The following comes from a Dec. 15 posting by Monsignor Charles Pope on the website of the archdiocese of Washington D.C.
….In my short 25 years as a priest I have experienced a major drop off in marriages. In my early years, I had about thirty weddings a year; now, about five or six. In this urban parish in which I have ministered for the larger part of 20 years, a beautiful and picturesque setting for a matrimonial sacrament, we used to have to turn couples away who were not members. Some Saturdays featured two weddings back to back. Beginning in 2000, weddings plummeted.
And lest you think this just unique to me in my urban parish, note that in 1973 there just over 400,000 weddings in Catholic parishes in this country. In 2003, there were 199,645, more that a 50% drop in thirty years. Last year, 2012, there 166,991 weddings in the Church. Compare that to the 419,278 funerals and you have a pretty good picture of a Church and a culture that are in real trouble and of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony that is “dying.” Thus my anecdotal experience matches the national trends and numbers.
Recently Mona Charen offered some thoughtful reflections on marriage in National Review. I would like to offer her comments along with some of my own. Note that I am excerpting her article, the full version of which is here: The Marriage Divide. In that article she speaks of the sources of some of her statistics and offers context that these excerpts may not include. My remarks are in italics.
“Marriage is decaying very fast. As recently as the 1980s, …only 13 percent of the children of moderately educated mothers…were born outside of marriage. Today, it is 44 percent. Even more disturbing are the recent data showing that 53 percent of babies born to women under age 30 are non-marital.”
I will only add that these sorts of number are simply shocking, not just for their real impact but also for how swiftly this revolution has come upon us. One struggles not to see outright demonic along with the usual human sinfulness that produces cultural ailments.
“If you graduate from college, you are likely to choose a family life similar to, if not quite identical to, the 1950s ideal.” (I suspect even this is beginning to change for the worse). “If you are a high-school dropout, you are unlikely to marry at all. If you have a high-school diploma or some college, your family life in many cases is going to be chaotic, featuring cohabitation, short marriages, and high rates of instability….cohabiting couples have a much higher breakup rate than do married couples, a lower level of household income, and a higher level of child abuse and domestic violence.” (She speaks to some of the sources of these sober trends in her article).
“[C]ohabitation is a very bad deal for all concerned — especially women and children. The children of cohabiting couples do worse than those living with a single mother if the boyfriend is not the biological father of the children. The break-up rate among unmarried cohabiting couples is much higher than among married couples, with all that that entails for disruption, poverty, and pathology.”
And again, it is the children who pay most and first for all this adult misbehavior. But the damage does not stop there, as can be seen.
I would also like to say that regarding the cohabitation problem, there are two levels to the problem: the young who do it, and the parents and grandparents who actively or passively approve of it. Once upon a time, even in my short 52 years, this behavior was not only frowned upon, it was punished at both the family and cultural level. Folk who “shacked up” received significant pressure: financial, social, familial and cultural, to stop “living in sin.”
The sexual revolution, with a thinking strongly tied in with a lot of hallucinogenic drugs, sold us a bill of goods that it was really “better” for a couple to “take a test ride” before tying the knot. For at least two decades now the data have exposed this as a lie. But the lie continues.
Bottom line, cohabitation harms everyone: man, woman, child, society, culture, the Church, the family, everyone. We stamp out smoking but celebrate something that causes even more harm. Time to wake up. Cohabitation is sinful and harmful.
“In a 2001 survey, two-thirds of respondents approved of living together before marriage. Even then, data suggested that couples who cohabited before marriage were more likely to divorce than those who went straight to the altar….
“Men cohabit with less expectation of permanence than women do. Many couples not destined for marriage waste good years in impermanent arrangements, often becoming parents….”
Ms. Charen also developed the economic implications of cohabitation:
“President Obama addressed income inequality in a recent address but failed to mention one of the most significant contributors to rising inequality in America — the marriage gap. Jobs are changing, international competition has driven down wages, top executives are pulling down enormous salaries, but it is cultural patterns, specifically personal decisions about cohabitation and marriage, that are most responsible for deepening the divide between haves and have-nots in America.”
There is perhaps no greater correlation than the one between poverty and single-motherhood (absent fatherhood). And so many of the other social ills that we lament and decry come from irresponsible sexual activity.
“Unlike trust funds, marriage is available to everyone and confers the same benefits on rich and poor. There is no substitute for two married parents who care for one another in sickness, help each other in child and elder care, watch the kids while a spouse takes night classes, and contribute to thriving communities. In-laws give loans, jobs, and other support that they are unlikely to extend to live-in ‘significant others.’
“Without the basics of security and permanence in their personal lives, people find it much more difficult to rise out of poverty or to maintain a middle-class life. They are also far less happy. If you care about the poor and the middle class, you ought to worry about marriage.”
Amen. And yet many of those who most claim to care about the poor are loathe to discuss marriage or sexuality as factors in poverty.
I remember once being at a meeting of largely socially liberal clergy who were arguing that one of the “greatest threats” that young people face and the reason for dropping test scores and higher dropout rates in our city was lead paint and roach feces in the homes and schools. And thus the city should spend money to abate these things and (theoretically) the lower test scores etc., would rebound.
When I spoke, I said it would nice to get rid of these problems, but I thought there were bigger issues at work than lead paint and roach droppings. Perhaps, I stated, that single motherhood and teenage pregnancy were likely bigger factors in low test scores, higher dropout rates, and growing juvenile crime.
Well, I received a scorn you can only imagine. I was passed a note by one of the leaders that I was “off message” and that I should keep my moral opinions to myself.
Somehow I figured that clergy might “get” what I was saying. Though scorned, I stood my ground, and insisted that the social devastation of sexual irresponsibility far out weighed many of the other things people obsess about. Fine, lets remove lead paint and clean up after the roaches and even stamp out smoking. But how about working to restore families? What of preaching and teaching God’s plan for marriage and sexuality? What of the extremely deleterious effects of sexual irresponsibility, cohabitation, divorce, and so many other trends that are out of control?
Even as we pass laws forbidding smoking almost everywhere, we seem to forget that before 1969 it was pretty hard to get a divorce in this country. People were generally expected to work their difficulties out, and be married to the father or mother of their children.
“While there are rumors that some in the Church are going to pressure to Synod Fathers to change Church Law in the admittance of divorced and remarried Catholics to Communion, I rather doubt that will happen. It is my prayer that the Synod Fathers and members will focus rather on fixing the problems rather than lowering standards. We have a lot to answer for in the Church for the horrifying confusion today about marriage. We have not been clear on marriage and too many clergy don’t want to upset people who haven’t been able to attain to, or keep stable and marriages and families after God’s own design. We have been to silent. And to what degree people do know of our teachings, many find them unintelligible when we hand out annulments in the numbers we do, and have so many complicated rules about the wedding ceremony but so little followup after the wedding day.
“That said, I don’t think it fair to blame the Church wholly for the mess. Our culture clearly went over the cliff in 1968 and 1969 with the sexual revolution and no fault divorce. Contraception celebrated the lie that there was ‘no necessary connection’ between sex and procreation, and also furthered the lie of sex without consequences. 55 million abortions later (Since 1973), our families in the shredder, and the lie is manifest, but many still choose to believe it. Sex without consequences? No such thing.
“Pray for the Synod upcoming. Pray for clarity and prophetic teaching. Pray.”
To read the original story, click here.
Ask your bishop what he thinks about the decline in the number of Catholics getting married. What does he think about this? Does he even think about it?
Has he even preached about marriage? Has he ever explained that cohabitation is a mortal sin? What has your bishop been talking about every Sunday? Oh, I know, social justice, being kind to one another, being nice to immigrants, supporting your local food locker, supporting “health care” (never fully defined) legislation, etc. Are these things the sum and substance of the Catholic Faith?
Sorry, bishops, yes is not the answer.
Let’s switch the wording at the marriage ceremony:
“Husband – obey/listen /be submissive to your wife” and
“Wife – love your husband”.
Maybe this way men will become more responsible for the children they procreate.
Women are not blameless when it comes to procreating children, Jenny. Not all single mothers were raped. Or are you saying that a grown woman who has sex without marriage is somehow ignorant of the fact that she could become pregnant?
I hardly hear any priest condemning men for “aborting ” their children.
Priests like to blame women for “abortion”.
I wonder if men had uterus, what would priests preach about abortion?
Jenny, you are obviously pained on a personal level regarding this issue. I’m sorry. Regarding priests having a uterus, I have to say I think you’re way off base. I don’t think priests in general like to bring up abortion very much at all. Those that do are actually quite charitable regarding the women involved as women are also victimized by abortion – spiritually, psychologically, and physically – even if they don’t realize it.
That’s the twisted reality of that – women get dinged the hardest while the man, often but not always, walks away. Often times completely oblivious. That’s not a construct of priests, that’s just a reality of anatomy. That’s why women need to return to the NO and valuing themselves more.
I would say that you have a point with the need to lay equal blame on men as well as women for the crime of abortion. It takes two. But that said, if its your hen house that’s always getting robbed, it might be time to lock the doors and get a dog.
Ann & Jenny,
In case you don’t know it, there have been men who tried to stop their girlfriends or even wives from having abortions only to be told by our evil corrupt courts that they have no say in the matter!
May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founding Director
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
Ken, of course I know that there have been men who tried to stop their girlfriends and wives from having abortions… sadly, however, a vast majority of men (rather boys in men’s bodies with terminally stunted pre-frontal lobes in the brain – stunted in the name of progress) do the opposite. In HUGE numbers.
God bless you for your posting.
The Priest would preach that murder is a sin. It is probably a hard concept to grasp for those who don’t understand that sex leads to pregnancy. That poor Priest has his work cut out for him.
The same. You post this issue a lot. If you are a victim of a forced abortion, you have my sympathy. If you were abandoned by the father of your child, also, there is healing post-abortive therapy. There is help available at your local Catholic Church. You will find compassion and love. There is also a website you could look at.
https://www.rachelsvineyard.org/qa/forum-list.aspx
Nowadays, single women have no clue that having sex can lead to pregnancy. When a pregnancy occurs, they are absolutely shocked. They ask themselves: “How can this happen?”
jenny, I think it is foolish for you to change the words of scripture. It is the abandoning of God’s word which has put us in the mess we are currently in.
For too many years now, too many women have preferred to be married to the State. Women who have rejected that lifestyle, preferring to follow the feminist ideal, prefer to take care of themselves. As a result, men have been objectified to little more than boy toys. A man’s nature IS to take care of women and children, but our culture has done a good job at emasculated many of them. It sometimes seems like a miracle to me that a feminine woman and a masculine man actually have the occasion to meet up these days and fall in love which leads to Holy Matrimony.
Although many disagree with Jenny but with the way this society has sexualized our girls, they don’t know better. I recall hearing a mum talk about her childhood, how her parents were the ones who gave her the pill and it was her own dad who saw nothing wrong with dressing more sexy. It all goes back to Adam and Eve….Adam needed to take responsibility for Eve, not blame her and God for giving her to him.
I always teach my sons that being chaste also means respecting ladies and if they really cared for someone, that they would also reject any advances that they make, that they can tell or teach those young ladies that they are worth more than just a cheap sexy thing, that they deserve better than how this society brought them up to think. We can’t be upset with jenny but she is right, even a good priest from the Latin Mass told us that we need to stop making excuses for men, the “men will be men” is not really a good excuse or reason to leave them without responsibility. Just because a woman can get pregnant, doesn’t mean that she did it alone. Someone has to reason well enough to understand that. I don’t want my son’s to think that they are free to do as they please and not consider the consequences, just like I want my daughter to understand that there will be men out there who just want one thing. IT takes two to tango. I remember growing up being told that girls hold the power to sex, yes maybe so but but how often is sex being pressured on girls today, at a very young age.
Maybe if girls were well versed in martial arts, they would be better able to resist pressure to have sex. It would also help if the boys had a reason to fear the girl’s dad.
When I was in school any boy who would have harassed me, sexually or otherwise wouldn’t have thought about being scared of dad. They would have been too worried about my six older brothers :-)
You make a valid point, Abeca. Sadly, in today’s culture, women especially are targeted for indoctrination. Sex appeal = value. And at increasingly young ages. Just take a look at clothing in the ‘little girls’ department at any clothing store. Look at the dolls intended for little girls.
I like Ski Ven’s idea of training young ladies in martial arts. That said, a ‘twist’ on gun control could be that of the traditional control imposed by Dad’s with shotguns and a chair on the front porch. Much to be said for the …. way it used to be done.
Thank you Ann….. I agree also with your thoughts about Ski Ven’s comments….I wish dad’s were allowed to be dads. Now it’s not politically correct and those boys are not afraid of the girls dads either. Most adults just want to be their friend…..authority figures are rare.
Have you seen the move called “where the red fern grows”….I never heard of such movie before, I probably was not old enough to remember it but just recently a friend gave me the movie as a gift and wow, I really enjoyed how that young man developed character. She told me that it was a classic. Glad they still keep those kind of movies around.
No, I’ve never seen ‘Where the Red Fern Grows,” but I’ll have to! Thanks for the tip.
The December 17, 2013 at 7:38 pm Anonymous post was mine. I did put my name in the box, however, after I clicked on the “reply” box, the message went completely away. I figured it was lost forever in cyberspace! But alas, it showed up as “Anonymous”! It does seem that there are occasional glitches with CCD’s new web format.
Abeca, you rightly point out that society has “sexualized” our girls! When the majority in our society embraced the philosophy of Feminism, the “sexualization of females” IS what they were embracing! (Men, as well as women, can and do hold the “feminist” world view)
The politically correct view is that the sexualization of girls and feminism are opposing forces, but in fact they go hand-in-hand. If you don’t believe me, merely read the covers of Cosmopolitan, Self, or Glamour Magazines!
Tracy yes I believe you but why did Feminism begin? Because of the sins of mankind on women….women felt they had to defend and ask for more rights but as we can see, some women got greedy and wanted more and more away from God. Some did it out vengeance because they were hurt by maybe their father who beat them or even molested them, or the boy who used them for sex etc….They lacked to know the truth that our Lord has special gifts for us women but if only our men would have also honored God and protected us from those temptations. Sin inflicted on others produces those things….thus created feminism and other sinful things. I think that all that also has produced more homosexuality….woman using birth control…pharmaceuticals creating them and pushing them on women etc……we just kept heading the wrong path.
Even in the innocent years when mankind had more common decency and common sense…there were many injustices done on women and children, it all goes back to the root of it all..traced back from the original sin continuing…. but of course it feels that nothing is as bad as the magnitude of things today, we have the internet, we have more tools to satisfy the flesh and waste more time….I know they had it bad during Noah times too and during Sodom and Gomorrah, how did the few faithful deal with those awful times. Even when women were considered man’s property.
… and now babies are considered women’s exclusive property.
Abeca, you asked why did Feminism begin and then proceeded to give the answer that it was because of the sins of mankind on women. This is what feminists would like all of us to believe, but this is only a cover for something much deeper and evil, no differently than when queers tell us that they are doing what they are doing because of the sins of mankind assailed onto them.
http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/feminist.html gives a detailed history of what the feminist movement was and is and what their agenda is. I am not necessarily endorsing everything the author posts, but, if nothing else the quotes the author cites from prominent feminist are revealing. I hope it helps clarify the issue for you.
Queer is the term used among LGBTQ persons to affirm themselves, right? By using it you indicate that you are a lesbian. Or transgender? Your post is kind of confusing.
Anonymous, I am glad you brought this up! You are correct in saying that queers use the word “queer” to describe themselves! Just do a web search for “Queer Associations” and you will find many! Those of us who are normal, however, were decades ago told by queers that we were being offensive if we use the term “queer” to describe them. Why? Because the word queer means “deviating from the expected or normal; strange”. That queers still choose to affirm themselves by acknowledging, (amongst themselves), that they ARE indeed deviants would probably be a big eye opener to 98% of Americans! So to that end, I will continue to use the word “queer” because it best describes the truth!
Ski Ven that is because they were lied to…they are told it is not a baby yet…it is a fetus or it is not human yet…something like….but in many cases women are pressured to have an abortion as if there were not other solution. It is the cowardly way to go at it..but then again…we are dealing with sins from the past that just kept growing and growing….and today’s men and women are byproducts of this immorality.
No Tracy I am not speaking about the feminist theology but I am speaking about biblical. My conclusions are off the teachings from Adam and Eve and then on….If Adam protected what the Lord has given him, if he would have protected Eve from the serpent. I don’t agree with those modern day ideals, when studying from the saints, biblical etc….it lead me to the conclusion I have now.
We can not give men an excuse either, they played a big role on why feminism was started. Of course, we all know it is sin. Sin…from men and women. Sin inflicted upon another leads to rebellion in some….our own actions can also lead others into sin if one is in bad will.
Abeca with all do respect I strongly disagree with your statement, “We can not give men an excuse either, they played a BIG role on why feminism was started.” The facts simply do not bear this out!
I guess Tracy we can agree to disagree, the facts have helped me draw that conclusion.
Abeca, I am not looking for a fight with you. Both you and I want the same thing which is to love the “Lord our God with….” We both want this for our families and country and world as well. On the other hand godless individuals seek power, riches and fame. They will stop at nothing to accomplish this goal, including lying. One of the reasons that our culture is were it is, is because the godless are now dominating our government, media, education, medicine, entertainment, etc. To that end, we need to be very careful when it comes to learning almost anything these days. All of the above entities are being used as vehicles for shaping our future. Yes, our hope IS in the Lord, and we DO need to return to His ways. We, therefore, do not have the luxury to allow the godless to give us THEIR so-called “facts” any longer.
Abeca, here is two facts you and other readers may not be aware of: The 1971 Declaration of Feminism states, “All of history must be rewritten in terms of the oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft.”
In her book Changing of the Gods, Naomi Goldenberg predicted that the continued feminist presence in religion would force a redefinition:
“Undoubtedly, many followers of new faiths will still cling to old labels. But a merely semantic veneer of tradition ought not to hide the fact that very nontraditional faith will be practiced … The feminist movement in Western culture is engaged in the slow execution of Christ and Yahweh. Yet very few of the women and men now working for sexual equality within Christianity and Judaism realize the extent of their heresy.”
I’m coming into this rather haphazard, but I think what Abeca is trying to say is that ‘men’s’ misuse of power as the head of the family was a convenient tool that was used to undermine the proper order in family life. (Especially those families that didn’t live in accordance with their religious beliefs, but rather used them as a beating stick to subject others to their will.)
That is men drank, misspent family money, beat their wives and children. So the push, instead of looking to the reform of the family, that is getting everyone to do their rightful duty, the cry was to give women the power so that they could fix things and/or take care of themselves without their husband who could be, in a sense, cut adrift so as not to drag down the family.
As it turns, there are still men who beat their wives/children, toss away the family money, and generally act like jerks. So the liberation of women hasn’t really solved anything. It’s just facilitated their ability to walk away which can and has in turn destabilized marriage and family. That was the real agenda behind the entire idea.
Wonderful article. Being a pessimist though, I’m waiting with dread for the synod. I fully expect cultural accomodationists like many of the European bishops and Lavender Mafia types (whose stock is on the rise, take a look at the new makeup of the Congregation of Bishops) to press for easing the sacramental bars the divorced and remarried face. Never mind that these are ancient, and indeed perhaps apostolic practice. Once would think that Mark chapter ten and its Lucan and Matthean parallels did not exist.
In any case, good for Monsignor Pope! Not many priests address this issue with forthrightness. I suspect most are afraid of controversy. Others are in dissent but keep their mouths shut due to fear of their bishops. Yet other priests are so effeminate that the concept of being an earthly father is alien to them, such that the whole issue of a heterosexual nuclear family is an abstraction to which they bring no passion.
Perhaps they are talking about not keeping the extraordinary forum a secret.
Thank you Fr. Michael for speaking up truthfully on this issue. It’s most heartening to know that there are faithful priests out there!
FrMichael, this article is about straight people giving birth to kids out of wedlock. What on earth does this have to do with gay or effeminate priests? And the concept of their notion of being an earthly father? And if this article has anything to do with a priest’s concept of hetersexual nuclear families, maybe straight priests have no concept of being an earthly father. Instead, every problem under heaven and earth must be about the gays.
Anonymous writes, “Instead, every problem under heaven and earth must be about the gays.” = Caught red handed undermining another good and truthful priest. = Thou doth protest too much!
Great! now I’ll be falsely accused of this one, too. But the fault is on the accuser not on the many of us who use the anonymous default.
Fr. Michael! Thank you for your very truthful post. Truthfulness from our priests uplifts our souls and encourages the hearts and minds of the faithful. May God continue to bless you Father Michael!
FrMichael you are right on what you are saying. That is why I also made it a point to pray for our priests and especially for our Bishops, hopefully those Bishops who silence good priests will have their softened and work more towards true Catholicism.
When an unwed woman (often a teenage girl) announces that she is pregnant, people congratulate her and host baby showers for her. Yes, she will need all the baby clothes and equipment she can get. Better than feting her with showers, she should be encouraged to give the child up for adoption to a stable, loving, married two- parent family. In these times of economic insecurity, serious problems with the public education system, cost of housing etc., providing a good home can be difficult even for married couples. A single mother, trying to hold down a job, pay for housing, finding and affording child care (Does she stay home from work when her child is sick?) Often we see news stories about a single mother with a live-in boyfriend, and the boyfriend abuses, or worse, murders the child because it cried too much. Just because she has the legal right to keep her baby, that doesn’t it’s a good choice for the child.
Sarah, thank you for speaking the difficult truth. Pro-lifers need to be discrete in these matters.
Sarah I agree….
The better metric to compare funerals to is baptism, not marriage. And births among educated Catholics are down due to the demands of dual careers to afford to pay the mortgage and the bills. Cost of living is high, especially here in CA.
Marriages are now performed later, not sooner, and is a trend I applaud. Early age marriages break up far more often. Cohabitation is not the best relationship, but it is far cheaper than divorce, which financially devastates many couples. We can pray for a world where Catholics don’t get married until they are at least 30, with education and initial career steps already achieved, but that may be a case of too much dreaming. The effects of the sexual revolution on lower class culture has been devastating. In black culture, the nuclear family is the exception, rather than the rule.
Marriage for marriage’s sake isn’t always wise, but cohabitation has the same fault. The upheaval in marriage is a part of the larger social and economic changes that make today’s marriage a far cry from our parents. Our Church’s harsh view of divorced Catholics, especially remarried Catholics, is causing more problems than it is solving.
good cause,
is everything about the flesh and the world with you?!! You paint a rather dreary picture of what it might feel like to identify with being just another spoke in the wheel! I just now noticed that “good cause” has as many letters as a social security number has numbers. Any connection?
What a sad, sad state of affairs. But what a great coincidence that the article is posted on the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. website. Cardinal Wuerl is a simply awful Church leader, an accommodationist of the first order. He completely refrains from any kind of enforcement against the most ghastly pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage Congressional legislators receiving communion. (What? Canon 915? Never, never, never . . .) Public scandal is nothing to this weakneed Cardinal. He is a veritable lion, however, in blocking expansion of the TLM or use of any “extraordinary” sacrament. What was Francis thinking when he dumped the wonderful Cardinal Burke from the Congregation of Bishops and added Cardinal Wuerl. Soon, not much will be expressly forbidden as “sinful” as Cardinal Wuerl is among those, apparently most beloved and admired by Francis, that see things in shadings of acceptable. Not much going on in Washington, D.C. to tell people that what they do sexually can — and will — lead them to Hell. But then, not many clerics believe in Hell any longer. The poor women that “cohabitate” need someone to tell them “No,” do not do this as it is an effront to God! That will not happen, just as very few stand up and tell homosexuals that they cannot have same sex sexual relations and receive communion. Jesus forgives everyone, but demands that the sinner stop sinning. Tell these co-habitating people to stop, for the Love of God.
I think the summary removal of Cdl. Burke foreshadows big changes coming down the road.
This is what happens when Diocese Bishops refuse to actively, openly and frequently encourage everyone to read the Bible and study the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” in entirety.
People do not know the truth.
They do not know their Faith accurately, yet they are being asked to “evangelize”, teachings others errors.
What is missing here?
Catechesis in the USA for the most part over that past 50 years has been rotten.
Secularism, Relativism, and Heresy are now accepted even by some Church leaders as long as people are “nice” – the “Church of Nice”.
Anonymous, the concluding portion of the article was on clergy not speaking up against the diminishment of marriage in our culture. As a priest, I was offering my best guess as to why Catholic clergy are the “dog that did not bark,” to use the wonderful phrase from Sherlock Holmes.
And upon rereading my comment, I believe you will note that my #1 reason is moral cowardice, pure and simple. I didn’t even use the word “gay” in my comment. I suppose you took “effeminate” to mean “gay,” in fact, there are some straight effeminate guys as well.
Anyways, I found Msgr. Pope’s remarks on the ecumenical meeting quite interesting and mirrors my own limited presence in such meetings.
Thank you, Father, for addressing Anonymous. Well said and God bless you for the presence you have here.
Love the Holmes reference. How true it is…
Fr, Michael, I am not the anonymous poster who made the comment but I don’t come from a great family. It was an intact family but there was mental illness that made it unbearable. Family to me is the ‘f” word. Family was something to get away from. As an adult, I did my duty to my family. Some families are really dysfunctional and they really mess up their kids. They make life a living hell. Maybe those priests who aren’t into family are from similar backgrounds as mine.
@ 12/19 12:21 Anonymous:
I think in a few rare cases you would be correct. However, knowing as many priests as I do, I think it is accurate to say that the large majority of priests come from intact, non-abusive families with loving parents. Actually, I don’t need anecdote, there has been sociological research in the past five years on the family backgrounds of priests to back up my claim. Even though an increasing number of younger priests come from troubled families, these are still a minority.
I am sorry for your suffering as a child. Your family experience is not typical and certainly not what God had in mind in establishing the institution. I am glad to read that “As an adult, I did my duty to my family,” and know that our Heavenly Father, Who loves you beyond all telling, is pleased by your adherence to the Fourth Commandment, even as stressful as it has been for you. I hope you have a compassionate and thoughtful parish priest to provide a listening ear to you and give you appropriate guidance on how to live out that commandment as a mature adult Christian. You don’t have to walk the minefield of a dysfunctional family alone.
Yours in Christ, FrMichael
I am the anonymous who posted about your reference to effeminate. I think you are trying to be too cute by half. Effeminance among the priesthood has nothing whatsoever to do with whether straight people have kids out of wedlock. And you are the one who, in the next breath, raised the issue of priests having or not having a concept of a “heterosexual nuclear family”. So play this silly game that you were not blaming gays for the problems with straight out of wedlock births. I for one am not buying your denial.
@Anonymous 12/19 1:57 PM:
In my experience, while the majority of effeminate priests are gay, a good number appear to be straight but immature. These boy-priests give me the willies: one could easily imagine them striking up inappropriate relationships with teenagers. And if the John Jay report is to be believed, over the past decades many sexually immature priests did indeed create havoc.
There are some exceptional priestly vocations– St. John Vianney and B. Pope John Paul II come to mind– where the vocation is so clear and pure that the single-hearted priest never stops to consider what he gave up. Then there are the guys referred to above. I think a majority of us fit in a third group where we are happy with the priestly vocations God has given us, but struggled with the concept of the loss of wife and children in seminary and even to a lesser extent in ordained ministry. I am blessed to be a parish priest, but had God not called me to this, married life would have been my lot, and God willing happily so.
God bless you Fr. Michael …. I keep you and all priests in my prayers…I know that the spiritual war is real and for that reason, I will continue praying that our Lord bless you and keep you in His path. Now that I maturing more in my faith, I know how important my role is as a lay faithful, it is important for us to do our part and to protect, defend and pray for our priests.