Posted on 10/17/2014 12:58:09 PM PDT by NYer
The news from the Synod this day is improved. Thanks be to God, many, yes many of the bishops and synod participants have articulated how deficient and misleading the “rough draft” Relatio was. Keep praying! The struggles to lay hold of and articulate with clarity God’s stunning teaching on Holy Matrimony and family in a doubtful world will continue.
But, frankly, even at the moment Jesus uttered his unequivocal insistence that marriage was one man and one woman in an indissoluble bond, many were stunned and scoffed, If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better never to marry! (Matt 19:10) Jesus, of course, did not back down and went on to reiterate His teaching while also affirming that celibacy (never to marry) was a positive, not negative role (Matt 19:11ff).
Our struggle to recapture and reaffirm without compromise what Jesus taught is surely challenging, especially in a climate in which so many marriages fail. I was listening to an interview yesterday in which the question of how to stem the tide of failed marriages was pondered. All the usual remedies were discussed: better catechesis, better marriage preparation, more sermons on Holy Matrimony, etc. But both participants in the interview concluded that, in a culture as troubled as ours, the “education/catechesis” model was going to have only limited effects. Both agreed that deeper cultural changes and healing would be required in order for marriage (and many other things) to recover substantially and statistically.
Let me ponder with you a deep but often unexplored root of the trouble with marriage today. It is interesting because it actually emerges from something good, but something that is good in a detached and therefore unmoored sense: our high idealism about marriage. Let me explain.
We live in times that have become quite cynical about anything being good or noble or pure. But many today still have an extremely high ideal for marriage: that it should be wonderful, romantic, joyful, loving, and happy. Yes, this is quite an ideal, rather rooted in the dreamy wishes of romantic longing, but an ideal nonetheless. Amor omnia vicit! (Love conquers all!) Surely we will live happily ever after the way every story says!
But here’s the problem: Many want their marriage to be ideal, and if there is any ordeal, they want a new deal! Yes, many are wandering about thinking, as in the U2 song, “I still haven’t found what I’m looking for!”
Yes, the problem is that there is no ideal marriage, only real marriage. Two sinners have married. A man and a woman with fallen natures, living in a fallen world, governed by a fallen angel, have entered the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. But, like the graces of any Sacrament, those of Holy Matrimony are necessary not because things are wonderful, but because they are oftentimes difficult. Marriage is meant to sanctify but, like baptism, its offered graces gradually unfold, and they do so to the degree and at the speed with which the couple cooperates with God’s work.
Real marriage is going to take a lifetime of joy and challenges, tenderness and tension, difficulties and growth in order for a man and woman to summon each other to the holiness that God gives. And some of God’s gifts come in strange packages; struggles and irritations are often opportunities to grow and to learn what forgiveness, patience, and suffering are really all about. These are precious things to learn and to grow in. Frankly, if we don’t learn to forgive we are going to go to Hell (e.g., Mt 6:14-15). Even the best marriages have tensions. No tension means no change.
This may not be the ideal, “happily ever-after” marriage, but it is the real one, full of joy, love, hope, and tenderness, but also sorrow, anger, disappointment, and stresses.
The real problem comes not from our ideals about marriage, which are good to strive for, but from the fact that we conceive of these ideals in a hedonistic and “instant-gratification” culture.
Hedonism is the “doctrine” that the chief goals of life in this world are happiness and pleasure. (The Greek word hedone means “pleasure.”) In the hedonistic view, any diminishment of pleasure or happiness is the worst thing imaginable, a complete disaster. On account of this “doctrine,” many insist on a kind of God-given right to be happy and pleased. Even many devout Christians fall prey to the very exaggerated notions of hedonism and excuse some pretty selfish and sinful behaviors by saying, “Well, God wants me to be happy doesn’t He?” And thus, when the Church or an individual suggests that perhaps someone should do what is difficult, the hedonistic culture reacts, not with puzzlement, but with downright indignation, as if to say, “How dare you get between anyone and what makes him happy!”
So, our notion of an ideal (happy, fulfilling, blissful) marriage is seen through the lens of hedonistic extremism. And thus if the ideal is not found, many sense a need, a perfect right, to end a less-than-ideal marriage in search of greener pastures.
And this is just one more thing added to our instant gratification culture of “overnight shipping,” “Buy it with one click,” and “Download now!” If the ideal marriage is not evident very soon, the disappointments and resentments come quickly.
Yes, resentments. There is an old saying: “Unrealistic expectations are premeditated resentments.” How quickly our unrealistic notions of the instantly ideal, picture-perfect marriage are dashed on the shoals of reality. And thus we return to the premise: many want their marriage to be ideal, and if there is any ordeal, they want a new deal.
Somewhere, not only in the Church’s marriage preparation programs but also in our work of assisting personal formation, we need to teach and become aware that unrealistic expectations are ultimately destructive. Our ideals are not the problem per se, but we must become more sober of our conception of our ideals through the lens of hedonism and instant gratification. Growth takes time. Life moves through stages. Marriage is hard … but so is life. Cutting and running from the imperfect marriage, as too many do rather quickly today, is not the ultimate solution. Sure enough, one imperfect marriage yields another and perhaps yet another.
Rest assured, I do not sit in judgment over everyone who has ever divorced. I speak here to a cultural trend (perfectionism jaded by hedonism and instant gratification) that contributes to the perceived need and “right” to “move on” if happiness is not quickly and stably attained. In the (even recent) past we tended more to stick things out, to work through some of our differences and to agree to live with others of our differences. Life was more seen as hard, a kind of exile to endure on our way to our true homeland and to true happiness. Surely we looked to some joys here on earth, but we had more of a sense of the passing quality of all worldly things, whether good or bad. We would do well to regain something of this more sober appreciation that life here is a mixed bag; it’s going to have its challenges. Marriage is no exception. And though we may idealize it, we should be aware that we are setting ourselves up for resentments and disappointments if we do not balance it with the understanding that marriage is hard because life is hard.
Clearly there are many other problems that contribute to today’s high divorce rates. But here is one often overlooked root: many expect an ideal marriage, and if there is any ordeal, they want a new deal. (And we would do well to remember that in a world with adults behaving like this, it is the children who get the raw deal.) This is a deep cultural root of our divorce problem, a deep wound of which we should become more aware.
If sex is withheld it is because the husband does not love the wife and treats her like a doll.
Behave like you did when you were courting and it'll last forever.
Materialism has no doubt sent many wives into the work force where they work for and honor a boss often a man who is not their husband. This creates competition for the wife's respect which is harmful to say the least. In like manner men work next to women who are dressed up and often under their oversight.
But of far greater impact is the generations of women who wanted to be all they could be. The seminal feminist book the feminist mystique recounted women who were not in poverty, but whose life had becoming boring. Women were jealous that men got to take dominion in the market place while they stayed home raising children and caring for the home. That discontent was shoved in everybody's face through the 60's ERA movement and pop culture. Soon no men's institution was safe from the monstrous regiment of discontent women. Women's studies programs became the trend on campus to inculcate women into their new-found power as victims. Fornication grew to the current epidemic as women chose that what they did with their body was their business and that acting the slut was a badge of honor rather than a shame. Women carried the memories and baggage of prior bonding of their fornication into marriage, the discontent grew. Men with low morals, pick-up artists, took advantage of the new slut trend contributing to the despoiling of the weaker sex. Family law came to the rescue like Don Quixote to rescue women from the evils of patriarchy, giving the victimized wife the children as hostages and the spoils of a man's labor to the wife, no matter her culpability. Men in response refuse to marry and join the ranks of the immoral because they reason with Woody Allen that the difference between sex for money and sex for free is that the sex for free costs a lot more. And so the unraveling continues. Husbands are made eunuchs, and wives made rebels against God's created order.
If sex is withheld it is because of sin. 1 Corinthians 7:5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. Your excuse for a wife withholding is prima facie to the success of the feminist assault and destruction of marriage.
Two indicators of failure I’ve noticed: the man and wife are political opposites, one liberal and one conservative and one treats the other with contempt or sarcasm.
Incidentally, in my observations conservatives will put up with liberals but the opposite is never true.
Because it preaches Marxism-—radical egalitarianism/males and females are interchangeable which is insane and irrational and denies Laws of Nature.
Feminism is Marxism to create hate and division between male and female to destroy marriages and the Natural Family and make children into emotional cripples unable to have male/female role models so they are easily warped and believe irrational Marxist ideology. (All Marxism is irrational and dumb).
The patriarchy system and Christian Ethics is based on Science (Reason) and the Laws of Nature and the Design by God of Nature-—which values the different Natural Roles of female and male to create the most flourishing culture possible where gifts and roles and merit are valued (Virtue). Science proves that males and females are intrinsically different and Marxism has to erase Natural instincts in children to make them into ignorant drones who can be herded and killed by their masters. Little girls are conditioned to kill their biological offspring; boys are taught girls are the same as boys and the boys who think they are girls are “Good” and not insane (which they are).
The idea of Individuality came from Christian Theology-—that idea of we are all made in the image of God and there is Design in Nature-—and with that their is a Duty of all mankind to nurture and care for biological offspring and is why our Constitution exists and ideas of private property.
Marxism has to destroy individuality and erase sexual identity from children so they are totally devoid of Reason-—up is down, vice is virtue and sodomy becomes a Natural Right from God. Total insanity and paganism/Satanism with Christianity erased as the Postmodernists (godless Satanists) wanted.
When my wife (20+ years) and I first started getting serious, we both filled out a 3 x 5 card. On one side, we wrote down three things we wanted to keep control over and the other side, three things we wanted the other to give away, i.e. what we wanted the other to take over.
One of the things I wanted to “give away” was doing the bills. I hate doing the bills and balancing the checkbook. It drives my stress level to the point of anger. My wife took over the bills and I have thanked her every week since.
Marxism and feminism have many common goals the foremost is the destruction of God-given authority and roles. But Feminism has been around since Eden.
Genesis 3:17-19 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it': "Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return." bold mineMen have been charmed by their women into bad decisions and women have been tempting men to violate God's law since the beginning. Still, it is not good that man be alone if he marry a "woman of character who can find" (proverbs 31:10)
No it is not. There is no problem for female to respond if she feels loved. If she feels used, won’t work.
I don't recall ever seeing you post a comment where anything is unequivocally the wife's fault.
If the wife is withholding sex, it's because she is no longer attracted to her husband. Whether it's because she's found somebody else, or because she's unhappy with his behavior, the root is she no longer admires him.
Yes, and that is likely his doing.
The old canard that amounts to a woman has no moral agency, she not responsible for her thoughts and feelings. Oh how sad it is to a victim of all those events out of your control. See how very different men and women are in your world, men go to work when they don't feel like it, they defend their homes and homeland when it is hard, they are responsible to love their wives when she makes it difficult. But poor helpless princesses cannot keep their marriage vows unless all of life's circumstances are just to their liking. It sure seems as though sex has become the little princess's bargaining chip. But that would make her not in submission, a defrauder, and perhaps a prostitute who trades sex for some currency (in your example the currency is the satisfaction of feeeeeelings).
Men like sex any old way and any old time and any old how. Women think it’s a chore, unless they feel loved. So, you go to work even when you wish you could go fishing. Is sex supposed to be work? Or is it supposed to be fishing?
Right, nothing is ever the wife's fault.
Correlation or causation? Works either way.
Sex is a part of marriage and is the duty of both to make as fulfilling as possible. Work is often a joy if you are working in a suitable field, sex is often a joy if your doing it with a suitable spouse. Work is often a drudgery because of the curse, sex is often a drudgery (for men and women) because of the withholding of the total person in naked, uninhibited oneness.
If a wife tells me she feels like a sex doll, I am pretty sure she is dead in bed and not fully participating. No doubt her husband is infuriated with her comatose coitus. Why does she feel entitled to such sandbagging in bed? Maybe because she feeeels entitled to be the princess, not the helpmeet to her man, not submissive to his desires and she has defrauded him by reclaiming the authority over her body that vowed to give to her husband. Our Bodies Ourselves was another important book in the feminist assault on the marriage. It seems from your posts that its premise may have been incorporated into your philosophy of marriage. The apostle Paul makes no exception for your feeelings, only for an agreed time of fasting and prayer.
Marriages fail when either the husband or wife do not love the LORD their God with all their heart, soul, and strength.
Ok, guys, there you have it, apparently you are always entitled to it. Dave, the Catholic marriage is to build a family, and the husband is supposed to lay down his life for his wife, so who exactly is submitting to who?
When you read his piece in an uncritical way, it seems to make sense––at least on its surface. People do want their marriages to be “ideal”, and when they find out that they’re simply just marriages, the couple starts having problems. But when you give it more thought, it actually is simply just another empty statement.
Here’s the problem I have with his reasoning. If this is Monsignor Pope’s explanation of why marriages are failing today (and he never even hinted about why people are not getting married but just living together), how come marriages didn’t have this great problem back in the good old days––like say, even before just 1960? How come Catholic marriages held together much more often that the Protestant marriages of that time? Today, as we know, there is absolutely no differences in the divorce rates between Catholics and Protestants. Has Monsignor Pope thought of anything that might have changed since then?
Let me offer a suggestion to Monsignor Pope. When the modernist bishops of the Catholic Church decided that they would “update” the Church and bring her into the modern world, they knowingly or unknowingly joined forces with that modern world in every way. And the Prince of that modern world is Satan himself. The “cultural trend” that he speaks to was to be expected to emerge and grow strong when the bishops of the modern Church sat back and said nothing.
Priests, like Monsignor Pope, who seems to be a very good and decent man, might like to forget or ignore the fact that it was the modernist bishops of the Catholic Church that changed it all. Not only did they quit talking about divorce and remarriage almost entirely, they changed the so-called “annulment” rules and allowed Catholic annulments to increase from a few hundred in 1960, to over 50,000 in 2012. And, if we are reading the Synod tealeaves correctly, that number will necessarily dramatically skyrocket in the near future.
No, I disagree completely with Monsignor Pope. The marriages are failing because the bishops have abandoned their flocks. They no longer teach Catholics to avoid sin and worship Jesus Christ. They tell them all that is necessary to achieve eternal salvation is to contribute to the second collection and help in the redistribution of wealth. For all intents and purposes, God Almighty has been abandoned by most bishops. They have all but embraced with both arms the heresy of humanism.
I suggest Monsignor Pope go back and re-think his thesis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.