When Compassion Becomes Divorced From Reality

Reader Michael K alerted me to this this article yesterday, and I thought it was worth remarking on. The tagline is “Beware of false compassion in implementing Amoris Laetitia.” Its not long, but I won’t quote the whole piece. Instead, here is the relevant section:

Maybe my experience is atypical. But I doubt it. Statistically speaking, men are more likely than women to remarry after a divorce. And that’s just one way in which men typically fare better than women after the breakdown of a marriage. Divorced woman are disproportionately likely to have financial problems, health problems, emotional problems. In a word, they are apt to be women in need.

If Catholic pastors adopt a more open attitude toward divorce, along the lines suggested by Amoris Laetitia, will that attitude benefit the people most in need? As a practical matter, if pastors make a special point of welcoming divorced-and-remarried Catholics, will the benefits flow to the spouses who are abandoned, or to those who abandoned them?

Since the publication of Amoris Laetitia, much has been written about women who have been abandoned by one man and subsequently formed a new union with another. For every wife who is cruelly abandoned, there is a husband who cruelly abandoned her. He, too, might feel more comfortable if the Church relaxes her traditional insistence on the permanence of the marriage bond. Should he?

…

If women typically suffer more than men after a divorce, the children of a broken home often suffer even more. What sort of message do those children receive, when they see their father, who deserted them to live with another woman, sitting in the front pew with his attractive new partner, while they huddle in the back with their mother, all dressed in second-hand clothes?

Anyone notice a possible problem with what he said?

Well, lets start with the fact that the author mentions some statistics about divorce. Specifically, about who does better afterwards. But then he stops there. No further statistics come into play. Which is a pity. Because if they were, it would help show the error in his argument.

Because from there he essentially makes the argument that men are the primary beneficiaries in divorce, and thus are responsible for the problem.  In other words, all the blame falls on them. There is this implicit assumption throughout that men instigate divorce more than women. We know this isn’t true; in fact the complete opposite is the case. Women initiate most divorces.

Furthermore, look at that final sentence. Does anyone else find that, well, questionable? I mean, has the author ever heard of child support? The truth is usually the opposite- it is the mom who enjoying her ex-husbands income, while he is making do with less- living in a smaller apartment, driving an old car and struggling with finances. Of course, not always; but there are always exceptions.

Also consider this: if mom makes the poor decision re: divorce, why shouldn’t we expect her to make other poor decisions? Decisions which end up with her in a bad financial state? Poor decision makers have a habit of making poor decisions. That is common sense- which we all know is anything but common.

This is just another example of a classic white knight in action. [If I was Rollo I would probably insert here some comment about how this Catholic is saying that loosening the  Catholic approach to the divorce should be rejected because it interferes with the feminine imperative.] Compassion is a good thing. But we must not divorce compassion from reality, else wise we end up doing more evil than good. In this case, it would be poisoning the argument against AL by using faulty examples of where it fails Catholic teaching.

Power And Control

Zippy has a new post up which demands a follow-up: With great power comes great incontinence. Short and to the point, I am tempted to repeat all of it. Instead I will merely quote what I see as the key parts. They are:

 

• The most primal power of men is violence

• The most primal power of women is sex

• [O]ur society is willing to punish crimes of violence but is not willing to punish crimes of sex

I think it should be readily apparent to all my readers, but I will repeat it all the same-

Society and Civilization can only exist when there are structures in place which control the base, primal natures of human beings. Failure to control that primal nature leads to savagery in the end, and that means chaos. Towards that end, the building and the maintenance of civilization requires that the primal nature of both men and women alike must be strictly controlled and regulated.

For men our most primal power is violence. Thus, to control our primal nature requires the strict regulation of male violent tendencies. Fail to do so, and you have disorder.

For women, their most primal power is sex. Thus, to control their primal nature requires the strict regulation of female sexual tendencies. Fail to do so, and you have disorder.

The problem right now is what Zippy notes- we regulate violence extensively, but not sexuality. The result is that women are now the primary source of disorder in the “Civilized West.” This will not change until sexuality is regulated with the same fierceness as violence is.

Unfortunately, what we see now is that efforts are being made to double down on the regulation of the male capacity for violence. And further efforts are being made to double down on the deregulation of female sexual tendencies. Rollo has a new post  where this is discussed in the context of The War on Paternity. While most previous efforts to ensure paternity in the past have been dismantled, new technology has changed the field. DNA testing means that a man really can be certain, for the first time in history, that a child is truly his. That naturally conflicts with female sexual power. Thus, it has to go. Hence we are seeing increased efforts to limit when paternity testing can take place, and when it can be used to change a man’s situation (legally, at least).

I have some more thoughts I may add to this post as I develop them. In the meantime feel free to comment below.

Selected Sunday Scriptures- #134

So I guess there was something of a debate over at Dalrock because of this post. Scott wrote his own thoughts about it over here. I’ve got a few thoughts of my own, but they are tied to scripture- hence why they are in this post. Reading through Dalrock’s post, I immediately saw the apparent “shallowness” of Mrs. Stone’s approach. At the same time, I was reminded of this:

He also said to the disciples, “There was a rich man who had a steward, and charges were brought to him that this man was wasting his goods. ² And he called him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Turn in the account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward.’ ³ And the steward said to himself, ‘What shall I do, since my master is taking the stewardship away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. ⁴ I have decided what to do, so that people may receive me into their houses when I am put out of the stewardship.’ ⁵ So, summoning his master’s debtors one by one, he said to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ ⁶ He said, ‘A hundred measures of oil.’ And he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’ ⁷ Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He said, ‘A hundred measures of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’ ⁸ The master commended the dishonest steward for his prudence; for the sons of this world are wiser in their own generation than the sons of light ⁹ And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal habitations.

(Luke 16:1-9)

I also got to thinking of this passage from First Timothy:

⁸ Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, ⁹ understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, ¹⁰ immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, ¹¹ in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

(1 Timothy 1:8-11)

The way I look at it is this:

Those who are truly good – or at least aspiring towards it- won’t need the kind of admonishment that Heidi provides. They will want to honor their vows, they will want to be loyal and faithful, etc. However, not everyone is like that. Some wives will not be like that- either because they never truly were, or because they are going through a time of personal weakness. Whatever the cause, they are not necessarily inclined to seek righteousness at that point. However, those who weak in that way might be persuaded by Heidi. She will appeal to their lesser nature- their cunning. And that is something that we as Christians should understand, and acknowledge as perhaps helpful. After all, that is the point of the first passage above- cunning has its use. And we as Christians should recognize it. Even if “lowly” methods are what is needed at the time, we can always appeal to the higher nature later.

Der Kommissar

Scott is once again lamenting the current state of affairs in our society, in particular the madness of the “Watermelon purge.” The part that caught my attention is this:

They have no idea the purging pogrom that is coming if this stuff is not stopped. No one will escape it. If you have ever posted something online that looked like a watermelon, smelled like a watermelon or had the word “black” in it, you will be dismissed from polite society. It’s just not your turn yet.

Scott is correct- the new Commissars are indeed coming. The West is in for a series of purges, the likes of which haven’t been seen for a very long time. I use the word Commissar because the allusion to Communist enforces of “orthodoxy” is quite apparent. The same level of viciousness is to be expected, although perhaps not the same level of violence. Rather, I predict that social, political and economic sanctions will be the primary means of enforcement. All the same, it won’t be pretty.

Watermelons are far from the beginning, and far from the end. I’ve written on this many times before. Sadly, I will be writing on it in the future- at least, until I am forced to abandon this blog… or it is shut down.

 

Selected Sunday Scriptures- #133

Its has been a few months since I’ve written one of these posts, and so this continuation is long past overdue. I’ve selected two passages from the Old Testament today, as part of a compare/contrast method. Some recent discussions I’ve had about female moral agency and the role of wives led me to choose these two passages, for each showcases a particular kind of woman. To be specific, we have an example of a righteous woman and an unrighteous woman. We start with the righteous woman (although she came later in time):

⁸ One day Eli′sha went on to Shunem, where a wealthy woman lived, who urged him to eat some food. So whenever he passed that way, he would turn in there to eat food. ⁹ And she said to her husband, “Behold now, I perceive that this is a holy man of God, who is continually passing our way. ¹⁰ Let us make a small roof chamber with walls, and put there for him a bed, a table, a chair, and a lamp, so that whenever he comes to us, he can go in there.”

¹¹ One day he came there, and he turned into the chamber and rested there. ¹² And he said to Geha′zi his servant, “Call this Shu′nammite.” When he had called her, she stood before him. ¹³ And he said to him, “Say now to her, See, you have taken all this trouble for us; what is to be done for you? Would you have a word spoken on your behalf to the king or to the commander of the army?” She answered, “I dwell among my own people.” ¹⁴ And he said, “What then is to be done for her?” Geha′zi answered, “Well, she has no son, and her husband is old.” ¹⁵ He said, “Call her.” And when he had called her, she stood in the doorway. ¹⁶ And he said, “At this season, when the time comes round, you shall embrace a son.” And she said, “No, my lord, O man of God; do not lie to your maidservant.” ¹⁷ But the woman conceived, and she bore a son about that time the following spring, as Eli′sha had said to her.

¹⁸ When the child had grown, he went out one day to his father among the reapers. ¹⁹ And he said to his father, “Oh, my head, my head!” The father said to his servant, “Carry him to his mother.” ²⁰ And when he had lifted him, and brought him to his mother, the child sat on her lap till noon, and then he died. ²¹ And she went up and laid him on the bed of the man of God, and shut the door upon him, and went out. ²² Then she called to her husband, and said, “Send me one of the servants and one of the asses, that I may quickly go to the man of God, and come back again.” ²³ And he said, “Why will you go to him today? It is neither new moon nor sabbath.” She said, “It will be well.” ²⁴ Then she saddled the ass, and she said to her servant, “Urge the beast on; do not slacken the pace for me unless I tell you.” ²⁵ So she set out, and came to the man of God at Mount Carmel.

(2 Kings 4:8-25)

Next we move to a very unrighteous woman indeed:

Now Naboth the Jezre′elite had a vineyard in Jezre′el, beside the palace of Ahab king of Samar′ia. ² And after this Ahab said to Naboth, “Give me your vineyard, that I may have it for a vegetable garden, because it is near my house; and I will give you a better vineyard for it; or, if it seems good to you, I will give you its value in money.” ³ But Naboth said to Ahab, “The Lord forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my fathers.” ⁴ And Ahab went into his house vexed and sullen because of what Naboth the Jezre′elite had said to him; for he had said, “I will not give you the inheritance of my fathers.” And he lay down on his bed, and turned away his face, and would eat no food.

⁵ But Jez′ebel his wife came to him, and said to him, “Why is your spirit so vexed that you eat no food?” ⁶ And he said to her, “Because I spoke to Naboth the Jezre′elite, and said to him, ‘Give me your vineyard for money; or else, if it please you, I will give you another vineyard for it’; and he answered, ‘I will not give you my vineyard.’” ⁷ And Jez′ebel his wife said to him, “Do you now govern Israel? Arise, and eat bread, and let your heart be cheerful; I will give you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezre′elite.”

⁸ So she wrote letters in Ahab’s name and sealed them with his seal, and she sent the letters to the elders and the nobles who dwelt with Naboth in his city. ⁹ And she wrote in the letters, “Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people; ¹⁰ and set two^[a] base fellows opposite him, and let them bring a charge against him, saying, ‘You have cursed God and the king.’ Then take him out, and stone him to death.” ¹¹ And the men of his city, the elders and the nobles who dwelt in his city, did as Jez′ebel had sent word to them. As it was written in the letters which she had sent to them, ¹² they proclaimed a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people. ¹³ And the two base fellows came in and sat opposite him; and the base fellows brought a charge against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, “Naboth cursed God and the king.” So they took him outside the city, and stoned him to death with stones. ¹⁴ Then they sent to Jez′ebel, saying, “Naboth has been stoned; he is dead.”

¹⁵ As soon as Jez′ebel heard that Naboth had been stoned and was dead, Jez′ebel said to Ahab, “Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezre′elite, which he refused to give you for money; for Naboth is not alive, but dead.” ¹⁶ And as soon as Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, Ahab arose to go down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezre′elite, to take possession of it.

(1 Kings 21: 1-16)

There are many things to note in these two passages. The first and most obvious is of course their behavior: the Shunammite woman is righteous and Jezebel is clearly not.

But also look at the role of the men in the passage. The Shunammite woman’s husband persuaded her husband into whatever course of action was taken. She persuaded him to set aside a room for the prophet, and for her to seek him out after their son’s untimely death. Compare that to Ahad- he is passive and basically lets Jezebel do all the hard (and depraved work). Then he moves in afterwards to benefit from her misdeeds.

One wife offers counsel and advice, the other essentially takes headship away from her husband. Not an accident, that. I think every married Christian should ask themselves which role they would play in this story. There is a lot to be learned from that kind of self-reflection.