Defend the family

[Lepanto]

Dissident Catholic pressure groups -- aided by the liberal media -- are feverishly working to dismantle vital Church teaching on marriage and family at the next Synod on the Family in Rome.

In fact, they are bombarding the Holy Father and the Synod Fathers right now with messages of revolt against traditional moral values as they clamor for "change, change, change" inside the Church.

At this critical time, we must defend the truth and ask the Holy Father to protect the future of the family.

Sign This Petition to Pope Francis to "Save the Family" at the Next Synod

 

[Rhamiel]

Amen!

 

[ebia]

I didn't realise Catholic teaching was decided by petitions and lobbying.
If it is, I assume big business will get its way (whatever that is).

 

[judechild]

Since the petition implicitly counters the so-called Kasper Proposal, I'd suggest reading Cardinal Kasper's book The Gospel of the Family before you sign. I do believe it is flawed for three particular reasons, but still, it's good to know what you oppose before opposing it. Although, since petitions really only matter in a situation in which the authority of the officials comes from the consent of the governed, there is not much practical point in signing a petition in this case.

 

[ebia]

but still, it's good to know what you oppose before opposing it.

Whooh there. That's a bit of a radical idea.

 

[bill5]

Since the petition implicitly counters the so-called Kasper Proposal, I'd suggest reading Cardinal Kasper's book The Gospel of the Family before you sign.

I have a much quicker and simpler idea: read the petition.

It would appear to mainly be against homosexual "marriages" and the so-called kasper proposal - I agree with neither, so I'm fine with this. To each their own.

 

[Rhamiel]

I didn't realise Catholic teaching was decided by petitions and lobbying.
If it is, I assume big business will get its way (whatever that is).

Catholic teaching is defined by the Magisterium of the Church

this is a simple, and modern way, for members of the laity to make their concerns known to the Pope

 

[ebia]

Catholic teaching is defined by the Magisterium of the Church

this is a simple, and modern way, for members of the laity to make their concerns known to the Pope

I guess I'm not clear on the purpose.
Normally these kinds of petitions are about trying to get a particular outcome from politicians. But that's not the case here.
I don't see how it communicates anything the Pope would find useful since it has all the biases of self selection, access to the technology, etc, so it's not statically meaningful.

 

[judechild]

I have a much quicker and simpler idea: read the petition.

Yes, it is always much quicker and simpler to follow a crowd than to think, but if you say that you do not agree with the Kasper Proposal without having bothered to examine it then you do not really disagree with it; you're just letting yourself be led by the nose. "To each their own" is a very poor philosophy, if you use it to excuse yourself from rational thought.

The petition will do absolutely nothing. What people must do is educate themselves on the principles at stake and use them to strengthen the family - their own and others. That is what Cardinal Burke meant by being proactive, and it is also the goal of Cardinal Kasper - even if we don't like his methods. His ideas regarding the domestic Church and a more family-centered day-to-day philosophy are useful ideas.

The bishops will do their part; they do not support the Kasper proposal (reading the small-group responses to the mid-point report in the Extraordinary Synod shows that); the difference between them and you is that they know what they are opposing.

And so, if it is quite convenient (and even if it is quite inconvenient), I suggest again that some of your valuable internet-time be relegated to reading that which you say you oppose. It always intrigues me how people go to a doctor because they know they don't have the medical knowledge to diagnose themselves; they go a tax-specialist to do their taxes because they don't know the tax-code; but when it comes to theology (and a few other fields), they think that "to each his own" is acceptable - as if God were less complicated then the tax-code.

So let's start: What, in your words, is the Kasper Proposal?

 

[Fantine]

It seems as if what is being considered is better pastoral care for families that don't meet Ozzie and Harriet definitions.

And if we are defining a "family" as an economic unit with children, should we not, for the sake of the children, find better ways to minister to these groups?

 

[judechild]

And if we are defining a "family" as an economic unit with children, should we not, for the sake of the children, find better ways to minister to these groups?

That is what Cardinals Kasper, Muller, and Burke are all concerned with. Cardinal Kasper envisions a new network of Catholic families that extends into the extended family and even the neighborhood; he has a whole section on the family as the domestic Church: "Understanding the Church as a domestic church is... fundamental for the future of the Church" (The Gospel of the Family, 25). Cardinal Muller concurs, saying in his book-length interview The Hope of the Family: "contemporary theology situates marriage in an ecclesiological context" (29) and "starting with the family as the domestic church... I say, we should reclaim a 'Church of families'" (28). Muller suggests a change in terminology regarding many parish-activities; for example, he suggests "Children's Mass" be changed to "Family Mass," since the formation and attention to children does not occur in counter-distinction to their families. Personally, I can say that the best catechesis class I've ever taught (and I've taught for six years in various contexts, including a prison) was an initiation class for children who would be received into the Church with their parents; the parents were present during the class, which led to a rather holistic atmosphere.

Kasper suggests that the parish work to think of itself as "a new kind of extended family" (23); that is to say, made up of inter-generational sub-units which participate in the life of the parish: "Together with the entire community, they should celebrate the Sunday Eucharist... they observe the day of the Lord as a day of leisure, joy, and togetherness" (24). Cardinal Burke strongly advocates for families to participate in private devotions, which Kasper also recommends (22). Muller agrees, saying "in major cities, pastors ought to give priority to the establishment of connections and bridges between some Christian families and others, thus revitalizing their parishes as places of encounter in which to live out and celebrate the faith" (27-28).

I highly recommend Cardinal Muller's interview, by the way; the man's intelligence is extraordinary. It's probably the most succinct and practical theological exposition of the family out there.

 

[Lepanto]

If you defend the family, then you are helping to reduce poverty.
Divorce causes poverty !
Trying to solve poverty problem without fixing the root causes (spiritual)
will be fruitless.

 

[Fantine]

If you defend the family, then you are helping to reduce poverty.
Divorce causes poverty !
Trying to solve poverty problem without fixing the root causes (spiritual)
will be fruitless.

Sadly, it is sometimes more economically viable for couples to remain unmarried than to marry.

It started with Social Security beneficiaries. One of my siblings is a case in point. She was able to get divorced widow's benefits at 60, but if she married her S.O. she'd lose them and not qualify for her own Social Security until she's 62. What's more, she can hold off on getting her Social Security till 66 while drawing the widow's benefit, and get 25% more at 66 than she would have otherwise.

I know a young single mom with two kids (she'll tell you she's 'engaged' but it's an awfully long engagement). She lives in subsidized housing and gets food stamps, etc. because they think she lives alone. Of course, she doesn't. No wonder why they have the longest engagement on record.

But what can you do? You can't penalize the innocent toddlers and babies.

You could give people economic incentives for marrying that would equal what they get as single people.

 

[Lepanto]

Longer Life Span, Less Suicide: Married people live longer and are less likely to commit suicide than those who are not married. A 2000 study found that divorced and separated men and women are more than twice as likely as married persons to commit suicide.

Greater Wealth, Higher Incomes: Married people enjoy greater wealth than unmarried people--and the longer they stay married, the more their wealth accumulates. Marriage particularly benefits men's earning capacities. One study found that married men earn about 22 percent more than men who have never cohabited and never married. Another study confirmed that marriage itself is what leads to men's higher incomes; the possibility that men with higher earning potential are more likely to marry has little impact on the "marriage premium."

(Source: Family Research Council)

Research shows that marriage leads to higher income, on average, and divorce leads to poverty. Those who love the poor should first do something about protecting the family and advocate Christian morality.

 

[Fantine]

This TIME Magazine article--"Who Needs Marriage?"-- would dispute what you say, Lepanto.

And of all the transformations our family structures have undergone in the past 50 years, perhaps the most profound is the marriage differential that has opened between the rich and the poor. In 1960 the median household income of married adults was 12% higher than that of single adults, after adjusting for household size. By 2008 this gap had grown to 41%. In other words, the richer and more educated you are, the more likely you are to marry, or to be married — or, conversely, if you're married, you're more likely to be well off.

In particular, Americans are increasingly marrying people who are on the same socioeconomic and educational level. Fifty years ago, doctors commonly proposed to nurses and businessmen to their secretaries. Even 25 years ago, a professional golfer might marry, say, a flight attendant. Now doctors tend to cleave unto other doctors, and executives hope to be part of a power couple.

What has brought about the switch? It's not any disparity in desire. According to the Pew survey, 46% of college graduates want to get married, and 44% of the less educated do. Getting married is an important part of college graduates' plans for their future. For the less well educated, he says, it's often the only plan.

Promising publicly to be someone's partner for life used to be something people did to lay the foundation of their independent life. It was the demarcation of adulthood. Now it's more of a finishing touch, the last brick in the edifice, sociologists believe. "Marriage is the capstone for both the college-educated and the less well educated," says Johns Hopkins' Cherlin. "The college-educated wait until they're finished with their education and their careers are launched. The less educated wait until they feel comfortable financially."

(See Part III of the TIME/Pew results.)
But that comfort keeps getting more elusive. "The loss of decent-paying jobs that a high-school-educated man or woman could get makes it difficult for them to get and stay married," says Cherlin. As the knowledge economy has overtaken the manufacturing economy, couples in which both partners' job opportunities are disappearing are doubly disadvantaged. So they wait to get married. But they don't wait to set up house.

Modern-Marriage Report: Not as Necessary Yet Still Desired - TIME

 

[stone]

Ive never heard of this. I googled it. Read a couple of articles. Looks like it's about allowing remarried folks that divorced to return to the sacraments after a period of penance?

Almost everybody I know has been divorced, but they're not catholic. Doesn't the church grant anullments on a case by case basis? on the surface, it sounds fair to me.

 

[Cjwinnit]

I didn't realise Catholic teaching was decided by petitions and lobbying.

You're thinking of Mainline Protestantism

 

[bill5]

Yes, it is always much quicker and simpler to follow a crowd than to think,

...which is not what I'm proposing. Don't twist my words, thx.

but if you say that you do not agree with the Kasper Proposal without having bothered to examine it

Which is also not what I said.

"To each their own" is a very poor philosophy, if you use it to excuse yourself from rational thought.

And again. Tell me, how much rational thought is there in making unfounded assumptions about someone's viewpoint? I'd say not much.

The petition will do absolutely nothing.

Can't say that stating your opinion as fact is impressive either, frankly. It may very well be as you say, but people (esp a great # of people) making their opinions known to people in authority can and often does have value. No I'm not saying the Pope will go "wow look at all these people who signed the petition, I've changed my mind" - it's not that black and white.

What people must do is educate themselves on the principles at stake and use them to strengthen the family - their own and others.

No argument there.

The bishops will do their part; they do not support the Kasper proposal (reading the small-group responses to the mid-point report in the Extraordinary Synod shows that); the difference between them and you is that they know what they are opposing.

More insults and arrogant, mindless assumptions. Ah irony......

 

[judechild]

And again. Tell me, how much rational thought is there in making unfounded assumptions about someone's viewpoint? I'd say not much.

Lovely, then this is the perfect opportunity for you to correct my misunderstanding. What other interpretation should I give to a situation in which I say "Since the petition implicitly counters the so-called Kasper Proposal, I'd suggest reading Cardinal Kasper's book The Gospel of the Family before you sign," and you respond with "I have a much quicker and simpler idea: read the petition"?

For those of us with a more arrogant bend, what this appears to be saying is: "instead of reading the Cardinal's book which, by my signature I am opposing, I'd rather recommend simply reading the petition I'll be signing. Hence, rational thought in this situation is really rather unnecessary." Is there a more humble way for me to interpret your program?

Can't say that stating your opinion as fact is impressive either, frankly. It may very well be as you say, but people (esp a great # of people) making their opinions known to people in authority can and often does have value.

So far you haven't said anything. You as good as admitted you haven't read Kasper's book, even though you oppose it, and in your first post seem not to see much value in reading the book anyway taking as a better method simply reading the words someone else wrote and making them your own without assessing the situation for oneself. Then, when this is pointed out, you call it an arrogant assumption about your position but do nothing to dispel such "assumptions."

As for the petition, I can tell you right now it's worthless. The only time that petitions matter in the slightest is in a situation where the authority could lose something if he goes against the wishes of the signees. If, hypothetically, the bishops signed off on the Kasper Proposal, nothing would happen. The Catholic apologists would change their tune and find some way to applaud it and, contrary to what some say, there would be no schism of any importance. The overwhelming majority would just go along with it. Hence, there is nothing for the Pope or bishops to lose.

More insults and arrogant, mindless assumptions. Ah irony......

"Arrogant, mindless assumptions" are what I call an idea to save time and energy in a debate by reading a petition and thinking that sufficient, while neglecting to read the book that the petition is against.

By the way, ye didst forget to inform my arrogant person: what, in your words, is the Kasper Proposal?

 

[ebia]

Out of interest is it an interesting book with useful insights, in your opinion, or would one be reading it just to understand a negative position, so to speak?