The True Sexual Revolution

2010-10-14T16:46:00.000-07:00

A Truly Excellent Examination of Dawn Eden's Thesis

For any of those aware of the discussions about Christopher West's presentations, Dawn Eden has recently received much spotlight for the public release of her thesis critiquing C. West. The following is one of the best analysis' of why her thesis is full of holes and does nothing to discredit C. West. The beautiful thing is that this critique is done by a person who was not familiar with C. West's work prior to being asked to examine D. Eden's thesis; thus this critique holds great weight. I sincerely hope that this is passed onto as many people as possible, especially those who are questioning C. West's work.

An Explanation of Why CERC did not Post Dawn Eden's Thesis

CERC

People have been asking me why we haven't posted Dawn Eden's thesis, which was critical of Christopher West, when we have represented ourselves as wanting to be a clearinghouse for reasoned arguments on both sides of this issue.

Please allow me to provide some background.

CERC has played host to eleven articles by Christopher West over the years.

Early in September, 2010, after becoming more aware of the controversy surrounding Christopher West, I decided to remove all of West's articles from CERC.

People who visit CERC consider it a reliable source of Church teaching. I didn't want to be endorsing, simply by hosting those articles, the work of a man who was under a cloud and who perhaps was not representing John Paul II's Theology of the Body as received. I wasn't condemning West. My thinking was to wait and see where things settled out before considering whether to re-post his articles.

However, at our CERC AGM in Vancouver on September 10, I was instructed by the executive board to restore West's articles to the site.

The reasons given by the board were that West had not been found doctrinally unsound by any official ecclesial body. In addition, Christopher West was at that moment on his way to Vancouver to give a course.

His Grace Archbishop Michael Miller of Vancouver is a great supporter of CERC and a very discerning cleric. To remove West's articles in advance of West coming to Vancouver would suggest that, in the judgement of CERC, the Archbishop had been wrong in inviting West.

I was to re-post the articles and it was suggested that CERC play host to both sides of the controversy just to show our readers that disagreements, even vigorous ones, can coexist in the Catholic world and that discussion based on reason and charity can be productive in the cause of truth. (See here.)

Shortly after that, I contacted both Dawn Eden, for permission to post her thesis, and Janet Smith, to post her critique of Eden's thesis, to CERC.

I then sent a copy of the thesis, Janet's response, and Eden's response to Janet's response, to two philosophically minded thinkers I know who also happen to have no dog in this fight. As it turned out, neither had more than a passing familiarity with West's work. That suited my purposes perfectly, as all I wanted them to do was to evaluate the soundness of the evidence, the arguments, and the conclusions before them.

One of these two has asked not to be identified in any of my discussion about this.

He is well known in Catholic circles and, even though he was just responding to the thesis and criticism of it, he didn't want his views to be seen as an endorsement or a criticism of something (the corpus of Christopher West's work) he wasn't extensively familiar with.

Sean Murphy's critique is below. I and our other reviewer, agree with his analysis and conclusions.

Fraser Field
Managing Editor

Dear Fraser:

You have asked for my comments about an editorial problem you now face because of a continuing controversy concerning Christopher West. As I understand the situation, you are considering whether or not CERC should formally take a position with respect to it, and, if so, what that position should be.

Christopher West's work

In the first place, it is important to distinguish taking a position on the controversy from taking a position on the corpus of Mr. West's work, which would certainly be implied in refusing carte blanche to post any of his materials. Such a refusal would be justified on one or more of the following grounds:

(a) a statement by the SCDF or analogous congregation or a bishop in communion with Peter that Mr. West's work is doctrinally unsound;
(b) a statement by the SCDF or analogous congregation that Mr. West's work is being formally reviewed;
(c) a consensus of criticism of his work from reputable scholars with expertise in Church teaching in marriage and sexuality;
(d) public statements or conduct by Mr. West that demonstrate malice toward, dissent from, disregard for or ignorance of the teaching of the Magisterium,

Refusal to post any of Mr. West's materials in the case of (b) and (c) above, in advance of final judgement, would be appropriate because CERC wishes to ensure that readers can have full confidence in all of the materials on its website, which is intended for a general audience.

In the absence of such grounds, there is no reason to treat Mr. West's work differently than any other materials that CERC reviews with a view to posting, and I understand this to be CERC's current policy.

The West-Eden controversy

The current dispute concerning his work is a different matter and has become a problem in its own right. It has been generated by a master's thesis by Dawn Eden that she has made public. Critics of Mr. West include reputable scholars known for fidelity to the Magisterium. However, one also finds reputable scholars known for fidelity to the Magisterium among his supporters. You have asked me to review Dawn Eden's thesis as a first step in addressing the controversy.

The problem

CERC, in service to its readers, cannot ignore a development that touches fundamental aspects of Church teaching and that has become as notorious as the West-Eden controversy. In such cases it is always preferable to avoid engaging in the controversy itself. Instead, one would expect CERC to provide a balanced and thoughtful account of the dispute and refer interested readers to appropriate sources for further information. The issue is whether or not this approach should be taken in this case.

Response

My view is that it is impossible to produce a "balanced account" of a controversy when the position of one of the parties is clearly untenable.

Miss Eden accuses Mr. West of a presentation of theology of the body that is "damaging,"1and "theologically compromised"2 "in its failure to understand continence as it is defined by the traditional teachings of the Church,"3 and that appears "to validate the culture's preoccupation with sex."4 She accuses him of teaching that the deposit of faith is incomplete and that Church doctrine keeps pace with changing times.5

Having read almost nothing of Mr. West's work I cannot rule out the possibility that a case might be made to support one of these accusations. But, having read Miss Eden's thesis, if there is a case to be made, she has not made it. The burden of proof lies on the accuser, and she has failed to discharge it.

Thus, CERC cannot present her thesis as a credible critique, and it would be unjust to do so. On the contrary: in explaining its position on the controversy, CERC would be remiss if it did not draw attention to the flaws in her presentation. It is unfortunate that CERC has been placed in this position by Miss Eden's decision to publicize her thesis and campaign for its acceptance.

I have reached this conclusion by considering (a) what Miss Eden proposes in her thesis and (b) whether or not what she provides by way of evidence supports her claims. This is done without reference to external sources other than the work of Karol Wojtyla/Pope John Paul II on the subject of pornography and art, and the list of Mr. West's materials available on line.

I have done this to avoid the appearance of partisanship or of having been adversely influenced by the writings of Mr. West's supporters.

Discussion

"Comprehensive overview"

Miss Eden states that in the first chapter of her thesis she provides "a comprehensive overview of Mr. West's presentation of the TOB."6 She means "presentation" to be taken in the broad sense of his interpretation of the writings of Pope John Paul II,"7not only in [Mr. West's] own lectures and writings, but also the presentation he promotes through his training programs at the Theology of the Body Institute, as well as the programs he has developed for parishes, marriage-prep programs, and study groups."8 These materials were produced over a period of about 13 years.9

Miss Eden purports to offer this "comprehensive overview" in about nine double-spaced pages. The overview consists of a summary of ten major themes she claims to have discovered in his presentation, a claim that she supports by quotes from 24 of Mr. West's works.10 However, it is impossible, in nine double-spaced pages, to produce a "comprehensive overview" of the volume of materials produced by Christopher West over a period of 13 years, particularly about a subject as profound as the theology of the body.11 That is a project for a book, not a 77 page thesis.

This conclusion is supported by a closer look at the references Miss Eden provides in Chapter 1. She refers to only three of five books by Mr. West and only one of nine CD/DVD's by him.12In fact, the references in Chapter 1 ignore most of Mr. West's work, including:

marriage preparation course (God's Joy Filled Plan for Marriage: 6 DVD's, Couples' Workbook, Instructor's Edition);
Studies for Adults (The Gift: Your Call to Greatness: CD/DVD, Student Workbook, Leaders' Guide);

An Introduction to Theology of the Body
(8 part CD/DVD study guide with Student Workbook and Leaders' Guide);

Into the Heart: A Journey Through Theology of the Body
(8 DVDs, 16 part study guide, with Student Workbook and Leaders'Guide);

Created and Redeemed
Starter Kit (Eight parts, 8 hours, 4 DVD's, 5 page study guide)

Thus, she has, contrary to her stated intention and without explanation, neglected virtually all of the materials that ought to have been considered if she wished to produce a comprehensive overview of his training, parish, marriage prep and study group programs. While it is true that 20 of the 24 sources from which she draws provide a selection from his "lectures and writings," Miss Eden does not explain why she has selected them (rather than others) and why it is reasonable to consider them representative of his ‘presentation' - particularly in the absence of evidence from the neglected materials.

Readers who think that these criticisms amount to nothing more than page and footnote counting may be assisted by an analogy. Miss Eden's accusations against Mr. West are analogous to allegations of fraud (false representations) against a businessman, which can only be proved (or disproved) by an examination of all of the books and documents of the business that might have relevant information, combined with statements from all ascertainable witnesses. If the police examined only some of the documents, did not explain why they did not examine all of them, did not explain why they chose to look at some documents rather than others, failed to obtain witness statements, and (apparently) presented only documents unfavourable to the accused, no fair-minded person would agree that the investigation was adequate, or that a conviction for fraud could be fairly based upon it.

The author's claim to have produced a "comprehensive overview" amounts, at best, to wishful thinking. If Chapter 1 is, indeed, an example of what is considered a "comprehensive overview" in a master's programme, I will henceforth think much less highly of masters' degrees.

Erroneous claims

In a footnote in Chapter 1 Miss Eden states that she will show in the succeeding chapter that Mr. West's interpretation of the symbolism of the Paschal Candle "was condemned by the fathers of the Second Vatican Council."13 Anyone who is familiar with Council's 16 documents will recognize at once that this statement is false. Her own references in the following chapter show that clarification on this point did not come from the Council Fathers, but from a commission formed after the Council ended.14 Moreover, while the clarification and other sources cited by Miss Eden demonstrate that Mr. West was mistaken about Paschal symbolism, the guidance issued was explanatory and pastoral; there was no "condemnation."

None of the possible interpretations of this are favourable to Miss Eden. Either she has failed to check her manuscript to correct an obvious and serious mistake that she later detected, or she does not know the difference between documents issued by an ecumenical council and those produced by subsequent Church committees, or she does not understand the difference between correction and condemnation, or she has deliberately or carelessly used exaggerated and inflammatory language, or she has knowingly made a false accusation. These are not the marks of a thesis that warrants affirmation by thoughtful and prudent people.

Lack of evidence

Chapter 1 presents Miss Eden's summary of ten themes that she claims to have found in Christopher West's presentation of theology of the body. These are provided without comment and without evidence that they contradict either Church teaching or the theology of the body as taught by Pope John Paul II.

Thus, in Chapter 2, one would expect to find a coherent account of the Holy Father's theology of the body and a cogent explanation of how each of the ten themes noted in Chapter 1 of the thesis departs from it.

Instead, Miss Eden first offers criticism by Mark Lowery in 2001.15 She acknowledges that Lowery found Mr. West's materials "virtually free from error" and suggested only "fine-tuning" of his presentation. This section, ending with Mr. West's response, does not support Miss Eden's accusations.

She next reports statements that Mr. West made on ABC News "Nightline in May, 2009, and his attempts to clarify them.16 Following this she acknowledges the existence of the controversy that continued following his remarks, citing (without further detail or analysis) essays by recognized Catholic scholars who disagree about the validity of Mr. West's expression of the theology of the body. The section closes with an affirmation of the soundness of Mr. West's presentation by Justin Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Kevin Rhoades.17 Thus, all that is established in this part of the thesis is that Mr. West made some ill-considered remarks on national televison that resulted in a controversy, and that, despite the controversy, representatives of the Magisterium were satisfied with his work. This does not support Miss Eden's accusations.

Next, drawing from the criticism of Dr. David Schindler and referring to the first of her ten themes in Chapter 1, Miss Eden states, "West's overall "preoccupation" indicates "a disordered approach to human sexuality."18 She then summarizes (without comment or analysis) Dr. Schindler's criticisms, and notes that Professors Janet Smith and Michael Waldstein disagree with him. Much of this part is devoted to demonstrating that Mr. West was mistaken about the symbolism of the Paschal Candle.19 All that she succeeds in establishing in this section is that Dr. Schindler's assessment is disputed by Professors Smith and Waldstein, and that Mr. West has made a mistake about liturgical symbolism.

Citing her theme 8, she then states that "West ignores the "objective" presence of concupiscence in the body."20 She goes on to quote Dr. Schindler's criticism and the responses from Professors Smith and Waldstein and from Mr. West himself, once more, without comment or analysis.21 Again, this part of the thesis demonstrates that there is disagreement among reputable scholars about West's understanding of concupiscence, but, nothing is offered to demonstrate the validity of either the accusation opening this section or Miss Eden's global accusations about his ‘presentation.'

Lack of systematic analysis

Since Miss Eden has offered nothing up until this point that supports her accusations, the next part of the thesis, in which she offers her own assessment (p. 32-62), is critical.

Under the heading, "Nuptiality as key to sexual healing" (p. 32-38) Miss Eden offers a critique of Mr. West's most recent book, Heaven's Song: Sexual love as it was meant to be. She asserts that "the basis for his approach to sexual healing" is "his call to ‘holy fascination' with the body and God's plan for sexual union."22 Her subsequent discussion does not demonstrate that she has properly understood Mr. West. Even if she has correctly stated his position, in this section she does no more than raise questions about it; she does not answer them or prove that he is mistaken.

In the next section, headed "Concupiscence and the two bishops"(p. 38-49), Miss Eden draws from four sources by Mr. West, principally his Theology of the Body Explained.23 She begins with the statement that the "key to [West's] understanding of concupiscence" is [his] contention that sexual desire necessarily mediates union with God." It is not clear from anything said previously in the thesis nor in what follows that this is a fair and full statement of his views on the relationship between sexual desire and union with God.

In discussing concupiscence Miss Eden comments upon some of Mr. West's reflections on human freedom and what she portrays as his understanding of the relationship between continence and virtue. However, taking the material precisely as she presents it and looking no further, she fails to demonstrate that one must conclude that "West emphasizes that a couple must advance beyond mere continence prior to marriage."24 Moreover, her claim that Mr. West holds "that John Paul is using a different definition of continence than that of St. Thomas"25 is actually an argument that she develops herself and then attributes to Mr. West as something that he "might" put forward.26

Considering Mr. West's treatment of "occasions of sin" (p. 49-55), Miss Eden introduces an eleventh theme that she neglected to include in the comprehensive overview in Chapter 1: "the association of "mature purity" with a man's ability to actively seek out what would be, for other men, occasions of sin, and – instead of being defiled by them – find in them a source of further purification."27

The only evidence she offers for this "running theme" are stories Mr. West told about two of his personal experiences: one at mass, the other at the beach. It is abundantly clear from both of these accounts – as they are given by Miss Eden – that Mr. West did not "actively seek out" occasions of sin, but turned unsought temptations into opportunities for an increase in grace. It is equally clear – again from Miss Eden's account – that he does not recommend the strategy without appropriate reservations. Despite this, Miss Eden goes on to say:

To the best of my knowledge and research, this idea that one should actively seek out opportunities to engage in a "lively battle" against lust is completely novel in the Church's history. (emphasis added)28

If that is true, then credit for introducing this novel idea belongs to Miss Eden, not Mr. West. Her claim that this is Mr. West's position is contradicted by the only evidence she offers to support it.

Concerning "pornography vs theo-graphy" (p. 55-57), Miss Eden alleges that Mr. West's most serious misinterpretation of the theology of the body is his failure to understand John Paul II's distinction between pornography and legitimate art.29 She further claims that the Holy Father's understanding of modesty "is absent" from his presentation.30

However, her failure to consult most of Mr. West's work precludes reliance on her claim that modesty is absent from it. Further: a comparison of the comments of Pope John Paul II on the subject (of which there are more than those quoted in the thesis)31 to those of Mr. West (provided by Miss Eden) does not inevitably lead to her conclusion. Rather, it becomes apparent that other conclusions are possible, and that her approach to the topic is far too simplistic.

The last section of Chapter 2 is headed "A penchant for promoting problematic pop-culture" (p. 57-62). Here, Miss Eden responds to Mr. West's comments about the Vagina Monologues, pop singer Katy Perry, and the stage play Spring Awakening. It is likely that, on reflection, she would qualify her statement that "exposing naked flesh outside a nuptial context is objectively wrong regardless of whether the artist or the short-skirt wearer "intends" to arouse,"32 since it is inconsistent with the careful consideration of this topic by John Paul II (See note 31). It provides further reason to be cautious in accepting the assessment she offers.

She suggests that Mr. West's responses to these cultural artifacts are too much coloured by a personal reaction against "puritanism," and that they reflect an insufficient awareness of the objective dangers of such entertainment.33 Based on the material she presents here and the reflections of John Paul II (again, see note 31) the suggestion is plausible. However, it is also clear from what she presents that Mr. West was offering an hypothesis about their origins and suggestions about how to turn them into "teachable moments." He was not, as her heading states, promoting the work of the singer or playwrights.

Taking Chapter 2 as a whole, Miss Eden has failed to provide a careful, systematic and detailed analysis of Mr. West's work in light of John Paul II's theology. It does not substantiate her accusations.

Chapter 3

Chapter 3 of the thesis opens with the statement that the preceding chapters showed "that Christopher West's presentation of the theology of the body is compromised by errors and lacunae."(p. 63) Since the preceding chapters did nothing of the sort, and Chapter 3 relies on this claim, it is not necessary to review it.

Summary

According to Miss Eden, Mr. West's presentation of the theology of the body

is "damaging"34
"theologically compromised"35
fails to understand continence as it is defined by the traditional teachings of the Church"36
appears "to validate the culture's preoccupation with sex"37
teaches that the deposit of faith is incomplete and that Church doctrine keeps pace with changing times.38
encourages people to actively seek out occasions of sin, and find in them a source of further purification

None of these accusations are demonstrated by her thesis; the last is shown to be a false accusation by the evidence that she presents to support it.

Sean Murphy

Notes

1. Thesis, p. 77
2. Thesis, p. 76
3. Thesis, p. 69
4. Thesis, p. 70
5. Thesis, p. 77
6. Thesis, p. 5
7. Thesis, p. ii
8. Thesis, p. 5-6
9. Thesis, p. 10
10. Sources cited in Chapter 1 for the "comprehensive overview" provided in the ten themes:

"What Is the Theology of the Body and Why Is It Changing So Many Lives?"
"The Theology of the Body & The New Evangelization," [accessed January 28, 2010].
"The Pope's Theology of the Body." Catholic Education Resource Center, [accessed February 5, 2010].
"John Paul II's Theology of the Body: Key to an Authentic Marital & Family Spirituality." ChristopherWest.com, [accessed February 5, 2010].
Heaven's Song: Sexual Love as It Was Meant to Be
(West Chester, Penn: Ascension Press, 2008), 43 (emphasis in original).
Theology of the Body Explained
, revised edition (Boston: Pauline Books & Media, 2007), 598.
Good News About Sex and Marriage
, 41
"About the Theology of the Body," ChristopherWest.com (West's official Web site), [accessed February 6, 2010].
"The Redemption of Rock Music," November 9, 2007, [accessed February 6, 2010].
"Interview with Christopher West." Republished by the Catholic Education Resource Network, [accessed January 28, 2010].
"The New Language: A Crash Course in the Theology of the Body."
"The Freedom of the Gift: Priestly Celibacy and Authentic Sexual Liberation."
"ABC News ‘Sensationalized' Theology of the Body, Christopher West Says."
"Theology of the Body: A Compelling, Bold, Biblical Response to the Sexual Revolution." Reprinted on West's official Web site, ChristopherWest.com, [accessed February 2, 2010].
"The Spousal Mystery of Christmas." Syndicated column, December 12, 2008, [accessed February 4, 2010].
"Spousal Prayer Part I." Syndicated column, August 29, 2009, [accessed February 6, 2010].
"Transcript of CS #67: Christopher West Heaven's Song," August 10, 2008, [accessed January 29, 2010].
"An Open Letter to a Concerned Listener."
"A Response to Luke Timothy Johnson's Critique of John Paul II's ‘Disembodied' Theology of the Body." [accessed January 31, 2010].
"Why Do Men Look at Porn? Oprah Viewers Want to Know." Syndicated column, November 18, 2005, [accessed February 2, 2010].
"The Theology of the Body Debate: The Pivotal Question." LifeSiteNews, October 22, 2009, [accessed March 25, 2010].
Theology of the Body Pt 1 S2E9," episode of TV show "Pure Passion" posted to Vimeo.com, [accessed February 6, 2010]. The quotation referenced begins at 23:42.
"Christopher West on ABCNews.com."
"Reflections on the Song of Songs, Part 1." Syndicated column, June 8, 2007, [accessed February 6, 2010].

11. This conclusion is based on reviews and critques of other documents and materials. Thecritique of a single article by Christopher Hitchens attacking Pope Benedict XVI ran to 9 single-spaced pages with 80 end notes citing over 50 sources. A review of Making Space, Giving Voice, a 65 page curriculum guide intended to implement a homosexualist agenda, was over 100 single-spaced pages long and included over 400 end notes. The list of documents used to produce a 124 page report (also single-spaced) concerning the University of Victoria Student Society's oppression of the campus pro-life club is available on line. Each of these critiques dealt with materials and circumstances far less complex and voluminous than the presentation of the theology of the body by Mr. West.
12. Of the DVD's she refers only to Theology of the Body: a Bold, Biblical Response to the Sexual Revolution. She does not refer to: Purity in an Impure Age: Discovering God's Glorious Plan for Sexuality; Woman, God's Masterpiece: Understanding and Living the Feminine Genius;Proclaiming the Theology of the Body: A Seminar for Priests; Sexual Honesty; Winning the Battle for Sexual Purity; Straight Talk about Sex: A Seminar for Young Adults; Human Love in the Divine Plan: A Theology of the Body Conference; Love, relationships and responsibility: A Message for Teens; The Case Against Same Sex Marriage: Protecting the True Meaning of Marriage. [Ascension Press]() Accessed 2010-10-11)
13. Thesis, note 67, p. 17
14. Thesis, Chapter 2, p. 28 to 30
15. Thesis, p. 22-24
16. Thesis, p. 24-25
17. Thesis, p. 25-27
18. Thesis, p. 27
19. Thesis, p. 27-30
20. Thesis, p. 30
21. Thesis, p. 30-32
22. Thesis, p. 33
23. The others are Heaven's Song: Sexual Love as It Was Meant to Be; A Response to Von Hildebrand on Sexuality; Theology of the Body: the Pivotal Question.
24. Thesis, p. 44
25. Thesis, p. 47
26. Thesis, p. 44-45
27. Thesis, p. 50
28. Thesis, p. 52
29. Thesis, p. 55-56
30. Thesis, p. 57
31. Wojtyla, Karol, Love and Responsibility. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1981, p. 189-193. John Paul II, "The Human Body: Subjects of Works of Art." General Audience, 15 April, 1981, p. 269-275; "Reflections on the Ethos of the Human Body in Works of Artistic Culture."General Audience, 22 April, 1981, p. 276-282; "Art Must Not Violate the Right to Privacy." General Audience, 29 April, 1981, p. 283-289; Ethical Responsibilities in Art. General Audience, 6 May, 1981, p. 290-297. In Daughters of St. Paul, Blessed of the Pure of Heart, Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1983.
32. Thesis, p. 58
33. Thesis, p. 62
34. Thesis, p. 77
35. Thesis, p. 76
36. Thesis, p. 69
37. Thesis, p. 70
38. Thesis, p. 77

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Sean Murphy "An Explanation of Why CERC did not Post Dawn Eden's Thesis." Catholic Education Resource Center (October 13, 2010).

Printed with permission of the author Sean Murphy.

THE AUTHOR

Sean Murphy is a Catholic layman. He retired from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in 2009 after almost 35 years' police service. Over the years he was described by superiors as a "tenacious," "conscientious" and "meticulously thorough" investigator.

Mr. Murphy has made a special study of the documents of the Second Vatican Council and Catholic teaching on sexuality and marriage. His paper on the nuptial meaning of the Eucharist was among three chosen for presentation at the 1993 conference of the Canadian Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, and later published in the conference proceedings. His articles have appeared in Catholic periodicals, including the BC Catholic, Catholic Insight magazine and theJournal of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars (Canada). Others are posted on the Internet at the Catholic Education Resource Centre, Catholic Exchange and the Catholic Civil Rights Leaguewebsite. His comments and responses to attacks on religious freedom and Catholic teaching have appeared in the media, including some BC community papers, the Vancouver Sun, The Province, Xtra West, the Ottawa Citizen, Halifax Daily News, the BC Catholic, and Christian Week.

2010-03-12T08:37:00.000-08:00

Clueless about Love

As seen on tob.catholicexchange.com

Apparently, lust is not out of fashion. Sure, it’s been around since the time of Adam and Eve’s dubious deed. But I’m always fascinated by how it’s re-packaged.

Take the recent winter Olympics. They’ve come and gone, and America did pretty well in the medal category. To much of the unsuspecting public, the events appeared to be very family friendly and were good, clean fun. What most people didn’t know is that inside the veritable fortress called the Olympic Village, in which the Olympiads are basically prisoners in their own castle, there is a much darker side.

For years, the athletes train and sacrifice for their one shot at glory, and after they compete in their event, they are able to let their hair down. But apparently, they also let their zippers down.

For among the nearly 7,000 athlete and officials, 100,000 condoms were distributed to them free of charge. That comes out to about 14 condoms per person. Yet, what’s most remarkable is that the Canadian Foundation for AIDS (CANFAR) had to fly-in an “emergency” supply of 8,500 condoms, “much to the relief of [the] libidos of the Olympic Villiage.”

Apparently, they have been handing these out like candy since the Games in Barcelona in 1992. But this is the first time they’ve nearly run out.

Rewind to 2008 where the Chinese also provided 100,000 condoms at the Summer Olympics in Beijing. Their reasoning? “There are many young, strong, single people in the athletes’ village and, like everywhere, some will fall in love or other things so we need to make condoms available.”

Certainly maybe some people will have the experience of what they think love is. But I think it’s the “other things” of why this condom supply is needed. In the words of Matt Syed, commenting on his experience of the “sex fest” called the Olympics:

There were the gorgeous hostesses – there to assist the athletes – in their bright yellow shirts and black skirts; there were the indigenous lovelies who came to watch the competitions. And then there were the female athletes – literally thousands of them – strutting, shimmying, sashaying and jogging around the village, clad in Lycra and exposing yard upon yard of shiny, toned, rippling and unimaginably exotic flesh. Women from all the countries of the world: muscular, virile, athletic and oozing estrogen. I spent so much time in a state of lust that I could have passed out.

Ah, so here’s the real truth. The distribution of thousands of prophylactics was never about love in the first place. It was always about satisfying unbridled lust.

To much of the modern world, they don’t even bat an eye at this situation. They think this is normal. They think its “normal” to distribute “extra-small” condoms so that 12-14 year-old boys can indulge their lusts. They think its “normal” that at the World Cup this summer in South Africa will distribute one billion condoms, with 42 million of them being shipped from Britain, so that the 45,000 visitors from foreign countries can entertain themselves with the 42,000 prostitutes being shipped in.

It should come as no surprise that when John Paul the Great made the statement that husbands do not have permission to lust after their wives, the media went berserk on him. In their eyes, he’s the abnormal one (as one commentator put it, “I’m not sure what you Italians do with your wives, but we Americans, we lust after our wives.”)

For the vast majority of the modern world, they see no difference between love and lust. Just check the latest Cosmo and you’ll never see the word “love” anywhere on the cover. For they truly believe, with the whole of their libido, that this is the way the world is, and this is the way its supposed to be, that if you love someone, you swap bodily fluid with them, have a 30-minute “intimate” relationship with them, and then move on.

The problem is: it’s not normal. The way things are is not the way it’s supposed to be.

For the problem with all this excessive use of latex is not just that condoms break and slip off, age, deteriorate in even the best of conditions, can be broken in their packages, have allowable rates of manufacturing defects, the 10 to 16 step process for safe usage is often not followed, or that bodily secretions can get around and over a condom even if it performs perfectly.

The main problem is that there’s no condom for the heart. For the human person was created to make a sincere gift of himself (Cf. GS 24), a.k.a. to love. If he is going to be fulfilled, he has to pour out the whole totality of himself, not holding anything back. The human person is made for love, and we have a duty to always see every person as someone to love, and not as an object to use. Lust always reduces a person down to almost the level of an object (we say almost because a person can never lose their inherent dignity as a beloved son or daughter of God). An act of lust can never be an act of love because the two are polar opposites, for when a person becomes an object of use, love is sure to grow cold.

The sexual act speaks the language that I give myself totally to the other person. In our heart of hearts, we want to fully give ourselves and fully receive another. We don’t want a wall up between ourselves and the other, especially in this most intimate act. And when someone is holding something back, even if a verbal agreement is made, somehow, someway, it is going to affect the relationship it a very negative way. The generations of those who have contracepted have left behind a legacy of divorce that witnesses to the damaging effects this has had upon the fundamental relationship of marriage.

If sexual desire becomes merely expression of the urge to merge, then the total gift of self becomes compromised in an act of using another person for one’s own selfish gratification. In other words, love is replaced by lust. And if what we’re doing is not love, then we’re not going to be satisfied. And this is exactly why the modern world, in the words of Mick Jagger, can’t get no satisfaction.

When Jesus talks about lust, he wasn’t being a joy kill. He wasn’t trying take away our fun. He was trying to point to the fact these erotic fantasies won’t ever quench our desires for eternal love. Most importantly, He was trying to show us that there is a different way to feel, think, and act that is in accordance with our dignity and what will truly satisfy, long after the one-night stand has ended.

Maybe after all those condoms have been distributed, and all those hearts have been broken, people will start to wake up that the old way of “wham, bam, thank you ma’am” just isn’t working. Maybe they’ll try another way. Maybe, just maybe, they’ll get a clue.

Steve Pokorny, the Director of TOB Ministries (tobministries.com), specializes in speaking to youth and young adults about the gift of their sexuality. Steve has an MA in Theology and Catechetics from Franciscan University of Steubenville, an MTS from the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family Studies, and has received training from the Theology of the Body Institute. He currently serves as Associate Director of the Office of Marriage and Family in the Archdiocese of San Antonio. He is Associate Editor for Catholic Exchange's Theology of the Body Channel (tob.catholicexchange.com), and his blog is truesexualrevolution.blogspot.com. He is married and lives in San Antonio. You can contact Steve at tob_ministries@yahoo.com.

2010-02-05T18:32:00.000-08:00

Looking for Love at 1:45 a.m.

February 3rd, 2010 by Steve Pokorny · Edit Print This Article ·ShareThis

In all the commotion of Christmas preparation and celebration of the birth of Christ, which is often a time of great joy and peace for many, for some it is a time of heartache, seemingly lost, looking for the love that truly satisfies.

Take the case of Hayden Wright. On December 15^th, he was picked up by the cops in Chattanooga, Tennessee, at 1:45 a.m. He was drunk, found wandering the neighborhood in a brown dress, and had stolen 5 Christmas presents from one of his neighbors.

While interesting, what’s most newsworthy is that Hayden is a four year-old boy.

Yes, you read that correctly. Upon first seeing this story, I thought, surely, it must be a joke, something ripped from the pages of The Onion. But reading more closely, I realized this was a deadly serious situation and most certainly heartbreaking. For it is not just important that this happened to little Hayden, but why it happened.

About the time that Hayden was picked up going drag through the neighborhood with a half-finished can of Bud Light in his hand, his mother, April Wright, had woken up in a panic, alarmed that her son was not in the house. She realized that one of the safety devices that was to prevent her kids from leaving the house had been broken, and she feared for the safety of her son. And apparently, this was not Hayden’s first time in trying to get into trouble with the law.

When his mother April was questioned as to why Hayden got out of the house, she responded: “He runs away trying to find his father…He wants to get in trouble so he can go to jail because that’s where his daddy is.” While this story turned out alright, as Hayden is OK and child services is allowing him to remain with his mother, I believe that this event can serve as a small window into the bigger picture of our culture.

I believe little Hayden is just like all of us. All we want to do is find our Daddy. We’re all looking for our Father. If he’s not in the house, we’re going to try and go looking for him. It doesn’t matter if there are locks on all the doors, we’ll break through them if we have to.

The problem is not the fact that we are desiring to be with our Father. The problem is that we often times don’t realize exactly that we’re really looking for Him, and thus we will often do seemingly insane (literally: out of our mind) things to try and get what we’re really looking for.

I think Bono said it right: so many of us still haven’t found what we’re looking for.

And what is it that we really want? What is the thing that drives us most crazy, what is it that is found (in various distorted forms) in all of our movies, television shows, magazines, billboards, etc.?

Love! As the Scriptures tell us, “God is love” (1 John 1:1), and God along with being Son and Spirit, is Father. He truly desires what is best for us and wants us to come to participate in His own divine Life (cf. 2 Pet 1:4).

Certainly, some have grown up with their father in the home. And some reading this may have had spectacular fathers who have faithfully raised them and their siblings.

Yet sadly, those with attentive, loving fathers have been far and few between. We are living in a society that is, by and large, fatherless. The situation of Hayden is not uncommon, and many of the boys growing up learn what it means to be a man from their father. And that’s not good news for the rest of us.

For the truth behind masculinity is that every man is called to reveal God the Father. We have a duty to enflesh this mystery of all-encompassing Love. Every man is called to image this Love to everyone he meets, especially his sons and daughters.

If our dad is like Hayden’s father, we’re going to grow up in a world lost, questioning whether love really exists.

And this is the main problem of our culture. As Venerable John Paul the Great said,

Man cannot live without love. He remains a being that is incomprehensible for himself, his life is senseless, if love is not revealed to him, if he does not encounter love, if he does not experience it and make it his own, if he does not participate intimately in it. (Redemptor Hominis 10)

If we don’t find the real love that satisfies, we will go from one door to the next to the next, trying to satiate this ache in our heart.

Because our sexual desire is so rooted in our search for love, if we have not experienced real love, we will end up using our sexuality in ways that don’t correspond with our dignity, nor will we end up fulfilled. We may end up walking around in drag. We may try to find love in pornography. We may try to be satisfied in the arms of a member of the same sex.

If it is not the real deal, we won’t be satisfied. For our sexuality speaks the language of a total giving and total receiving. If our gift cannot be totally given and received, we will end up frustrated, alone, and ashamed. Like little Hayden, We will “medicate” those wounds with drugs and alcohol and more empty sexual experiences. We will end up doing things that hurt ourselves and others.

So many of us think there is no one who can truly satisfy this thirst inside, and like little Hayden, we aren’t patient, but we break into the hearts of others, stealing the gift that they have not freely offered. Just ask anyone who has had a one-night stand, if they’re truly honest with themselves, they’ll admit that the hope they had for a total life long union has become an empty fantasy.

But the Good News is that Love has come:

“…Someone exists who holds in His hands the destiny of this passing world; Someone who holds the keys to death and the netherworld (cf. Rev 1:18); Someone who is the Alpha and the Omega of human history (cf. Rev. 22:13) –be it the individual or collective history. And this Someone is Love (f. 1 Jn 4:8, 16) – Love that became man, Love crucified and risen, Love unceasingly present among men…He alone can give the ultimate assurance when He says “Be not afraid!” (JPG, Crossing the Threshold of Love, 222)

Thus at the1:45 a.m. searches in our own life, let us be not afraid and come to the One who can bring us to the arms of our Father.

This article originally appeared on tob.catholicexchange.com

2009-11-25T08:57:00.000-08:00

Suffering as a Gift from God

November 25th, 2009 by Steve Pokorny · Edit Print This Article ·ShareThis

I write to announce great joyful news: my grandmother passed away last week. How is this great and joyful news?She was 93, had been in a nursing home for the past six years, and because of her long suffering, there is a very good chance, especially since of her steadily declining health over the past year, that she went most likely skipped right over purgatory and fell into the arms of Jesus.

To be honest, I have a holy jealousy of her. I firmly believe that if I am faithful to the gifts that Christ has given to me, when I draw my final breath, I will be invited into the Wedding Feast that has been promised from all eternity, where all that is masculine will be united with all that is feminine, and joined with Christ the Bridegroom. It will be an eternal embrace that will never end, where we will see Love face to face. All will be known by all, and there will be peace and joy forevermore.

However, there is one major stipulation: It must be my time to go. Not on my time, but by God’s watch.

Throughout human history, since Adam and Eve, there has been the temptation to want to take the powers of life into our own hands. There is the insidious idea that is floated through our fallible minds that if we manipulate things to our liking, then things will just go better. Or so we think.

Take the issue of euthanasia that is ramping up its exposure. From a recent Discovery Institute article entitled “Suicide Radicalism Surges in America,” we read that “Doctor” Philip Nischke of Australia “has brought his suicide seminar to California and Washington State, where he taught all comers how they can make themselves dead.” His logic (albeit misguided) leads him to “if we each own our bodies, he says, and if self-termination is an acceptable answer to human suffering, then assisted suicide shouldn’t be restricted to limited “subgroups” such as the terminally ill.”

“Dr. Phil” would be correct if our bodies were merely an instrument, something that is separate from ourselves. Yet this is the same trouble that dear fellow Descartes got himself into.

We must remember that in our creation as being made in the image of God, we are the only persons who have both a material and a spiritual existence. The Trinity, as Divine Persons, and angels have only a spiritual nature. We, as human persons, have both a body and a soul. Thus, to speak as though our bodies are merely something we have is incorrect. Instead, it is more precise say that “we are our bodies.”

Why is this distinction important? If we simply “have” our bodies, then we are free to manipulate it any way we please. In addition, if our body is just a thing that is merely loosely associated with our souls, and if our souls are our true identity, then if we destroy our bodies, it really doesn’t matter.

However, John Paul in his Theology of the Body makes explicitly clear that the body is supremely importantly, precisely because the body expresses the person. If we aren’t in our bodies, in a very real sense, we are not fully ourselves. Even though we lose our bodies after we die, we are promised that every person who says yes to the promises of Christ is to receive a resurrected body. Most importantly, because the God of the universe, the One who gives the ultimate meaning to everything, took on human flesh, the body is thus elevated to its pre-eminent position.It is in and through the Incarnation that every human body is given its true dignity.

While it is true that the human body inevitably breaks down and often doesn’t function the way that we may want, it is crucial to realize that suffering is a part of life. If we are going to live, we are going to suffer. More importantly, if we are to love, we are going to suffer. As Blessed Mother Teresa has said, “suffering is a bi-product of love.”

So many who are a part of the eugenic movement simply don’t get what life and love is all about, and they especially don’t understand what Christianity is all about. Especially in a culture that believes that the way to true happiness is centered on one’s own self-satisfaction, when suffering inevitably comes about, there is the temptation to want to rid ourselves of this experience.

Yet without suffering and sacrifice, we miss the glory. As Bill Donaghy has written, “Suffering can set us free. Crying out can often lead to a catharsis. Sorrow affords us a chance to struggle and squirm our way out of the black cocoon of self and into the wide expanse of the world of the Other.” It is in and through suffering that we can discover what life is all about, for ultimately it is not suffering simply for suffering’s sake, but for the sake of love.

We see this most profoundly on the cross. Christ gives Himself to us in a pouring out of His own blood, offering up His Body as a sincere gift. He did this to bring us back to Love. He makes it clear that if we are to be fulfilled, we must make a sincere gift of ourselves (cf. GS 24), and this often comes through the carrying of our cross.

Yes, it is true that we do not want to suffer, because it hurts, but we must understand that it is oftentimes through the moments of great suffering that the greatest meaning about the mysteries of life are revealed. As formerly Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in Introduction to Christianity:

From the point of view of the Christian faith, man comes in the profoundest sense to himself not through what he does but through what he accepts. He must wait for the gift of love, and love can only be received as a gift… One must wait for it, let it be given to one. And one cannot become wholly man in any other way than by being loved, by letting oneself be loved… If he declines to let himself be presented with the gift, then he destroys himself.

The process of death, like birthing pains, if viewed within the paradox of the cross, is a profound gift of God. We, who are Bride, are called to receive all that our Bridegroom wants to give to us. Through unification with Christ, the process of dying is a form of the wooing that God does in preparation to unite Himself to us in the Wedding Feast that will never end.

For six years, my grandmother was in a nursing home, and my aunt tended to her care faithfully, visiting her almost everyday for about 3 hours. As can be imagined, this certainly caused suffering for both my grandmother and aunt. And I am sure the question was asked by my aunt as to why, in her late 80s, she was still hanging around, waiting for her reward. Although we may never know the answer on this side of eternity, I truly believe that it was a gift that God was presenting to my family, demonstrating that Love was present in the midst of these difficulties.

When we try to take the powers of life into our hands, we escape this process of letting ourselves be loved. If we do not allow Love in all its grandeur to infect us, we cannot be transformed into love. If we cannot love, we can never fulfill the meaning of our being and existence. It is only by entering into this process, which at first glance, only looks like pain and grief, that we are purified to become the gift that we were destined to become.

This originally appeared on Catholic Exchange's Theology of the Body Channel, tob.catholicexchange.com.

2009-10-02T10:37:00.000-07:00

A New Patron Saint for Chastity?

by John Zmirak

9/30/09

Display Full Article/Printer Friendly | Send to a Friend

When we're thinking about the Deadly Sins, it helps to use examples. It's too easy for theological writers to sling around Abstractions with Capital Letters, as if with each stroke of the pen they're tapping into Plato's realm of changeless, ineffable Forms. Or at least that they're writing in German, where all nouns start with caps. A friend of mine used to write weekly for the estimable investigatoryjournal The Wanderer. Founded by German-Catholic immigrants, it was published auf Deutsch well into the 20th century. As my friend recalled, "The editors were, I think, waiting for the rest of the country to catch up with them. At last they admitted that this was unlikely, and agreed to translate the paper. But they kept on as their typesetter someone named Uncle Otto, who for years insisted on capitalizing every noun."

At least, that's the story. Such Teutonic stubbornness served The Wanderer's editors well in the wake of Vatican II, as the newspaper became a snout-rapper -- whose reports, as Bishop Rembert Weakland whines in his memoirs, were what Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger used to roll up and smack heretical bishops on the nose. I urge all to subscribe.

But capitalizing your Concepts in order to give them an Air of spurious Authority will only take you so far in this world -- as far as "B-minus," I learned back in freshman rhetoric class at a staunchly secular school. So I've decided to give the Virtues and Vices a little flesh, to fatten them up for the reader so he'll remember how they look, sound, even smell.

I've already, elsewhere, profiled the patroness of promiscuity, the racist shrewMargaret Sanger. Lust's opposing virtue, Chastity, deserves an equally unforgettable advocate. Much as I love St. Maria Goretti, I'm not sure that her story is terribly useful for illuminating this virtue. Maria died from wounds incurred while resisting a rapist, and is quoted as having chosen "Death before Sin." In another context that's surely a worthy maxim, but it's worth pointing out, over and over again, that rape victims who don't fight back are not committing a sin. A woman I knew, the victim of a violent rape, said that tales of Maria Goretti (which she'd learned as a girl) fed into the crippling, inappropriate guilt that haunted her after the attack. What's edifying about Gorretti's story, I think, is how she forgave her attacker before she died, and how he converted afterward -- even attending her canonization Mass. That part is enough to break your heart, but its matter is Mercy, not Chastity.

So let's move on to another story, a longer and sadder one, of Chastity lived over decades and under duress in its most common context, marriage. I speak of someone well known to Showtime subscribers, Queen Catherine of Aragon (1485-1536). The beleaguered first wife of Henry VIII, she started life with every promise of pleasure and power -- as the youngest daughter of Europe's richest, most well-armed monarchs, Ferdinand and Isabella. She learned Spanish, French, Latin, and Greek, and all the liberal arts, in an education infused with the Christian humanism that formed Erasmus and Thomas More (her future friend). Obedient to her parents, she made a political marriage at age 15 to the English Prince Arthur -- a shy young man who died only six months later.

According to Catherine, Arthur carried shyness to quite an extreme, since she always claimed the marriage was never consummated. This may seem implausible now, but it pays to remember two things:

Arthur was sickly.
Arthur was English.

A few centuries down the line, it would take seven years for Louis XVI to consummate his bond with Marie Antoinette; perhaps the prospect of handing on royal genes can cause performance anxiety. Whatever the case, the pious Catherine would swear to this fact repeatedly under oath, so it probably behooves us to believe her; her actions in later years otherwise make no sense.

After Arthur's death, Catherine was left for seven years an impoverished widow living under something close to house arrest in damp and alien England. She escaped this fate when her parents arranged with Henry VII for her to marry Arthur's brother, the dashing and learned Prince Henry. Because of Leviticus 20:21, Canon Law forbade a widow's marrying her brother-in-law. But royal dispensations back then were as thick on the ground as Kennedy annulments, so Henry and Catherine married in 1509. A very different man from his brother, Henry made Catherine pregnant five times -- in between long bouts with mistresses, a sport which historians think gave Henry syphilis. That disease contributes to infant mortality, which might explain why only one of Catherine's children outlived infancy.

Lacking a legitimate male heir, with his own family's claim to the throne still legally tenuous, Henry began to doubt the validity of his marriage to Catherine. By sheer coincidence, he'd fallen in love with one of her teenaged ladies in waiting, Anne Boleyn. Thus began the well-known story of the English Reformation, whose sordid origins have given Irishmen ever after the chance to snark at their English landlords: "My Church was founded by Christ, and yours by Henry VIII."

This isn't the place to rehearse the tedious legal proceedings by which Henry sought a divorce, or the violence he used on those who resisted him. His efforts were slowed, not stopped, by the fact that Catherine was the well-loved aunt of Charles V, whose armies held the pope a virtual prisoner. There was little honor on any side of this issue, most of whose protagonists (except for saints such as Thomas More and Bishop John Fisher) treated the sanctity of marriage as a pawn on Europe's chessboard. It all ended with butchered Carthusians; roofless abbeys; bare, ruined choirs; and the liltingly lovely language of the Book of Common Prayer, whose sacraments are invalid.

What matters to us is Catherine's unfailing commitment to her marriage. As the wheels of her persecution ground slowly and certainly, she found herself losing first her privileges, then her rights. In the end, she was banned from even visiting her daughter, the disinherited Princess Mary, and imprisoned in a crumbling castle far from court. At any point in time, Catherine could have freed herself, left England, and returned to Spain -- to life as a pampered dowager. All it would have required for Henry to set her free was a simple letter, admitting that their marriage was invalid.

But Catherine wouldn't write it, not even long after she'd given up any prospect of the throne. To the end, she concerned herself with "my husband's" health and holiness -- both in steep decline. She died in poverty and solitude, but would never renounce the reality and the sanctity of her vocation as a wife. Deeply in love with her husband, affectionate and romantic, she was sentenced to decades of celibacy in the midst of the marital state. Abandoned, she never abandoned God. She never even gave up on Henry.

As she wrote him, the year before she died:

My most dear lord, King and husband,

The hour of my death now drawing on, the tender love I ouge [owe] thou forceth me, my case being such, to commend myselv to thou, and to put thou in remembrance with a few words of the healthe and safeguard of thine allm [soul] which thou ougte to preferce before all worldley matters, and before the care and pampering of thy body, for the which thoust have cast me into many calamities and thineselv into many troubles. For my part, I pardon thou everything, and I desire to devoutly pray God that He will pardon thou also. For the rest, I commend unto thou our doughtere Mary, beseeching thou to be a good father unto her, as I have heretofore desired. I entreat thou also, on behalve of my maides, to give them marriage portions, which is not much, they being but three. For all mine other servants I solicit the wages due them, and a year more, lest they be unprovided for. Lastly, I makest this vouge [vow], that mine eyes desire thou aboufe all things.

She died with dignity, as true to her vocation as any monk or martyr. I cannot think of a worthier model today for all the married.

John Zmirak is the author, most recently, of the graphic novel The Grand Inquisitor and is Writer-in-Residence at Thomas More College in New Hampshire. He writes weekly for InsideCatholic.com.

This was first published in Insidecatholic.com

2009-10-02T08:55:00.000-07:00

What’s REALLY behind the Green Movement

October 2nd, 2009 by Steve Pokorny · Edit Print This Article ·ShareThis

First published on tob.catholicexchange.com

OK, so I’m ticked. Usually that’s not a very good thing to be while driving, but when writing, it can be the impetus for some great commentary. That is, unless you’re writing an e-mail to your soon-to-be ex, but I digress…

I have long held suspicion about the so-called “Green Movement.” In case you need a refresher, it is beyond question for some members of the “intellectual elite” that the world is undergoing global warming at an alarming rate. And based on the words of Barack Obama to the U.N. recently, it would appear that the sky is falling. All of this is based on a the preconceived notion that all of the scientific community is completely in union on this scientific “fact,” even though at least 31,000 scientists beg to differ.

Now, I don’t claim to be a scientist, but a simple Google search will reveal that the idea that global warming is primarily manmade is hogwash. That’s right, it’s a myth. Just take the following excerpt, for example:

Johan Feddema, acting chair and professor of geography at KU, studies global warming. Atmospheric science is a program in geography at KU. He says he is skeptical of any one phenomenon being the direct cause of global warming because there are so many climate variables that factor into global temperatures. (Emphasis Mine)

Did you catch that? It cannot be just one factor. There are many factors that go into climate change, but apparently the main factor has to do with the variation in sun spots. Writing in Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery, they note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover,

physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents, and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites. Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth’s temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings.

So if it’s all just made up, why are people buying into this drinking The Green Agenda Cool-Aid like its going out of style? Like all myths, if it’s not grounded in reality, there simply has to be a good spin machine used to manufacture the publicity to conjure up feelings of fear, blame, and uneasiness to get people to pay attention. And one quick look at your major news outlets will reveal one heck of an ad campaign being hoisted onto an unsuspecting public.

While it is possible that human beings may play a very small role in the heating up of our planet, it is vital that we as a Christian community wake up to the huge agenda that is being rammed down our throats, and it boils down to this:The green movement is all about reducing the world’s population.

Just take a look at the following title (which is the premise found in many articles involving climate change currently): “Birth control could help combat climate change.” The thesis behind this theory is that by giving contraceptives out to developing countries, it will help to slow the population growth that, they believe, causes the rising of the planet’s temperature (while at the same time, it is being reported that the “U.S. northeast may have the coldest winter in a decade): They quote an editorial (not even a study) in a British medical journal entitled Lancet that states that because there are 200 million women worldwide desiring contraceptives that don’t have access to them, this results in 76 million unintended pregnancies every year. We’re not sure where that unscientific editorial got those numbers, or who really believes those children are unintended — the mothers who bore the children, or the powers that be that are terrified that a third-world nation could out populate them.

Yet as one blog entitled, “The Evangelical Ecologist,” pointed out, “And then there’s China, famous for it’s one-child policy. It currently holds the title of world’s worst greenhouse gas emitter. With such a policy in place for the past 40 years shouldn’t China be on the bottom of the list?.” Thus if China can’t get this green machine thing right, and they’ve butchered countless babies and children, the question has to be asked: Can we REALLY solve global warming by population control?

By taking off our green glasses and revealing the wizard behind the curtain of this nice globally conscience motivated movement we see that this is none other than a furthering of Margret Sanger’s anti-God, anti-life, anti-family legacy that still promotes eugenic policies (Thanks Planned Parenthood!)in order to suppress, to the point of elimination, the type of people that The Green Agenda deems undesirable. And Geologist Ian Pilmer, who has a much longer view of the earth’s history than merely the last century, who sees global warming as “an entirely natural phenomenon with many precedents in history,” has hit it on the head: Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites.

It makes sense, really. For when God is replaced as the center of one’s life, then anything else can take His place.Truly, there are no atheists; just men and women making something more important than their Origin. And right now, global warming is the deity of the month. Just as Satan said to Adam and Eve that “they could be like gods, determining for themselves what is good and evil,” the liberal elite have gobbled down that entire fruit and determined clearly what is good and what is evil (in their eyes): earth good, people bad.

Please understand me: I am all for taking care of the environment. God commanded Adam to tend the garden, and because I’m from his same ilk, I am called to take care of the planet, and do the little things I can, like recycle. Yet to a point. If it comes down to whether a forest remains standing or an unborn baby gets to live or a family gets to eat, I’ll be happy to approve of a new parking lot.

If global warming were really caused by human beings, and if I could make any prediction on why it is happening, I would base it on Romans 8: “All of creation is groaning, waiting for the redemption of our bodies.” For just as Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man and not the other way around, we must remember that the earth was created for us, not for us to be subservient to some absurd agenda that does not take into account Jesus’ words that the Father cares for His children. When we don’t follow God’s plan for our lives, and instead try to live life in a way that we deem best, things are going to go badly, and that includes the environment.

So, maybe we should all be ticked and raise a stink over the Green Agenda Elitists and their power grabs. For while they are paving the way for first world economies to plunge headlong into the ocean like all the glaciers that are claimed to be are disappearing, because there are not enough workers to replace the current generation (remember the old phrase, “IT’S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!?), I’ll take as many “uncultured, third world” children as possible, and I’ll be grateful for those “backward” places like Africa that will help to rebuild the world on the cornerstone of every society: the family.

2009-08-29T15:53:00.000-07:00

A Real Answer to Obamacare: A Plan by Deal Hudson

It's often been said that if you're going to complain about something, you need to give a viable answer to the problem. There have been a lot of people complaining about the health care bill that is currently before Congress, yet I have not heard too many solutions. When my wife asked me what should be the appropriate Catholic response, I didn't have an answer for her.

Well, thank God, Deal Hudson has offered something very interesting that keeps control of health care options in the direct hands of the people, not the government. The government, as it should, will merely protect those individual rights.

Check it out. (Original article can be found at http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6688&Itemid=121&ed=1)

A Workable Alternative to Government-Run Healthcare

by Deal W. Hudson

8/16/09

Display Full Article/Printer Friendly | Send to a Friend

The newly launched USCCB Web site on health care tackles the question: "Are the bishops promoting socialized medicine by advocating for universal access?" That's a good question, since the prospect of a government takeover of health care has created a growing chorus of complaints about the present bills before the Congress.

The bishops' answer to the question about socialized medicine makes it clear they do not consider a government-run program the only option for providing universal health coverage. "There may be different ways to accomplish this, but the Bishops' Conference believes health care reform should be truly universal and genuinely affordable," the bishops explain.

But thus far the bishops have not recommended alternatives to the type of government-run program contained in the bills before Congress. They have objected loudly to mandated abortion coverage but have not indicated any discomfort, in principle, with the federal government managing the medical care of every American citizen.

However, the bishops will welcome any reform resulting in a universal health policy that respects "human life and dignity" and includes "freedom of conscience," while restraining costs and applying "costs equitably among payers."

The media coverage of the health-care debate among Catholics has treated the Catholic Health Association's (CHA) advocacy for the present legislation as if it were the official voice of the bishops. This is mistaken: CHA is a trade association of Catholic hospitals, and as such, it speaks with a voice of knowledge and experience but not ecclesial authority.

Another group, the Catholic Medical Association (CMA),has a different point of view on health care reform. The CMA was formed as a result of a 1965 debate with the Catholic Hospital Association over socialized medicine and widespread dissent regarding the teaching on contraception in Humanae Vitae.

CMA supports an approach to health-care reform "achieved by legislation that empowers people to own their health insurance policies (as contrasted with government, or employer controlled healthcare insurance) and using targeted measures to help people who cannot afford the entire cost of their insurance premium."

CMA's recommendation points the way toward an alternative solution -- one based on the principle of subsidiarity -- to reach the goals advocated by the bishops. Universal coverage can be achieved without handing health care entirely over to the federal government. Here are some specific recommendations of my own that would implement the general suggestions of the CMA.

Such a plan can begin with mandating health savings accounts (HSA) for everyone: These individual accounts become the vehicles to disperse payments to insurance providers. Everyone will be required to purchase his or her own insurance, and group insurance policies will end.

Insurance would be sold to individuals and not through employers or other parties. This solves the issue of portability, the ability of individuals to keep their own health insurance. This would also reduce costs: Consumers would seek to control their own consumption. The government would also take the lead in bringing about litigation (or tort) reform to curtail the amount of irrelevant and unnecessary testing and defensive procedures that doctors use to protect themselves from negligence claims.

At a minimum, individuals would be required to purchase hospitalization insurance so as to prevent people from using emergency rooms without paying. This would also lead to beneficial discriminatory pricing for those who choose to purchase primary care or preventative care as opposed to those who only purchase hospitalization. Verification of insurance would occur by including the policy number annually on one's tax return.

The role of the federal government would be to spell out a minimum level of mandated services to be covered by insurance companies. Freedom of conscience provisions would be included, while abortion services and so-called end-of-life services would not. Insurance companies would not be allowed to deny coverage for preexisting conditions.

Health-care providers, in turn, would have to provide the same price to everyone for each service. Furthermore, government would need to create incentives in order to increase the number of primary care providers and local clinics to help lower the baseline of medical care costs.

How are individual HSAs to be funded so that universal coverage is achieved? For the next three years, employers would contribute to each employee's HSA the mean amount of dollars that they had previously paid into group insurance. For the millions of uninsured, Congress would contribute dollars to their HSA. Congress would have to determine at what level of income this assistance would cease.

There is more than one way to achieve the goal of universal access to health care -- without turning over the reins to government.

Deal W. Hudson is the director of InsideCatholic.com and the author of Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States (Simon and Schuster).

2009-07-19T20:26:00.001-07:00

The Quest to Redefine Reality

Originally Published on tob.catholicexchange.com

Recently, LifeSiteNews.com ran a story about how the London-based organization called Marriage Care is courting the same-sex agenda. The chief executive, Terry Prendergast, is “to be the keynote at the annual conference of the homosexual organization Quest.” While sadly these conferences acclaiming the same-sex lifestyle are happening more and more frequently, what is most troubling is the connection between Marriage Care and the Catholic Church.

Marriage Care is “registered as a Catholic charity whose president is the sitting Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols,” where “the group operates from 80 locations and 53 relationship counseling centres in England and Wales.” The last time I checked, the Church had a very clear stance on the issue of same-sex attraction, and they definitely don’t see eye-to-eye with organizations like Quest, which is “is trying to convince the Catholic Church to abandon its ‘policies’ on sexuality and the nature of marriage.”

Oh, and the real kicker about Marriage Care is that

“Terry Prendergast told LifeSiteNews.com in an interview that a significant source of the group's funding and other support comes from Catholic dioceses, one of which pays the rent for offices, and from individual parishes across the country. But…the group's purpose is not necessarily to uphold the Catholic teaching on marriage and family.”

Did you catch that? The Catholic Diocese of Westminster is directly helping to finance the destruction of marriage and the family! Any attempt for the Diocese to be “pastoral” (read: a pushover) and bring outsiders into the Church is doing much greater damage than any possible good.

(I encourage everyone to contact the Archdiocese of Westminster, requesting that diocesan funding be pulled from Marriage Care. To do so, please contact:

Archbishop Vincent Nichols
Vaughan House,
46 Francis Street,
London SW1P 1QN
Phone: (+) 020 7931 6007
Fax: mauramcbride@rcdow.org.uk)

Let’s get back to Quest: The conference they are putting on is themed, "We Are Family: New Thinking (Read: Bad Thinking) for the Twenty First Century”, and as keynote speaker, Prendergast will be calling “upon the Catholic Church to "rethink" the nature of the family this weekend.” His reasoning: the “romantic image" that has been “built up by the Church of a ‘golden age of the nuclear family’ which excludes those who "do not fit," including single parent ‘families,’ "and also ‘co-habiting and same-sex families.’"

What’s more: Prendergast believes that persons with same-sex attraction "lay equal claim to their married heterosexual counterparts when bringing up children in stable relationships." He believes that “children do best in a family where the adult relationship is steady, stable and loving,” and that “adult, not married, (are what is important) since there is no evidence that suggests that children do best with heterosexual couples."

I just have one question for him: Is he actually in touch with reality?

Every single statistic used by the same-sex agenda to claim that children do no better with male-female relationships than with those in same-sex relationships have been flawed. For example, take the Goodrich v. Department of Public Health in 2003 (the case that legalized same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts and started the snowball effect of “gay marriage” in other States). In that decision, and every other one since, none of the children in the stats were raised by a married man and woman, but instead of children raised by single women. In comparing between the single mother and those in “committed” same-sex relationships, there seems to be no difference in child development.

However, when comparisons between the child development of those who are raised in a home with a father and a mother and those raised with only their mother are made, there is not even a caparison. When the father is in the home and is present to his children, the children are much more confident, self-assured, and ready to engage in world in a constructive way (for more info, see Joseph Nicolosi, A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality, Chapter 9).

What does the opposite scenario look like? Just look at our society. We have grown up since the 1960s where “free love” ruled, contraceptives became readily available, and divorce rates began to skyrocket. In the midst of this, vast numbers of children were raised in fatherless situations, leading to three generations of children lost, not knowing their origin, and when they became adults themselves, because of their homegrown education, they continue the pattern of irresponsible parenthood, not to mention the increased chances for emotional dysfunction and getting involved with drugs and crime in their youth. (For more info, see here.)

And what about the “steady, stable and loving” relationships? Again, if we look at the statistics, we see that these types of relationships don’t exist in the same-sex community. For those who have been involved in “stable” relationships (primarily men), it is widely understood that for the relationship to last, cheating must be allowed to occur (read: one night stands) as long as they don’t become emotionally attached.

This is not a healthy environment to raise children, where they will obviously be exposed to the latest partner that daddy brings home. To have them raised by a couple who do not understand what their sexuality is all about, as well as to flaunt this in front of their “kids,” is not something that should be celebrated, but instead should be treated as a form of child abuse.

What about love? Now there’s a word that is thrown around. I’m all about love when it’s actually love, but when it is counterfeit version being passed off as the real deal, then its going to lead to a world of hurt for all parties involved. While the world may define love by the relationship between those who express themselves genitally, real love from the Catholic perspective is based on the reality of the Person of Jesus Christ, who demonstrates love not through mere sentimentality, but as a sincere gift of self. He poured out everything that he had, not holding anything back. He demonstrated the full truth and meaning of sexuality, that it is not about what a person can get, but it is about what can be given to others.

For love to exist between two human beings, there must be one who gives the gift, one who receives, and the gift between them. In regard to genital activity, if one is not giving (or receiving) everything to (or from) the other person (a.k.a. their fertility), then they are actually lying with their bodies. Like those who contracept, those in same-sex relationships know something is wrong, but can’t put their finger on it; they become more and more distant, and eventually the relationship will die. This is because when the house is built on lies, it is isn’t going to last.

And guess what? Like children of divorced relationships, the children in these “families” will be left to try and figure out why this has happened, when in reality, it shouldn’t have happened in this first place.

I believe that Dale O’Leary puts it best: “If we are to put the best interests of children first, we must respect a child’s right to be born into a family consisting of his biological father and mother, who are united in a permanent and exclusive marriage” (One Man, One Woman, A Catholic's Guide to Defending Marriage, 197).

Even more important than the issue of child rearing is that when organizations like Quest try to change the Church’s ‘policies’ on sexuality and the nature of marriage, we must recognize this as THE most fundamental issue facing the Church today. For the union between man and woman is not simply a historical construct but was instituted by God from the beginning to image His love for humanity. To say that marriage can be conceived in any way possible is to say that there is no real structure to love and that it can mean anything.

If love can mean just anything, than it becomes meaningless. If love is meaningless, than we are without hope; a world without hope means despair. Simply look at the rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, and successful suicide attempts (see here for more info) amongst those in the same-sex lifestyle shows just how deep despair goes when love becomes inverted. To pretend that this is simply a different way of a person “expressing themselves” is simply fooling ourselves and betrays the very reason we were created, which is to love as God loves.

Remember Paul Revere? He rode throughout the colonies, waking up the slumbering to alert them that the British are coming. We must be like him, taking that long, swift ride through our homes, schools, work places and streets, proclaiming the truth about the human person. To simply accept this agenda laying down will have disastrous consequences, for marriage…and our children.

2009-07-17T17:30:00.000-07:00

The Cult of Ugliness in America

The following article gives a pretty good diagnosis of the problem, but the solution, where we abandon the modern world and not engage individuals with examples of true beauty, I'm not so sure. Read for yourself and decide.

Originally posted on: http://www.tfp.org/slideshow/slideshow/the-cult-of-ugliness-in-america.html

The Cult of Ugliness in America
Written by Fr. Anthony J. Brankin
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 11:42

The topic on which I have been asked to speak today is “The Cult of Ugliness in America.” I do not intend to speak of every possible example of ugliness in our society. That would be exhausting if not thoroughly discouraging. We already live cheek-by-jowl in an incredibly ugly culture; we cannot escape it. So if there is any purpose to this talk, it is to keep you aware of the very real danger that you might miss the ugliness entirely and never catch on to the real destruction that this ugliness is working in your very souls.

Now, what could I possibly mean by the word “ugly”? Is it too glib to say that if beauty can be defined as that which when seen pleases, then the ugly is that which when seen displeases? Why does it displease? Is there some definable element that tells us that an ugly piece is ugly? Is there an obvious line or shape or combination of lines and shapes that screams, “ugly!”
What can we make of the modern phenomenon whereby what is considered ugly nonetheless pleases — or what would be considered beautiful in another era or society is deemed by ours to be ugly?

For example, when I say that you live cheek-by-jowl with this ugliness, I mean to say that in coming to and going from this hall you are surrounded by miles and miles of unyielding ugliness: McDonalds and Burger Kings sandwiched between Amocos and tenements. You do not mistake that for beauty, but it is so ubiquitous that you may no longer recognize it as specifically ugly.

cult_ugliness_times_square
People no longer recognize things as specifically ugly.

You may never even make a mental note of the ugliness of all the malls with their false fronts and even falser interiors, or of the condominiums that are just as empty and sterile on the inside as they are on the outside. That’s just how everything looks now.

And, of course, that’s just for starters, for there is likewise in our world a spiritual ugliness no less all-pervasive than and somehow related to the visual ugliness all about us.

You will turn on your car radio only to hear of some new school shooting, and you won’t even be sure if this is the eighth or ninth such massacre in as many months. You will, however, be able to form a mental image of the alleged perpetrators, for you have seen the look and the fashions on your own block and maybe even within your own families: the chopped, colored hair, the mutilations, the tattoos, the rings in the nostrils and eyebrows, the baggy clothes, the backward baseball caps, the surly looks and the sullen grunts. You’ve even heard their music — God have mercy on us; we’ve all heard their music.

Then, of course, when you finally reach home, you will turn on the television news to hear of our scientific culture’s progress in the harvesting and sale of babies’ body parts. You will see news bytes of the political candidates trying to outdo each other in their dedication to killing babies.
cult_ugliness_la_ol2
A statue of Our Lady in
Los Angeles, the Cathedral
of Our Lady of the Angels.

Perhaps then, after supper, you will turn the channel to a show where you are treated to hour after hour of actors and actresses spewing vile lines in ever more tawdry productions. Could television programming be any less accurately described than by saying it consists of ugly, mean people doing ugly, mean things to each other? Indeed, the ugliness is so universal, so part and parcel of our lives, that it hardly registers in our minds anymore. And having drunk fully of this awful cup, you go to bed.
Now, you might think that at least on Sunday you could be rescued from all of this visual and spiritual ugliness by going to church; but ugliness is there, too, for chances are that your church has already been despoiled by modern Catholic barbarians who haven’t even the artistic sense of the Unitarians who sit on your towns’ historic preservation boards.

The modernists will already have removed the tabernacle to a closet and the crucifix to the rectory basement. They will have torn up the sanctuary and torn down the shrines; and they will have done their expensive best to ruin whatever vision of spiritual loveliness the first parishioners and the first architect possessed. But, again, you are so used to it by now that what they have done to your church in the name of reform barely registers anymore in your minds — at least not until you have to confront what they have also done to the Mass — ever-perky, ever-childish, ever-changing, ever-boring, ever-therapeutic, until you are no longer sure who should be more embarrassed, you for still being there or the liturgists who invented it all.

No, the cult of ugliness is so pervasive, so all around us, in every nook and cranny of our lives, that we stand the risk at every moment of missing it, of no longer being able to see it or even be repelled by it.

What is Beauty?
Our talk will be divided into three parts: We shall first try to understand what has always been traditionally understood by the use of the word “beautiful” by most people in most eras, and in fact, how traditional Catholic philosophy was able to sort out that traditional understanding of beauty into an actual set of principles, the violation of which would yield ugliness.

Secondly, we shall try to situate these understandings of beauty and ugliness in the context of culture — or cult or faith — to see how beauty and ugliness flow naturally into the world from the content or emptiness of the soul.

Thirdly, we will make some personal resolutions, which we hope would take us a long way towards the destruction of this Cult of the Ugly.

Nature, the Matrix for Beauty
Ask any child who is drawing something what he is trying to do and he will tell you that he is trying to recreate something that he saw in nature, be it an apple, or the sun, or a tree, or a house. And, invariably, the measure of the success of the drawing for that child is how closely the drawing resembles nature.

Accuracy according to nature was always the standard of reference for artists and societies, for all high civilizations from the Egyptians and Greeks to the Romans and Europeans. Each culture’s succeeding generations of artists tried to improve upon, or at least remember, the techniques, lessons, and discoveries of the previous generations, always seeking a greater beauty of lines, more solid figures, and truer perspectives.

It was generally accepted that there was infinitely more to a face than just that face — something else between the proportions of nose, eyes, cheekbones, jawbones, lips, and mouth — and this, of course, would be “beauty.”

cult_ugliness_st.thomas
St. Thomas Aquinas defines
beauty as that which when
seen pleases.
If, therefore, we are to understand anything about the “Cult of Ugliness,” we must first understand what beauty is. Its definition is basic enough. According to the great saint-philosopher of the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas, beauty is that which when seen pleases.* No more, no less. If colors and forms and shapes and compositions would please beggars and kings all at the same time, then that would be considered “beautiful.”

But why does it please? What would make the heart delight in that which the eye saw? Well, Saint Thomas said that if something gives us pleasure then there is always somehow present in the thing which gives pleasure something that is “good,” and the good always attracts us, always pleases us.

Now the good, which a person sees and senses in some beautiful thing, is its “form.” That is, it’s wholeness, its proportions. If such a thing is complete, right, and balanced, it is “good,” and what happens is that we are attracted to that “form” because we sense that there is in the object the same kind of form within us. We see and sense in the form of the beautiful object a “good.” And the good in it echoes the good in us — or at least the good that should be in us. We are fascinated and attracted by that sameness. It delights us and we want to remain in its presence.

Did you ever watch babies and see how they are totally taken in by other babies, how they react to those other little creatures that are so like them? How they stare at other babies, recognize the similarities, and even reach out to touch their faces?

The form of a beautiful object is considered beautiful because it is whole and proportionate, as we would sense ourselves to be whole and proportionate. We delight in the beauty of our own being. There is a resemblance between that which is in us and that which is in the beautiful object. And we are pleased.

But that is not all there is to the story. There is one more element present without which we cannot achieve all this pleasant recognition. Just as the eyes of the body need actual light to see anything, so too the eyes of the soul need a similar light which Saint Thomas calls claritas — clarity — a spark of light, so to speak, that glances off the beautiful object and actually comes from the beautiful object. It is the very same spark of being which comes from the Being of God. The very Being of God is present in the being of the object, and God’s beautiful Being is therefore revealed in the form and proportions and clarity of the object. Precisely because a beautiful thing is a reflection of the Beauty of God, we are naturally drawn and attracted to it as we would be drawn and attracted to God in our desire for union with Him.

The beauty of God is somehow mysteriously reflected in the beauty of being — first in nature, then in trees, sunsets, in faces and forms and figures; and then it is reflected in art — in drawings and paintings and sculptures and even in architecture (and, somehow, even more mysteriously, in music.)

The closer those artistic forms conform to nature, the closer they conform to the supernatural, and the more accurately do they reflect the truth, the beauty, and the goodness of God.

Beauty is Objective
We have been made to believe for generations now that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, that it is all a matter of taste and culture, opinion and upbringing, that there is no true objective beauty out there that can be used as a universal standard. It all comes from one’s mind and what one likes. So, if you think a horribly skewed, out-of-shape series of smears and stains is beautiful, then, for you, it is beautiful.

Well, I stand here today to say, along with thirty thousand years of human instinct and two thousand years of Catholic tradition, that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. Beauty resides in the beautiful thing itself. It will either have proportion, wholeness, integrity, and clarity in itself and be from God, or it will not have those qualities and will be displeasing to the discerning soul and will therefore be ugly.

You see, just as theological modernism denies the objective reality of the supernatural, saying that all dogma, all revelation, is just your experience and, therefore, the truth is what you think is the truth, so too, artistic modernism tries to convince us that whatever anyone thinks is beautiful is beautiful for that person.

Indeed, today no one is allowed to say that anything is ugly, for to call something ugly hints at the possibility of an actual real standard of reference by which some things can be beautiful and some things not beautiful. This hints at the possibility of a claim to objective truth, which is certainly not allowed in today’s society because that would hint at a God.

We are cowed into a moral and cultural silence before the modern proclamation that a squat, misshapen, mis-proportioned figure is somehow beautiful — and even perhaps more artistic than the figure that God first created. How could it be said that that which seemed so ugly to us was still somehow beautiful to them? Well, they say it still, but now we know that this attitude is simply a modern intellectual conceit, by which their higher appreciation of art makes them superior to those not in on the game.

For the same reason, no one today is allowed to say that anything is wrong, to say that something is evil, or to say that something is immoral. If there is nothing that is in and of itself “true,” then neither is there something that is in and of itself good or bad — neither beautiful nor ugly.

Indeed, when you walk into some modern monstrosity of a church and your instinctive reaction is, “My God, this is ugly,” you are right. It probably is ugly. And you have no less an authority than Thomas Aquinas to back you up.

cult_ugliness_bras_cat
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder.

You incur no moral or aesthetic fault if weird angles and blank concrete walls in a church make you feel uneasy and uncomfortable. There is no sin in seeing some hideous deformation of Christ on the cross or some monstrous representation of Mary and saying that it is hideous, that it is monstrous. Nor is there virtue in trying to think that, somehow, it is all really beautiful and that there must be something wrong with you. You need no longer feel forced into a corner bleating, “Well I guess I don’t know much about art.” It may simply mean that your good human and Catholic instincts are still intact and that they have, somehow, survived this ugly, ugly society.

Now you might be thinking: “My goodness, the world is falling apart and he’s talking about drawings. More than a million babies a year are being sucked out of the wombs of their mothers and he wants to discuss pretty pictures. Seventy per-cent of Catholics don’t even go to church anymore and he’s giving us lessons on the philosophy of art. If we wanted Sister Wendy we could have turned on PBS.”

This goes much deeper than aesthetic philosophy. It refers to the way we think about and deal with life itself — all of life, all of nature, all of being. All human activity is meant by means of beauty to provide us with an access to God, Who is All-Beautiful.

To Produce Beauty One Must Possess Beauty
cult_ugliness_bruges_cathedral
Bruges Cathedral. Medieval man possessed a sense of beauty.

It takes virtue to do virtuous things. Indeed, it takes virtue to even recognize virtue or to recognize its opposite. And if you possess this virtue, this grace — this natural penchant for the supernatural, this healthy sense of beauty, you will see, know, feel, and do things of which the rest are simply incapable.

The same goes for the sense of beauty. Unless beauty first resides within, it will never be exemplified without in any part of our society. Nor will it even be recognized.

That remnant sense of beauty — in our minds and hearts — by which we can still recognize the ugliness out there, either in ugly buildings or ugly philosophy or ugly lives, must be cherished and guarded as our last weapon in the struggle with No-God.

But how is it that the rest of our world has become so relentlessly ugly at every level? We seem to wallow in it. Well, perhaps it is clear by now that our society, no longer possessing virtue — theological or practical — no longer possessing grace or faith or even the dimmest notions of God, has embraced emptiness. Having forsaken the true God, having blinded ourselves to His “claritas,” His spark, His light, we dwell in ugliness, darkness, and confusion.

We do not see or accomplish virtuous or beautiful things without, because there is no longer virtue or beauty within. A society that does not believe in God or super nature or even truth — let alone beauty — will do only ugly things.

Tragically enough, our world does not even know that it is ugly. We have already said that beauty is that which when seen pleases, and therefore we would know that the ugly would be that which when seen displeases. But look at our society, where it has become the macabre, the strange, the twisted, and the deformed that please. Where the most popular piece of cinema in years — number one for weeks — is a movie about a cannibal. It is the evil and ugly that now delights.

Well, welcome to the “Brave New World,” where that which in another era would have been called bad is now called good, and that which was once considered ugly is now considered beautiful.

The Cult of Ugliness Targets God Himself and Our Perception of Him
This discussion is hardly about pretty pictures. It is about the ever-ancient assault on His beauty — the original affront to His very existence and to the nature and the life that He created. The cult of ugliness in our land is no less than Satan’s rage against God. It is no less than the gleaming spear-point of the culture of death.

Moreover, the cult of ugliness is so utterly pervasive and thorough in its celebration of the fruitless, the sterile, the weird, and the ugly that it pushes to the margins all other faiths — above all the True Faith.

The subliminal message in every confused and misshapen piece of modern architecture, art, music, or drama is that there is no God. The subliminal message in every deliberate mutilation of natural forms, in every tribute to physical and personal perversion, is that there is no God. The subliminal message in every celebration of the weird and deathly is that there is no God. This subliminal message is as surely the “Illuminated Gospel of Death” as any culture could have ever proclaimed, and by virtue of its omni-presence in every aspect of modern life, we are constantly encouraged to accept this gospel.

Sadly, even much of the clerical caste, whose task would certainly be understood to include fostering the cult of the beautiful as part of its proclamation of the Gospel of Life — and whom we certainly imagine would defend us from the ugly allurements of the No-God, is often too dense to see what is going on, and itself has surrendered in so many ways to the Cult of Ugliness.
This is demonstrated every time we walk into a church to see some splayfooted, goggle-eyed Christ on a cross or some rude, crude cement Madonna. The poor priest thought he was simply purchasing a nice piece of contemporary art for his flock. In all innocence and ignorance he assumed he was simply obtaining some fresh interpretation of traditional religious themes and was never conscious that what he was looking at and what he was filling the eyes of his flock with was actually the human form exploded, exploited, and degraded — reduced to its individual and impotent parts and slapped together again in a unsettling imbalance — all for the purpose of revealing and teaching the modern loathing of living forms, the modern loathing of a Creator.

No, the poor priest never thought he was doing that. I don’t think he thought it through at all. I don’t think he ever questioned the spiritual source of such strange shapes, or ever wondered from what terrible fonts such new forms sprang.

Perhaps he never suspected the existence of a Cult of the Ugly. Perhaps he just assumed that it was all a matter of taste, and that his taste, like that of his flock, was simply old-fashioned and ready for a little jarring now and then. Well, we have all been jarred.

cult_ugliness_ol1Look at some of our newest churches and cathedrals. Many of them are stunning and awesome — no, not for their homage to tradition and the Catholic sense of beauty. They are stunning and awesome in their utter inhumanity, their complete lack of scale, their thorough and total sterility, and their horrifying proportions. There is not an angle that could please nor an arch that could comfort. Not a piece of molding that could hold us in its shadow. Not even a little statue before which we could light a slender taper. Like the gaping mouth of the pagan, child-sacrificing furnaces of Moloch, some of our new churches will consume their people in holocausts of visual horror. I venture to say that one or two of these ecclesial “worship spaces” are some of the most terrifying pieces of architecture to have ever been accomplished by and for modern Catholics. I shudder at what harm this ugliness may accomplish in the souls of those who try to pray there. They are the clearest possible examples of the nihilism, the emptiness and nothingness, of which modernity constantly speaks — the relentless message that there is nothing out there — neither nature, nor beauty, nor God. And will we surprise ourselves to discover one day, by means of such architecture, that there is nothing left in our souls either?

Oh, what a series of ironic tragedies. We Catholics, thinking that we were opening the windows to dialogue with modernity, never had a clue that we were being used. Having spoken for so long in the language and in the forms of the modern world, we thought that we could put a Christian interpretation to the philosophy of the atheistic Enlightenment. We thought that now they would love us and come to our side. But we have found ourselves saying and meaning things we did not want to say or mean. And we do not even know how to unsay those things anymore. There it is for all the world to see — our newly acquired evangelical impotence and spiritual paralysis so clearly shown in the confusion of our renovated churches, the foolishness of our experimental liturgies, and the emptiness of our new cathedrals. Why indeed would anyone be attracted to the beauty of God, if this is what it looks like? And we will find one day that we ourselves are growing distant from God because His fascinating beauty is no longer to be found even within our own buildings.

What to Do?
So what do we do? What is the answer? Should we spend our remaining energies and spin our wheels trying to convince, to change, to convert our culture? And we really do sometimes think that, don’t we? We think that if everyone would see that one beautiful statue, or that one beautiful church, or would hear that one perfect argument or one beautiful Mass chant, then they would all be converted.

But how many converts came streaming into the Church after hearing the Gregorian chant recording from Spain? Sure it sold millions, but most, I’m sure, regarded it as little more than mood music to accompany them on the treadmill. The moderns had no idea about what these monks were singing — and Latin was not the problem.

How many of us thought, twenty-five years ago, that if we could just show everyone photos of the developing fetus, the pro-life cause would triumph conclusively? No one cared; and now we find ourselves fighting the battle against infanticide.
Well, is it all over? Do we throw our hands up in total discouragement? Do we resign ourselves to the physical ugliness and spiritual vacuum of our age? Do we surrender to the No-God of our era, place ourselves on the dung-heap of modernity and, like Job, wait for a merciful death?

No, I don’t think we have to. First among all our tasks is that we remain converted and committed to the God of our Fathers, the God of all beauty and all being. And then, naturally and unself-consciously, we will share among ourselves the beauty that we have interiorly experienced.

True Catholic culture has been left to us to create anew and afresh — with precious little reference either to our modern society or even to the clerics panting so faithfully after modernity. We ignore it and them and, taking a tip from the purveyors of the cult of ugliness, we proceed to fill our minds, our hearts, our families, our children, and our world with as much beauty as possible that by dint of the quantity and quality of our efforts there will be no room for that which is inhuman, ungodly, or ugly.

If this sounds like a clarion call back to the catacombs — that we withdraw from our modern culture — then so be it. Yes, that too is heresy in our contemporary Church culture where we are constantly encouraged to engage and embrace the modern world. But in doing so — as we have seen over these last tragic decades, we stand to gain nothing and lose all in such a poisonous encounter.

But where are those catacombs? Where are those refuges from the human and spiritual horrors of our “Brave New World”? They are in your very homes, your front rooms and bedrooms, your home schools and private academies. That is where the true culture of the New Millennium will take shape, for, undistracted by the pomps and pleasures, the flashy arrogances and fleshy superficialities of the ugly world around us, mothers and fathers can form and mold and guide their children with unadulterated faith and inculcate into their souls every form and example of beauty.

And in isolating and insulating your children from the moral squalor about them, you are only strengthening them in their eventual confrontation with it. Fill the walls of your homes with beautiful art, fill the ears of your family with beautiful music, fill the souls of your children with beautiful stories, and there will be no room left for the insipid, the warped, the ugly, and the faithless. If you can make of your family a little Church, you will not have to be engaging constantly in rear-guard action to counteract the toxins of the media and schools or that of your children’s strange new friends down the block. They will not be forced to unlearn at home the lessons they have just learned outside.

Your families will come to know and appreciate that there is only one thing about which to be busy, around which to revolve, only one thing to cultivate, and that is their souls, the beautiful gift from God. This realization will then help them do beautiful things, create beautiful things, and appreciate all the beautiful things that issue forth from beautiful grace-filled souls.
And if we do this, then, little by little, as modernity continues to die — as surely it must, for is not death its very theme? — it will be replaced by life, in fact a new Culture of Life whose healthy hallmark will be the celebration of the beauty of God in the beauty of the life around us.

Oh, indeed there is a Cult of Ugliness in our society, but it is not our cult and we will have nothing to do with it.

Last Updated on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 15:46

2009-05-30T21:30:00.001-07:00

the opposite of lying

(This is from an excellent blog post....http://www.whoisjohngalt.com/2009/05/the-opposite-of-lying.html)

Note: I don't mean to dwell on abortion here, but there have been a couple of interesting stories about this issue in the news recently. So I'm going to cover it one more time, and then I'm going to put it to bed for a while until it appears in the headlines again.

If you're like most people, then you probably think the opposite of lying is truthfulness.

If I say "yes" when I know the truth is "no," then I am lying. But if a liar says "yes" when the answer is "yes," it doesn't mean he is not a liar. Lying, you see, is not about being untruthful -- it is about controlling the information a person receives, distorting reality, so that they act on flawed facts. It is about making another person your own means to an end. This is the reason fraud ranks right up there with force as an enemy of reason. And it is why we should expect a liar to say "yes" when it's the answer that suits him best. He's not concerned with being untruthful; he's concerned with controlling your actions by altering the information you use to make decisions.

Because of this, I am not satisfied calling mere truthfulness the opposite of lying. The opposite of lying, to me, is being informative.

Yesterday I saw this: States passing bills requiring ultrasounds prior to abortions. This is actually brilliant, not because of how it will influence women's decisions, but because of how it tests the liberal position on abortion.

A fetus, women are told, is just tissue. If you believe that is a lie, you might think the remedy is to deny it. This law is different -- it says: "See for yourself." And liberalism has a problem with this, not because it refutes their "tissue" argument, but because it truly allows a woman to make an informed choice. And here you thought they were protecting a woman's right to choose. Are you so sure?

Similarly, abortion activists are suing states over specialty license plates with slogans like "Choose Life." Tell me, if you wanted to make abortion "safe, legal and rare," do you think choosing life more would make abortion rarer? I do.

The truth is that we've been told that one side is about life, while the other side is about choice. When I see the life side clobbering the choice side by espousing choice, it puts the choice side in a very uncomfortable position of having to face what it is they really seek. And that's a lot like looking into a baby's face and calling it tissue.

So what does liberalism really seek, with regard to abortion? Well, it seeks what it always wants: a way to escape the consequences of irresponsible action by shifting some cost (in this case a very brutal and violent one) -- onto an innocent, but politically unrepresented, minority. And it relies on misrepresentations like "it's just tissue," to garner support from people who simply don't know better. Liberalism relies on lying.

Consider the source.

2009-05-02T16:16:00.000-07:00

Letting a Man be a Man

This is an excellent post from Anthony Buono, one of the writers on Catholic Exchange's TOB Channel (tob.catholicexchange.com). It really lays out the distinctions b/w man and woman, and that women shouldn't expect a man to be a man. This, however, doesn't mean that a man should not allow Christ to form him, because we all have a need to grow into more of who we were created to be.

Friendship from a Man
Posted At : April 29, 2009 11:50 AM | Posted By : Anthony Buono
Related Categories: Theology of the Body,Dating

Women have an uncanny ability to make friends and be a friend. A good way to put it is that women are, by nature, inclined to care. Specifically, women care about people. They intuitively are capable of entering into the inner reality of human beings. This makes them capable of friendship.

It does not surprise anyone that women make friends with other women so easily. They show interest in each other. They enjoy the sharing of personal information. They pursue with sincerity knowing more about the person behind the external presentation.

Men, on the other hand, are primarily interested in the outer world. By nature, men focus on the “what” more than the “who” in life. Of course, I am not saying that men don’t have the ability to “care”. I’m only pointing out that women have an easier time at friendship than men do. Men get to know each other through actions rather than conversation. They do not sit down and start sharing what’s going on inside or their likes and dislikes. They just act, and they talk within situations, and knowledge about that man is revealed as he goes along. That is why men are much more transparent than women. You can know what a man is thinking or what he wants because he externalizes himself. Women keep things hidden inside and are hard to read externally.

Why is this so important to consider? It is because in dating relationships and in marriage, there can be an overstressing by women to have a man be their “best friend” at a level that is probably unrealistic. I’m all for friendship in courtship and marriage, but the friendship required for marriage needs to be defined and understood. It cannot be understood to mean that a woman will be getting someone she can converse with anytime she wants and about anything.

To really get to know any person, there must inevitably be spoken conversation. The reason is that you can never “really” know what someone is thinking or experiencing at the personal level, or why they did something, unless they speak about it. Actions may very well reveal truths about a person, but actions do not provide all the information about the whole person. So men do have to talk and be able to make conversation with a woman. He can’t just be too shy and not a talker at all.

By definition, a person is a being who acts. So what someone does speaks about who they are. However, as human beings, we have a fallen human nature that inclines us to sin. And, in fact, we all sin every day. Should our sinful actions be what defines us as a person? It would be unfair to do so, because everyone is entitled to the freedom to fall from grace and be forgiven and given another chance. How we recover from these falls tells much more about the person. Obviously, someone who keeps doing the same things over and over again is probably unlikely to stop doing them. So actions should be judged over time, rather than in moments.

This is the courtesy men desperately need from women today because men are more action-oriented than women. Therefore, men are prone to do more stupid things than women. Men need the benefit of the doubt from a woman if he is ever going to risk the level of friendship that women want.

Women have to understand, however, that men typically do not “need” the kind of deep friendship that women want. This is why it is important for women to have close female friendships. There are needs women have at the friendship level that should not be expected from a man. I realize that there is an ideal in modern marriage that a man and a woman be best friends, but this must not distract from the practical aspects of the vocation to marriage in the eyes of God. The two become one flesh, but not one person. There will always be two unique individual persons in a marriage, which means the personhood of both will always be developing and forming. The friendship bond in marriage provides love, security, sacrifice, and interest in the other’s good and welfare. In this friendship they cannot help but grow closer together.

But it is impossible for a man to fulfill a woman completely, nor a woman to fulfill a man completely. First and foremost, only God can completely fulfill any person. That’s a given. But also, people need other people to continue making them the whole person they are called to be. Some couples have terrible problems dealing with what the other does outside of themselves. There is a possessiveness that makes them hate when the person they are dating or married to does something without them or doesn’t tell them everything they expect to hear. They feel betrayed because they believe that true love means you do every single thing together and only share everything with just that one person. They also do not like it if anything they talk about together is shared with anyone else.

This is not what marital friendship is. Friendship does not mean possessing every single bit of information about the other, nor doing every single thing together or else love is not true or real. There are couples who do happen to have that. But many good couples have ended their relationships because they didn’t have this. And that is wrong. Women will find it difficult to find a man who desires to tell her everything and wants to do everything with her. Some men might be like that but most are not. Men definitely have to open up more to women, but women definitely have the need of a friend they can open their heart to; to talk about everything. Typically, women find this in another woman. That’s why there are so many happy marriages where each spouse has their same-sex friends. These friendships outside the couple enhance the person and make them better spouses to each other.

Women must not put so much pressure on a man to be a conversational friend they need. But men do need to talk more to women. Women need to have conversation. They need to know what’s going on inside. Many times a man does not even know himself enough inside to share himself. Women must be patient about that.

Don’t give up on a good man who defines who he is by his actions. Just because he does not talk as much as you would like does not mean he would not make a good husband and father. Make sure you have friends who make you a better person, and take that betterment and bring it faithfully into dating and marital friendship.

2009-04-24T15:03:00.000-07:00

The March of the 'Tolerant' Gay Agenda

Connecticut has just fallen. D.C. is next. And every other state is on the radar. At least not every Bishop is remaining silent. Let us pray for our Catholic brothers and sisters to stand up and defend the truth about the dignity of men and women, as well as find our own voices to enter this battle for our civilization.

WITHOUT A DOUBT

“Rhode Island, Most Catholic State, Welcomes Gay Marriage”

Posted Apr 23, 2009

BY BISHOP THOMAS J. TOBIN

That’s a headline we haven’t seen yet, dear readers, but probably will in the next couple of years. And, make no mistake about it – that’s exactly what the headline will say as the story makes its way around the state and across the nation.

The march toward gay marriage across our nation is relentless, and liberal New England is leading the way. The supporters of gay marriage in Rhode Island are well-organized and well-funded. They’re fiercely determined to impose their politically correct agenda on all the citizens of the state – human history, culture and moral principles not-withstanding. Anyone who opposes them is quickly labeled a bigot.

And what’s the typical response of Catholics in Rhode Island? “As long as it doesn’t affect me, I really don’t care what other people do,” you say. “We shouldn’t judge other people,” you demur. “The Church is losing its influence. I don’t think there’s anything we can do,” you rationalize.

Well, my friends, gay marriage will affect you and you should be concerned. And there’s a lot we can do. But first, let’s review the principal reasons why we’re opposed to gay marriage.

First is our firm belief – based on the natural law, the Bible and consistent religious tradition – that homosexual activity is unnatural and gravely immoral. It’s offensive to Almighty God. It can never be condoned, under any circumstances. Gay marriage, or civil unions, would mean that our state is in the business of ratifying, approving such immoral activity. And as I’ve written previously: “The state shouldn’t be placed in that position, and as a citizen of the state I don’t want that imposed on me and my conscience. Neither should you.”

Second is the fact that gay marriage seeks to radically redefine the most fundamental institution of the human race, the building block of every society and culture. From the beginning, marriage has been defined as the stable union of man and woman, designed by God to continue the human race through the procreation of children. Homosexual relationships are not marriage – never have been, never will be.

Here let me explain the “champagne principle.” Not every wine is champagne. Champagne has certain very specific, universally recognized characteristics. If someone were to take a bottle of Chianti, label and sell it as champagne, they’d be arrested for fraud. In the same way, those who seek to redefine marriage – with its specific characteristics – and to usurp the title “marriage” for their morally bankrupt relationships, are committing an act of fraud. It’s insulting to those who have entered the authentic, sacred and time-honored institution of marriage over the years.

The gay culture continues to seep into our popular culture, cleverly claiming credibility. Did you see that President Obama issued special invitations to gay families to participate in this year’s Easter Egg Hunt at the White House? Just another not-too-subtle attempt to ignore the objective immorality of the situation and present gay couples as normal and happy as every other couple.

The third way in which gay marriage will affect you is its impact on religious freedom, including that of the Catholic Church.

A recent headline in the Washington Post demonstrates the problem: “Faith groups losing gay rights fights.” It goes on to give some examples of how the gay agenda is imposing itself on religious beliefs: a Christian photographer in New Mexico was fined because she refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony; Christian doctors in California were obliged to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient; A Christian student group was punished because it denied membership to anyone involved in sex outside of marriage.

We’re familiar with other examples of the gay agenda infringing on religious freedom. In Massachusetts, the Catholic Church was required to place children for adoption with gay couples; and in some countries, clergy preaching the Christian doctrine about homosexual practices have been accused of hate crimes.

Proponents of gay marriage say that the Church won’t be forced to witness such marriages. Don’t believe it. And other related problems will inevitably arise. Will the Church be required to admit gay couples as sponsors for baptisms; to rent its facilities for gay wedding receptions; to hire employees despite their immoral gay lifestyles; to grant family benefits to gay couples? For simply maintaining its teachings in these and many other possible scenarios, the Church will be accused of bigotry and unlawful discrimination. The threat to our religious freedom is real, and imminent.

The fact that Rhode Island has successfully avoided the gay marriage phenomenon is a credit to our Governor, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate. They – along with a number of other legislative leaders – have been consistent and courageous in deflecting the onslaught of gay activists and in upholding the traditional definition of marriage. We hope and pray they’ll continue to do so.

“The Church is losing its influence,” you say, “and there’s nothing we can do.” “Bull feathers,” I reply. I don’t know if we have 600,000 Catholics in the state or 500,000 or 400,000. But if even ten percent of our Catholic population got actively involved in this issue – even five percent – we could have an enormous impact and help Rhode Island maintain its moral sanity.

Lots of things you can do about this issue. First, you can be aware of the legislation as it’s introduced in the General Assembly. You can contact your state senator and representative and insist that they oppose gay marriage and defend marriage and family values. You can exert your influence with letters to the editor and calls to talk shows. You can join and support organizations like NOM-RI that’s leading the charge on this issue. And you can pray fervently that God will help us in this critical struggle on behalf of morality and common sense.

The Church teaches us that it’s the responsibility of the laity to get involved in public life, to transform the secular order into the Kingdom of God. Therefore, if someday a headline reads, “Rhode Island, Most Catholic State, Welcomes Gay Marriage,” people across the nation will ask, “How did that happen?” And it’ll be our fault, fellow Catholics – not necessarily because we approved of gay marriage – but simply because our abysmal apathy allowed it to happen.

2009-04-06T16:08:00.000-07:00

Do Homosexuals Actually Exist?

April 10th, 2009 (As seen on tob.catholicexchange.com)

In the Western world, there is radical push for the normalization of same-sex attraction. Commonly called homosexuality, it is believed that this is something inherent in a person’s nature, even going so far as to say that they are “born this way.” In this very brief examination, we will a) answer the claim of whether same-sex attraction is genetic or if it comes from a variety of environmental factors; and if it is not genetic, b) the keys to bring healing and freedom to men and women with same-sex attraction.

The Language Game

In order to correctly address the topic of same-sex attraction (SSA), we must first clarify our terms. One of the main aspects that polarizes the debate over homosexuality is that of language. Dale O’Leary puts it perfectly:

In public-policy debates, language is crucial…For example, although there is no universal agreement about the definition of homosexual (does it refer to certain desires, or behaviors, or convictions, or some combination thereof?), gay activists act as if it were a scientifically designated category of human beings. They have taken further advantage of this ambiguity, always seeking to influence public opinion, by carefully choosing words that fame the issue in their favor. They have eschewed the nineteenth-century term homosexual, for instance, and insisted on using gay and lesbian to refer respectively to men and women who A) identify themselves with their sexual attraction; and b) identify with the gay political agenda.

The language of sexual orientation and “sexual minorities” has also expanded to include bisexuals, transsexuals, transgenders, and transvestites. And thus, the entire constituency is today summed up in the acronym GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender) or, alternatively, LGBT. Some also like to refer to themselves as “queer,” although others find this term insulting when used by non-members of their community.

However, none of these categories adequately describes all persons with same-sex attraction (SSA): for example, those who have never acted on it. Neither do these categories include those with SSA who don’t identify with the gay agenda. For this reason, I find “persons with SSA” to be the broadest and most accurate terms, if a somewhat cumbersome one. I try to avoid using the word homosexual as a noun, or for that matter heterosexual, because these terms create the impression that human beings can be neatly divided into categories based on their patterns of sexual desire. People are either male or female. Patterns of sexual attraction are not their identity and, in fact, can be quite fluid over time…I prefer to refer to them simply as men and women. (Dale O’Leary, One Man, One Woman: A Catholic’s Guide to defending Marriage, (Sophia Institute Press: United States of America, 2007), 23-24.)

Thus in addition to ceasing to use the term “homosexual,” we should stop using the term “heterosexual” as well, due to the fact that this is a politically charged word, for when the term “homosexual” is used, it is often understood to be merely another option in which a person expresses their sexuality genitally. This thus paves the way for a plethora of sexual “inclinations.”

Furthermore, O’Leary argues that the term gender should not be used either. According to the social constructionist ideology,

“biological sex might be a given, but “gender” – one’s perception of self – is a social construct and therefore can be changed…This deconstructing of “gender” oppression is behind the Radical Feminist war on marriage, motherhood, and their fanatical support for lesbianism and abortion on demand…Although most Americans are comfortable with “gender” as a synonym for sex, this opens the door to the idea of “gender” as something “fluid.” (Dale O’Leary)

If sexuality is left to mean something merely fluid, it will lead to much more confusion about sexuality. When a person does not know who they are but think that their identity is in flux, their whole world does not make sense. They proceed to medicate to avoid the pain. This is why among those who subscribe to the SS lifestyle they have a much higher rate of drug abuse, alcoholism, sexually transmitted diseases, and successful suicide attempts than those who do not participate in SS actions (Catholic Answers, “Gay Marriage,” http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp, 2004.).

Our True Dignity

Instead of using the term “homosexual” or “heterosexual,” we must use the term “person.” As Christ has said “Have you not read that in the beginning he…made them male and female” (cf. Matt 19:3), this is the way we must look at human beings. What we do is not what we are, but our actions flow from our nature. To understand our nature, we must go back to the plan that God has for all people. God created humanity in His image, and in His essence as Trinity, He is Gift. In order for a gift to exist, there must be one who gives, one who receives, and the gift itself. In the Father making a total-self gift of Himself to His Son, who receives this gift, and gives Himself back completely to His Father, who receives Him. The Love between them is actually another Person, the Holy Spirit.

Human beings were created male and female to image the Trinity. God created us to be gifts to one another, and this giftedness is written right into our sexuality. Men, written right in their bodies, are to initiate a gift of themselves; women, written into their bodies, are to receive sincere gifts. Putting this in terms of a genital act, when husband and wife give and receive from each other, they are able to procreate another unrepeatable human being. While the marital act is not the only way in which this image of the Trinity can be revealed, it is fundamentally written into our sexuality.

To deny this truth would do damage to a person. In no way can a person with SSA who acts out on their inclinations image this union of the Trinity. To claim that a person is actually born with SSA is to say that they can never be a gift and that they can never attain the reason they were made. In essence, it would be to condemn them.

The belief that people are “born gay” is a widely misunderstood myth. Alfred Kinsey first reported that ten percent of the population is gay. The actual truth is that the rates are closer to 1-2% of the population. (“Exposed: The Myth that 10% are homosexual,” www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/two.php (Date Accessed:April 4, 2009)). When researcher Simon LeVay found that a part of the hypothalamus of the human brain in the cadavers of men with SSA who had died from HIV-related causes to be different than the hypothalamus of other cadavers, the media immediately picked up on this, saying that this was “proof” of the gay gene. Yet what they did not report that a) LeVay denied that the evidence proved that people were “born gay,” and b) it is possible that it is the HIV virus that caused the difference in their brains (Joseph and Linda Ames Nicolosi, A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality (InterVarsity Press: Illinois, 2002), 55.).

The most damning evidence of all comes from the study on identical twins, where based on the “born gay” theory, if one twin is gay, than the other should also. However, as Dr. Whitehead puts it,

If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (such as eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too. But we know that only about 38% of the time is the identical twin brother homosexual…If one [twin] is homosexual, the other usually is not. (Neil and Briar Whitehead, My Genes Made Me Do It: A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation (Huntington House Publishers: Lousiana, 1999), 26, in Nicolosi, Joseph, and Linda Ames Nicolosi, A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality (InterVarsity Press: Illinois, 2002), 55.)

The Real Causes

If same-sex attraction does not come from genes, where does SSA come from then? In many of the discussions with those who have same-sex attraction, we discover that something occurred during their formation as a child and/or youth that stunted their sexual development. What psychologists call this is Gender Identity Disorder (GID) (unlike the 1973 removal of same-sex attraction from the DSM by the APA, GID is still viewed as disorder). Starting from between the ages 1 ½ to 3 years old, a child must learn to identify primarily with his sex and disassociate with the other, or they will experience a much more difficult time in learning their masculine identity. This is especially true for boys, for masculinity is something that must be imparted, and for those with GID, they never learned to identify with their father. Many case histories have revealed that when the father is cold and/or distant, and if their mother is overbearing, they have a greater predisposition toward developing same-sex attraction when they are older (this is found to be true in both men and women with SSA). This is due to the fact that the great need for love that they never received from their father was not met in childhood, and they are striving to have this need met in genital relationships with other men. In addition, many of these men and women have a history of abuse as children and teenagers from a member of the same sex, which often leads to acting out genitally later (Dale O’Leary, One Man, One Woman: A Catholic’s Guide to defending Marriage (Sophia Institute Press: United States of America, 2007), 89, 94.).

What is most present in these men and women is that there is a great desire for intimacy. Because we are made to have our gifts received completely, a very high number of those in “committed and exclusive” SSA relationships have to allow for other genital relationships, due to their deep desire to be totally accepted not being met (For example, “New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan admit that for them, “fidelity” does not mean complete monogamy, but just somewhat restrained promiscuity” (Found in Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1995).). Yet what is common to that those in “committed” SS relationships is that once they have established a very strong friendship, they stop expressing themselves genitally with their partner. This is radically different from the relationships between men and women, for

As friendship between husband and wife grows over time, complimentarity and mystery remain, and sexual intimacy can become even more satisfying. But as friendship between two men grows, their awareness of each as another man like himself increases, and sexual excitement tends to fade concurrently. (Dale O’Leary, One Man, One Woman: A Catholic’s Guide to defending Marriage, (Sophia Institute Press: United States of America, 2007), 162.)

Thus what men and women with SSA must learn is the true nature of intimacy, which is grounded in friendship.

Real Hope

Thus in order to bring healing and freedom to men and women from same-sex attractions, there are many things that can be done. The first thing that must happen is for them to identify first between a same-sex act and their God-given nature as men and women. Next, because many of the wounds are related to their childhood, it is crucial that they are willing to confront them and get to the root. There are a variety of psychological techniques that can be used to address these traumas. (Visit Narth.com for more info). Third, men and women must establish solid friendships with others. Fourth, this can only be done through the virtue of chastity, which is only made possible with a solid friendship with Jesus Christ, who is the fulfillment of all desire. Only from Him can they reclaim their God-given dignity and will be able to give themselves away in a sincere gift of self.

Bibliography

Catholic Answers. “Gay Marriage.” http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp. 2004.

“Exposed: The Myth that 10% are homosexual,”
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/two.php. Date Accessed: April 4, 2009.

Nicolosi, Joseph, and Linda Ames Nicolosi. A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.
InterVarsity Press: Illinois. 2002.

O’Leary, Dale. One Man, One Woman: A Catholic’s Guide to defending Marriage. Sophia
Institute Press: United States of America. 2007.

O’Leary, Dale, “Gender vs. Sex,” Class Handout. 2009.

Sullivan, Sullivan. Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality. New York: Alfred
Knopf. 1995.

Whitehead, Neil and Briar, My Genes Made Me Do It: A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation.
Huntington House Publishers: Lousiana, 1999.

2009-03-19T10:09:00.001-07:00

VIRTUS: Making the Problem Worse — Part 2 of 2

March 9th, 2009 by Steve Pokorny · Edit Print This Article ·ShareThis

Last time we diagnosed some of the main issues of “child-protection” programs like VIRTUS. Today we’re going to discuss the medicine.

Abdicating adult responsibility

The very fact that we feel suspicion and fear are our only allies in the work of protecting children from harm demonstrates a certain hopelessness to combat the root of the problem: a disordered view of human sexuality.

And it’s no wonder. We as a society wallow in a culture of death, where sexual deviancy is rampant and sexual “sins” are celebrated on sitcoms, highlighted by Oprah, and accepted by school districts that throw up their hands and pass out condoms in the face of pre-teen intercourse rates.

It’s often easy to see the problem (if we open our eyes). It’s harder—much harder—to accept our own responsibility for it. The truth is even many “good Christian adults” would find it hard to acknowledge that they’ve been desensitized by the hyper-sexualized themes in our favorite TV shows and popular movies, much less buck the trends by closing our pocketbooks or writing to the stations. Not to mention the numbers in our own camp who battle sexual addictions such as pornography and therefore feel less-than-worthy to take a stand for what they know is right.

So we accommodate the status quo, our complacency allowing society to slide further down the slippery slope. And when the effects of a hypersexualized, limit-free, “nonjudgemental,” gender-confused culture bear fruit in pedophilia, incest, and abuse, we do what? Cry foul and turn all our efforts to protecting children through “safe environment education” that strips them of their innocence?

Is it just me, or is the focus here terribly unbalanced? Instead of focusing on the illness causing the gaping wounds in our culture, partially enabled by our own complacency as adults, we force mere children to help put a Band Aid on the symptoms. Instead of emphasizing the burden of responsibility parents and adults have to create an environment in which children can flourish and develop because their critical needs for healthy touch and affection are met, we emphasize the negative, and subject our little ones to lessons on how to be wary of inappropriate touching from adults. We tell teachers that even innocent hugs are inappropriate. We mandate our diocesan volunteers and workers to cycle through “safe environment training” but allow many of the same to spread teachings (as well as to act openly) in direct opposition to the Church’s teaching on sexuality in classrooms and parishes.

The burden, it seems, falls heavily on the children. Those who need affirming touch and affection for their emotional and psychological growth are deprived of it by adults who, on the whole, prefer sexually explicit entertainment and loose sexual mores over the responsibility and stability of healthy family life.

What happens when these needs of children are not met? What happens to any of us when a particular need is not met in a healthy way? For example, if we skip breakfast and are unable to eat because we are busy all day, when a plate of greasy or otherwise unhealthy food is set before us, our hunger compels us to eat it, despite the diet we originally committed to. Likewise, if these children are deprived of healthy physical affection, they’re going to accept and indeed seek out any physical affection they can get, making them easier prey for abusers—and increasing their chances to become abusers themselves. This does not even mention the amount of children who get into non-marital sexual relations because they have not had a healthy experience of love.

Getting to the Root, Healing the Wound

We cannot afford to let the battle cry of “child protection”—as important as it is—eclipse the need to address the cause of the problem. If the people attending training sessions like the ones put on by VIRTUS come away thinking only of how they can address the symptoms and are oblivious to the disease, it is doing more harm than good. A conversion needs to take place in each heart that leads us to ask not just “How can I protect children?” but “How can I love these children enough to do everything I can, in my own life and in the community around me, to stop this cycle?” And the answer to this question must include

–strengthening traditional family life
–healing sexual wounds
–promoting understanding of the truth of human sexuality
–spreading the message of redemption and hope

Ultimately, any program that will satisfyingly address the root causes of sexual abuse must have its foundations in Theology of the Body. Why? Essential to the message of the Gospel and Theology of the Body is the reality of redemption.

So many people think that the Catholic Church is simply about setting down more and more oppressive rules and to keep us from all of our fun and freedom. In truth, Christ came to “set our freedom free” (Gal 5:1), where by entering into His paschal mystery, through drawing on our Baptismal graces, we can be set free from the chains of lust and love with His perfect love.

Many people think that this is an impossibility, some crazy ideal (even good, “holy” Catholics). John Paul himself answers this accusation by stating:

Only in the mystery of Christ’s Redemption do we discover the “concrete” possibilities of man. It would be a very serious error to conclude… that the Church’s teaching is essentially only an “ideal” which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man, according to a “balancing of the goods in question”. But what are the “concrete possibilities of man?” And of which man are we speaking? Of man dominated by lust or of man redeemed by Christ? This is what is at stake: the reality of Christ’s redemption. Christ has redeemed us! This means that he has given us the possibility of realizing the entire truth of our being; he has set our freedom free from the domination of concupiscence. And if redeemed man still sins, this is not due to an imperfection of Christ’s redemptive act, but to man’s will not to avail himself of the grace which flows from that act. (Veritatis Splendor 103)

In essence, this means that if a person still lusts (which is one of the root causes that drives a person to commit sexual abuse), it is not because Christ doesn’t have the power to take away their lust, but that they need to avail themselves more to His grace and allow Him to continually crucify their fallen desires. Through this gradual process, they can be set free to truly love.

If our bishops really want to end the child sex-abuse crisis once and for all, they need to implement programs that are going to give a holistic approach to sexuality, not ones that create an atmosphere of fear. The programs must provide an adequate anthropology that explains clearly that while we are fallen human beings, “redemption is a truth, a reality, in the name of which man must feel himself called, and “called with efficacy” (TOB 46:4). Sure, this process will take more than a 3-hour Friday night program, but the sacrifice of providing real answers will pay off in the long run. We need child “protection” programs that place Theology of the Body at the core of their pedagogy, so that we can begin to truly build a world that doesn’t simply respect the gift of children, but also the gift of our sexuality.

Without this, we really are just making the problem worse.

2009-03-19T10:07:00.001-07:00

Collegiate Sex-Ed

by Ryan T. Anderson

February 03, 2009

Every fall, kids arrive on college campuses and learn that their basic moral intuitions on sexual matters don’t square with the reigning ideas. Thanks to debased campus culture and overreaching on the part of administrators and professors, students are beginning to respond systematically—and they’re having an impact. Here’s how.

No two undergraduate experiences are quite the same. But the undergraduate years are marked by certain commonalities: students are challenged intellectually, socially, and ethically. Long-held beliefs are forced to submit to rational scrutiny. No longer is “that’s just the way we do it” or “that’s just the way I feel about the issue” sufficient. In philosophy classrooms and biology labs, students are expected to slough off the opinions they held in their pre-critical-thinking days and adopt the conclusions of the best arguments. Everything is to be tested, and only the rationally defensible is to be retained.

Most students arrive at college knowing few, if any, of their classmates. Navigating the maze of social expectations and the ensuing climbing of social ladders in a community of strangers, students are forced to ask themselves questions: what type of a person am I; what type do I want to become; and with what type do I want to become friends? For many, this explicit self-examination and social-selection—choosing which finite group of people to befriend from a seemingly limitless pool of possibilities—is a first-time experience. In grade school, junior high, and high school, such choices weren’t quite as necessary—there were certain cliques and people just naturally fell into place. Get to college and you get to reinvent yourself—you have to define yourself one way or another.

No longer living under their parents’ roof, no longer in a supportive school, neighborhood, or church community, students no longer have external supports encouraging them to strive to meet the demands of ethical living—and holding them accountable when they fail. Instead, they find themselves subjected to new forms of pressure: a campus culture that demands conformity as the price of social acceptance, a professoriate that preaches new ethical dogmas, and administrators whose policies recognize no values but legality, liability, and physical health. It’s easy to see how otherwise virtuous students can begin to go astray—and how those already set on a bad path from high school have little hope of reforming themselves.

Yet most students arrive at college completely unaware of the patterns of life that await them. The fact is that many unsuspecting freshmen innocently join sports teams, enter into Greek life, and otherwise expect to lead active social lives, but have little idea of what sexual expectations are awaiting. Once seduced into the campus culture, they find it hard to break free. Even if dissatisfied and unfulfilled, they assume the problem is with them, not the culture. And for those who resist it from the get-go, it’s unclear what the alternative is.

Apart from some religious campuses and religious enclaves on secular campuses, the late teens and early twenties are a bit of a wandering. Sex is to be expected, but with no expectation of commitment, never mind marriage. Those desiring an alternative have no example to look to, no role-models to emulate. Gone are the days of courtship. Gone are the days of dating as an explicit preparation for marriage. Gone are the days of using one’s late adolescence and early adulthood to form the habits, the stable dispositions, the virtues required for healthy male-female relationships—both friendships and marriage. Instead, exploitation looms large. And most marriages fail.

But it only gets worse. Campus officials in lecture halls and administrative offices, rather than challenging debased campus culture, actually aid and abet it. “Abstinence education?” That’s a scientifically disproven method of avoiding pregnancy and disease. A pill and a latex sheath is all you need. “Chastity?” Hardly a virtue, the best moral philosophy and clinical psychology tell us that it’s a vice—an unhealthy attitude of repressing sexual desire, hating one’s body, and viewing sex as dirty. Courtship, dating, marriage, and then sex? All you need are consenting adults (in any number or pairings) to have good sex. And marriage is an outdated ideal anyway.

Most won’t buy that last argument—they still long for a marital relationship, of some sort, at some point. But they don’t know how to get there or what to do now. And anyone entering the secular academy holding anything resembling traditional Judeo-Christian views about sex, marriage, and the human family had better be prepared to meet the challenging questions coming his or her way. Why not pornography and masturbation as an alternative outlet to rape? Why not some pre-marital sex and cohabitation as a means of better getting to know one another, to see if you can live together before the wedding vows, to see if you’re sexually compatible before the wedding night? And even if not as preparation for marriage, why not hook-up just as a sign of temporary affection, and, well, because it’s fun, enjoyable, pleasurable?

Yet it’s not just the hook-up culture. If you think men and women are equal in dignity yet distinct and complementary, bringing unique and special gifts to bear on all aspects of life, expect to be called a sexist. If you think mothering and fathering are different, “parenting” in the abstract doesn’t exist as such, expect to be met with hostility. And if you’re at an Ivy League University and intend on being a mom first and foremost, expect to be told that you’re going to waste your education.

But the worst of all university dogmas to reject is the goodness and worth of the homosexual lifestyle. You think two men or two women can't legitimately enter into a loving and committed relationship? Well, you’re no better than the bigots who opposed interracial marriage. You think a homosexual orientation is intrinsically disordered and homosexual acts are objectively immoral? Can you say “homophobia”? And good luck if you’re someone who experiences same-sex attractions but doesn’t desire to be gay. You will be labeled as self-loathing.

From liberal dogmas on homosexuality to liberationist agendas on sex, feminism and marriage, from the social pressures put on guys and girls to be sexually active to the resulting pornography, masturbation, alcohol, and body-image problems—college campuses aren’t a pretty sight.

After my own four years as an undergraduate at Princeton, the problem was readily apparent to me, and a potential remedy seemed worth trying: rather than cowering away from the liberal orthodoxy on human sexuality, why don’t we subject it to intense, critical, rational scrutiny, expose it as intellectually wanting, and build a social network to oppose it?

February 2005 saw the launch of a new student group at Princeton, the Elizabeth Anscombe Society, named for the famed Cambridge philosophy professor, star student and successor of Ludwig Wittgenstein, and intellectual defender of traditional sexual ethics. The Anscombe Society set for itself a lofty mission:

We aim to foster an atmosphere where sex is dignified, respectful, and beautiful; where human relationships are affirming and supportive; where motherhood is not put at odds with feminism; and where no one is objectified, instrumentalized, or demeaned. We aim to increase the level of respect among members of the university community who disagree on these issues as we explore our common understandings as well as our differences. Lastly, we hope to provide those students who strive to understand, live, and love their commitment to chastity and ‘traditional’ sexual and familial ethics with the support they need to make their time at Princeton the best it can be.

The students who formed the Anscombe Society were tired of being subjected to a dehumanizing campus culture and hoped to point to an alternative, more excellent way. They were tired of the one-sided presentation of academic arguments related to marriage and family life—biased syllabi inside the classroom and monolithic student groups outside the classroom—and so they hoped to balance the intellectual conversation. Lastly, they were tired of an administration that absurdly claimed to be morally neutral when it came to matters of sexuality while consistently promoting liberal and liberationist sexual policies. They were determined to hold the administration accountable and seek change.

To achieve these ends, the Anscombe Society followed a three-pronged approach.

First and foremost, as a group at an academic institution and as heirs of Anscombe’s legacy, the Anscombe Society was about ideas—the give and take of reasons, the making and countering of arguments. Too often the academy has its own orthodoxy on issues of sexuality, and the prevailing orthodoxies are treated as immune from challenge. In classrooms, administrative offices, student groups, and student publications, an unquestionable dogma had been established. The Anscombe Society, through guest lecturers, newspaper op-eds, and discussion groups, provided serious and respectful academic responses and counter-arguments. The scholars they brought to campus to give public lectures made the intellectual case for a traditional conception of human sexuality and the human family from a multi- and inter-disciplinary perspective that drew on outstanding scholarly works of philosophy, theology, ethics, biology, medicine, psychiatry, psychology, economics, and sociology. They created an academic database on their website with the best articles from these same disciplines.

Now, the practical reality on most college campuses is that the main attacks on traditional sexual morality come from the constant onslaught of same-sex marriage advocates and feminists. Just from the need to play defense, these became central issues of response. For a student arriving on campus with basically sound intuitions about these issues—that there’s something to the fact that we come as male and female, something about our sexual differentiation that matters, and something about male and female forming husbands and wives to become fathers and mothers that mattered—but who couldn’t articulate a robust response to the campus LGBT and feminist groups or their ethics and politics professors, the Anscombe Society offered much-needed intellectual support. These students aren’t bigots. These students aren’t misogynists. But those are the charges you’d get if you voiced traditional thoughts on these issues on many elite secular college campuses today.

As the defense of traditional marriage was made, it quickly became apparent that the argument only runs as a conclusion from the underlying principle—virtue—of chastity. And so the Anscombe Society quickly began shifting from just a response to same-sex marriage and anti-feminine feminism to a whole-hearted proposal of chaste relationships as the most fulfilling. The Anscombe Society was committed to presenting the fullness of truth when it came to the intellectual case for the human family. (With one notable exception, the group abstained from taking a position on the issue of contraception.) Intellectual arguments—that was the first prong.

Second, but equally important given the social realities on college campuses, the Anscombe Society set out to form a supportive community. If you’re one of the few who is personally committed to living a chaste life, you can often feel quite alone on a college campus. Don’t get me wrong; it’s not as if everyone is having sex all the time. But it changes the way you approach considering even the possibility of dating at college if you think that all of your potential suitors will eventually get to the point where they’re expecting sexual favors from you. As a result, many chaste students just withdraw. Part of it is that they simply don’t know who the other like-minded students are; part of it is that they think their ideals are outdated on campus, so they never speak up about them—and other like-minded students do the same. And so they never know how many of them are really out there. The Anscombe Society wanted to bring this closeted community out into the open—to get people to meet and know each other, and to provide alternative social activities for those students who didn’t quite enjoy the usual weekend scene of drunken debauchery. One of the best ideas they had was holding a reception for students sponsored by the faculty who affirmed the virtue of chastity and traditional marriage. Robert George, a professor in Princeton’s Politics department, took the lead in hosting the event. The first year there were eight faculty co-hosts. This past year, just four years later, there were just under twenty—even among the professoriate they don’t know how many of them are out there.

The third task was to provide assistance to those students who needed help in meeting the ethical goals they had set for themselves. This proved to be too ambitious, demanding, and technical for a mere student group. Addictions to pornography, body-image problems, same-sex attractions, usually require professional assistance. Not surprisingly, that’s why Princeton has an LGBT Center, a Women’s Center, and various other special centers with full-time staff people to meet the needs of students. Nothing like that exists for students taking the other side of the moral divide on these questions. At Princeton, the Anscombe Society is negotiating establishment of such a center right now.

Predictably, a group like this starting at an Ivy League university made waves. At first it was treated as a novelty. Then some people were threatened by the existence of the group; others were shocked that Princeton would allow a group that held “homophobic” and “anti-woman” views. But within the first couple of months the media started paying attention. Reports began to run in the New York Times, on Jay Leno, and in various social conservative publications and TV shows. The most unusual thing reporters noted about the group was that it wasn’t religious—the students thought reason was on their side.

Along with the media attention came interest from students at other campuses who wanted to start up similar groups. We readily assisted them. Over time it became clear that this assistance couldn’t continue on an informal level, and we organized a 501c3 non-profit group to help provide material support for the groups, and two years ago we hired a full-time employee to launch a national organization called the Love and Fidelity Network that would begin planting similar groups on university campuses in order to create a national network. This fall the Love and Fidelity Network held their first annual conference. A hundred students from twenty schools—including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, Dartmouth, Columbia, and Cornell—attended. America’s leading scholars on these issues made presentations.

All of that said, there are important lessons to be learned about starting an Anscombe Society. There are pitfalls and mistakes to avoid, based on how similar groups at other campuses have been launched or what a previous model looked like prior to the advent of Anscombe at Princeton.

1. Avoid anything that is too touchy-feely, too cutsey, too first-person personal, confessional, or self-referential. This is to be a serious group of serious ideas.

2. Avoid anything resembling chastity pledges, vows, or rings.

3. Do not sacrifice integrity to numbers. Softening your positions on various controversial issues in an attempt to drive up membership numbers defeats the entire purpose of a group like this. The goal isn’t to be popular; the goal is to provide a robust account of the more excellent way.

4. Be religion-friendly but do not be founded on religious premises or arguments. The purpose of a group like the Anscombe Society is to explain how traditional conceptions of the family and the role of sex within the family are more humanly fulfilling. Focusing on the human sciences—philosophy, sociology, psychology, medicine, biology, law, economics, political theory, etc.—should suffice.

5. Remember the doctrine of the mean: the virtuous positions lies between two vices on either extreme. As such, don’t overreact. Don’t respond to campus culture by going too far in the other direction and returning us to aspects of a previous age that have rightly been left behind. Consider three examples:

a. Sticking with the above: you don’t need to be secularist or anti-religion. There are good theological reasons for the traditional family—and you can include theological reasons as one among many. For example, a panel on religious reasons from across the traditions (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.) would be effective.

b. Speaking truth in love on the issue of homosexuality is very difficult. There is the temptation to water-down the truth or to express it in a non-loving way. Anti-gay bigotry is real. It is to be avoided.

c. Forcing women back into the home, barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen is not the proper response to the Ivy League professor who looks at you incredulously when you tell her that the most important thing in your life is the desire to be a good mom. Finding creative ways to merge your vocation as mother and vocation as scholar, lawyer, doctor, etc. is the way to go. Modern work schedules and professional life were largely formed around gender arrangements from a time long-ago, and they need not be retained. This is the work for the new feminism.

6. Preaching to the choir is not the same as intellectual engagement with campus culture. There is a time and a place for building up the base and equipping the students with basically sound dispositions with solid argumentation. There is also a need to be provocative and shake other students out of their complacent acceptance of liberal dogma. Finding ways to do this and to meet people where they are is key. The goal is securing intellectual and moral conversion.

7. The focus should be on marriage, not chastity. If people ask, “what’s the Anscombe Society all about,” the answer they should get is: “promoting stable and healthy marriages.” Chastity is the virtue that fosters this—both before and during, both inside and outside of marriage. Emphasize the end goal—the good—that you seek to promote.

The future for groups like these is bright. In response to debased campus culture coupled with overreaching on the part of administrators and professors, students are beginning to respond systematically—and they’re having an impact. I don’t foresee the basic situation changing in the near-term. We’ll continue to have basically decent kids come to college with basically sound intuitions, and then they’ll be bombarded with alternative messages. The need is to equip them with arguments to know that their basic gut instinct about Adam and Steve is correct; that wanting to have a family and be a mom and be educated is OK. The need is to create alternative environments to counter the cultural pressures that can lead passion to override reason, to form communities of virtue.

But meeting this challenge will not be easy. Survey data on the next generation shows views on the family and sexuality that are quite at odds with the vision of Elizabeth Anscombe. To persuade this generation of the truths Anscombe defended, we’ll need a new generation of scholars, from all the academic disciplines, willing to turn their scholarship toward defending the human family and the principles of morality that protect it and the virtues that sustain it. Given our academic setting, it’s fair to encourage all students, especially graduate students, to consider devoting their research to these issues. And professors shouldn’t be afraid to speak out. Elizabeth Anscombe certainly wasn’t.

Ryan T. Anderson is editor of Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good. This essay is adapted from a paper presented at the annual conference of the Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame.

Copyright 2009 the Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.

2009-03-04T09:01:00.001-08:00

Explicit lyrics linked to sex among teens: scientists

Mar 4

Can listening to sexually aggressive lyrics prompt teenagers to have sex at an earlier age?

That's the issue raised by a new study, and it could unleash a fierce debate over whether a teen's music player is potentially risky and -- if so -- what should or can be done about it.

In an unusual piece of research, investigators at the University of Pittsburgh graded the sexual aggressiveness of lyrics, using songs by popular artists on the US Billboard chart.

The lyrics were graded from the least to the most sexually degrading.

They then asked 711 students aged 15 to 16 at three local high schools about their music preferences and their sexual behaviour.

Overall, 31 percent of the teens had had intercourse.

But the rate was only 20.6 percent among those who had been least exposed to sexually degrading lyrics but 44.6 percent among those highly exposed to the most degrading lyrics.

The study's lead author, Brian Primack, said music by itself was not the direct spark for sex but helped mould perception and was thus "likely to be a factor" in sexual development.

"These lyrics frequently portray aggressive males subduing submissive females, which may lead adolescents to incorporate this 'script' for sexual experience into their world view," he told AFP.

The study took social factors, educational attainment and ethnicity into account.

"Non-degrading" lyrics described sex in a non-specific way and as a mutually consensual act, while "degrading" lyrics described sexual acts as a purely physical, graphic and dominant act.

"Lyrics describing degrading sex tend to portray sex as expected, direct and uncomplicated," said the paper, which appeared last week in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

"Such descriptions may offer scripts that adolescents feel compelled to play out, whether they are cast in the role of either the female or the male partner."

Steven Martino, author of a study published in 2000 that also made the same association between music and sexual behaviour, said the findings were a wakeup call.

"The need [is] for parents to be aware so that they can place limits and criticise and understand what their children are listening to," said Martino, a behavioural scientist in Pittsburgh with the Rand Corporation.

More than 750,000 American teenagers become pregnant each year, giving the United States one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in the rich world, according to figures quoted in the study. Nearly a quarter of all female teenagers in the United States have a sexually-transmitted disease.

Nearly a quarter of a century ago, lyrics by Prince on his album "Purple Rain" prompted wives of senior politicians in Washington, led by Tipper Gore, to set up the Parents Music Resource Center.

They pushed for the music industry to develop guidelines and a rating system for lyrics, similar to the ratings for movies. The system was criticised by many as unworkable and counter-productive, making it more daring for teens to buy songs they deemed taboo.

"Government needs to help parents to regulate the industry," said Helen Ward, president of the Kids First Parents Association of Canada.

Today's technology means it is "physically impossible" for parents to monitor what their children listened to or watched on their MP3, she said.

But Raymond MacDonald, a specialist in music psychology at Glasgow Caledonian University, described it as "a perennial debate that cropped up with artists like Frankie Goes to Hollywood, the Sex Pistols and Elvis Presley before that."

"Do we really need a solution to the problem?", he asked.

MacDonald said that even if every generation rehashes the discussion differently, there's an important difference today: age lines have blurred and now everyone is listening to everything.

"Maybe we should do a study to see if the music has as a bad influence on grandparents," he said wryly.

Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium

2009-02-23T09:37:00.000-08:00

VIRTUS: Making the Problem Worse — Part 1 of 2

as featured on tob.catholicexchange.com

I’ve run into a few conspiracy theorists in my time. You know the type: the hushed tones, furtive glances, the shocking revelations that demand your immediate action and urgent—dare they imply—undivided attention.

Generally, these folks have in mind only one way the problems can be solved. To the unknowing ear, their suggestions can seem compelling, giving one no time to consider the consequences, but simply to act. The current economic stimulus plan would be a prime example of this—yet that’s not the focus of this article.

Recently, I attended a training session that seemed to have an uncannily similar effect on the people around me. What is it we were being told?

That anyone can be a sexual predator
That “they” can be anywhere
That the real cause of sexual abuse is unknown (and that same-sex attraction has nothing to do with it), and therefore we need to be always on the alert
That at the earliest sign of suspicion we should report a person to the proper authorities

After the first of the two videos shown that night, the shock and alarm on most faces was evident. The facts of child sexual abuse in the Church had been handily laid out, and they were indeed horrifying.

Reflecting on the whole of the evening’s program, however, I came to the conclusion that if the Church’s response to the clergy sex abuse scandal is limited to the scope of what we learned that night, it is going to make the problem much, much worse.

Taking issue with VIRTUS

The three-hour “child protection” training course I attended that evening was part of the VIRTUS program established by The National Catholic Risk Retention Group. This program was created in response to the clergy sex-abuse scandal in the Catholic Church, and its primary goal is obvious and good: to protect children from sexual abuse.

The name VIRTUS is thus described on the organization’s website:

The word virtus derives from Latin, and means valor, moral strength, excellence, and worth. In ancient times, virtus denoted a way of life and manner of behavior that always aspired to the highest, most positive attributes of people and aspects of human interaction.

There is much to be commended about the intention to protect children from harm, and it is admirable to see the Catholic Church striving to take leadership in this issue, especially when its scope is much broader than the Church itself. However, I have two main complaints with the program as I experienced it:

First, in contrast to VIRTUS’s self-definition, the program did not raise our minds to “a way of life and manner of behavior that always aspired to the highest, most positive attributes of people and aspects of human interaction.”

Rather, it compelled us to act out of fear and suspicion—hardly the building blocks for flourishing human community.

Second, in focusing solely on the defensive protection of children, instead of incorporating a holistic approach to human sexuality and healthy touch, the program threatens to raise yet another generation of screwed up, sexually and emotionally starving persons who engage in deviant sexual behaviors as a result.

Let’s flesh these out.

God has not given us a spirit of fear

“For Freedom’s sake, Christ has set us free” (Gal. 5:1). Christ came to set us free from sin and we have truly been redeemed. Yet for what end? To enter into deeper communion with Himself, as well as with others. Think about it. Jesus Christ died to restore our friendship with God, which includes restoring the original unity our first parents had with each other before the Fall.

Certainly, we live in a broken world where not all has been redeemed. I am not advocating that we do not punish those who have sexually abused kids, or that we shouldn’t be wise as serpents (cf. Matt 10:16) in realizing how far the pornified culture has affected “good” Catholics. But we must also be as innocent as doves, and instead of creating a culture of suspicion, just waiting for a person to make a mistake so we can crucify them, we must take a more proactive approach.

It is imperative that any program responding to child sex abuse avoid using fear and suspicion as its main motivators. Certainly, we are going to experience these feelings, but for our response to be truly Christ-like, we also have an obligation to love (as stated in 1 John 4:18: “true love casts out all fear”) and to seek to bring the truth of Christ’s redemption to bear on the realities we encounter. While healthy awareness and observant behaviors are important for training ourselves and our children to prevent occasions of abuse, we must always approach this subject first through the lens of love and healthy respect for our own bodies and sexuality and for the other people with whom we come in contact.

Specifically in regard to the misuse of one’s sexuality, John Paul the Great teaches us in his Theology of the Body to avoid becoming “Masters of Suspicion.” I fear programs like VIRTUS, especially when aimed at a largely uncatechized crowd, encourage this dangerous line of thought.

A “Master of Suspicion” is one who, due to his (or her) own experience of concupiscence, lust, and his own sins, suspects the worst of everyone—“If I can’t look at a women wearing skintight jeans without lusting after her, surely the men around me have the same struggles, too.” One major reason for this is that they have only experienced a broken sexuality and they think this is the only way we can view the world. I can’t help but feel that those who had a hand in designing the VIRTUS program are from this camp and thus encourage attendees to see things through this limited perspective.

So many good and faithful priests have fallen under the undue burden of suspicion because of the exaggerated and unbalanced publicity about the clergy sex scandals. These men have been effectively stripped of their abilities to be fathers to the people, especially the children, in their care. They feel unwelcome to interact with children and young people on a meaningful personal level, hindering their ability to be mentors and role models, especially for young men who might otherwise consider the priesthood.

Heightened fear and suspicion, not tempered by truth and love, also increase the likelihood that reputations will be unfairly impugned, causing irreparable damage to a priest’s ability to carry out his vocation—and this applies to others who are not clergy as well.

Fear and suspicion cannot be our primary motivators when trying to rectify this situation. We must always ground our hearts in the truth that love redeems and sanctifies, even in the midst of threatening, confusing situations. We cannot lose sight of this truth, for the sake of our children, and for sake of our society that depends on healthy interpersonal relationships. This is true whether we’re teaching children how to navigate in this often dangerous world, whether we’re in the process of healing victims of abuse, or whether we’re reaching out to rehabilitate—or forgive—abusers.

Next time we’ll look at the underlying causes to the sexual abuse scandal, as well as layout what must be present in any “child-protection” program in order to truly prevent this from happening in the future.

Steve Pokorny, the Director of TOB Ministries (tobministries.com), specializes in speaking to youth and young adults about the gift of their sexuality. Steve has an MA in Theology and Catechetics from Franciscan University of Steubenville, received training from the Theology of the Body Institute, and will be completing his studies at the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family Studies in 2009. He is associate editor for Catholic Exchange's Theology of the Body Channel (tob.catholicexchange.com), and his blog is truesexualrevolution.blogspot.com. You can contact Steve at tob_ministries@yahoo.com.

2009-02-19T09:14:00.000-08:00

Why we should stop using the term “homosexual” and “heterosexual”

The term “homosexual” is an especially politically charged word, and the word “heterosexual” helps to actually foster this usage. For those who actually want to help heal the often deep wounds of those in same-sex relationships, read the following.

From page 23-24 of, "One Man, One Woman: A Catholic's Guide to defending Marriage," by Dale O'Leary, we read:

In public-policy debates, language is crucial. This is particularly true in the same-sex marriage dbate, an gay activists have been no less crafty in their language that the Sexual Left as a whole. For example, although there is no universal agreement about the definition of homosexual (does it refer to cetain desires, or behaviors, or convictions, or some combination thereof?), gay activists act as if it were a scientifically designated ategory of human beings. They have taken further advantage of this ambiguity, always seeking to influence public opinion, by carefully choosing words that fame the issue in their favor. They have eschewed the nineteenth-century term homosexual, for instance, and insisted on using gay and lesbian to refer respectively to men and women who A) identify themselves with their sexual attraction; and b) identify with the gay political agenda.

The language of sexual orientation and “sexual minorities” has also expanded to include bisexuals, transsexuals, transgenders, and transvestites. And thus, the entire constituency is today summed up in the acronym GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender) or, alternatively, LGBT. Some also like to refer to themselves as “queer,” although others find this term insulting when used by non-members of their community.

However, none of these categories adequately describes all persons with same-sex attraction (SSA): for example, those who have never acted on it. Neither do these categories include those with SSA who don’t identify with the gay agenda. For this reason, I find “persons with SSA” to be the broadest and most accurate term, if a somewhat cumbersome one. I try to avoid using the word homosexual as a noun, of for that matter heterosexual, because these terms create the impression that human beings can be neatly divided into categories based on their patterns of sexual desire. People are either male or female. Patterns of sexual attraction are not their identity and, in fact, can be quite fluid over time. Some gay activists refer to those who are sexually attracted to the other sex as “straight,” or derisively as “breeders.” I prefer to refer to them simply as men and women.

I do use the word homosexual as an adjective, when referring to the various intimate acts that two persons of the same sex can engage in (Technically, of course, the acts that two persons of the same sex engage in are not “sexual acts,” because the sexual organs of both persons are not engaged in the same act – that is, sexual intercourse. So while we may use the term having sex to describe homosexual behavior, it isn’t really sexual intercourse.). This allows discussion of the behavior or acts without having to describe them in detail. I choose to avoid such explicit language wherever possible, although occasionally I think it is necessary to name precisely what we are talking about – lest we play right into gay activists’ strategy of euphemising their behaviors.

And we know that there are numerous terms of derision for persons with SSA. All of them reflect badly on those who use them; they demonstrate a lack of charity and should be scrupulously avoided, even if some persons with SSA use such terms in reference to themselves. Persons with SSA are human beings, and they are entitled to all the rights that belong to every human being. This does not include the right to change the definition of marriage.”

Thus, as I have been saying for a while now, there are no homosexuals, let alone heterosexuals (these terms were created in the 1800s). There are only human persons, male and female, and we must work to defend their dignity, not by affirming actions that are contrary to their true desires, but by leading them to the One who can redirect their lives and be the gift that they were created to be.

2009-02-16T20:54:00.000-08:00

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you?

By Fr. Chris Smith, p.v.,

Homily for the 2nd Sunday of in ordinary time

The Austrian man who invented the birth control pill, Carl Djerassi, has just published an interview in the Vatican newspaper in which he refers to his invention as a demographic catastrophe. Early twentieth century thinkers were convinced of that now debunked myth of global overpopulation. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, advocated contraception as part of a racist plan associated with Nazi groups in the United States, as she boldly stated, “Colored people are like weeds and need to be exterminated.” In 1930, the Church of England became the first Christian body to allow for contraception. One by one every Protestant denomination gave the green light for birth control, so by 1968, everyone assumed that the Catholic Church would sooner or later get with the program.

So when Pope Paul VI issued his famous encyclical Humana vitae, the world was caught by surprise. The man who invented the pill, and just about everyone else, reacted violently. Forty years later Carl Djerassi called Paul VI a prophet. The Pope cautioned that to accept artificial contraception was to divorce two things which by their very nature belonged together: sex and procreation. The consequences of such a divorce would be disastrous, he said, but most people felt that if such a technology has been developed surely God could not be against the interests of science? So the vast majority of Catholics in America agreed to disagree.

What has happened since then? An entire generation of priests, bishops and women religious set themselves against the Pope. They counseled people to follow their conscience without also informing them of the grave duty to form their conscience according to divine and natural law. Their seminaries and convents are empty, and families are much smaller today.

Contraception creates the illusion of freedom: without children, a couple can be happier because they do not have more material burdens. Contracepting couples became accustomed to a greater ease in fulfilling whatever wants and needs they had; economic prosperity created a world in which anything was possible. But the children born to these families grew up not with the virtue of self-sacrifice, but with the vice of self-gratification. And so now the children put their parents away when they get old because they don’t have the time or desire to deal with them; the old folks get in the way of their self-gratification. The population implosion has imbalanced age demographics and the financial crisis of the entire world was precipitated not in small part by the greed which unrestrained self-gratification has wrought.

Paul VI said that if contraception were to become pervasive, a whole host of other evils would result. Marriage by its nature has two ends: procreation of children and the union of the spouses. If you get rid of one, then the other follows suit. So is it a surprise that the rate of divorce has skyrocketed since 1968? I have never counseled a couple who was divorcing who was not using contraception. The breakdown of their parents’ marriages has led a younger generation to question the viability of the institution of marriage. Even despite the fact that 70% of couples who live together subsequently divorce, cohabiting young people think their trial marriage will ensure its success later on, as if entering into a fake marriage with the idea that you can get out it would somehow guarantee its permanence after the vows. Sex removed from its natural consequences has led to the explosion of pornography, which has now become practically inescapable to anyone who owns a computer or television. Marriage itself is being redefined to mean practically nothing more than a convenient partnership of two persons who live together until boredom doth them part. Sex removed from its natural consequences has led to abortion being seen as rearranging matter, fertility as a disease. Meanwhile the crisis of infertility continues to grow and scientists are just now beginning to realize the ecological effects that the hormones released by birth control pills into the atmosphere is having on both male fertility and the environment.

The Catholic Church appears before this comedy of errors of the world without God kind of like the boy in the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes. She is ready to point out that sin has its consequences, but everyone worshipping the potentate of self-gratification wants to keep up the farce. Many people think that their little private sin remains between them and God, and having put a barrier between them and God by repeated sin, their darkened intellects and weakened wills still refuse to acquiesce to the evidence.

The human body is not an instrument for self-gratification. Defying the laws of nature and God may give you the illusion of material happiness for a little while, but it is fruitless and dangerous for the soul. The body is not for immorality, but for the LORD, and the LORD is for the body. We cannot pretend that our souls can be pure when we misuse our bodies. Weakness is there, the acquired habit of vice may excuse us from some of the culpability of sin, the pressure of the culture may make it seem impossible at times to follow the teachings of the Church, but we must continually ask ourselves: why did God make me and why did He make my body? What does He expect of my body? Saint Paul pointedly reminded the Corinthians, who were know throughout the ancient world for trying to divorce sex from its natural consequences even back then, Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you?

Technology is a great thing and can be used for great good. But some things which may seem to be good at first turn out to be catastrophic. Frankenstein’s monster was a science experiment grown terribly awry; Mary Shelley’s curious doctor thought that he could open the secret to the origins of human life by assembling parts of a dead man together. But the creature turned on him and destroyed everything he loved. We must be careful not to tinker with the body in ways contrary to God’s pan for it. The immorality of doing so has a powerful way of taking a ghastly life of its own and destroying marriages, families, and souls.

2009-01-31T11:41:00.000-08:00

Why the Slaughter of the Innocent Continues

Catholic The reason why child-killing is still legal in this country is because Catholics have not stood up and demanded, "ENOUGH!" The following article proves this. If we are to end this holocaust, we must demand from our Congressmen to not receive money from PP or other abortion-minded business, and to only vote in support of bills that will protect the lives of the unborn. Or...we threaten that we will do everything in our power to make sure that they don't get re-elected.

Or...this will continue, and we will have to answer to God Almighty for our inactivity.

Pathetic:

ONLY 6 OF 24 CATHOLIC SENATORS VOTE TO RESTORE MEXICO CITY POLICY

by Deal Hudson
Inside Catholic

Only 6 of the 24 Catholic Senators voted “yea” yesterday to restore the Mexico City Policy. Last week President Obama rescinded the policy of President Bush, and first instituted by Reagan, not to provide federal funds to organizations doing abortions overseas.

Six of the eight Catholic Republican senators voted "YEA," to restore the policy: Martinez (FL); Brownback (KS); Bunning (KY); Vitter (LA); and two newly elected senators: Johanns (NE) and Risch (ID).

Two Republican Catholic senators who frequently vote anti-life with Democrats on life issues voted against restoring the policy, thus allowing federal funds to be given to groups providing abortions overseas: Murkowski (AK) and Collins (ME).
These two Republians joined 16 Catholic Democrats voting "NAY," including the “pro-life” Sen. Bob Casey, Jr. (PA). Not voting was Sen. Kennedy (MA).

Does it get any more pathetic than this?

My friend Lisa Correnti over at http://www.onenationundergod.org made this comment:

"The erosion of our Catholic culture is evident in the voting results of these Catholic senators. We have two choices: to bring them to the truth and beauty of the Church’s teachings through prayer, and spiritual direction with their local ordinary, or to vote them out of office.

"Now more than ever, faithful Catholics must encourage their elected officials to defend life and ask their bishops to bring these wayward Catholic politicians into communion with the Church."

Please go to Correnti’s web site http://www.onenationundergod.org and sign the petition to Cardinal George, president of the USCCB, asking him to tell Catholic politicians to stop receiving campaign donations from pro-abortion organizations like NARAL, Planned Parenthood, Emily’s List, and NOW.

$9,000,000 has been received by sitting Catholic members of the present Congress!

Here is a list of the other Catholic Democrats who voted not to restore the Mexico City Policy: Gillibrand (NY); Reed (RI); Leahy (VT); Cantwell (WA); Menendez (NJ); Murray (WV); Begich (AL); Dodd (CT); Landrieu (LA); Harkin (IA); Kerry (MA); McCaskill (MO); Mikulski (MD); Durbin (IL) and Kaufman (DE).

Here is a list of the total contributions made to the senators who voted against the bill to restore the Mexico City Policy.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who assumed office only in January 2007, has accepted $986,619 from the pro-abortion lobby.

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) has received $205,768

“Pro-life" Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D-PA), $327,914.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), $1,043,301

Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), $17,400

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), $303,014

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), $44,585

Sen. Christopher Dodd (CT), $31,235

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), $326,996

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), $191,057

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), $367,491

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), $77,216

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), $24,435

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), $244,360

Question: How many of the ordinaries ("ordinary" is another word for "bishop") of these Catholic politicians will make a public statement rebuking the Catholic senator from their diocese for voting against restoring the Mexico City Policy?

2009-01-29T21:07:00.000-08:00

The Blind Leading the Blind

What a past couple of weeks it has been for the pro-abortion forces. First, Barack Obama was sworn in (apparently incorrectly at first, where Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed the words of inauguration. This was remedied later when Obama correctly repeated the words of the oath, this time without the Bible). Now the most extreme candidate ever on the issue of child-killing is seated in the most powerful office in the world.

Next, the March for Life occurred two days later, where in the same place that President Obama gave his inaugural address, hundreds of thousands of Pro-lifers were present to mark the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision which has consequently ushered in 50 million brutal American deaths (and that’s not even counting chemical abortions; only God knows the amount of children that we’ve lost because of so-called “safe” over-the-counter prescriptions for women). Instead of giving this event the coverage it deserves (in truth, any other event of the same amount of people would have been covered heavily by every major national news outlet), the proponents of the abortion movement who have control of the media pretended that this affair didn’t even exist. That’s journalistic integrity for you.

The very next day, three days following the infamous opening address of the Obama Presidency, where President Obama vowed to stop those who would “slaughter innocents,” he reversed the Mexico City Policy which banned American Tax Payer money from going to fund the killing of innocent children through abortion in foreign countries. So much for the claim that he wants to unite all Americans.

Now, it wasn’t so much these things that got me upset (and I was watching/ participating/reading about all of these events). No, what really disturbed me was the fact that our “good Catholic” (at least she thinks she is) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi believes that the way out of this financial mess is to introduce more “family planning services” (read: contraceptive and abortion services) into American Society. How much more? 825 million dollars worth of “family planning” services to be exact (that was the original proposal; it is now reduced to $335 million for STD prevention, and awaits Senate approval). Her exact words:

“Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.” [1]

Um…I was under the impression that the way that a healthy economy is built is by producing more healthy workers than the previous generation, so that the economy can actually grow. Yet let me get this straight: she wants to provide more money to organizations like Planned Parenthood who will continue to kill off the next generation?

Have we not learned anything from what is happening in Europe, where because the countries have been committing demographic suicide for decade, some countries are actually offering couples $1000 Euros (or more) to have children (but because of their ingrained contraceptive mentality, they scoff at their government’s generosity)? Because of this, these governments are paying foreigners to come in and perform the jobs of retiring workers (of which many are from Muslim families, thus turning what used to be a vastly-populated Christian continent into an Islamic playground).

Doesn’t Madam Speaker realize that a population needs an average of 2.1 children per family to sustain a society, and that if it weren’t for the Mexican and Hispanic population, America would be in the same situation, if not worse, than Europe? Does she not realize that because of the very difficult economic times many Mexicans (possibly 3 million) will be returning to their homeland because there are no jobs available in the States [2], and we don’t have the workforce to replace their possible absence?

Perhaps she hasn’t seen the scariest movie I have ever seen in my life, Demographic Winter. Although it doesn’t explicitly reference the contraceptive and abortion movements, it lays out very clearly what is going to happen if we don’t correct immediately this dearth of births. It is happening on an international scale, and if the projections are correct, it will make The Great Depression look like a minor recession.

What is most troubling about the comments of Mrs. Pelosi was that she forgets that a contraceptive genital act is never an act of love. As John Paul the Great has reiterated in his Theology of the Body, love is always a fruitful gift. This is based on the nature of who we are as created in the image of God. God is always pouring Himself out to humanity in a profound act of love, seen most clearly in the gift of Christ on the cross.

As human beings, this gift of self is always made in and through our bodies. It is never done merely with good intentions or in some “super spiritual” way. This includes everything we do, especially in the sexual act. Each and every act must be open to life, or else it is an act of selfishness. And selfishness is directly opposed to truly making love.

Mrs. Pelosi is so concerned that children are a burden on society, that they are going to drain our resources, cause more financial burdens on the family, and wear out couples. I would go ahead and refute this, but thankfully, John Paul has done my work for me:

“[I]s it really true that the new human being is a gift for his parents? A gift for society? Apparently nothing seems to indicate this. On occasion the birth of a child appears to be a simple statistical fact, registered like so many other data in demographic records. It is true that for the parents the birth of a child means more work, new financial burdens and further inconveniences, all of which can lead to the temptation not to want another birth. In some social and cultural contexts this temptation can become very strong. Does this mean that a child is not a gift? That it comes into the world only to take and not to give? These are some of the disturbing questions which men and women today find hard to escape. A child comes to take up room, when it seems that there is less and less room in the world.

But is it really true that a child brings nothing to the family and society? Is not every child a “particle” of that common good without which human communities break down and risk extinction? Could this ever really be denied? The child becomes a gift to its brothers, sisters, parents and entire family. Its life becomes a gift for the very people who were givers of life and who cannot help but feel its presence, its sharing in their life and its contribution to their common good and to that of the community of the family.” [3]

In reality, a child is not someone who simply is to replace the previous generation in the work force (although this is a possible consequence of their being born). Each person who is conceived, whether intentionally or not, is a living, breathing revelation of the love of God. They are a sign to us that no matter how dark things may become, there is always hope (read: real hope from Christ, not Obama “hope.”). And that is a beautiful thing.

Yes, there are many problems involving Nancy Pelosi’s Catholicism, but when she says “I came here [to Washington]…to work for the American people, to do what is in their interest” [4], I find it very hard to believe her. As human beings and Americans, we don’t need more things that are going to destroy our relationships (if you’re looking to break up your marriage within the first 3 years, go ahead, use contraceptives), but we are in grave need of building what John Paul called a “civilization of love,” where every person is respected and treated primarily as a gift.

As John Paul has said, “a civilization inspired by a consumerist, anti-birth mentality is not and cannot ever be a civilization of love” [5]. In order to solve this economic crisis, we must recover the sense of the sacredness of life, witnessing to the pro-abortion forces that children are not the difficulty, but instead it is our own selfishness that must be rooted out.

[1] “Pelosi: Contraception is Good Stimulus for the Economy,” http://www.usnews.com/blogs/
capital-commerce/2009/01/26/pelosi-contraception-is-good-for-the-economy.html. (Date accessed: January 29, 2009)

[2] “Economy forcing many Mexicans to leave United States,” http://www.usatoday.com/ news/nation/ 2008-12-09-Mexico-immigrants_N.htm?csp=34 (Date accessed: January 29, 2009).

[3] John Paul the Great, Letter to Families, 11.

[4] “Pelosi dismisses the need for bipartisanship,” http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/ pelosi- very-happy-with-stimulus-vote-2009-01-29.html (Date accessed: January 29, 2009).

[5] Letter to Families, 13.

Steve Pokorny, the Director of Theology of the Body Ministries (tobministries.com), specializes in speaking to youth about the gift of their sexuality. Steve has an MA in Theology and Catechetics from Franciscan University of Steubenville, received training from the Theology of the Body Institute, and will be completing his studies at the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family Studies in 2009. He is associate editor for Catholic Exchange’s Theology of the Body Channel (tob.catholicexchange.com). You can contact him at tob_ministries@yahoo.com.

Article Originally Posted on tob.catholicexchange.com

2009-01-20T20:42:00.001-08:00

Alien Nation

January 20th, 2009 by Doreen Truesdell

I am a middle aged, middle income, traditional Catholic female and I don’t belong here anymore.

The nation I have loved all my life has rebelled, like some arrogant teenager who smugly tells his mother and father that he knows more than they do. It’s been coming on for some time, but I’ve always comforted myself with the thought that I stood with a silent majority that was just too busy working and striving and living and dying to voice their concerns about where the culture of our nation was headed.

Forty years or so after the cultural and sexual revolution began, the “teenagers” have won, the silent majority is a minority, and this nation — on an executive level — has become alien ground to me and many others.

This is not just inaugural griping, this is the realization that our nation has finally, officially embraced the post-modern world; that, in addition to media elitists and collegiate intellectuals spreading nihilism, we finally have a U.S. president who embodies such a culture. Propelled into office by voter greed, Barack Obama will now lead the nation that leads the world, using his successful blend of atheistic humanism and political manipulation that make for easy-to-digest sound bytes. The immoralists are no longer only in the ivory towers, they are in the White House, not to mention the courts, the educational systems and the financial industries. And most Americans don’t mind at all or are too busy or distracted to notice.

The U.S. has unequivocally, unabashedly and electorally embraced a subjective reality where truth is changeable, depending upon how it can serve our pocketbooks and our uninformed consciences.

“Every generation feels the same way, and yet the nation survives,” you may say. But I say our nation is dying and it’s closer to its death throes now than ever before in its history. The United States is 233 years old and it is creaking under the weight of its own arrogance.

“In the end Christ will triumph and the His truth will be vindicated,” you may also say, and I concur with a grateful heart. I thank God for His promises, which I know He will keep. But between now and His triumph could be the end of the great American experiment. Christ never promised the U.S.A. would be around to welcome His victory, and it’s not alarmist to say that our beloved nation may well fall before that glorious day arrives.

Stop. Before you click the “comment” link, stay with me a while longer because here’s where this article takes a surprising turn towards optimism. After two months of pondering what this new presidency and administration will wreak upon unborn babies, legitimate marriage, public education, health care and a bevy of other life-altering issues, I maintain there is opportunity alongside this heartache. In God’s universe, thanks to His mercy and providence, there always is.

The universal struggle between good and evil, between Christ and His enemies has now taken center stage in this nation. For decades most American Catholics have lived relatively comfortably by accepting shades of gray. Little by little the grays became darker as more of the Church’s moral teachings were questioned, ignored and rejected. Now, the gray areas have turned to blackness. It is no longer possible for lukewarm Catholics to remain faithful. The gray areas are gone. American Catholics will either embrace the white light of Truth or accept the darkness.

So where does this leave aliens like me? Totally reliant upon God, and for many of us it will be the first time in our lives. I used to define myself as an American Catholic, but now I realize I am a Catholic in America. The nation I used to depend upon to accept my spiritual composition is gone. No longer does our citizenship agree that our laws are, and should be, based on Judeo-Christian concepts. No longer can a Christian assume his moral beliefs will be given fair representation or even toleration in the public forum.

As aliens, we have an important role to play as keepers of the faith on hostile soil. Here’s our opportunity to get off the fence on every controversial issue that offends God and start pulling our weight as Catholics in America. Many Catholics already are very publicly defending Christ and His Gospel truths. Most aren’t. Are you defending Christ in America? Am I?

This era, just beginning, represents our time in the long history of the Catholic Church to accept suffering, offer prayers and penance, and do battle in the public forum so that the voice of Christ can be heard. It is our turn to live as Catholics who look only to the magisterium of the Church for instruction on true human dignity and authentic social justice.

We will join Catholics from around the world who “lost” their countries long ago — Italians, Greeks, Slavs, Chinese, Russians and others who have already inured themselves to the agonies of living in an atheistic nation, one that they used to love with patriotic fervor but now are estranged from. We will lean on the rich Catholic tradition of the Church Militant and go on living in an alien nation while fortifying ourselves with the Word Made Flesh, He who makes His dwelling among aliens the world over.

Are you up to this challenge? As Americans, we’ve grown undisciplined, flabby and unused to suffering. We can’t bear the pain of unpopularity; how will we bear persecution? And it is coming. With this new administration we have the makings of unprecedented Christian persecutions in our nation that will make martyrs and saints of many who stand up for Truth. You won’t have to be a political activist to have it thrust upon you: parents, clergy, health care providers, teachers, workers of all kinds will find themselves facing moral issues that assault the foundations of the Catholic faith. Which issue will be the one that forces Catholics like you and me to confront how shallow our relationship with Christ has been? Which issue will finally inspire us to make the commitment to “put out into the deep,” whatever the cost?

Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta, after visiting our great nation years ago, said she pitied us our “poverty.” She understood the seriousness of the spiritual poverty that the U.S. suffered. We may be on the brink of changing that poverty, one Catholic, one Christian at a time.

The history of the Church is one of suffering and triumph. From that perspective, the Obama presidency could be the beginning of a great renewal of Christianity in America, if each of us lives the faith the way Christ calls us to. So in an important way, this article is not about losing a nation, so much as gaining a deeper relationship with Jesus, the King of all nations. We, who have always assumed that our nation would validate our faith, now find it must be validated only by God.

“[T]he new age has begun; and…much must now pass away,” Gandalf says in J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. Let it pass. With prayerful renewal and faithful responses, we can find that God alone will suffice. Then maybe, in small ways that have great power, we can work to bring our beloved nation back to God.

Doreen M. Truesdell, a former newspaper journalist, is a freelance writer and editor. She and her husband, Stephen, live in upstate New York with their four homeschooled children, aged 4 to 13.

2009-01-20T07:32:00.001-08:00

The Rise and Fall of Motherhood

I received the article below awhile back, yet just now I've gotten around to reading it. It's pretty apropos for today, for we are "celebrating" two major events: 1) The Inauguration of President Barack Obama, and 2) The Anniversary of Roe v. Wade. With both of these events, we see the cheapening of life and the degradation of the family. And one of the major ways that this has happened has been to negate women, to feed them lies that their value comes in what they do, instead of who they are, that their highest vocation is as a wife and mother.

This does not mean that every woman is to be physically a wife and mother; no, but every woman is called to spiritually bear fruit. This understanding begins with an acknowledgment of the fact that every woman needs to see their vocation as the one who is able to bring forth life to the world, and this life is first and foremost the life and love of the Trinity. Yet the only way that they can give anything to the world is first they must be receptive, and this is what their bodies speak. It is the physical body that reveals our very nature, and this receptivity of women is a good thing, because it is through receiving the love of God that the world is able to be transformed.

We, as men, must strive to defend this truth with our very lives, not striving to put women into the boxes that we think they should be in, but instead to help their lives flourish in a way that is in union with what has been revealed on the physical level. The receptivity of women is not a call to be treated as a doormat, but it is the vocation to receive genuine love and breathe this to a world that is at times very cold.

Only women can be mothers. Have we forgotten this fundamental?

Only a woman can carry in her body an eternal being which bears the very image of God. Only she is the recipient of the miracle of life. Only a woman can conceive and nurture this life using her own flesh and blood, and then deliver a living soul into the world. God has bestowed upon her alone a genuine miracle — the creation of life, and the fusing of an eternal soul with mortal flesh. This fact alone establishes the glory of motherhood.

Despite the most creative plans of humanist scientists and lawmakers to redefine the sexes, no man will ever conceive and give birth to a child. The fruitful womb is a holy gift given by God to women alone. This is one reason why the office of wife and mother is the highest calling to which a woman can aspire.

This is the reason why nations that fear the Lord esteem and protect mothers. They glory in the distinctions between men and women, and attempt to build cultures in which motherhood is honored and protected.

In his famous commentary on early American life, Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville explained:

Thus the Americans do not think that man and woman have either the duty or the right to perform the same offices, but they show an equal regard for both their respective parts; and though their lot is different, they consider both of them as beings of equal value. They do not give to the courage of woman the same form or the same direction as to that of man, but they never doubt her courage; and if they hold that man and his partner ought not always to exercise their intellect and understanding in the same manner, they at least believe the understanding of the one to be as sound as that of the other, and her intellect to be as clear. Thus, then, while they have allowed the social inferiority of woman to continue, they have done all they could to raise her morally and intellectually to the level of man; and in this respect they appear to me to have excellently understood the true principle of democratic improvement.

De Tocqueville contrasted the American understanding of women, with European sentiments:

There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make man and woman into beings not only equal but alike. They could give to both the same functions, impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights; they would mix them in all things — their occupations, their pleasures, their business. It may readily be conceived that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded, and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women.

The War on Motherhood

America’s glory was her women. de Tocqueville believed this when he wrote:

As for myself, I do not hesitate to avow that although the women of the United States are confined within the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation is in some respects one of extreme dependence, I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position; and if I were asked, now that I am drawing to the close of this work, in which I have spoken of so many important things done by the Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply: To the superiority of their women.

But this birthright would be exchanged during the last century for a mess of pottage. Perhaps the greatest legacy of the 20th century has been the war on motherhood and biblical patriarchy. Feminists, Marxists, and liberal theologians have made it their aim to target the institution of the family and divest it from its biblical structure and priorities. The results are androgyny, a radical decline in birthrate, abortion, fatherless families, and social confusion.

Incredibly, the biggest story of the 20th century never made headline news [i]. Somehow we missed it. It was the mass exodus of women from the home, and the consequent decline of motherhood. For the first time in recorded history of the West, more mothers left their homes than stayed in them. By leaving the home, the experience and reality of childhood, family life and femininity were fundamentally redefined, and the results have been so bad that if this one trend is not reversed, our grandchildren may live in a world where the both the true culture of Christian family life and the historic definition of marriage are the stuff of fairy tales.

Many “isms” have influenced these trends-evolutionism, feminism, statism, eugenicism, Marxism, and more. But in the end, the philosophical gap between the presuppositions of the Atheists, eugenicists, and Marxists of the early 20th century, and the presuppositions of the professing Church in the 21st century, have narrowed dramatically. The goals of the state and the goals of the mainstream church have so merged, that the biblical family with its emphasis on male headship, generational succession, and prolific motherhood are a threat to the social order of both institutions.

Less than one hundred years ago, the architects of the atheistic communist Soviet state anticipated the death of the Christian family. They explained the need for destroying the Christian family with its emphasis on motherhood, and replacing it with a vision for a “new family.” Lenin wrote:

Lenin

We must now say proudly and without any exaggeration that part from Soviet Russia, there is not a country in the world where women enjoy full equality and where women are not placed in the humiliating position felt particularly in day-to-day family life. This is one of our first and most important tasks...Housework is the most unproductive, the most barbarous and the most arduous work a woman can do. It is exceptionally petty and does not include anything that would in any way promote the development of the woman...The building of socialism will begin only when we have achieved the complete equality of women and when we undertake the new work together with women who have been emancipated from that petty stultifying, unproductive work...We are setting up model institutions, dining-rooms and nurseries, that will emancipate women from housework...These institutions that liberate women from their position as household slaves are springing up where it is in any way possible...Our task is to make politics available to every working woman.

In his 1920 International Working Women's Day Speech, Lenin emphasized:

The chief thing is to get women to take part in socially productive labor, to liberate them from 'domestic slavery,' to free them from their stupefying [idiotic] and humiliating subjugation to the eternal drudgery of the kitchen and the nursery. This struggle will be a long one, and it demands a radical reconstruction, both of social technique and of morale. But it will end in the complete triumph of Communism.

Lenin’s comrade Trotsky played a key role in communicating the Marxist vision of what he called the “new family.” Lenin and Trotsky believed in the overthrow of Christianity by destroying the biblical family. They sought to build a new state, free from historic Christian presuppositions concerning the family. This meant denigrating the biblical notion of male headship and hierarchy within the family. It meant eliminating any sense that there should be a division of labor between man and wife. This required delivering women from the burdens of childbirth and childcare. It meant adopting tools like birth control as guarantors that women could be free to remain in the workforce. Trotsky said this:

Lenin’s comrade Trotsky

Socialization of family housekeeping and public education of children are unthinkable without a marked improvement in our economics as a whole. We need more socialist economic forms. Only under such conditions can we free the family from the functions and cares that now oppress and disintegrate it. Washing must be done by a public laundry, catering by a public restaurant, sewing by a public workshop. Children must be educated by good public teachers who have a real vocation for the work. Then the bond between husband and wife would be freed from everything external and accidental, and the one would cease to absorb the life of the other. Genuine equality would at last be established...

The most disturbing part of quotes like those above is how similar they sound in sentiment and spirit to voices today from individuals who claim to be a part of the Church of Jesus Christ. Even more disturbing is how many of the anti-family social reforms are presuppositions of modern Christians in America. Presuppositions which have been fully accepted.

How America’s Conscience Was Seared Toward Motherhood

But motherhood is not easily defeated. It was here from the beginning and it has always carried the Church and civilization forward. Motherhood not only perpetuates civilization, it defines it.

At first Jamestown was a bachelor society struggling for survival. But she became a civilization when the women arrived. Plymouth, on the other hand, began as a civilization-families of faith committed to fruitfulness and multiplication for the glory of God, an impossibility without motherhood.

Motherhood is not easily defeated because God has placed reminders of its importance in the very bodies of the women He created. To defeat motherhood, the enemies of the biblical family must do more than make it a social inconvenience, they must teach women to despise themselves by viewing their own wombs as the enemy of self-fulfillment. This means minimizing the glorious gift of life which is only given to womankind. It means redefining what it means to be a woman.

But even this is not enough. To defeat motherhood the enemies of the biblical family must sear the conscience of an entire generation of women. This is done through the doctrines of social emancipation from the home, sexual liberation, birth control, and abortion — all four of which cause a woman to war against her created nature. Instead of being the blessed guardian of domesticity for society, she is taught that contentment can only be found by acting, dressing, and competing with men. Instead of being an object of respect, protection, and virtue, she sells herself cheaply, thus devaluing her womanhood. Instead of glorying in a fruitful womb she cuts off the very seed of life. Sometimes she even kills the life.

Years of playing the part of a man hardens a woman. It trains women to find identity in the corporation, not the home. It teaches them to be uncomfortable around children and large families---the mere presence of which is a reminder of the antithesis between God’s design for womankind and the norms of post-Christian societies.

But women are not the only ones with seared consciences. Men have them too. Consider that fifty years ago a man would have winced to think of female soldiers heading into combat while stay-at-home dads are left behind changing diapers. Today’s man has a seared conscience. He no longer thinks of himself as a protector of motherhood, and a defender of womankind. He comforts himself by repeating the mantras of modern feminism, and by assuring himself of how reasonable and enlightened he is — how different he is from his intolerant and oppressive fathers. But in his heart, modern man knows that he has lost something. He has lost his manhood.

To be a man, you must care about women. And you must care about them in the right way. You must care about them as creatures worthy of protection, honor, and love. This means genuinely appreciating them for their uniqueness as women. It means recognizing the preciousness of femininity over glamour, of homemaking over careerism, and of mature motherhood over perpetual youth. But when women are reduced to soldiers, sexual objects, and social competitors, it is not merely the women who lose the identity given to them by the Creator, but the men as well. This is why the attack on motherhood has produced a nation of eunuchs---socially and spiritually impotent men who have little capacity to lead, let alone love women as God intended man to love woman—as mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters.

Motherhood Will Triumph

There is an important reason why motherhood will not be defeated — The Church is her guardian. As long as she perseveres — and persevere she will — motherhood will prevail.

The Church is the ultimate vanguard of that which is most precious and most holy. She holds the oracles of God which dare to proclaim to a selfish, self-centered nation: “Children are a blessing and the fruit of the womb is His reward.” Psalm 127:3.

The Church stands at the very gates of the city, willing to receive the railing complaints of feminists, atheists, and the legions arrayed against the biblical family, and she reminds the people of God: “Let the older women teach the young to love their children, to guide the homes.” Titus 2:3-5.

It is this very love of the life of children, this passion for femininity and motherhood which may be God’s instrument of blessing on America in the days to come. As the birth rate continues to plummet, divorce rates rise, and family life in America dissipates to the point of extinction, life-loving families will not only have an important message to share, but thy will have an army of children to help them share it.

The Question:

Teacher: Susie what do you want to be when you grow up?

Susie: I want to be a doctor.

Teacher: How wonderful! And what about you Julie?

Julie: I want to be a soldier.

Teacher: How commendable! And what about you Hannah?

Hannah: When I grow up I want to be a wife and mother!

Teacher: [dead silence]...

After years of society belittling the calling of motherhood, something wonderful is happening — something wonderfully counter-cultural! In the midst of the anti-life, anti-motherhood philosophies which pervade the culture, there is a new generation of young ladies emerging whose priorities are not determined by the world’s expectations of them. They have grown up in homes where fathers shepherd them, where children are not merely welcome, but where they are deeply loved. Some of these women have been home educated, which means that many of them have grown up around babies and their mothers. They have learned to see motherhood as a joy and a high calling, because their parents see it that way.

And when asked about their future, these girls know their own minds. These are the future mothers of the Church. Young women who are not afraid to say that the goal of all of their education and training is to equip them to pursue the highest calling of womanhood, the office of wife and mother.

The Cost of Motherhood

Once a lady went to visit her friend. During the visit the children of the friend entered the room and began to play with each other. As the lady and her friend visited, the lady turned to her friend and said eagerly and yet with evidently no thought of the meaning of her words: “Oh, I’d give my life to have such children.” The mother replied with a subdued earnestness whose quiet told of the depth of experience out of which her words came: “That’s exactly what it costs.”

There is a cost of motherhood. And the price is no small sum. And if you are not willing to pay this price, no amount of encouragement about the joys of motherhood will satisfy.

But the price of motherhood is not fundamentally different from the price of being a disciple of Jesus Christ. In fact, Christian mothers see their duty as mothers flowing from their calling to Jesus Christ. And what is this cost?

Christian motherhood means dedicating your entire life in service of others. It means standing beside your husband, following him, and investing in the lives of children whom you hope will both survive you and surpass you. It means forgoing present satisfaction for eternal rewards. It means investing in the lives of others who may never fully appreciate your sacrifice or comprehend the depth of your love. And it means doing all these things, not because you will receive the praise of man — for you will not — but because God made you to be a woman and a mother, and there is great contentment in that biblical calling.

In other words, Motherhood requires vision. It requires living by faith and not by sight.

These are some of the reasons why Motherhood is both the most biblically noble and the most socially unappreciated role to which a young woman can aspire. There are many people who ask the question: Does my life matter? But a mother that fears the Lord need never ask such a question. Upon her faithful obedience hinges the future of the church and the hope of the nation.

In 1950, the great Scottish American preacher Peter Marshall stood before the United States Senate and he explained it this way:

The modern challenge to motherhood is the eternal challenge — that of being a godly woman. The very phrase sounds strange in our ears. We never hear it now. We hear about every other kind of women — beautiful women, smart women, sophisticated women, career woman, talented women, divorced women, but so seldom do we hear of a godly woman — or of a godly man either, for that matter.

I believe women come nearer fulfilling their God-given function in the home than anywhere else. It is a much nobler thing to be a good wife than to be Miss America. It is a greater achievement to establish a Christian home than it is to produce a second-rate novel filled with filth. It is a far, far better thing in the realm of morals to be old-fashioned than to be ultramodern. The world has enough women who know how to hold their cocktails, who have lost all their illusions and their faith. The world has enough women who know how to be smart.

It needs women who are willing to be simple. The world has enough women who know how to be brilliant. It needs some who will be brave. The world has enough women who are popular. It needs more who are pure. We need women, and men, too, who would rather be morally right that socially correct

As we approach America’s national Mother’s Day celebration, lets remember that we are fighting for the Lord, and it is He who prioritizes motherhood and home as the highest calling and domain of womanhood “that the word of God be not blasphemed.” Titus 2:5.

May the Lord fill our churches with faithful mothers.

Persevero,

Doug Phillips
President, The Vision Forum, Inc.

2009-01-09T10:23:00.000-08:00

My Testimony

When people ask me who I am, I tell them that I am a creation of grace. I have experienced the wounds of our culture, but I have also discovered the profound mystery of redemption in a most personal way. You can read it in a recently published book, "Freedom: 12 Lives Transformed by the Theology of the Body." Check it out.

Freedom
12 Lives Transformed by the Theology of the Body
by Matthew Pinto

12 Lives Transformed by the Theology of the Body" border="0">

Who am I?
How do I find true happiness and fulfillment?

These are the fundamental questions in each of our lives. It quickly becomes clear, however, that the best the world can offer are counterfeits that wound us, betray us, and leave us wanting. Our longings for love, intimacy, and freedom are good, but the sexual revolution sold us a bill of goods that simply cannot satisfy.

But there is real hope, and it comes in the form of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.

In Freedom, you will meet people who, through the Theology of the Body, have discovered the meaning of their very existence. They have all realized that the message of the Theology of the Body is the key to understanding their purpose in this life. They have found what we’re all looking for—the authentic path to happiness and freedom.

Through twelve real-life stories, you will:

See how the Theology of the Body gives you a “new lens” through which to see the world with great clarity.
Learn how this teaching is uniquely capable of healing past spiritual and psychological wounds.
Discover how the journey to sexual integration, although challenging, will actually liberate all aspects of our lives.
Learn the extraordinary connections between human sexuality and the entire Catholic sacramental order.
See why persisting in sin ultimately leads to misery.
Understand why “love” is the greatest of the three theological virtues.
Marvel at God’s powerful and healing grace in the lives of ordinary people.
See that God’s grace can prevail over any challenge in life.

Our world is yearning for the truth and beauty of the Theology of the Body. The good news is that a new sexual revolution is beginning to take root in the lives of men and women across the globe. Witness firsthand the power of this life-giving message, and discover how you, too, can achieve true freedom.

2008-12-04T13:50:00.003-08:00

Catholic Musician, Matt Maher, on the Virtue of Humility

By Tony Rossi 2008-11-01

Catholic singer/songwriter Matt Maher discusses surrendering to the will of God, the greatest opportunity for joy.

Though Matt Maher was raised to believe in God while growing up in Newfoundland, Canada, he notes that music became his religion during his high school years. Matt eventually found his way back to the Catholic Church and now combines his love for God with a career as a singer/songwriter and worship leader. I recently spoke with Matt on “Christopher Closeup” ( full podcast here ) about his journey of faith and his Essential Records debut album “Empty and Beautiful.” Here are some excerpts:

TR: The song “Your Grace is Enough” – I know it was inspired by a challenging time in your life where you had to deal with loneliness…How did God help you deal with that?

Matt Maher: I think you deal with it by letting God into it. I think a lot of people in this day and age feel disconnected from each other. They feel lonely at the end of the day. And the only way to (overcome) that is to get re-connected, primarily through God. Only God can meet all your expectations. We all have a desire to be loved deeply and be treasured. Sometimes we end up throwing that on people, and they can’t match our expectations. So sometimes we end up trying to love people out of our need rather than just loving people as a gift which is really how we’re designed. We’re designed to be first loved by God, and then to turn around and give that love away. When we do that, we’re operating in the way that He made us. And when we don’t, that’s when we start to turn to other things. It’s really common for a lot of people in loneliness to get distracted and stay disconnected and never really get those areas of their heart filled.

TR: Can you get to grace being enough on your own or do you think you need some divine intervention to make that happen?

Matt Maher: I think the decision you make is quite simply to surrender. That’s all you can do. It’s in that humble ‘Yes’ to God, it’s in that humble ‘I need you.’ And He is immediately there. In fact so often, He (says), ‘I was already here; I was just waiting for you to say something.’

TR: I like that you use the word surrender because sometimes I read about people who describe those who accept the Christian life…(as) accepting a life that’s kind of boring – don’t do this, don’t do that. For you, the surrender seems to have led to a life of adventure. Is that how you see surrendering?

Matt Maher: Oh absolutely. People who say surrender is boring, I’m like ‘Then you’re obviously not surrendering.’ Surrendering is sometimes a violent process of wrestling and letting go and finding moments of respite. Christianity to me is not about following a set of rules. It is about a proposition so amazing and so outlandish that the world finds it completely unbelievable because it doesn’t make sense. It’s not a fair exchange, it’s not ‘you get what you pay for.’ It’s ‘Here’s the greatest gift you could possibly ever be given and it’s free. And you don’t need to earn it. And it’s freely given.’ That notion is so preposterous to people primarily because the church – we struggle so much with showing that, with living that. A lot of people end up growing up and you have memories of people in your life who are Christians and they seem miserable all the time. And (you think) ‘Why do I want to follow that?’ So for me, I feel a challenge and a call to be radical. But radical in humility and radical in meekness and radical in siding with the marginalized and the downtrodden in the world, people who feel isolated and feel alone – and trying to love them the way that God loves me.

TR: The title track of your album is “Empty and Beautiful” – those are two words you don’t usually see go together…Why do you see a connection between those two?

Matt Maher: The most beautiful act of love in the known universe is Christ giving himself on the cross. And here’s this incredibly violent moment in human history…Yet that act of Christ surrendering Himself on the cross is the greatest act of love displayed in the world. So somehow, this act of being emptied and surrendering everything, somehow God is able to turn it around and make something beautiful out of it. That’s why when you’re Christian, you look at a cross and you see life. It’s so interesting because we lose the shock of the cross in our society…In the early church people started displaying the cross and (the reaction was), ‘That’s a symbol of death and destruction, of emptiness and nothingness.’ But God’s actually taken it and made it a sign for hope…You can’t be filled with the presence of God if you’re full. That’s why if you have everything you need in your life, how could you possibly need God? So when you’re empty and you realize the futility of your emptiness, that becomes the greatest opportunity for joy in your life because you’re ready to be filled.

(To download the full Matt Maher interview on “Christopher Closeup,” visit www.christophers.org/closeuppodcast .)

TonyRossiBlogger@gmail.com

2008-12-02T19:07:00.001-08:00

Planned Parenthood Sinks to New Lows

Now this is just sick. PP is now offering gift certificates for Christmas. Yes, Jesus has come to earth and he is bringing joy, peace, and...dead babies???!? This is an absolute travesty and mockery, for God Himself came to earth as a small baby, wrapping himself in flesh in one who was an unwed mother. With human eyes, this would be seen as a problem, but God always comes to us in ways that we don't expect.

The women who are in crisis pregnancy situations don't need the kind of "help" that PP is offering, but they need the true hope that Christ came to offer. That is, unless they want the life-time experience of pain and regret...for only a $25 gift certificate.

Planned Parenthood offers gift vouchers

Pro-lifers rap Indiana plan

Sean Lengell (Contact)
Saturday, November 29, 2008

Buzz up!

Indiana residents in need of a quick stocking stuffer this holiday season have an unusual option: Planned Parenthood gift certificates.

The group's Hoosier State chapter on Wednesday began selling gift certificates redeemable at any of its 35 facilities for any service provided -- from basic health screenings to birth control to abortions.

Betty Cockrum, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood of Indiana, said the program was initiated in response to the state's ailing economy.

"Our patients are principally low-income women, and so, needless to say, those patients are more challenged now than ever," Ms. Cockrum said. "We find that when women are [financially] strapped, they're more worried about putting food on the table and gas in their car, and their health care is often put by the wayside."

Almost 800,000 Indiana residents don't have health insurance, she said.

Ms. Cockrum said the gift-certificate program is the first of its kind by any of Planned Parenthood's 99 affiliates nationwide.

Pro-life groups -- longtime opponents of Planned Parenthood -- have denounced the voucher program, saying it will lead to more abortions in the state.

"It's very typical of Planned Parenthood to pervert the meaning of Christmas, which is a time of life and selflessness and love and giving," said Katie Walker, a spokeswomen with the American Life League, a Catholic pro-life activist group.

Ms. Walker added that the gift-certificate program is "another money-making opportunity to continue [Planned Parenthood] assaults on families through abortion and through artificial birth control, through the sexualization of our children with their obscene sex-ed programs."

She also accused Planned Parenthood of targeting minority populations, saying that offering money or gift certificates takes advantage of the high rates of poverty in those communities.

"Planned Parenthood makes itself out to be this benevolent organization, but the fact is, they're receiving money hand over fist," she said. "It's very much a business."

Ms. Cockrum said that while the certificates may be redeemed for abortions, "I can't imagine that could happen."

"An abortion is a tragic and urgent situation in a women's life, and gift certificates don't lend themselves to that," she said.

Ms. Cockrum added that the vast majority of services provided by Planned Parenthood are for basic health care, such as Pap tests, which cost $58 at the group's centers.

"Even a gift certificate for $25 goes a long way toward what's potentially a life-saving but certainly just essential, basic health care for a loved one," she said.

The program has been endorsed by Dr. Judy Monroe, Indiana health commissioner, who called it a "really a meaningful gift."

The certificates, which come in $25 increments, work like cash and come with no restrictions and no expiration date. They can be purchased at many of the group's Indiana clinics and online, and can be used for some insurance co-payments and medication.

No other state affiliate has yet said whether it would accept the Indiana chapter's vouchers.

Ms. Cockrum said that while it's too early to judge the program's success, she plans to offer the certificates year-round.

Planned Parenthood affiliates operate more than 880 centers nationwide.

2008-11-19T13:14:00.000-08:00

Finally, some sanity in Chicago

Article Date: Nov 19, 2008

Chicago Scraps Plan for Gay High School

Backers of a proposed high school touted as a haven for gay and bullied youth have pulled their proposal, saying they wanted to spend another year to finalize their plans.

Under mounting pressure from ministers and gay activists alike, Social Justice Solidarity High School planners had already changed the school's name and focus to create a school that would be one of the nation's largest to serve any students who have fallen victim to bullying and harassment.

The plan — pulled Tuesday night, hours before a scheduled Wednesday vote on its creation — also was a less explicitly gay version of a plan first presented to Chicago's board of education in October by schools chief Arne Duncan.

The school's intended start date remains fall 2010, planners said.

"The proposal has changed since the Oct. 8 public hearing, and the design team is taking an additional year to finalize the proposal," the design team said in a statement released Tuesday night by Chicago Public Schools.

Chad Weiden, who would be Solidarity High School's principal, did not immediately return a telephone message from The Associated Press.

"We respect the decision of the design team, and we look forward to them resubmitting their proposal in '09," the district said in a statement.

The original plan was for the Social Justice High School: Pride Campus to open in 2010 and eventually serve 600 students, about half of whom were expected to identify as gay. The newer Solidarity plan had the same timeline and enrollment goals, but a different mission.

The initial mission statement to serve "the underserved population of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning youth and their allies" was replaced by one that offers protections for students regardless of "orientation," but doesn't mention sexuality. Instead, the Solidarity school aimed to address "citywide concerns over violence, bullying and harassment."

Students nationwide say sexual orientation and gender identity are two of the top three reasons behind bullying and harassment. Appearance is No. 1, according to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

A 2007 network survey of more than 6,200 middle and high school students found that 86 percent of gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered students experienced harassment in the past year because of their sexual orientation and 60 percent felt unsafe at school.

In the same survey, 33 percent reported skipping a day of school in the past month because they felt unsafe, compared to 4.5 percent of a national sample of secondary school students.

"Harassment is the rule, not the exception, if you're an LGBT student," said Kevin Jennings, founder of the New York City-based Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

Chicago's school board had been slated to vote on the Pride Campus proposal in October, but the vote was delayed as school officials and organizers heard from ministers, gay activists and conservatives opposed to segregating gay students.

"If we're going to have a separate high school, let's put the bullies in the high school, not the (gay) kids," said Rick Garcia, political director for the gay rights group Equality Illinois.

The Rev. Wilfredo De Jesus of New Life Covenant Church on Chicago's West Side said ministers' message to Chicago Public Schools was "don't segregate, tolerate."

"The gay community has fought so long to be inclusive and now you're going to isolate them," De Jesus said. "This is not sending the right message."

Other conservative critics argued that gay teens aren't the only ones being bullied and that taxpayer dollars shouldn't be used to provide a one-sided education on such a controversial topic.

2008-11-16T17:36:00.000-08:00

In the Wake of Cultural Revolution

Interview With Author Marguerite Peeters

By Jesús Colina

ROME, JUNE 18, 2008 (Zenit.org).- It might be time for society to move beyond values and head directly to Christ, says the director a think tank on globalization.
Marguerite Peeters, the director of the Brussels-based Institute for Intercultural Dialogue Dynamics, is the author of “The Globalization of the Western Cultural Revolution: Key-Concepts, Operational Mechanisms”

Peeters spoke Friday at the two-day Vatican conference on "Politics, a Demanding Form of Charity," which was organized by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Her talk was titled "The Political Consequences of the Western Cultural Revolution."

In this interview with ZENIT, Peeters discusses postmodernity in the West and her analysis of the role of Christianity in inspiring a new movement of culture.

Q: At the seminar on politics and charity you spoke about the political consequences of the Western cultural revolution. What do you mean by that?

Peeters: There is a direct nexus between the cultural process which, over the centuries, has led the West to renegade and deconstruct the foundations of its own civilization, and the current democratic deficit, breakdown of the social contract, lack of trust in institutions, disconnect between governments and citizens, general malaise and sense of drifting -- the sense that the “demos,” the people, no longer rule, in other words, that we are no longer living in a democracy.

The 2002 doctrinal note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on “some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life” reminded us that “democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society,” and that democracy “succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person.”

When it is not based on those solid foundations, democracy fails. Even if, formally speaking, the facade of democratic institutions is still standing, democracy is now resting on moving sands, and one is uncertain as to who really governs, and whether societies are in fact still governed and governable.

Q: How did we come to this point?

Peeters: The cultural revolution of the West started with the enlightenment, and dramatically accelerated in the course of the last century. When Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God in 1882, he was aware that nihilism would ensue: He promoted the “will to power” as a remedy to despair. But the utopia of his superman theory has now been revealed. The man who had killed God rushed to kill the father, the mother and the spouse.

The feminist revolution sought to liberate the woman from the “slavery of reproduction” (Margaret Sanger). The sexual revolution replaced the spouse with changing partners.

Freud turned the murder of the father, found in Oedipus’ myth, into a major theme of a Western culture already in the throes of apostasy. From then on, fatherhood was culturally associated with repression. Apostasy and anthropological deconstruction, which started with the rejection of the father, had dramatic political consequences.

Marcuse, the intellectual agent of May '68, who like Freud deemed civilization repressive, spoke of the advent of a non-repressive civilization in which our instinctual drives would become political values. When this eventually happened, when Western culture endorsed the free, unrestricted exercise of the libido, then institutions, the law, order and democracy lost both their authority and their legitimacy.

What is now left is horizontal brotherhood, but brothers without a common father are unable to govern themselves, and dysfunctional societies become anarchical and often prepare the ground for dictatorship: It is easy to grab power in a situation of general social and political disorder.

Q: Can the current situation be described as post-democratic?

Peeters: The Western cultural revolution today ushers into a no man's land called, for lack of a better word, postmodernity.

Postmodernity, as the word suggests, is what comes after modernity: after the nation-state, liberal democracy, democratic representation, consent of the governed, government, authority, hierarchy, clear-cut political identity -- left and right, Marxist and capitalist -- the contract of society and the contract of government, human rights, human dignity, “universal values,” institutional power, the primacy of reason, trust in science and so on.

All of these concepts, which we readily recognize, are deeply in crisis. The cultural revolution did not formally abolish modern institutions and values, but it fundamentally destabilized them and surreptitiously reinterpreted their core content, which has become radically ambivalent and can no longer be taken for granted.

In a postmodern system, the enemy is within. Ambivalence is not sustainable; the situation we are in is unhealthy. Let me also say that since postmodernity surfs on the powerful wave of globalization, the bitter fruits of the Western cultural revolution and its ensuing crisis of democracy have already reached the shores of the non-Western world and threaten to globalize both social deconstruction and loss of theological faith.

Q: Does postmodernity have a political platform, apart from deconstruction?

Peeters: The “freedom to choose” of the individual -- to choose even against the design of the creator -- has by now become the cornerstone of a new global ethic. Deconstruction paradoxically becomes systemic and globally normative. It goes without saying that such a perspective is asocial and incoherent, and contributes to further deconstructing the contract of society that binds people together.

The new political system would be a “flexible” process depending on people’s changing choices: It “celebrates” the “diversity” of our choices, whatever they are. The “right to choose” challenges even the need for people to be governed. The “do-it-yourself” mentality rapidly gains ground. But reality tells us that people and societies do need to be governed.

Q: Must we then go back to modernity and its values?

Peeters: Modern Western democracies rested on a system of “values,” eventually proclaimed “universal” in 1948. The historical fact is that modern values did not prove capable of containing the revolutionary process that eventually led to their destruction.

The reason is, in my analysis, that what appeared to be consonant with the social doctrine of the Church was in fact internally infested by the deism, naturalism, rationalism and individualism of the enlightenment. Insofar as “values” are an artificial and abstract construct, accentuating the divorce between faith and reason and faith and life, their breakdown is a providential opportunity for the new evangelization. It is a sign of the times.

Q: How so?

Peeters: People are tired of abstraction and grand theories. The time has come to disentangle the Christian reason from Masonic rationalism, our theological approach to nature from modern naturalism, our Trinitarian faith from the deism of the past.

The grace of our time may be that we are called to move beyond “values” to concrete, operational charity, to practical faith, hope and love, to the theological life, to God’s Trinitarian design.

The cultural and political challenge we are confronted is about the “death of God” and the death of man, about apostasy and the deconstruction of our Trinitarian anthropological structure. Modern “values” will not bring us back to God and to man. Christ himself will: "Duc in Altum" -- we are called to go out into the deep. It is to the Father that we must go back.

Q: Who holds political power under a postmodern regime?

Peeters: At the end of the Cold War, Western governments lacked moral leadership and failed to provide the vision that was needed for the new era. There was a vacuum. A political revolution then took place.

Those who had a vision -- that is, the May '68 generation then at the rudder of global governance, motivated by minority interests -- filled the void. The universal aspirations of humanity were hijacked, and the residues of the Western cultural revolution became global norms.

Power was transferred to “non-state actors,” and “partnership” with nongovernmental organizations, experts, the “private sector,” minorities and lobbies became a political principle. The revolution has led us into unchartered territory that has granted minorities who “participate” political legitimacy by stealth.

The prevailing fuzziness as to who governs us is all the more dangerous than the deconstruction of conscience that has turned the majority of citizens into zombies that are easy to seduce or manipulate.

Q: What did the political revolution achieve?

Peeters: A series of dramatic shifts in the way policy and decisions are now made. Let me name just a few: from government to governance; from hierarchy to equal partnerships; from representation to participation; from majority vote to consensus-building; from institutional power to people-power; from authority to empowerment; from identity to diversity; from formal to informal; from majority power to the power of minorities; from hard to soft; from content to process; from intergovernmental to multistakeholder; from national sovereignty to global governance, and so on.

Each of the shifts has vast implications, which need to be carefully analyzed. The new paradigms do exercise a critical political influence and have been mainstreamed throughout culture everywhere: Even in the remotest African village we hear about good governance.

Do we now live under a regime of coexistence of two parallel political systems -- one legitimate and formal but moribund, and the other informal but effectively governing the world by stealth? The new concepts are very seducing and often appear close to the social doctrine of the Church, but they have been hijacked.

Q: Is everything black and white in the shifts you listed?

Peeters: To date, the relationship between the old and the new, the modern and the postmodern, hasn't been clarified. But it is clear that the advent of governance, according to its current dominant interpretation, has contributed to further weakening the authority of government; that partnerships have contributed to deconstruct legitimate hierarchies; that diversity as a process tends to destabilize the content of identity; that participation often replaces the notion of democratic representation; that decentralization, tied as it is in practice to the implementation of a global agenda shaped, not by local citizens and the people themselves, but by “global experts,” has hijacked subsidiarity.

Discernment is all the more needed as the consequences of the political revolution are major. A new and global secularist ethic seeks to eliminate reality, truth, the good, love from culture and to impose itself on all by stealth, taking advantage of the weak or moribund state of our democratic institutions.

This global ethic places itself above the Gospel and claims to replace it. The global ethic represents an unprecedented violation of the principle of subsidiarity.

Q: Do you discern any positive element in the cultural and political revolution?

Peeters: What would happen if the new culture were de-hijacked, if it were evangelized? Would it not usher into the civilization of love?

Surely, the Holy Spirit is at work in the postmodern culture. Its main paradigms -- consensus, choice, people-centeredness, participation, broad bottom-up involvement, equality, empowerment, enablement, inclusion, diversity, flexibility, dynamism, complexity, holism, access, partnership, decentralization -- are clearly closer to love and the heart than the paradigms of the age of reason.

Under modernity, rationalism subverted love: We thought we could build a global order with the sole power of our reason and of science.

Are Christians not called to serve humanity by inspiring a new movement giving charity the primacy it deserves and reintroducing in the new culture a common search for what is true, real and good?

In the current political context, which reveals the vanity of our projects of institutions and civilizations, Pope Benedict prophetically emphasizes the primacy of charity and invites us, as again recently in Brindisi, to “hope, not as a utopia, but as tenacious confidence in the power of the good.” He called it a hope that is not temporal, but theological, and “founded on the coming of Christ, that ultimately coincides with his person and his mystery of salvation.” The intrinsic authority of truth, the good, love, hope -- the light of the coming Christ, the “light that darkness could not overpower” (John 1, 5) -- shines, and the darkness of our times cannot overpower it.

© Innovative Media, Inc.

Reprinting ZENIT's articles requires written permission from the editor.

2008-11-15T18:14:00.000-08:00

Why "Same-Sex Marriage" Must Never be Allowed

Case in Point: Massachusetts. The Same-Sex Agenda don't really care about marriage at all. This is just a cover for forcing approval of a lifestyle that can never fulfill on the rest of society, and their 'tolerance' is one that if you so much raise a peep against them, you will be slandered so badly that you're branded irreconcilably as a bigot. And guess what? This is happening in Mass. where "same-sex marriage" is not actually legal, but merely permitted.

And if good Christians don't speak up, it will be much worse than just being marginalized.

What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

It's far worse than most people realize

October 20, 2008
by Brian Camenker

Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning.

On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced its Goodridge opinion, ruling that it was unconstitutional not to allow same-sex “marriage.” Six months later, homosexual marriages began to be performed.

The public schools
The homosexual “marriage” onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003, court decision.

* At my own children's high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex “marriage” in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be “marrying” their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.

* Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. “In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, `Give me a break. It's legal now,'” she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.

* By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.
* Second graders at the same school were read a book, “King and King”, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.

* In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!

* Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!
* In 2006, in the elementary school where my daughter went to Kindergarten, the parents of a third-grader were forced to take their child out of school because a man undergoing a sex-change operation and cross-dressing was being brought into class to teach the children that there are now “different kinds of families.” School officials told the mother that her complaints to the principal were considered “inappropriate behavior.”

* Libraries have also radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and the lifestyle in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents complaints are ignored or met with hostility.
* Over the past year, homosexual groups have been using taxpayer money to distribute a large, slick hardcover book celebrating homosexual marriage titled “Courting Equality” into every school library in the state.

* It’s become commonplace in Massachusetts schools for teachers to prominently display photos of their same-sex “spouses” and occasionally bring them to school functions. Both high schools in my own town now have principals who are “married” to their same-sex partners, whom they bring to school and introduce to the students.

* “Gay days” in schools are considered necessary to fight “intolerance” which may exist against same-sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the state now hold “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender appreciation days”. They “celebrate” homosexual marriage and move forward to other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality. In my own town, a school committee member recently announced that combating “homophobia” is now a top priority.
* Once homosexuality has been normalized, all boundaries will come down. The schools are already moving on to normalizing transgenderism (including cross-dressing and sex changes). The state-funded Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth includes leaders who are transsexuals.

Public health

* The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is “married” to another man. In 2007 he told a crowd of kids at a state-sponsored youth event that it’s “wonderful being gay” and he wants to make sure there’s enough HIV testing available for all of them.
* Since homosexual marriage became “legal” the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000.
* Citing “the right to marry” as one of the “important challenges” in a place where “it’s a great time to be gay”, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century , a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives “tips” to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to “safely” have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.

Domestic violence

* Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year.

Business

* All insurance in Massachusetts must now recognize same-sex “married” couples in their coverage. This includes auto insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc.
* Businesses must recognize same-sex “married” couples in all their benefits, activities, etc., regarding both employees and customers.

* The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination.

* Businesses are often “tested” for tolerance by homosexual activists. Groups of homosexual activists often go into restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient “equality” now that homosexual marriage is “legal”. In fact, more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in public places across the state to reinforce "marriage equality".

Legal profession

* The Massachusetts Bar Exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge of same-sex "marriage" issues. In 2007, a Boston man, Stephen Dunne, failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer the questions in it about homosexual marriage.
* Issues regarding homosexual “families” are now firmly entrenched in the Massachusetts legal system. In many firms, lawyers in Massachusetts practicing family law must now attend seminars on homosexual "marriage". There are also now several homosexual judges overseeing the Massachusetts family courts.

Adoption of children to homosexual “married” couples

* Homosexual “married” couples can now demand to be able to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather submit to regulations requiring them to allow homosexuals to adopt the children in their care.

* In 2006 the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) honored two men “married” to each other as their “Parents of the Year”. The men already adopted a baby through DSS (against the wishes of the baby’s birth parents). According to news reports, the day after that adoption was final DSS approached the men about adopting a second child. Homosexuals now appear to be put in line for adopting children ahead of heterosexual parents by state agencies in Massachusetts.

Government mandates

* In 2004, Governor Mitt Romney ordered Justices of the Peace to perform homosexual marriages when requested or be fired. At least one Justice of the Peace decided to resign.
* Also thanks to Gov. Romney, marriage licenses in Massachusetts now have “Party A and Party B” instead of “husband and wife.” Romney did not have a legal requirement to do this; he did it on his own. (See more on this below.)
* Since homosexual relationships are now officially “normal”, the Legislature now gives enormous tax money to homosexual activist groups. In particular, the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth is made up of the most radical and militant homosexual groups which target children in the schools. This year they are getting $700,000 of taxpayer money to go into the public schools.

* In 2008 Massachusetts changed the state Medicare laws to include homosexual “married” couples in the coverage.

The public square

* Since gay “marriage”, annual gay pride parades have become more prominent. There are more politicians and corporations participating, and even police organizations take part. And the envelope gets pushed further and further. There is now a profane “Dyke March” through downtown Boston, and recently a “transgender” parade in Northampton that included bare-chested women who have had their breasts surgically removed so they could “become” men. Governor Patrick even marched with his “out lesbian” 17-year old daughter in the 2008 Boston Pride event, right behind a “leather” group brandishing a black & blue flag, whips and chains!

The media

* Boston media, particularly the Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual “married” couples where regular married couples would normally be used. It’s “equal”, they insist, so there must be no difference in the coverage. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it.

* A growing number of news reporters and TV anchors are openly “married” homosexuals who march in the “gay pride” parades.

Is gay marriage actually legal in Massachusetts?
Like everywhere else in America, the imposition of same-sex marriage on the people of Massachusetts was a combination of radical, arrogant judges and pitifully cowardly politicians.

The Goodridge ruling resulted in a complete cave-in by politicians of both parties on this issue. Same-sex “marriage” is still illegal in Massachusetts. On November 18, 2003 the court merely ruled that it was unconstitutional not to allow it, and gave the Legislature six months to “take such action as it may deem appropriate.” Note that the Massachusetts Constitution strongly denies courts the power to make or change laws, or from ordering the other branches to take any action. The constitution effectively bans “judicial review” – a court changing or nullifying a law. Thus, the court did not order anything to happen; it simply rendered an opinion on that specific case. And the Legislature did nothing. The marriage statutes were never changed. However, against the advice of many, Gov. Romney took it upon himself to alter the state's marriage licenses to say "Party A and Party B" and order officials to perform same-sex "weddings" if asked, though he had no legal obligation to do so. Technically, same-sex marriages are still illegal in Massachusetts.

Nevertheless, we are having to live with it. And furthermore, this abdication of their proper constitutional roles by the Legislature and Governor has caused a domino effect as "copycat" rulings have been issued in California and Connecticut, with other states fearful it will happen there.

In conclusion
Homosexual “marriage” hangs over society like a hammer with the force of law. And it’s only just begun.

It’s pretty clear that the homosexual movement’s obsession with marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to marry each other. Research shows that homosexual relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and “marriage” as we know it isn’t something they can achieve, or even desire. (In fact, over the last three months, the Sunday Boston Globe’s marriage section hasn’t had any photos of homosexual marriages. In the beginning it was full of them.) This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force throughout the various social and political institutions of a society that would never accept it otherwise.

To the rest of America: You've been forewarned.

2008-11-14T18:48:00.001-08:00

An Analogy for Obama's Tax Plan

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men--the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings)
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings)
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings)

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

2008-11-13T12:27:00.001-08:00

Ramping up the Child-Killing and AIDS Spreading Machine

This article just makes me angry. There is no mention of the success rate that Uganda has had in severely reducing AIDS in Africa. Obama clearly wants to expand child-killing in this nation, and now he wants to force abortion on other nations. The policy basically is: if you don't let us in and force abortion on you, we won't give you medicine. People need to wake up to the madness that this man is promoting. It's not good for Americans, and its not good for the world

Condoms Trump Abstinence in Obama Global AIDS Policy

By Jason Gale and John Lauerman
Enlarge Image/Details

Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama will reverse U.S. family-planning and AIDS-prevention strategies that have long linked global funding to anti-abortion and abstinence education, a public-health adviser said.

Public-health policies of President George W. Bush's $45- billion PEPFAR program have brought AIDS drugs to almost 3 million people in poor countries such as Rwanda and Uganda, more than under any other president. Still, requirements that health workers emphasize abstinence from sex and monogamy over condom use have set back sexually transmitted disease prevention and family planning globally, said Susan F. Wood, co-chairman of Obama's advisory committee for women's health.

``We have been going in the wrong direction and we need to turn it around and be promoting prevention and family-planning services and strengthening public health,'' said Wood, a research professor at George Washington University School of Public Health in Washington.

Bush on his first day in office, in January 2001, reinstated the so-called Mexico City Policy -- known to critics as the global gag rule. It bars U.S. family-planning assistance for organizations that use funding from any other source to provide counseling and referral for abortion, lobby to make abortion legal or more available in their country, or perform abortions except in cases of a threat to the woman's life, rape or incest.

Obama ``is committed to looking at all this and changing the policies so that family-planning services -- both in the U.S. and the developing world -- reflect what works, what helps prevent unintended pregnancy, reduce maternal and infant mortality, prevent the spread of disease,'' Wood said.

Gag Rule

Wood resigned as the top U.S. regulator for women's health in 2005 in protest of the Food and Drug Administration's delay in clearing over-the-counter sales of the ``morning after'' emergency contraceptive. Sale of the pill, called Plan B, without a prescription was held up for more than two years, after FDA staff recommended its approval in 2003.

Critics of the FDA have named Wood as among candidates they would like Obama to consider for the agency's next commissioner.

``A lot of the family-planning associations in Africa refused the terms of the gag rule and they lost funding, they lost technical assistance and they lost contraceptives,'' said Wendy Turnbull, a senior policy research analyst with Population Action International in Washington.

On the basis of that policy, Bush halted support for the United Nations Population Fund in 2002, saying it supported ``coercive'' abortion programs in China -- an allegation the New York-based agency has denied. The directive cost the fund more than $200 million in lost funding, said William Ryan, a Bangkok- based spokesman for the agency.

Condom Use

Restrictions on education about condom use have hamstrung effective promotion, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has had some condom information pulled from its Web Site, said Gill Greer, director general of the International Planned Pregnancy Federation in London.

``The U.S. administration has certainly succeeded in demonizing condoms rather than showing that they can be part of prevention of both unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections,'' she said in a telephone interview. ``I've always joked that the whole world should vote in the U.S. election because the whole world is so affected.''

Under President Bush, the U.S. has provided more money to fight AIDS than during any other administration. Seven years ago, before the Bush program began with about $15 billion, only about 200,000 people in poor nations got treatment, and few of them were in Africa.

Abstinence Success

The emphasis on abstinence and fidelity ``has been shown to have demonstrable success in Africa,'' said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association in Washington. ``It would be more than unfortunate if that policy was changed.''

Both Republicans and Democrats have indicated support for the focus on abstinence and education that goes along with PEPFAR, which has also been shown to reduce the spread of HIV in countries such as Uganda, Huber said.

``If the president-elect wants to be science-based in foreign sex-education policies, it would be wisest to continue this way because it's shown to be effective,'' she said.

Calls to the office of Mark Dybul, coordinator for the Bush AIDS treatment program, weren't returned.

Prevention Quest

The decision to focus on abstinence was ``naïve and dangerous,'' and neglected prevention techniques with the most science behind them, said Mitchell Warren, executive director of the New York-based AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition.

``Everyone pretty much expects we'll see a return to a true science-based response to HIV under Obama,'' he said in a telephone interview. ``We've seen eight years of a focus on things we know don't work.''

Without a vaccine, AIDS advocates are looking for ways to slow the spread of the HIV virus that currently infects about 33 million people worldwide. Treatment, even with cheaper versions of HIV drugs, is beyond the means of many patients in Africa, where about 24 million infected people live.

The U.S. has played an important role in bringing life- saving treatment to HIV patients who had been unable to get it, said Adel Mahmoud, a former head of Merck & Co. vaccines and professor in the department of molecular biology at Princeton University.

``But when the data says for every person we put on anti- retroviral therapy in Africa there are six new infections and we are doing nothing about it, it's absolutely mind-boggling,'' he said in a telephone interview. ``Prevention is really the solution.''

U.S. Influence

Wood said that, in recent years, the U.S. government has influenced and ``tightly vetted'' international organizations to reflect its own policies.

Obama will bring ``back a sense of balance and perspective and the use of good science and good medicine in these positions, and not just this narrow, political ideology,'' she said.

To contact the reporter on this story: John Lauerman in Boston at jlauerman@bloomberg.net; Jason Gale in Singapore at j.gale@bloomberg.net.

2008-11-11T20:02:00.000-08:00

The Indoctrination of a Generation

“Caution little eyes what you see;
Caution little ears what you hear.”

Every once and a while when I go and visit my brother, my sister-in-law sings the above refrain to her kids. As she explains it, whenever she would sing to my nephews and nieces, she was reminding them that they need to be careful of what they watch and listen to. Although they may not understand it when they are young, but what they are exposed to now will effect them as they grow up.

One of the main ways that our youth are affected by the so-called “sexual revolution” (which is more revolting than a revolution) is through the media. A report was released this past week revealing how there is a connection between sexually explicit shows and teen pregnancy. My first reaction to this study was “duh!” Although it has been claimed for years that the connection between movies and sexual deviancy was weak (this is usually claimed by those involved in the peddling of toxic waste), it doesn’t take a genius to realize that when a person is continually exposed to sexually-explicit materials, it’s going to change the way the world is viewed.

To use an analogy, when you want to make some brownies, it’s important that you make them with the best possible ingredients. This means the best eggs, milk, flour, and of course, chocolate brownie mix. And if this is all baked well, then you may be all set for the dentist next week.

Now, let’s imagine if you had mixed all the best possible ingredients together and then proceeded to slip in just a little bit of dog dropping. After it is cooked just right, those brownies may look like they are good for you, but they are going to taste more than a little funny.

Thus when I see various celebrities using their status to promote “lifestyles” that are contrary to the Truth, I suddenly get a bad taste in my mouth.

Take: Lindsay Lohan for example. She recently publically declared her “love” for her girlfriend. I know that she is certainly not the greatest role model, but unfortunately, many young people have no clue that the life she is living will lead not to happiness, but to more misery.

Unfortunately, the media does a spectacular job of painting a rosy picture of same-sex relationships, attempting to cover over the reality that many of those in this lifestyle are truly not happy, but often are wrapped up into drugs, alcohol, and depression. And this isn’t because society doesn’t accept them; it’s because when we misuse our sexuality, we’re going to feel it.

Although the causes of same-sex attraction, there is no doubt that those involved in these types of relationships, knowingly or unknowingly, suffer from an identity crisis. When Ms. Lohan was asked if she thought of herself as a lesbian, she is quoted in the December Issue of Harper’s Bazaar as saying,

"I don't want to classify myself…First of all, you never know what's going to happen -- tomorrow, in a month, a year from now, five years from now. I appreciate people, and it doesn't matter who they are, and I feel blessed to be able to feel comfortable enough with myself that I can say that."
Anyone who knows anything about her previous partying exploits knows that this is girl who has been in tremendous pain and doesn’t have a clue about who she really is. And by entering into a lifestyle that is ultimately demeaning, she will continue to be as lost as ever.
For you see, our sexuality speaks the language of being a total self-gift. If we don’t live our lives in this manner, we are going to be lost. No matter how we try to define our sexuality, if its not the truth, we won’t be satisfied.

Now, I wouldn’t be so concerned if Ms. Lohan wasn’t in the public eye. Yet the homosexual agenda is radically aggressive and they are getting plenty of help from Hollywood. Even your local school may be getting paid a visit from this ideology that is not going to stop until it is accepted as normal (Check out http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.pdf for more info).

This is why it is vitally important that parents are involved in every aspect of what their kids are into. Pay attention to the magazines they are reading, what programs and movies they are watching, and where they are going on the net. And this is especially crucial when they are young.

For remember, just like the food you as a father or mother gives to your kids now will determine how healthy they will be in the future, the kind of education about sexuality that they receive now will affect whether they will be able to love in the right way.

Originally posted at tob.catholicexchange.com

2008-11-09T03:23:00.000-08:00

Why FOCA must be stopped

I really do hope that the gentleman writing below is dead wrong, but the logic is dead on, given that we are facing a child-killing juggernaut with no restrictions over possibly the next 8 years of an Obama presidency. Especially if the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is passed, abortion will become unrestricted, millions of children will die, millions of women and men will be incredibly wounded by their poor decision to participate in an abortion, and all of us will begin to feel the economic crunch of not having enough workers to replace the current population. Just ask Europeans, who have been committing demographic suicide.

Pro-life death?

Dr. Paul Kengor - Guest Columnist - 11/6/2008 11:00:00 AM

The victory for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party on Tuesday is the death of the pro-life movement as we know it. The pro-life movement has sought to reverse abortion through legislative action and the courts, and made tremendous gains throughout eight years of George W. Bush, just enough to place the nation at a turning point. Unfortunately, it failed to turn the corner, to the close deal, on November 4, 2008, in large part because of the remarkable unpopularity of President Bush. This terrifically pro-life president will now see his pro-life legacy vanish very quickly.

The nation now faces the once unthinkable approval of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which Barack Obama says will be the “first thing” he signs as president. FOCA will nationalize abortion, superseding and overturning abortion restrictions in every state. In the words of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the act would “codify Roe v. Wade into law and guarantee a woman’s right to choose in all 50 states.” Or, as the National Organization for Women excitedly proclaims, FOCA would “sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.” In one stroke, this bill, introduced in Congress in April 2007—and co-sponsored by Obama—will wipe out all the fully bipartisan abortion restrictions passed by Democratic and Republican legislatures over the past 35 years.

Obama made that promise in a July 17, 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, a group that he calls a “safety-net provider.” As Obama made clear in that speech, he views abortion-delivery services as basic government services—services in support of a woman’s “fundamental right” to an abortion. With the huge majority he will enjoy from an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, President Obama will get what he wants.

Obama’s defenders tried to explain away his votes in Illinois rejecting medical care for newborns who survive abortions. With FOCA, that shouldn’t matter, since it eliminates state restrictions regardless.

President Obama will also likely secure taxpayer funding of abortion, government-provided abortion for women in the military, American money to international abortion groups like the UNFPA, federal funding of embryonic research, repeal of the Hyde Amendment, and much more.

In essence, we’re looking at the strong possibility of unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortion through the entirety of a mother’s pregnancy. There will be no Republican legislative body that can check this. Such change promised by Obama is unprecedented in presidential history.

All of that will happen before President Obama even begins appointing pro-choice judges. If I may hazard a prediction, I believe Obama will have not only four years to mold the courts but eight years. He’s the first Democrat since LBJ to win over 50 percent of the vote. Not even Bill Clinton did that. Add in the fact that an astoundingly sympathetic media will protect him, that the economy will fully recover by 2012, that Iraq will not be a liability for him, and you have a two-term presidency in the making.

And yet, November 4 was devastating for the pro-life movement beyond the election of Barack Obama. As a brief summary of what happened around the country that day, here’s a cut-and-paste of the headlines distributed the morning after by the pro-life source LifeNews.com:

Obama Captures Win Over John McCain, Expected to Promote Abortions
Washington Becomes Second State to Legalize Assisted Suicide in Vote
Michigan Voters Approve Proposition 2 to Destroy Human Embryos
California Very Narrowly Opposes Third Try for Parental Notification
South Dakota Voters Defeat Second Ballot Measure to Ban Abortions
Colorado Voters Soundly Defeat Personhood Ballot Measure on Abortion

That says it all. The pro-life movement was battered on Tuesday. The “Culture of Life” was bludgeoned.

This means that the pro-life movement will need to rely not on changing laws—though pro-lifers should still try to do that when they can—but on changing hearts and minds. The strategy has always been to do both, but, now, the latter will need to be the dominant priority.

Tragically, many scared young girls, who otherwise might be stopped from choosing an abortion through parental consent, waiting periods, or any number of additional guidelines, will not face the checks to prompt them to pause for second thought. There are thousands if not millions of post-abortive women in their 40s and 50s who will tell you that they wish to God that there had been some type of restriction that would have given them pause. Without those checks, they chose as they did, and many suffer greatly to this day. There seems little doubt that the abortion rate should rise steadily — after declining consistently in recent years.

This is so utterly dispiriting that many pro-lifers feel helpless. Many may toss in the towel: If this is what America wants, so be it....

But for those still willing to try to help young mothers and their unborn babies, the thrust must now focus on counseling, evangelization, education, on establishing crisis pregnancy centers, on making ultrasound technology more widely available, and generally on one-on-one efforts to convince pregnant girls that they have options.

With the results of November 4, there will likely be another 35 years of Roe v. Wade — plus much, much more. Pro-lifers need to regroup and think hard about how to try to ensure that the next 35 years of legalized abortion in America will not produce another 50 million aborted babies.

Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. He is author of "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism" (HarperPerennial, 2007), and "The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan's Top Hand" (Ignatius Press, 2007). This column is printed with permission.

Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates.

The True Sexual Revolution

An Explanation of Why CERC did not Post Dawn Eden's Thesis

People have been asking me why we haven't posted Dawn Eden's thesis, which was critical of Christopher West, when we have represented ourselves as wanting to be a clearinghouse for reasoned arguments on both sides of this issue.

the opposite of lying

WITHOUT A DOUBT

“Rhode Island, Most Catholic State, Welcomes Gay Marriage”

Only women can be mothers. Have we forgotten this fundamental?

The War on Motherhood

How America’s Conscience Was Seared Toward Motherhood

Motherhood Will Triumph

The Question:

The Cost of Motherhood

Catholic Musician, Matt Maher, on the Virtue of Humility

Planned Parenthood offers gift vouchers

Pro-lifers rap Indiana plan

Sean Lengell (Contact) Saturday, November 29, 2008

Chicago Scraps Plan for Gay High School

Sean Lengell (Contact)
Saturday, November 29, 2008