The Slow Awakening About Divorce

Too easy even for Luther.

Slowly but surely, the idea starts to enter in some non-Catholic heads.

Take the Tory propaganda, for example. The defence of the family has always been a mainstay of Tory ideology, at least in words. If you live in the UK, you might a noticed an ever so slight tendency to upheld traditional values even among the faggoty, hoodie-hugging, chameleons Tories of these days. In their confusion, they can’t even see what a family is, but at least they start to see more or less confusedly that divorce isn’t all good. I know, Cameron is an idiot who would sell his mother to whoredom for the sake of a fringe minority of voters, but at least he gets some vague glimpse of the truth.

From the University of Virginia comes now a study telling us something for which actually no study has ever been necessary: a divorce is highly expensive, highly disruptive, and the cause of high social costs. The idea would seem to start thinking about making divorce less easy: people would then feel motivated to make the step only when they are rather persuaded, and in general a more solid approach to marriage and a happier generation of children would result.

All very sound, say I. But then one wonders why what is right should be right only when taken in the half dose, and would stop to be right if things are done, well, entirely right.

Believe this Italian-born blogger: nothing creates solid families so much as the inability to divorce. When children grow up in a world where they know that they only have one go, they will mostly grow up into adults who will make responsible choices, will go into a marriage without thinking that it must be an erotic paradise (him) and endless romance (her), and most of all they will go into their new life without a huge door with “emergency exit” written over it, permanently looking at them from the kitchen. Several other things will happen, like the stigma against divorced couples. Say what you will, but this will certainly work and help couples to stay together and work on their problems rather than slam the door with “emergency exit” written over it.

It is astonishing that a country can ask a person to, say, lock himself in a deal with the Army for several years, but doesn’t even feel able to ask them to lock themselves into the matrimonial deal for, say, six or seven years. It doesn’t even square that a sovereign country can ask a person (nowadays, of both sexes in practice) to be drafted and land into a trench in a totally involuntary way, but can’t ask them to stick to the decisions that they themselves have taken.

Slowly, someone begins to open his eyes. The university of Virginia starts to say that divorce might have to be made more difficult. Granted, the taboo of individual happiness at all costs – which then leads to serial divorces and serial unhappiness, only more expensive – is not touched yet, but even Protestant should start to wonder whether – in their opinion – the Holy Ghost was being so wrong when He allowed them to divorce only in a very limited number of cases, and whether He is so right now that it allows them – or “inspires” – them to divorce so rapidly.

But the real crux of the matter is that, once again, the rightness of the Catholic truth starts to slowly filter through increasingly vaster strata of the population; in a confused way for now, but one that already starts to give the right Catholic solution to an entirely secular and Protestant-made problem.
Mundabor

Posted on August 28, 2011, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.

  1. My inlaws had an arranged marriage in Greece. There was no choice, they did not even love each other, or even know each other for that matter. However, they eventually accepted the wisdom of their parents and began to slowly love each other. They have been married for over 40 years. The West says there must be romance, physical attraction, etc, but when you take those things out of the equation, it is much easier to make the right choice for a spouse, because those fleeting emotional needs merely cloud the mind. When a married couple ages, the physical attraction and eroticism foolishly banked on in ones youth is not going to be there … so one had better choose a spouse that is possessed of all the enduring qualities/virtues that are needed.

    • Irenaeus,
      I can’t say that I approve of arranged marriages, but one can see where the parents of your inlaws came from.

      I think the best is the mentality you traditionally found in Catholic countries in Europe: that loving each other is considered an indispensable requisite, but that this love doesn’t mean living in a dream or in a novel.

      M

  2. I certainly would not have liked one myself. But I think my point was not that it is better, but that there is a shared wisdom between the Chrisitanity of East and West in ignoring what the world values. That even in Western culture, it is wiser for Catholics to hold a higher value to the things that don’t fade in ones person. Such as virtues. Whereas to bank a relationship on the fleeting exterior qualities is usually doomed to failure.

  3. Mundabor, the Chairman of the German Episcopal Conferen, H.E. Archbishop Zollitsch has made some rather strange comments in an interview with “Die Zeit” on the subject. Here is the link:

    http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/familie/2011-08/zollitsch-katholiken

    Cathocon has covered the subject in quite some detail and very well in his Blog already. Maybe you want to pick this matter up for an English speaking audience as well.

    • Thanks wk1999,

      I have read the article and found it disturbing to say the least.

      I’ll write about that and read what Catocon has to say.

      Thanks again for the hint!

      M

%d bloggers like this: