Jcecil3, there is nothing wrong with trying to promote all the novel ideas you have about economic justice. They may or may not work, but that's more appropriate for an economics blog. I think it would be great if they worked, but I'm not qualified to argue for or against.
On the other hand, I think there is a problem with one of your underlying premises - the cause of rising cohabitation. The cause is not economic, it is sexual. No couple looks into each other's eyes in a dimlit restaurant and says, "Hey, baby, how's about you and me shacking up and saving on rent?" The primary reason all couples live together is for free and ready sex whenever they want. Period. Economic concerns are used to justify the decision after the fact, but these are only secondary reasons.
(cont'd)
Further, you grossly underestimate the moral strength of the faithful Christian. These know that it is right to save yourself for marriage, out of love for God, respect for oneself, for one's future spouse, and yes, because it's Christ's and the Church's constant teaching as well. You make it seem like there is no way the moral law could possibly be upheld, if there were not sufficient economic justification. How about teaching people to do what is right just because it is right, not because it's profitable to do so?
When couples live together, even as a prelude to marriage, it basically says that they are willing to defy clear moral teaching for their own personal pleasure. This just confirms they are morally weak, and incapable of sacrificing now for a greater good that will come later. Remember, you cannot do evil so that good may come about. If what you propose is true, then Jesus' exhortation to take up your cross and follow him is just empty drivel. Why would anyone bother, if we can be excused on economic grounds?
Although I think that some of jcecil3's economic proposals (in fact, some key ones for his plan) are simply unworkable and would prove disastrous for a country that attempted to implement them, I disagree that this blog is not the place to discuss economics in light of Church teaching. Firstly, it's his blog. Secondly, the Church has spilled a lot of ink on morality in economics in the past century, and it behooves every Catholic citizen to take them into account. I do, however, admit that this essay reads a bit more like a stump speech that adverts to Catholic economic principles without quite understanding them all.
I agree, however, that it makes a great effort to ignore the elephant in the living room with respect to the subject of the disintegration of the modern family: the separation of the unitive and procreative ends of marriage. Jcecil3 admits that he is trying to change the subject, but in doing so the omission is glaringly obvious. He cannot, however, admit that it is even a contributing cause to the problem that he is trying to diagnose and cure, since making this concession would call into question his benign view of contraception and homosexual activity. Problems in his economic theories aside, to the extent that he ignores this factor, his analysis is fundamentally flawed. I spelled this out a bit more in a comment concerning part one of this series.
Well said gentlemen.
Jcecil quote: "I see the causes of the breakdown in marriage as less of a failure of the individual, and more a result of massive cultural change that has lead to an unjust distribution of wealth, and where those who control that wealth have a direct or an indirect vested interest in the destruction of our marriages."
How exactly, does an top heavy distribution of wealth cause someone to fornicate? Actually, I suspect the rate of fornication has very little to do with how much cash Bill Gates has in the bank. It seems to me the prudent economic unit would not bother with sex outside of marriage knowing that it could lead to 18 years of payments and untold social entaglements.
Jcecil is searching for any cultural "pressure" to excuse personal responsibility. Party-line liberal agenda at its finest.
Greetings All!
I've really said my piece in the long article and hopefully given people something to think about. I want to touch on the first comment in this thread, though Ronny already addressed it.
I plan to write another article on the nature of what the Church calls "social sin", but the basic point is that the Church does recognize, as Ronny points out, that there are deep moral implications to the way we do business and shape economies.
The Scriptures tell us that Christ will be all in all. Politics, economics, art, science, work and play are all spiritual activities. In the incarnation event, the entire human condition was sanctified, and the goal of a Catholic in his or her personal journey on earth should be to find the presence of God in all things!
As Ronny already pointed out, the Church has spilled a lot of ink trying to clarify a position that our religion and our spirituality can and should inform the way we make economic decisions, individually and collectively.
In the incarnation event, the entire human condition was sanctified. God did not choose to become an angel or a dolphin. God choose to become a human person. Humanity and the human person are the center of God's attention and love. All things human have a place on a Catholic blog.
And as someone else pointed out, it's my blog.
Peace!
And as someone else pointed out, it's my blog.
That would have been me again. See there, I defended you (sort of) twice in one day! And I just saw a pig fly by! 
"I want to touch on the first comment in this thread..."
If I knew that the only thing you would address in my comment was a superfluous addition, as a preface to my main point, I would have left it out. The comment about whether or not we should discuss economics was not my point.
Also, here's some fodder for your upcoming article on social sin. What is the difference between saying, "Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world," and saying, "Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world?" Besides the fact that the first is approved for the Order of Mass, and the second is not, we can even detect a further difference.
When we talk about the "sins of the world", there is an underlying implication that we are referring to the individual sins that individual people commit - like taking ownership for our actions. That's why we follow with the invocation, "Have mercy on us."
(cont'd)
On the other hand, when we talk about "sin of the world", we are not referring to individual accountability, but rather the sinful structures of the world - or what you call "social sin". I'm awaiting the day when someone actually tries to change the words of the Mass to say, "Have mercy on them." Watch and see. It won't be long in coming.
There's certainly nothing wrong with asking Our Lord to help us remove sinful structures, but everytime I hear that expression at Mass, I can't help thinking that there is a subtle attempt to remove people from individual accountability for sins committed. This goes hand in hand with the reduced emphasis on individual Confession.
I would hope that in your next essay, you discuss the relationship between individual sin and social sin. Because the second does not arise without the first, and both of which are a result of Original Sin.
Paul, you are too right on jcecil3's failure to address your second point. From the sounds of it, you and everyone else who have brought up the issue will not get a response. However legitimate, the rejoinder to our host's argument apparently will not receive a hearing because it fits neither into his longish narrative nor the underlying ideological commitments that governed it. Jcecil3 thinks that he has addressed the issue simply through the sheer assertion that the separation of the procreative and unitive ends are not the cause of the disintegration of the family. I myself don't think that it is the only cause, but it is a major, if not the major, one. Again, jcecil3, on the other hand, cannot give it even a secondary place in this narrative despite its obvious significance without compromising his a priori approval of contraception and homosexual activity, and thus he does what he deplores in the other case by positing a different sole cause of the modern family's self-destruction. That the movers and shakers in the early feminist movement were more forthcoming (but approvingly so) on the negative effects of such issues as contraception, abortion, liberated sexuality and no-fault divorce on the traditional family unit than is jcecil3 is telling.
Of course I'm over here just shaking my head. Scandinavia is very socialist, yet it is not the eutopia for marriage that JCecil is dreaming of. My comment here
Ronny,
Don't assume Paul won't get a hearing.
I've had to remind Elena of this occassionally, but I do have a full time job and a life outside of cyberspace. Today has been a busier day than normal in the real world (my line of work deals with catastrophe relief from flooding - and tropical storms Bonnie and Charlie are headed into Florida right now).
I may not respond to a comment right away, but I generally try to respond within a day. Once a post moves into archive (which blogger does automatically), I will generally stop responding in that thread, and start a new post if I felt the conversation was still open.
Occassionally, I allow people to have the last word - but that does not mean I ignored anyone. I read every comment on this blog, including the links people put here.
As I stated - today is unusually busy - so I have to run. Please be patience with the delay in response and don't assume I haven't read anything you wrote.
Peace!
No, jcecil3, you should respond to every comment IMMEDIATELY, or at least refreshing your comment boxes every 5 minutes throughout the day to read our devastating critiques of your arguments (OK, I'm being sarcastic -- except for the devastating critiques part).
In all seriousness, I based my remarks on this being the only comment by you in apparent response to Paul's main point:
I've really said my piece in the long article and hopefully given people something to think about.
That was it. It sounded to me like you were done with the topic, regardless of objections. Apparently, I misinterpreted the statement, but in the context, I am not sure that I would not make the same mistake again.
At any rate, I am glad to hear that you are taking time to think over how you will be humbly conceding the rebuttals of your opponents and recanting your errors.
Ronny:
You wrote: I agree, however, that it makes a great effort to ignore the elephant in the living room with respect to the subject of the disintegration of the modern family: the separation of the unitive and procreative ends of marriage.
Please keep in mind what Joe is addressing here. I do not think he is actually addressing the disintegration of family. Although Joe often mentions the family and marriage as if can be talked about in the same way, I think this is a category mistake.
On the one hand, Joe seems to be considering whether marriage as a state of life is being undermined by external factors. He titles his article "Saving the Institution of Marriage". He talks about what those factors that undermine marriage may be, and how their impacts might be determined.
But then he shifts his view, and begins to talk about how some of those same factors undermine family. Since many (though not all) of his factors are essentially economic, he is on more solid ground here. There is no doubt that the realities of post-modern economy have put a severe strain on the traditional idea of family.
But is Joe's shift of viewpoint valid? Only if the traditional idea of family lines up with the present idea of marriage.
More to come on this as I try to digest Joe's long article.
Paul:
You make some pretty broad statements which are not backed up by the evidence.
You wrote: ...the cause of rising cohabitation. The cause is not economic, it is sexual.... The primary reason all couples live together is for free and ready sex whenever they want. Period.
Your statement is not backed up by the evidence. In fact, it seems to be the result of comtemporary media stereotypes.
By far the main reason why people cohabitate without being married is personal commitment to each other. Some even refer to it as a 'trial marriage'.
I don't know where you live, but in most areas of the US, "free and ready" sex is around without any need for people to move in together.
I do agree with you that economic considerations are generally not primary.
You wrote: When couples live together, even as a prelude to marriage, it basically says that they are willing to defy clear moral teaching for their own personal pleasure.
Again, your broad statement isn't backed up by the evidence. It isn't a question of hedonistic sexual "pleasure", because as I stated before, that is available these days without any need for cohabitation.
You wrote: This just confirms they are morally weak, and incapable of sacrificing now for a greater good that will come later.
It only "confirms" your conclusions if your premises are correct. Since your premises are wrong, it doesn't confirm anything.
The primary reason why people cohabitate without marriage, according to social studies, is that
"... they hope to find out more about the habits, character, and fidelity of a partner. These young
men and women reject traditional courtship as a way of finding out about a person's character. They see dating as a 'game', full of artifice
and role-playing, while living together is more natural, honest and revealing." (State of our Unions 2000, The National Marriage Project)
One can argue the morality of the means, even argue the logic of the attitude or the pragmatic results if you want to.
One can assert that this lack of trust in one's judgement stems from something like a moral malaise that is very deeply embedded in our post-modern culture.
But one can't do as you do, and argue against the morality of the intention.
That hope expressed in the quote seems to me to be a very moral intention.
If we can't frame the problem properly, we can't hope to find a solution.
Peace.
Nick,
Hmmm... I'll need to think about what you said. I acknowledge that "marriage" and "family" are distinct terms with integrally connected but not identical meanings (alas, many would dispute that there is any such connection today -- the whole separation of unitive/procreative ends again). That statement is obvious enough. I'm not sure, however, that it really changes the fundamental understanding of our host's argument in any way nor that of the critiques.
There is no doubt that the realities of post-modern economy have put a severe strain on the traditional idea of family.
You'll get no argument from me there, and neither would jcecil3 had he just said the same and made his case. My complaints regarding his genealogy of the problem (his cure poses difficulties of a different kind that I addressed in the "Part III" thread) concern mainly the over-simplified narrative driven in part by an apparent pro-contraception bias. I made a more developed form of this critique in the thread on "Part II."
Whoops -- anonymous at 9:09 p.m., 8/12/04 was me.
"Your statement is not backed up by the evidence."
Nick, find me a co-habiting couple who are not also sharing a bed. If you cannot, then you have your evidence.
"By far the main reason why people cohabitate without being married is personal commitment to each other."
The facade of personal commitment may also be wrapped up in their decision to live together, but we all know the research says most co-habiting relationships do not lead to marriage. It's unfortunate that our society has bought the line that co-habitation can be a preparation for marriage. From time immemorial, couples learned that commitment is built on trust, virtue, and the willingness to sacrifice. All of which are more effectively built while engaged couples live apart.
"I don't know where you live, but in most areas of the US, 'free and ready' sex is around without any need for people to move in together."
You do have a point here. If the couples are already having sex to their hearts' desire, then the decision to live together is clearly based elsewhere. I don't doubt this is true. In fact, I do acknowledge, under the Part II commentary, that Jcecil3's thesis does indeed seem to apply in a secular context. In other words, for those who live as if God did not exist, since there is no longer any stigma attached to living together, where or when they have sex is not an issue.
However, my argument has revolved around what faithful Christians ought to do; those who are supposed to believe that fornication is an offense against God, and contrary to His plan for our happiness.
"Since your premises are wrong, it doesn't confirm anything."
You are missing my point. Faithful, Bible-believing Christians should realize that sex before marriage is sinful. It's one thing to commit sins out of weakness. We all do. However, it's a completely different matter to make a public proclamation of our sins - precisely what co-habitation is. Doing so is an act of open defiance against our Lord, which is an order of magnitude more serious than committing sins in secret. Only the morally weak would do such a thing. That's my point.
"But one can't do as you do, and argue against the morality of the intention."
If what you are saying is that the perceived intention is to take a step toward permanent commitment, you are right. There is no argument against that, because it is a good intention. The argument is indeed against the means.
"If we can't frame the problem properly, we can't hope to find a solution."
Where Jcecil3's thesis is geared toward saving marriage in a secular sense, he has no argument from me. As I said before, it's arguable in economic terms whether the specific remedies he proposes would work. But his overall proposal is reasonable and well-thought out, at least from this layman's point of view.
However, this being a Catholic blog, I would hope that we have a
(cont'd)
However, this being a Catholic blog, I would hope that we have a common understanding that the Catholic Christian understanding of morality *is* the program that Christ left behind for us to evangelize the world. We ought not let the world evangelize us into their way of thinking. Knowing a priori that fornication is wrong, we ought to do whatever possible to teach, first our own Catholic youngsters, that following the moral law layed out by the Church *is* the way to happiness. By example, the elders can show those who are younger. Then, as others see the success in building stable marriages, they too will want to emulate our success. That's evangelization in action.
So, in that sense, I would exhort Jcecil3 to treat sex and marriage as the sacred realities they are, and not promote their trivialization by in any way condoning either co-habitation, or sex outside of marriage that comes before it. He understands that building stable marriages is a good thing for society, and in this I applaud his efforts. Yes, economic factors affecting marriage ought be smoothed out; and yes, building personal commitment is a noble pursuit. But not at the expense of upholding moral goodness.
The difference between Jcecil3's approach and mine is that he has designated a subset of the Church's moral teaching as disposable, and built his argument around that. That's fine for him. It's his blog, and he has the right to do it. However, all I am doing is highlighting for him the fact that he calls this a Catholic blog, and as such, he ought to uphold established moral law. If he doesn't want to do that, then at least my comments will prevent the uninitiated reader from being lulled into the mistaken belief that his assumptions are permissible for a faithful Catholic in good standing with the Church.
Paul,
Actually, if you look at the article carefully, I am trying to solve the issues of rising rates of cohabitation and divorce, whether one believes contraception and gay unions are always sinful or not.
Basically, I am arguing that even if the production of contraception were made illegal (which isn't likely to ever happen), and even if gay marriages are never made legal, and even if abortion were illegal, divorce and cohabitation would likely continue to climb for economic reasons that I describe.
Thus, the converse is also true: if gay unions were legal, and contraception never talked about in the Church and current abortion laws remained unchanged, we could still improve marriage statistics by addressing the economic factors that destabilize the instition.
As to Nick's distinction between family and marriage, I wasn't really making such a distinction. I probably should have made a distinction between "traditional family tied to marriage' and the new forms of family that are arising in the current situation. Thus, my references to family should be read as references to the traditional understanding of family tied to the institution of marriage.
On the issue of lust and personal morality verses economics and social sin, I plan to create another post later today.
Peace!
"Actually, if you look at the article carefully, I am trying to solve the issues of rising rates of cohabitation and divorce, whether one believes contraception and gay unions are always sinful or not."
I understand that, but I'm still disappointed that a professed Catholic blogger proposes solutions to social problems that deliberately skirt around particular unpopular Church teachings. By feigning neutrality on these teachings, you give the impression you are going out of your way to prove those teachings are not necessary. By the way, you have not *proven* your case. It's still just an hypothesis.
If this is what you are doing, and you know in your heart the reasons why, you reveal your contempt for the Teaching Office of the Church, and by extension, Our Lord, who promised to be with his Church when they teach in his Name. I pray that is not the case, because it would be truly sad if it were.
Paul,
Tak a look at the two more recent posts I made. I put these out there to address the issues you raise.
One is an article I wrote in January on the virtue of chastity.
The other is on social sin verses personal sin and the role of critical theology in adressing social sin.
Peace!
Jcecil3, I took a quick perusal, and so far, see lots of good food for thought and discussion, although it may take a while for me to look at them in detail. I've currently got a number of things on the go.
Thanks for the interesting discussion. Although we do not agree on some matters, the dialogue itself is always instructive.
Commenting by HaloScan
