| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Future of Fatherless America
by Joseph L. Falvey, Jr.
Father’s Day,
2098. The day begins as any other day. Children throughout America awake to find
themselves safely within the confines of the state-operated child development centers and
schools. We no longer call this day “Father’s Day.” Instead, we celebrate
“Village Day” to honor the many “caregivers” entrusted with raising
our children from birth through adolescence.
No one remembers when we, as a society, decided that the state should provide for the care of our children. The transfer of parental obligations to the state had not happened overnight. But, as violence and sexually transmitted diseases, a failed educational system, and the reign of the culture of death took their toll on more and more children, the state stepped in to protect them. As the 21st century progressed, mothers increasingly found themselves raising their children alone and in poverty. Weary mothers, long abandoned by the father (or fathers) of their children, increasingly turned to the state to help them raise their children. Who could blame them? What else could they do?
Initially, many mothers simply looked to the state for help raising their children through state operated day care centers and programs that freed them to work and improve their standard of living. Eventually, however, most mothers released their children to be raised by the state in the hope that the state could better protect and educate them.
The state protected the children from the youth gangs that roamed the streets preying upon the innocent by building walls around the centers and schools. Some questioned whether the walls were intended to keep out the “troubled” youths or to keep in the children, but they were reassured in the belief that the children were safe. The state protected the children against sexually transmitted diseases through comprehensive sex education, distribution of contraceptives including abortifacients, and early detection and “treatment.” Some questioned whether these measures were in the best interests of the children, but they were reassured in the belief that the children were no longer dying of AIDS or becoming pregnant.
The state-provided education produced adults who rejected the moral order through relativism and positivism, who rejected God through the state-sponsored religion of secular-humanism, and who rejected the goodness and sanctity of life through the culture of death.
For the most part, the children are content in the centers and schools. They are well fed, safe, and comfortable. A multitude of recreational activities keeps them busy and distracted. Idle minds are considered breeding grounds for questioning the lack of inner-peace. Yes, the children are “content”, but they do not know love, they do not know God.
Some of us remember, however, the days before fathers became irrelevant and wonder if anything could have been done to prevent it.
Fortunately, we have not yet reached the day when American children awake to the scene described above. Americans live in an age, however, where fathers are becoming increasingly irrelevant. This notion does not come without costs. David Blankenhorn, in his book Fatherless America, details the rise of fatherlessness in America and its societal effects. Blanken horn also prescribes various measures intended to restore fatherhood as an ideal and ameliorate the societal effects of fatherlessness. This brief article examines the effects of fatherlessness and Blankenhorn’s proposed solutions.
Increasingly, children are being raised in households apart from their fathers. The statistics are staggering:
In 1990, more than 36 percent of all children in the nation were living apart from their fathers—more than double the rate in 1960. The trend shows no sign of slowing down. Indeed, it seems quite probable that, as of 1994, fully 40 percent of all children in the nation did not live with their fathers. Scholars estimate that, before they reach eighteen, more than half of all children in the nation will live apart from their fathers for at least a significant part of their childhoods.1
What impact will the absence of fathers have on such children and on society? Fatherhood is “society’s most important role for men” because it “helps men to become good men: more likely to obey the law, to be good citizens and to think about the needs of others.”2 Moreover, fatherhood enriches children by providing a father’s physical protection and material resources, by contributing to identity, character, and competence, and by satisfying the day-to-day nurturing fundamental to a child’s well-being.3 By helping men become good men and by enriching children, fatherhood advances society’s interests. Rising fatherlessness, however, has become “the major cause of declining child well-being and the underlying source of our most important social problems, especially those rooted in violence.”4
We do not yet know the full impact of fatherlessness on children and on society. Blankenhorn, however, details some of the effects.
First, children living apart from their fathers, particularly male children, are more likely to engage in violent acts:
The rapid growth of crime in our society over the past three decades does not derive from traditional male norms but from the decline of certain traditional male norms, particularly the norm of paternal obligation and the duty to provide for children.5
Second, fatherlessness increases the incidence of domestic violence. One would expect that the absence of fathers in the home would decrease rather that increase the incidence of domestic violence. However, absent fathers are often replaced by father-substitutes —step-fathers and live-in boyfriends—who are uninhibited by fatherhood.
[M]arried fatherhood emerges as the primary inhibitor of male domestic violence. By reducing the likelihood of sexual jealousy and paternal uncertainty, by directing the male’s aggression toward the support of his children and the mother of his children, married fatherhood dramatically restricts the tendency among men toward violent behavior.6
Absent such inhibitions, unmarried women are four times more likely to be abused by their boyfriends than married women are likely to be abused by their husbands.7
Third, and relatedly, “the spreading risk of childhood sexual abuse is directly related to the decline of married fatherhood” and the “growing presence of unrelated males in households with children.”8
Fourth, children living apart from their fathers are more likely to live in poverty and lack economic security. For 1992, in married-couple homes, the median income was approximately $41,000 and only about 13 percent of all young children lived in poverty; in single-mother homes, the median income was approximately $9,000 and about 66 percent of young children lived in poverty.9 Increasingly, whether one lives in poverty or prosperity turns upon whether one has a father.
Finally, the absence of a father in the home is directly related to adolescent childbearing:
Adolescent childbearing is inextricably linked to the decline of fatherhood—not only because more and more adolescent boys are willing to impregnate girls without the slightest intention of becoming an effective father but also because more and more adolescent girls are growing up without a father in the home.
A father’s love and involvement builds a daughter’s confidence in her own femininity and contributes to her sense that she is worth loving. This sense of love-worthiness gives young women a greater sense of autonomy and independence in later relationships with men. Consequently, women who have had good relationships with their fathers are less likely to engage in an anxious quest for male approval or to seek male affection through promiscuous sexual behavior.10
Conversely, young women who lack a good relationship, or any relationship, with their fathers are more likely to engage in such behavior.
After describing these effects of fatherlessness, Blankenhorn turns to the question of the cause of fatherlessness. To Blankenhorn, fatherlessness is cultural—society has lost the “idea of father.” Fathers are viewed as unnecessary or, at best, “not that important.” As such, the cultural elites have written fathers out of the cultural script.
By rendering fatherhood irrelevant, the cultural elites intend “to normalize fatherlessness—to remove from it any stigma of deviancy or even undesirability—by insisting that the baseline cause for social alarm is no longer the absence of a good father, but rather the hypothetical presence of a bad father.”11 Moreover, the cultural elites intend to remove “socially defined male and female roles from family life” and replace these roles with two ideas: (1) “the moral importance of personal choice—the belief that choosing freely among family behaviors is not simply a possible means to something good but is itself something good;” and (2) “the rejection of gendered values—especially those associated with traditional masculinity—and an embrace of gender-neutral values.”12 If successful, this normative redefinition would undermine the traditional family and normalize single-parent households, homosexual unions and adoptions, and any other arrangement involving an adult or adults living with a child.
Fathers, however, are not irrelevant to the well-being of children or society:
[T]he necessity and irreplaceability of a father’s work [has] not disappeared and will not disappear. In service to the child and to the social good, fathers do certain things that other people, including mothers, do not do as often, as naturally, or as well. When fathers do not do this work—as is increasingly the case in our society—child and social well-being decline.13
Blankenhorn argues for the restoration of the idea of the “Good Family Man.” To this end, he notes:
As a father, the Good Family Man is not perfect, but he is good enough to be irreplaceable. He is married. He stays around. He is a father on the premises. His children need him and he strives to give them what they need, every day. He knows that nothing can substitute for him. Either he is a father or his children are fatherless. He would never consider himself ‘not that important’ to his children.14
Such men provide for, protect, nurture, and sponsor their children. As providers, Good Family Men understand that they have a responsibility to provide financially for their families. As protectors, Good Family Men ensure not only the physical safety of their children, but also their moral safety by deflecting destructive societal forces. As nurturers, Good Family Men assist their wives in managing the household and providing the affection and attention children require from both parents. As such, Good Family Men supplement and complement the efforts of their wives. Finally, as sponsors, Good Family Men teach their children a way of life:
More than providing for their material needs, or shielding them from danger, or even taking care of them and showing them affection, paternal sponsorship means cultural transmission—endowing children with competence and character by showing them how to live a certain kind of life.15
Blankenhorn then proposes twelve measures intended to spark a renewal of fatherhood: (1) requesting every man in the United States to take a pledge affirming the principle that every child deserves a father; (2) creating a new governmental agency responsible for reporting annually on the state of fatherhood; (3) organizing fathers into clubs aimed at renewing fatherhood through father-child activities; (4) expending tax dollars and providing regulatory relief to create safe zones intended to reduce male violence; (5) asking married fathers to reside in public housing with their families with a view toward reducing male violence; (6) encouraging new non-partisan populist movements to empower families and strengthen com munity life; (7) establishing an interfaith council to defend the institution of marriage; (8) requiring legislatures to consider whether a particular piece of legislation strengthens or weakens the institution of marriage; (9) drafting community vision statements that defend the institution of marriage; (10) supporting legislation to regulate sperm banks; (11) organizing professional athletes into a public service campaign on the importance of fatherhood; and (12) writing a new text book for high school students on marriage and family.16
One can applaud Fatherless America for doing a superb job of demonstrating the dire effects of fatherlessness and the inadequacy of the many father-substitutes discussed. Moreover, although one may disagree with some of the proposals enumerated above, the intent to renew the idea of fatherhood is admirable. However, Fatherless America falls short in several respects.
First, Fatherless America portrays fatherlessness as the cause of countless dire effects and indicates fatherlessness is itself caused by a cultural script that has diminished fatherhood to an irrelevancy. These observations are accurate, but incomplete. Father lessness is itself the fruit of something more than attempts by media and cultural elites to normalize deviancy. Fatherlessness is yet another fruit of the “contraceptive mentality.”17
In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI taught that “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life.” In so doing, the couple recognizes the inseparability of the unitive and procreative aspects of the act and engages in an act of self-donation. In contrast, the contracepting couple distorts the nature of the act by denying its procreative aspect. “The union of the husband and wife should be a mutual self-donation, but with contraception there is a holding back. There is a lack of trust in God—and before long in each other.”18
The contraceptive mentality, by destroying one’s trust in God and in one’s spouse, is directly related to fatherless America:
Pope Paul, in Humanae Vitae, warned that contraception would cause women to be viewed as sex objects, that “man growing used to the employment of anti-contraceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.”19
Recognizing the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act reflects a recognition of a simple truth—the marital act has something to do with children, therefore it “is properly reserved for marriage, because the natural way to raise children is in a monogamous, lifetime marriage.”20 By denying this simple truth, one loses all moral authority to claim that sexual relations should be reserved for marriage and that marriage should be a permanent, monogamous relationship.21 The result of this denial is a society where divorce and the consequent fatherlessness is common.
Moreover, one can not escape the impact the contraceptive mentality has on the transmission of the faith:
By blocking the transmission of life, [contracepting couples] are blocking the transmission of faith. Such a contradiction will affect their children as well. If the children know, they will assume that their parents don’t really take their faith seriously, so why should they? Even if the children don’t know, they will grow up in a subtle atmosphere of selfishness. Their ability to imitate (from their parents) the generous love of God will diminish. Their faith will falter and perhaps fail.22
Second, Fatherless America falls short in that Blan ken horn’s proposed solutions to fatherlessness fail to go to the root of fatherlessness. Government programs, tax dollars, and father clubs will not reverse the trends toward fatherlessness nor restore the idea of fatherhood unless, and until, society again rejects the contraceptive mentality. In this regard, Catholics must lead the way.
We must first turn to God in prayer and ask for a renewal of the idea of fatherhood, motherhood, and family. Prayer within families and for families, especially those threatened by division, is vitally important:
We need to pray that married couples will love their vocations, even when the road becomes difficult, or the path narrow, uphill and seemingly insuperable; we need to pray that, even then, they will be faithful to their covenant with God.23
Prayer to the Holy Family, as the model of all families, is especially useful. Fathers should pray to St. Joseph asking that, through his intercession and example, they might also become the humble servants of their families. The family Rosary is also useful. When praying the Rosary, families should ask the Mother of God to wrap her protective mantle around them to preserve and protect them.
We must restore a sense of the sanctity of marriage and a better understanding of the role of marriage and family in God’s plan. Marriage is not a private ar rangement between individuals whereby they agree to live together sharing various responsibilities so long as each gains something from the relationship. Such a view of marriage removes it from the context of time and eternity. Marriage must be viewed as a covenantal relationship between a man, a woman, and God, where by one pledges one’s life to assisting the other to attain eternal happiness with God. “Marriage and family are ordered to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of children.”24
We must again view marriage as the permanent and exclusive union of one man and one woman — “a partnership of the whole of life.”25
The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble. . . . Between the baptized, “a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power for any reason other than death.”26
Moreover, “[d]ivorce is a grave offense against the natural law.”27 The Church teaches that this is so:
because [divorce] introduces disorder into the family and society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.28
As fathers, men need to better understand their roles in the family and marriage. They are more than providers, protectors, nurturers, and sponsors. Along with their wives, fathers are “the first representatives of God”29 for their children. What an awesome responsibility! Certainly, it would make divorce less likely were parents to focus on this reality.
Fathers must recognize that “[i]n God’s plan the family is in many ways the first school of how to be human.”30 Children learn how to be human, how to live their lives, by watching and emulating their parents. As parents, we have been given a model—God the Father:
[H]uman parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman; He is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father.31
God does not demand nor expect men be fathers as He is Father. God merely demands and expects that they fully live out their marital covenant. St. Joseph also serves as a model of a father-servant worthy of emulation:
His fatherhood is expressed concretely “in his having made his life a service, a sacrifice to the mystery of the incarnation and to the redemptive mission connected with it; in having used the legal authority which was his over the Holy Family in order to make a total gift of self, of his life and work; in having turned his human vocation to domestic love into superhuman oblation of self, an oblation of his heart and all his abilities into love placed at the service of the Messiah growing up in his house.”32
Finally, parents must reject the contraceptive mentality. The teaching of the Church in this regard is clear:
“[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.33
Catholics must give such teachings “religious submission of will and intellect” even though they are not declared infallible pronouncement.34
Bishops and priests must have the moral courage to exercise their responsibilities as shepherds of the Church to better educate their flocks in this teaching. Moreover, they must ensure a better understanding of natural family planning (NFP), the Church’s acceptance of NFP in appropriate circumstances, and the benefits of NFP:
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom.35
Faithfully living out the Church’s teaching in this regard has its own eternal reward as well:
[C]ouples who faithfully follow the Church’s teaching on marital sexuality are proclaiming in their lives and in their children’s lives the glorious gospel of life. They are imitating and reflecting the infinite love and generosity of the heavenly father. They are teaching their children the one indispensable lesson that leads to eternal life: unconditional love.36
We dare not deny our children this lesson.
Restoring the idea of fatherhood, motherhood, and family will advance the well being of children and society:
The family is the original cell of social life. It is the natural society in which husband and wife are called to give themselves in love and in the gift of life. Authority, stability, and a life of relationships within the family constitute the foundations for freedom, security, and fraternity within society. The family is the community in which, from childhood, one can learn moral values, begin to honor God, and make good use of freedom. Family life is an initiation into life in society.37
If fathers and mothers faithfully live out their vocations to marriage, the slide toward a fatherless America may yet be prevented. Few of us will be remembered long after our deaths for how much we accomplished in life, for how much money we earned, or for what title we held. But for all eternity, we will be remembered for how well we shaped the immortal souls entrusted to our care. By living out our vocations well, one day we will stand before the Creator with our families intact, and here the words “Well done, [M]y good and faithful servant. . . . Come, share your [M]aster’s joy.”38
Joseph L. Falvey, Jr., is a law professor at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. He lives with his wife, Annie, and their five children in Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan.
End Notes
1 David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1995), p. 18.
2 Id.
3 Id.
4 Blankenhorn, Fatherless America, p. 26.
5 Blankenhorn, Fatherless America, p. 31.
6 Blankenhorn, Fatherless America, pp. 34-5.
7 Id.
8 Blankenhorn, Fatherless America, p. 39 (citation omitted).
9 Blankenhorn, Fatherless America, p. 42 (citation omitted).
10 Id.
11 Blankenhorn, Fatherless America, pp. 78-9.
12 Blankenhorn, Fatherless America, pp. 119-20.
13 Blankenhorn, Fatherless America, p. 122.
14 Blankenhorn, Fatherless America, p. 203. “Histor ical ly, the good father protects his family, provides for its material needs, devotes himself to the education of his children, and represents his family’s interests in the larger world. This work is necessarily rooted in a repertoire of inherited male values: historically and socially mediated understanding of what it means to be a good father. These values are not limited to toughness, competition, instrumentalism, and aggression—but they certainly include them.” Blankenhorn, Fatherless America, p. 122.
15 Blankenhorn, Fatherless America, p. 218.
16 Blankenhorn, Fatherless America, pp. 225-34.
17 See, generally, Charles E. Rice, Beyond Abortion: The Theory and Practice of the Secular State (Chicago, IL: Franciscan Herald Press, 1979).
18 Rice, Beyond Abortion, p. 78.
19 Rice, Beyond Abortion, p. 81.
20 Rice, Beyond Abortion, p. 83.
21 Id.
22 Jim Burnham, “Choose Life that You and Your De scen dants May Live,” CCL Family Foundations, May/June 1998, p. 4.
23 Letter to Families from John Paul II (Boston: St. Paul Books & Media), p. 48.
24 The Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2201.
25 The Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1601.
26 The Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2382.
27 The Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2384.
28 The Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2385.
29 The Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 239.
30 Letter to Families, p. 52.
31 The Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 239.
32 John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation on the Person and Mis sion of St. Joseph, no. 8 (citation omitted).
33 The Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2370 (citing Humanae Vitae, no. 14).
34 Lumen Gentium, no. 25.
35 The Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2370.
36 Jim Burnham, “Choose Life that You and Your Descen dants May Live,” CCL Family Foundations, May/June 1998, p. 4.
37 The Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2207.
38 Matthew 25:21.