Children of divorce are born ‘losers’ claims bishop

Byron85

The title says it all really.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/children-of-divorce-are-born-lsquolosersrsquo-claims-bishop-2848957.html

MANY children from broken homes are born "losers" and so deprived of love that they grow up to be dysfunctional adults, according to a Catholic bishop.

Bishop of Elphin Christopher Jones said that during his 17 years working in social services in Sligo he had seen the damage wrought on children as a result of marriage breakdown.

The bishop, who is president of the Catholic marriage care service Accord, stressed that he was not criticising single parents, many of whom were making "heroic efforts".

But he insisted that "the greatest good" would "come ultimately from the family in marriage".

Speaking to the Irish Independent yesterday, Bishop Jones said the breakdown of married life could result in social unrest and even violence.

He said the risk to society from the disintegration of family life was not simply the church's view but was backed by extensive social research.

He acknowledged that some marriages broke down "for unavoidable reasons" and that in those cases, "compassion ought to be our overriding response".

The bishop said that during his time in social services, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, he worked closely with families who, for the first time, found themselves isolated on newly built estates, without the support of their wider family circle.

"The husband was away all day and the mother was left with the children," he said. In many cases he saw, children were born into a family that was not secure and they were denied love at an early stage.

"Many of them were born losers. They had no start in life in terms of a loving relationship," he said, adding that in his experience, children who were denied love at an early age were "denied a sense of self-esteem and self-worth".

"They grow up disturbed and dysfunctional," he added.

"When a culture of marriage weakens, an ever-growing number of children will never experience the inestimable value of being raised by a loving, married mother and father," he said.

"This is not to say that children cannot thrive outside of the marital family but if we really value childhood, then we must do what we can to try and ensure that children are raised by the fathers and mothers who bring them into the world."

Equality

Bishop Jones stressed that it should not be left to church leaders alone to promote the preservation of family life and called on politicians to do more.

Speaking just one day after 5,000 people marched in favour of marriage equality for same sex marriage, Bishop Jones said that giving same-sex marriage the same status would "undermine marriage in my view".

He said in the eyes of the Catholic Church, same-sex cohabitation was not marriage and it "never" could be. "Marriage is life-giving and between a man and woman," he said.

Since 2008, Accord has seen a year-on-year increase in the demand for marriage/relationship counselling, with 43,627 hours provided last year -- the highest figure on record.

- Grainne Cunningham

I'm seeing this as part of a larger and growing offensive against civil partnership and marriage rights for gay couples. It isn't the first such article i've seen in recent months in which the "breakdown of the traditional family" is seen as the reason for the downfall of society as we know it. Because someone has had "no start" in life does not mean they won't achieve and i'll look forward to remembering the Bishop's words when I, from a single parent family, graduate from university next year.

chin_grin

Does this need to be cross posted?

From AH. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2056358413

shamrock55

there must have been a hell of alot of priests born from disfunctional families so

Turtwig

chin_grin wrote: »

Does this need to be cross posted?

From AH. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2056358413

Well, ahem, in fairness I rarely check on after hours. So odds are I wouldn't have seen this thread otherwise.:)

mikhail

chin_grin wrote: »

Does this need to be cross posted?

From AH. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2056358413

Bloody hell, that thread's far more hostile to Catholics than anything I've read here recently!

EDIT: And several people there point out that the headline is misleading, and the article generally a stirring piece of tabloidy crap.

robindch

Byron85 wrote: »

It isn't the first such article i've seen in recent months in which the "breakdown of the traditional family" is seen as the reason for the downfall of society as we know it.

The bishop is simply appealing to his core votership -- people who've gone through the marriage thing, put in their time keeping it on the road and want it publicly valued as a respect-earning end in itself. Much the same respect-based reason they're objecting to gay marriage.

The rest of the bishop's article, so far as one can establish what he means from the snippets provided, it incoherent and irrational.

Frankly, as a childless human himself and a member of a hierarchy which has had, to say the least, trouble dealing responsibly with the needs of children, I don't think he's in any position to lecture the rest of the nation.

Galvasean

TBH I didn't finding myself disagreeing with a whole lot that he said until he brought gay marriage into the equation. The main arguments against gay marriage seem to be that it would somehow 'undermine' or 'weaken' the concept of marriage. How? they never seem to elaborate any further...

mehfesto

He may have a point (I haven't read the research, I can't say), but his use of the word 'loser' is just unnecessary. The article reads like the priest is just stating these are hopeless cases. Ironic.

Interesting too that while he argues divorce is terrible for children, he says nothing of abusive marriages.

Galvasean

mehfesto wrote: »

Interesting too that while he argues divorce is terrible for children, he says nothing of abusive marriages.

Yeah the ol' RCC is a bit too black n' white on the subject for my liking. They are quick to point out that research indicates that (by and large) having two parents is better for a child's development, but don't seem to acknowledge that a child is way better off being raised by one caring parent than two parents where one abuses the other (and also the child).

Joey the lips

Its the paper sensationalisating it....

Kids who come from broken homes ie marriage breakup are far more likely to be associated with crime etc.

This is not me talking...

This is factual.

The fact the bishop said it has no bearing other than the church due to its wrongs is not in a position to talk.

Having said that.... You cannot expect someone who believes in there faith to just shut up... That would make them hypocritical surley?

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

I didn't finding myself disagreeing with a whole lot that he said until he brought gay marriage into the equation.

The bish is claiming that the best child outcomes happen when one man and one woman pair off and remain paired off. This might well be true when the man and woman love each other, love the kid(s), contribute equally to security and happiness of all above everything else, and remain doing so until the kid is old enough to become fully independent (though in my experience of this, it can be difficult to avoid the Tragedy of the Commons).

The bishop's view ignores the following scenarios:

• the parents are fighting/having an unhappy or unequal relationship
• the parents are using the kids as ammunition in a conflict by proxy
• one or more parents is less interested in the kids and more interested in something else (drink, drugs, religion, footie etc)

In each of these cases (and many other possible ones), the kids are almost certainly better off outside the marriage than in it. Neither is the bish is doing himself any favours by equating a "broken home" with, say, a co-operative arrangement where separate partners are taking an equal part in the raising of kids, and putting them first. Nothing broken about that; it's working fine. Or indeed, implying that there's something wrong about being raised by a single devoted parent who might have kicked some recalcitrant tosser out of the marital nest for repeated misdemeanors.

A bit of first-hand experience of physical and emotional relationships and the raising of children and the sheer amount of time and effort that all of this takes might help the bish understand better what he's talking about.

Galvasean

Oh I agree Robin. My following post was an attempt to correct/clarify on what I said earlier.

robindch

^^^ sorry -- my browser was open in the background for ages...

Cavehill Red

Professional cross-dressing fantasy peddlers who remain in high ranking positions in a noted criminal organisation despite it being renowned and vilified for its rampant involvement in child sex abuse are the real losers, I'd have thought.

ShooterSF

"Marriage is life-giving and between a man and woman," he said.

So if a parishioner can't have kids?

gargleblaster

Joey the lips wrote: »

Its the paper sensationalisating it....

Kids who come from broken homes ie marriage breakup are far more likely to be associated with crime etc.

This is not me talking...

This is factual.

The fact the bishop said it has no bearing other than the church due to its wrongs is not in a position to talk.

Having said that.... You cannot expect someone who believes in there faith to just shut up... That would make them hypocritical surley?

I wouldn't expect them to say nothing, no - but I would expect that if they cared about the problem they might eduacate themselves about the sociological factors involved, and not be so overly simplistic. Furthermore I imagine that many religious leaders are in fact educated in sociology, and would be far more comprehensive in their analysis of this issue.

Coriolanus

chin_grin wrote: »

Does this need to be cross posted?

From AH. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2056358413

Kind of does. Tbh, I like AH, but I wouldn't touch the religion threads over there with someones elses pole.

On topic, I love how these people can talk on high from their pulpit but then the hierarchy gets to disavow the whole thing.

eyescreamcone

The bishop lecturing to society about how families should be run, is akin to myself giving advice to NASA on astrophysics.

Thanks for the advice...but your qualifications in the subject deem your opinion to be useless!!!

mikhail

eyescreamcone wrote: »

The bishop lecturing to society about how families should be run, is akin to myself giving advice to NASA on astrophysics.

Any idiot can have a family. Many have. Why on earth would you compare them to a job which requires the guts of a decade's training which is intellectually beyond a clear majority of people? Also, did you think to read the article?

"Bishop of Elphin Christopher Jones said that during his 17 years working in social services in Sligo he had seen the damage wrought on children as a result of marriage breakdown." I reckon seventeen years' experience in social services might give a bloke more insight into a social issue than having successfully spawned crotchfruit.

Oh, and then there's this: "He said the risk to society from the disintegration of family life was not simply the church's view but was backed by extensive social research." Now, I'm not a social scientist, but I reckon a view backed by seventeen years' experience in social services and social science might just be a bit more useful than the enlightened opinion of some twit who has failed to successfully operate a condom.

So my question is this: who the hell are you, eyescreamcone, to lecture to this guy on behalf of society?

Thanks for the advice...but your not qualifications in the subject deem your opinion to be useless!!!

As crystal.

gargleblaster

mikhail wrote: »

Any idiot can have a family. Many have. Why on earth would you compare them to a job which requires the guts of a decade's training which is intellectually beyond a clear majority of people? Also, did you think to read the article?

"Bishop of Elphin Christopher Jones said that during his 17 years working in social services in Sligo he had seen the damage wrought on children as a result of marriage breakdown." I reckon seventeen years' experience in social services might give a bloke more insight into a social issue than having successfully spawned crotchfruit.

Nice.

The analogy seemed clear enough to me.

Oh, and then there's this: "He said the risk to society from the disintegration of family life was not simply the church's view but was backed by extensive social research." Now, I'm not a social scientist,....

Nor any other type of scientist, I feel very safe in presuming. If you were, you'd realize that simply stating the words "extensive social research" does not automatically give any value to that research.

If you had any experience at all with these issues, you'd already be aware that many of the organizations that religious groups in particular are fond of citing when making such claims do very biased research indeed. To the point of being laughable, it's so agenda-driven.

I don't remember that he even cited any of this research. Most of the unbiased research points more to issues of poverty, class, and overall familial support than marriage status.

AudreyHepburn

To be perfectly honest I see that article saying simply that divorce can have a serious impact on children, which lets face it is quite true. Not all childrem come through a divorce well.

Obviously though, in some people's minds, because a Bishop said it, it has to be rubbish

mehfesto

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

To be perfectly honest I see that article saying simply that divorce can have a serious impact on children, which lets face it is quite true. Not all childrem come through a divorce well.

Obviously though, in some people's minds, because a Bishop said it, it has to be rubbish

I don't think anyone disagreed with the bishop's sentiment that children of divorce MAY be at disadvantage.

I think most disagreed with the use of the word 'loser', his insistence that divorce itself was the problem in children becoming troubled adults (when we know that the divorce itself can actually be a good thing - less physical, mental abuse for the child on a daily basis, etc.) and that a man who should be inspiring hope, is essentially giving up on children of divorce, rather than doing something pro-active about it.

I'm not denying divorce would be a major event in a child's life. It's all circumstantial however. To suggest that Divorce is the reason that children become adult delinquents, is like suggesting that the taste of alcohol is the reason people become alcoholics. There's lots more psychological issues underlying the issue than that.

Dades

Also, clergy lecturing about marriage and children is always a bit bemusing.

mehfesto

Dades wrote: »

Also, clergy lecturing about marriage and children is always a bit bemusing.

That bit too.

mikhail

gargleblaster wrote: »

The analogy seemed clear enough to me.

Oh, well that eloquently answers my stated objection then.

Nor any other type of scientist, I feel very safe in presuming.

And you'd be wrong.

If you were, you'd realize that simply stating the words "extensive social research" does not automatically give any value to that research.

I know that. However, prior to your post, not one person questioned that. The objections were that he's a bishop, and so has no place speaking on the subject. So I'll take your point, if you can show me the post above where someone questions the quality of research the bishop referred to.

Of course, that still won't invalidate my point regarding his claim of years of social work allowing for a degree of insight which makes dismissing him because he's celibate a little silly.

I don't remember that he even cited any of this research.

He wasn't writing a paper, or speaking at a conference. Most scientists I know don't drop paper names of papers outside of academic circles.

Most of the unbiased research points more to issues of poverty, class, and overall familial support than marriage status.

I'm beginning to doubt your claim to be a scientist. If you were, you'd realize that simply stating the words "unbiased research" does not automatically give any value to that research. But then, I don't remember that you even cited any of this research.

You see, I don't want to give the impression that I agree with the bishop here. I haven't given it much thought, to be honest - I'm happy to simply ignore his opinion as the subject is not of great importance to me. It seems to me that on a casual reading of the article, he's been misrepresented to some degree, and that kind of annoys me - I demand better from journalists.

My post above is mainly motivated by how I look down on people who chose to criticise someone having clearly not read what he said, or in a fashion which is unfounded, either out of intellectual dishonesty of plain incompetence.

It often seems to me that on this forum, we often demand a very high level of precision in the arguments of religious visitors in order to test their mettle, but often fail to demand the same standards of ourselves. It's just ... disappointing.

gargleblaster

mikhail wrote: »

Oh, well that eloquently answers my stated objection then.

I know that. However, prior to your post, not one person questioned that. The objections were that he's a bishop, and so has no place speaking on the subject. So I'll take your point, if you can show me the post above where someone questions the quality of research the bishop referred to.

Wasn't attempting to answer your objection, I was simply noting that it was obvious despite the fact that it was flawed.

And I did, in post 16. Not explicitly, however I thought my criticisms were obvious enough despite being implicit.

Of course, that still won't invalidate my point regarding his claim of years of social work allowing for a degree of insight which makes dismissing him because he's celibate a little silly.

There is a lot of silliness in this forum, so I hardly noticed it. It isn't as if celibacy is a new practice in the church, and they have historically been viewed as an authority on familial matters, so it should be hardly surprising that it is still the case. So I read those posts more as jokes than serious comments.

He wasn't writing a paper, or speaking at a conference. Most scientists I know don't drop paper names of papers outside of academic circles.

I wasn't demanding that he cite it, just noting that without any reference, the value of the research is in question.

I'm beginning to doubt your claim to be a scientist.

If you were, you'd realize that simply stating the words "unbiased research" does not automatically give any value to that research. But then, I don't remember that you even cited any of this research.

I never made that claim. And while your parody is cute, please note that I'm not being interviewed for a published interview, neither am I a bishop speaking from a position of authority. Nor have I chosen to brand an entire group of people as "born losers", using my position of authority to give my words any undeserved weight.

You see, I don't want to give the impression that I agree with the bishop here. I haven't given it much thought, to be honest - I'm happy to simply ignore his opinion as the subject is not of great importance to me. It seems to me that on a casual reading of the article, he's been misrepresented to some degree, and that kind of annoys me - I demand better from journalists.

You must be disappointed on a sadly regular basis.

My post above is mainly motivated by how I look down on people who chose to criticise someone having clearly not read what he said, or in a fashion which is unfounded, either out of intellectual dishonesty of plain incompetence.

You must look down on an awful lot of people. I wouldn't put it down to dishonesty or incompetence so much as laziness, though. However, I can't fault anyone for not bothering to read such obvious guff as if it deserved serious consideration.

It often seems to me that on this forum, we often demand a very high level of precision in the arguments of religious visitors in order to test their mettle, but often fail to demand the same standards of ourselves. It's just ... disappointing.

I have noticed the same thing. Precision is for the visitors, for the home side it's mostly just allowed to slide.

prinz

mehfesto wrote: »

I think most disagreed with the use of the word 'loser',

In fairness to the man he used loser in terms of losing out on something not in terms of loser as an insult, it also has to be pointed out that when the word loser was used he was referring to a child in a home with two parents which was dysfunctional because the parents were not creating a suitable environment which contradicts the notion that he ignored the fact that children in a home with a married mother and father can be at a disadvantage.

mehfesto wrote: »

his insistence that divorce itself was the problem in children becoming troubled adults (when we know that the divorce itself can actually be a good thing - less physical, mental abuse for the child on a daily basis, etc.) and that a man who should be inspiring hope, is essentially giving up on children of divorce, rather than doing something pro-active about it.

He didn't 'give up' on anyone. As has been noted 17 years working in social services I'd hazard a guess he's done more 'pro-active' working with those affected by marital failure than most of the people criticising him now.

eyescreamcone

mikhail wrote: »

Any idiot can have a family.
EVEN SOME BISHOPS IT SEEMS!
Many have. Why on earth would you compare them to a job which requires the guts of a decade's training which is intellectually beyond a clear majority of people? Also, did you think to read the article?

"Bishop of Elphin Christopher Jones said that during his 17 years working in social services in Sligo he had seen the damage wrought on children as a result of marriage breakdown." I reckon seventeen years' experience in social services might give a bloke more insight into a social issue than having successfully spawned crotchfruit.

Oh, and then there's this: "He said the risk to society from the disintegration of family life was not simply the church's view but was backed by extensive social research." Now, I'm not a social scientist, but I reckon a view backed by seventeen years' experience in social services and social science might just be a bit more useful than the enlightened opinion of some twit who has failed to successfully operate a condom.

So my question is this: who the hell are you, eyescreamcone, to lecture to this guy on behalf of society?

Back up the truck there archangel michael.
Any lecturing on my part is from myself. I don't speak for anyone but myself - and I am well qualified to do so.
I never claimed to be a guru of anything, unlike our friend in his fancy frock.

The bishop is in a management position of a company with an agenda.
This company's agenda is...
Anti-gay, anti-gay marriage, anti-gay adoption, anti-contraception, anti-woman, anti-sex before marriage and anti-divorce, among others!

Let him speak to his diminishing flock about theological matters like turning mcvities into imaginary friends (THIS is what he has been trained to do).

However, when he speaks to us about social issues his message should be taken with a grain of salt because there is ALWAYS a hidden agenda with this gang.

His hidden message is that we should go back to the 1950s and bow down and kiss his ring.
It would be more in his line to clean up the rapists nest that is his church in Ireland at the moment.

No more should we listen to the ramblings of these men.
Their biased and bigoted messages should not be given the time of day by anyone with a grain of intelligence.

Shenshen

Byron85 wrote: »

The title says it all really.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/children-of-divorce-are-born-lsquolosersrsquo-claims-bishop-2848957.html




I'm seeing this as part of a larger and growing offensive against civil partnership and marriage rights for gay couples. It isn't the first such article i've seen in recent months in which the "breakdown of the traditional family" is seen as the reason for the downfall of society as we know it. Because someone has had "no start" in life does not mean they won't achieve and i'll look forward to remembering the Bishop's words when I, from a single parent family, graduate from university next year.

Like so many others, he's confusing correlation with causation.
Of course children from divorced families will experience less love and comfort than children from all-round happy families... if the families were happy to begin with, the parents wouldn't divorce, would they?

I distinctly remember how much happier my mother was after her marriage, and how much happier that made us children in turn.
Yes, BEFORE the divorce our lives weren't easy or happy, and the situation took a while to improve. Well, observed there, Mr. Bishop.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

To be perfectly honest I see that article saying simply that divorce can have a serious impact on children, which lets face it is quite true. Not all childrem come through a divorce well.

Obviously though, in some people's minds, because a Bishop said it, it has to be rubbish

Oh, nobody is agreeing with that bit.
But can you please explain to us why that bishop thinks that allowing gays to marry is going to improve the situation? That's the bit that has people here confused...

Geekness1234

How many children and doctorates in parenting those he have?