[source: b3ta]

I don't read The Tablet because frankly, it's pretty dull. It's like listening to children trying to justify petty theft on the grounds that, well, they wanted some chocolate and it was mean of mummy not to let them have it. The explanations go on and on and round and round in circles in the apparent hope that sheer number of words will overcome the unchangeable truth that they are wrong.

Every now and then though, somebody flags up an article or in this case and editorial that is worth commenting on. This time it's an editorial entitled The problem with men...

Conservative thinkers on marriage, present at the Malta gathering and at a second conference in Gdansk, tend towards the view that a return to traditional values might strengthen marriage. But they have failed to describe convincingly how to put the clock back, even if it was agreed that that was desirable.

...

Evidence given at the Gdansk conference, also reported on page 14, appeared to show that it is the male failure to adapt to the way women have moved away from traditional female roles that causes tensions in many relationships, even leading to their eventual collapse. Rather than live with a man who refuses to adjust, and despite the difficulties where there are children, many women have chosen to become single again. Men are the problem after all, it seems. So the fundamental question is how they can become part of the solution.

[link]

Pretending for a moment that this caricature is true and it is even possible to paint in such broad brush strokes across entire genders - how is it possible men's "fault" that women "have moved away from traditional female roles" and caused "tensions"? You started it...

I remember now. Everything is men's fault.

The truth is, as Fr Dwight Longenecker puts it:

What kind of kooks are these Tabletistas?

...

What they really mean is that men are supposed to spoil them even more, indulge their little feminist whims, kow tow to their ideologies, be bullied by their emotional swings and march behind their bandwagon.

My view? Marriage is collapsing because most people don't know what it is. To understand what it is, you would need to know what love is - self sacrificing, dead on a cross type love. You don't have to be capable of it, but the whole point of the exercise is to try.

The "women going to work" thing is a red herring. Marriages don't break down because a woman expects a career any more than they break down because a man expects his shirt to be ironed.

Obviously there are notable exceptions, mental health problems, when people turn violent, when there is emotional and sexual abuse, when children are placed in danger. But on the whole, in the majority of cases:

Marriages break down because partners expect to have, when they should be expecting to give.

...and the pounds will look after themselves.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York has identified marriage as the “real vocation crisis” facing the Church in the United States.

“We have a vocation crisis to life-long, life-giving, loving, faithful marriage,” he said. “If we take care of that one, we’ll have all the priests and nuns we need for the Church.”

[link]

Alternatively, we could all wander around proclaiming that being married makes no difference and the Church could pay us to say it.

That dream within a dream...

[link]

Ella and I have now been married for four years.

What can I say?

I liked it. I thought it was nice.

Today I have the day off work and we are going to dump the sproglets at grandmas before going to see Harry Potter and (weather permitting) flying a kite.

Roman Catholic church marriages fall by 24pc since 2000

The number of marriages in Roman Catholic churches in Britain has fallen by a quarter since the start of the decade to just 9,950 last year.

This is a 24 per cent fall on the figure for 2000, when there were 13,029 Catholic marriages across England and Wales.

[link]

If this situation continues we will probably end up with a situation where multiple parishes actually have to share married couples. Parishes could find themselves grouped and married couples may need to attend two or even three Masses on a Sunday morning.

One way to avoid such a situation would be to import married couples from Poland but local clergy are concerned that such couples "tend to be too dogmatic about the church’s moral rightness on just about everything" which is not how we do things here. A special course has been arranged as Ushaw so that couples from Poland can learn how to make a cup of tea.

Others are suggesting that the Church take this as an opportunity to encourage "unmarried spousal ministry" including the provision of "extraordinary spouses" who would take on the role of married couples at Masses with insufficient married couples. More traditional Catholics have expressed concern that it has become commonplace to refer to "extraordinary spouses" simply as "spouses of holy marriage" which may confuse the role of extraordinary spouses with that of the husband and wife.

Meanwhile liberal Catholics have called for the Pope to review the rules surrounding Catholic marriage pointing out that if women could marry and if married couples were allowed to have sex then the married couples shortage would be solved overnight.

In the news this week...

Married couples are thousands of pounds worse off than parents who do not live together under the tax and benefits system, according to a report by an influential think tank.

Despite Gordon Brown's pledge to support "hard working families", those who marry or set up home together and establish a stable family are up to 20 per cent poorer, the Civitas study shows.

...

Campaigners warned last night that the situation "punishes" families trying to do the right thing. A senior MP said it was "insane".

The findings will lead to further allegations that the system of benefits and tax is fuelling "Broken Britain".

...

The report also found that so-called "pushy, middle-class parents" who provide a supportive home and try to find the best education for their children improved schools and communities.

It said such people were "vital to the success of any society" and accused Labour of failing them.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "The current benefits system has huge inbuilt biases against socially responsible behaviour and the tax system punishes families who try to do the right thing.

"Not only is this situation completely unfair, but it also undermines the creation of a better, more socially just society."

The report, Individualists Who Co-Operate, said the system "penalises" couples who live together, adding to accusations that Labour's taxes and handouts are encouraging the death of traditional family structures.

It found, in one case, that where a lone mother earned £10,000 a year, and her partner earned £25,000, they were £5,473 worse off if they decided to live together. If the lone mother did not work, they were £4,522 worse off for cohabiting.

...

Chris Grayling, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said: "Britain suffers massively from the problems caused by family breakdown.

"It is little short of insane that we have a tax and benefits system that encourages couples to live apart rather than together. This is something the Conservatives are committed to changing."

...

Research last year, from the Millennium Cohort Study, found that married parents are more than twice as likely to stay together as those who are unwed.

[link]

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

On the one hand, I think an unemployed single mother should get government support because she needs government support to stop herself and her children from ending up on the street.

On the other hand, if she has a boyfriend who earns as much as I do (which isn't very much) then it seems crazy for her to get funded so they can have two homes between them. That's what happens at the moment. Unmarried parents where one stays at home and one works get government support so that none of his wages have to be spent on her children or accommodation.

If the boyfriend is the father of the children they are worse off because he will have to pay some kind of maintenance. That means a stay at home mum is most financially well off if she leaves the father of her children and starts going out with man number two.

That's why the kids with unmarried mums and two dads are getting a new mobile, ipod and PS3 for Christmas while the kids with married parents are lucky to get a satsuma. I'm not envious though, because unmarried step-ish-father-ish man number two is the person most likely to hit his unmarried single mum and sexually abuse her child. Full stop.

Idiots like my wife and I get married. Married parents where one stays at home and the other works do not get government support so that none of his wages have to be spent on their children and accommodation. So we are poor.

On the other hand, our relationship has been raised to the level of a Sacrament in which we become a living icon of the trinity and partake in God's creation of new life. I reckon that's worth a few grand a year.

It had better be, because that's what we're paying.

I liked this blog entry on the subject of marriage from Wylie Hartwell at takecouragemyfriend.com.

As a former U. S. Air Force pilot and a current husband of 36 years, I can guarantee you that as precarious as that emergency single engine landing might be, it will have a far greater chance of survival than a so called 50/50 marriage. The airplane will land safely, with only some frayed nerves among the passengers; however, the 50/50 marriage will crash and burn.

...

So, men, you need to give more, much more. You must come to understand what sacrifice is all about. You must strive for the 100% threshold.

...

We have all read about genetic research discovering genes that pass on tendencies toward various diseases, behaviors, etc. Researchers have now isolated a gene, found almost exclusively in men that, at times, morphs us into being selfish, lazy, self-indulgent, egotistical, neglectful, a couch potato, a sport fanatic, and the list goes on and on and on. The gene has a long, difficult to pronounce, multi-syllable, Latin name so I will not twist your mind with it. I will just use the, more descriptive, slang form. They call it the Jackass gene. Simply put - it makes men act like a jackass. In other words, you forget about your wife and focus on yourself – not good for marriage.

You don’t have to believe me, but it is true. To prove it to yourself, don’t waste your time doing an Internet search or contacting a genetic research company, all you have to do is ask your sister, mother, or mother-in-law. At least one of them will unequivocally confirm the fact that you are a jackass…

...

All kidding aside, a successful marriage takes the best that you both can give. Here is part of the secret:

• You, the husband, strive to give (love and sacrifice) 100%.
• Keep that jackass gene under control.
• Do not be evaluating, ranking, or assessing your wife’s performance.

This last item is crucial. You take care of your part of the marriage equation and let your wife take care of hers, unencumbered by accusations, innuendo, or negative running commentary of any sort.

...

For those of you familiar with scripture, here are three verses you must forget. Totally blot them out in your bible. “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.”(Eph 5:22-24) Of course, these were meant for your wives, but your wives are not to be reminded of them by you.

God gave you plenty to do. “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…;”(Eph 5:25-31) You do this right and you will have the second best marriage on the planet.

[link]

We've only been doing it a couple of years (nearly three!) but it's pretty clear already that the commonly held view of marriage as a team of two helping each other through life is deficient - it implies a division of labour and two people picking up half each and making a whole. If one person doesn't do their bit then the whole thing falls down in a mess of arguments about who should have been doing what and when.

It's not like that. Marriage is not a swap - I will do this if you do that. Marriage is a covenant. You promised to give 100% of yourself so you should give 100% of yourself (as best you can) and not worry about whether the other person is doing the same because it's really not relevant - it wasn't part of the deal.

Faithfulness to God's Design:

Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. "Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact," Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. "From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God."

Remember to Sign the LiveChastely Promise

Union and Procreation

The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

Remember to Sign the LiveChastely Promise