He Abandoned You; He Did Not Abandon Us
Not too long ago, I heard someone talk about a family in which the father, after almost 25 years of marriage, decided to leave his wife and move out…because he “felt” that she just did not understand him (or some such thing). They had children in their teenage years to early twenties. The children of course, were quite distressed about what their father did but with time the distress has somewhat abated.
It turns out that the father goes out of his way to try to stay involved in the lives of his children, and I think that this has gone quite a way toward the attenuation of the children’s perception of their distress. So much so, that one of the boys told his mother, regarding his father, that while he abandoned you, he did not abandon us (meaning the children). There is much that ought to be said about this situation; however, I would like to focus just on this phrase.
From the appearance of things, an unreflective response from most would find little difficulty with this statement. The father does want to maintain a relationship with his children. Experientially, I would guess that this is the way, for manifold reasons, that at least some of the children perceive it. However, I am quite certain the wife would sense the lack of veracity in this assertion, even if should could not articulate why. And of course, I would also argue that this is not the case.
What I mean is this. A family relationship has an existence, an ontology, that is more than simply the sum of its parts. It is not simply an aggregate of the multifaceted relationships among the various members of the family. The family relationship has its own existence. Its foundation begins with the marital union between wife and husband. Its ontology arises from the fact that marital union is the most unique and perfect interpersonal bodily participation in Trinitarian Communion. The marital relationship gives rise to the potency for integrating other persons (children) into it, but this marital relationship is the foundation for the entity known as the family. Thus, while the rupture of other relationships within a family can damage its over all health, the rupture of its ground–the marriage– destroys the whole. What is left is only the possibility for individual relationships. There is no whole left by which all of the multipersonal relationships can be integrated.
This analysis means then, that to reflect reality the phrase in this post’s title must be changed. The father did abandon “us.” Rather, the son must say that he did not abandon “me or the others.” There is no longer the possibility of a familial relationship. That is gone. All that is left is, at best, an disunified aggregate of independent, bi-personal relationships with no cohering entity to elevate them into a synergistic whole.
One might ask, then, what about when one of the spouses dies? Does this then destroy the family relationship? It does not. One can explain why this is so by making distinctions between the reality of relations and that of relationships. Relationships differ from relations in that the former are volitional and the later exist by nature. My relation to my parents always exists but it is the relationship, which exists by choice, that can be broken. In the case of death, there is no volitional act by which the relationship is destroyed. Therefore, it transcends death and will be taken up into the perfect, universally intersubjective communion (God please) in the beatific vision of the eschaton.
Our fragmented, Ockhamist culture has reduced relationships from ontological realities (ends in themselves) to disposable means of extracting personal fulfillment (understood as pleasure). This combined with our radically selfish individualism has made the likelihood that marriages will be able to survive the storms of this valley of tears, quite unlikely. Even though the relational philosophy described above, that explains what is happening is not readily made accessible to the average person (primarily because so much mistaken thought must first be corrected) there is still an easily understood and experientially verifiable truth that can be clearly proclaimed.
We need to continue to proclaim the message that John Paul the Great constantly emphasized. Man can only fulfill himself by giving himself away. In other words, we fulfill ourselves in relationships (with God and others) not by seeing what we can get out of them (pleasure, persona affirmation, novel affective experience, etc.) but by giving ourselves completely to others, for their own sakes. Personal fulfillment does not come by what you take but by how much of yourself you give. If this were better lived (beginning with me), then these errors (regardless of the cause) would be less likely, perhaps nearly even impossible, to make.
Please pray for this family as a final decision about its fate will be made by the husband in the next couple of weeks.
.jpg)
David,
I couldn’t agree more. Often I have heard people speak of a “good divorce”. The assumption is made that as long as the absent parent makes an effort to “stay involved” with his or her children then all is well. This is far from the truth of it.
In fact, I would argue that even an in tact marriage where emotional abandonement is present on the part of one or both of the spouses, does in fact leave the children abandoned as well. I speak philosophically on this point, but I have experienced it personally as well. For example if a father continues to stay married to his wife and the mother of his children but is emotionally “detached” from her, then he subsequently emotionally detaches from his children as well. He may love his children very much. But the bond between husband and wife is so essential to the parent child dynamics that without it the child feels abandoned or lost despite having both parents physically present under one roof.
Obviously this scenerio is a better choice than divorce because it allows for the potential of husband wife reconciliation and repair of that damaged bond. It is better to have children see that an attempt is being made to maintain that connection rather than deal with the complete severing of it.
It is a difficult concept for most to grasp in laymen’s terms so to speak. I have discussed it with others who have been too “brainwashed” by the culture to even give this any consideration. Yet, I have also discussed this with those who do feel similarly but cannot articulate it into understandable language.
My own parents had a terrible period in their marriage. This occured when I was in my early twenties and still in college. My older sister was in college as well. I suppose my father felt it was “good timing” for him to finally leave since, in his own words, “we didn’t need him anymore”. I can only describe that time in my life as being filled with constant self-doubt.
This is how I try to explain what divorce/emotional abandonement of a wife/spouse does to the children despite the parent’s best of intentions. My father said he was not giving up on my sister and I but he was giving up on my mother. Where did that leave me?
It left me feeling I no longer had an identity. I felt like a nobody. I had become in an instant, with the words “I’m leaving your mother”, a big zero. “Who am I then?” I would ask myself. If my mother and father came together and in marriage. Joined together to become one, and this oneness produced me, then to undo this oneness does that not then undo me? These are the thoughts that filled me and colored all my emotions at the time. Here I was 21 years old and without an identity to speak of and yet the whole world couldn’t understand my agony. “What’s the big deal? Don’t you want your dad to be happy?” Or “What do you care anymore you’re on your own now anyway. It’s not like you’re a little kid in the midst of a custody battle.”
But it did hurt. In fact it devastated me. My parents ended up “working it out”. My mom did a LOT of praying (and crying) and my dad had a conversion and began to pray as well. Ultimately they are back together now ten years. Their marriage is not an ideal one. They are still not “one body” but just the fact that they are trying to be or at least “pretending” to be is in itself a huge comfort to myself, my sister, and the whole family (two son-in-laws, and 8 grandchildren). We may not be perfect but we know WHO we are. We are a family. There’s only one way to be that - and that’s together. (that’s my layman’s approach to it all)
Comment by Kris — June 4, 2007 @ 8:50 am
Thank you Kris for sharing your story.
My family situation was cracked and broken long before my Father left the home. Alcohol was his mistress. To even know what an intact family experience was, I turned to God, and to my husband’s family. Even now, I see the repercussions of that broken home; my husband and I will celebrate 40 years of marriage in a week. Our marriage has been strengthen in prayer, coming from a origin of hope colored with disillusionment, Love colored with violence, and Patience colored with anger. It took about 25 years for my psyche to mend and start growing healthily. Thank God for my husband, he is the miracle God has blessed me with all these years.
Comment by Elizabeth — June 4, 2007 @ 11:27 am
In essence, Participation should not be confused with, nor a replacement for, Unity.
That could be true for many situations. Many dissenters would claim that they haven’t abandoned the Church, but their participation at Mass on Sunday shouldn’t be confused with Communion with Rome. It doesn’t matter how many diocesan committees they participate in if they’re not in Communion with the Holy See.
Comment by St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse — June 4, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
He’s lucky his kids want that relationship with him. I knew a 20-something young man, who, when his father ditched his mother for a girl close to his son’s age, immediately cut off contact with him. I believe his last message to his dad was, “The day you come crawling back to my mother on your knees, begging her to take you back, is the day I speak to you again. And that goes until you die, you b- ! ”
I’ve lost touch with him, but the last time we had contact, said young man hadn’t spoken to his father in 5 years. He was engaged, and was not planning on permitting his father to come to the wedding ceremony or the reception, or to let him have any contact with any resultant grandchildren.
Comment by Donna Marie Lewis — June 4, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
Jimbob
Brilliant! I wish only that I had thought of it! What a great comparison of the Church as our family and how unity is essential. Cafeteria Catholics try to pull this all the time…
Comment by Kris — June 4, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
Kris - Thanks for expressing this is such personal and concrete terms.
Comment by David — June 5, 2007 @ 9:04 pm