by Fr. George Morelli | 3/15/2007

Christian marriage is an exalted vocation. Marriage, as the Apostle Paul taught, replicates the relationship between Christ and the Church where Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church the Bride. Bridegrooms are called to love and care for their bride with selfless commitment. “Husbands love your wives,” St. Paul wrote, “as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:21).

Love is relational, and the icon of pure and undefiled love is the relationship between the Persons of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). We catch glimpses of the nature of this love because it overflows to mankind, particularly in the self-sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. St. Paul described this love as kenotic (self-emptying), particularly when Christ forsook the prerogatives of divinity to assume human nature in order to save mankind. The love was so certain, so sure, and so complete, that it led to His death on our behalf.

In Christian marriage, authentic and true love seeks to replicate the type of self-sacrifice Christ revealed to us when He became man and dwelt among us (and which is still expressed today in Christ’s faithfulness to His Church). Self-sacrificial love conforms to the Great Commandment to love our neighbor more highly than ourselves in so doing we also love and honor God (Matthew 25:36-40, 1 John 4:19-21). This kind of love between husband and wife, even if imperfectly practiced and not always realized, constitutes what St. John Chrysostom called the “small church” and as such ensures the health and stability of the family in raising children (Chrysostom, Homily XX).

These lessons are affirmed in the Orthodox wedding service. In one part of the ceremony the Holy Spirit is invoked to: “Unite them in one mind and one flesh, and grant unto them fair children for education in thy faith and fear … ” The spiritual goal of marriage is never divorced from the parental vocation. Love, when properly understood, is always directed toward the neighbor, first to the spouse and then to the children.

Problems in Marriage: Entitlement
The Evil One relentlessly seeks to corrupt the love of Christ. Marriage and family, because of the complexity and immediacy of the social relationship, is a fertile field for such corruption. In case we think the potential for spiritual corruption is overstated, consider that it can happen between Christ and His Church as well. St. Paul reminded the Corinthian church: “I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (1 Corinthians 11: 2-3). If the Church can defile its communion with Christ, we certainly can defile our communion with one another.

One subtle corruption is the feeling of entitlement (Morelli, 2006a). Entitlement is when the spouse or parent feels they deserve love, companionship, happiness, honesty, obedience, etc. Entitlement works hand in hand with expectations. When an event occurs in which one family member does not feel that others lived up to what was expected of them, feelings of anger and being used result.

From the outset, it should be noted that some events fulfill expectations that are desirable and often good. The problem occurs when the events themselves become a test of whether or not expectations are met. In clinical terms desirable preferences have transformed into demanding expectations where the failure to meet the preferences results in emotions (usually anger) that impairs the ability to attain desirable goals. Often the resolution to this conflict is to change the goals. In fact, what is really needed is a shift in perception from demanding expectations back to desirable goals.

A few examples may help us understand entitlement. A mother feels entitled to love and respect from her daughter: “After all I am her mother.” A father feels his son should listen and take his advice: “I am the father; he should listen and do what I tell him.” The same is true of a husband and wife: “I am his wife; he should … ” or “I am her husband; she should … ” When family members do not meet our expectations we may feel the right to be angry. Alternatively, we may feel that we are unworthy because our expectations are not met and respond by feeling angry, depressed, etc. Either way, any one consumed by these emotions will not be very good at bringing about the outcomes they would like (Morelli, 2006d).

The key here to understanding entitlement is to see the word “title” imbedded in the larger word. Whenever we make a demand based on our title (eg: father, mother, husband, wife, etc.) we operate from an entitlement perspective. The solution is to realize that a title is no guarantee of specific behaviors.

The antidote to demanding expectations is to develop preferences for and about our family members based on love, that is, preferring the good and welfare of spouse and child, i.e, preferring rather than demanding that children honor their father and mother, or preferring the mutuality of love and respect between spouses. Instead of conceptualizing our expectations in terms of an entitlement, we can frame them as invitation that others may accept in order to help themselves.

Our Lord never forced anyone by using His title. Instead, He recognized that obedience and respect are freely given. In the same way the recognition that all people freely offer obedience and cooperation lifts preferences above a battle of the wills because the demanding expectation is diminished. People often “dig in” when they feel coerced into particular behaviors because they feel they need to save face and protect their self-identity.

How can spouses and parents forego demanding expectations and still bring about desirable behavior among family members? First of all, spouses and parents are more likely to be effective in bringing about the desirable preferences they seek if they are not consumed by anger and depression. (Morelli, 2005c, 2006c,d). Second, the most effective way of bringing about appropriate family goals is to state the desires clearly and the consequences if the desires are not met (Morelli, 2005b, 2006b). Although Jesus did not use His title to coerce certain behaviors, He was clear about the consequences of heeding or not heeding His words.

Take the example of a child speaking disrespectfully to his father to understand how the lesson of this parable could be applied. In the framework of demanding expectations, the parent could be expected to respond to the disrespect in emotional terms, probably anger perhaps even a tirade because his title of father is not acknowledged properly.

A more measured and ultimately more constructive approach is to step aside from the entitlement and the demanding expectation it engenders and state the problem in terms of desirable expectations. The father could say, “We do not talk like that to one another, you were told before if you said that disrespectful word, you would not be able to watch TV tonight, so tonight there will be no television, tomorrow you can try again.” Consequences, not emotional outbursts that result from disappointed entitlements, bring about desirable behavior changes and strengthen family life.

The Orthodox Christian marriage and family vocation is to be a spouse and parent in the imitation of Christ. Entitlement is the subtle work of the Evil One and undermines and may even destroy the unity necessary to meet the goals of this divine vocation. Direct, teach, and most importantly love your spouse and family with intelligence, mercy, forgiveness, in the same way that Christ loves His Church.

HT: OrthodoxyToday

“They [homosexuals] should have the benefits and civil rights of the state, but this is not a sacramental union our church will ever sanctify,” he said. “But civil marriage, in the spirit of American democracy, they have the right to ask for that.”

These positions seem to present a fair and reasonable perspective that maintains a balance between the Orthodox Church’s unwavering support for traditional marriage and her absolute rejection of all homosexual unions, and the secular and democratic society we live in. On closer inspection however, the reality of such moderated and accommodating views exposes a danger that may not have been considered when such support was given for these legalized civil unions.

These positions seem to present a fair and reasonable perspective that maintains a balance between the Orthodox Church’s unwavering support for traditional marriage and her absolute rejection of all homosexual unions, and the secular and democratic society we live in. On closer inspection however, the reality of such moderated and accommodating views exposes a danger that may not have been considered when such support was given for these legalized civil unions.

Developments in the Catholic Church over the last few years confirm that advocating for any legislative support of legalized civil unions that have similar legal standing to traditional marriages is unwise. Even if, in the beginning, such secular civil unions do not have the full bundle of societal “rights” that marriages enjoy, it will not take long for our legal system to grant them such protections and privileges.

Looking at what has already happened in states like Massachusetts and recently in Washington D.C. with Catholic Charities, one of the nation’s oldest adoption and foster-care placement agencies, gives us a hint of what can and will occur. Catholic Charities was forced to cease operations when their adoption services were deemed discriminatory to homosexuals because of Massachusetts and Washington D.C.’s same-sex “marriage” laws. Faced with prosecution by the state unless it compromised its religious beliefs, this Christian organization closed its social services operations, ending an 80-year history of helping vulnerable children in need of traditional parents and families. The Catholic News Agency reports:

“Although Catholic Charities has an 80-year legacy of high quality service to the vulnerable in our nation’s capital, the D.C. Government informed Catholic Charities that the agency would be ineligible to serve as a foster care provider due to the impending D.C. same-sex marriage law,” […]

“Foster care has been an important ministry for us for many decades. We worked very hard to be able to continue to provide these services in the District,” said Ed Orzechowski, president and CEO of Catholic Charities D.C. “We regret that our efforts to avoid this outcome were not successful.” […]

The D.C. City Council’s law recognizing same-sex “marriage” required religious entities which serve the general public to provide services to homosexual couples, even if doing so violated their religious beliefs. Exemptions were allowed only for performing marriages or for those entities which do not serve the public.

While at first glance these legalized civil unions do not appear to hurt anyone or interfere with the Christian Church’s mission, in at least two instances we see the devastating consequences of the state demanding that Christian institutions place children in same-sex “families” in direct violation of the doctrines of the Church and the member’s religious beliefs and practices.

“To operate in Massachusetts, an adoption agency must be licensed by the state. And to get a license, an agency must pledge to obey state laws barring discrimination—including the decade-old ban on orientation discrimination. With the legalization of gay marriage in the state, discrimination against same-sex couples would be outlawed, too.”

The closures of Catholic Charities hurt not only the countless innocent children that will no longer be placed in traditional families, but also the many couples that wanted to adopt these children and would have raised them in a home with a mother and a father.

Once such civil unions are given any legal standing, other states and even the federal government will quickly follow the legal precedents set in Massachusetts and DC. The state can then compel all religious institutions that support traditional marriage in their social services to either recognize same-sex unions and act contrary to their religious and moral beliefs, or cease operations altogether. These legalized civil unions are the unfortunate stepping stones the state has and will use to promote an anti-Christian and anti-traditional marriage agenda to the society at large, to the detriment of innocent children and traditional couples looking to adopt.

Resources

Banned in Boston

Same-sex ‘marriage’ law forces D.C. Catholic Charities to close adoption program

Catholic Charities Adoptions

HT: OrthodoxNet Blog

The reason for the importance of this question is simple: Males untutored about how to control their natures will likely do much harm. Conversely, males who are taught to how to control themselves and to channel their drives in positive directions make the world a much better place. The good man is a glory of civilization; the bad man ruins it.

Throughout American history, American society asked, “How do we make men?” (It was understood that “man” meant a good man.) Anyone who thought about the subject knew that boys who are not transformed into men remain boys. And when too many boys do not grow up into men, women suffer and society suffers.

What is a man (as opposed to a boy)? The traditional understanding was that a man is he who takes responsibility for others — for his family, his community and his country — and, of course, for himself. A man stood for ideals and values higher than himself. He conducted himself with dignity. And he was strong.

For much of American history, making boys into men was understood to be of supreme importance, and society was usually successful. When I was a boy in the 1950s, without anyone expressly defining it, I knew what a man was supposed to be. And I knew that society, not to mention my parents, expected me to be one. It went without explicitly saying so that I would have to make a living, support myself as soon as possible and support a family thereafter.

When I acted immaturely, I was told to be or act like a man. I wonder how many boys are told to “be a man” today; and if they were, would they have a clue as to what that meant? It would appear that for millions of American boys, this has not been the reality for decades. Many families and society as a whole seem to have forgotten boys need to be made into men.

There are numerous reasons:

1. The distinction between men and boys has been largely obliterated. The older males that many American boys encounter are essentially older boys, not men. They speak, dress, and act similarly (think of men who “high-five” young boys instead of shaking their hands). And they are almost all called by their first names. Even when a boy (or girl) addresses an adult male as “Mr.,” many men will correct the young boy or girl — “Call me” and then give the young person his first name. This is often true even with regard to teachers, physicians and members of the clergy. When a young person calls an adult by his first name, the status of the two individuals has been essentially equated. Boys need men to respect. It’s not impossible to do so when they call men by their first names, but it makes it much harder.

2. Boys today have fewer adult men in their lives than ever before. Many boys are not raised by any father. More are not raised by a father who lives in the home full time. Nearly every teacher and principal American boys have in elementary and high school is a female. The boy’s clergy person and physician may well be women. And few male figures in contemporary film radiate manhood as defined above.

3. The ideals of masculinity and femininity have been largely rendered extinct. Feminism, arguably the most influential American movement of the 20th century, declared war on the concepts of femininity and masculinity. And for much of the population, it was victorious. Indeed, thanks to the feminist teaching that male and female human beings are essentially the same (note, incidentally, that no one argues that male and female animals are the same, only human beings are), untold numbers of boys have been raised as if they were like girls. They were denied masculine toys such as play guns and toy soldiers, and their male forms of play — e.g., roughhousing — were banned.

4. America has become a rights-centered rather than a responsibility-centered society. Aside from helping to produce a pandemic of narcissism, the rights-centered mindset is the opposite of the obligation/responsibility-centered mindset that makes a boy into a man. It is not good for either sex to be rights-preoccupied; but it is particularly devastating to developing men, as men are supposed to be obligation-directed. The baby boomer generation helped destroy manhood in most of the ways described here. One additional example was its widespread slogan, “Make love, not war.” One cannot come up with a more unmanly piece of advice: “Don’t fight for your country, screw girls.” If the greatest generation had adopted that motto, Hitler and Tojo would have won. A few years ago, the city of Chicago named a street after Hugh Hefner, a man who has played games much of the day and night, lived in pajamas and devoted his life to sex — quite a model of manhood for American boys.

5. There are few places where men can bond with other men. One major way men become men is by associating with other good men. The only places left where this normally takes place are sports teams and the military. The same holds true for boys. And much of society is now working on breaking the most significant all-boys institution, the Boy Scouts.

6. Males no longer have distinctive roles. Men do best when they are relied upon, when needed; and they feel most needed when they do something distinct from women. This exists today in sports and the military. It is symbolic — significantly so — that there are no more “men at work” signs on highways. Now “people” are at work. “Men” have disappeared.

7. Many churches and synagogues have been feminized. This has occurred in at least three important ways: Clergy are increasingly female (and touchy-feely males) — for the first time in Christian and Jewish history; God is often depicted as androgynous and no longer either demanding or judging (He just loves all the time); and religion has been changed from morally and theologically demanding to a therapeutic model. So religion, too, has become yet another place where boys encounter few men, and few masculine models (even in God, as noted, is no longer masculine).

8. Instead of the traditional American model of masculinity, which was a rare combination of masculine toughness and stoicism with doing good (e.g., Superman), boys are now taught to be preoccupied with their feelings and with (unearned) self-esteem. They are not even allowed to lose; all boys playing a sport are given trophies, not just winners.

9. Increasingly, marriage is regarded as optional. The most obvious expression of men assuming responsibility — marrying a woman and taking care of her and their children — is no longer a male ideal. Vast numbers of men quite openly admit to having problems with the C-word (commitment) and responsibility of being a family’s sole breadwinner.

When boys do not become men, women assume their roles. But they are not happy doing so. There are any number of reasons American women suffer from depression more than ever before and more than men. It is difficult to believe that one of those reasons is not the very emasculation of men that the movement working in their name helped to bring about. And so, a vicious cycle has commenced — men stop being men; women become man-like; men retreat even further from their manly role; and women get sadder.

HT: DennisPrager.com

After forty years of preferential treatment in schools and the job market, many women are now better-educated and make more money than men. These changes should surprise no one — especially not social science researchers. Those who work with the data know that there has been a profound shift in marriage itself and that marriage rates are declining. Many women are finding it difficult if not impossible to find a husband who is their financial, career, or social equal. With the decline in manufacturing jobs and their lack of higher education, many men don’t have the money or job prospects to marry. Yet much is being made of a new study by the Pew Research Center finding that the benefits of marriage are now greater for men than women.

This is news? Who hasn’t noticed the increase of single women, the increase of single mothers, and the cultural change where marriage is derided by the media and opinion leaders? Pew can tout the benefits of marriage for men all they want, but popular culture sends our young people — especially men — a different message. The Pew study notes that women are leaving school better-prepared for today’s job market, but the “same ole-same ole” educational priorities reign, and our boys are still getting a raw deal in school.

We’ve spent forty years pushing girls ahead and holding boys back. The big news of the Pew study is that we can finally discuss facts that previously were politically incorrect. The real cultural change that the study reflects is that after all these years, it is finally acceptable to point out that marriage is a good thing — even for men.

Fry and Cohn used census data from 1970 and 2007 to compare U.S.-born married couples ages 30 to 44. They found that this cohort of Americans is the first in U.S. history to have more women than men with college degrees — college grads in 1970 were 64 percent men, 36 percent women; in 2007, 53.5 percent were women and 46.5 percent men. During the period of 1970 to 2007, women’s earnings grew 44 percent, while men’s only grew 6 percent (though men, on average, still make more money, women’s income gains are sharper and the disparity has narrowed). In 1970, only 4 percent of husbands were married to women earning more than they; in 2007, 22 percent were in that situation.

During the current recession, more men are losing jobs than women, which will increase the income disparities. Not only is the unemployment rate for men higher than for women, but the gap that has opened up between the two is nearly three times as great from this recession as compared with the previous one — i.e., 2.2 percentage points compared with 0.8 percentage points.

During the period of the study, median household income increased 60 percent for married men, married women, and unmarried women, but it increased only 16 percent for unmarried men. The loss of manufacturing jobs is believed to be the primary reason for income losses for unmarried men without college degrees. Those with college degrees made income gains of 15 percent (compared to 28 percent gains by unmarried women).

The Pew authors and others acknowledge in the fine print that after forty years of women in the labor market, the changes in family life are becoming evident. This is explained by recognizing that most women did not work outside the home in 1970, while now, most do. The researchers also point out that change came because of the decline in manufacturing and male-dominated jobs and the expectations of college-educated women to have careers.

Other scholars are quick to add that it is not just the financial aspects of marriage that are changing. They quietly call women the “victims” of the educational and financial role-reversals — while their advances in education and career are increasing their authority and decision-making roles within the family, their increased education and money-making ability is also decreasing their ability to find a husband of equal economic and social status. In 1970, 84 percent of women 30-44 years old married; by 2007, only 60 percent married (and black women had even lower percentages).

Stephanie Coontz, research director for the Council on Contemporary Families, claims that men are discovering that they need marriage more than women “from the standpoint of physical and mental well-being.” Coontz attributes men’s willingness to marry “up” as evidence of the fact that marriage “is becoming increasingly important to their economic well-being as well.” Other scholars point out that those who recognize the value of marriage are the better-educated men and women.

The Pew study notes, “Those with more education are far more likely than those with less education to be married, a gap that has widened since 1970. Because higher education tends to lead to higher earnings, these compositional changes have bolstered the economic gains for being married for both men and women.”

The Pew study describes current trends as a “cause” for the value of marriage increasing dramatically. They note that in 1970, the “typical man did not gain another breadwinner in his household when he married.” Today, married men have a wife’s income — an advantage the unmarried man does not have. The Pew study reports that “[t]he superior gains of married men have enabled them to overtake and surpass unmarried men in their median household income.”

Sure it does, but sadly, only the well-educated men and women are aware of these facts. By the time many of our young people wake up to these facts, they are no longer young, nor do they qualify as desirable, highly eligible choices in the marriage market.

. . . more

One of my all-time favorite movies reminds me that it often takes a bold act to awaken the conscience of a nation. It’s one of the most dramatic scenes in a really great movie. The movie is Amazing Grace. The scene is the House of Commons in the latter years of the eighteenth century. William Wilberforce stuns his parliamentary colleagues by unrolling an enormous scroll down the aisle. On the scroll were the signatures of 390,000 Englishmen, demanding that Parliament abolish the slave trade—the greatest moral issue of the day.

The signatures of nearly five percent of the country forced his reluctant, if not hostile, fellow members of Parliament to understand that the evil status quo could no longer stand.

Two hundred years later, in the spirit of Wilberforce, Christians across this country are affixing their signatures to another document as a way of saying “enough!”

Before Wilberforce presented his petition, slave traders and the economic interests that benefitted from the trade believed that they owned Parliament. That’s why it was called the rotten borough system. They literally bought seats! They believed they could ignore Wilberforce without repercussions. The petition showed them otherwise. It broke the back of their resistance.

Today, when it comes to sanctity of life, the traditional family and religious freedom, we are told that the cultural tide flows in only one direction—and that Christians should adapt.

Well, the last time I checked over 400,000 people have disagreed—loudly and clearly. They have signed the Manhattan Declaration, which, among other things, forcefully rejects the idea of Christians adapting to the cultural tide. It makes it clear that there are times when “civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required.”

While it took years for Wilberforce to gather his petitions, thanks to the internet, it has only taken us only two months to get 400,000 signatures. But our goal is one million.

Not because one million is a round and impressive number, but because that kind of response has the potential to electrify the church and make the cultural elite take notice as it did in Wilberforce’s day.

The church needs to get over this business that “we can’t get involved in politics.” That’s an excuse. It needs to understand that bearing witness about the sanctity of life, the traditional family and religious liberty isn’t political – it’s profoundly moral. It’s about who we are as a church and our relationship to the rest of the culture.

Likewise, it’s about making it clear that the cultural elite cannot silence us simply by labeling our views out-of-bounds. It’s about their having to realize that they cannot silence the church, especially when it speaks authoritatively across confessional lines.

By telling them that we will not render to Caesar what is God’s we can break the stranglehold that the abortion lobby has on Congress and the stranglehold of the gay rights movement on politicians.

But this willingness to swim against the tied can come at a price. Like Martin Luther King, whose birthday the nation honored this week, we must be clear that an unjust law does not bind the Christian conscience. And that we’ll pay the price to oppose it as he did.

The church in America must say “enough!” We must strive to overcome the reluctance and hostility we face. Whatever else the supporters of the status quo may own, they do not own our consciences.

. . . more