Jcecil3 makes an attempt to explain the rampant spread of co-habitation among our modern society. He insists that the motivation to do so is primarily economic, so that if economic barriers could be rectified, this would no longer be a problem. Consider this quote:
I present the case that the cause of rising cohabitation prior to marriage and rising divorce rates are due to economic factors. I argue that these factors have extended the transition to adulthood and place time and money constraints on married couples that make marriage more difficult to sustain in the post-modern information age. I then propose solutions that may save marriage. My solutions do not involve preaching that contracpetion within marriage is a mortal sin, nor do they involve making gay marriage illegal. My solutions would encourage people to marry younger, have more children, and avoid divorce.So, jcecil3 must think very little of faithful Christians, such that the only way they would be willing to do the right thing is if there is something tangible in it for them. Frankly, he just goes ahead and proves the point that those who choose to live together before marriage are willing to comprise their morals for the sake pleasure and convenience. Consider my reply on his blog.
I think that couples cohabit rather than marry out of fear, not economic pressure. They are afraid of divorce, afraid of committment, afraid of imperfection. They also have been conditioned to think that they must have the fairy tale wedding - and don't seem to realize that it isn't about the wedding, it is about the marriage.
I thought that was an excellent reply Paul.
Thanks, Elena. BTW, Nick made a few good points that caused me to compose this even more pointed reply.
I find that Jcecil3's being a liberal Catholic seems to mean to him that he can liberally choose what part of the moral law is for him. He then built is economic plan for saving marriage around the premise that he is striving for social justice, which is a goal the Church would applaud.
It's great that he is working for a good end, but on balance, his plan is morally deficient, since it implicitly condones behavior which is contrary to the moral law, and we all know you cannot condone evil means to bring about good. So, he's trying to say, "Hey, look, I can build a workable plan to solve these social problems, without recourse to particular Church teachings. Therefore, those teachings must not be required to be held by the faithful. They are optional." But I don't buy it. God's moral law on sexuality has already been revealed to be true, and is thus binding on all the faithful.
Further, I can't seem to get past the fact that he believes the best way to encourage people to do what is right is through economic incentives. Economic incentives are fine, but he must believe human nature is corrupt beyond hope (Calvinism), since his plan does not require doing good simply out of love for God, and because it is the right thing to do.
Where does redemption fit in his plan? Repenting and converting from our old ways and living a life of grace? These concepts don't exist in his plan, and as a result, he seems to be teaching me that for liberal Catholics, there is no such thing. Their plans for reform are based on secular grounds. It looks to me that the world has already converted him much more than he is ever going to convert the world by his ideas.
Peace, Paul.
I think you can do better in your reply to jcecil. I don't agree with much of his argument, but there's a better way to express yourself than toss random snide remarks around about liberals. If you stick to the topic, rather than present a "K-Tel Presents Liberals' Greatest Flops" I think you'd be on a good track. Like Alicia.
Todd, I must have missed something. Seriously, where is the snide remark? All I'm trying to do is demonstrate how his approach is taken to a logical conclusion.
And if he really is running an underhanded campaign to discredit the Church's moral teaching, and based on his writings it appears to be the case, then at least he should come clean about it. Rather than playing this I-can-solve-the-world's-problems-without-the-Church's-moral-teaching game, all the while pretending to be neutral. If that's his game, I refuse to play it.
But I'd hate to see some impressionable Catholic youth stumble across this piece, and thereby justify living with his girlfriend, because Jcecil3 says he's entitled to it due to economic injustice. That's my point. He has dropped personal accountability to God completely off the map, and that's a horrible example to give.
Peace, Paul.
"Seriously, where is the snide remark?"
"I find that Jcecil3's being a liberal Catholic seems to mean to him that he can liberally choose what part of the moral law is for him."
"So, he's trying to say, "Hey, look, I can build a workable plan to solve these social problems, without recourse to particular Church teachings. Therefore, those teachings must not be required to be held by the faithful. They are optional.""
I wouldn't try paraphrasing his arguments, because I think you've lost the gist of them. Just argue your own points on this one.
Todd, upon re-reading these quotes, the only thing I can see that some might characterize as sarcasm is my play on the word "liberal". That was done only to emphasize the point. Although, I'd hardly call the way it was used severe.
With these quotes, I was trying to convey how his piece came across to me. If Jcecil3 wishes, he can certainly respond indicating whether or not my understanding is accurate. Based on what I read, it seems to me that it is. So far, he has said nothing to the contrary.
However, I also understand he is trying to remedy this impression through is recent post on social sin and personal sin. I haven't read it completely, but there seems to be a lot of positive material there.
But, even if he re-affirms his commitment to a solid understanding of personal sin, it still leaves a big question in my mind, which is why his grand social solutions are so disconnected from personal moral accountability? That is, why is there no room to teach people to do good for the sake of doing good, rather than looking for excuses to do evil, because of sinful structures that put pressure on them. I'm really waiting for someone to give a convincing explanation for that, because that's what I find to be missing from his argument.
It seems that Jcecil3's hesitancy to answer my concerns revolves around his reluctance to revisit the issue of contraception, which already has a lot of mileage on his blog. That's fine. My argument does not depend on that issue in particular, so I have now framed my argument in terms that avoid contraception. See my comment on his blog here, and don't forget to include the correction noted in the comment that follows it. Hopefully, he is now willing to address it.
"I wouldn't try paraphrasing his arguments, because I think you've lost the gist of them."
Todd, according to Jcecil3's own admission, my paraphrase was right on the money.
All the people I know who cohabitate do so because they want to have sex without commitment or long commutes; not b/c of money.
Why folk cohabit may depend on what neighborhood you live in. Where I am, the folk I know who are together-without-licence (some never-married, some married-then-divorced-but-didn't-separate) do it for the sake of combining companionship and survival. It's part of the economics of Social Security of surviving spouses and of Supplimental Security Income for the disabled. Two "single" people, living together and pooling their resources, can afford luxuries such as indoor sleeping, daily eating, etc. The same two people, "married", cannot.
Back when I was a younger adult, in the 70's, some Catholic priests would marry elders without civil licences, so they could live together without sinning and yet be legally "single" and remain housed, eating every day, etc. Haven't heard of that going on in the last couple of decades, though.
karen marie
Karen Marie,
It is truly sad that civil society does not recognize and appropriately support marriage. The fact that couples can be better off financially when single is a sure sign that it places little value on marriage. There ought to be financial incentives both for marriage and for having large families. Our secular culture only complains after the fact that marriages are crumbling and couples are not having enough children to sustain our social infrastructure.