Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 4 — The Georgia Bulletin, January 25,1973
*:*:*:*wss
Most Rev. Thomas A. Donnellan - Publisher
Rev. James J. Maciejewski - Editor
Michael Motes - Editorial Assistant
Marie Mulvenna - Editorial Assistant
Business Office
756 West Peachtree. N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Member of the Catholic Press Association
and Subscriber to N.C.W.C. News Service US.A. $5.00
Telephone 875-5536 Canada $5.00
Foreign $6.50
Postmaster: Send POD Form 3579 to THE GEORGIA BULLETIN
202 East Sixth Street, Waynesboro, Georgia 30830
Send ail editorial correspondence to: THE GEORGIA BULLETIN
756 west Peachtree Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Second Class Postage Paid at Waynesboro, Ga. 30830
Published weekly except the second and last weens
in June, July and August and the last week in December
at 202 E. Sixth St., Waynesboro, Ga. 30830
The opinions contained in these editorial columns
the free expressions of free editors in a free Catholic press.
Divorce American Style
(This week we offer a guest editorial on the subject
of divorce by Monsignor James McHugh, director of
the Family Life Division of the U.S. Catholic
Conference.)
A number of states are now
considering revision of marriage and
divorce laws. Primary attention is being
given to the so-called “no-fault divorce
law,” as proposed by the National
Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws. This model was
rejected by the American Bar
Association in February, 1972, but a
modified version can be expected to gain
endorsement within the next few years.
As often happens, legislative proposals
are made and bolstered by arguments
that are sometimes inaccurate or
erroneous. For instance, we are told that
the number of divorces is increasing at
an alarming rate, and that a more liberal
divorce law is necessary to decrease the
suffering involved in a long and
drawn-out legal process, and also to cut
down on the dishonesty that is generally
associated with divorce proceedings.
Moreover, it is argued that middle- and
upper-income couples can easily divorce,
but the poor and those belonging to
minority groups are punished by
outdated laws. Finally, since the various
churches have generally taught that
divorce is morally wrong, there is an
effort to elicit church support or
decrease church opposition to the
proposed new laws.
The purpose of this editorial is to
sketch a “divorce profile” of the United
States. It will present the latest statistics
and demographic data pertinent to
divorce, without arguing either the legal
or moral issues.
Divorce Rates
Generally divorce rates were low prior
to the Depression, dropping to the
lowest point in the early 1930’s. In the
late 1930’s and 1940’s, there was an
increase, but the incidence of divorce
shot up dramatically in 1945-47, the
immediate post-World War II years. The
rates dropped considerably in the late
1940’s and remained constant from
1950 until the late 1960’s. From 1967
onward, there has been a steady and
significant increase in divorce.
i
There are various ways to compute
divorce rates. The most meaningful for
this analysis is that provided by Paul
Glick and Arthur Norton in a U.S.
Census Bureau study released in April,
1972. Glick and Norton compare the
number of divorces in a given year to the
number of marriages contracted seven
years earlier. The reason for this is that
the medium duration of marriage before
divorce has been about seven years for
the last half century.
An upward trend in divorce was evident
by 1966-68 with one divorce for every
three marriages contracted seven years
earlier. By 1969-71, the trend was at an
all-time high, with one divorce for every
2.4 marriages contracted in 1962-64.
Although these figures seem ominous,
the do not justify the generalization that
one of three American marriages end in
dovorce. The figures are computed for
specific years and may not hold over a
long period of time. Moreover, it is
possible that the comparisons could be
somewhat inaccurate because the
increased incidence of divorce in the late
I960’s is occuring at an earlier age
thereby making the “seven-year itch”
too late.
This trend may be somewhat reversed
after the Vietnam war is over, just as it
was after World War II. Moreover,
utilizing other data, Glick and Norton
tentatively project that about 25% to
29% of the women in their late twenties
or early thirties today (1972) may be
expected to end their first marriage in
divorce sometime during their lives. This
is below the ratio of one divorce in three
marriages. Moreover, according to the
U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics Annual
/
Summary for 1971, the upward trend in
divorce since 1967 slowed somewhat in
1971.
Age Factor
PERSONS WHO MARRY WHEN
THEY ARE RELATIVELY YOUNG
ARE ALMOST TWICE AS LIKELY TO
OBTAIN A DIVORCE AS THOSE WHO
MARRY WHEN THEY ARE OLDER.
Among men who had entered marriage
at least 20 years before the U. S. Census
Bureau survey conducted in 1967, 28%
of those married before age 22 were
known to have been divorced, as
compared with 13% of those who
married after age 22. The comparable
figures for women were 27% under age
20 compared to 14% after age 20.
There is another factor that must be
taken into account relative to the
breakup of young marriages. The 1967
study showed that women who had
children during the first two years of
marriage had a higher probability of
divorce than those who did not.
Although the data do not provide birth
dates, the high probability of divorce for
women with children is associated with
pre-marital pregnancy. Very few of the
women with children during the first
two years had more than one child.
Income
According to the 1967 Cfensus Bureau
study, the divorce rate for men earning
less than $8,000 per year was 8 per
1000, compared to 4 per 100 for those
earning more than $8,000.
A 1971 Census Bureau report showed
that 71.7% of couples whose family
income was less than $5,000 were
married only once. But 77.2% of those
earning $5,000 to $9,999 were married
only once; 80.8% of those with incomes
of $10,000 to $14,999; and 83% of
those with incomes over $15,000.
Education
According to the 1971 study, both
partners had been married only once in
75% of households where neither
husband nor wife graduated from high
school. But in 83.1% of households
where husband and wife graduated from
high school and 90.4% where both were
college graduates, husband and wife had
been married only once.
Religion
It is extremely difficult to measure
the influence of religion on divorce rates
since the religion of spouses is not
recorded in the vast majority of states.
More often, assumptions concerning
religious influence are measured in light
of the demographic makeup of the
population in a given area. Thus, divorce
incidence is proportionately lower in the
Northeast where there is a higher
proporation of Catholics than in the
South or West.
However, from the surveys and
limited studies that have been made, we
can make the following assertions
concerning the influence of religion on
divorce.
* In most cases, marriages between
two persons belonging to the same
church are less prone to divorce than
mixed religious marriages.
* Persons who profess no religious
affiliation have the highest divorce rates.
* Generally, Catholics have the lowest
divorce rates, followed closely by Jews,
with Protestants having slightly higher
rates. Some controlled studies show little
real variation, however, when the
marriages involve couples belonging to
the same church.
* The stability of marriage tends to
increase with the greater degree of
religiosity of the individual couple.
4
“No chance of those cats turnin’ into butter any time soon . . .”
Complexities
In The Ethnic Debate
Reverend Andrew M. Greeley
Copyright 1973, Inter/Syndicate
WByavS«v»v.:-Xlfflv^^
Msgr. Charles Owens Rice, the Pittsburgh
“activist” priest, has taken me to task - along
with Michael Novak and Robert Coles - for
defending the “ethnics” against the charges
leveled at them by liberal elitists. I am reluctant
to argue with Msgr. Rice, as I have a great deal
of respect for him, but he speaks such utter
nonsense that I have no choice but to reply.
Msgr. Rice first of all suggests that I have set
up a “straw man” in the liberal elitist who
despises the poor ethnic. Such people,
according to the good monsignor, don’t really
exist.
I invite him to come to the University of
Chicago for a day, and I’ll introduce him to a
lot of such people - or he could read Gary
Wills. But more than that, I invite him to look
in a mirror. Any man who can say without
qualification or reservation that the Irish
“suffered . . .in their bad days, although it has
not made them terribly sympathetic to those
under their feet today,” and that “the Catholic
masses acted badly on the race question” is
guilty of precisely that kind of elitist,
contemptuous attitude towards ordinary
people, whose existence Msgr. Rice denies.
Mind you, he does not say, “some Catholics”
or “some Irish.” Nor does he say that the
“Irish” and the “Catholic” masses -- like all
human beings, even liberal activists - are a
mixture of bigotry and generosity, fear and
hope, openness and insecurity. In the
monsignor’s world things are clear, simple, and
neat. Catholics and especially Irish Catholics are
racists and bigots - unless they happen to be
the sort of radical activists that Msgr. Rice
admires. You denounce them and you give a
“powerful example” so that you may
“penetrate the ordinary Catholic’s
consciousness.”
I cannot conceive of anything more arrogant.
You write a man off as a bigot, then you
affront him by behavior that is certain to
confuse and frighten him, then when someone
comes along and says that maybe the man isn’t
so much of a bigot after all, you claim credit
for changing him.
I am at least as aware as Msgr. Rice that there
is bigotry among the Irish. I am perhaps more
aware than he that there is also bigotry among
the elites. But the issue is not whether somt
men are bigots or whether all of us are part
bigot. The issue is how one appeals to the
non-bigot that is in most of us. It isn’t an easy
task. It is much simpler to denounce people and
then hand them over to the “consciousness
penetrators.” That ultimately is the difference
between Msgr. Rice and his allies and Coles,
Novak, and me. They think that reality and
people are simple, and we think that reality and
people are complex. It is a debatable issue,
perhaps, but by the very nature of their stand,
Msgr. Rice and his ilk cannot debate it. For
debate implies complexity, and it is precisely
complexity that they reject.
So he is content to write me off as “excusing
bigotry.” I shall respond quite bluntly and say
that when Msgr. Rice makes that charge against
me, he lies.
Questions
And Answers
Monsignor John F. McDonough
QUESTION: What is the purpose of the Sacrament of Confirmation?
ANSWER: The Baptismal ritual is completed by another rite which we call today
Confirmation. The Acts of the Apostles already contains allusions to these distinct rites.
Peter and John went down to Samaria and prayed over those “who were only Baptised in
the name of the Lord Jesus” and this was done “in order that they might receive the Holy
Spirit.” The rite of imposition of hands and signing with the holy chrism completes the
Christian initiation by making the Baptized “an adult in Christian Life.” What is this
receiving of the Holy Spirit? The Fathers speak of a new outpouring, a greater plenitude
like that which filled the Apostles at Pentecost. This gift filled the Apostles with a
strength, with the “virtue” of the Spirit. They preached with conviction, with boldness,
with courage. Their witnessing was manly, courageous and persevering, even unto
martyrdom. Such is the dominant idea of the Sacramental Grace of Confirmation.
In Confirmation, Christ confers, first of all, the grace of fortitude. It is like the power
of the Spirit which overwhelmed the Apostles on the day of Pentecost. To grasp the exact
meaning of this assertion, we must remember that the New Testament sometimes gives
the name of “Dunamis,” or strength to the Risen Spirit of Christ. “You will be clothed
with strength when the Holy Spirit will have descended upon you, and you will be
witnesses to me,” said Christ (Acts, 1:8). Holy Spirit and spiritual strength are practical
equivalents. It is in virtue of this equivalence that Confirmation has been called the
Sacrament of the Holy Spirit. In fact, this Spirit dwells within us when we are in the state
of grace and the Church demands that its children be in the state of grace to receive
Confirmation. Consequently, it is not a question of receiving the Spirit as at Baptism, but
rather a form of the presence of this Spirit, a particular grace of this Spirit, the
“dynamis,” the “Christian strength,” like that which came upon the Apostles.
Confirmation is the spiritual gift of Pentecost renewed in the course of time.
This strength of the Spirit is given for the manifestation of Christianity, for the
doctrinal witnessing which must be rendered by Christians and for the supreme witnessing
which is martyrdom. And we observe that the Apostles, filled with the Spirit, preach,
convert, baptize, work miracles. Those who are confirmed are also henceforth responsible
for the Christian truth and the Church of Christ. Their witnessing is authentic, first of all
because it bears the virtue of the Spirit Himself, and then because it is imbedded in the
testimony of the Church, through its Sacramental Character, about which we have spoken
above. The confirmed person is truly a witness of the Lord. All who are confirmed should
remain conscious of this at the most decisive moments of their professional life.
Educators
Joseph A. Breig
SSSSSSSSSSi
Father Charles E. Curran is a moral theology
teacher at Catholic University of America.
Because he holds that position, sharing in
Catholic U’s prestige, he is invited to lecture to
Catholic groups and on Catholic campuses, and
is quoted in the press, radio and TV.
Father Curran was among leaders of a group of
the theology teachers who publicly repudiated
Pope Paul Vi’s gentle, compassionate
encyclical, Humanae Vitae, on morality in
marriage and the immorality of artificial
contraception - a teaching constant in Church
history, and reaffirmed in our time by Pius XI,
Pius XII, John XXIII, and the Second Vatican
Council.
The council taught also that Catholics are
gravely obliged to form their consciences in
conformity with Church teaching. Father
Curran and the others alleged that Catholics
could in good conscience use contraceptives.
The teaching against contraception goes to
the heart of the right use of sex, given by God
for great purposes, and to the heart also of true
happiness in marriage, of personal and family
holiness, and of the virtues of purity and
chastity, widely condemned nowadays.
Contraception reduces sex to the merely
physical, cutting it off from responsibility and
self-mastery, from spiritual life and love, and
from the eternal meanings and destiny of our
lives as God’s images.
Father Curran currently is doing research at
Georgetown University, and recently was a
visiting lecturer at John Carrol U. Cleveland.
Both are Jesuit institutions. He was interviewed
in two Cleveland dailies, and was quoted that
most Catholic women have accepted his
arguments, so that “contraception is no longer
an issue” in the U.S. Church. Which is simply to
claim that Father Curran has displaced the pope
and the bishops as the divinely guided moral
authority in the Church. It is a resonsibility he
will carry before God.
He was quoted further that abortion should
be permitted prior to the eighth day after
conception - thus justifying use of so-called
“morning after pills,” which are not
contraceptives, but cause abortions. This is to
allege that a couple may morally give life to
child after child -- their children and God’s -
and then cut the lifelines. I am not surprised
that Father Curran has moved from contracep
tion to abortion; the former not seldom opens
the door for the latter.
At this same time, Pope Paul was
re-emphasizing, in an address to a gathering of
jurists, that from the moment of conception,
the hew human life has the same rights as older
human beings, and that any opinion to the
contrary is against the laws of God and nature.
The Holy Father reminded the jurists of the
Vatican II teaching that abortion, “like
infanticide,” is an unspeakable sin and crime.
I think we have the right to ask Catholic
educators what they think they’re doing, and
whom they recognize - and want their students
to recognize - as the teachers in the Church on
faith and morals. How long, I would ask, would
these Catholic-sponsored universities tolerate
use of their prestige to undermine papal
teaching on (for instance) the immorality of
racism and anti-semitism; of oppression of
workers and the poor; of Hitlerism and
Stalinism? Do “Catholic” educators have a right
to Dick and choose which moral teachings of
the Church they will uphold and teach, and
which not?
Realistic
Ideals
Rev. James Wilmes
Some old yarns never die; they keep on
getting told, passing down like family heirlooms
to each generation. Their success is due to the
insights they afford into unchanging aspects of
our human make-up. Such a tale is the one
about the old farmer who is approached by the
young eager County agent. Fresh out of school,
he urges the oldster to buy a book on the latest
farming techniques. You already know the
punch line: “Son,” says the farmer, “I don’t
farm half as good as I know how to already.”
The patient eye-twinkling wisdom of that
confession sums up all the difference between
lofty ideals and practical realsim. The yarn
endures, not because it mocks theoretical
knowledge, but because it builds up the person
who has to get things done in the midst of hard,
unbending circumstances. It endures because it
helps us chuckle some elbow room into the
binds each of us is caught up in.
“I don’t ‘parent’ half as well as I know how
to theoretically,” we might say to ourselves;
“real and stubborn problems prevent my
“parenting’ from being always ideal.” The same
can be said for our daily work, our prayer, our
ethics. This modest confession that our practice
falls short many a time is not a weakness, but a
curious sort of strength within us to “try, try
again.” Realistic ideals are like the mariner’s
star which ever guides him to land though he
never quite touches it.
RESOLUTION: “Practice makes perfect,” -
after essential studies are completed. Learn by
doing, not just endless seminars and discussions.
Otherwise, there’s not enough time left to pray
or visit our neighbor-in-need.
5
f