Marriage is Overrated

[SaintRafael]

Marriage is Overrated
Durendal Blog
June 6, 2011
http://rencesvals.blogspot.com/2011/06/marriage-is-overrated.html

"They [children] have been led to believe that religious life, or the priesthood, is a life of crucifixion; for the rest they “just get married.” ... As disciples of Christ, the choice of our state in life is to discern the manner of our crucifixion ... The graces of the family pass through the sacrament of matrimony, and primarily through the father. How many are the Catholic fathers who see themselves as “other Christs,” crucified for the well-being of their families? Where are the Catholic mothers who would wear themselves out risking all, even martyrdom as the Church has done in her mission to sanctify souls?

Father James Doran, S.S.P.X


By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

First, a disclaimer after the provocative title for this article. This is not a rant by a bitter man unhappy with his life and his wife. To the contrary, these are the thoughts of a man who is very happily married to a beautiful, militantly counterrevolutionary wife who is a wonderful mother to the four children she's given him in six years of marriage. And yes, the photograph above is from my own wedding day.

Now, that mandatory preface covered, I can get to the "meat" of my thoughts: marriage is overrated today, not only among those of the mainstream populace, but among traditionalist Catholics as well. Even more so among the latter.

Depending on which saint you read, vocations to the priesthood and religious life are supposed to call between a quarter and a third of the populace. In my observations, the vocations rate in traditionalist Catholic chapels is somewhere around 1%. I know many traditionalist families, and not a single one of them has a nun or monk among their ranks. I know of only two priestly seminarians out of the five-hundred or so traditionalist Catholics I have known. Let us assume that my experience is far outside the norm and that there are three times as many vocations in reality; that's still around 1%. Now, there are many reasons why there are so few vocations. The insanity if the modern world, which none of us can escape without any taint from, is no doubt the prime reason. Yet it is my opinion that another reason is that the married life is so romanticized and so blown out of all proportion that people nearly see it as the "be all and end all". Even unmarried lay people are to be found in lower proportions today than in the past -- according to Dr. Horvat in her lecture "Women in the Middle Ages" (available here), as many as a third of the populace in any given medieval town were lifelong bachelors/bachelorettes who assisted those that did have families.

None of this is to say that marriage is bad in any way. My very point is this: no vocation is bad or to be disdained, but nor is any one vocation so much "better" (or dare I say, easier) as to exclude the others in all but extraordinary cases (i.e. ~1% of the population). If there is any vocation that is "better", it is the religious life, since this is the easiest life to attain heaven in, since one need only follow the rule to do so. Yet it seems that the prevailing attitude is that marriage is the "have your cake and eat it too" vocation, where you get to enjoy some of the world and the pleasures of the bed but still get to heaven. The "easy way out" vocation, as it were.

What is forgotten in those heady moments of courtship, is that every life is a Way of the Cross. There is no escaping this; the best a man can do is choose which life of suffering he shall take -- which manner of crucifixion (as Fr. Doran well stated) he shall receive. Those traditionalists who are married are good at hiding from others their crosses, which is meritorious (we do not want to be like the pharisees) but on the other hand those who are not yet married should go in with their eyes open and realise this is not the easy way out. I might even go so far as to say, in this modern age when parents lack the support of family, single relatives and friends, and religious monks and nuns, and are opposed by an apostate society, that marriage is the most onerous or difficult manner of crucifixion.

It is a vocation that carries with it immense responsibilities as we will be held accountable not only for the children that we don't have (as is always quoted) but for how we educate and prepare the children we do have for life and the four last things (which is almost never quoted). The pleasures of the marriage act come with a massive price tag for the education of children has never been more difficult. One will be fought every step of the way by the prevailing culture around us -- which is possessed of incredibly alluring seductions to the young mind! And although priests have a huge responsibility as preachers, teachers, and confessors, this is mitigated by the fact that their contact with their flock is limited. Parents are "on duty" 24/7 and as such, have a greater degree of supervision and control than any priest ever will. As such, they will shoulder a large portion of the blame if their children go bad, and their children's children, for as Exodus 20:5 states: "I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me". Traditionalists like to quote St. John Chrysostom on the pavement of Hell's floor -- but how terrible will be God's justice to those parents who culpably fail in their duties?

Once again, I stress at this juncture that I am focusing on "the bad" only because elsewhere the focus seems to be solely on "the good" (why else would so many trads rush off immediately after high school to get married?). But let us consider the physical toll as well -- when traditionalist parents are well out of earshot of any of the priests or young folk, they will sometimes confide to one another how physically run-down they are. No single person or priest can truly comprehend what it's like to not get a full, uninterrupted night's sleep for months or even years at a time -- and be unable to ever catch up because they can't take naps either. Nor can we ignore the trauma on a woman's body when she has many children close together.

And what about when the glow of the honeymoon wears off? Or what about those cases where (and I have seen this) a person's personality completely changes after they have their first child? Yet still, you have signed on for life at that point. The "in sickness in health, for richer for poorer" is for real -- and it frequently happens that the sickness and poorer is the lot we get.

Even when things are good, the married life is not a life of license and indulgence. The passions must still be moderated. While on the one hand, there is the "marriage debt", on the other hand this is not carte blanche for husbands to behave ‘like brute beasts that have no understanding’ towards their wives. There is a tremendous amount of sacrifice and mortification required in the married life. Not just from this aforementioned aspect, but simply due to the fact that two different people with different personalities must learn to co-exist. This is not simple or easy, either. Nor is the self-sacrifice in giving up one's own wants and desires. A married man can't just go out for a pint with his friends when he feels like it, once married, because he has duties to attend to at home.

Not for a moment ignoring all the wonderful and good things about the married life, I hope that these thoughts can help to bring marriage "down" to a more realistic level on par with other vocations so that it is not the "default" selection, but rather one among a group of equally difficult (but different), equally viable, crucifixions to be discerned. Although, if I were forced to choose one vocation that's more viable than another, I would say that especially in these apostate times, the safety of the cloister is the safer and more sure way to heaven. Being removed from the corrupt world, their vocation has changed much less than the others have.

Posted on the Feast of St. Norbert, Bishop & Confessor, a.D. MMXI"

[The_Harlequin_King]

Depending on which saint you read, vocations to the priesthood and religious life are supposed to call between a quarter and a third of the populace. In my observations, the vocations rate in traditionalist Catholic chapels is somewhere around 1%. I know many traditionalist families, and not a single one of them has a nun or monk among their ranks. I know of only two priestly seminarians out of the five-hundred or so traditionalist Catholics I have known. Let us assume that my experience is far outside the norm and that there are three times as many vocations in reality; that's still around 1%. Now, there are many reasons why there are so few vocations. The insanity if the modern world, which none of us can escape without any taint from, is no doubt the prime reason. Yet it is my opinion that another reason is that the married life is so romanticized and so blown out of all proportion that people nearly see it as the "be all and end all".

Agreed with most of this portion for sure. Marriage is romanticized heavily due to a number of reasons: the Victorians, for one. For another, emphasizing the sanctity of marriage is counter-cultural to our current era of easy divorces. Perhaps trads are over-compensating. And perhaps the Theology of the Body (and the whole culture around that) has something to do with it as well. The number of trads going into clerical or religious vocations is also embarrassingly small, overall.

I disagree with the idea that as much as a 4th or 3rd of the general population ought to be clerical or religious. Any society with as large a religious caste as that would be ridiculous, not to mention the overall quality of clerics and religious would drop tremendously.

[Bristol]

Thank you for posting that article.  I had not ever seen that blog site before.  It's really good.  Men after my own heart.

I do agree with him that marriage is a very difficult vocation and particularly in our day.

[Vetus Ordo]

I disagree with the idea that as much as a 4th or 3rd of the general population ought to be clerical or religious. Any society with as large a religious caste as that would be ridiculous, not to mention the overall quality of clerics and religious would drop tremendously.

Furthemore, we would have a huge bunch of social parasites.

An economic nightmare.

[Iolanthe]

Why does he call himself "Esg."?

[Someone1776]

Why does he call himself "Esg."?

Esq = Esquire 

Esquire (abbreviated Esq.) is a term of British origin (ultimately from Latin scutarius in the sense of shield bearer via Old French "esquier"). In the UK, it is a title of respect previously accorded to gentlemen of higher social rank but which has since come to be used, with no precise significance, as a general courtesy title for any man in a formal context.[1][2] Esquire is cognate with the word squire, which originally meant an apprentice or assistant to a knight. Relics of this origin can still be found today associated with the word esquire. For example in the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem, "Esquire" is today the most junior grade of membership.

In the United States, the suffix Esq. most commonly designates individuals licensed to practice law, and may be used by both men and women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire

[Servire Deo]

Why does he call himself "Esg." [sic]?

Esq = Esquire 

Esquire (abbreviated Esq.) is a term of British origin (ultimately from Latin scutarius in the sense of shield bearer via Old French "esquier"). In the UK, it is a title of respect previously accorded to gentlemen of higher social rank but which has since come to be used, with no precise significance, as a general courtesy title for any man in a formal context.[1][2] Esquire is cognate with the word squire, which originally meant an apprentice or assistant to a knight. Relics of this origin can still be found today associated with the word esquire. For example in the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem, "Esquire" is today the most junior grade of membership.

In the United States, the suffix Esq. most commonly designates individuals licensed to practice law, and may be used by both men and women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire

I followed some links and discovered that the author is a barrister in Canada.

[FHM310]

I disagree with the idea that as much as a 4th or 3rd of the general population ought to be clerical or religious. Any society with as large a religious caste as that would be ridiculous, not to mention the overall quality of clerics and religious would drop tremendously.

Furthemore, we would have a huge bunch of social parasites.

An economic nightmare.

Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Catholic Priests and Religious are "Social Parasites"?


By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

Several months ago, I published an article entitled "Marriage is Overrated" which received some attention from certain discussion boards. One commentator at "Fisheaters" in particular, going by the screen name "Vetus Ordo" wrote, in reference to claim that 1/4 of people are called to be priests or religious, that " ... we would have a huge bunch of social parasites. An economic nightmare."

I found this claim rather extraordinary coming from a Catholic, althemoreso that no one on Fisheaters voiced opposition or disagreement. I had, obviously quite wrongly, thought that such rhetoric was reserved to the Protestants and that Catholics took it as "read" that priests and religious are anything but parasites. Interesting that the commentator used the phrase "social parasite" -- was this intended to suggest that suggest that the clergy add nothing to the social life of a community and only suck the life from it?

For a parasite is, according to my Apple's "Dictionary",


(1) an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense. (2) derogatory a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.

Let us assume that it can be fairly said that priests and religious rely on the faithful. Can we say that, in terms of the social life of a community, that they "give nothing in return"? In terms of the priests, can one truly say that baptising our children, offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, presiding at weddings, and otherwise tending to the spiritual welfare of the people, nothing? Certainly no Catholic would claim such a thing -- I shall assume then that Mr. "Vetus Ordo" meant that priests and religious are economic parasites only, and hence the claim that if 1/4 of the population were to devote their lives to Christ in this way, it would result in an "economic nightmare" because they give back nothing financially while relying on or even exploiting the faithful for any monetary income.

Allow me, then, to break down the definition of "parasite" into its two parts and see if either accusation "sticks". 

First: do priests and religious "habitually rely on or exploit others" or "live in or on a host (the faithful)"?

It is certainly true that the Church relies, in large part, upon the support of the faithful. And, indeed, it is even one of the Seven Precepts of the Church that the faithful must "contribute to the support of the Church". But does it follow that the priests and religious exploit the faithful or "live on" the faithful as a parasite does?

Certainly, when one considers religious, the answer must be no. On the contrary, when one looks at history, many monasteries (certainly in the Middle Ages) were fairly self-sufficient and even supported the faithful such that in some instances one might say the faithful lived on the monasteries. During the 5th - 10th centuries Benedictine monasteries were extremely important to the continued life of society and agriculture was one area that they excelled, clearing and cultivating large tracts of land. [ii] It was certainly common that monasteries would have grounds upon which they would grow at least some of their own food and the larger monasteries engaged in trade with their neighbours. At all times monasteries have provided food and clothing to the poor to at least some degree. Not only Monks, but nuns produced food and drink for the monastery. Nuns would also partake of embroidery, spinning, weaving, and illuminating manuscripts. [iii]

Priests may indeed rely more heavily upon the support of the faithful for their existence, as is proper to their position. So I think the defence of priests against the charge of "parasitism" may fall more heavily on the second factor. However, it should be recalled that in the Middle Ages, the only time that humanity came close to 1/4 of the population being religious or cleric, the great majority (probably as much as 9/10ths) of vocations were as lay brothers or sisters. As such, I would argue that if we got closer to the sorts of numbers I mentioned in "Why Marriage is Overrated", the greatest increase in numbers would be monastic.

Second: do priests and religious give nothing economically in return?

This has already been partially answered in my description of why religious brothers and sisters do not "habitually rely on or exploit" the faithful. I would add to this that many a monastery in fact produces goods that "give" to the economy since they can be bought/sold. Take, for example, the famous Trappist beers of Belgium such as Chimay. Illuminated manuscripts might not be as popular today as they were in the Middle Ages, but I imagine they would still sell, as would other well-known monk/nun products as cheese, chocolate, bread etc. Monks and nuns have always been involved in caring for orphans and teaching in schools -- both activities that contribute to the economic life of a community by preparing the young to pursue their own jobs and not live as beggars or on welfare.

Turning to the priest: one might argue that he produces no consumable good, and therefore gives nothing economically in return. However, this is to have an extremely one-dimensional and materialistic view of economics. The priest offers great spiritual and intellectual services. For one, in a time period where a greater proportion of the faithful go into religious life, more priests are freed to take positions as university professors and educators rather than rushing from one Mass centre to another. Certainly, it is not "nothing" to give the young the intellectual tools with which to pursue careers of their own?

Further, one must consider how good spiritual health of a population can benefit an economy. I would argue that part of the reason for the financial woes of our age is the mass turning-away from God. Whereas a people who have priests to guide them and forgive them their sins will be more economically viable since, as Our Lord teaches us "Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you." (Matthew VI, xxxiii)

Given all of the foregoing, I suggest that even if 1/4 of the population were living and priests or religious, it would be -- far from an economic nighmare -- a stable economic situation and likely one that features a stronger economy than that which we are now "enjoying" in a climate when even among trads the percentage of vocations may be counted on one hand.

Posted on the Feast of All Saints, a.D. MMXI

See http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3441011.0.html
 [ii] See Woods, Dr. Thomas E., Jr., How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Regnery Publishing, Washington, DC: 2005, specifically, Chapter Three: How the Monks Saved Civilization
[iii] See the Rule of St. Benedict, for example Chapters 36 and 37 which order due care for the sick, the old, and the young; Chapter 48 which emphasises the importance of manual labour; Chapter 50 and 51 which deal with monks working in the fields.

[Servire Deo]

 

[FHM310]

   I think I'll join you with the popcorn... 


p.s. I forgot the link:

http://rencesvals.blogspot.com/2011/11/catholic-priests-and-religious-are.html