense to focus so much attention on same sex marriage when high rates of divorce are so obviously a real and grave threat to marriage. But my complaint (yes, sorry all, I am complaining!) is more general. My impression is that the US Catholic bishops in the main are not interested in speaking out on any matters of moral concern other than abortion, homosexual lifestyle and contraception. I appreciate that Church teaching on these three matters is very unpopular and that the bishops in this country think it necessary to defend thses teachings frequently in public. But does nothing else matter? Speaking as one who obeys Church teaching regarding family planning (which I feel I need to say so that I’m not immediately dismissed as another “cafeteria Catholic”), I’m getting really tired of hearing his excellency Archbishop Chaput and the other bishops who maintain high public profiles complain about the alleged evils of a “contraceptive mentality” while they say nothing, and I mean nothing, about a number of Roman Catholics who are public figures and who are openly denying on television, in print and on the Internet Church teachings on the immorality of torture, anti-semitism and persecution of people on the basis of their religion.
I guess I and many others will continue to do the best we can to follow all the Church teachings on morality, not just the “big three” I list above. But I for one am not counting on getting much support from our bishops.
“I assume the Catholic hierarchy seems so preoccupied with gay marriage because politically and legislatively there is a lot happening right now – it’s a battle in progress – while divorce and the cluster of issues that accompany it aren’t very controversial at present.”
That makes sense, but the fact that divorce, especially as it affects children, is not controversial is a shame.
“I note that Mohler does not offer any prescriptions for solving the [divorce] problem, and it’s certainly not as easy to grasp as a same-sex marriage law.”
I think the fallout issues for children of divorce are perfectly easy to grasp, but it’s much harder to restrict something that’s already legal (no-fault divorce) than something that’s illegal (gay marriage).
In my view, requiring “informed consent” for divorce would be a good start–require divorcing couples to go look at how their children are likely to suffer from a divorce, and then require them to assess whether the kids would be better or worse off after a divorce. Helping people postpone divorce until after their kids are grown would, in my view, be a good start.
Ed – regarding Catholic hierarchy talking about the decline in sacramental marriage – I can tell you that church officials are aware of it. We talk about it among the priests and deacons in my parish, and when deacons gather. Our archdiocesan marriage office is aware of it, as are the diocesan annulment and canon-law experts.
Seeing the problem is one thing; figuring out what to do about it is another. As you say, the social/cultural ties that bind couples and families to churches for their weddings have severely frayed – snapped in a lot of cases.
Archbishop Chaput can make a speech about it, and it might appear on the First Things website. But will that lead young couples to pick up the phone and call their parish to book the wedding?
If ever there was a social issue on which the laity rather than the clergy need to take the lead, this is it.
I have to admit, I’m somewhat ambivalence about divorce. Probably, all of us can point to situations where the divorce was horrible, leaving scars that will remain with the principles for the rest of their lives. I’d think many of us can also think of situations where divorce, while never a good thing, probably was better than the alternative.
I like Jean’s idea of informed consent for divorce. I also suspect that there are a number of couples whose marriages are in jeopardy who don’t avail themselves of the counseling services available to try to salvage their marriage.
A few weeks ago, Cathy Kaveny posted here to say that Chaput and the like need to get over the fact that most Americans believe pre-marital sex and contraception are okay, and that they have good reasons for thinking so. She made the point that this battle was long over, and Chaput needed to move on to other issues that were also important.
Now, David Gibson wants to tell us that the bishops really need to focus on divorce. But, isn’t divorce a basically settled issue like those above? Half the country gets divorced, and presumably the other half thinks it is morally permissible. The bishops are supposed to roll over on same sex marriage even though it is an issue that is still being debated, and take up one of the issues that (sadly) has been settled?
Liberal Catholics can’t have it both ways.
I agree with Gibson that divorce is much worse than same sex marriage; it’s just that I don’t see how the bishops are going to influence public policy on the issue, which has been accepted now for over 30 yrs.
I’d like to hear from Prof Kaveny on this, if she has a bit of time.
There is no parable of Jesus on marriage. But there is one on wealth. Christians overwhelmingly pursue wealth as a goal. That is the biggest sin. It is given token mention in encyclicals and sermons.
My dearest friend is a lawyer who loves children. Years ago she tried to start a practice that would specialize in representing kids. There were no takers. She thought that it would probably be a good thing if children had their individual lawyers in divorce cases.
It is my understanding that the Courts often appoint lawyers to represent legally incompetent adults in cases involving them. Wouldn’t it make sense to have children have such a benefit? On the other hand, it might be traumatic for the children if they had to give testimony. Sad.
JC,
There may now be little that bishops can do about divorce law, but they could start in their own backyard by cleaning up the widely abused annulment process, which too often just adds a layer of expert-approved revisionism to the logic of no-fault divorce.
Now, David Gibson wants to tell us that the bishops really need to focus on divorce. But, isn’t divorce a basically settled issue like those above? Half the country gets divorced, and presumably the other half thinks it is morally permissible.
JC,
On issues like divorce, cohabitation, and out-of-wedlock birth, I certainly wouldn’t fault bishops for not campaigning to have American laws changed. I don’t think anybody would stand for tougher divorce laws, for example (or a campaign by celibate clergy to make divorce more difficult). Here’s what Cathy Kaveny said:
She is not implying anything there that I can see that would prevent the Church from preaching about divorce in church every Sunday of the year, looking at the root causes of divorce, engaging in public campaigns to discourage divorce, offering counseling to anyone (Catholic or otherwise) in a troubled relationship to try to avoid divorce, and so on.
With marriage we have to distinguish. Certainly sinful and reprehensible when a husband or wife callously and selfishly choose to divorce. Jesus does leave an exception for “marital unfaithfulness.” I believe it would be incorrect to narrow this down to sexual infidelity only. The important thing to remember about the words of Jesus on marriage is that it is basically helpful to women who were regarded as property rather than as an equal partner.
The problem with marriage is not necessarily in the area of divorce. There are many “intact” marriages which are very harmful to children. So we might do well, while always advocating permanence in marriage, to leave the judgment up to God where we have no way of telling what has occurred between husband and wife. Living together is a more modern phenomenon where couples are marrying at an older age. What is the alternative? Promiscuity?
As far as Evangelicals are concerned they are certainly against cursing. But they do seem rather choosy in forgetting some basic tenets of the gospel. Another reason to find Christians hypocritical.
JC, I am not sure that divorce when there are children is a completely settled issue. People see that the situation of the parents can be inextricably difficult, but they also see that the children will suffer as a result, through no fault of their own. I believe that, like for abortion, there is a lot of ambivalence because of that.
I don’t know if this needs to be clarified, but let me just say it: the church does not condemn divorce (nor does she approve of every instance of divorce). As I’m sure a lot of folks here know already, a civil divorce is one of the requirements in order to be granted an annulment, so the church has incorporated divorce into its process. Divorcees can receive communion and the other sacraments.
And the church has ministries to the divorced.
“There is no parable of Jesus on marriage.”
Perhaps – we might set aside the parable of the five wise and five foolish virgins – but he did speak a couple of times against divorce and remarriage.
On the other hand, he seemed to treat the woman at the well, who had five husbands and was living with a man who was not her husband, with mercy and compassion.
And of course he attended that wild affair at Cana.
Rome acknowledges the legitimacy of divorce when circumstances call for it. In so doing, the church does not deny the sacramentality of marriage.
As a divorced (for 22+ years) fella married for more than 12 years. and as a former husband who went to weekly marriage counseling for 18 months with my wife, I can vouch for the fact that we both tried to save our marriage. Unfortunately, there was an irreconcilable difference (having nothing to do with promiscuity or sexuality, etc.) that, at the end, proved the end of our marriage. A marriage is only as strong as the weaker link. My two younger brothers, married 42+ and 36+ years respectively, have both suggested that their successes to date have been pretty much the luck of the draw.
Over the years, we both had our child’s best interests at heart, and I don’t recall either of us using him against the other.
Pre-marital counseling involving reputable psychological instrumentation and discussion seems to me to be the preferred approach for the church to take in marriage preparation.
I don’t know how to reconcile official teaching on sacramentality with the reality and sometimes the necessity of divorce. Maybe annulments are a problem for some in the church, but let’s remember that Jesus stressed mercy, not judgment.
I don’t have any definitive answers here.
Given the potential legal-financial repercussions of divorce, I’m not keen on remarrying. If I were to meet that “special” person (and I’ve mentioned this before), my preferences would be:
First, she has her place, and I have mine.
Second, we move in together (and hopefully stay together — albeit in different quarters — for keeps).
Third, we get married, and we each have our respective domiciles (I’m spoiled by having lived alone all these years).
Fourth, there is no fourth preference (I’m done with divorce :)
I don’t know if this needs to be clarified, but let me just say it: the church does not condemn divorce (nor does she approve of every instance of divorce). As I’m sure a lot of folks here know already, a civil divorce is one of the requirements in order to be granted an annulment, so the church has incorporated divorce into its process.
Jim,
It seems clear to me that Jesus condemned divorce (Mark 10:2-9), even without remarriage.
I have always assumed that this was, on the part of Jesus, at least in part out of compassion for women. I actually have no idea what a woman did in those days if her husband divorced her, but with the rights of women being what they were (basically nonexistent), a woman whose husband divorced her had to have been in a very unfortunate situation.
Divorcees can receive communion and the other sacraments.
But they are still sacramentally married. In that sense, they are not divorced. Nor are those who seek an annulment any less married after a civil divorce unless and until they receive an annulment. So marriage is indissoluble, according to the Catholic Church. If there was a marriage, there remains a marriage until one of the spouses die. If there is an annulment, there never was a (sacramental) marriage. So in a certain sense, there is no such thing as divorce. A divorce doesn’t end a sacramental marriage, and an annulment doesn’t end a sacramental marriage. Nothing any human can do (aside from murder) can end a sacramental marriage.
Of course, if 98% of people who obtain annulments were never married in the first place, it is difficult to imagine there are many people who are actually married in the eyes of the Church! It seems that practically anyone can demonstrate there was some impediment to their marriage. How many people enter into marriage with the maturity to make such a commitment? I would guess very few. I would think a lot of people who enter into marriage are not very mature at all at the time, but they grow into the marriage, the same way people in an arranged marriage can grow into a truly loving and mature relationship.
Suppose a man marries a woman in the Church, and at the time he has absolutely no intention of ever having children, but he doesn’t tell his wife to be. Then as time passes, he changes his mind. There was no sacramental marriage at the time, presumably. Can a marriage become sacramental retroactively?
And of course he attended that wild affair at Cana.
Jim,
It is amazing how some things stick in the mind. Close to three years ago Joseph Gannon [11/20/2007 - 4:28 pm] said:
Peter, it is fine, in fact it is great, to be open to life in the context of marriage, assuming your wife could be pregnant without endangering her health. But there are all the other contexts where sex takes place. I told my college-aged daughter that
1. She’s much too young to be even thinking about marriage
2. But if she’s going to have sex anyway, then she must use contraception
3. But if she gets pregnant anyway, then I’ll welcome the baby regardless.
Thus with these three lines of defense I’m fighting divorce (1), out of wedlock children (2), and abortion (3).
Matthew Boudway: I think about annulment as a crutch to help those who need extra room on what is a very strict pronouncement of Jesus. It seems that commenters here want annulment to be much stricter, to punish more. But, isn’t the general feeling around that the church needs to relax, not be so strict about all these moral issues? Why more rigidity on this?
David Nickol: I agree that there is still plenty of room for the church to preach whatever on Sunday. And Mohler seems to be talking about internal evangelical laxity on divorce. But, Gibson’s post is about the church participating in the public or electoral aspect of a debate ( in this case, the gay marriage debate). Kaveny is saying that bishops should not expect the public at large to give them a hearing on these now-settled issues of morality, and now Gibson is suggesting that the bishops should be campaigning, as they are against gay marriage, against divorce.
Hi Bill – I’m being picky, but (from the perspective of exegesis) the “porneia” clause in Matthew likely refers to marriage within the prohibited degrees of kinship from Leviticus, not sexual immorality more generally, or “unchastity” in a wider sense (I assume this is what you’re talking about when you say Jesus allowed for an exception to the prohibition on divorce).
Hi David N – the gospels change this saying of Jesus to suit their environs (i.e., Mark for Romans, &c). Compare the synoptics to see the differences – Luke is likely the most historical (if that matters) according to the intrepid Joseph Fitzmyer. The texts are Mk 10:2-12, Mt 19:3-12, and Lk 16:18. There is also independent use of the core saying in 1 Corinthians.
Also @ David N – Canonically, sacramentally, the spouses are married until one dies, even if they are legally (civilly) divorced. However, we shouldn’t forget that there are two basic sides to sacraments – the opus operatum and opus operantis, if I may whip out the heavy-duty scholastic terminology. And while the opus operatum exists until a spouse dies, there seems to be no doubt that opus operantis can and does disappear quite regularly. However, the church’s right to declare something a valid sacrament is usually distinguished from that sacrament’s fruitfulness. Of course, the second category – the opus operantis and all it entails – is very difficult to judge externally.
Kaveny is saying that bishops should not expect the public at large to give them a hearing on these now-settled issues of morality . . .
JC,
I read her to be saying that when the Church’s arguments have been rejected, Chaput seems to be on the verge of saying that the matter should not have been settled democratically. That it’s unacceptable for the Church to lose an argument in a democratic society, and if it does, something is wrong with democracy. That when the Church loses an argument, it should have some way of prevailing anyway. That it’s time to start chipping away at the right to religious liberty.
the “porneia” clause in Matthew likely refers to marriage within the prohibited degrees of kinship from Leviticus
budida20,
A viewpoint I have read recently, and unfortunately I can’t remember where, is that Matthew is making an exception to Jesus’s prohibition of divorce, and Paul makes another (the Pauline privilege). So already in the early Church there were two exceptions, which indicates that perhaps it is not correct for us to accept the prohibition as an iron-clad rule.
Hello Claire (and All),
Thanks for the response to my rant of earlier today. Actually I was not trying to opine on the merits of Church teaching on contraception. I just thought, and still think, that it is inconsistent, to say the least, to place so much emphasis on contraception when we American Catholics have some serious problems with anti-semitism, religious persecution and the acceptance of torture. I’ve certainly had to hear a and read an awful lot about Humanae Vitae and Theology of the Body. Frankly I think we Catholics need to read and hear less about those and a great deal more about Nostra Aetate and Gaudiem et Spes.
This is a big topic. The posts have been informative. However, they have been mostly opinion pieces and, as one would expect, light on facts. It would be useful to hear from those, such as mental health professionals, clergy, sociologists and others who study and deal with these matters on a daily basis.
And so, if the editors of Commonweal read this blog, I would like to suggest that they weigh in on the current state of marriage, divorce and the plight of the unfortunate victims (i.e. the children). Also it would be helpful to explore the American Church’s apparent laissez faire attitude towards annulment including the historical trends and the attitudes in other Church jurisdictions.
Perhaps, in view of the scale and gravity of this matter an entire issue or a series of in-depth articles might be in order.
One study showed that 44% of Born Again Christians aged 22-41 believe that sex outside of marriage is morally acceptable. 59% of the same group believe that cohabitation or living toghether without marriage is morally acceptable. Notable that only 7% of them considered it right to use the ‘f word’ on broadcast television.
Two issues here: divorce in society and its impact; and,
the Church and divorce.
As to the former, it’s clear that divorce creates man yproblems for children, though some couples successfully work through that.
It’s also clear, as Bill M. pointed out, that dysfunctional couples staying together “for the sake of the children” may be harmful.
I noted recently that divorce rates among seniors is increasing!
Then we have the “hook up” college students and their issues discussed at an excellent forum at Fordham earlier this year.
The problem of both spouses working and attending to children (with pressueres of long hoiurs/ working at home as well) creates real tensions as well as possible issue of office attractions.
These and other factors require real study and support for couples trying to hang on – and some may not just make it.
David,
This reminds me of when a little kid grabs another kid’s arm makes him hit himself, and says – why are you hitting yourself?
Why the “monofocus” on same sex marriage? Well, maybe – and I am going out on a limb here – it’s because there is a concentrated effort on the part of same sex proponents to force the issue in the courts, in business, and in politics. I suppose the alternative to “monofocus” is turning a blind eye, or as you would put it “get over it.”
Most importantly, this isn’t and hasn’t been an either/or situation. SSM and divorce aren’t different problems, they are part of the same problem. The idea that the Church is ignoring one while they are obsessed with the other is just plain nonsense. My parish, like most, has any number of programs and opportunities for married couples to improve their marriages. The Church deals with this issue every day. Bishops aren’t making public service spots on the issue because no one is suing the state at present to make divorce mandatory.
As for the assertion that the threat of same sex marriage is “small,” we will just have to see what state the institution is in when our grandchildren are grown.
I don’t think it’s clear among scholars what “porneiua” meant though current practices may be read back in trying to explain it.
What strikes me as clear is that the prohibition of divorce announced by Jesus for what is expected in the Kingdom was already diluted under difficulty by the inspired writers in both the Mt. exceptive clause and the “Pauline privlege.”
I think Jim and his fellow priests/deacons are struggling with the same kind of issue and that the church has and continues to struggle with it while Church marriages are now in decline and divorce common for more than 30 years.
So we saw a change in the “annulment process” from “insanity” to lack of mature discretion in recognition of the importance of relation matters -committed relationships were vital to real marriage.
But the Church’s emphasis on the traidttional Augustininan “goods” lost lots of support in both the Churchs’ teaching on sexuality and the denial of Eucharist to the divorced and remarried -many of whom still found the annulment process to ‘regulatize” their marriage as not believable -particularly when they saw long standing marriages with grown children suddenly disolved.
At root, the current problem for Catholic policy makers strikes me as how to realize the pastoral implications of the relational aspect of marriage and lessening the canonical/ philosophical approach to divorce and remarriage.
I’m not optimistic about that. (as an aside, I note at the Fordham Relion and Culture discusion of VII -whose transcript is available on line and worth a thread here, the fact that many of our current hierarchy are products of being promoted chancery oficers, means a JCD mentality will probably rule.) Consequently, Catholics will probably just make up their own minds about how to proceed and the issue will fester.
F.Y.I.: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_13051996_preparation-for-marriage_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html ( note, if you have Norton Internet Security, assess will be blocked because, according to Norton Internet Security it matches the sex education/sexuality category for blocked web site)
“As for the assertion that the threat of same-sex marriage is ‘small’, we will just have to see what state the institution is in when our grandchildren are grown.”
Sean, what do you mean by this comment?
Unless I’m missing something, I fail to see any connection between same-sex marriage and (what?).
I seem to recall that at least some Orthodox churches allow a post-divorce second, but not sacramental marriage. If so, I would suppose that there are some conditions attached to this practice.
Am I correct about this? If so, this strikes me as a very humane handling of the many difficulties mentioned or alluded to on this thread.
I am told that the Ukrainian Catholic church (which is in union with Rome) recognizes divorce and allows remarriage, but only after a suitable period of penance and reflection.
Still another subtext on this is the NCR report on a Monnesota pastor writing publicly that the real threat to marriage is poverty and that the DVD sent out by his Bishop is wrong.
Joseph,
In part I made that comment because there is a tendency on the part of SSM proponents to point to situations like we have here in Massachusetts, and say, “Look, there, the sky didn’t fall in!”
Marriage is a very ancient, and thank goodness a resilient, social institution. It won’t disintegrate over night. Same sex marriage and divorce, as I said, are part of the same problem. I don’t know if either is “smaller” than the other. More and more marriage and family are not just resilient and flexible institutions, they are becoming maliable expressions of individual predeliction. In other words – matters of desire and taste. No institution based on that can survive.
Nor can a liberal democratic society survive that denies the founding principles upon which it was created including the self-evident truth that God has endowed us with our unalienable Rights, the same God Who endowed us with our inherent, complementary nature as male and female when He created us in His Image.
“I also suspect that there are a number of couples whose marriages are in jeopardy who don’t avail themselves of the counseling services available to try to salvage their marriage.”
I’d be interested to know how well marriage counseling works and how many couples can afford it, given that money–or lack thereof–is a major cause of stress in a marriage. I couldn’t find any reliable stats. Retrouvaille is free (well, except for the hefty donation the retreat center suggests), and is only offered once or twice a year. It also ends after six weeks, and some couples need more ongoing help.
I also see a difference between trying to save marriages and trying to preserve a two-parent family for children. I realize the Church sees marriage as a holy sacrament which binds partners until death and would see all marriages in trouble as a problem.
But, pragmatically speaking, I think that society would be more stable if it were the married-with-young-children had to jump through more hoops to obtain a divorce unless there’s a lot of substance abuse and violence going on.
I think that it is important to note that research from law society journals are showing that the vast majority of divorces are instigated by women. Additionally, women report being happier after divorce.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=713110
I have been married for some time now and certainly for me, and I am sure for many, the reason i stay married is different today than the reason i Initially became married. The reality is that any relationship needs to be negotiated and there is far less stigma associated with divorce than there has been in the past. Also there is far more support for divorced people in faith communities than there is for LGBT.
I think that the issue of divorce is complicated. I think that there are certainly times when rational divorce is justified as Joseph mentioned above. It need not be a dramatic adulterous situation, it can simply be a growing apart.
I have a book, “Between two worlds: the inner lines of children of divorce” whose author Elizabeth Marquardt argues that in many cases, maintaining a loveless but not-too-bad marriage is better for the children than a divorce.
The Church has always been very tolerant of divorce. It grants divorces in the cases of the Petrine and Pauline privileges, and it grants annulments on the slightest of grounds; these are often divorces in all but name. Even the Synoptic Gospels do not paint a loophole-free condemnation of divorce.
Why the current extreme intolerance of gay marriage and even of gay civil unions? It is in part unreflective homophobia, and in part a rigid essentialism in the understanding of what marriage is. In ordinary life it seems to me that the debate now is between advocates of gay marriage and advocates of free love and promiscuous sex; the church throws its weight against the former but ends up becoming the objective allies of the latter — and more than the objective allies, for many of the clergy are themselves practitioners of the latter.
Divorce is complicated and can’t possibly be separated from the social context in which it arises. I think the most cogent understanding of the seemingly hopeless divorce cycle is the blue/red paradigm:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/st_20100501_5904.php
I think you need to look at who gets married, when and why, and then, when and why they get divorced. In some cases, it’s just the people involved, either as individuals or as a couple, but in other cases, people are simply waylaid by circumstances when they might otherwise have made good spouses. Mohler, like a lot of preachers, sets his sights on the ideal and sees, most likely, hypocrisy, and at the level that he operates that’s probably true enough. But that’s not necessarily the story for most of the rest of the population that form SB congregations.
Sean, thank you for clarifying.
If, as you’ve acknowledged, marriage is a very resilient institution, I don’t think it will lose favor with the masses or disappear (I guess this view makes me an optimist). Certainly the law confers various benefits on married couples.
If there’s any danger to marriage today, I think it’s the very litigious nature of our society. Sue one’s “ex” and the lawyers can draw the process out — and make more money doing so! (Fortunately, such was not the case in our divorce.)
I’m not aware of gays and lesbians wanting to destroy traditional male-female marriage. They simply want the same recognition and respect (and, yes, benefits and obligations) enjoyed by the rest of us.
Perhaps the states should no longer allow religious representatives to function as official representatives of the state when they witness marriages. I understand such is the case in many (most?) European countries. If couples want to marry, let them go to city hall or the county courthouse to exchange vows. Then, if they wish, let them go to their parish to participate in the sacrament of matrimony.
On a more general note not relating to Sean’s comments, I think there is no “one size fits all” approach to the issue of a couple divorcing vs. staying together for the sake of the children. Too many variables.
“I have been married for some time now and certainly for me, and I am sure for many, the reason I stay married is different today than the reason I initially became married. The reality is that any relationship needs to be negotiated … ”
I think this is very sensible.
As much as the “marriage experts” like to talk about weekly “dates” with your spouse sans kids, candles by the bathtub, and cuddles on the couch, the fact is that marriage, in the civil sense, is a contract between two parties, and the terms and assumptions of the contract need to be reviewed and revised within certain boundaries for everyone’s mutual benefit.
Certainly, it seems to me a spiritually worthwhile goal for couples to learn to be cordial and work together to build a stable home for their minor children even if “the sparks” went out long ago, and there’s no interest in “reignition.”
When couples who might otherwise contemplate marriage look about and see divorce all around them (read: lawyer bills, court hassles, property settlements, etc.), why would anybody in their right mind want to get married???
Not a good environment for promoting marriage.