A local charity provides support for families that are struggling in one way or another. That is, in fact, their focus and their purpose.
One of their volunteers recently wrote to one of the paid coordinators, about a particular family, when it became apparent that the mother was proposing to walk out on the father, taking their young boy with her. The question the volunteer had, was whether anyone had suggested other options to the mother, in terms of support for, or improvement of, the relationship; or had even told her that this might not be in the young boy's interests (given that this charity is dedicated to family support). The volunteer mentioned that research tended to support this view.
In response he was told that research can be used for many purposes, and while in an ideal world a child would tend to fare better with two parents at home who have a good relationship, if the relationship has broken down, the child would be better off if the parents separate. And then the kicker: Those of us in the office who have been through divorce, feel it would have been to the detriment of our own children to remain in an unhappy marriage.
There is so much to unpack here. The first is the statement that research can be used for many purposes. Of course it can. That's not the point at issue: the question is, is the research reliable? And what does it suggest? For, whatever other uses research might be put to (such as inducing guilt, which I suspect lies behind this comment) an appropriate use is precisely to inform policies of agencies such as this.
The second is the false antithesis: a child with parents in a good relationship, versus a child with parents whose relationship has broken down. That suggests that relationships can be so categorised, in the first place; and secondly that a relationship that has been deemed to have broken down is necessarily beyond saving. Both are very questionable propositions.
Of course, a child doesn't want his parents fighting all the time. But we know that the vast majority of children want their parents to stay together. So why is it so unthinkable to explore the option of staying together and making the relationship work?
And the clue to that is in the last sentence: because I have had a divorce, and my friends have, it must be acceptable.
Dismissing research, and then using such an argument is extraordinary. Any researcher knows about confirmation bias: that tendency to notice and lend weight to things that support what we want to believe. And of course a mother who has left her children's father has a strong psychological interest in justifying her decision to herself. She knows she is not a bad person, and would not choose to do anything to the detriment of her children. So of course she looks for (and finds) evidence to support that belief.
Moreover the women in the office have jobs and stability - to some extent they can shield themselves and their children from the consequences of their decisions. But their clients, people who are already struggling to hold their fragmented lives together much lower down the social scale, are in a very different position.
But rather than face the facts - or at the very least, the implications of the research - they flee into denial. The rich and the middle classes indulge their vices, and the poor suffer - just as with pro-abortion campaigning. That's how it always works.
Showing posts with label Divorce. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Divorce. Show all posts
Sunday, 18 March 2018
Sunday, 1 January 2017
Still confused
I know I'm a simple sort of chap, but I am still confused. Despite all those who say that the four cardinal's request for clarification is a tactic of dissent, and that there is nothing to be confused about, I remain puzzled.
What precisely is it that people (and here I mean those advocates of mercy who believe that the divorced and civilly 're-married' should be admitted to communion without change to their behaviour) think that Amoris Laetitia is teaching?
It seems to me that it must be one of two things. On the one hand, it might be that there should be a new process for declaring a marriage null, when there are practical reasons why the current process will not work. That seems to be implied, for example, here: 'Let us suppose she cannot, for technical reasons, obtain an annulment (these are rare cases), and the first husband has long since remarried.' (I don't want to keep picking on Austen Ivereigh, but he is the one who keeps writing about it...)
On the other hand, it might be that there are situations in which the circumstances are so difficult that the only reasonable (or merciful) thing for the Church to do is to recognise a second union as being good (or at least, not adulterous). That seems to be implied here: a woman abandoned by her abusive husband who remarries to provide for her children might be in the same legal category as the philandering playboy who ditches his wife for a younger model, but no one could claim that both are in the same moral category. But oddly, that is the same example.
Nowhere does Ivereigh, nor anyone else I have so far read, say precisely which is intended. And that is problematic, for a number of reasons.
The former suggestion is, I suppose, possible to consider: if a marriage really were a sham from the start, and for complex reasons, that is hard to prove via the normal process, it might be worth looking closely at the case. However, for clear and obvious reasons, the Church has always assumed in favour of the bond, with the onus of proof being on the one who claimed it never existed. So any change here would need to be very carefully thought through and clearly articulated, to avoid grave miscarriages of justice, scandal, and so on.
But an awful lot of the language of the liberal interpreters of AL (and indeed the Holy Father's own reported response to the questions from South America, and his reluctance to answer the Cardinals' dubia) all suggest that the second line of thought is the one that is to be followed: 'many such cases require an individual discernment because they cannot simply be lumped together as ‘adultery.’' What does this mean? Ivereigh makes a distinction between the legal and the moral categories of different people. What he does not address is their married status. If they are validly married, and are engaging in sexual relations with someone other than their spouse (no matter how evil, duplicitous, philandering, etc he or she may be), they are committing adultery. No amount of discernment will alter that fact.
The Church's role, then, is certainly to extend them mercy: the mercy that consists of engaging with them in love, to lead them to the truth, resulting in the change of their behaviour to conform it to God's plan. The sacraments are there to support them in this journey of transformation: sacramental confession including a firm purpose of amendment, and holy communion as the supreme gift of grace to strengthen and nourish them.
Otherwise, the path of discernment becomes a way to help people stay locked in the grip of sin. We are not the best judges in our own case - particularly if we have been through the trauma of a relationship falling apart; and to be asked to evaluate whether God is really asking us to leave our new, comfortable, loving relationship is a tough ask... Not least because, as has often been observed before, God gives us the grace we need when we need it - not before. So it may seem an impossible demand that we should remove ourself and our children from the protection of a new partner - and as it seems impossible, we conclude it cannot be what God really wants. But actually, if we start from the other end, knowing that it is what God wants, mysteriously, as we start to follow his will, we gain the very grace we need to make it possible.
That seems to me the real failing of all those promoting what I might call cheap - or even counterfeit - mercy: that they underestimate the transformative power of God's love and grace when people really do submit themselves to the Divine Will, rather than justify themselves in the status quo...
But as I noted earlier, nowhere do the pro-readmittance interpreters of AL make clear precisely what they think the document teaches; which of these options - or is it both?
Further, the Holy Father's refusal to answer the dubia, and the increasing amount of noise without light from the commentators, suggest that clarity is the one thing that they want to avoid. Rather let everything be done privately and discretely. After all, what business is this of mine? Or yours?
Well, as the Cardinals have made clear in their dubia, confusion about Amoris Laetitia risks leading souls into mortal error: we should all be concerned about that. Moreover, the interpretation of some of the bishops in Germany and the Americas, for example, is effectively introducing Church-sanctioned divorce, which is a grave moral evil and will have devastating consequences (as widespread divorce already does throughout western civilisation). And the whole project, as conceived by some of them, is in fact an assault on Catholic truth and Catholic unity. Of course it is our business!
What precisely is it that people (and here I mean those advocates of mercy who believe that the divorced and civilly 're-married' should be admitted to communion without change to their behaviour) think that Amoris Laetitia is teaching?
It seems to me that it must be one of two things. On the one hand, it might be that there should be a new process for declaring a marriage null, when there are practical reasons why the current process will not work. That seems to be implied, for example, here: 'Let us suppose she cannot, for technical reasons, obtain an annulment (these are rare cases), and the first husband has long since remarried.' (I don't want to keep picking on Austen Ivereigh, but he is the one who keeps writing about it...)
On the other hand, it might be that there are situations in which the circumstances are so difficult that the only reasonable (or merciful) thing for the Church to do is to recognise a second union as being good (or at least, not adulterous). That seems to be implied here: a woman abandoned by her abusive husband who remarries to provide for her children might be in the same legal category as the philandering playboy who ditches his wife for a younger model, but no one could claim that both are in the same moral category. But oddly, that is the same example.
Nowhere does Ivereigh, nor anyone else I have so far read, say precisely which is intended. And that is problematic, for a number of reasons.
The former suggestion is, I suppose, possible to consider: if a marriage really were a sham from the start, and for complex reasons, that is hard to prove via the normal process, it might be worth looking closely at the case. However, for clear and obvious reasons, the Church has always assumed in favour of the bond, with the onus of proof being on the one who claimed it never existed. So any change here would need to be very carefully thought through and clearly articulated, to avoid grave miscarriages of justice, scandal, and so on.
But an awful lot of the language of the liberal interpreters of AL (and indeed the Holy Father's own reported response to the questions from South America, and his reluctance to answer the Cardinals' dubia) all suggest that the second line of thought is the one that is to be followed: 'many such cases require an individual discernment because they cannot simply be lumped together as ‘adultery.’' What does this mean? Ivereigh makes a distinction between the legal and the moral categories of different people. What he does not address is their married status. If they are validly married, and are engaging in sexual relations with someone other than their spouse (no matter how evil, duplicitous, philandering, etc he or she may be), they are committing adultery. No amount of discernment will alter that fact.
The Church's role, then, is certainly to extend them mercy: the mercy that consists of engaging with them in love, to lead them to the truth, resulting in the change of their behaviour to conform it to God's plan. The sacraments are there to support them in this journey of transformation: sacramental confession including a firm purpose of amendment, and holy communion as the supreme gift of grace to strengthen and nourish them.
Otherwise, the path of discernment becomes a way to help people stay locked in the grip of sin. We are not the best judges in our own case - particularly if we have been through the trauma of a relationship falling apart; and to be asked to evaluate whether God is really asking us to leave our new, comfortable, loving relationship is a tough ask... Not least because, as has often been observed before, God gives us the grace we need when we need it - not before. So it may seem an impossible demand that we should remove ourself and our children from the protection of a new partner - and as it seems impossible, we conclude it cannot be what God really wants. But actually, if we start from the other end, knowing that it is what God wants, mysteriously, as we start to follow his will, we gain the very grace we need to make it possible.
That seems to me the real failing of all those promoting what I might call cheap - or even counterfeit - mercy: that they underestimate the transformative power of God's love and grace when people really do submit themselves to the Divine Will, rather than justify themselves in the status quo...
But as I noted earlier, nowhere do the pro-readmittance interpreters of AL make clear precisely what they think the document teaches; which of these options - or is it both?
Further, the Holy Father's refusal to answer the dubia, and the increasing amount of noise without light from the commentators, suggest that clarity is the one thing that they want to avoid. Rather let everything be done privately and discretely. After all, what business is this of mine? Or yours?
Well, as the Cardinals have made clear in their dubia, confusion about Amoris Laetitia risks leading souls into mortal error: we should all be concerned about that. Moreover, the interpretation of some of the bishops in Germany and the Americas, for example, is effectively introducing Church-sanctioned divorce, which is a grave moral evil and will have devastating consequences (as widespread divorce already does throughout western civilisation). And the whole project, as conceived by some of them, is in fact an assault on Catholic truth and Catholic unity. Of course it is our business!
Saturday, 10 December 2016
Adultery is not a victimless sin...
In a lot of the discussion about admitting the soi-disant 're-married' (as opposed to people who are truly re-married, after the death of a previous spouse) to Holy Communion, one gets the impression that those keen on 'mercy' see the adultery of the new relationship as some kind of technical problem; something only those who are pedantic and legalistic would worry about.
But that is not the case. The problem the Holy Father, Kasper and the rest face is that Our Lord makes it quite clear, both in the Gospel and in the continuous teaching of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, that adultery is a serious sin; and also that serious sins have serious consequences.
That is quite apart from the culpability of the sinner; even a sin where the subjective culpability is minimal causes harm and is evil. And adultery is by no means a victimless sin.
The immediate victims, of course, are the spouses and also any children involved. And I do not just mean the moral danger to which the children are exposed. Academic research shows that 'exposure to step-parenting is the strongest known predictor of child abuse, and exposure to divorce has measurable detrimental effects on children's outcomes.'
But the damage is not limited to those immediately affected. We know both from theory (open systems theory) and from experience (see, for example, the very limited societal approvals given first to contraception and then abortion) that any small relaxation in the moral censure for evil actions in the realm of human sexuality inevitably leads to widespread abuse and an attitudinal shift.
So even a perceived softening of the Church's teaching against divorce will, quite inexorably, contribute further to the already catastrophic rates of divorce and separation we now witness, with all the tragic consequences, both for individuals and for civic society, which that entails.
And then, there is the further harm that is done, by making it ever harder for young people to contract valid marriages; if the last bastion of truth undermines that truth, how are they to believe what it is required that they believe?
These are precisely why the ancient maxim that hard cases make bad law is so important. Of course, there are some people who are in terribly distressing situations, possibly with little subjective fault of their own. But an attempt to be 'merciful' to them, by pretending that adultery is OK in their specific situation, is profoundly misguided - and further imperils their souls too, if they no longer feel the need to address their situation through repentance and amendment.
Finally, there cannot be an irreconcilable conflict between truth and mercy; if we seek to offer mercy at the cost of truth taught us by Christ Himself, we have abandoned both truth and mercy.
But that is not the case. The problem the Holy Father, Kasper and the rest face is that Our Lord makes it quite clear, both in the Gospel and in the continuous teaching of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, that adultery is a serious sin; and also that serious sins have serious consequences.
That is quite apart from the culpability of the sinner; even a sin where the subjective culpability is minimal causes harm and is evil. And adultery is by no means a victimless sin.
The immediate victims, of course, are the spouses and also any children involved. And I do not just mean the moral danger to which the children are exposed. Academic research shows that 'exposure to step-parenting is the strongest known predictor of child abuse, and exposure to divorce has measurable detrimental effects on children's outcomes.'
But the damage is not limited to those immediately affected. We know both from theory (open systems theory) and from experience (see, for example, the very limited societal approvals given first to contraception and then abortion) that any small relaxation in the moral censure for evil actions in the realm of human sexuality inevitably leads to widespread abuse and an attitudinal shift.
So even a perceived softening of the Church's teaching against divorce will, quite inexorably, contribute further to the already catastrophic rates of divorce and separation we now witness, with all the tragic consequences, both for individuals and for civic society, which that entails.
And then, there is the further harm that is done, by making it ever harder for young people to contract valid marriages; if the last bastion of truth undermines that truth, how are they to believe what it is required that they believe?
These are precisely why the ancient maxim that hard cases make bad law is so important. Of course, there are some people who are in terribly distressing situations, possibly with little subjective fault of their own. But an attempt to be 'merciful' to them, by pretending that adultery is OK in their specific situation, is profoundly misguided - and further imperils their souls too, if they no longer feel the need to address their situation through repentance and amendment.
Finally, there cannot be an irreconcilable conflict between truth and mercy; if we seek to offer mercy at the cost of truth taught us by Christ Himself, we have abandoned both truth and mercy.
Monday, 22 September 2014
Found it!
I have blogged before (here and here, for example) about the risks to children of their mothers having live-in lovers.
I suggested that there were two important questions to address:
I suggested that there were two important questions to address:
- Is there a disproportionate frequency of abuse and murder of women and children by men living with women who have children by previous relationships?
- If so, is there a causative link between such patterns of relationship and abuse, or is it merely a co-factor of other determinants (eg chaotic life style, educational levels, deprivation, poverty)?
It seems that there is some research on the first of these (and it confirms my suspicions).
The research is reported in an article called Suffer the Little Children: Cohabitation and the Abuse of America's Children (here).
The source reports makes chilling reading in all their findings; but what struck me particularly is this, which I quote verbatim from the first report cited (available here):
'Children living with their married biological parents universally had the lowest rate, whereas those living with a single parent who had a cohabiting partner in the
household had the highest rate in all maltreatment categories. Compared to children
living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner had more than 8 times the rate of maltreatment overall, over 10 times the rate of abuse, and nearly 8 times the rate of neglect.'
Is anybody telling young women that, as they preach the doctrine that the only sexual morality they need to consider is the morality of desire and mutual consent?
This is one of the true fruits of the so-called sexual liberation: but as a society, we dare not even discuss it.
Saturday, 22 March 2014
Admitting the divorced and 're-married' to Holy Communion
The issue of divorced and 're-married' Catholics being admitted to Holy Communion has become very noisy of late, thanks in particular to Cardinal Kasper.
Clearly, the people in this situation are in a difficult position. On the one hand, their natural affections and their sense of loyalty to the new partner in their life are a very strong pull in one direction, and their attachment to the Church, and desire to receive Holy Communion is a strong pull in the other.
It does not take very much imagination to understand how difficult and painful that must be.
Moreover, many, I am sure, genuinely believe that their first marriage was in fact null, for a variety of reasons, and so find the ban on their receiving Holy Communion to be particularly unjust - especially when so many others who are perpetrating worse sins, seem to get a free pass (one thinks of those who promote abortion, for example).
Why is it a sin for them to love their new partners? How can love possibly be something that bars them from Holy Communion?
These are real and pressing questions, and for large numbers of people; one can understand why Cardinal Kasper and others think that addressing them is an urgent priority.
Unfortunately, Cardinal Kasper is doing more to hurt these people than anyone else. His concern, because it is based on a superficial and limited understanding, raises hopes and expectations that cannot be met. (Incidentally, I am not alone in thinking this: see, for example, Cardinal Burke, here, from 10' in)
Our Faith is founded on Christ; and Christ has created the Church as His Mystical Body, animated by the Holy Spirit, to continue to present His saving Truth to us.
Whilst on earth Himself, and through His Church unceasingly thereafter, Christ clearly taught that marriage is indissoluble; and further that anyone who attempts to marry someone who is divorced, is in fact committing adultery.
This is a difficult teaching, perhaps; but we are not at liberty to change it.
However, it does help us to understand how to address some of those difficult questions. 'Why is it a sin for them to love their new partners? How can love possibly be something that bars them from Holy Communion?'
It is not, of course, a sin to love anybody. What is a sin is to love, as a spouse, someone who is not your spouse. Indeed, if one truly loves someone else, entering into an adulterous relationship with him or her should be unthinkable: our love for the other should be oriented to their true well-being - and that is not found in sin.
That is at the heart of why it is wrong for Cardinal Kasper and others to seek to find some way to accommodate the divorced and 're-married.' It is not good for them: they are mistaken to think that it is; and in their own best interests they need to be led to the truth, and helped to put their lives in good order. The solution in such cases is to cease to live together as man and wife.
There are many other reasons why Cardinal Kasper's approach is disastrous, of course.
One is the injustice to those who honour their marriage vows, even when abandoned. I know people who have been left by a spouse, and who soldier on, carrying the cross of their abandonment. To tell these both that their spouse is quite right in his or her new adulterous relationship, and that they have been mugs for honouring their vows and refusing to find a new partner for their bed, would be frankly shameful (as well as untrue).
Another is the injustice to children. Such an accommodation would inevitably further weaken marriage, leading to an ever-increasing number of children dealing with the trauma of parental estrangement.
A third is the injustice to those entering matrimony: everything which, culturally, weakens the marriage bond makes it still harder for them either fully to understand the nature of marriage, or to live this difficult vocation faithfully.
But the fundamental reason is that Cardinal Kasper's approach is founded on a lie: the lie that one can validly contract a second marriage whilst one is already validly married. Finally, there can be no conflict between Caritas and Veritas. Therefore, any such accommodation would be vastly damaging to the Church and the Faithful - and indeed many outside the Church who still recognise her steadfastness as a sign of true witness.
But what of those who sincerely believe that their previous marriage was, in fact, null?
They are required to submit themselves to the judgement of the Church (and not to rely on the so-called 'internal forum.')
There are (at least) two good reasons for this. One is that the Church has the duty of safeguarding marriage and souls. The second is that we are rarely the best judges in our own case.
One of the many things I lament in the change from the Traditional to the New Rite of Mass is the loss of the wonderful prayer from Psalm 140 (said at the incensing of the altar): Pone, Dómine, custódiam ori meo, et óstium circumstántiæ lábiis meis: ut non declínet cor meum in verba malítiæ, ad excusándas excusatiónes in peccátis. (Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth: and a door round about my lips. Incline not my heart to evil words; to make excuses in sins.)
Every time that I pray it, I am brought up short: how easily we make excuses for our sins...
So of course we should be compassionate and merciful to those who are in irregular relationships. But compassion and mercy do not demand that we lie to them, or collude with their ignorance and self-deception.
Rather we should seek to build a relationship of true charity with them, whereby they may eventually find the strength to re-engage with the Sacraments on Christ's terms, not theirs; and that means starting with the Sacrament of Confession, where they will find Christ's love, peace and strength available to them.
In the meantime, whilst they remain in an irregular situation, we should extend the hand of friendship; it is the Church's job (and possibly their close friends' job, too) to say to them 'Sin no more;' but we must always be mindful that we do not have the qualification to cast the first stone...
Clearly, the people in this situation are in a difficult position. On the one hand, their natural affections and their sense of loyalty to the new partner in their life are a very strong pull in one direction, and their attachment to the Church, and desire to receive Holy Communion is a strong pull in the other.
It does not take very much imagination to understand how difficult and painful that must be.
Moreover, many, I am sure, genuinely believe that their first marriage was in fact null, for a variety of reasons, and so find the ban on their receiving Holy Communion to be particularly unjust - especially when so many others who are perpetrating worse sins, seem to get a free pass (one thinks of those who promote abortion, for example).
Why is it a sin for them to love their new partners? How can love possibly be something that bars them from Holy Communion?
These are real and pressing questions, and for large numbers of people; one can understand why Cardinal Kasper and others think that addressing them is an urgent priority.
Unfortunately, Cardinal Kasper is doing more to hurt these people than anyone else. His concern, because it is based on a superficial and limited understanding, raises hopes and expectations that cannot be met. (Incidentally, I am not alone in thinking this: see, for example, Cardinal Burke, here, from 10' in)
Our Faith is founded on Christ; and Christ has created the Church as His Mystical Body, animated by the Holy Spirit, to continue to present His saving Truth to us.
Whilst on earth Himself, and through His Church unceasingly thereafter, Christ clearly taught that marriage is indissoluble; and further that anyone who attempts to marry someone who is divorced, is in fact committing adultery.
This is a difficult teaching, perhaps; but we are not at liberty to change it.
However, it does help us to understand how to address some of those difficult questions. 'Why is it a sin for them to love their new partners? How can love possibly be something that bars them from Holy Communion?'
It is not, of course, a sin to love anybody. What is a sin is to love, as a spouse, someone who is not your spouse. Indeed, if one truly loves someone else, entering into an adulterous relationship with him or her should be unthinkable: our love for the other should be oriented to their true well-being - and that is not found in sin.
That is at the heart of why it is wrong for Cardinal Kasper and others to seek to find some way to accommodate the divorced and 're-married.' It is not good for them: they are mistaken to think that it is; and in their own best interests they need to be led to the truth, and helped to put their lives in good order. The solution in such cases is to cease to live together as man and wife.
There are many other reasons why Cardinal Kasper's approach is disastrous, of course.
One is the injustice to those who honour their marriage vows, even when abandoned. I know people who have been left by a spouse, and who soldier on, carrying the cross of their abandonment. To tell these both that their spouse is quite right in his or her new adulterous relationship, and that they have been mugs for honouring their vows and refusing to find a new partner for their bed, would be frankly shameful (as well as untrue).
Another is the injustice to children. Such an accommodation would inevitably further weaken marriage, leading to an ever-increasing number of children dealing with the trauma of parental estrangement.
A third is the injustice to those entering matrimony: everything which, culturally, weakens the marriage bond makes it still harder for them either fully to understand the nature of marriage, or to live this difficult vocation faithfully.
But the fundamental reason is that Cardinal Kasper's approach is founded on a lie: the lie that one can validly contract a second marriage whilst one is already validly married. Finally, there can be no conflict between Caritas and Veritas. Therefore, any such accommodation would be vastly damaging to the Church and the Faithful - and indeed many outside the Church who still recognise her steadfastness as a sign of true witness.
But what of those who sincerely believe that their previous marriage was, in fact, null?
They are required to submit themselves to the judgement of the Church (and not to rely on the so-called 'internal forum.')
There are (at least) two good reasons for this. One is that the Church has the duty of safeguarding marriage and souls. The second is that we are rarely the best judges in our own case.
One of the many things I lament in the change from the Traditional to the New Rite of Mass is the loss of the wonderful prayer from Psalm 140 (said at the incensing of the altar): Pone, Dómine, custódiam ori meo, et óstium circumstántiæ lábiis meis: ut non declínet cor meum in verba malítiæ, ad excusándas excusatiónes in peccátis. (Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth: and a door round about my lips. Incline not my heart to evil words; to make excuses in sins.)
Every time that I pray it, I am brought up short: how easily we make excuses for our sins...
So of course we should be compassionate and merciful to those who are in irregular relationships. But compassion and mercy do not demand that we lie to them, or collude with their ignorance and self-deception.
Rather we should seek to build a relationship of true charity with them, whereby they may eventually find the strength to re-engage with the Sacraments on Christ's terms, not theirs; and that means starting with the Sacrament of Confession, where they will find Christ's love, peace and strength available to them.
In the meantime, whilst they remain in an irregular situation, we should extend the hand of friendship; it is the Church's job (and possibly their close friends' job, too) to say to them 'Sin no more;' but we must always be mindful that we do not have the qualification to cast the first stone...
Thursday, 1 August 2013
Nuclear damage
The details of the murder of Daniel Pelka have been dreadful beyond description.
Our first response must be one of prayer: for the repose of his soul, of course, but also for the pardon and healing of his murderers.
Beyond that, however, there is always talk of the lessons to be learned. Yet again, the 'agencies' involved will be castigated for their failures, and perhaps some improvements will be made.
But it seems to me that there is a potential blind spot in the public examination of this and other cases. I heard on the Today Programme, this morning, for example, the comment that he had been killed by his parents.
That is not true.
As is clear from the more detailed reports, he was killed by his mother, and a man who was not his father who was living with his mother at the time.
Whilst that has been noted in passing, it is not the subject of any comment. I find that worrying, as I think we should look at such data. And this is by no means the first case featuring such non-nuclear family relationships.
But the media do not want to do so. Co-habitees are given a free ride. To see what I mean, imagine if this were the second or third case where the murdering male was a member of the EDL or the BNP or had some other identity of which the media disapproves. It would certainly not simply be mentioned in passing. Or imagine if it was the second or third time a home-schooling traditional Catholic was guilty, come to that...
But because our societal norm (or at least the one desired by the ever-wonderful BBC and most journalists) is one in which the myth that consensual sexual behaviour, temporary relationships and so on, are healthy and have no adverse consequences, these questions will never be asked:
I don't know the definitive answer to these questions, though I have a strong intuition about them... But what is scary is that they are not even being asked.
Our first response must be one of prayer: for the repose of his soul, of course, but also for the pardon and healing of his murderers.
Beyond that, however, there is always talk of the lessons to be learned. Yet again, the 'agencies' involved will be castigated for their failures, and perhaps some improvements will be made.
But it seems to me that there is a potential blind spot in the public examination of this and other cases. I heard on the Today Programme, this morning, for example, the comment that he had been killed by his parents.
That is not true.
As is clear from the more detailed reports, he was killed by his mother, and a man who was not his father who was living with his mother at the time.
Whilst that has been noted in passing, it is not the subject of any comment. I find that worrying, as I think we should look at such data. And this is by no means the first case featuring such non-nuclear family relationships.
But the media do not want to do so. Co-habitees are given a free ride. To see what I mean, imagine if this were the second or third case where the murdering male was a member of the EDL or the BNP or had some other identity of which the media disapproves. It would certainly not simply be mentioned in passing. Or imagine if it was the second or third time a home-schooling traditional Catholic was guilty, come to that...
But because our societal norm (or at least the one desired by the ever-wonderful BBC and most journalists) is one in which the myth that consensual sexual behaviour, temporary relationships and so on, are healthy and have no adverse consequences, these questions will never be asked:
- Is there a disproportionate frequency of abuse and murder of women and children by men living with women who have children by previous relationships?
- If so, is there a causative link between such patterns of relationship and abuse, or is it merely a co-factor of other determinants (eg chaotic life style, educational levels, deprivation, poverty)?
I don't know the definitive answer to these questions, though I have a strong intuition about them... But what is scary is that they are not even being asked.
Wednesday, 7 March 2012
More on divorced and 're-married'
A commenter, Elizabeth, left an interesting and thoughtful comment on a post of a few days back, which I thought deserved a full reply. I have italicised her comments: my replies are in normal text.
Pope John Paul has a very good explanation of Church Teaching on this in his Apostolic Exhortation on the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World.
That's Familiaris Consortio, and I agree it is an excellent exhortation.
I think it should be read by everyone who is in this situation (Second Marriage), and everyone who is voicing an opinion on the subject.
I am slightly wary of the expression 'Second Marriage' in this context, as it risks implying that a Catholic with a living spouse can validly contract a second marriage; which is not the case. I do agree that all interested in this issue would do well to read Familiaris Consortio, particularly §84. The late Holy Father manages to convey both the importance of extending understanding and charity to those in such a situation, and also the importance of maintaining the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage, and the objective evil of this situation.
One of the big problems in the Church today is the expectation that everyone should go up and receive Communion.
I quite agree: this leads to all sorts of problems. When I see how few people go to confession, and how many to communion, it strikes me that there is an imbalance; and it clearly places significant presure on those who, for whatever reason, are not able to receive, either on a specific occasion, or for continuing reasons.
If someone does not, it really is no one else's business.
Absolutely right.
When there is a family with children involved then parents have a duty to raise those children as best they can.
Indeed - the late Holy Father makes the same point in Familiaris Consortio.
If someone decides to stay in this kind of marriage for whatever reason, and respects Church teaching with regard to Holy Communion, they should be left alone.
Here I think I differ. Familiaris Consortio §84 again: 'The Church... cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by a sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage.' If by 'left alone', is meant 'people should refrain from making unpleasant remarks', I do agree. But the Church has a duty to continue to proclaim the Gospel and call people to repentance, even when that is uncomfortable.
Often people have strayed from the Church got themselves married to someone who is divorced and then when children are born realize how much the faith means to them, and how much they want to pass it on to their kids. People do fall from grace, we all do in various degrees.
People in second marriages have enough heartache without fellow Catholics piling on more. Imagine being unable to reconcile the two things you love the most, and having a torn conscience. Sometimes living together as brother and sister is not an option because one partner finds that too hard to accept.
Indeed: it is a very heavy cross. However, if a Catholic is in such a situation, high on his or her lists of concern should be the salvation and sanctification of the person with whom he or she is living. Ultimately, that must mean working to remedy what Pope John Paul called 'the broken sign of the Covenant.'
They need our sympathy and our prayers. Pope John Paul says they should not lose hope.
Indeed. The hope, of course, is that they should eventually be fully reconciled to the Church once more, and able to receive Our Lord in a state of grace; and by their heroic virtue assist the sanctification of their children and their children's other parent - as well, ideally, as their original spouse.
I would only add that my original post was prompted by calls which fly counter to what the late Holy Father wrote: calls to admit to Holy Communion those whose 'state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.'
All the quotations in my comments are from Familiaris Consortio, §84.
Pope John Paul has a very good explanation of Church Teaching on this in his Apostolic Exhortation on the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World.
That's Familiaris Consortio, and I agree it is an excellent exhortation.
I think it should be read by everyone who is in this situation (Second Marriage), and everyone who is voicing an opinion on the subject.
I am slightly wary of the expression 'Second Marriage' in this context, as it risks implying that a Catholic with a living spouse can validly contract a second marriage; which is not the case. I do agree that all interested in this issue would do well to read Familiaris Consortio, particularly §84. The late Holy Father manages to convey both the importance of extending understanding and charity to those in such a situation, and also the importance of maintaining the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage, and the objective evil of this situation.
One of the big problems in the Church today is the expectation that everyone should go up and receive Communion.
I quite agree: this leads to all sorts of problems. When I see how few people go to confession, and how many to communion, it strikes me that there is an imbalance; and it clearly places significant presure on those who, for whatever reason, are not able to receive, either on a specific occasion, or for continuing reasons.
If someone does not, it really is no one else's business.
Absolutely right.
When there is a family with children involved then parents have a duty to raise those children as best they can.
Indeed - the late Holy Father makes the same point in Familiaris Consortio.
If someone decides to stay in this kind of marriage for whatever reason, and respects Church teaching with regard to Holy Communion, they should be left alone.
Here I think I differ. Familiaris Consortio §84 again: 'The Church... cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by a sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage.' If by 'left alone', is meant 'people should refrain from making unpleasant remarks', I do agree. But the Church has a duty to continue to proclaim the Gospel and call people to repentance, even when that is uncomfortable.
Often people have strayed from the Church got themselves married to someone who is divorced and then when children are born realize how much the faith means to them, and how much they want to pass it on to their kids. People do fall from grace, we all do in various degrees.
People in second marriages have enough heartache without fellow Catholics piling on more. Imagine being unable to reconcile the two things you love the most, and having a torn conscience. Sometimes living together as brother and sister is not an option because one partner finds that too hard to accept.
Indeed: it is a very heavy cross. However, if a Catholic is in such a situation, high on his or her lists of concern should be the salvation and sanctification of the person with whom he or she is living. Ultimately, that must mean working to remedy what Pope John Paul called 'the broken sign of the Covenant.'
They need our sympathy and our prayers. Pope John Paul says they should not lose hope.
Indeed. The hope, of course, is that they should eventually be fully reconciled to the Church once more, and able to receive Our Lord in a state of grace; and by their heroic virtue assist the sanctification of their children and their children's other parent - as well, ideally, as their original spouse.
I would only add that my original post was prompted by calls which fly counter to what the late Holy Father wrote: calls to admit to Holy Communion those whose 'state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.'
All the quotations in my comments are from Familiaris Consortio, §84.
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
Sad Stories
I have a friend who is ill. It is a debilitating and degenerative illness: she is getting worse, and it makes her increasingly irritable. She is, of course, aware of this. Her husband, a professional man with a responsible job, has left her for another woman. She is alone, now, and getting increasingly ill.
I have another friend. She has four children. Her husband, another professional man with a responsible job, has left her too. She is alone, now, struggling to cope with the children, and all that entails.
Both of their husbands, of course, had promised to stay with them for better or for worse; to give up all other women for them, and so on.
Why do I mention this?
Because I believe that in both of those cases (and doubtless in many thousands of others), the husband would not have left if divorce and re-marriage were not acceptable in modern society.
This is the problem when hard cases are allowed to drive the law in a permissive direction: innocent people suffer - and it is almost impossible to turn the clock back. The fantasy that such changes only affect those who would otherwise be stuck in a bad marriage is quite false. Every marriage is at least potentially weakened by such laws.
And of course, not only the abandoned women (or abandoned men), but also the children, are the victims - and ultimately we all are.
That is one reason why I believe any move to mask the dreadfulness of divorce and 're-marriage' in the Catholic Church would actually be uncharitable: it might ease the pain for many, but would have the unintended consequence of increasing it for many more, for generations to come.
I have another friend. She has four children. Her husband, another professional man with a responsible job, has left her too. She is alone, now, struggling to cope with the children, and all that entails.
Both of their husbands, of course, had promised to stay with them for better or for worse; to give up all other women for them, and so on.
Why do I mention this?
Because I believe that in both of those cases (and doubtless in many thousands of others), the husband would not have left if divorce and re-marriage were not acceptable in modern society.
This is the problem when hard cases are allowed to drive the law in a permissive direction: innocent people suffer - and it is almost impossible to turn the clock back. The fantasy that such changes only affect those who would otherwise be stuck in a bad marriage is quite false. Every marriage is at least potentially weakened by such laws.
And of course, not only the abandoned women (or abandoned men), but also the children, are the victims - and ultimately we all are.
That is one reason why I believe any move to mask the dreadfulness of divorce and 're-marriage' in the Catholic Church would actually be uncharitable: it might ease the pain for many, but would have the unintended consequence of increasing it for many more, for generations to come.
Sunday, 28 September 2008
Split the nuclear family at your peril...
I was reading the other day about (yet another) father who had killed his kids and then himself on the break-up of his marriage. Clearly this is a great evil. But to understand it I think we must understand the huge damage done when one (whoever that one is) attempts to split the nuclear family. There is something akin to a nuclear reaction - with devastating consequences.
Friends of mine who have split up, who used to love each other, are now filled with rage towards each other. They deceive themselves into thinking it is better for the kids that they split, rather than the constant bickering. But the kids see it differently - and I think in their hearts, the parents do too. But the nuclear reaction of negative energy released by the splitting of the family has created a force that will take truly supernatural power to overcome. So remember them in your prayers.
But the broader point is this: once a couple are married, are committed to each other, have promised to stay together, have made love (and particularly once they have had children) they have created a bond that ties them to each other - a bond so strong that attempting to break it releases a huge amount of dangerous energy - damaging all involved. And there are very many very damaged people around as a result...
Friends of mine who have split up, who used to love each other, are now filled with rage towards each other. They deceive themselves into thinking it is better for the kids that they split, rather than the constant bickering. But the kids see it differently - and I think in their hearts, the parents do too. But the nuclear reaction of negative energy released by the splitting of the family has created a force that will take truly supernatural power to overcome. So remember them in your prayers.
But the broader point is this: once a couple are married, are committed to each other, have promised to stay together, have made love (and particularly once they have had children) they have created a bond that ties them to each other - a bond so strong that attempting to break it releases a huge amount of dangerous energy - damaging all involved. And there are very many very damaged people around as a result...
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
A Radical Idea
Childcare 'beyond' poor parents, the BBC news site reports (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7508582.stm)
"A quarter of parents on low incomes are unable to work because they cannot afford childcare, research conducted for Save the Children suggests. Some 28% of families, with children under 18, earning less than £15,000-a-year after tax said they could not work because childcare cost too much."
Here’s my radical solution: one parent works, the other looks after the kids.
Of course, that does suggest two parents living together with their kids’ best interests at heart, so I suspect I’m way off the page, as usual...
"A quarter of parents on low incomes are unable to work because they cannot afford childcare, research conducted for Save the Children suggests. Some 28% of families, with children under 18, earning less than £15,000-a-year after tax said they could not work because childcare cost too much."
Here’s my radical solution: one parent works, the other looks after the kids.
Of course, that does suggest two parents living together with their kids’ best interests at heart, so I suspect I’m way off the page, as usual...
Saturday, 13 January 2007
Divorce Made Comfortable
I was interested to read the reports in The Times purporting to show that divorce does no harm to children. There is clearly a huge interest in making divorce ever more acceptable in society at large, as so many people experience it.
However, reading the report it became clear that the methodology was to ask children how they felt about divorce some years afterwards. Children being tolerably robust, this revealed that they tend to say it’s not been too awful. In fact, with their (divorced) parents and possibly new step-parents wanting to justify the new status quo, doubtless it will have been something of a mantra in many cases: ‘things are so much better now than when mummy/daddy and I were fighting all the time.’
However what this research did not seem to address (from the reports published) were issues like:
the educational, emotional, psychological or health outcomes for children post-divorce compared with those from a stable marriage;
the ability or otherwise of such children to sustain permanent relationships in adult life;
the impact of creating a culture of temporary relationships on children at large; and so on.
In fact, I fear that either the research was conducted with a particular pro-divorce agenda in mind, or it has been hijacked by those who wish to justify divorce.
Here is some contrary research - as published in a page called ‘5 myths about divorce’ by a Catholic Family organisation. Yes, yes, of course, they have a particular point of view - but look at the research!
The full site is at : http://www.catholic-family.org/Information/divorce.html
Myth 3: A divorce is better for the children - the conflicts in a bad marriage are too upsetting for them.
False! Another myth that seems reasonable to most people. But the facts are clear: "The outcomes for children in 'high conflict' intact families more closely resembled those for children in 'low conflict' intact families than those in [divorced] families". Whilst no-one denies that parental conflict is bad for children, the evidence shows that divorce makes things even worse.
Data, The University of Exeter: Exeter Family Study 1994.
Myth 4: The divorce makes a 'clean break' from conflicts so everyone can settle down and rebuild their lives.
False! "The experience of most children whose parents divorce is of increased conflict over an extended period". The advent of new 'partners', conflicts over access rights of the father or mother all mean conflicts can continue indefinitely.
Data source as above.
A nice summary is also provided by the Centre for Family Research at Cambridge University:
"Children whose parents have divorced were on average less emotionally stable, left home earlier and divorced or separated more frequently ... The critical thing seems to be children's awareness that parents have, through choice, separated and for many this means a parent choosing to leave them."
Myth 5: The children would prefer it if their fighting parents would split up
False! "When children are asked what they would like they almost always say they only want one thing, that their parents should stay together".
Data source Centre for Family Research at Cambridge University.
However, reading the report it became clear that the methodology was to ask children how they felt about divorce some years afterwards. Children being tolerably robust, this revealed that they tend to say it’s not been too awful. In fact, with their (divorced) parents and possibly new step-parents wanting to justify the new status quo, doubtless it will have been something of a mantra in many cases: ‘things are so much better now than when mummy/daddy and I were fighting all the time.’
However what this research did not seem to address (from the reports published) were issues like:
the educational, emotional, psychological or health outcomes for children post-divorce compared with those from a stable marriage;
the ability or otherwise of such children to sustain permanent relationships in adult life;
the impact of creating a culture of temporary relationships on children at large; and so on.
In fact, I fear that either the research was conducted with a particular pro-divorce agenda in mind, or it has been hijacked by those who wish to justify divorce.
Here is some contrary research - as published in a page called ‘5 myths about divorce’ by a Catholic Family organisation. Yes, yes, of course, they have a particular point of view - but look at the research!
The full site is at : http://www.catholic-family.org/Information/divorce.html
Myth 3: A divorce is better for the children - the conflicts in a bad marriage are too upsetting for them.
False! Another myth that seems reasonable to most people. But the facts are clear: "The outcomes for children in 'high conflict' intact families more closely resembled those for children in 'low conflict' intact families than those in [divorced] families". Whilst no-one denies that parental conflict is bad for children, the evidence shows that divorce makes things even worse.
Data, The University of Exeter: Exeter Family Study 1994.
Myth 4: The divorce makes a 'clean break' from conflicts so everyone can settle down and rebuild their lives.
False! "The experience of most children whose parents divorce is of increased conflict over an extended period". The advent of new 'partners', conflicts over access rights of the father or mother all mean conflicts can continue indefinitely.
Data source as above.
A nice summary is also provided by the Centre for Family Research at Cambridge University:
"Children whose parents have divorced were on average less emotionally stable, left home earlier and divorced or separated more frequently ... The critical thing seems to be children's awareness that parents have, through choice, separated and for many this means a parent choosing to leave them."
Myth 5: The children would prefer it if their fighting parents would split up
False! "When children are asked what they would like they almost always say they only want one thing, that their parents should stay together".
Data source Centre for Family Research at Cambridge University.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
