Marriage: a luxury product?
The number leading today’s New York Times – that most births to American women under 30 occur outside marriage – is a startling one, although it follows on a trend that has been developing for many years. Here are some details:
Once largely limited to poor women and minorities, motherhood without marriage has settled deeply into middle America. The fastest growth in the last two decades has occurred among white women in their 20s who have some college education but no four-year degree, according to Child Trends, a Washington research group that analyzed government data.
Among mothers of all ages, a majority — 59 percent in 2009 — are married when they have children. But the surge of births outside marriage among younger women — nearly two-thirds of children in the United States are born to mothers under 30 — is both a symbol of the transforming family and a hint of coming generational change.
One group still largely resists the trend: college graduates, who overwhelmingly marry before having children. That is turning family structure into a new class divide, with the economic and social rewards of marriage increasingly reserved for people with the most education.
“Marriage has become a luxury good,” said Frank Furstenberg, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania.
For the Catholic Church, this suggests that the defense of marriage as an institution should highlight the church’s teachings on income inequality, poverty and education.
On a more pastoral level, it suggests a need to better communicate the significance of sacramental marriage, especially to couples, with or without children, who are considering whether to marry. The church can be very clear about what it condemns, but not so good at communicating why it believes in marriage. Perhaps there should be retreats and programs for the “pre-engaged,” that is, those wrestling with the question of whether to marry.
The pattern I see among the many never-married women with children where I teach (my college has a strong voc/tech mission that attracts many single mothers hoping to improve their financial situation) is a very strong safety net among the mother’s extended family.
It occurs to me that that safety net of support and encouragement may seem more stable to many unmarried women with children than the support of the baby’s father, who is usually described as something like an overgrown adolescent.
Many of my students feel a good deal of affection for their children’s fathers, but nothing is expected of them, and so nothing is offered by them.
The demise of sacramental marriage is one side-effect of this picture. But the making of responsible men has to start far earlier than pre-engagement classes, no? Oughtn’t formation of Catholic men start in CCD?
Catholic Diocesan Family Life Ministries is a waste land…. next?
Part of the problem is that sacramental theology needs a thorough rexamination, including matrimony.
Focusing on children in marriage may just turn off the kind of folks Jean mentioned.
Focusing on under 30′s may miss the many who marry later.
I think America had a blog piece recently that challenged policy makers to think about the many kinds of family now engaged in church, including families led by gays.
The question of economics in the current situation, in more ways than one needs pastoral thought.
In my State, (and I suspect elsewhere) there is an epidemic of child abuse and genuine domestic vbiolence issues -hardly spoken of in Chutch in my experience; and what the Church may say exacerbated by the sex abuse problems.
Finally I thinkwe have to stop an occasional experienced pastoral delusion that many young adults may depart but come back when they marryu and have children later.
A thorough multidisciplined examination of marriage and its theology is in order; but, will it happen?
Jean,
So long as the general culture sees sex as simply one recreation among many and ignores the causal elationship between sex and babies, why should young men think they’re responsibe for anything important like a child? In this culture women are said t o “find themselves pregnant”. as if the fairies did it. Utter denial.
Just look at some of the TV “comedies”. People sleep around without a giving thought to the possibility that the contraceptive might not work, as they fairly often do not. kids are not taught to live in the real world.
(Please excuse any typos. Can’t see too ell this week.)
Considering that the bishops are one of the biggest group of people telling people not to get married, we shouldn’t be surprised when others stop believing in marriage as well.
Bob –
Yes, the whole thing has to be looked at including th eeconomics. And the very basic question hasto be asked: what do parents owe their children? When the Church says that parents must educate them, what does that mean? what if you have 6 very bright kids — these days even middle class parents cant afford to pay the way of all of them through 4 years of college, not with tuition even at state universities costing more that private universities cost when
the bishops were young.
Then we should ask: what if those 6 kids are NOT very bright? Shouldn’t they get more education tomake up somewhat for their lack of a lot of brain power? (I fear that the children of the not-too-smart are the ones who have been neglected by the Church for several generations now.)
Or should the parents just have fewer kids?
Not to mention asking: how many people will Mother
earth hold when everyone has 4-6 kids for three or four generations:
Yes, complexity, complexity.
Not to mention asking: how many people will Mother
earth hold when everyone has 4-6 kids for three or four generations
Right you are. 7 billion people on earth is an unprecedented situation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Already there is an increase in famines in Africa, due to exhausted, overused soil, and to changing climate patterns, possibly as a consequence of global warming.
As the cautions and strictures of religion have been replaced in the past half century by a please-only-yourself message from the media and the government, people in and below the middle classes have lost adult guidance on living responsibly. Self-discipline, respect for others, deferral of gratification are neither preached nor heeded. The Church can help, certainly, but for most people the stronger voice by far – and the most often repeated – comes from all sides, and only a little, if at all, from the pulpit. The Church finds itself increasingly marginalized. I don’t know that a lot can be done about that. Evangelize, certainly, but circle the wagons.
Carrying on from Claire’s comment (2/18 4:18pm):
The UN High-level Panel on Global Sustainability issued a report on Jan 30, 2012, “RESILIENT PEOPLE – RESILIENT PLANET – A Future Worth Choosing”. They project “the number of middle-class consumers increases by 3 billion over the next 20 years …. By 2030, the world will need at least 50 per cent more food, 45 per cent more energy and 30 per cent more water … “. They find major initiatives required if sustainable development is to be achieved. That sounds very soon to me. Is the New Evangelization looking forward or backward?
http://www.un.org/gsp/sites/default/files/attachments/GSPReportOverview_Letter%20size.pdf
Yes, I can see now that my 40-year realtionship with my partner just simply cannot stand up to the “sanctity of marriage” in light of how those allowed to marry see it.
“For the Catholic Church, this suggests that the defense of marriage as an institution should highlight the church’s teachings on income inequality, poverty and education.”
Paul, I couldn’t agree more. And I would substitute some other word or phrase for “defense”, because the church needs to go on offense about marriage. We need to evangelize marriage.
As some comments here suggest, it needs to evangelize marriage sensitively. But it needs to evangelize.
I don’t see the need to conflate marriage with poverty. Or war. Or global warming. Or recycling.
“So long as the general culture sees sex as simply one recreation among many and ignores the causal elationship between sex and babies, why should young men think they’re responsibe for anything important like a child?”
I dunno. Maybe because they have parents who tell them that’s wrong? Or teachers who back up those values? Or open and helpful CCD teachers who can guide them?
My only point is that if you wait until it’s time for marriage, it’s too late.
Paul, I couldn’t agree more. And I would substitute some other word or phrase for “defense”, because the church needs to go on offense about marriage. We need to evangelize marriage.
As some comments here suggest, it needs to evangelize marriage sensitively. But it needs to evangelize.
In Massachusetts, where I live, the average age at which a woman had her first child in 2006 was 27.7 years (that’s from data released in 2009, the most recent I could find quickly).
In 1970, the average age was 22.5. From census data, I looks as if average age at marriage was pretty constant from 1890 to 1970.
In connection with the New Evangelization, is some group in the Church looking at what a moral life would be for young people who don’t plan to have a child until age 30?
I read today of a priest in Connecticut who said he always asks couples who come for marriage preparation if they plan to have a child within the first year of marriage. It wasn’t clear what he would recommend if they said no, not for 5 or 6 years. would he advise marry and wait – or put off the wedding until you’re ready? I also wondered what he he would advise if he struck up an acquaintance with a couple who were regular Mass goers and discovered they were cohabiting and didn’t see any reason to marry because they weren’t planning to have children for years to come.
Will the New Evangelization take note of the difference in society between now and 1970 or 1890?
Data: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db21.pdf
John H, that’s interesting data, an interesting anecdote, and some important questions.
If the New Evangelization isn’t taking into account the ways that people actually live today, then it won’t succeed. Having said that – it isn’t obvious what the right strategies should be to reach people in that cohort. Jean is certainly right that the evangelizing needs to start when they’re children.
My own amateur theory is that young adulthood has added an entirely new stage of life – the young-adult years in which jobs and careers are somewhat unstable, and social lives may also be somewhat unstable, and there is still quite a bit of irresponsible sexual behavior going on. Kind of College+. My own parents, the same generation as some of our older active bishops, married when they were 23 and 19, back in the Fifties. And their first child was born within a year. That sort of thing doesn’t seem to happen as much anymore in the middle class. (And in the classes below that, it may never happen, apparently).
There is a leap of faith involved in marriage: faith that the relationship will last, and faith that the couple will enjoy the economic stability for a family to flourish. So many comments from young people that are reported in the media suggest a sort of prudential caution about marriage, no doubt in many cases because their own childhoods were scarred by their own parents’ marital difficulties. But the lack of faith in the future is palpable. They come across as a pretty pessimistic generation.
The social division between haves and have-nots is hugely worrying. This isn’t a 1% / 99% thing. The difference between completing two years of undergraduate studies, and completing four years and getting a bachelor degree, seems enormous.
I’m not sure where the priest in Connecticut is going with that question, either. Couples who marry in the church are supposed to be open to having children. My own experience with couples is that almost always, they are open. Priests and deacons in my diocese, Chicago, tend to be a sensible and pastoral lot; on the whole, our attitude is to take a leap of faith ourselves and, unless there is a compelling reason not to, do the wedding. But clearly, getting the couple to the altar in the first place is the pastoral challenge. And getting them to see that leading holy lives in the years before marriage is a possibility. And, I would add, getting them to seek forgiveness and healing as a positive thing after the inevitable times when they slip up in the personal holiness dept. There’s a leap of faith in that, too.
Btw, I trust it’s clear that the HHS mandate’s effect on this problem would be negligible?
I’ve just finished reading Cardinal Dolan’s speech to the other new cardinals prior to their installation. It was on the New Evangelization and is worth the time to read it.
Jim P – good point. But, then does the NE or the US bishops’ religious liberty fight really address any of the current, most pressing issues in both church and society e.g. lack of two parents/marriage to raise children and an increase in teenage mothers; increasing disparity between the 1% and the 99%; immigration; lack of jobs; disenfrachising labor unions; poor education; 25% of children in US live in poverty; lack of access to universal healthcare.
And yet, where do our bishops spend their time and energy – on trying to preserve their “religious liberty” over a long ago decided issue – contraception or in fighting same sex civil unions.
Is this really what the NE will be about – yes, going backwards. Dolan said some powerful things – so, if it is about the person of Jesus and the church says yes – how is that connected to the fight for their narrow vision of religious liberty? In fact, it seems to ignore the “common good” of a diverse society; the history of the catholic church and its mission through healthcare, agencies supporting family life, the poor, the aged, etc. without distinction in terms of race, education, religion, etc.
John H. ==
I was impressed with C. Dolan’s theology. And I particularly liked his defense of New York City as a religious city against the opinion of the Vatican Sexretary of Sate who sees it as the wold capital of secularism. And what most particularly impressed me was that he *publicly* disagreed with the extremely powerful Secretary of State. Quite a good beginning on that score.
But the practicalities of his notion of evangelizing was another matter. He has great enthusiams, true. But he mentions only preaching and proclaiming the Gospel, with one mention of inviting others to share the Fairth. Most unfortunately, there is no mention of dialogue except for dialogue with unbelievers. But dialogue with *believers* and with those who have drifted away will be crucial if our society is to understand again the relevance and truths of Christianity.
There is a leap of faith involved in marriage: faith that the relationship will last, and faith that the couple will enjoy the economic stability for a family to flourish. So many comments from young people that are reported in the media suggest a sort of prudential caution about marriage, no doubt in many cases because their own childhoods were scarred by their own parents’ marital difficulties. But the lack of faith in the future is palpable. They come across as a pretty pessimistic generation.
I agree.
The article is also discussed at
http://www.metafilter.com/112939/Marriage-is-a-luxury-good
Well, sure, the economy is in bad shape and the job market is shrinking, anyway. Universities are turning out deeply indebted overeducated workers that the job market has little use for. Working means skipping from job to job, always having to sell oneself all over again like a used car. Many things need to be though through anew, but we don’t seem to be doing much of that. We just go on, pretending that the next federal program will fix everything.
From another point of view, what’s the point of having children? The religious aspect’s missing for most people. There’s no need for more hands to pitch in on the family farm. Public schools are awful. The divorce rate is fifty percent or higher. For the secular middle class, kids have become a luxury, almost something to add to one’s CV. For the poor, they’re excess baggage.
When a society has nothing to offer its people but a dull life of amusing oneself with tawdry and expensive toys until they die, usually in a hospital, treated like a disgusting thing in a bed, where’s the joy in living that would make marriage something rich and fulfilling?
Bill d – I think the connection between the religious-liberty fight and all of the ills you mention is that the church needs the freedom to pursue its mission of converting hearts and introducing people to Jesus. That, by itself, won’t solve the immigration problem or the developing fissures between haves and have-nots and many of the other ills you mention. But it may be a necessary precondition. Our part of the church – those of us who live in the world, rather than the bishops and priests – are responsible for carrying our Gospel of love, compassion and forgiveness into the workplace, the school, the public square and the voting booth, and building a new kingdom there.
I really believe that, if more people in the US came to know Jesus and really have his message “soak in”, such that it permeates our lives, there would be less suffering and more justice in our society. And part of that, to my mind, is adopting habits of disciplined, holy living. This is where I think there is a hunger among young people. Those young single moms in the NY Times article – I suspect that if the fathers of their children were mature, responsible and self-giving – if they were *men* – then marrying those men might seem like more of an option to the moms. And, I need to add, if the couples themselves had shown a bit more forbearance, perhaps there wouldn’t be so many children born out of wedlock.
David S, you’re not exactly a ray of sunshine :-). (Are you a young adult?)
Ann Olivier, Francis Clooney is a Jesuit priest who is head of the Center for the Study of World Religions at Harvard Divinity School. He has an article in “America” this week:
I think his point 5 is the important one for successful dialogue.
Jim P., as a deacon, whom I presume encounters much of “real life,” I appreciate your insights very much.
Retrouvaille emphasizes the importance of intact families on children and shows how couples can change their way of communicating in order to maintain the family structure, even if they have fallen out of romantic love. Not saying that this can work if there is substance addiction or abuse, but I think there are satisfactions in preventing a marriage from failing that are often overlooked. Plus being able to live happily despite disappointment is an example you send to your kids each and every day.
I only wish that Retrouvaille were offered on a more flexible schedule and more frequently than it is in some parishes and dioceses.
I am quite surprised at the general level of pessimism regarding employment for young people shown in this thread. Up here in Canada, we have an unemployment problem for sure, and one that is not going to be solved for many people who do not have the right education, but we are facing looming shortages in many skilled trades. I do think that we are quite optimistic in our small semi rural community about the future. We are in the process of opening an accelerator, some of which are quite successful in the USA. We are expanding our agri foods and expecting China to continue its offshore investment.
The problem is for those who do not grasp the opportunities that are presenting themselves, and for those in middle age who neither have the education, or the aptitude to cope with the new century.
As for its effect on marriage. Young people are being cautious for sure because we are in transition, and they are never going to follow the bishops advice and breed as they used to, but I am an optimist, and I am pretty sure our youth will cope with the challenges, as for the middle aged, I am not so optimistic.
No, Jim. Just need more coffee :O)
Yes, Michael, here, too. But training for trades seems to be regarded as something “less”, something for people who aren’t smart enough for university.
Many of those shortages in skilled trades are for engineers and scientists who do require university education, and certainly most of them would be within the pervue of a technical university. Not many young people who would benefit from an accelerator who do not have a technical degree. The other is health care and yes some of those may be more certificate than degree courses, but just some.
I appreciate the comments here and just wanted to add that I think lay people have a particularly important role to play in discussions within the church of marriage.
Not only are births of women under 30 declining (as the thread begins) bu talso the number of catholic marriages.
Of course the issue of the NE is to positively present the Good News.
Does NE do that practically?
Do young and not so young adults hear the Good Neprocalimed, and not just by smiling or happy face or whatever, but positively in a way that touches them.
It’s easy to beat up on culture or secularization but real dialogue with modernity and the complexities of it require more than simple repition of traditional views as the TRUTH.
A further note: over at America, an editorial on poverty.
Economic issues are deeply real in people’s decisions on family, bu ttherewere several bloggers complaining about how big government is making people dependent atc.
More good news from that ik???
This is a bit of a tangent, But do you remember last summer, and Roger Ebert’s “Greatest Music Video Ever Made”? That is about the power of ordinary people who refuse to accept the status quo. Seems to me that young people today have extraordinary insight, and they refuse to accept the inevitable. They are going to be inclusive, and accepting, despite what their elders and betters and bishops have to tell them. They are going to reshape the world and it will include families and children, but it will be a better world, just a lot different to the one we have lived through, and the church can be with them, or it can die.
For those who suspect. as I do, many sociological surveys, this may be a case in point. Even many middle class people do not legally marry for economic reasons. There are more middle class people getting medicaid because of the high cost of medical insurance. As i re-read this article it seems more anecdotal than solid research. It does make sense that couples who make more money will have less need to live together without legal ramifications. I just wonder how much of this article is true. I may be wrong but it just does not ring true to me.
“5. While we who are Roman Catholic can have solid and stable starting points and perspectives – in Christ, in the Church – none of us gets to decide on our own what it all means, no one controls it; and none of us is in a position actually to understand it all. Nor are we near the end of interreligious dialogue; it is only at its beginning.”
John H. ==
Fr. Cooley seems to thin that dialogue is mainly a matter of reasonng. (That’s certainly better than just preaching at people.) Yes, dialogue is that, but I don’t think that converting to a religion is mainly a reasoning procees. It is much more an intuition that, yes, certain things are true and that things fit together in a certain way that “makes sense” of life. It is somehow getting to understand what is most valuable and even most likely. It is never a matter of proof. It’s a matter of seeing the beauty of a relligion and maybe even seeing that its beauty has a great deal to do wiith its truth. You might say that it’s more a matter of art tha of science.
However, reasoning and religion are closely linked when we get into morality. We can have an overview of the way things ought to be, but seeing what is right and loving in one’s own particular circumstances is another matter. So often there is a conflict of values, and it is not easy to just intuit “Ah, this is the loving/just/fair way to proceed”. That’s why I think that “Love one another” really isn’t all that helpful when push comes to shove.
So dialogue with both the unbelievers and the fallen away and the undecided young will require both reason and intuition — and, hope (the neglected virtue).
Michael C. ==
I think you’re right that the young people these days want to be “inclusive”. But just what does that entail? What *can* that entail? The religions cannot all be totally true because they contradict each other. Neither can systems of morality. For all their idealism, those kids cannot make a world without conflict of one sort or another. The problem then becomes: how to handle conflicting worldviews? Ad so we’re back to (for instance) my freedom of religion v. your right to equal treatment.
Some problems simply cannot be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.
Ann Olivier, I was responding to your “Most unfortunately, there is no mention of dialogue except for dialogue with unbelievers. But dialogue with *believers* and with those who have drifted away will be crucial if our society is to understand again the relevance and truths of Christianity.”
Cooley (at least in his academic role) is not trying to convert people to Catholicism. He is trying to learn the views of people from other religions or belief systems and to create situations in which diverse people can discuss their different understandings of common issues.
I think that kind of openness to hearing, in a respectful way, the views of those who have drifted away from Catholicism needs to be the first step in the New Evanglization.
Clooney’s own field is the theological commentarial writings of the Sanskrit and Tamil traditions of Hindu India
http://www.hds.harvard.edu/cswr/people/director.html
I don’t really think there is a problem unless you allow your religion to control public policy. I think it has been demonstrated on here recently that fifty years ago the bishops did not think that what they taught should control policy. If the truth of religion is that it is a way for life to be led by its adherents, then there is no contradiction for the state as long as everyone pays their dues to Caesar.
Everyone knows that the best way to deal with Westboro Baptists is to just ignore them, just like most Catholics ignore their bishops.
People are still going to form unions of man and woman and raise families. They may call it marriage, but it doesn’t really matter. The fact that some parents are not great parents is a matter of education and responsibility. Where education is good, there is no problem with responsibility.
Depends on how you mean “control”, Michael. Doesn’t what you believe most deeply directly affect how you act, what choices you make, where you go and don’t go? If you were, say, a Catholic and the President of the United States, could you have done what Obama did recently with the contraceptive-insurance mandate? If not, wouldn’t that likely have been at least partly because of your Catholicism?
John H. –
Yes, respect for those who drifter away is most important. Unfortunately, too much negative rhetoric is thrown at them, the assumption being that they are wicked children who are too undisciplined, too dishonest, too ungenerous to accept the truths and challenges of the Faith. Sure, we all have our faults, and some people no doubt do fit that description. But in my experience, most don’t. They are troubled and are honest enough to admit it.
But the bishops aren’t totally wrong. There are some very angry people in our society who do their best to tear down all “organized religion”. Unfortunately, some of them are extremely bitter former Catholics and fundamentalists of different sorts. They over-generalize about their own unfortunate upbringings and seek to rid the world of religious hypocrisy and superstition. Very worthy goals, both of them, but the totally ugly picture of the Church of such people can be quite devastating for a naive kid. I’m thinking at the moment of a certain comedian who has anointed himself a wise man and TV seems to agree. I forget his name. Sadly, the young are prone to take such people seriously because they do articulate the faults of the churched, but they also exaggerate.
I haven’t the slightest idea how the hierarchs can broach the subject of their own recent failures, which is a big issue for the young especially. It’s bound to remain a problem because, I think, the hierarchy stil hasn’t come to terms themselves with their own failures. But no use going over all that again.
To Jean Raber
I wanted to respond to a question that you asked “way up top” of these blogs. You were stating that waiting until a couple is ready to get married is too late to begin training people (men?) in responding as a mature husband/mature wife. You stated that perhaps starting with the CCD classes (and I assume you mean High School CCD) would be better.
I could agree with you—-except that in too many dioceses, youngsters do not make it to high school CCD (and it’s not even called that any more Confraternity of Christian Doctrine). Once the kiddies are confirmed (often in 8th Grade), they ‘graduate’ from religious formation sessions.
Secondly, many high school programs have as their aim to provide youngsters in high school an 1)opportunity to learn about their faith; 2) to provide Catholic/Christian outreach opportunities for the youngsters; 3) to provide for the kids to have a taste in the spiritual life e.g. retreats for teens like NET; 4) to provide for clean, healthy socialization of the young people.
Now—if all the Catholic high schoolers (not in Catholic high schools) ATTENDED high school religious formation and had these opportunities—MAYBE this could be accomplished. Unfortunately 7th and 8th Graders in many dioceses are preparing for Confirmation—and preparing for the Sacrament of Matrimony is out of the minds of most directors of religious formation and catechists as well.
In my parish, the Confirmation prep program is run by students from Boston College. It’s been done that way for years. As far as I can see, there is only one adult involved in the running of the program – the director of youth ministry.
I think there’s an advantage in the closeness in age of the teachers and the taught. The college students have credible experience with the situations in which the younger ones will find themselves soon after they are confirmed.
Little Bear, as I recall, the received wisdom in older times was that a lot of kids would disappear from church soon after confirmation but would come back once they married and had a child to baptize and raise in the church. Wihout being able to reconcile their pre-childbirth sexuality with the church’s teachings, they would just drop out for a while but would be back.
With older ages for having that first child and less likelihood of marriage even then, that’s an even less satisfactory state of things now than it was then.
Today’s catechism lesson from Monty Python —-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U0kJHQpvgB8#!
I think if you wait to discuss marriage until high school, you’ve lost the kids, as Little Bear suggests.
Ideally, RE teachers would start talking about this in 6th/7th grade, when kids are interested in moral issues and willing to accept some suggestions about it. Once they hit 14 or 15, they’re experts on everything (just ask them!) and it’s too late.
John H. –
In olden times, when the Hub of the Universe felt also like the Hub of the Catholic Universe, I suspect that post-confirmation phase was the result of two factors. First was the freedom from organized religion that Thomas Jefferson had in mind, discoverable somewhere after one’s confirmation with the increasing individual independence. The later “return” was because, with almost no exceptions, that was what _everybody_ did in the family, neighborhood, and around town when they married and had children. Culture prevailed. Having changed, it still prevails, leading to the question of what it is the young ones may go to as they grow.
A nearby newborn was Baptized recently. Out of 4 grandparents and 2 parents, all with lengthy, thorough Catholic upbringings, one attends Sunday Mass following a health/death scare. Other family participation with the Church does not happen. By every observable, these six adults are commendable in virtue and morality and are beginning to pass these on to the new one and her sister. (The Baptism was held apparently to give comfort to a fading old relative.)
Meanwhile, the formal Catholic Church is represented by the descendants of the apostles, charged with sanctifying, teaching, and governing the Faithful. These spiritual leaders stand prominently today associated with child sexual abuse, crime-related coverups, real estate scheming, anti-homosexual campaigns, symbolic anti-contraception-funding protest, and medieval silken regalia. That newborn girl could well stroll around in the heavens in a while after she grows up and learns how to travel in space. What will the Catholic Church let her do if she shows up, considering its unquestionable priorities and her undeniable nature?
No one seems to discuss the fact that the remedy for marriage is a college education according to the survey.
“Meanwhile, the formal Catholic Church is represented by the descendants of the apostles, charged with sanctifying, teaching, and governing the Faithful. These spiritual leaders stand prominently today associated with child sexual abuse, crime-related coverups, real estate scheming, anti-homosexual campaigns, symbolic anti-contraception-funding protest, and medieval silken regalia. ”
Jack, there is no denying what you’re describing here. This is the part of the church that shows up in the media.
But for those Catholics who are still connected to a parish, who do still show up at mass more than once or twice a year, their ‘face of the church’ is more likely the pastor, and the full-time professional lay staff/ministry heads, and whatever other clergy and religious are attached to the parish. And that is a very different face – more progressive and more “normal”. The percentage of Catholics who still have this kind of attachment has declined over the last few decades, but it is still a large number of people – tens of millions in the US alone. Out here in suburban Chicago, our churches are full and our parishes are large.
“Jim P., as a deacon, whom I presume encounters much of “real life,” I appreciate your insights very much.”
Jean, thanks for your kind words. I would just note that the ‘real life’ I encounter is whatever rather narrow and limited slice is available in the little corner of the world where I live and work and do my ministry. I live in a middle-class area and so my slice tends to be middle-class. Lots of people in this area do have college degrees; we did a survey at our parish, probably fifteen years ago or more, and the educational profile at that time was 25% of our parishioners had a four year degree and another 25% had done some postgraduate work (including earning postgraduate degrees). I suspect that, among younger families with children still at home, an even higher percentage has at least a four year degree – our numbers were probably pulled down somewhat by people of my parents’ generation, now seniors, among whom were many stay-at-home housewives who never completed or even started college, and a number of men who prospered because they were fortunate enough to live in the United States at a time when hard work and some luck were enough to propel someone from the working class into the middle class.
In an area like ours, traditional/customary American Catholicism still “works”. As I stated in my previous comment, masses are full. Even a lot of our schools are full. Parish life still ticks, not identically to how it was forty years ago, but close enough that people feel a sense of continuity. And quite a few young adults do still get married around here, although, as Bob noted, the number of weddings has slid somewhat.
I’m extremely concerned about the unraveling of social norms in the working classes. Those women in the New York Times article should be married, and they should have middle class aspirations. A couple were taking nursing classes, so perhaps the middle class aspirations are not dead, but for a single mom, it will be really, really hard. (How does a single mom deal with hospital nursing shifts?) I am not blaming them that neither seems to be a short term possibility. But some things are really awry.
I don’t know that the church knows what to do. The entire American model is, plant a parish and people will come. My own view is that this still works for 1st and perhaps 2nd generation immigrants. I don’t know that it works for assimilated young adults. I think the church has to find ways to leave the parish grounds and go to where young people really are. But I don’t know exactly what that means or how to do that.
Jim, what has gone awry is this: segments of the population have not navigated or adapted gender and family roles in light of changed social and economic conditions. When you say these women “should” be married, you assume that there is a benefit to them or their children from marriage. What if there isn’t? Calling marriage a luxury product in this context is perverse, as if these guys were like a Ferrari sitting in the garage that you won’t drive because you might ding it. The subtext here is that when these women encounter marriage it is very likely to make their lives harder by allowing someone else with traditional gender role expectations to have dominion over them without contributing either economically or at home (and imposing their own time, material and resource demands). As one says, having a husband would be like having another child. That isn’t my idea of traditional marriage, which seems not much more than a dead letter for these people.
Over the last 30 years the Church has put out numerous documents on the “role of women” or maybe just “woman” in society — as if the role of men is unquestioned, transparently obvious, and immutable. It isn’t, it hasn’t been, and while the bishops throw a hissy fit over contraception as if it were still 1968, a new generation tries to grope its way forward without the benefit of any genuine guidance on how to relate to each other in light of their actual, vastly different circumstances.
Agree 100%, Barbara.
Only a man can make a child “illegitimate”. (The word comes from the proto-Indo-European root “leg”, meaning to choose. If a man doesn’t choose to give his name and his support to a child he engenders, the child is “illegtimate”, illegal, unlawful, unchosen.)
That used to be bad. In the old days, if a girl or a woman “got herself pregnant”, the Church was right there to offer her shelter during her pregnancy, and then separate her from her “illegitimate” child when it was born. The Church then arranged for strangers, unrelated to the child, to raise it. The name its mother gave it in the sacrament of Baptism would be hidden from it along with other information about its true origins. Etc.
But now, women have come to realize that there’s no need for a man. If the father of a child is not willing or able or worthy, the mother of the child can do it alone.
(DNA testing is cheap and easy these days. The old adage, It’s a wise child who knows his father, no longer need apply. Every child can know her father, and every father can know his children. Maybe if a good Catholic, Santorum or Gingrich, is elected President, all fathers will be required to support their children through college, whether they choose to make the child legitimate or not.)
Hi, Barbara, first of all, I’m glad you’re still commenting here.
It may be that gender-role expectations among the men in these women’s lives are part of the problem. But here is what I don’t understand: I’m part of that cohort that seems to have navigated transformed gender roles within marriage (my father’s and mother’s marriage is quite different, and more ‘traditional’, than the roles my wife and I have adapted to). I don’t understand why it’s somewhat easy for me and the men I know, but difficult for an entire class of men, to do this kind of navigating? Perhaps the college experience really is transformative in this respect?
I suppose my own view is that I place more of the blame on male irresponsibility than on antiquated gender role views. Istm that a man can be irresponsible and unfaithful regardless of his views of the roles of husbands and wives. When I wrote, “these women should be married”, I meant that the fathers of their children should be the sorts of men that these women would be willing to marry: men who are committed to their relationship with their spouses and committed to being fathers every day; men who are committed to finding a way to earn enough money and to sacrifice their own ‘freedom’ and comfort to open up enough space in their wives’ lives to pursue nursing or another fulfilling career. I guess that’s a big part of my view of what being a “real man” entails.
I agree with you that this is a topic that it would be good for the church to speak up about.
“But now, women have come to realize that there’s no need for a man. If the father of a child is not willing or able or worthy, the mother of the child can do it alone.”
Hi,. Gerelyn, I see your point that the stigma that attaches to the mother of an illegitimate child, and to the child herself, is much less than it used to be.
Nonetheless, while it’s obviously true that a single woman *can* go it alone, research and experience both tell us that it’s much, much worse for the child.
Obviously, when the father is ‘unmarriageable’, there is no easy solution to this problem. But I don my flame-retardant undergarments as I note that these women surely bear *some* responsibility to not sleep with men like this?
Hi, Jim:
Agree that children thrive when they have two beautiful, responsible, intelligent, educated, rich, etc., parents. Even more so when they have extended families, grandmas, grandpas, aunts, uncles, etc.
But the article is about what is, not about what should be.
There was another article in the NYT a few weeks ago: the spectacular failure of the Pruitt-Igoe housing project in St. Louis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/arts/design/penn-south-and-pruitt-igoe-starkly-different-housing-plans.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=pruitt%20igoe&st=cse
I remember hearing, in the early sixties, about how “ADC” was destroying families. (Aid to Dependent Children.) The article and the movie and the research on Pruitt-Igoe all point to that issue. If a father was around, the woman and children could not get ADC. The social workers had spies in the project to make sure the father didn’t sneak in at night to be with his family. Etc. Even though people were aware of what was happening, the need to punish women was too strong to change the approach.
The refusal to provide sex education is another big problem, of course. One that will never be solved in this country.
Jim, I’d think it must involve the internet. There’s a huge potential there that I’ve not seen the Church begin to tap.
Also, schools. Catholic schools have become expensive. That’s wrong. The Church needs – I think – to get back to the poor. And not just prep schools – that makes little sense, I think. Certainly it makes some sense, but not on a large scale. Among the lower-middle and poor classes, morality, self-discipline, civic virtue are disappearing, and that’s where the Church is needed – at the base. Families down there are shot. Something needs to replace them; it’s unlikely that for a long time they can be revitalized.
Society needs to rethink marriage, but not in the ways the media are leading them to do it. I don’t know how the Church can deal with that one, but I’m sure it can. Creativity, thinking outside the box.
That’s looking at things from the wrong perspective, Barbara – taking a bad situation and saying it can’t be made better by individual initiative. Your implication is that the only way a lower-class woman can marry is to a scumbag.
In the lower classes, Gerelyn, there’s a need for a partner. If you don’t like men, fine – then have your hypothetical woman team up with another woman. Two low incomes are a heck of a lot better than one. What’s needed is the wherewithal to support a family.
Mucho huge generalizations about poor and”lower class” women/families etc.
I don’t think that gets us anywhere near dealing with complexities of traditional marriage decline.
More Catholic schools for the poor? Great service and evngelization, but not primarily a solution to increasing traditional marriage IMO.
Sure, would be nice though but that’s dying off because money is what decides.
Much talk of what’s good for children here -and what’s good is loving parent(s) and basic needs fulfilled.
Also much talk of marriage and happy commitment when the divorce rate, as far as I know, is 50 %.
Loving commitment is the glue that keeps folks together but sometimes that doesn’t seem to be enough
Prospectively, I think again we have to rethink our views from the theological, pastiral and canobical points of view and welcome no tshunt insights fro mteh behavoral sciences.
Barbara –
Thanks for the input.
It seems to me that there is another factor working against marriage. Single mothers already have one or more children. Given the choice between a woman with a child and one without any, a man is less likely to want to taken on the responsibility of step-children, even though step-parents do not have the same legal obligations as the natural parents (i.e., monetary support). I don’t know what proportion of single mothers eventually marry, but I strongly suspect that already having a child works against their eventually marrying, especially when the child’s father is no where around.
That’s where it’s happening, Bob.
How about Catholics dedicating their lives to serving the poor by staffing Catholic schools that serve only them? Sure, they’d become poor themselves – that would be the idea. No more nuns and brothers? Recreate them, on a lay model.
In the lower classes, Gerelyn, there’s a need for a partner. If you don’t like men, fine – then have your hypothetical woman team up with another woman. Two low incomes are a heck of a lot better than one. What’s needed is the wherewithal to support a family.
——
As a Democrat, I don’t presume to tell the “lower classes” what they need. (Not sure what that odd phrase even means these days. My last course in social stratification was so long ago, that one of the class markers was magazine subscriptions.)
(Speaking of upper and lower classes, the finale of Downton Abbey was perfect.)
On the subject of this thread are USCCB links to multiple sites on marriage and the 3-phase National Pastoral Initiative For Marriage which began in 2005. Are these found publicly relevant or useful in the massive, rapid cultural evolution through which we are living? Where and how do they connect with the multi-dimensional culture of 2012, which, in my view, has almost nothing to do with the environment some of us recall from decades ago and has no potential to revert in that direction?
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/national-pastoral-intitiative-for-marriage.cfm
Profoundly important questions about living a human life arise in this little thread, in the NYT article that started it, and widely beyond. Answers are needed that will serve people moving toward 2020 and 2030+. To them, the memorable background that shapes their listening is what the Times article gives a small sample of, not the era when “everybody” (nearly) knew what was required concerning marriage and many automatically did it. Do the bishops and associates recognize that their answers, whatever their divine or human origin and claimed authority, are delivered into the 21st century and must thrive there if they are to make any difference? That is questionable to me based on the evidence.
Jack – this kind of grassroots, pastoral problem strikes me as an area where someone who is not a bishop, but who just may be a saint, can make a bigger and better impact than the bishops. Let the church figure this out and the bishops will eventually catch up.
Lots of good comments here, I think, though I wonder how much of a problem sex ed is. The article doesn’t really discuss how many women were “surprised” by pregnancy and I have only anecdotal info from my students, but most of the single mothers in my classes planned to have babies … and planned not to marry the babies’ fathers, though sometimes that does happen after the baby arrives. Raber’s RCIA class usually has one or two of these couples.
Perhaps the women are, rather than being ignorant about sex ed, are very aware that time is ticking and don’t want to delay childbirth.
As someone who had her one and only at age 41, I am probably a walking talking cautionary tale for those who are contemplating mid-life child-rearing!
“most of the single mothers in my classes planned to have babies … and planned not to marry the babies’ fathers, though sometimes that does happen after the baby arrives. Raber’s RCIA class usually has one or two of these couples.”
Hi, Jean, that strategy leaves me scratching my head. Do these women understand, when they make that decision, what it is like to be a single mom?
In the outreach ministry I do, probably the largest category of people we help are single moms. They really struggle. Maybe that’s coloring my perception.
Jim, I don’t really know how or to what extent these women think through their decisions, but it’s an interesting question.
I don’t know to what extent people who get married really think through that proposition and whether to have children.
I’m sitting here watching my kid’s spine twist into an unnatural curvature from hunching over his &#*!! smart phone to browse for arguments to justify his not going to Mass anymore, and I can’t help thinking that if anybody looked at parenting from a wholly dispassionate standpoint, the species would be doomed.
Jim P. (3:23pm) —
Fully agree on the need for an unordained maybe saint or approximation. One opportunity might be the next national campaign on RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. My guess is it will be religious-liberty-and-same-sex-marriage, given what (Catholic) governors are doing to the cause.
Last year, prominent Catholic defenders of heterosexual marriage in NY were 3 committed celibates. Imagine if they had had a married(!) champion as leader of the charge for traditional marriage. A past example was Mrs. Patty Crowley (d. Nov 23, 2005) and her husband. She reportedly played a critical role in educating Pope Paul VI’s Birth Control Commission and changing the thinking by the majority on heterosexual marriage, introducing facts from married people. She was rare but certainly not unique. Where are her modern equivalents and the cardinal/bishop brave enough to offer one a podium?
David S. –
Your point about a poor single mother needing a second income is excellent. Anybody who has watched afternoon TV’s sob story programs, which are often about irresponsible men, catches on pretty quickly that poor women know that they need a man for practical reasons if nothing else. Some of those stories really are enough to make you weep.
May I suggest using “the poor” rather than “the lower classes.”
For the story of an out-of-wedlock mother among the comfortably well-off, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/nyregion/in-casey-greenfields-personal-custody-fight-the-makings-of-a-public-expert.html
It’s come to take on a new meaning in the past half century, Gerelyn. The classes in this country, once fairly close together, are separating drastically, and the lower levels have lost a lot of cohesion. If “class” offends you, call it what you like.
The classes in this country, once fairly close together, are separating drastically, and the lower levels have lost a lot of cohesion.
I’m’ afraid those notions about “this country” and the “cohesion” the “lower levels have lost” are not based on real history or sociology.
(And talking about class doesn’t offend me. Quite the contrary. I wish one of the contributors would open a thread on social stratification and American Catholics. I always found the class distinctions between religous orders interesting. Choice of high schools and colleges. Choice of private devotions. Choice of charities to support. Etc., etc.)
A fascinating introduction to the development of social classes, which went hand-in-hand with the development of religion, may be found in the chapter on “Archaic Religion: God and King” in Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age, by Robert N. Bellah. (Using “social class” as a search term, brings up some interesting bits.)
http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Human-Evolution-Paleolithic-Axial/dp/0674061438/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329838985&sr=8-1
———-
Back to the topic of the thread: I think it’s wonderful that women no longer are shamed into marriages with unsuitable, unreliable, uninteresting men. Agree, David, that two incomes are better than one. Five would be better still. Maybe a new form of family will develop, involving several unmarried mothers living together to support one another and the children. A big house with lots of adults and lots of children.
Gerelyn, I must push back a little. While yes, indeed, it is good that women are not shamed into marriage, nonetheless, the practice of having children with men you don’t want to marry is at best suboptimal, not to mention that, it assumes that these women find those men to be unsuitable for the right reasons, or that these men cannot change to become suitable — and what does suitable mean? “Suitable” for many means not much more than bringing a paycheck. What if some of these men WANTED to play a role as father but find the mothers to be a real obstacle? Do you see how that sometimes happens — that in at least some of these cases, a mother is making a unilateral determination that effectively banishes a man from a child’s life, and sure, he could stand up for himself, hire a lawyer, etc., but really, how could he when his income is so low?
I don’t think that the picture is cracked only in one place — I think both men AND women have failed to update their expectations in light of what society rewards in the way of behavior and skills, and that women, and not just men, continue to see children not just primarily as the responsibility but also as the prerogative of women. Dreaming of Prince Charming while having a sexual relationship, and eventually, children with the Frog is not just a bad idea from the perspective of economics or the child, it’s also a sign that something is really awry in the status of gender relations.
Agree, Barbara. I don’t approve of men/boys and women/girls having babies without the means, knowledge, etc., to raise them. But that seems to be the situation.
Gerelyn, I must push back a little. While yes, indeed, it is good that women are not shamed into marriage, nonetheless, the practice of having children with men you don’t want to marry is at best suboptimal, not to mention that, it assumes that these women find those men to be unsuitable for the right reasons, or that these men cannot change to become suitable — and what does suitable mean? “Suitable” for many means not much more than bringing a paycheck.
I don’t know what suitable means. (For me it meant FUNNY. Smart. Interesting. Educated. Athletic. Etc.) I really don’t know what girls/women of today are looking for. I’ve heard that some boys pressure girls into getting pregnant because it enhances their own image with other boys. Maybe some girls get pregnant because they have never been loved and know the baby will love them. Etc.
What if some of these men WANTED to play a role as father but find the mothers to be a real obstacle? Do you see how that sometimes happens — that in at least some of these cases, a mother is making a unilateral determination that effectively banishes a man from a child’s life, and sure, he could stand up for himself, hire a lawyer, etc., but really, how could he when his income is so low?
Agree that it could / does happen. The child without a father is missing something so great, that it’s tragic. (Girls who are lucky enough to grow up with the love and protection of a great father have an advantage when it comes to picking husbands who will be great fathers in turn.) But hasn’t it become generational already? Are the girls in the article already the offspring of absent, uncaring, or semi-present but clueless fathers?
The ideal, which never existed for many, is gone for most. Reading 19th-century newspapers, which I used to do a lot, is heartbreaking. Many ads placed by abandoned women, searching for the husbands who left them and the children destitute. Catholic orphanages and “half-orphanages” were instituted to shelter the abandoned children between the Civil War and WWI. Etc. Even into the 1950s, there were many half-orphans. (Pedophiles found easy pickings among them, to mention just one aspect of that.) And among the middle and upper classes, it was common for a man to have a second family.
I don’t think that the picture is cracked only in one place — I think both men AND women have failed to update their expectations in light of what society rewards in the way of behavior and skills, and that women, and not just men, continue to see children not just primarily as the responsibility but also as the prerogative of women.
Agree. I see no remedy. Society is not rewarding any young people very much these days. College graduates are unable to find jobs, cynical liars are seeking political power, etc.
Dreaming of Prince Charming while having a sexual relationship, and eventually, children with the Frog is not just a bad idea from the perspective of economics or the child, it’s also a sign that something is really awry in the status of gender relations.
Agree.
I asked my 16-year-old son why a young woman would get pregnant. Here are his ideas:
Some girls have romantic ideas about being mothers.
Some girls are trying to test a guy to see if they’ll stick by her in a crisis.
Some girls with low self-esteem may feel it gives them positive attention.
He also contends that some girls think a post-pregnancy figure is more attractive than the one they have. Hard to believe that anyone could be that dumb, but there you have it.
Barbara –
Great post. You have my greatest respect for daring to say some things that radical feminist have managed to make politically incorrect. But they need saying. You are a courageous woman.
That sounds like an excellent idea, Gerelyn. What might be holding it back? What might move it forward?
“Maybe a new form of family will develop, involving several unmarried mothers living together to support one another and the children. A big house with lots of adults and lots of children.
“That sounds like an excellent idea, Gerelyn. What might be holding it back? What might move it forward?”
I would suggest that many single mothers tend not to go for this arrangement because they are still sexually active with their babies’ father or some other partner. Many also still entertain the idea of marriage at some point, and view living in a house with other women as confining and temporary at best.
A friend’s mother was a volunteer “foster grandmother” for many years. These volunteers work with kids, but often develop friendships with parents who are often single. For single mothers who don’t have a strong extended family network, the foster grandparent program was very important. http://www.volunteerlansing.com/foster-grandparents.
I wonder if there are lost opportunities in our parishes for elders to “foster” single mothers and their children (and maybe there are two-parent families who could use “fostering” as well; who knows, it might save or promte marriages!)
This conversation has taken a lot of different turns, but all very interesting comments!
Jean’s mention of foster grandparents reawakens an old memory. That program must have been around for at least forty-five years.
If communes of women and children wouldn’t work for everyone, they might work well and be life savers for many.
How not, Gerelyn? It’s my sense from what I’ve been reading that, with the possible exception about “cohesion” (that wasn’t the best choice of words) that’s pretty much merely a restatement of statistical facts.
I wrote a short piece for C’weal two or three years ago about the beguines, a medieval lay women’s movement, making a comeback in Europe along the lines that Gerelyn and David are discussing.
http://commonwealmagazine.org/simple-lives-0
I’m not sure, however, how many single mothers whose decisions have been formed by secular culture (I mis-typed sexular culture, how Freudian) would want to live in an intentional community, even an ecumenical one.
Maybe when the radical masculinists install Santorum in the White House and outlaw contraception, there will be more/fewer children fathered by men unwilling to support their offspring.
Interesting developments in the war against women:
http://tinyurl.com/85zwjhp (A congressman trashes the Girl Scouts for being “radical”.)
http://tinyurl.com/7lmoyju (Virginia Republicans want to force women to undergo unnecessary ultrasound.)
(David, your blockquote at 8:20 made it look as if I wrote something you wrote.)
That’s what the italics were meant to avoid, Gerelyn. You’d used them in the comment referred to at 11:15 for the same purpose.
Let’s not worry at first over possible obstacles. I see a world of opportunity here for dedicated action by lay people willing to devote their lives in service to the poor. I mean full time, vocationally, not part time, when possible. We have, effectively, no more nuns and brothers, but there’s a wealth of enthusiasm for social action. If only some of that could be harnessed in permanent, full-time service among the poor, much could be accomplished. Of course, most people couldn’t do it because of existing obligations or wouldn’t be fitted for it, but, I’m almost convinced, many would do it gladly.
There are already a few isolated nuns in the field, working hard at this. They could show the way and help elaborate new, lay models.
“That’s what the italics were meant to avoid, Gerelyn. You’d used them in the comment referred to at 11:15 for the same purpose.”
——
You’re right. Sorry. I see that using quotation marks is better than using italics.
Thanks, Jean, for that link – and, of course, for the article. Fascinating.
I wonder if the religious community might not be too “Catholic” a model for our time and place, for most people. My sense is that structure is certainly needed, but structure based perhaps more on traditional civic and communal virtues than on specifically religious ones. Replacing families, growing children who are healthy both physically and mentally, both independence and interdependence, and goal-oriented industriousness. Something that holds itself together because it works for everyone.
“This conversation has taken a lot of different turns, but all very interesting comments!”
I agree. And Jean, I thought your son’s suggestions were really interesting.
Here’s my point of view. The Christian ideal of celibacy before marriage, and then fidelity and openness to procreation within a lifelong marriage, gets panned around here, as it seemingly does by a lot of people in the wider society. But my reply is that it’s not an unattainable ideal; in fact, there are many, many couples around us who are achieving it, if we look around us. And that includes young couples.
I don’t think the church should give up on proclaiming this ideal as something that is both holy and, in many cases, attainable. And even proclaiming it to single parents, because the ideal should not be beyond their grasp, either. Sometimes, single moms do meet caring and responsible men who are willing to be good fathers to some other biological father’s children. I can think of several guys I’ve known who have done exactly that. Not all guys are shallow :-)
By the way: the church’s point of view on contraception “snaps into” this overall ideal of marriage as one relatively small component of it. If the church (including us) focused less on contraception considered in a vacuum, and more on evangelizing the attainable ideal of Christian marriage, maybe we’d have more positive and productive conversations around here.
“Fidelity and openness to procreation within a lifelong marriage” certainly does NOT “get panned around here.” What gets “panned around here” is the idea that every single marital act bar none must be open to procreation under pain of mortal sin. There is a huge difference between those two things.
I always thought it was interesting how my parents were so politically liberal and so personally conservative in their own lives. This is what you would call the Dutch example: the most liberal drug and sex laws of any country on the planet has among the lowest rates of drug use (among the natives) and abortion anywhere.
I wish that these women (and the men in their lives) could find a way to establish a more rewarding and helpful relationship with each other, but really, even if they can’t my main concern is that their children not be left in a dust bin, at high risk of sexual and other forms of abuse, as well as unsupported emotionally and educationally. You can preach responsible parenting, the importance of maintaining a constructive role for both parents in the lives of children, without scolding the parents for having failed to meet Church ideals. So far as I can tell, the Church’s view is that once you adhere to the ideal, all the rest of it falls into place — that is, responsible parenting will follow a marriage formed upon Church sanctioned conditions. That may well be true, but it leaves an awful lot of people adrift and without hope.
” Last year, prominent Catholic defenders of heterosexual marriage in NY were 3 committed celibates. Imagine if they had had a married(!) champion as leader of the charge for traditional marriage….”
But they DO: St. Fruitful & Multiply Sanitorium and Blessed Newt & Vestal Virgin Callista Gettingrich.
With champions like those, same-sex marriage is doomed — doomed, do you hear me? Doomed!
Ann Olivier @ 02/18/2012 – 3:27 pm :” — as if the fairies did it. ”
Ann, don’t you know that “fairies” don’t do that? (Sorry, but I couldn’t let that go to waste.)
” David Smith 02/20/2012 – 1:52 pm
Mucho huge generalizations about poor and”lower class” women/families etc.
I don’t think that gets us anywhere near dealing with complexities of traditional marriage decline.
That’s where it’s happening, Bob.”
And what exactly is the difference between what is going on with the “lower classes” and the likes of Blessed Newt & VV Callista?
Jimmy Mac, there is a lot different. Perhaps the serial monogamous relationships are the same, but “out of wedlock” kids with limited or no paternal involvment among women with extremely limited resources is not a situation that either Newt or Callista ever encountedred, not even once. It drives me insane that the focus continues to be on how or with whom these people are copulating instead of with the surrounding social context in which these relationships occur and what happens as a consequence of an unintended pregnancy.
This isn’t like Peter Orszag’s girlfriend having a baby at the age of 39 while he went on to marry a different woman, this is something a whole lot more difficult for everyone involved.
Jimmy, there is a saying that when the rich get a cold the poor get pneumonia, which is another way of saying that money can buy your way out of a lot of baleful consequences of poor choices. The rich go to rehab when they get caught forging prescriptions; the poor go to jail. The impact of the so-called drug war on young families is catastrophic and probably a sufficient reason unto itself to rethink the entire enterprise of sending non-violent offenders to jail. It not only removes young men from their children’s lives but it makes them non-employable in many kinds of jobs.
The point I am trying to make here is that, hyperfocused as we are on sex acts, we have utterly lost perspective on all the other things that are making a normal family life difficult if not impossible for many people.