It should be obvious that developments within a social institution as fundamental as marriage will have an economic impact. Sorting out cause and effect in such cases is no easy matter, however; the temptation is to draw easy and simplistic connections. A suitably sophisticated analysis comes from Fr. John Flynn at Zenit. Flynn reports on a study by the National Marriage Project. Lots of interesting tidbits here, not all of them exclusively related to family issues. Among them: 75% of job losses during the current recession in the US have been concentrated among men without a college education; college-educated women are now more likely to marry and less likely to divorce than their less educated counterparts; extramarital affairs and alcohol/drug abuse are the only factors more strongly predictive of divorce than the feeling that one’s spouse is financially irresponsible.
Mark your calendars! Jennifer Roback Morse is coming to Grand Rapids to speak at Aquinas College on Wednesday, November 19 at 7:00pm.
Dr. Morse will speak on the topic of her provocative new book, Smart Sex: Finding Life-Long Love in a Hook-Up World.
An excerpt from the prologue:
The sexual revolution has been a disappointment, but people continue to acquiesce in its assumptions because no appealing alternative seems to be on the horizon. Many Americans think the only alternatives are some combination of Leave it to Beaver and the Taliban. They imagine that if it weren’t for the sexual revolution, women would all be at home in dresses and high heels, in their spotless kitchens with cookies in the oven, waiting for the Beaver to come home from school. If it weren’t for the sexual revolution, men and women alike would be in danger of ever-increasing surveillance by the state for deviant sexual acts. Without modern sexual mores, women would be but one step away from the burka and public stoning for adultery.
In her latest book, Morse explains why marriage is in crisis and why we should care. Strong, lasting marriages, she argues, are essential for the survival of a free society, not to mention basic human happiness. She fires the opening shots of a new sexual revolution and shows how everyone, married or single, can help.
This event is free and open to the public but space is limited, so please register online or contact Charissa Romens at 616.454.3080.
Opening this weekend in many markets is an enjoyable movie with a meaningful message, Fireproof.
My wife and I had the opportunity to screen it a few weeks ago, and came away impressed. The story behind the story is itself interesting: A Georgia church decided several years ago to try to influence the culture in a positive way, and determined that making movies was the way to do it. They enlisted a handful of professionals, but in large part the effort was amateur. Their second attempt, Facing the Giants, enjoyed some success—great success, considering the film’s resources and provenance. (They made an earlier picture, too, Flywheel, which I have not seen.)
I watched Facing the Giants only after I saw Fireproof. The latter is a much superior product, both in message and production quality. The Giants storyline reflected a facile “health and wealth” gospel: if you give your life to Jesus, all good things will come to you (even a new truck!).
Echoes of Giants’ screenplay, acting, and theme problems are still present in the third movie, but Fireproof improves enough in every area to make it a compelling drama. Kirk Cameron, as leading man, Caleb Holt, is very good. In an odd way, the acting novices, though obviously not as polished as professionals, bring emotional credibility to the story. The film’s frequent and effective episodes of comic relief provide just enough respite from the strong moral theme: the search for genuine love in the context of the institution of marriage.
In light of the mounting evidence that healthy marriages are vital to the maintenance of a free and virtuous society, it’s a theme that PowerBlog readers ought to find relevant.
If it’s available in your area and you’re looking for a couple hours of edifying entertainment, you might want to check it out.
This bit in this week’s Telegraph nails something I’ve been wrangling with for a while. Maybe you men out there can relate:
Many men believe the world is now dominated by women and that they have lost their role in society, fuelling feelings of depression and being undervalued. Research shows the extent to which men have had to change within one or two generations, adapting to new rules and different expectations. Asked what it meant to be a man in the 21st century, more than half thought society was turning them into “waxed and coiffed metrosexuals”, and 52 per cent say they had to live according to women’s rules. What they apparently want is what some American academics have dubbed a “menaissance” – a return to manliness, where figures such as Sir Winston Churchill were models of manhood.
It’s not a “feminization” thing really, and to push back here isn’t being chauvinistic. Most guys are cool with being softer around the edges especially when we connect it to loving our wives and daughters in ways that are meaningful to them.
But our culture has fallen into the trap of thinking husbands are supposed to love the way they do. We’re supposed to be our wife’s best girlfriend, with a winkie and chest hair added as a bonus. After all, we rationalize, it’s our wives who understand what love is all about, and men who don’t climb on board their way of thinking are dufuses or oafs and are certainly not interested in the relationship…
But that doesn’t really cut it, does it guys.
A girlfriend that sometimes leaves the toilet seat up? That’s not what you really want either, is it gals.
A brother in our church’s men’s group stuck a copy of Emerson Eggerichs Love & Respect in my hands a couple months ago. Was up most of the night reading it. Also listened to an audio interview by James “What Wives Wished Their Husbands Knew About Women” Dobson, who essentially smacked himself in the forehead for promoting the husbands-must-think-like-wives mantra for so long that he missed the obvious.
It’s the point that the Telegraph’s reporterette finally gets to at the bottom of her article cited above:
Harvey Mansfield, a Harvard professor and America’s best known political philosopher, who tackles the topic in his book Manliness, says the issue is ignored. “A man has to be embarrassed about being a man. I am trying to bring back the word manliness. It’s not respected,” he said.
Men, says Eggerichs, are built for honor and respect. It’s as much our “love language” as when our wives wish we’d listen to them talk about their day or – hubba hubba – do the dishes or laundry.
From a CT interview in 1995 by Michael Cromartie:
Certain things which the market authorizes simply in terms of law are unchristian and ought not to be done. The big issue today has to do with the fidelity of marriages. The tendency now to leave your wife because you have an infatuation with a younger woman of tenderer flesh is an enormous temptation. It’s carnal, and it’s also easy to justify with all the solipsistic reasoning that we hear today. That is about the gravest offense that a human being can commit, to throw away a wife.
From this it doesn’t follow that the state should make the law tougher, but rather that the culture needs to be reformed. Modifying the law is only one way, and often not the best, to do that: “…unless we create a virtuous society, it’s not a society that’s going to endure. So the right things should be encouraged and the wrong things discouraged. Today, roughly speaking, there is zero taboo against fornication.”
The whole thing is worth reading, as they say (HT).
In the United States, they found that divorced households spent 46 percent more per capita on electricity and 56 percent more on water than married households did. According to the study, if divorced households could have the same resource efficiency as their married counterparts, they would need 38 million fewer rooms, use 73 billion fewer kilowatt hours of electricity and 627 billion gallons of water in 2005 alone.
But Raoul Felder, a prominent New York divorce attorney, is skeptical.
"I think people who want a divorce are so driven to improve their quality of life environmental factors are the least of what they’re thinking about," he said. "If they’re not thinking about the effect of divorce on children, they’re not going to be thinking what their environmental footprint is going to be or how many kilowatts they’re using."
The article doesn’t even mention the pollutants pumped into the air by ex-spouses driving (and flying) their kids back and forth between two households. I doubt that’s insignificant.
As if conservatives needed another reason to support the family…
Jennifer Roback Morse takes a look at The War Between the State and the Family, a book that examines some of the family unfriendly social policies of the United Kingdom. The state, she finds, is in the process of atomizing the family into a loose association of persons with easily separated relationships. “Decomposing society into nothing but a collection of unattached individuals has been destructive of individuals and society alike,” Morse writes.
A genuinely thorny pastoral issue that often arose in the course of my counseling was the question of two-career marriages. What should a couple do if the wife wanted/needed to work outside the home when children were present, especially when the children were young? Because I served suburban churches (from 1972-1992) some of my congregants needed to be two-income families just to survive. Others did not but made a choice to pursue two careers anyway. The scenario always varies from place to place. In urban and poorer communities the need for two incomes is so great that there is little choice but to have both husband and wife fully employed at all times. The choice is never an easy one and always filled with real pressures no matter which way you decide to go.
John H. Armstrong is founder and director of ACT 3, a ministry aimed at "encouraging the church, through its leadership, to pursue doctrinal and ethical reformation and to foster spiritual awakening."
Earlier this week at the World Meeting of Families:
On July 4, the opening day,the program began at 4 PM and was scheduled to go until 8:00. But the opening day had a cloud hanging over it. A subway accident in Valencia claimed the lives of 41 people and injured many others. The conference was originally scheduled to have welcoming speeches by the major of Valencia, Mrs. Rita Barbera, and the Archbishop of Valencia, the Most Rev. Agustin Garcia-Gascon Vicente. But because of the accident, they were not in attendance.
Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo quoted a Spanish proverb, "The true friend is like blood: which always goes to the wound, unbidden." He said that we needed to be in solidarity with the victims of the subway accident.
The first speaker was His Eminence Cardinal Carlo Caffarra of Bologna, Italy. His talk was called "The Family and Secularism." Most memorable quote from this presentation: "Real education must train people to be truly free and freely true."
He decried the loss of a sense of the meaning of marriage. January 18, 2006 was a dark day: the Parliament of the European Union passed a resolution giving the sense of the Parliament in favor of same sex marital unions and condemning anything less than that as "homophobia." Cardinal pointed out that same sex relationships have always been judged differently that marriage or opposite sex unions. He asked two questions:
1. How did we get to this point?
2. What are we risking by taking the step of legalizing same sex unions?
In answer to the first question, same sex marriage is one logical outcome of the secular state. The first step is to declare that all understandings of one’s own sexuality are equally valid. This is radical autonomy. The second step is to claim that no sexual practice can be preferred by the law. To do otherwise, would violate the impartiality of the law, and the principle of equality.
These two, autonomy and equality, are the pillars of liberal society.
He outlined two assumptions of radical secularism. First, no concept of life is "true." There is no truth regarding the good of the person or society. Second, we must organize society without any reference to any particular idea of the good. These two ideas imply that all ideas about the goods of marriage have to be replaced by something neutral, or at least, something everyone would agree upon.
What are we risking by the EU declaration normalizing same sex marriage?
1. We are creating a society of strangers. No one is truly related to anyone else through permanent bonds. The law is a teacher: it forms the ideas that people share. Instead of forming the shared idea that marriage is about lifelong monogamous reproductive unions, the law will promote the idea that marriage is whatever each couple says it is. The shared idea about marriage is that there is not allowed to be a shared idea about marriage.
2. These new ideas about marriage will promote ways of looking at marriage that undermine monogamy.
3. Normalizing same sex unions will create a completely contractual model of the family and marriage. this will marginalized the weakest members of society, who need the protections of family to sustain them.
Conclusion: Man is fascinated by Beauty and Holiness, which are the Splendor of Truth and Goodness. The splendor of married love shines in many couples. This give people a glimpse of Beauty. The struggle over same sex marriage is a struggle over Truth. We have an entire generation of parents who don’t really know how to educate the young, because they are afraid of the idea of Truth. This is where he made his most memorable statement: "Real education must train people to be truly free and freely true."
Cardinal Caffarra was terrific in my opinion.
Late evening, July 6.
My session finally took place today at about 4:15 pm. Cardinal Martino presented the Compendium of the Social Doctrine. He pointed out that the family was given pride of place in the document, listed before the economy or government or international relations or the environment. Most memorable statement: “The family is not a function of society or the state. State and society are functions of the family.”
Madame Boutin made her presentation. She is an accomplished public speaker. It is easy to see why she has been reelected for twenty years from her district near Versailles. She is one of the few pro-life members of the French Parliament. Most memorable statement: “The foundation of the family is sexual differentiation. Up until now, the culture has always confirmed nature. Now, the gay rights lobby is asking that the culture not be based on the natural differences between men and women. Even heterosexuals subconsciously seek to create distance between nature and the law.”
About my own presentation: I asked the question, why do the attacks on the family so often come from the Left? I offered the answer that the idea of equality is the problem. The fact that we are sexual creatures, male and female, affronts the radical egalitarian mind-set. The Church proposes an alternative to Socialism. Instead of creating equality, the Church insists that we defend the weak. And instead of trying to make men and women equal, the Church invites us to embrace our differences, and treat them as opportunities to support each other.
I can’t forebear saying that I had two occasions of noticeable reactions from the audience. At the beginning of my talk, I defined the family with these words:
“My definition of the family is the one grounded in the teaching of the Catholic Church and based on the clear instruction of our Founder, Jesus of Nazareth. I do not accept the various attempts by the United Nations and others to redefine the family into “families.” I simply mean one man, one woman, for life.”
The audience applauded these words.
I reported that the Spanish government, which has approved same sex marriage, no longer lists “Mother” and “Father” on the birth certificates. Instead, they list, “Progenitor A,” and “Progenitor B.” I then went on:
“I suppose that when Pope Benedict XVI arrives for these meetings, we shall not be allowed to call him our Holy Father. We shall have to call him our Spiritual Progenitor.”
I heard a tittering of laughter. About thirty seconds later, I heard a roar of laughter: the translators had finished, and the non-English speakers got the joke. It was good fun for me.
I plan to post the entire talk on my website.