Catholic Church needs a new plan to revive chastity and marriage

[little2add]

“It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners"

Mark 2:17

in other words Welcome sinners into the church

[polskieserce]

On 8/24/2016 at 4:05 PM, Spem in alium said:

I agree with the points made about evangelisation and teaching the faith to children from a young age. This is very important. But pushing people to get married, especially while still young and inexperienced, is as bad as pushing people into the priesthood or consecrated life. These need to be free choices, they take time and discernment, and forcing it upon people will, as has been mentioned, likely lead to an increase in invalid marriages. I would argue that very few 18-year-olds are ready to commit to a career plan, and even fewer would know a potential spouse or consider themselves ready to be married.

And honestly, I think instead of criticising the Church for what it has done (or hasn't done), we should first be looking at what we ourselves are doing and not doing. How are you personally bringing others to a better knowledge of God's love for them? It's much easier to focus on the faults of the institution and of other people than it is to recognise our own shortcomings.

The fact still remains that in previous eras, people married young and human civilization somehow managed to continue.  I am not saying anyone should be pushed into getting married.  Most people know fairly early on that they don't want to have a sexless life.  In the present, most 18 year olds will not be able to support themselves due to the hostile economic landscape.  I'm saying they should be supported financially by their families, the church community, and the state until they are financially self-sufficient.

 

On 8/24/2016 at 7:00 PM, EmilyAnn said:

And I totally agree. Too often we blame 'the Church' and we forget that we ARE the Church. If we want to see change then we first need to live it ourselves. And we need to start with compassion and bringing people to God's love - only then will we see a real difference in these kinds of issues.

I am blaming the clergy as well as the laity.  On any given given Sunday at my Church, I see a number of premium cars in the parking lot (Lexus, Mercedes, etc).  Materialism and lack of charity are alive and well even within the Church.  Many Catholics (not all) I know are voting for free market right wing nutjobs who want to deregulate everything and throw the poor under the bus.  Young catholics, especially women, need to keep their legs shut and save their virginity marriage.  For men who are cultural/nominal Catholics, I can completely understand why they would just have sex before marriage.  Why should they wait until marriage to lose their virginity if they are going to be stuck with someone else's leftovers anyway?  Right now, there is very little incentive to wait until marriage.  Remember, what gets rewarded gets done.  If your only argument is "Jesus said we should do this..." then you already lost the war.

 

On 8/24/2016 at 9:50 PM, Spem in alium said:

Oh boy, neither was I! I was still a child, really, and didn't even know what I wanted to do with my life at that age; no way would I have been able to support a family or assume the responsibilities of a wife and mother. A couple of years after that, I started discerning consecrated life. I have a friend who got married at 23, and she tended to actively promote marrying young as being good for everybody (sharing articles on social media, that kind of thing). Eventually she got called out on it. I could see her point in some cases, but at the same time it's not always so clear-cut. Her husband has a secure job, they had support from their families, so marrying at that age may not have been so much of a concern for them as it may be for couples who are not in steady work or who aren't financially stable.

And that's why I think that a stronger financial support system needs to be put in place.  I don't think it's reasonable or fair to force a couple to delay marriage indefinitely just because they aren't financially ready.  I do think that both sets of parents should be supporting the couple financially.  If that fails, then I think the Church should have an avenue available for them (ie, operating boarding houses for financially unstable young people as well as impoverish parishioners) and the state should give them a helping hand as well.  Such a setup would require a lot of collaboration between the laity, clergy, and state.  Such a reform could not be executed by one person alone.  The reforms needed to save the Church are greater than what any one person is able to pull off on their own.  I'm trying to convince some of you that the Church needs to be more pragmatic, but most of you are being really thickheaded about it.  For this reason, I'm not entirely surprised that there are so many splinter groups leaving the Catholic Church to try a different strategy.  In no way am I advocating the Episcopalian approach (diluting Christ's teachings with secularism/hedonism so that people go along with it).  What I'm saying is that God gave us a list of things that righteous people should do.  We know that humans have a lot of flaws and limitations.  Therefore, we need to be smart about our game plan and take the path least likely to fail.

 

On 8/24/2016 at 11:11 PM, Socrates said:

As it is, our welfare state is unsustainable and broke.  Government cannot actually create wealth, only take from others.  You need to learn basic economics.  If you think more federal government programs and hand-outs are the solution to our moral problems, you are not down to earth, but believing a utopian fantasy.  What we need is for government to get out of the way, and have a strong free-market economy.  Also, maybe more vocational training, and less pressuring everybody into expensive 4-year degree programs.

Our welfare state is broken but it is far from unsustainable.  It is broken because it doesn't go far enough in helping marginalized people.  Most industrialized nations have far stronger safety nets than the US does.  Welfare is not to blame for the nearly 20 trillion in debt we have.  Blame that on the gargantuan military budget, numerous wars, tax cuts for the rich, and outsourcing.  If we were imitating Germany's economic policies, we would be much better off.  The only point I agree with you on is that too many people are going to college.  But a reactionary free market policy isn't going to benefit the poor and it certainly won't help those who can't take care of themselves.

 

13 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I never implied or meant to imply that. And of course I don't know you. I only know you through the threads and replies you've given us. And all of them, in my memory, revolve around sex and/or marriage. I think that says something about who you are. Maybe you're not preoccupied with the topic, but with the info I have that's what it looks like. I don't think I'm really stretching or making wild leaps in logic here.

Maybe if you talked about other things from time to time I'd get a better idea about the totality of who you are but eh, your call.

And I also think you and I have wildly different definitions of what "down-to-earth" means.

I don't use online forums to discuss simple things that I already have an answer to.  I use online forums to discuss complex topics that are not always black and white.  I agree with the Church's moral theology (pro-life, anti-gay marriage, etc) but I don't agree with how the Church has gone about some of those things.  To some people, I may come off as a troll but that's not my intention.  I don't want to see the Church in the US become a novelty like it has become in France and that's why I'm critical of the Church.

Marrying a virgin is not something I'm preoccupied with on a daily basis.  I already said I'm dead set on it but that doesn't mean it's my main passion in life.  The main things I'm passionate about are democratic socialism, environmentalism, guns, and technology (socialism being the strongest of the 4).  This isn't a forum about politics, guns, or technology so that's why I have not commented to much on those topics.

[Nihil Obstat]

And there it is.

[Ice_nine]

7 hours ago, polskieserce said:

.  Young catholics, especially women, need to keep their legs shut and save their virginity marriage.  For men who are cultural/nominal Catholics, I can completely understand why they would just have sex before marriage.  Why should they wait until marriage to lose their virginity if they are going to be stuck with someone else's leftovers anyway?  Right now, there is very little incentive to wait until marriage. 

 

 

bahahaha. Come on dude. I mean, you said you're not an ass, and then you say things like this . . . 

These things are not OK to say. I don't think I should have to tell you this, but I apparently do. Not acceptable here. If the thread can't be redeemed I'm just gonna lock it. Second chances.

[polskieserce]

1 hour ago, Ice_nine said:

bahahaha. Come on dude. I mean, you said you're not an ass, and then you say things like this . . . 

These things are not OK to say. I don't think I should have to tell you this, but I apparently do. Not acceptable here. If the thread can't be redeemed I'm just gonna lock it. Second chances.

If you want me to drop the topic and leave it alone, I will.  But these are my honest feelings and it's not going to change.  I'm a very blunt person and that's not going to change either.  My personal opinion, not shared by the Catholic church, is that men AND women who mess around before marriage are of a lesser value than their virgin counterparts.  People with PhDs are more valuable than people who only have high school diplomas.  We are a hierarchical species.  Due to the nature of dating, women will have more opportunities to mess around than men.  On various forums, I have heard women complain about a major gender imbalance in the Catholic Church.  Given the lack of incentive for men, it should be no surprise that there is a gender imbalance.

[Guest]

On ‎24‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 8:24 AM, Sponsa-Christi said:

I can say that a lot of textbooks and "mainstream" catechetical materials are very watered-down and don't really teach very much about what the Church actually believes; and a lot of parish catechists and even Directors of Religious Education don't have much of a theology background (which I think is extremely important for adequate evangelization). 

 Well said.

On ‎24‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 8:24 AM, Sponsa-Christi said:

I think that in order to say we've "tried evangelization," there needs to be a cultural shift into offering much more theological "meat" on a parish level at all levels of faith formation.

 

Also...this may sound like a shameless plug, but I mean it seriously!...I think doing more to promote the vocation of consecrated virginity would be a help in terms of conveying the importance of chastity on a Church-wide level. Nothing says "we take our own teachings on chastity seriously" like giving support and encouragement to women who freely choose to embrace a life of perpetual virginity!  

 

I tend to agree with the final paragraph - in fact the more catechesis about all the vocations, the better.  It presents the options available in The Church as a path through life.  One of the very common misunderstandings about the consecrated life in all its forms is "You have to be a good person."  This sort of means that the best vocation for 'the others' is marriage and that pathway for the not so good persons.  This is not only a misunderstanding of the consecrated life in The Church, it is a failure to understand The Sacrament of Marriage as a path to holiness and what that path is all about.

That "The Catholic Church is not a club for saints, but a remedy for sinners" is not widely grasped and internalised at all, not only by practising Catholics, but certainly by those outside The Church as well.

[LittleWaySoul]

19 hours ago, polskieserce said:

Young catholics, especially women, need to keep their legs shut and save their virginity marriage.  For men who are cultural/nominal Catholics, I can completely understand why they would just have sex before marriage.  Why should they wait until marriage to lose their virginity if they are going to be stuck with someone else's leftovers anyway?

It baffles me how you continually fail to see the blatant double standard here. What's to prevent someone from saying something like this in response to you?:

"Young catholics, especially men, need to keep their legs shut and save their virginity marriage.  For women who are cultural/nominal Catholics, I can completely understand why they would just have sex before marriage.  Why should they wait until marriage to lose their virginity if they are going to be stuck with someone else's leftovers anyway?"

Besides, in the Christian worldview, people are NEVER "leftovers." A person's inherent dignity comes from God's love for them and therefore can never be altered by any action of their own.

But then again I'm probably beating a dead horse at this point. We already have a thread on this. 

[CatherineM]

I have a doctorate and I assure you that I DO NOT think that makes me better than someone with just a high school diploma. My Father had to quit school to support his family during the depression. He was the greatest man I ever knew. 

[polskieserce]

On 8/27/2016 at 10:00 AM, LittleWaySoul said:

It baffles me how you continually fail to see the blatant double standard here. What's to prevent someone from saying something like this in response to you?:

"Young catholics, especially men, need to keep their legs shut and save their virginity marriage.  For women who are cultural/nominal Catholics, I can completely understand why they would just have sex before marriage.  Why should they wait until marriage to lose their virginity if they are going to be stuck with someone else's leftovers anyway?"

Besides, in the Christian worldview, people are NEVER "leftovers." A person's inherent dignity comes from God's love for them and therefore can never be altered by any action of their own.

But then again I'm probably beating a dead horse at this point. We already have a thread on this. 

There is a legitimate reason for the double standard between men and women.  As long as a woman is decent looking, she will inevitably get sexual requests from men.  All she has to do is say yes and she won't be sleeping alone.  On the other hand, men have to do a lot of pursuing if they want to have sex.  A woman with a high body count is seen as skanky because it simply means she has been giving in a lot.  A man with a high body count is seen in a somewhat more positive light because people assume he is an alpha male with strong social skills.  It is much easier for a woman to have 50 sexual partners than a man.  This is common knowledge.  Both sexes need to avoid the temptation of premarital sex, but I purposely placed the emphasis on women for that reason.

The human hierarchy isn't based on God's love for individuals.  The human hierarchy is based on the individual's value to the rest of society.  For example, a person with a phd is more desirable than a hs dropout because most employers would prefer the phd.  Sure, some very low level employers prefer dropouts since they know they are going to be stuck in the job.  But those employers are the minority.  The same can be said about sexually experienced women.  Some men actually prefer women with a high body count because they think the sex will be freakier/kinkier and she will cover all 5 sexual bases.  But most men would prefer a virgin if given a choice between the two.  The hierarchy is dictated by the desire of the majority, not the minority.

 

On 8/27/2016 at 2:09 PM, CatherineM said:

I have a doctorate and I assure you that I DO NOT think that makes me better than someone with just a high school diploma. My Father had to quit school to support his family during the depression. He was the greatest man I ever knew. 

I already responded to this point in my response to LittleWaySoul.

[Socrates]

On 8/25/2016 at 5:45 AM, BarbaraTherese said:

I didn't read it as a "serious criticism of the ever-expanding welfare state" as a generalization of social programs of assistance so much as serious criticism of just 'chucking money' (material) at people in real need without a consideration of the deeper needs of such groups............  "It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care." http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html

What most welfare type programs are doing is giving a handout, rather than a hand up.  Chuck some money at them and then "wipe my hands clean.  What are they complaining about?"

Well, St. JPII does say, "By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending."

While Catholics can certainly argue in good faith over the proper limits of the state, Polski was talking about "massive expansions of the welfare state" (his own words) to include not just the elderly, sick, and those in dire circumstances, but presumably healthy, able-bodied young adults, who would get big hand-outs simply for being married.

It seems to me it would amount to, in essence, trying to solve the crisis of marriage and sexual morality by chucking more money at it.

 

Quote

 

I agree with the above in a way...........but I do recognise that we are all journeying.  A person may not start out with a belief in and love of Christ and His Church, but may journey into it over time.  The same applies, I think, in the order of Grace.  One may not start out willing to change and strive to "follow the Church's difficult or unpopular moral teachings", but it can and does happen over the journey, providing the journey is not abandoned.  Nothing perhaps is more sure to trigger a person to abandon the journey than to have it shoved down their throat that they just aint good enough.

The important thing to me is not to abandon souls in some way because they are not at a certain level of insight, understanding and growth.  I need to be willing to journey with them at wherever they might be -  and on their terms, not force my terms down their throats. 

I need to have great respect and value for The Holy Spirit and Grace at work in souls..........we all journey and "journey" is exactly what it states: where one starts is not the finish point, the end of a journey in the overall journey of life.

 

My point was simply that doing more to lead persons to Christ (the goal of evangelization) will do far more to improve morality than government welfare programs.

[Socrates]

On 8/26/2016 at 1:16 PM, polskieserce said:

Our welfare state is broken but it is far from unsustainable.  It is broken because it doesn't go far enough in helping marginalized people.  Most industrialized nations have far stronger safety nets than the US does.  Welfare is not to blame for the nearly 20 trillion in debt we have.  Blame that on the gargantuan military budget, numerous wars, tax cuts for the rich, and outsourcing.  If we were imitating Germany's economic policies, we would be much better off.  The only point I agree with you on is that too many people are going to college.  But a reactionary free market policy isn't going to benefit the poor and it certainly won't help those who can't take care of themselves.  

You again demonstrate your abysmal ignorance of basic economics.  Heavy taxes and regulations will only cause businesses to not expand, and hire few people (resulting in more unemployment and poverty), as well as vastly increase outsourcing.  (And outlawing outsourcing and such will merely lead to businesses moving overseas entirely.  (The mega-rich can afford to do such things.)  And the U.S. actually has the highest corporate income tax in the free world.  It's the poor that will suffer most in a heavily-regulated socialist economy.

Germany actually has a relatively free economy, and is a long way from being actually socialist.  (http://www.heritage.org/index/country/germany)  In any case, it's ironic that you should mention Germany as a country to emulate in order to encourage marriage and having children, as Germany currently has one of the world's lowest birth-rates (well below replacement level.)  And I'm no expert, but I don't think modern Germany is known for having exceptional traditional sexual morality.

 

Quote

The main things I'm passionate about are democratic socialism, environmentalism, guns, and technology (socialism being the strongest of the 4).

Well, it's nice to know that you have your priorities in order as a Catholic.

"Religious socialism, Christian socialism are contradictions in terms; no one can be a sincere Christian and a true socialist."  ~ Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno

It's cool that you're a a gun enthusiast, though.

 

Quote

This isn't a forum about politics, guns, or technology so that's why I have not commented to much on those topics.

 

We never discuss politics or guns on Phatmass.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Socrates said:

Well, St. JPII does say, "By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending."

While Catholics can certainly argue in good faith over the proper limits of the state, Polski was talking about "massive expansions of the welfare state" (his own words) to include not just the elderly, sick, and those in dire circumstances, but presumably healthy, able-bodied young adults, who would get big hand-outs simply for being married.

It seems to me it would amount to, in essence, trying to solve the crisis of marriage and sexual morality by chucking more money at it.

My point was simply that doing more to lead persons to Christ (the goal of evangelization) will do far more to improve morality than government welfare programs.

I thought what the Holy Father was saying is that chucking money at any social problem at all (without looking at the underlying problems and attempting to address them) is not the way to go and therefore I do agree with what you are saying.  I probably misread previous posts.

[Papist]

Actually, the Church's teaching on marriage is beautiful.  It is the world/culture that does not want to hear it.

[polskieserce]

On 8/28/2016 at 8:20 PM, Socrates said:

You again demonstrate your abysmal ignorance of basic economics.  Heavy taxes and regulations will only cause businesses to not expand, and hire few people (resulting in more unemployment and poverty), as well as vastly increase outsourcing.  (And outlawing outsourcing and such will merely lead to businesses moving overseas entirely.  (The mega-rich can afford to do such things.)  And the U.S. actually has the highest corporate income tax in the free world.  It's the poor that will suffer most in a heavily-regulated socialist economy.

Germany actually has a relatively free economy, and is a long way from being actually socialist.  (http://www.heritage.org/index/country/germany)  In any case, it's ironic that you should mention Germany as a country to emulate in order to encourage marriage and having children, as Germany currently has one of the world's lowest birth-rates (well below replacement level.)  And I'm no expert, but I don't think modern Germany is known for having exceptional traditional sexual morality.

And the problem with your assumption is your false belief that the job market will necessarily help those in poverty.  Some people simply aren't able to get a job and support themselves.  Some people require expensive, lifelong support from the state.  That's a simple fact that your kind frequently overlooks.  Numerous children with disabilities aren't getting the government funded services they need due to under-funding.  Many people are working some pathetic part time job that pays 8-10/hour but they aren't able to cover their living expenses.  Compared to other Western nations, the US treats the poor like garbage.  Obviously, other European nations like Denmark and Norway have much higher taxes and much less military spending.  But I think that's the direction the US should be heading in.  The US is not known for exceptional sexual morality either, so what's your point?  You are going off on an apples to oranges tangent by commenting on Germany's sexual morality.

Furthermore, how do you suppose people will be able to support themselves as automation continues to displace more and more people from advanced economies around the world?  The long-term trend is that more and more people will be displaced from the labor market due to technology.  The only plausible solution is a radical transformation (growth) of the welfare state to provide a universal basic standard of living.

 

On 9/7/2016 at 5:02 PM, Papist said:

Actually, the Church's teaching on marriage is beautiful.  It is the world/culture that does not want to hear it.

Beautiful ideas that are poorly executed don't do a whole lot of good for humanity.  The Catholic Church is like a person who is randomly throwing seeds on the ground hoping that a few of them will sprout.  Such a strategy is terribly inefficient and unlikely to yield good results.  Instead of doing that, the Catholic Church needs to be a farmer who picks a piece of fertile lands, tills the soil, plants each seed into individually drilled holes, and waters the crops on a regular basis.

I agree that in every batch, there are some seeds that will not germinate under any conditions (people who will always be militant atheists no matter what).  But I don't think those people are the majority.  I think a lot more seeds would germinate and flourish if given better conditions in a controlled environment.

Edited September 11, 2016 by polskieserce
Typo

[Papist]

5 hours ago, polskieserce said:

And the problem with your assumption is your false belief that the job market will necessarily help those in poverty.  Some people simply aren't able to get a job and support themselves.  Some people require expensive, lifelong support from the state.  That's a simple fact that your kind frequently overlooks.  Numerous children with disabilities aren't getting the government funded services they need due to under-funding.  Many people are working some pathetic part time job that pays 8-10/hour but they aren't able to cover their living expenses.  Compared to other Western nations, the US treats the poor like garbage.  Obviously, other European nations like Denmark and Norway have much higher taxes and much less military spending.  But I think that's the direction the US should be heading in.  The US is not known for exceptional sexual morality either, so what's your point?  You are going off on an apples to oranges tangent by commenting on Germany's sexual morality.

Furthermore, how do you suppose people will be able to support themselves as automation continues to displace more and more people from advanced economies around the world?  The long-term trend is that more and more people will be displaced from the labor market due to technology.  The only plausible solution is a radical transformation (growth) of the welfare state to provide a universal basic standard of living.

 

Beautiful ideas that are poorly executed don't do a whole lot of good for humanity.  The Catholic Church is like a person who is randomly throwing seeds on the ground hoping that a few of them will sprout.  Such a strategy is terribly inefficient and unlikely to yield good results.  Instead of doing that, the Catholic Church needs to be a farmer who picks a piece of fertile lands, tills the soil, plants each seed into individually drilled holes, and waters the crops on a regular basis.

I agree that in every batch, there are some seeds that will not germinate under any conditions (people who will always be militant atheists no matter what).  But I don't think those people are the majority.  I think a lot more seeds would germinate and flourish if given better conditions in a controlled environment.

Obviously, you and I see a different Church and world. All that you say is rather hard to do when the world is evangelizing the opposite, and has control of the media outlets. I believe the real problem is the world does not seek Truth b/c in their heart they know it will require them to conversion and they like the way things are. i.e. having cake and eating it too

Edited September 11, 2016 by Papist