SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LindyBill who wrote (108260)4/8/2005 6:10:58 AM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 793858
 
>>Marriage Is Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts

By William Raspberry

Monday, April 4, 2005; Page A21

A friend was saying how remarkable it is that so many of us seem to have found the right mates -- not paragons but people who possess the qualities that are important to us and who make our lives more complete.

I suggested this possibility: Maybe it isn't their wonderful qualities that make us cling to those we've chosen to marry; perhaps it's the marriage that makes us see those wonderful qualities.

I thought it was a fresh insight until, in a recent conversation, David Blankenhorn called my attention to a letter that the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer had written from his Nazi prison cell to a young bride and groom in 1943. "Your love is your own private possession," Bonhoeffer told the young couple. "But marriage is more than something personal -- it is a status, an office. Just as it is the crown, and not merely the will to rule, that makes the king, so it is marriage, and not merely your love for each other, that joins you together in the sight of God and man . . . .

"It is not your love that sustains the marriage, but from now on, the marriage that sustains your love."

If this seems a strange subject for an op-ed, the truth is that almost everything I touch these days impels me to consider the troubled institution of marriage. I think of it when I see so many of my Duke University students settling for uncommitted relationships -- living together or merely "hooking up." I think of it when I see young children struggling academically because their single mothers are unable to give them the economic, emotional and directional support they need. I think of it when I see young boys run amok -- and young men overpopulate our prisons -- in large part because they haven't had the loving discipline that fathers can provide. I think of it when I see young women who don't know how to judge the men who pursue them because they haven't had the experience of a good man at home.

And I think of it when I see young (and not so young) men who can't seem to make sense of their role in modern life.

As often happens when I think of these things, I call Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values and a leader of what has been dubbed the "marriage movement."

When I called him in New York last week, Blankenhorn said I shouldn't be surprised at the sense of rootlessness and directionlessness, especially among young males. "After all, we've been saying for a generation that fathers aren't really necessary. Why is it so shocking that some men are starting to believe it?"

What strikes him, he said, is that there are so many fathers -- married fathers -- who, by any standard, are doing a terrific job. "They are very involved with their children, their marriages look pretty good, they respect their wives as equals -- they may be the best fathers we've ever had.

"But in terms of numbers, they are being swamped by families that don't have a father at all."

The thing we seem to be forgetting, Blankenhorn says, is that, as Bonhoeffer observed, marriage is more than a personal relationship between spouses. "It is," he says, "a social institution, with rules, public meaning and a story to tell. We used to know what married men were supposed to do -- less time out drinking with the boys, saving some money. Marriage was a status we graduated into, and it was bigger than we were. It defined us, and not the other way around."

Now, he says, we seem to be losing the institutional imperatives of marriage, leaving only the private relationship -- and that is increasingly likely to turn on such things as personal satisfaction.

He recalled something actor Bruce Willis said after his marriage with Demi Moore broke up. The actor noted that he was, in some ways, "as close now as . . . ever" to Moore. "Our friendship continues," Willis explained. "The institution has been set aside."

And maybe it is the setting aside of the institution that worries me when I think of young people and marriage. We have tried to sell our children on the pragmatics -- particularly the economics -- of marriage, and it shocks us when they start weighing marriage in the way they might weigh a career change or a job relocation. Whatever works, and as long as we love. . . .

Maybe Bonhoeffer had it right -- that it isn't love that sustains marriage, but marriage that sustains love.
washingtonpost.com

This essay says something I've thought for a long time. Having been in a relatively long marriage (25 years next month), I have seen how a marriage takes on a life of its own and becomes an institution that is more than just the two people who are married to each other.

Thinking about it on this day that Pope John Paul II/Karol Wojtyla has been laid to rest because he, more than any other spiritual leader, understood the importance of marriage as one of the bedrock institutions of civilization, q.v. his "Theology of the Body."

We were talking earlier in the week about what causes violent crime. I believe that, peeling it back all the way to first causes, the biggest cause of violent crime is putting yourself first, before your children, so that they grow up in chaos and on the mean streets, looking for the bonds of support that they should have gotten in the family, and not finding them.

Why is our culture so obsessed with sex and drugs? Why is it that commentators can't discuss the Pope without obsessing over abortion and homosexuality?

I think it's because the "Me Me Me" culture is offended by the idea of doing without anything that they want, and even more offended by the idea of setting a good example for others.



To: LindyBill who wrote (108260)4/8/2005 9:57:21 AM
From: carranza2  Respond to of 793858
 
Do you think the whole Terri Schiavo backdrop will have any impact on the Cardinal electors?
MS: I think that had a huge impact on people who think seriously about the issues of life. These are people who were chosen by John Paul II, and they understand that there's a level of decadence abroad in the western world. And that they are engaged in a struggle to hold the line until that can be reversed. And in that sense, this appalling case is really the starkest because of America's legalistic culture in a sense, because it wasn't just done quietly by a doctor as happens every day in the Netherlands. Because the entire power of the state, after all these various appeals, put her down like a dog, then I think that will have a great impact on people thinking about the culture of life and the need to sustain that through these dark times.

HH: You just used a phrase, which is very striking...the level of decadence abroad around the world. What do you mean by that?

MS: Well, because I think that essentially modern post-Christian Europe, and Canada, and large parts of the United States, too, have replaced the traditional impulses of civilization, which is to breed, and to prosper, and to expand and survive with a culture of narcissism. You know, I'd like to have, if you put it to me in those terms, I'd like to have meaningless, promiscuous sex, and just think about myself all day long, and all week long, and all year long. But in the end, when you prioritize that, you actually destroy the culture that enables it. It's a completely absurd culture and brazen. And that's what we've done.

HH: So, thinking it through, decadence is close to narcissism, family is close to the opposite of decadence?

MS: Yes, I think so. Because the fact of the matter is, if you do not...most societies have built into their DNA the need to survive, the need to prosper, and the need to reproduce. And we have managed to lose that in an extraordinary short period of time, and quite remarkably. And it's all very well to say that eventually the Muslims and the Hindus and so forth will stop breeding, too. That's not a good sign, either, because apart from anything else, it's a game of last man standing. So if radical Muslims are the last people to have five, six, seven or more children, then the world that they build will be the one that determines how we live, too. And so it's a simple, foolish, self-defeating sort of selfishness to carry on like that.


Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant.....and as obvious as the noses on our collective faces.