Just Curious: Siblings!

I am in the middle of back-to-back visits from my out-of-town daughters, with a two-day overlap. It's been wonderfully joyful to have them in the house again! My younger daughter (who is expecting a baby boy!) flew in to surprise her little brothers, especially the youngest, who has missed her so much, and my elder daughter came with my adorable granddaughter! My adult son came home from college over the weekend to see his sisters and niece (we were only missing our two fabulous sons-in-law), and all this excitement has left no time for blogging.

But it did make me think of how beautiful is the sibling bond, and it has me wondering:

How many siblings do you have? Are they boys or girls? And where do you fall in the lineup? 

I am the younger of two sisters. We are 19 months apart, and while we did not exactly get along when we were growing up, we are now best of friends! I always wanted a brother, but that was not to be.

One thing that strikes me as so funny now that I am surrounded by not only my own children and grandchildren, but also by my friends' children (soooooo many children!!) is that I never, ever, ever had any babies in my life until I had my own. I didn't have younger siblings, I didn't babysit, my friends didn't have babies in their homes, and I am not even sure I held actual babies more than a handful of times before my first daughter was born. My husband's situation was very similar, as he only had one sibling as well (a younger brother).


I have learned that big families come with unique blessings, such as...


Big sisters who are like second mommies:

Uncles who are just a few years older than nieces, so they can grow up as friends [please note that my granddaughter blows excellent raspberries; she is clearly a genius]:

The number of family members who fawn over the newest baby's sonograms keeps growing. Here are the latest pictures of our beautiful grandson:

Already praying? A future pope, perhaps? 

And a million other reasons, which boil down to love and more love -- oh, and more chances to sacrifice, suffer, and get holy!

Okay, now it's your turn. Whether you are an only child or one of a huge brood, tell me about your siblings (or lack thereof). I'm truly curious and look forward to your comments!

Should the children sit down and shut up?

While we focus on the wants of adults in the gay "marriage" debate, we've utterly forgotten the rights of children:

A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."  CCC #2378

The left reminds us often that marriage has nothing to do with children, and yet we all know that the continuing push for gay "marriage" will be followed by the "right" for those couples, one way or another, to procure and raise children that nature never allows them.

The voices of kids raised by gay parents are still few and far between, as it's early yet in this sweeping social experiment, but mainstream and social media have ensured that positive reports go viral, such as Zach Wahls' tribute to the lesbian mothers who raised him. I would never expect a child to speak ill of the family he loves, and we can all admire Zach's loyalty.

However, there are many children of gay parents who simply remain silent in their pain, not only to protect their parents, but to protect themselves. If they do speak out to grieve the absence of a mother or father or to question the means of their creation, they risk immediate ridicule or a condescending reminder to be grateful -- and be quiet.

For example, back in March I read with sadness a People Magazine article story of the Today show weekend anchor who is pregnant through anonymous donor insemination, and who will be raising a daughter with her lesbian lover.

Beneath the glowing photo of the "two moms", scores of well-wishers left joyful congratulations, affirming the women with many, many exclamation points. I scrolled down and down, searching for naysayers amidst the myriad celebratory squeals. At last, two notable dissenting voices piped up, both young women.

First, the daughter of two lesbians:

[Kaitlin C. -- unedited] 
congrats to them both and the baby. I am the daughter (not biological) of two mom’s. I love them both sooo sooo much but their is not a day that goes by that i didn’t wish i had a dad. it is very hard for kids like me that are different. no matter how accetping are society is. i have men in my life – my moms’ friends but it is not the same. please, don’t get me wrong, i really love them both but i guess i’m just saying it is not the same. -KC

She received an odd sort of sympathy in reply:

[amalia -- unedited]
Dear [Kaitlin C.],
I understand your point. It’s the same as of millions of people that grew up without a father figure. Either because their fathers didn’t take the responsibility and left them, or because of a divorce, death, estrangement etc. The phenomenon has been around since forever, it has nothing to do with homosexuality. Thus nothing to do with this thread.
Family is that close circle of people that offer you love and care unconditionally and create you a solid environment to educate and develop.
Just as a little detail, I had both parents around as I grew up, but my dad had never been a father figure, nor involved at the level I needed. It was just a personal experience that I overcame just fine. Love is everywhere!!!

In other words: "Your experience is nothing special, Kaitlin. Lots of people suffer through life without a dad and let's just be really clear, your fatherlessness has nothing to do with homosexuality (even though your fatherlessness is precisely because of homosexuality, shhhh!). Let's not point out the fact that while those other father-losses I mentioned were tragedies or the result of sin and neglect, your father-loss was planned and intended by people who love you. And remember, it's all about love, which you can find everywhere!!! (Except for the love of a father.) Bottom line: Your feelings are invalid, please sit down and shut up."

The second dissenting voice also came from a young woman, and although she was raised by a mother and a father, she was conceived through anonymous sperm donation, a fact which unites her experience with that of the children of gay parents:

[Kathy -- unedited]
I’m the product of a my mother’s egg and a sperm donor. I love my parents but I don’t agree with the fact that I will never know half of my biology or my siblings. I will never do that to a child. If I can’t have them, I will adopt. I hope more couples, gay and straight, consider adoption and foster care.

Like Kaitlin, she declared her deep love for her parents, but dared to expose a great wound as well. Here's the scolding she got, admonishing her to stay silent next time:

[Marky -- unedited]
Kathy, I am the adoptive mother of a child who was abandoned on the street with no identification in another country. We adopted her as an infant who was assigned a birthday, a name, and any other information, including what town they thought she might have been born in. Children born using sperm donors are not the only children on the planet who may never know their biological heritage, or bio family, etc. You know half of it, and frankly, I’ve known many people who discovered their bio parents and siblings, only to wish they had stuck with the adoptive parents they knew. Your insistence that knowing bio family makes all the difference in your life is exactly why many people nearly kill themselves to try to have bio children rather than adopt or foster. Believe me, your parents’ worst fear was the thought you would end up saying all the things you have posted here. All they wanted was to have a family, and when you “father”came to grips with the fact he couldn’t do the deed himself, they probably chose to do what they did so you would be related to at least one of them. I know people who were from your same circumstances and they feel very differently. Adoption and fostering, both of which I have done, is not some easy road, either, depending on personality of the child. There comes a time when you need to accept your circumstances and live the best life possible, not to be harsh in any way. Most people make the best choices they can, under their circumstances, when choosing how to build their families.

In other words: "You spoiled little brat. How dare you snivel and whine when you at least know half of your biological heritage? Look at you, complaining about being the product of a stranger's sperm-for-hire when you could have been an orphan on the street! Your speaking of your pain is your parents' worst fear! How dare you make them feel bad? They did this because they wanted a child at all costs, you ingrate. Your profound loss and disconnection from your origins was orchestrated by the ones who love you the most, so you have no right to complain. You must learn to support adults' choices in how they build their families! They have a right to children and you need to respect that. I mean this in the kindest way: Sit down and shut up."

Now, do you think Kaitlin or Kathy will speak up again any time soon? Not likely. However, as gay "marriage" and artificial reproduction (donor sperm, surrogacy, IVF) go hand-in-hand, we are going to hear more and more stories slipping out, even if they have to be told anonymously, and even if the truth upsets folks.

There aren't yet many seniors who can look back on their life and evaluate the impact of being raised in a homosexual household, but at least one man has done so publicly. In an article that made "huge waves" in France before the recent controversial gay "marriage" vote there, a 66-year-old Frenchman who had been raised by lesbians broke his lifelong silence. He had never wanted to speak of his suffering, but said he simply could not allow the injustice of same-sex "marriage" to come to France. In Jean-Dominique Bunel's emotional interview, he explained that although he loved the women who raised him, he became more and more affected by his situation as he grew into adulthood:

"I suffered from the indifference of adults to the intimate sufferings of children, starting with mine. In a world where their rights are each day rolled back, in truth, it is always the rights of adults that hold sway. I also suffered from the lack of a father, a daily presence, a character and a properly masculine example, some counterweight to the relationship of my mother to her lover. I was aware of it at a very early age. I lived that absence of a father, experienced it, as an amputation."

"All my life as an adult was thrust out of whack by this experience," he blurts. But he stops himself there. "It is too intimate a matter." Pushed, he concedes, "I offer you a testimony. It's not the same in value as a poll. Other children, placed in the same conditions, have certainly grown up and reacted differently. But to the best of my knowledge, no serious study has been carried out in due diligence about this topic, within scientifically irrefutable conditions and bearing upon a large sample size. I doubt that many children of gay couples will open themselves up easily and honestly to journalists on this very delicate matter. It's traumatizing to speak of suffering that one would rather silence."

"...in the name of a fight against inequalities and discrimination, we would refuse a child one of its most sacred rights, upon which a universal, millenia-old tradition rests, that of being raised by a father and a mother. You see, two rights collide: the right to a child for gays, and the right of a child to a mother and father."

I urge you to read it all, here. Like Kaitlin and Kathy, Monsieur Bunel deserves a voice in this debate. 

So does Robert Oscar Lopez, Ph.D, a bisexual married man raised by lesbians and who for years was immersed in the gay lifestyle. He has been vilified for daring to speak against the acknowledged orthodoxy, but he refuses to be bullied into silence. His story was the first I encountered from a child of gay parenting that was not politically correct. It was raw, introspective, honest -- and difficult to read. Since going public, Professor Lopez has "been in frequent contact with adults who were raised by parents in same-sex partnerships":

They are terrified of speaking publicly about their feelings, so several have asked me (since I am already out of the closet, so to speak) to give voice to their concerns. 

I cannot speak for all children of same-sex couples, but I speak for quite a few of them, especially those who have been brushed aside in the so-called “social science research” on same-sex parenting. 

Those who contacted me all professed gratitude and love for the people who raised them, which is why it is so difficult for them to express their reservations about same-sex parenting publicly.

It's hard for these folks to speak out for two reasons: 1) It's frightening to be politically incorrect as a brave new social movement is bulldozing the land and yours is not the acceptable narrative. 2) It's unthinkable to come out publicly with reflections that would deeply hurt the ones who raised and love you, and whom you love in return.

Ultimately, it's hard to assert one's rights and demand justice when society denies that you have any rights at all. If children have no inherent or natural rights, they are, by default, commodities to be manufactured and manipulated, bought and sold and traded, tested and discarded if defective, killed (or "selectively reduced") if eventually unwanted. How could it be otherwise? Either children have intrinsic, natural rights by virtue of being human, or they only have the lesser rights that the adults decide to give them -- which makes them chattel.

Heterosexuals began this injustice against children long ago by demanding a "right" to a child at all costs, it's true, and now the gay "marriage" movement will only solidify and advance this view of children in our land, with the added injustice of systematic deprivation of a mother or a father.

The left prides itself on being tolerant, on fighting the oppressor, on giving voice to the weak, on being sensitive to the pain and feelings of others -- but will the proponents of gay "marriage" invite or even allow these hurting children of gay unions to speak of their experiences without censure or rebuke?

I'd like to be optimistic, but I'm not holding my breath.

+++++++

Just Curious: Too old to be open to more children?

I received a heartfelt email from a reader the other day (let's call her Jane), and I think it's worth a discussion. So, with her permission:


Hello Leila,

I stop by and read your blog often. Your last post about the air conditioning man getting fixed is what has me writing to you.

Do you have a post about married couples struggling with one spouse not wanting more children because of age?

My husband, who is 46, is adamant about not wanting anymore children because he says he's too old. We aren't intimate anymore because he respects that I don't want to use birth control, but is serious about no more children. He always says he would be 65 years old by the time the child turned 18 and moved out. (Not that we even want our almost 16yo to consider moving out at 18!!)

I am 41 years old. Sad that my fertility has become a horrible subject in our life. There was a time I couldn't get pregnant. It took 7 years to get pregnant a 3rd time. We are blessed to have 5 children now.

I would LOVE to see a thread and the comments from your readers about AGE. My husband has been reading everything I send to him. He isn't a practicing Catholic. This issue really has turned him against the teachings of the Church.

BTW, we are the oldest in our circle of friends. Everyone is under 40 years old and cannot relate to what my husband is going through. I'd love to read how families have dealt with the age issue. 



Jane, I'll just throw out my thoughts and then open it up to others...

My husband is also 46, and our youngest is two years old. I was just shy of my 43rd birthday when I had him. It's funny, because back in the day (the pre-Church days), we had decided to have our kids (three, max) in our twenties, so that we could be "free" by our forties. We expected to travel and "have fun".

I certainly do think of my age and count the number of years I will attain by "this child's wedding" or "that child's graduation", and I wonder if I will be around long enough to see all of them grown and with kids of their own. It's weird how life works: Our oldest children have very young parents, and our youngest kids are going to have old parents. The "old parents" thing has bothered me less and less as time has passed, however, especially as I see that no child is guaranteed a parent who will always be around, young or old! I know too many young parents -- with young children -- who have passed away. Life is fragile and having children is always a risk. The fact that my kids have life at all is a good thing to me, and, please God, we will all end up in Heaven together. The eternal truths and implications of all our lives are so much more important than whatever happens on this earth, which is utterly unpredictable anyway.

One of the many great aspects of being in my "little Catholic bubble" locally is that many of my friends have had and are having babies well into their forties. It's normal around these parts, and no one bats an eye. My husband is a youngster compared to some of his buddies who have had children born to them past the age of 50. We will not be the oldest parents at our youngest child's high school graduation, which may seem hard to believe in other cultural circles.

I can't say we are actively trying for any new children (in fact, we aren't), but we certainly are always open to new life in our marriage.

I do want to add that it makes me incredibly sad that your husband has gone to the extreme and cut off all intimacy. That cannot be good and healthy for a marriage, and a careful application of Natural Family Planning would be ideal here.

I am curious to hear what others have to say in response to Jane's questions and concerns. Take it away!





.

Today the air conditioning man told me he got "fixed". So, I couldn't resist...

A friendly young air conditioner tech came over to check the system today.

Small talk led to him asking, "So how many kids do you have, anyway?"

"We have eight."

Startled, laughing, "Oh, are you crazy?!"

I was not offended; I could sense a good heart. "Ha ha, well, two are in college, and so only six are in the house right now."

Then he went and said it: "We had three, and then I got fixed."

I didn't even hesitate, and said with a smile:

"Oh, were you broken?"

Nervous laughter, hesitation. He really was not expecting that.

I continued: "My husband definitely isn't broken, ha ha!"

Embarrassed smile, trying to figure out what to say, not quite meeting my gaze: "Well, my wife decided we were done. Three was tough. She is from a big Mormon family, eight brothers and sisters… her sister has six kids… so after three…"

"Uh-huh." (Because I honestly understood.)

"...she said she couldn't handle anymore. So I got, you know…"

I smiled warmly and explained how we hit the same fork in the road, almost took that route: "Gosh, we had the same situation! We had three, and my husband was going to go get…'broken' [I chuckled again, he accepted the joke], but then we changed our minds. He was Jewish, I was a lapsed Catholic, then we had big conversions of heart and went on to have five more kids, all boys."

I sensed his approval, "Yeah, that's so cool. Amazing. We just...I don't know. It's a lot of work."

"I know, it really is. But nothing worth doing is easy. And these boys would not exist…." I gestured toward the two boys nearby.

He nodded. "Yeah, you are so right. We would have been just like you, with eight, if we hadn't have…."

"Yeah…"

We chatted some more. I told him how everything changes, everything is a season, as it's supposed to be. Things become doable as time goes on and children grow up. I explained that we have four of babysitting age now, and my husband and I can go out together on a whim -- and we do. We have a total of five drivers in the family, which changes the dynamics completely. And, far from being put upon, all the children have begged for a new baby, often scolding my husband and me for being the only ones standing in the way of another sibling.

I also reminded this nice man that my kids are going to paying for his Social Security one day, as we have so few young workers coming up to support the aging Baby Boomers. Doing our part for the economy. He laughed and nodded in agreement.

He seemed eager to assure me that he loves children, loves that there are many young faces at his home: "We have all those cousins for the kids, and the neighbor kids come over, too. We have lots of kids around the house all the time, and it's great."

I told him, honestly, how wonderful that is. Big smiles. Have a great day, thanks again, very friendly.

And I am sad. He seemed sad, too. I think he knows what a blessing children are. I sensed this was not his decision. I sensed that he loves his wife, he loves his kids, and he is a good daddy. I sensed that he cut his family short too soon and would have been overflowing with love for any other child(ren) that could have -- would have -- blessed his marriage.

Anyway, that was a vignette from my day. Back to homeschooling now.



Related post:  Sterilization: Is it getting "fixed" or getting broken?





.

Why I never should have had eight children

A few months back, I told you how to raise eight children without even trying. Today, I'm going to tell you why I never should have had eight children in the first place. Had I listened to the devil and modern conventional wisdom, that is.

When I was a happy mother of four, seriously considering and deeply desiring another child, an odd feeling overcame me. Over several days, my excitement at the idea of a new little soul became mixed with feelings of discouragement and fear. It began to dawn on me that I was barely good enough "mommy material" for the four treasures I already had, and that any further parenting would be irresponsible. It came to a head one evening: I remember standing in my kitchen, full of fear and anxiety, telling myself that I had no business -- no business! -- having another baby. Not now, not ever.

All my shortcomings and sins came to the forefront of my mind, and I stood there reeling from the truth of it*:

I can't cook.
I can't grocery shop.
I can't bring the kids out alone without help.
I have nooooo patience.
I am not crafty in the least.
I can't sew.
I can't throw a party.
I'm not athletic or outdoorsy.
I don't know how to make a pretty home.
I don't know how to make anything fun.
I am lazy and a procrastinator.
I'm used to being served, not serving.
I am sarcastic and cranky.
I am a complainer.
I like to be alone.
I hate to be interrupted or inconvenienced.
I am not particularly good with children.

In that moment, I knew all of these things. And I was discouraged. Any one of these reasons could be enough for a woman to convince herself that it's imprudent to have another child. In fact, you might just be saying to yourself now, "My gosh, that Bubble woman shouldn't have one child, much less eight!"

But see, there's the thing: Moms of big families are told constantly by other women that "I couldn't do what you do!" or "You must have so much patience!" or "You must have a real way with children!" They think we were given a special gift or have a mutant gene that they do not possess. But they have no idea how much we are just like them. In fact, most of the women who say those things to me are better suited to raise a large family than I.

As I stood there in the kitchen that night, a moment of grace overtook the moment of discouragement. How many times had I told others, "Discouragement is not from Christ, as Christ only encourages. Discouragement is from the devil!" I remembered it then, and my fears and anxieties were banished. Only the devil himself, the one who hates human beings to his rotten core, would taunt me with the notion that my lack of gourmet skills should preclude new life in my marriage. I saw the evil of it then, and I called him out. I still cussed a lot back then, and I am pretty sure I told the devil what he could do with his putrid flood of discouraging thoughts. Yeah, that was a good moment.

Since that day, five eternal souls have been created in our family, four of whom my husband and I have the privilege of raising on this earth. And, while I can't claim to have conquered all the deficiencies and vices on my list (not even close! drat!), the existence of all my children has moved me along the path of holiness. Because that's how it works: The souls in your life are gifts, each of whom is meant to sanctify you in a particular way. My little sanctifiers are the artisans who change and mold me in all the ways God knows I need, and they are their father's and their siblings' artisans, too.

That my family exists as it does is living proof that "with God, all things are possible" -- even Leila Miller mothering eight great kids.


Deo gratias.

*In the interest of full disclosure, when I began to write this post a couple of nights ago, I wrote out full paragraphs for each bullet point, explaining my shortcomings in detail. Let's just say by the fifth point, I was so depressed that I couldn't go on! I turned off the computer and went to bed, ha ha!


Related post:  Parenting: What I've Done Right!









.

Normalizing pedophilia: The next stop on the Free-Love Train

_____



It seems to me that the culture is ripe for the eventual normalization of pedophilia. As I see it, there are three conditions necessary for that normalization to occur; the first is practically a lock already, the second is becoming more mainstream by the day, and the third is on the horizon and making gains.

1. The belief that sex is simply for pleasure

The Planned Parenthood Secular Left tells us time and time again that sex is certainly not primarily about making babies. It is primarily about pleasure, very much like indulging in a delectable ice cream sundae. And if one is not pleasuring oneself alone (with or without the aid of pornography), then the pleasure might be accompanied by a sense of communication and bonding and fun -- with one, two, or even a dozen others of any or all genders. Sex is casual and it is free. It is not bound by the natural or moral law, and its purpose and meaning and application is utterly subjective. The right to sexual pleasure and orgasm is so paramount that it even supersedes the right to life of an "unwanted" child who may be conceived in its pursuit. Simple.

2. The belief that children are sexual beings with sexual rights

The Planned Parenthood Secular Left teaches our children that they are "sexual beings" from birth, and that they have a right to sexual pleasure (see #1). Just this year, International Planned Parenthood Federation released a long and detailed pamphlet detailing the "sexual rights" of "young people" (i.e., children) around the globe, which includes the following principles (all emphases mine):

Young people are sexual beings. They have sexual needs, desires, fantasies and dreams. It is important for all young people around the world to be able to explore, experience and express their sexualities in healthy, positive, pleasurable and safe ways. This can only happen when young people’s sexual rights are guaranteed.


Sexuality and sexual pleasure are important parts of being human for everyone -- no matter what age, no matter if you’re married or not and no matter if you want to have children or not.


Sexuality and sexual pleasure are important for all young people, irrespective of reproductive desires.

No ambiguity there.

3. The belief that ages of consent are problematic

There are intelligent people advocating for a lowering of the age of consent as we speak. This move to give children more sexual freedom is at work everywhere that the Planned Parenthood mentality exists. Let's check International Planned Parenthood's manifesto again:

[S]triking the right balance between protection and autonomy is a complex process that requires looking at the individual capacity of each young person, rather than focusing on someone’s age.


Since each young person develops at their [sic] own pace, there is no universal age at which certain sexual rights and protections gain or lose importance.


In all situations, the evolving capacities of young people to autonomously exercise their rights must be recognized.


Who are we to say when any particular child has the "evolved capacity" to engage in the fun and pleasure of sex? If you object and say that children clearly cannot "consent", then perhaps you are not forward thinking. As Planned Parenthood insists:

We must approach young people’s sexual rights in a progressive way.

What can that mean but to give children more room to explore and express sex openly, with fewer restrictions?

So let's recap: If sex is for pleasure and fun, if children are sexual beings with sexual rights and autonomy, and if ages of consent are problematic and not in keeping with "evolving capacities", then why shouldn't children be able to express their sexuality with the adults whom they love or admire? And why would an adult be prohibited from helping that child explore his or her sexuality in a "progressive" way?

Now, of course most of us recognize that adults having sex with children is an abomination and beyond the bounds that any decent society would accept. Such activity harms children in myriad ways. But there are entire groups out there who argue that it is only societal taboos and stigmas that cause harm to youngsters involved in adult-child relationships. If we rid ourselves of such damaging societal constructs, they say, all the negatives would disappear; it's the stigma that is the problem.

After all, lots of things that we accept and embrace now used to be seen as abominations, rejected by decent society. Once upon a time, contraception was seen as a horrible degradation of marriage. Then suddenly it wasn't. For a while after that, abortion was still an unthinkable crime. But then that became acceptable, too. Premarital sex and promiscuity was taboo, immoral. Now, it's a healthy expression of sexuality. And until just a few years ago, homosexual unions were unspeakable and shameful. Now, there is a push for gay "marriage" and we see millions cheering it on or at least asking, "What's the big deal?"

And yet in light of this, for some odd reason, everyone* who now promotes and exults in the once-disgraceful acts of contraception, abortion, fornication, homosexuality, etc., mocks and dismisses the idea that pedophilia might be the next taboo to fall.

My question to them is simply and sincerely: Why?




*Well, not quite everyone, as the normalizing of pedophilia has already begun. Read more here and here and here and here and here.



.