The two-child norm is not necessarily the result of selfishness

Please Note: I am writing about the wider culture and its norms; this post is not referring to faithful Catholics with smaller families.


Since my reversion 21 years ago, I have been surrounded by my Catholic friends in an amazing Catholic diocese and community. The norm in my circles is openness to life in one's marriage. Those of my friends who have small families, or no children at all, are usually suffering from infertility.

But when I am in the broader culture, a culture I used to fit within quite comfortably, I recognize that large families are an anomaly. Sometimes, the realization can be jarring. A couple of my younger kids now go to a public charter school down the street, which is a change from the small Catholic school and homeschooling that had been the norm for us for decades. Almost all of my boys' classmates come from families with one or two children.

On my block, almost every other family has two children. Over the 15 years we've lived here, a strange thing has happened. A bunch of us had small kids/toddlers/babies at the time. As the years passed, the neighbors' kids grew into teens and even adults. No more babies or little kids in the neighborhood -- except for our house, which continued to contain young kids, toddlers, babies. It is sometimes just a little eerie, honestly.

Families that welcome many children are not the norm. In the past, big families were seen as a blessing, as natural, as routine, but the culture has changed completely, as evidenced by a comment I received just the other day from a reader named Amy:

Leila: I would rather like to know what made you have eight children and expect your husband to provide for all of them, unless he is quite wealthy.

I don't want to assume snarkiness (though it sure seems a little snippy), but I do assume that Amy has a general unfamiliarity with large families. She simply cannot imagine why a regular married couple would welcome many children. It makes no sense to her at all, and she sees it as even a terrible imposition on the marriage itself, unless it's the luxury, whim, and frivolity of a "quite wealthy" family.

Which brings me to the thoughts I've been having lately, when I see just how different my family and my friends' families really are in today's America. When I first discovered the truth of Catholicism and the beauty of God's design for human sexuality and marriage, I was exploding with joy! Everything made sense, it was so stunning, so lovely, so profound!

New converts or reverts have a tendency to get zealous very quickly, due to that blush of "new love" that comes with the embrace of Christ and His Church, and that zeal I felt, combined with spiritual immaturity, led me to so many rookie mistakes. I made assumptions that were unfounded, including the assumption that "people in this culture only have one or two children because they are selfish!" I was just sure of it.

And then I began to mature, and I began to think. While it is true that some couples close their marriage to any or more children due to selfishness, materialism, and a desire for the "finer things and the good life" (I have had people admit this to me with great honesty), I can't assume that for the majority.

In fact, I started to look at my own pre-faithful life. When my husband and I were married, I was on the Pill. We had talked about having two kids, maybe three at the most (especially if the first two kids were the same sex). That was how it was, and there was no big controversy or angst.

But interestingly, that was not my heart's desire at all. I actually always thought that big families, when I had seen them or read about them, were amazing, wonderful, fascinating! In my heart of hearts, I would have loved to have a "big family" -- four kids, maybe even five!

Of course, that was just a dream (and one barely thought of), like saying that it would be amazing to weave my own clothes on a loom, or travel the world on a yacht. I mean, some people did that sort of thing -- the eccentrics, the uber-religious, the uber-rich -- but not normal folks.

It wasn't that I was being selfish or stingy in fully intending to limit our family to two children (three being possible, but not probable), it was that I was doing what was done. The cultural norm of two children was and is the very air that we breathe in regular America. There is no thought about it, no deeper questions to be asked, none of that. We do what our neighbors do. We do what the culture says. I would no more have thought about actually having a large family than I would have thought about going barefoot on a trip to the mall or joining a circus as a trapeze artist. I mean, who does that? A very odd few.

Selfishness, like love, requires willful thought and action.

And so, in looking back, I was not selfish in my decision. It was simply not a decision that I even knew could be made. It was not a question on the radar at all. When I look around at the majority of my neighbors and fellow parents, I cannot assume that they are being selfish in deliberately limiting their family size. They are just being 21st century Americans. It's just what we do. We have very small families and we do it reflexively. It's no more complicated than that.

Which brings me to the freedom. When the glorious moment hits, when the awesome realization strikes, "I don't have to follow the American norm; I am a Catholic and I follow the Lord", oh the freedom! Oh, the joy! It's as if the sealed box we've been living in has been burst open and we can jump out into the sunlight! Everything is different, new, bright, fresh, and colorful -- teeming with life and abundance! Oh, the possibilities!

My heart's hidden desire, to have more children and have my house full of life and my children lush with siblings and exponential extended family potential, was now unleashed! No one and nothing, not even a mindless and powerful cultural norm, could bind me again.

I pray that we Catholics would understand that those who deliberately have small families are not necessarily being selfish; they simply don't know a higher authority than the cultural norm. When they question or act shocked by our big families, it may well be that they are, as I once was, truly curious at the "eccentrics" in their midst.

May we Catholics never take our freedom for granted, nor judge as selfish those who don't yet know that they are still bound. Our job is to love them, and to lead them to the freedom that is meant for all.

Newsflash: Pope Francis did NOT just green-light contraception!

I feel like yelling.

Look at the second line of this headline:

NO, the Pope did NOT say birth control is OKAY. That is UNTRUE. The Drudge headline erroneously extrapolates from this distorted AP article, but let's read closer, yes? Francis says that it is not intrinsically evil to avoid pregnancy (DUH!!!), unlike abortion which is intrinsically evil. And he even references Pope Paul VI, the very person who wrote Humanae Vitae, which condemns contraception!

From the AP article itself:

Abortion "is an evil in and of itself, but it is not a religious evil at its root, no? It's a human evil," he said. "On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one (Zika), such as the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear."

Guess what? He just said what the Church has always said: Avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. And there are ways of avoiding pregnancy, as Pope Paul VI said, that are moral. It's called Natural Family Planning.

Hello??? Is anyone ever listening?

DON'T BELIEVE THE MEDIA, people!!! Sigh....





*Please note that even the word "Zika" was inserted by the reporter, not spoken by Pope Francis.

Which temperament are you? I'm a...

... PHLEGMATIC! 

And I never knew it! (Which makes sense now.)

Years ago, in a mild frustration, I wrote about being an introvert and the quest to be understood. I wrote about how being an introvert does not necessarily mean one is shy (I am not shy) nor socially awkward (I've been told I am bubbly and charming in social situations!), but it means that one primary recharges one's energy by being alone and quiet, sometimes for long, glorious days at a time. Extroverts, by contrast, tend to rejuvenate and gain energy by being around people.

If you have met me and/or formed an impression of me and are tempted to say, "Leila, you are not an introvert!" I will ban you from this site for all eternity politely set you straight, and then even more politely (through gritted introverted teeth) ask you to do more research.

But I want to go deeper here today, past the question of whether you and I are introverts or extroverts, to the question of our specific temperament (or temperament combo) that God has given us. I have enlisted Connie Rossini, who helped me figure out (FINALLY) that I am the very temperament that I was sure I wasn't: I am a phlegmatic! YES! It's true! And since I discovered that about myself a few months ago (while giving my children temperament tests), everything in my life suddenly makes sense. I finally make sense to myself!   {happy dance! happy dance! happy dance!}

Growing up in my family of origin, I was surrounded by two intense cholerics and one intense melancholic. That experience tended to bring out qualities and characters in me that masked or distorted my phlegmatic nature. As I grew into adulthood and especially as I grew in my faith, more of my true temperament began to emerge. I still tended to think I was a melancholic/choleric, but it felt forced and it never quite fit. And that's because I'm not those! Go figure.

It's so good to have my life and habits make sense now, and to know that I'm not simply "lazy" because I need a lot of time and space to complete a task. I now recognize why I am generally non-committal unless it's one of the few things I'm passionate about, why I don't hold a grudge or live in the past, and why I work to make everyone, even my fiercest ideological opponent, comfortable in my presence (in real life, I avoid conflict like the plague).

Now it's time to throw it to Connie, who knows all about this awesome (and really very Catholic) topic of temperaments. She has even begun a series of books on how to parent your child according to his or her temperament, two that are published (A Spiritual Growth Plan For Your Choleric Child and A Spiritual Growth Plan For Your Phlegmatic Child), and two more to come.

Take it away, Connie!

Do you know your temperament?

By Connie Rossini

What are the four classic temperaments? Do you know yours? Why should you?

Recently on Facebook, Leila mentioned that she is a phlegmatic. That started a long conversation about the temperaments. Since I have written extensively on this topic, including two books in a continuing series for Catholic parents, Leila invited me to post about it here.

The idea of the temperaments began with Hippocrates (of Hippocratic Oath fame). He noticed that people tend to act in one of four general patterns. Some people react to stimuli immediately and strongly. Others react more slowly. Some hold on to their impressions. Others let go of them. Temperament theory eventually settled on four divisions that I picture like this:


The fastest way to determine your temperament is to ask yourself two questions. One pegs you as either an extrovert or an introvert. The other pegs you as a people person or idea person.

Cholerics and sanguines, the two top temperaments on the chart, are extroverts. That does not mean that they are both "people people." Instead, think of extroverts as people who are outwardly focused. They learn what they think by talking. They need lots of time interacting with others and the world around them. They tend to be full of physical energy.

Melancholics and phlegmatics are introverts. In other words, they are inwardly focused. They think first, then speak. They need lots of time alone. They usually have less physical energy than extroverts. They need more sleep to function at their best.

Here is your first question: Do you react quickly to stimuli, news, or an unexpected turn of events? If yes, you are an extrovert. If you need to think before reacting, you are an introvert.

Besides dividing the temperament square horizontally, we can divide it vertically. The temperaments on the left, cholerics and melancholics, are interested in ideas. The temperaments on the right, sanguines and phlegmatics, are interested in people.

The second question helps you determine which side you fit into. Do you hold on to impressions for a long time? For example, do you nurse past hurts? Do you have a hard time moving on? If so, you are choleric or melancholic. If you react quickly, but just as quickly move on, you are sanguine. If you react slowly and mildly and can leave the past behind, you are a phlegmatic.

Why do temperaments matter for Catholics? Fr. Conrad Hock wrote:

One of the most reliable means of learning to know oneself is the study of the temperaments. For if a man is fully cognizant of his temperament, he can learn easily to direct and control himself. If he is able to discern the temperament of others, he can better understand and help them. 

Now that I know my temperament, I realize that most of my spiritual and interpersonal struggles stem from temperamental strengths or weaknesses. Self-knowledge, the saints tell us, is essential for spiritual growth. I understand myself so much better than I used to! I realize that some things I thought were great virtues, were just natural, unlearned tendencies I did not merit. I understand why some habits seem impossible for me to overcome.

I also understand others better. I am more sympathetic towards friends' and family members' foibles. I try to work with their temperaments, especially with my husband and kids. I can see things from their perspective.

Here are some fun ways of looking at the temperaments, to help you grasp the main characteristics of each.

The temperaments as animals:

choleric - lion

sanguine - chimpanzee

phlegmatic - golden retriever
melancholic - beaver


In scientific terms:

choleric - the Big Bang

sanguine - a star

phlegmatic - inertia

melancholic - gravity


Motivation:

choleric - control

sanguine - fun

phlegmatic - peace

melancholic - perfection


Reaction to temperament tests:

choleric - My temperament is the best.

sanguine - Can I be what he is? [The sanguine conforms to the group.]

phlegmatic - I can't decide what I am!

melancholic - I don't believe in temperaments.


Most people have a primary and secondary temperament. These mixes can't be between opposites. In other words, these combinations don't work:

phlegmatic/choleric
choleric/phlegmatic
sanguine/melancholic
melancholic /sanguine

But most people would be one of these:

phlegmatic/melancholic (or the reverse)
melancholic/choleric  (or the reverse)
choleric/sanguine (or the reverse)
sanguine/phlegmatic (or the reverse)

These pairings share a common reaction time or length of holding on to impressions. The impossible combinations are opposites in both areas.

So, do you know your temperament? Does this knowledge help you? Feel free to ask me questions to help pinpoint yours (and your family members').


+++++++


Thank you, Connie! Readers?

RIP Justice Antonin Scalia

Requiescat in pace Antonin Scalia.

You were a brilliant mind, an exceptional jurist, and a true patriot.

Most importantly, you were a faithful Catholic, a beloved husband, 

a father of nine (including a priest), and a grandfather to 30+. 

May we take your words to heart:

1936-2016

Margo's faith story!

I really mean it when I say that I write this blog for the lurkers. Lurkers are that huge and hidden part of the iceberg that stays below the surface; we rarely, if ever, get a glimpse of them. However, the lurkers are out there reading, and they are especially watching the debates and dialogues that go on in the comment box. 

Several times a month, lurkers email me and tell me how those discussions have affected or deepened their faith life, prompted a conversion or reversion to the Catholic Church, or perhaps just broadened their perspective. Because the comment box is so compelling to them, I tip my hat to all of you on all sides of the issues, because you are essential to what we do here in the Bubble. It's an unexpected little family that we have created together, and I am sure I do not thank you enough.

In my last post, I gave a little teaser about Margo's conversion story and her deep passion for the virtue of chastity, and how even a feminist abortion supporter encouraged her to write it for the Bubble. So, for a powerful example of how you all have helped work in a person's faith life, I give you our very own, very active, always respectful and beloved Bubble participant, Margo!!

Margo Basso: My Conversion Story

Hello to everyone in my favorite Bubble :) I am honored, thrilled, and appreciative of Leila providing me this opportunity of guest posting in her Little Catholic Bubble, a blog that I’ve been following for nearly 5 years now! The following is my story of first discovering it…

First, a bit of backstory. I am 25 years old, and I grew up as a “cradle Catholic”, attended Catholic school from kindergarten - 8th grade, then switched to public school for two reasons: 1) I was SO sick of uniforms haha, and more seriously 2) the Catholic high schools in my area are better known as “college prep” schools, and at the time, I was just an average student who wasn’t sure I’d actually end up going to college; my local public high school offered a vast variety of classes in areas besides the standard Math/Science/English/Social Studies.

Having gone through nine years of Catholic school, I knew a lot of superficial facts about the Catholic faith: I knew all the common Bible stories, memorized several prayers, and I knew that Jesus loved me unconditionally. But I never learned any reasons behind the beliefs, and I had an "all roads lead to God/it doesn't matter what religion you are" understanding of things. Thus, I began high school with a more relativistic view on life (though I couldn’t have defined relativism if you asked me). To me, religion was something private and personal, not to be "imposed" on others. It didn’t matter what religion a person was or if they practiced a religion at all…as long as they were a “good person” and didn’t do anything horrible like murder or steal.

Although I was at a public high school, I still got deeply involved with my parish’s high school youth ministry and Confirmation-prep program (I received Confirmation in the spring of my junior year of high school). I instantly hit it off with Jim, the youth minister, who was a fun, enthusiastic, wacky, caring man in his early 30s. He even started a “teen mass” where he gave the homilies and had Christian rock music (present-day Margo cringes at this). I actually enjoyed going to mass and youth group because of Jim and my other friends. I learned the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit and the fruits of the Holy Spirit. But anything in terms of morality or Catholicism being the fullness of all Truth? Nope! Heck, Confirmation was presented to me as a “Catholic bar mitzvah” -- I became an adult in the Church and could choose to practice the faith however I wished. By the time I was confirmed, Jim was no longer youth minister (a tragedy for teenage Margo). After that, the youth ministry fell apart and I fell away from a regular practice of Catholicism.

I never, ever stopped believing in God, I just began to be Catholic "on my own terms". This meant maintaining a relationship with God through prayer, occasionally reading the Bible, and treating others nicely. Mass and the other Sacraments? Those were boring, and I couldn’t see how they related to or were necessary for my life at all. During my senior year of high school, I got involved with a Protestant bible study for high schoolers called YoungLife. One of my favorite parts of it was that it didn’t align itself with any specific denomination. This comforted me, because I really had no label for my faith besides “Christian”. Fast forward to the summer before college (yes, I did end up deciding to try college at a mid-sized, private, non-religious school called Bradley University in central Illinois), and I distinctly remember praying for God to reveal what religion I should follow since I saw merits to both my cradle Catholicism as well as Protestantism. Within a few days of arriving at campus, God led me to the Newman Center, and He gradually introduced me to new depths of the Catholic faith. Peoria, Illinois just happens to be the hometown of Venerable Fulton J. Sheen, so once I found out that the diocesan Cathedral (which was a few miles from Bradley) was where Fulton Sheen once served and was ordained, I quickly got my hands on his books and fell in love with his old television show, Life is Worth Living.

Fast forward to the summer after my sophomore year - July 2011 - when I came across the Little Catholic Bubble blog. At this point, I had a much improved grasp on the Catholic faith, had received Confession and was a daily-Mass attendee (shout out to my Newman Center for having 9 PM daily Mass for students!). I still didn’t have a firm grasp, though, on the teachings regarding sexuality. I agreed with the Church’s teachings out of obedience.

So how did I find the Bubble? One of my good friends, Will, was a senior when I was a freshman in college, and I originally had a crush on him. Then he went to seminary after graduating, so I completely stopped crushing on him and was a perfect angel…LOL, not quite, but that’s a WHOLE other story…. Anyways, being me, someone with anal attention to detail, I noticed that he “liked” a Bubble link on Facebook that one of his seminarian friends posted. What was the link? It was the “Gay, Catholic, and Doing Fine” post.

The fact that Will “liked” it plus the intriguing title drew me in and boy did it. The only way I can describe it is the Holy Spirit lighting a fire on my heart for the virtue of chastity…somehow it all clicked in my mind, and I wanted to know how to discuss this powerful virtue with others. So, I checked out the comments section of Leila’s blog and wow! I was so impressed with how REAL it was! Unlike other comment sections that filled with nasty language, these comments actually had meat to them.

So then I spent the entire rest of my summer reading through not only every Bubble post, but every comment as well! It was like a story to me as I got to know the regular commenters. My favorite memory is from my low-tech days. Back then, I was mostly relying on my iPod touch (especially on a road trip with my father to the east coast to visit relatives), which at the time would only allow me to have a maximum of seven browser windows open at a time -- so I would have seven Bubble posts open while on the road, and then would get seven more opened at rest stops/hotels, so it took me awhile but by golly I did it!

Ever since, I’ve been super on fire for the virtue of chastity (as the regulars here have probably noticed). I’m even heading out to San Diego in just a few weeks for the Catholic Answers’ National Conference “Restoring Marriage Today”. It’s crazy to think of how far I’ve come. Back in high school, as I mentioned earlier, I was relativistic about everything. I didn’t even really know what abortion was, though I considered myself pro-life because it seemed like the better side. But who was I to expect other people to feel the same way? My favorite television show was The OC (teen soap opera VERY heavy on hookups, fooling around, etc.) now I can’t stand to watch that show.

I’d like to be able to say that I am 100% pristine and have never struggled with chastity myself, but that would be a lie. I was tested heavily during my first serious relationship that lasted for five months in 2014, and I now have a much better understanding of the true difficulty of mastering this virtue.

Recently, God has brought this story full circle in my life, as He blessed me with the friendship of a young man (10 months younger than I) who is extremely similar to “Steve Gershom” (Joseph Prever), the author of the “Gay, Catholic, and Doing Fine” post that initially drew me to the Bubble. His name is Tom and we have the BEST conversations about life, emotions, following Christ, why same-sex marriage is impossible, etc. And he is even discerning a vocation with the Oblates of Mary in Boston. Gotta love how God works, right??

Thank you, Margo! The Bubble has been made richer by your presence, and now we know how God was working with you all along, bringing you ever more deeply into your Catholic Faith! And thank you again to all the members of this great Bubble family -- contributors, commenters, and lurkers alike! 

A laugh and a teaser

Still writing the book (I believe I'm 3/4 of the way there??!!) and watching my house go to heck (wait, that happened even before the book!), so I desperately need thought we could all use a non-partisan, non-sectarian laugh! I just love, love, love this video parody of Adele's "Hello" -- for those of us who are allergic to exercise and healthy eating, but who love to sing at the top of our lungs!

And a little teaser: You all know Margo, a very active member of our Bubble family! Well, Margo was telling a bit of her story on a thread on my Facebook page, about how she came to embrace the virtue of chastity with such a passion. I hadn't really heard the story before, and I asked her to fill in some of the details. Then, a non-Christian abortion-advocate friend suggested that Margo write her story for the Bubble, and I agreed! When both sides of the spectrum want to hear a story, then it's worth posting here!

Next post will be Margo's story! :)

The three types of men who support abortion

The other day I read perhaps the best article on abortion that I've ever read, and I started looking through the combox. There was one man, John, who seemed to be making the bulk of the pro-"choice" arguments, and so, like many others there, I engaged him.

He and I went back and forth a bit, but a red flag came up for me when the answers to very simple questions were met with multiple long and (seemingly) lofty philosophical treatises, metaphysics trumping science (the old "personhood" question), a limited understanding of history, and analogies that didn't make logical connections and/or proper distinctions. I tried to pull him back to basics, attempting a pseudo-socratic dialogue, but his words and paragraphs -- and justifications -- kept multiplying.

John insisted that his arguments for the killing of the unborn are based on "nuanced" considerations about which he has given much thought. And don't get me wrong, I am sure that he has indeed given a lot of thought to how he and society can justify abortion.

But as his academic theories, word play, and relativism reached higher and higher into the ethers, I came back with this:

Don't whitewash what you believe. Own it. Don't multiply words to justify it. Own it. You believe that an entire class of human beings may be killed at will by the stronger and more powerful. There is hardly a more fitting description of oppression. When the strong kill the weak, and champion it, it is most dishonorable. As a woman, it's the most disturbing thing in the world to find men such as yourself, who instead of protecting and providing, join the cads and the players who love nothing more than to help women get rid of their "mistakes." 

I hope you will be an honorable man one day and protect the weak, not champion their killing. We have a crisis of manhood in America, and a strong, honorable, decent man is hard to find these days. Step up to your role, John.

His response was to quickly wave away my challenge ("One person's strong, honorable, and decent man is another's trash," he said, whatever that means), and return to the ethers of philosophy and why he has decided that some humans are less human than others.

Which brings me to my thoughts today. What follows is pretty much a stream-of-consciousness in which I attempt my own amateur (!) psychoanalysis of men who support abortion.

As I see it, there are three general types of male abortion supporters.


1. The Ignorant Apathetic

The ignorant and/or apathetic man supports abortion for no other reason than it's legal and it's what we have done in America for some 40+ years. "Sure, I support a woman's right to choose." And that's it. Not much thought goes into it, not much investment one way or the other. Just your typical man in the mushy-middle of morality and policy, a ball bearing who goes with the tilt of the culture.


2. The Lech (otherwise known as the cad, the reprobate, the rake, the libertine, the debaucher...)

The lecherous man supports abortion for obvious reasons: He uses women as objects for his own selfish pleasure, eschews any responsibility for her heart or her human dignity, and needs abortion to be readily available in case the baby-making act makes a baby. The lech demands consequence-free sex, and he must have freedom to use and abuse at will, with no respect for life, love, honor, or moral obligation. Abortion is a necessary "good" in his life, and he will vociferously defend its legality and accessibility.


3. The Man Trained Against Manhood

This man, in my humble opinion, is the saddest case. I believe this man is exemplified by Barack Obama. Stay with me.

I've often wondered why Obama, who is generally such a weak and unmanly man, would be so fierce, unyielding, and completely committed to abortion (even voting to let a child die who survives abortion). Why? How could this be? But it's a phenomenon that makes sense if we consider his background.

Obama was raised by a radical-leftist-secular-feminist-socialist mother. His father wanted nothing to do with little Barack, essentially abandoning him, and became simply a myth and a longing in young Barack's life and dreams. It's actually incredibly tragic to ponder, truly heartbreaking.

So, this fatherless boy was not raised to know what it means to be a strong man who stays, protects, provides. He had no idea, and in fact the opposite was modeled to him by his absent, negligent father. Meantime, he had his strong, outspoken, and deeply committed feminist mother who taught him what a "man" should be, according to her radical template. Obama himself has described his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, as "the dominant figure in my formative years.... The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics." He called her "a lonely witness for secular humanism."

Not surprisingly, he grew up and married another strong radical feminist, Michelle Robinson. Both these women were and are the dominant forces his life, and they no doubt pounded it home to him that women have an absolute right to abortion. I'd be surprised if Barack Obama has ever had a true friendship with a strong pro-life woman, or even meaningful interaction with one. But the message he received time and again, from all the women in his life -- the woman that raised and formed him, the woman that married him, and even the radical women he hung out with at Columbia and later in politics -- goes like this: "You men have no right to tell us women what to do with our bodies. We have a right to abortion on demand and without apology. You are either with us on this most basic of freedoms, or you are a misogynist brute oppressor."

What is a fatherless, lonely, ungrounded boy/man to do? I can hardly blame men like this, because at least for a time, they simply don't know any better. They defer to the women they love regarding "women's issues" and "women's bodies" and "justice for women", because they really believe it's not their place to speak. These men really believe that this is how one "supports" women.

They don't know that millions and millions of women do not believe that our liberation, success, and joy hinges on a contrived death match between mother and child.

They don't know that legions of strong, outspoken, intelligent women (including the classical feminists) do not accept that the "right" to shred and dismember our own offspring is essential to being "a fully participating member of society".

They don't realize that inherent in honorable manhood is the loving protection of the most weak and vulnerable.

I can only speculate that it's because they have rarely seen an honorable man up close. Maybe they haven't had a role model of a man who sacrifices his life for others, keeps his commitments, and steps up to defend and protect women and children.

But at base, this type of man champions abortion because he believes that's what he's supposed to do to show that he cares about women. His manhood is deeply impoverished, for sure, and it's been trained out of him, and I feel most sorry for this kind of man.


So there you have it. My thoughts for this day. Take them or leave them.

But women, we have a huge role here in supporting our men. We must continue to impress upon the men in our lives (and online, frankly) that real men, honorable men, are those who step up and protect the weak and the vulnerable, not try to find pseudo-intellectual loopholes to strip human rights from a whole class of defenseless human beings. We must impress upon them that they are hard-wired for this task, and that we women want them to be good men.

John from the combox, I don't know what shaped your views on abortion, but I want you to be a good, strong man. We women are cheering you on. You were made for this challenge. Live up to it, my friend. We need you.

+++++++

All you need to know about abortion

That's really all you need to know.

Because you already know this:

We don't target and kill innocent human beings.
We don't use violence to solve our problems.
We don't pit mothers against their own children in a death match.

Roe v. Wade is a dark and evil mark on our nation, and it must not stand.

Pray, march, speak, and work to end abortion.

Lord, have mercy.

Man to Man: Combatting the Crisis of Manhood

All right, men! Stop right now and find ten minutes to watch this incredible video that was lovingly prepared just for you by other Catholic men who are your brothers (and in the case of Diocese of Phoenix men, it comes from your spiritual father, Bishop Olmsted).

Women, grab your men and (after you watch this) invite them to immerse themselves in this message.

Too many Catholic men -- and too many of all men, frankly -- are floundering, wandering, trying to find their mission and identity. Let's get to it:

(Go here for Spanish subtitles.)

The Death of Friendship: The heartbreaking fallout of the gay/transgender movements

All my children and grandchildren have gone back to home/school, and now I continue on with book writing and emails (help, Lord!). But this is something that needs discussing....


I came across this article (please, please, read the whole thing) and it has put words to the ache I have felt in my heart as I watch in real life even clearly non-homosexual, non-"gender fluid" teens suddenly begin to question their sexuality and even find an opposite-sex alter ego.

From "How to Stop Sexualizing Everything", emphasis mine:

The more friendship is misunderstood and ignored, the more people will identify as homosexual and bisexual. The more we condition our perceptions in a sexual way and the more children are exposed to sex even before they develop meaningful friendships, the less likely they will be able to separate healthy nonsexual feelings from sexual ones. Sex will become the defining feature of all their feelings. Eros will have slain phileo.

The death of true same-sex friendship.

I could have never imagined it even a few years ago, but now American children are expected -- expected -- to question their sexuality and "gender identity". They are not to assume they are heterosexual or male/female according to their very biology. They are not to be bound by those "societal constructs" which are now seen as destructive and repressive, even abusive.

On the heels of the first article, I read a brilliant analysis by (my new favorite author) Anthony Esolen, who writes in "A Requiem for Friendship":

Language is not language if it is not communal; it is a neat trick of political abracadabra to argue for an individual’s right to change the very medium of our thought and our social intercourse. If clothing is optional on a beach, then that is a nude beach. It cannot be a nude beach for some and an ordinary beach for others; to wear clothes at that beach at the very least means something that it had not meant before. If you may paint your house phosphorescent orange and violet, and you persuade a couple of your neighbors to do likewise, you no longer have what anybody would call a historic neighborhood. 

If all of Kate’s friends leap into bed with whatever male gives them a hearty dinner at Burger King and a round of miniature golf, and Kate chooses instead to kiss her date once on the cheek and leave him on the porch, she will suggest to everybody that she is a prude. She may be, or may not be; she may be more firmly in the grip of lust than they are, for all we know, and may just detest the boy. But her actions have connotations they did not use to have. 

Imagine a world wherein the taboo has been broken and incest is loudly and defiantly celebrated. Your wife’s unmarried brother puts his hand on your daughter’s shoulder. That gesture, once innocent, must now mean something, or at least suggest something. If the uncle were wise and considerate, he would not make it in the first place. You see a father hugging his teenage daughter as she leaves the car to go to school. The possibility flits before your mind. The language has changed, and the individual can do nothing about it. 

By now the reader must see the point. I might say that of all human actions there is nothing more powerfully public than what two consenting adults do with their bodies behind (we hope) closed doors. Open homosexuality, loudly and defiantly celebrated, changes the language for everyone. If a man throws his arm around another man’s waist, it is now a sign—whether he is on the political right or the left, whether he believes in biblical proscriptions of homosexuality or not. 

If a man cradles the head of his weeping friend, the shadow of suspicion must cross your mind. If a teenage boy is found skinny-dipping with another boy—not five of them, but two—it is the first thing you will think, and you will think it despite the obvious fact that until swim trunks were invented this was exactly how two men or boys would go for a swim. 

Because language is communal, the individual can choose to make a sign or not. He cannot determine what the sign is to mean, not to others, not to the one he signals, and not even to himself.

You see what he's getting at, right? You see what we have lost? What boys and young men have lost, especially? Please take the time to read it all.

The loss of pure, un-sexualized, un-suspicious same-sex friendship is a catastrophe. How on earth do we get it back?