Hope

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 67 of 216 · 20 per page

• From The Evolution of Beauty: How Darwin's Forgotten Theory of Mate Choice Shapes the Animal World—and Us (2017)

  The aesthetic theory of the evolution of male same-sex behavior does not imply that men with a predominantly same-sex orientation have any physical or social personality traits that differ from those of other males. Exactly the contrary, in fact. The hypothesis maintains that there is nothing distinctive about such men, because the features that evolved along with same-sex preferences have become a typical component of human maleness in general. Therefore, individuals with exclusively same-sex sexual preferences are distinctive only in the exclusivity, not in the existence, of their same-sex desires. — These aesthetic theories of the evolution of human same-sex behavior are, of course, highly speculative. However, I think that this speculation is responsible and warranted because of the fundamental importance of the question, the failure of current adaptive explanations to address the evolution of same-sex desire directly, and the unfortunate impact the current adaptive theories have already had on the public and cultural discourse on human sexuality, especially by reinforcing the tendency to view ourselves merely as (flawed) sexual objects rather than as autonomous and deserving sexual subjects. Clearly, there is a need for a new evolutionary theory on this question. We can, however, put these aesthetic hypotheses to the test by examining both their plausibility and their congruence with current data on sexuality in both human and nonhuman animals. To begin, I will evaluate their plausibility first by examining their assumptions. For example, these aesthetic evolutionary theories assume the existence of heritable genetic variations in sexual preference and in behavior traits related to sexual preference. Like many other social behavior traits in humans, there is good evidence that predominantly same-sex sexual preference—that is, self-identified homosexuality—is strongly heritable. In the case of the evolution of same-sex sexual behavior in females, the plausibility of the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection for female social alliances is well established in general. So, this proposal merely requires the application of a well-known evolutionary mechanism in a new context. However, the hypothesis that female mate choice can result in the evolution of male social behavior in ways that expand female sexual autonomy is a new idea. Sam Snow and I are developing a mathematical, genetic model that will establish the efficacy of the aesthetic remodeling mechanism as proposed in bowerbirds, manakins, and humans. Such models establish that an evolutionary mechanism could occur under certain realistic assumptions. The aesthetic theory proposes that female mate choice can also transform male social behavior in ways that extend beyond males’ social interactions with females, which is exactly the kind of process we’ve seen in lekking birds. Female mate choice in manakins has transformed the nature of male social competition so that bromance is key to success in romance. Same-sex behavior in human males may be another form of this female-driven aesthetic remodeling of male social relations, another evolutionary solution to the problem of male sexual coercion.

• From Sin: The Early History of an Idea (2012)

  All of Paul’s teaching is framed by his conviction that the kingdom approached. This fact can help to explain his unprecedented demand: not only that “his” gentiles absolutely cease their worship of idols and of the gods represented by those idols (a condition otherwise only of full conversion to Judaism), but also that they not “convert” to Judaism (that is, for men, receive circumcision; Galatians, passim). Why insist that these gentiles act like Jewish converts, eschewing their own ancestral practices, while at the same time also and heatedly insisting that they not act like converts, honoring Jewish ancestral practices (circumcision, food laws, and so on)?20 Because, as Paul says in Corinthians and elsewhere, the “end of the ages” had already arrived. The turning of the nations to the god of Israel was yet another event anticipated at the End. (We saw this above, briefly, in our passage from Isaiah 2.) Well-represented in biblical prophetic texts—Isaiah 25.6 (Israel and the nations gathered at the temple mount sharing a common meal); Micah 4.1–2 (an echo of our Isaiah passage); and Zechariah 8.23 (“In those days ten men from the nations of every tongue shall take hold of the robe of a Jew, saying ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you’ ”)—this expectation swells to a major theme in many Jewish writings of the late Second Temple period. Thus the Psalm of Solomon expects that at the End, the nations themselves will carry the exiles back to Jerusalem (7.31–41). Repudiating their idols, “all people shall direct their sight to the path of uprightness” (1 Enoch 91.14). “All the nations will turn in fear to the Lord God . . . and bury their idols,” prophesies Tobit (14.6). Note: the word turning here does not mean or imply “converting.” According to these traditions, the nations do not “become” Jews at the End. In turning to Israel’s god, these eschatological gentiles preserve their particular ethnicities as gentiles. They just do not worship idols any more. This is precisely what Paul’s gentiles have already done: “You turned to God from idols,” he tells the community of Thessalonika, “to serve a living and true god” in advance of the fast-approaching End (1 Thes 1.9–10).21

• From Etched in Sand (2013)

  “I need to make it clear that for us to accept you is a risk—law school rankings are based upon many things, including how many students pass the bar examination the first time, and by definition, you’re here because you failed in one of the two indicators that result in high first-time bar passage rates.” He explains that only students who achieve at least a B in the affirmative action boot camp will be admitted into law school . . . and in August of 1992, I learn I made the cut. I stay full-time at New Jersey Transit and pace myself for a twelve-credit load every semester, grabbing a coffee and a sandwich for dinner from the law school deli before my six o’clock class four nights a week. When class gets out at nine thirty I take the train from Newark to Manhattan’s Penn Station, then the subway and the bus back to Queens. By midnight I’m in bed, knowing the next day will look the same. Some nights, as I’m drifting to sleep, I’m jolted awake by the thought of Rosie. Nothing else has ever compared to the depth of emptiness my heart holds for her. Sure, I’ve mainstreamed professionally and socially . . . but emotionally I’ve never healed. I’ve stifled the reality of the emotional scars that I’ve spent all of my young adulthood ignoring. The more I learn about policy and the law, the more excited I become to immerse myself in the world of politics. After the half-decade I’ve dedicated to advocating for the rights of the physically challenged, I’m ready for a change. In 1993, the same year Rudy Giuliani runs for New York City mayor, Alan runs for city comptroller . . . and this time, with the support of the field operation that we cultivated over the past few years, he wins. Alan places me on his transition and inauguration teams. The first few months into his new administration in downtown Manhattan, I work with fierce intensity while juggling law school in Newark. “You’re one of the only people I know who never takes no for an answer,” Alan tells me as he designates me as his director of Intergovernmental Relations, charged with passing his state and city legislative agenda. As far as title and responsibility go, they’re as thrilling as they are daunting for me—a twenty-eight-year-old law student managing a staff and charged with implementing a New York City–wide elected official’s legislative agenda. We successfully secure the passage of ten state laws. MY PROFESSIONAL SUCCESS gives me the courage to reach out once again to Paul Accerbi . . . something I haven’t tried since I was sixteen, twelve years ago. If I can overcome strong and powerful opposition in state politics, maybe I can convince Paul that I’m a decent young woman who just wants to know who her father is.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  POSSIBILITY OF REACHING THE KINGDOMWe must go on to show that man can reach that kingdom. Otherwise it would be hoped for and prayed for in vain. In the first place, the divine promise makes this possibility clear. Our Lord says, in Luke 12:32: “Fear not, little flock, for it hath pleased your Father to give you a kingdom.” God’s good pleasure is efficacious in carrying out all that He plans, according to Isaiah 46: 10: “My counsel shall stand, and all My will shall be done.” For, as we read in Romans 9: 19: “Who can resist His will?” Secondly, an evident example shows that attainment of the kingdom is possible. THE COMPENDIUM THEOLOGIAE BREAKS OFF AT THIS POINT. DEATH PREVENTED ST. THOMAS FROM FINISHING THE BOOK. HIS OPUSCULUM, EXPOSITIO ORATIONIS DOMINICAE, THOUGH PROBABLY A REPORTATIO, GIVES US AN IDEA OF THE PLAN HE VERY LIKELY WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED IN COMPLETING PART II OF THE COMPENDIUM. PART III, ON THE VIRTUE OF CHARITY, WAS TO HAVE DEVELOPED THE THEME INDICATED IN THE OPENING CHAPTER OF THE PRESENT WORK, THAT WE SHOULD CARRY OUT GOD’S WILL THROUGH LOVE. DE MEMORIA ET REMINISCENTIASAINT THOMAS AQUINAS COPYRIGHT © 2015 BY AETERNA PRESS . ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. AVAILABLE IN PAPERBACK. TRANSLATED BY JOHN BURCHILL, O.P. M.A. DISSERTATION DOVER, MASSACHUSETTS, 1962 CONTENTSDE MEMORIA ET REMINISCENTIA LESSON ONE LESSON TWO LESSON THREE LESSON FOUR LESSON FIVE LESSON SIX LESSON SEVEN

• From The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25-Year Landmark Study (2000)

  Each of us brings conscious and unconscious expectations, hopes, unfulfilled wishes, and fantasies from long ago into marriage. Each of us then comes up against the other person’s conscious and unconscious agenda as we evoke their hopes, fears, and fantasies. The secret of a good marriage is to arrive at a good enough fit so that each person feels that the relationship is uniquely satisfying, sometimes uniquely annoying, but probably irreplaceable. People who have been raised in good marriages have an easier time. They have clear models in their head and know the effort required. They’ve seen it work and don’t give up easily. Those who have been raised in an unhappy marriage that stayed together bring more guarded hopes and expectations. They may have a harder time deciding to marry. But they also have an extraordinary model of people who have been able to triumph over their anger at each other to protect their children. After a long journey, both Karen and Gary and many others like them were able to protect their marriages because they were willing to change. On balance, their stories are hopeful and encouraging. Being a Parent and the Legacy of Intact FamiliesCHILDREN CARRY symbolic meaning for all parents. Just as they embody our aspirations and dreams for the future, they inevitably evoke the past, including vivid images and memories of our own childhoods and passionate feelings about our parents when we were young. Thus for Karen and other children of divorce like her, the decision to have a child brought up feelings of sorrow, anger, and deprivation. When Karen considered motherhood, she was beset with concerns. Could she trust the marriage to hold? Would Gavin be a better father than her own father had been? Could she trust herself as a parent to give her child a more protected, happier upbringing than she had experienced? She was determined to do so. Like parents since the beginning of time, she wanted her children to have all that she had missed. Unlike her peers from divorced families who took the opposite route of avoiding parenthood, she had confidence in her ability to be a good mother. For Gary, however, the decision to become a parent was never in serious question. His mother and father had presented a united front as parents, and Gary had an excellent role model for how to be a loving, sensitive father. In this he was unquestionably better equipped than any of his peers who had been raised by part-time, divorced fathers. By becoming a father, Gary had the opportunity to refurbish happy memories of his childhood. Those children of divorce who were close to loving stepfathers also had good role models to draw on and could look forward to reliving happy experiences with their own children.

• From Memoirs of Hadrian (1951)

  The time seemed to have come to evaluate anew all the ancient prescriptions in the interest of mankind. One day in Spain, in the vicinity of Tarragona, when I was visiting alone a half-abandoned mine, a slave attacked me with a knife. He had passed most of his forty-three years in those subterranean corridors, and not without logic was taking revenge upon the emperor for his long servitude. I managed to disarm him easily enough; under the care of my physicians his violence subsided, and he changed into what he really was, a being not less sensible than others, and more loyal than many. Had the law been applied with savage rigor, he would have been promptly executed; as it was, he became my useful servant. Most men are like this slave: they are only too submissive; their long periods of torpor are interspersed with a few revolts as brutal as they are ineffectual. I wanted to see if well-regulated liberty would not have produced better results, and I am astonished that a similar experiment has not tempted more princes. This barbarian condemned to the mines became a symbol to me of all our slaves and all our barbarians. It seemed to me not impossible to treat them as I had treated this man, rendering them harmless simply by kindness, provided that first of all they understand that the hand which disarms them is sure. All nations who have perished up to this time have done so for lack of generosity: Sparta would have survived longer had she given her Helots some interest in that survival; there is always a day when Atlas ceases to support the weight of the heavens, and his revolt shakes the earth. I wished to postpone as long as possible, and to avoid, if it can be done, the moment when the barbarians from without and the slaves within will fall upon a world which they have been forced to respect from afar, or to serve from below, but the profits of which are not for them. I was determined that even the most wretched, from the slaves who clean the city sewers to the famished barbarians who hover along the frontiers, should have an interest in seeing Rome endure. I doubt if all the philosophy in the world can succeed in suppressing slavery; it will, at most, change the name. I can well imagine forms of servitude worse than our own, because more insidious, whether they transform men into stupid, complacent machines, who believe themselves free just when they are most subjugated, or whether to the exclusion of leisure and pleasures essential to man they develop a passion for work as violent as the passion for war among barbarous races. To such bondage for the human mind and imagination I prefer even our avowed slavery. However that may be, the horrible condition which puts one man at the mercy of another ought to be carefully regulated by law.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. Because in comparison of God who is preeminently good, all men seem to be evil, as all light shews dark when compared with the sun. JEROME. Or perhaps he called the Apostles evil, in their person condemning the whole human race, whose heart is set to evil from his infancy, as we read in Genesis. Nor is it any wonder that He should call this generation evil, (Gen. 8:22.) as the Apostle also speaks, Seeing the days are evil. AUGUSTINE. (ubi sup.) Or; He calls evil (Eph. 5:16.) those who are lovers of this age; whence also the good things which they give are to be called good according to their sense who esteem them as good; nay, even in the nature of things they are goods, that is, temporal goods, and such as pertain to this weak life. AUGUSTINE. (Serm. 61, 3.) For that good thing which makes men good is God. Gold and silver are good things not as making you good, but as with them you may do good. If then we be evil, yet as having a Father who is good let us not remain ever evil. AUGUSTINE. (Serm. in Mont. ii. 21.) If then we being evil, know how to give that which is asked of us, how much more is it to be hoped that God will give us good things when we ask Him? PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. He says good things, because God does not give all things to them that ask Him, but only good things. GLOSS. (ord.) For from God we receive only such things as are good, of what kind soever they may seem to us when we receive them; for all things work together for good to His beloved. REMIGIUS. And be it known that where Matthew says, He shall give good things, Luke has, shall give his Holy Spirit. (Luke 11:13.) But this ought not to seem contrary, because all the good things which man receives from God, are given by the grace of the Holy Spirit. 7:1212. Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets. AUGUSTINE. (ubi sup.) Firmness and strength of walking by the way of wisdom in good habits is thus set before us, by which men are brought to purity and simplicity of heart; concerning which having spoken a long time, He thus concludes, All things whatsoever ye would, &c. For there is no man who would that another should act towards him with a double heart.

• From Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption (2014)

  At one point early on, I tried to caution them against expecting too much from Charlie after his release. “You know, he’s been through a lot. I’m not sure he can just carry on as if nothing has ever happened. I want you to understand he may not be able to do everything you’d like him to do.” They never accepted my warnings. Mrs. Jennings was rarely disagreeable or argumentative, but I had learned that she would grunt when someone said something she didn’t completely accept. She told me, “We’ve all been through a lot, Bryan, all of us. I know that some have been through more than others. But if we don’t expect more from each other, hope better for one another, and recover from the hurt we experience, we are surely doomed.” The Jenningses helped Charlie get his general equivalency degree in detention and insisted on financing his college education. They were there, along with his mother, to take him home when he was released. Chapter Seven [image file=image_rsrc32S.jpg] Justice DeniedWalter’s appeal was denied. The seventy-page opinion from the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirming his conviction and death sentence was devastating. I’d filed a lengthy brief that documented the insufficiency of the evidence and raised every legal deficiency in the trial that I could identify. I argued that there was no credible corroboration of Myers’s testimony and that under Alabama law the State couldn’t rely exclusively on the testimony of an accomplice. I argued that there was prosecutorial misconduct, racially discriminatory jury selection, and an improper change of venue. I even challenged Judge Robert E. Lee Key’s override of the jury’s life sentence, though I knew the reduction of an innocent man’s death sentence to life imprisonment without parole would still have been an egregious miscarriage of justice. The court rejected all of my arguments. I didn’t think it would turn out this way. At the oral argument months earlier, I’d been hopeful as I walked into the imposing Alabama Judicial Building and stood in the grand appellate courtroom that was formerly a Scottish Rite Freemasonry temple. Constructed in the 1920s, the building was renovated into a cavernous courthouse in the 1940s, complete with marble floors and an impressive domed ceiling. It stood at the end of Dexter Avenue in Montgomery, across the street from the historic Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had pastored during the Montgomery Bus Boycott. A block away was the state capitol, adorned with three banners: the American flag, the white and red state flag of Alabama, and the battle flag of the Confederacy.

• From The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25-Year Landmark Study (2000)

  Realizing that their contemporaries share many of the same feelings, they’re no longer ashamed to admit how much their childhood grievances and disappointments have endured. As they search for ways to help one another and put their fears to rest, we may see the rise of groups that focus on the experience of having grown up in divorced families. Another change is that many people are seriously considering the benefits of staying together for the sake of their children. They’re examining what they have as a family and are taking a more realistic look at what divorce entails. Combining a full-time job, courtship, and parenting requires the speed and agility of an Olympics champion but without the training that the champion brings to the race. We are also seeing a rise in interest in premarital education and marriage enrichment programs. Several states have enacted marriage license incentives that encourage people to take a four-hour class in marriage education for a reduced fee and immediate granting of the license. To cut down on impetuous weddings, Florida put in a three-day waiting period. Illinois has legislation to make people wait sixty days. Other states are considering legislation to improve preparation for marriage. There is greater community interest in marital counseling programs and conflict resolution courses that are aimed at teaching people to stay in the marriage and resolve the friction rather than turn to divorce. It is still far too early to know whether these or other education plans will be effective, but they reflect the rise in community concern about children and the search for new ways to improve marriage. When I have presented my findings to judges and attorneys at national conferences, many admitted that they were stunned to learn that highly educated, affluent parents were not sending their children to college, especially when a second set of children was born into a remarriage and children from the first marriage were pushed aside. They were also surprised to hear that many adolescents are furious at the court system for ordering strict visitation agreements with no options for adding flexibility or change down the road. The extraordinary reception to our book has encouraged me to hope that change is on the way. This younger generation has no illusions that divorce is easy or quickly over for children or parents. They, like we, are in favor of divorce where the marriage is cruel, exploitative, or dangerous or even when one or both partners are miserably unhappy in the relationship. But they are also acutely aware of how difficult it is to raise children alone or as coparents in separate homes. They know how hard it is for the youngsters who grow up in divorced homes to create the relationships that they long for when they come of age. Greta, who is 23 years old, is an example of the hope I see for the future.

• From The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25-Year Landmark Study (2000)

  The final task force that formulated the new no-fault divorce laws was led by law professor Herma Kay, who was well known as an advocate for women’s rights. In 1969, Governor Ronald Reagan signed the new law and people were jubilant. It was a time of hope and faith that greater choice would set men and women free and benefit their children. Within a few years, no-fault divorce laws spread like wildfire to all fifty states. People all across the country were in favor of change. But what about the children? In our rush to improve the lives of adults, we assumed that their lives would improve as well. We made radical changes in the family without realizing how it would change the experience of growing up. We embarked on a gigantic social experiment without any idea about how the next generation would be affected. If the truth be told, and if we are able to face it, the history of divorce in our society is replete with unwarranted assumptions that adults have made about children simply because such assumptions are congenial to adult needs and wishes. The myths that continue to guide our divorce policies and politics today stem directly from these attitudes. Cherished Myths TWO FAULTY BELIEFS provide the foundation for our current attitudes toward divorce. The first holds that if the parents are happier the children will be happier, too. Even if the children are distressed by the divorce, the crisis will be transient because children are resilient and resourceful and will soon recover. Children are not considered separately from their parents; their needs and even their thoughts are subsumed under the adult agenda. This “trickle down” myth is built on the enduring fact that most adults cannot fathom the child’s world view and how children think. The problem is, they think they do. Indeed, many adults who are trapped in very unhappy marriages would be surprised to learn that their children are relatively content. They don’t care if Mom and Dad sleep in different beds as long as the family is together. Fortunately this myth has come under strong attack in recent years with reports from parents, teachers, and researchers like me who found that the children were suffering. The euphoria of the early 1970s soon gave way to a rising tide of concern about the impoverishment of women and children, the high distress among the many parents who did not agree with their spouse that their marriage was on the rocks, and the fact that children did not bounce back quickly. Children in postdivorce families do not, on the whole, look happier, healthier, or more well adjusted even if one or both parents are happier. National studies 1 show that children from divorced and remarried families are more aggressive toward their parents and teachers. They experience more depression, have more learning difficulties, and suffer from more problems with peers than children from intact families.

• From The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25-Year Landmark Study (2000)

  In another milestone, they also managed to loosen their ties to their parents. Instead of running home to help their moms and dads deal with every minor crisis in life, they were at last able to separate emotionally. Only then could they give up the expectation that they were doomed to share their parents’ fate. Only by separating were they free to look forward to a better marriage than their parents had achieved. Of course, it helped that many of these young adults were doing well in their careers and in other areas of their lives. They had learned that they really could trust themselves to get what they wanted. Karen’s story shows these many steps in poignant detail. For most of her childhood and young adult life, she refused to consider her own needs. She took care of her parents, siblings, and a lover who disappointed her every single day. Then, in an act of supreme courage, she broke away from them all and began a journey toward independence and an increased sense of self-worth. Once she stood on this new foundation, Karen was able to call an attractive young man a few days after they met and open the door to a relationship. Smiling happily, she told me, “I finally figured out what I wanted.” Like the others, she said, “I decided to take a chance.” This triumph over her fears was the key to Karen’s success as she reached her mid-thirties. She was able to gamble because she fully realized that her chances of success were at least fair. Because she was no longer afraid, she could take a chance on love and commitment. Children raised in intact families also spend time in trial-and-error relationships to hone their judgment in choosing a life mate. But they enter these early relationships without the fear of failure gnawing at their heels. Thus, while the external behavior of both groups looks similar—lots of twenty-somethings living together to test the marital waters—they are driven by different expectations. Until they can break free of the past, the Karens of this world expect failure. For the most part, those raised in good intact families expect to succeed. Once children of divorce are able to put their fears aside and choose a life mate, I was surprised to discover that they often go in search of partners who were raised in stable intact families. This was a top agenda in their courtship. Apparently a stable family background provides a sense of safety to the child of divorce who wants security along with love and commitment. They say proudly, “He comes with no baggage. There has been no divorce in his family for generations.” Or, “She’s a rock. She makes up for all that I never had from my parents.

• From Etched in Sand (2013)

  Transferring to New Paltz is a stepping-stone toward finally creating some presence in the world, to make a living and something of my life. Three weeks later, it’s really time. Camille and Frank host a special farewell dinner for me at their home. Camille squeezes me tight after I put on my coat to leave. “I heard that living away at college is all fun, all the time. Will you promise me something?” I pull away to look at her. “What?” I anticipate a motherly request to be careful. “Forget everything, and for once, just enjoy yourself,” she says into my ear. “You deserve it.” Frank hands over baby Frankie, who plants an openmouthed kiss on my cheek, and the expression on my brother-in-law’s face is enough to convince me how much they believe in me. Sheryl, who is as eager to leave as I am, pulls into the Petermans’ driveway with her music cranked. “Road trip!” she says, and she and Pete load my two suitcases into her trunk. Addie and I stand silently with our feet pointed toward each other. Suddenly, she tackles me in a hug. “Regina, I don’t want you to leave!” she says. Exhausted by the emotions of the past month and my entire life, I hug back only halfheartedly. “Addie, I have to do this.” “But I’m going to miss you.” She pulls back from the hug to look in my eyes. “Regina, there’s something I’ve never told you.” “Addie, this is really not the time for any more shock from another parent—” “I love you.” My eyes and forehead soften. My gaze takes in both her eyes, looking for evidence of a bluff. As I realize she means it—that she really loves me—I wrap my arms around her and begin to cry. I take in her smell—lemon Pledge and cotton—and listen to the whimper of her cry in my ear. Pete and Sheryl give us the moment . . . and finally I peel away. When Sheryl shifts her car into reverse and whirs out of the driveway, I try to identify what I’m feeling: Anxiety? Fear? Excitement? Uncertainty? And then I find the word: Freedom. Over and over, on the four-hour ride upstate, Sheryl rewinds Bruce Springsteen’s “Glory Days.” On the door of my dorm room is a sign that reads Regina & KiKi. “KiKi, huh?” Sheryl says. “This should be good.” She helps me unpack my clothes then insists on taking me out. “Let’s hit Pig’s for a beer, then we’ll get a late-night knish with mustard at the bagel shop near the bars.” “There’s a bar called Pig’s?” “Oh, just you wait.” On the way there, we stop by the student union where there’s already mail waiting for me in the form of a course schedule. It’s packed with classes I’ll take for the education major I’ve declared, plus a course in international politics to fulfill a history requirement. “Brownstein’s the professor,” I say to Sheryl.

• From The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25-Year Landmark Study (2000)

  It describes several abiding myths that have guided our community opinions and policies for three decades. Up until thirty years ago marriage was a lifetime commitment with only a few narrow legal exits such as proving adultery in the courts or outwaiting years of abandonment. American cultural and legal attitudes bound marriages together, no matter how miserable couples might be. Countless individuals were locked in loveless marriages they desperately wanted to end, but for the most part they had no way out. Then, in an upheaval akin to a cataclysmic earthquake, family law in California changed overnight. A series of statewide task forces recommended that men and women seeking divorce should no longer be required to prove that their spouse was unfaithful, unfit, cruel, or incompatible. It was time, they said, to end the hypocrisy embodied in laws that severely restricted divorce. People should be able to end an unhappy marriage without proving fault or pointing blame. The prevailing climate of opinion was that divorce would allow adults to make better choices and happier marriages by letting them undo earlier mistakes. They would arrive at an honest, mutual decision to divorce, because if one person wanted out, surely it could not be much of a marriage. These attitudes were held by men and women of many political persuasions, by lawyers, judges, and mental health professionals alike. The final task force that formulated the new no-fault divorce laws was led by law professor Herma Kay, who was well known as an advocate for women’s rights. In 1969, Governor Ronald Reagan signed the new law and people were jubilant. It was a time of hope and faith that greater choice would set men and women free and benefit their children. Within a few years, no-fault divorce laws spread like wildfire to all fifty states. People all across the country were in favor of change. But what about the children? In our rush to improve the lives of adults, we assumed that their lives would improve as well. We made radical changes in the family without realizing how it would change the experience of growing up. We embarked on a gigantic social experiment without any idea about how the next generation would be affected. If the truth be told, and if we are able to face it, the history of divorce in our society is replete with unwarranted assumptions that adults have made about children simply because such assumptions are congenial to adult needs and wishes. The myths that continue to guide our divorce policies and politics today stem directly from these attitudes. Cherished Myths T WO FAULTY BELIEFS provide the foundation for our current attitudes toward divorce. The first holds that if the parents are happier the children will be happier, too.

• From The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25-Year Landmark Study (2000)

  But in this instance, the girls learn to stop waiting for their parents to rescue them and instead rescue themselves. After years of self-destructive behavior, they decide to join the world of adults and accept its standards. Their stories are honest, startling, and inspiring as they shoulder the responsibility of becoming their own parents. As I suggested earlier, their extended adolescence finally drew to a close. Enter the Grandparent P AULA CONTINUED. “Racer’s really the reason that I decided that I had to get my life shaped up. After I got sober I took a hard look at my life and decided that I wanted to give him stability. And, as I started to think, I decided it was important to go back to school but not the way my mom did it. I wanted to take classes and work toward a degree and have time to be with Racer—to be there when he got home from school and to see him off in the morning. Then I kind of got stuck because I couldn’t see how I could work and have time for Racer and go to school. Mom was already paying for Racer’s preschool and she was babysitting in the evenings so I could go to AA meetings. I was barely getting by on welfare and some yard jobs. And then a miracle happened! You’ll never guess.” Paula looked at me quizzically and said, “Dad showed up. He was out of touch for a few years but now he’s back and he’s changed for the better. He called me and said, ‘Paula, I hear that you have a son.’ I said that I did and he asked about him in a very grandfatherly way. And then he blew me away. He said, ‘Paula, you have to go back to school. You have a child to take care of. You need a college education.’ Sure, I said, expecting nothing. But was I surprised. He said, ‘If you go to college, I’ll pay for your tuition and your books. You can stay on welfare for your living expenses and I’ll buy you a car. I’ll pay for clothing for you and my grandson and reasonable other stuff for him and you.’” Paula took a deep breath. “So, I did it. I went to Laney Community College and took remedial courses until I made up my high school deficiencies. Then, my first real semester, I took English, psychology, and political science and I got an A in everything. You have no idea how that felt. Next fall I’ll be transferring to Hayward State, which is a four-year university. I’m going to get a degree in landscape architecture.” “Did your dad do what he said he’d do?” “Oh, yes. We’ve been getting along better since he came back and helped out.

• From The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25-Year Landmark Study (2000)

  The middle group, where parents are very unhappy in the marriage but want to protect their children, is the largest of all, and indeed, this is where the question is hardest to answer. Many parents in our divorce group had marriages that were of “middling” quality but they decided on balance to go their separate ways. And most of the young adults who were raised in intact families in our study described their parents’ marriages the same way—not very happy but they stayed together anyway. Until this study, no one to my knowledge has ever directly compared the experience of growing up in divorced or remarried families with what it’s like to grow up in intact families—yet this is exactly what we, as a society, need to know. Parents want to know how the lives of their children will be different if they decide to stay married or to get a divorce. That said, these young adults did indeed describe three kinds of intact families. At one end of the spectrum are the highly dysfunctional, bordering-on-cruel families revealed by Carol’s story in Chapter 7. These are homes where the children do not feel safe, where the adults are often out of control, but where the parents stay together for reasons I’ll explain later. At the other end of the spectrum are those families that seem to someone like me, who is so used to family troubles, too good to be true. The parents not only get along, they genuinely love each other and continue to show one another respect and affection. The children feel that they are central to their parents’ interest and that the family is a priority to both adults. It’s very important to understand that these happy families suffer the same kinds of setbacks—automobile accidents, job loss, death in the family, bouts with cancer—that other families encounter in everyday life. They are not immune to tragedy or blessed by incalculable good luck. It’s just that they negotiate these issues in ways that preserve the rock solid marriage. In several instances, as people talked lovingly about their parents and their parents’ marriages, I felt like I had wandered into another country where the inhabitants look familiar but the language and customs are new. I have grown so used to talking to children of divorce that I hadn’t given much thought to what it would mean to grow up in a very happy family in our divorce-ridden culture from the child’s point of view. How would their life experiences and perceptions of the world differ from the young people down the street being raised in divorced families? Finally, there is the largest group comprising all the families in between. These are homes in which there can be many serious problems —loneliness, infidelity, chronic illness, depression, sexual deprivation, and countless other woes—but the marriage stays intact. These are homes in which there are also gratifications, especially in shared concern and love of the children.

• From The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25-Year Landmark Study (2000)

  But he stopped in his tracks only briefly. He also had a competing image that was equally powerful of his mother and father working closely together as a team on behalf of their children. He had a storehouse of memories of both parts of his parents’ marriage. Their unhappiness frightened him. But he also knew a lot about the skills and compromises that they made in order to keep the marriage afloat. These observations underlie his resolution, which he called an epiphany—that if he wanted a good marriage it would take hard work. School for Spouses ADULTS RAISED IN intact families have been to “marriage school” alongside their academic learning. By the time they reach adulthood, they figure they’re as prepared as they will ever be to build their own family. They have watched their parents carefully, observing them in many moods, in different settings at different times, in sickness and in health. They have seen them use humor in tense situations to tide them over and watched them read each other’s moods and body language to distinguish a minor upset from an incoming storm. One colleague, Paul Amato from Pennsylvania State University, has proposed that the main difference between adults raised in intact families and those in divorce is that the latter lack social skills. But it’s more than social skills. Those raised in an intact family understand the marriage’s context. They know that to make a marriage work amid today’s pressures, you have to keep it front and center in your mind at all times. Nobody wanted a marriage just like their parents. There are big generational differences. All of the men and women in the comparison group wanted a freer, more equal relationship than their parents had, even if it meant more arguments. They all expected that the wives would work, which made a huge difference in their roles and especially in their parenting. But the children raised in intact marriages used their parents’ marriages as a model that they could shape to their liking. They did not doubt the very existence of a happy marriage, even if their parents failed to attain it. The lack of observations and memories of a working marriage is a serious handicap for children of divorce in learning to live closely with another person and striking the balance that both need. It’s like becoming a dancer without ever having seen a dance. Adults from intact families have two other advantages over those raised in divorced families. They had a sense of continuity with their families.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  I answer that, Long deliberation and the advice of many are required in great matters of doubt, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 3); while advice is unnecessary in matters that are certain and fixed. Now with regard to entering religion three points may be considered. First, the entrance itself into religion, considered by itself; and thus it is certain that entrance into religion is a greater good, and to doubt about this is to disparage Christ Who gave this counsel. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom., Serm. c, 2): “The East,” that is Christ, “calleth thee, and thou turnest to the West,” namely mortal and fallible man. Secondly, the entrance into religion may be considered in relation to the strength of the person who intends to enter. And here again there is no room for doubt about the entrance to religion, since those who enter religion trust not to be able to stay by their own power, but by the assistance of the divine power, according to Is. 40:31, “They that hope in the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall take wings as eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint.” Yet if there be some special obstacle (such as bodily weakness, a burden of debts, or the like) in such cases a man must deliberate and take counsel with such as are likely to help and not hinder him. Hence it is written (Ecclus. 37:12): “Treat with a man without religion concerning holiness [*The Douay version supplies the negative: ‘Treat not . . . nor with . . . ‘], with an unjust man concerning justice,” meaning that one should not do so, wherefore the text goes on (Ecclus. 37:14,15), “Give no heed to these in any matter of counsel, but be continually with a holy man.” In these matters, however, one should not take long deliberation. Wherefore Jerome says (Ep. and Paulin. liii): “Hasten, I pray thee, cut off rather than loosen the rope that holds the boat to the shore.” Thirdly, we may consider the way of entering religion, and which order one ought to enter, and about such matters also one may take counsel of those who will not stand in one’s way. Reply to Objection 1: The saying: “Try the spirits, if they be of God,” applies to matters admitting of doubt whether the spirits be of God; thus those who are already in religion may doubt whether he who offers himself to religion be led by the spirit of God, or be moved by hypocrisy. Wherefore they must try the postulant whether he be moved by the divine spirit. But for him who seeks to enter religion there can be no doubt but that the purpose of entering religion to which his heart has given birth is from the spirit of God, for it is His spirit “that leads” man “into the land of uprightness” (Ps. 142:10).

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  CHRYSOSTOM. Why is it then that nothing is said of the rest of the Apostles how or when they were called, but only of Peter, Andrew, James, John, and Matthew? Because these were in the most alien and lowly stations, for nothing can be more disreputable than the office of Publican, nothing more abject than that of fisherman. GLOSS. (ap. Anselm.) As a meet return for the heavenly mercy, Matthew prepared a great feast for Christ in his house, bestowing his temporal goods on Him of whom he looked to receive everlasting goods. It follows, And it came to pass as he sat at meat in the house. AUGUSTINE. (De. Cons. Ev. ii. 27.) Matthew has not said in whose house Jesus sat at meat (on this occasion), from which we might suppose, that this was not told in its proper order, but that what took place at some other time is inserted here as it happened to come into his mind; did not Mark and Luke who relate the same shew that it was in Levi’s, that is, in Matthew’s house. CHRYSOSTOM. Matthew being honoured by the entrance of Jesus into his house, called together all that followed the same calling with himself; Behold many Publicans and sinners came and sat down with Jesus, and with his disciples. GLOSS. (ap. Anselm.) The Publicans were they who were engaged in public business, which seldom or never can be carried on without sin. And a beautiful omen of the future, that he that was to be an Apostle and doctor of the Gentiles, at his first conversion draws after him a great multitude of sinners to salvation, already performing by his example what he was shortly to perform by word. GLOSS. (ord.) Tertullian says that these must have been Gentiles, because Scripture says, There shall be no payer of tribute in Israel, as if Matthew were not a Jew. But the Lord did not sit down to meat with Gentiles, being more especially careful not to break the Law, as also He gave commandment to His disciples below, Go not into the way of the Gentiles. JEROME. But they had seen the Publican turning from sins to better things, and finding place of repentance, and on this account they do not despair of salvation.

• From The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25-Year Landmark Study (2000)

  As our meeting ended I realized that Karen had provided me with an intimate portrait of what it’s like to grow up in a divorced family where parenting collapses and the child takes over adult responsibilities. She had shown me how she finally broke free of the demanding caregiver role and went on to create her own family. And she had been remarkably candid about divorce-related residues that she struggled with almost daily. As I drove away from her house, I marveled that she was upbeat not only about herself but also about the future of her generation. She said, “Divorce makes you grow up very fast. I resented this when I was young, but as I grew older, I realized it could be a good thing. Some kids were so angry at their parents’ divorce, all they could do was get into drugs and an unhappy lifestyle. Even now I know people who have not recovered. But I have. And I’ll tell you why. Somewhere in my twenties I stopped wanting a lost childhood. I think that’s the secret. I began to realize that it’s now, not then, that matters. And I realized that I’m me, not them. I can do what I want, not what they did. I learned to take responsibility for myself and my life.” Then she said, “I know we live in a culture of divorce and that many people have given up on the idea that you can find a partner for life. But I still believe that marriage can be a wonderful thing. I like to think that mine is. But to make it work, you need the right understanding and the right tools. I hope that Maya and the children in her generation will be able to marry for love with no hang-ups.” In expressing her hopes and fears, I believe Karen speaks for us all.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  I answer that, It behooved Christ to rise again, for five reasons. First of all; for the commendation of Divine Justice, to which it belongs to exalt them who humble themselves for God’s sake, according to Lk. 1:52: “He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble.” Consequently, because Christ humbled Himself even to the death of the Cross, from love and obedience to God, it behooved Him to be uplifted by God to a glorious resurrection; hence it is said in His Person (Ps. 138:2): “Thou hast known,” i.e. approved, “my sitting down,” i.e. My humiliation and Passion, “and my rising up,” i.e. My glorification in the resurrection; as the gloss expounds. Secondly, for our instruction in the faith, since our belief in Christ’s Godhead is confirmed by His rising again, because, according to 2 Cor. 13:4, “although He was crucified through weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God.” And therefore it is written (1 Cor. 15:14): “If Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and our [Vulg.: ‘your’] faith is also vain”: and (Ps. 29:10): “What profit is there in my blood?” that is, in the shedding of My blood, “while I go down,” as by various degrees of evils, “into corruption?” As though He were to answer: “None. ‘For if I do not at once rise again but My body be corrupted, I shall preach to no one, I shall gain no one,’” as the gloss expounds. Thirdly, for the raising of our hope, since through seeing Christ, who is our head, rise again, we hope that we likewise shall rise again. Hence it is written (1 Cor. 15:12): “Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no resurrection of the dead?” And (Job 19:25, 27): “I know,” that is with certainty of faith, “that my Redeemer,” i.e. Christ, “liveth,” having risen from the dead; “and” therefore “in the last day I shall rise out of the earth . . . this my hope is laid up in my bosom.” Fourthly, to set in order the lives of the faithful: according to Rom. 6:4: “As Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life”: and further on; “Christ rising from the dead dieth now no more; so do you also reckon that you are dead to sin, but alive to God.” Fifthly, in order to complete the work of our salvation: because, just as for this reason did He endure evil things in dying that He might deliver us from evil, so was He glorified in rising again in order to advance us towards good things; according to Rom. 4:25: “He was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification.”