I
InigoMontoya
Guest
You’re in Seattle, no? That’s a huge metro area… why not start some events or social activities? Take charge!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I wouldn’t even know where to begin on something like that, let alone how to spread the message. I’m a 36 year old single guy and when I go to church, I’m the only one in that category that I can see. There are a lot of seniors and a handful of young families. That’s it. There are a couple of different churches I attend and the same scenario applies to both.You’re in Seattle, no? That’s a huge metro area… why not start some events or social activities? Take charge!
And even if there members of the opposite sex of appropriate age that appeared to be single, it would be a safe bet that they’re only Catholic in name only and support gay marriage, premarital sex, etc. In other words, not datable material.
I
InigoMontoya
Guest
Check with your diocese, it has to be quite large. It would be hard pressed if they don’t have some activities going on somewhere. Become involved in some men’s ministry or other outreach or charity activities. Look into some of the successful outreaches that occur around the country, put up fliers for twenty’something-thirty’somethings to meet at a pub with a guest speaker to discus theology. Join the KoC. Look into west coast retreats. There’s a ton of places to start!I wouldn’t even know where to begin on something like that, let alone how to spread the message. I’m a 36 year old single guy and when I go to church, I’m the only one in that category that I can see. There are a lot of seniors and a handful of young families. That’s it. There are a couple of different churches I attend and the same scenario applies to both.
And even if there members of the opposite sex of appropriate age that appeared to be single, it would be a safe bet that they’re only Catholic in name only and support gay marriage, premarital sex, etc. In other words, not datable material.
N
Naskor
Guest
I think OP is talking about how despite most people being called to married life most adults aren’t married.Rosebud made a wonderful observation - namely Marriage is not mandatory. Not everyone is suited for parenting and family. Singles have great purposes too!
washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/15/for-the-first-time-there-are-more-single-american-adults-than-married-ones-and-heres-where-they-live/
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
Are we sure most are called to marriage? There is far less pressure to get married than a few decades ago. Perhaps a lot of those marriages in previous generations were partly due to societal pressure vs the perceived risks.I think OP is talking about how despite most people being called to married life most adults aren’t married.
washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/15/for-the-first-time-there-are-more-single-american-adults-than-married-ones-and-heres-where-they-live/
J
JimG
Guest
I really think that most people are called to marriage. But the institution has fallen on such hard times that now, many who are called to marriage, are afraid of it. The culture no longer supports the values of permanence, fidelity, lifelong commitment, sacrificial love, and the raising of families.Are we sure most are called to marriage? There is far less pressure to get married than a few decades ago. Perhaps a lot of those marriages in previous generations were partly due to societal pressure vs the perceived risks.
Z
ZellieFan
Guest
Yes, most people are called to marriage. The very desire for relationship and intimacy is proof of that fact. Why would God tell us to flee sexual immorality, but not give us an opportunity for valid expression of sexuality with in marriage? Paul talks about the gift of celibacy, but most humans don’t have that desire or gift. Of course, abstinence if possible, but the innate desire for companionship and intimacy tells me that most arm made for marriage.Are we sure most are called to marriage? There is far less pressure to get married than a few decades ago. Perhaps a lot of those marriages in previous generations were partly due to societal pressure vs the perceived risk.
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
Hard times? I’ll agree.I really think that most people are called to marriage. But the institution has fallen on such hard times that now, many who are called to marriage, are afraid of it. The culture no longer supports the values of permanence, fidelity, lifelong commitment, sacrificial love, and the raising of families.
Marriage is a high risk/high reward proposition that can be fantastically rewarding (Not just financially, but more importantly in immeasurable ways). But it can not be denied that it carries an incredible level of risk that can break a person.
J
JimG
Guest
After reading a number of annulment and divorce stories on these forums, I am more convinced than ever than in these times, a great many people, perhaps most (?), are simply incapable of marriage. This to a much greater degree than in some immediately preceding generations. I think that the incapacity for marriage is not by nature or natural inclination, but by conditioning. I hope that changes.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Incapable in terms of lacking formation rather than conditioning? I can believe that. There is greater temptation to divorce and self-indulge, too, but those do not necessarily come out of an invalid marriage.After reading a number of annulment and divorce stories on these forums, I am more convinced than ever than in these times, a great many people, perhaps most (?), are simply incapable of marriage. This to a much greater degree than in some immediately preceding generations. I think that the incapacity for marriage is not by nature or natural inclination, but by conditioning. I hope that changes.
J
JimG
Guest
If I were more involved in the annulment process, maybe I would have a better sense of the situation, but I’m not, and that’s a good thing!Incapable in terms of lacking formation rather than conditioning? I can believe that. There is greater temptation to divorce and self-indulge, too, but those do not necessarily come out of an invalid marriage.
Thinking back on my own youth, it seems that young couples could make a life-long binding commitment to each other with no mental reservations whatever. They took vows and figured that’s it; we’re married for life, no matter what. It gave the marriage a lot of stability just by that fact. Permanence was assumed and certain.
Now, I’m not so sure. Young couples may make the vows, thinking it’s for life, holding nothing back, and yet the no fault divorce culture has so seeped into their being that they can’t help but know, in the recesses of their minds, that as a matter of fact, divorce can happen. It can strike like lightning, unpredictably. And so the vows really do hold something back. In the past, in many cases, for both Catholics and Protestants, divorce really was unthinkable. Candidates lost nominations because of divorce. It was not acceptable. Now it is.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Divorce continues to be a problem for political candidates.If I were more involved in the annulment process, maybe I would have a better sense of the situation, but I’m not, and that’s a good thing!
Thinking back on my own youth, it seems that young couples could make a life-long binding commitment to each other with no mental reservations whatever. They took vows and figured that’s it; we’re married for life, no matter what. It gave the marriage a lot of stability just by that fact. Permanence was assumed and certain.
Now, I’m not so sure. Young couples may make the vows, thinking it’s for life, holding nothing back, and yet the no fault divorce culture has so seeped into their being that they can’t help but know, in the recesses of their minds, that as a matter of fact, divorce can happen. It can strike like lightning, unpredictably. And so the vows really do hold something back. In the past, in many cases, for both Catholics and Protestants, divorce really was unthinkable. Candidates lost nominations because of divorce. It was not acceptable. Now it is.
To this day, we’ve only had one divorced and remarried president (Reagan).
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, his divorce nearly killed his political career before it got well started.Divorce continues to be a problem for political candidates.
To this day, we’ve only had one divorced and remarried president (Reagan).
X
Xantippe
Guest
Come to think of it, the US peaks for divorce actually involved people that had grown up in the marriage-for-life culture. The US divorce rate has fallen substantially since its peak in 1980. It ticked up during the 1960s but zoomed up during the 1970s–the people that were involved in the divorce wave that peaked in 1980 had grown up in a marriage-for-life culture.If I were more involved in the annulment process, maybe I would have a better sense of the situation, but I’m not, and that’s a good thing!
Thinking back on my own youth, it seems that young couples could make a life-long binding commitment to each other with no mental reservations whatever. They took vows and figured that’s it; we’re married for life, no matter what. It gave the marriage a lot of stability just by that fact. Permanence was assumed and certain.
Now, I’m not so sure. Young couples may make the vows, thinking it’s for life, holding nothing back, and yet the no fault divorce culture has so seeped into their being that they can’t help but know, in the recesses of their minds, that as a matter of fact, divorce can happen. It can strike like lightning, unpredictably. And so the vows really do hold something back. In the past, in many cases, for both Catholics and Protestants, divorce really was unthinkable. Candidates lost nominations because of divorce. It was not acceptable. Now it is.
familyfacts.org/charts/120/the-divorce-rate-is-declining-but-still-high
Furthermore, while it is standard to start any examination of US divorce rates with the 1950s, it’s not a bad idea to zoom out and look at the bigger historical trends.
Here are some numbers from here:
divorce.lovetoknow.com/Historical_Divorce_Rate_Statistics
(Bear in mind that divorce rate here means the number of divorces in a particular year as a percentage of the number of marriages in that particular year.)
From 1867-1900, the US divorce rate crept up from 3% to 7%.
From 1901-1930, the US divorce rate went from 8% to 16%.
The divorce rate during the 1930s started at 16% and ended at 19%, but there were dips to as low as 13%.
Very interestingly, the 1940s were a BIG decade for divorce. I’ll list each year individually, because there’s such a huge range for that decade (from 20%-43%) and bold the standouts:
1940 20%
1941 22%
1942 24%
1943 26%
1944 29%
1945 35%
1946 43%
1947 34%
1948 28%
1949 27%
In the 1950s and 1960s, the divorce rate was in the 20s, with numbers ranging from 21% (1958) to 26% (1958 and 1967).
Here are some more numbers (the only ones they give for the 1970s and 1980s):
1970 33%
1975 48%
1980 52%
1985 50%
I first saw that chart recently, and I found the 1945-1947 numbers astonishing. That was not the “Greatest Generation” story we’re used to hearing. Again, that peak (the biggest until the 1970s) involved people that had grown up in a culture where divorce was not done.
J
JimG
Guest
Thanks for the stats. They are quite interesting. I know quite a few old guys who grew up with marriage stability as the norm, and ranted when their kids joined the sexual revolution. Then later they joined the sexual revolution themselves. Now they are the ones that are complaining about the conservative and traditionalist youngsters. No telling how it will turn out.Come to think of it, the US peaks for divorce actually involved people that had grown up in the marriage-for-life culture. The US divorce rate has fallen substantially since its peak in 1980. It ticked up during the 1960s but zoomed up during the 1970s–the people that were involved in the divorce wave that peaked in 1980 had grown up in a marriage-for-life culture.
familyfacts.org/charts/120/the-divorce-rate-is-declining-but-still-high
Furthermore, while it is standard to start any examination of US divorce rates with the 1950s, it’s not a bad idea to zoom out and look at the bigger historical trends.
Here are some numbers from here:
divorce.lovetoknow.com/Historical_Divorce_Rate_Statistics
(Bear in mind that divorce rate here means the number of divorces in a particular year as a percentage of the number of marriages in that particular year.)
From 1867-1900, the US divorce rate crept up from 3% to 7%.
From 1901-1930, the US divorce rate went from 8% to 16%.
The divorce rate during the 1930s started at 16% and ended at 19%, but there were dips to as low as 13%.
Very interestingly, the 1940s were a BIG decade for divorce. I’ll list each year individually, because there’s such a huge range for that decade (from 20%-43%) and bold the standouts:
1940 20%
1941 22%
1942 24%
1943 26%
1944 29%
1945 35%
1946 43%
1947 34%
1948 28%
1949 27%
In the 1950s and 1960s, the divorce rate was in the 20s, with numbers ranging from 21% (1958) to 26% (1958 and 1967).
Here are some more numbers (the only ones they give for the 1970s and 1980s):
1970 33%
1975 48%
1980 52%
1985 50%
I first saw that chart recently, and I found the 1945-1947 numbers astonishing. That was not the “Greatest Generation” story we’re used to hearing. Again, that peak (the biggest until the 1970s) involved people that had grown up in a culture where divorce was not done.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.