Quick Takes: Incredulity and Outrage (or, A Normal Day in My Life)

(The underlying outrage here is that my font may be coming up as SCRIPT on some of your computers! I did not format it that way, and I can't do anything to stop it, apparently. Blogger, why are you my nemesis?)




1) Some of us had a little fun last week getting banned from the "Catholic for Choice" facebook page. It's easy and you should join us! If you have a facebook account, simply go here and write a "recommendation" or other comment. Here are the two I used, and they got me banned from the page within hours!

"Can you imagine that some Catholics 'choose' to be faithful? It's awesome!"


"Catholics for Choice? Well, you could choose to have integrity and not be part of an organization that you disdain and oppose. I encourage you to make that choice. :) "

Be creative (and respectful!), then enjoy the thrill of being censored and blocked by those who claim tolerance and "choice" for all!

2) Siblings are illegal in China. The enforcement of the "one-child policy" over the decades has been brutal, violent, unconscionable. Recently a story and photo of one instance of abuse and murder has gone viral, this time within China, where the outrage of the Chinese people has prompted an apology from the government. Unfortunately, what happened to this woman, her husband, and their child is not uncommon. The "one-child" policy still stands (with many on the American left supportive of it), and the evil will undoubtedly continue for some time. To see this one horrible incident exposed in the light, go to the following link, which I warn you is very graphic:

Woman forcibly aborted at seven months

And, if you are on facebook, you should consider following and "friending" Reggie Littlejohn, a courageous American woman and Yale Law School grad who has dedicated her life to exposing these atrocities (and is the president of Women's Rights Without Frontiers):

Reggie Littlejohn -- a true feminist hero!

3) Roger Ebert's review of For Greater Glory perplexes me. The famed movie critic says that the film is "well-made" and "an impressive achievement"…. except for the Catholic theme. Read it, here, and tell me where I'm misinterpreting. Ebert is an ex-Catholic, which could explain a lot, but is this a professional review? For example, what on earth is this doing in a movie review?

It is well-made, yes, but has such pro-Catholic tunnel vision I began to question its view of events. One important subplot involves a 12-year-old boy choosing to die for his faith. Of course the federal troops who shot him were monsters, but the film seems to approve of his decision and includes him approvingly in a long list of Cristeros who have achieved sainthood or beatification after their deaths in the war. {emphases mine}

Huh? He doesn't believe that Christians would die for their faith, die for Christ? Goodness, Christians have been doing that, inspirationally and consistently, for, oh, about… TWENTY CENTURIES! Suddenly we find such courage, honor and integrity ignoble? When did that happen? What virtue, Mr. Ebert, is displayed by a Christian who would not die for his Lord, but instead would denounce and betray Him?

Ebert ends his review with a bizarre anti-Catholic statement that has nothing to do with the movie, but inexplicably seems only designed to slam the Church:

If it had not hewed so singlemindedly to the Catholic view and included all religions under the banner of religious liberty, I believe it would have been more effective. If your religion doesn't respect the rights of other religions, it is lacking something. {emphasis mine}

What the heck is that last line? Can anyone tell me what place that has in a movie review? And, besides, why would a movie recounting a war against Catholics need to "include all religions" in the retelling? Hello?

Sigh. But to leave things on a good note, check out this interview with the incredible young actor, Mauricio Kuri, who plays Blessed Jose. How beautiful that this young man puts Christ first and aspires to be as holy as the martyr he portrays.


4) I have no words for this, though it's not uncommon:

Parents Furious After School Teaches Graphic Sex Class

The whole thing makes me ill. If my children heard things described like that when they were eleven, they would rightly be traumatized. I have learned that innocence is not something that the sexual-rights crowd values, not even in children. Thank goodness homeschooling is still an option in America.

Which segues to this story from Sweden, the model nation for so many on the left….

5) I almost choked when I saw it today, but apparently many of you have been following this story since 2009:

Swedish court declares mom, dad of abducted home-schooled boy to be fit parents

Well, how lovely of tolerant, liberal Sweden to consider returning the son whom they stole from his parents three years ago as the family was boarding a plane to leave the country so that they could homeschool their child in peace! This is Sweden, not North Korea (or China, see Take #2), right?

6) Okay, here is an outrage that is almost completely unknown. My brilliant and noble friend Dorinda Bordlee, a pro-life attorney at the Bioethics Defense Fund, read the entire 2,700 page ObamaCare law (yes, she will not spend any time in Purgatory), and guess what hidden mandate she found? A $1-a-month per enrollee abortion premium to be put in a fund to be used specifically for elective abortions. And you will never even know about it, even though you will be the ones directly paying for it, to the tune of $12 a year times millions of Americans! Planned Parenthood needn't worry about defunding by the states, as this billion-dollar slush fund will keep them more than rolling in the green. If you can stomach it, read all the details, here:

What Rules Us

God bless Dorinda for uncovering this sick/slick little plan. Now we can only hope that America gets the word.

7) Here is the precious orphan I want to show you today! Meet three-year-old Holly, who has Down Syndrome:

Holly is outgoing and a giggler! Click her picture for more information.

I actually have a friend who is head over heels in love with Holly and would give anything to bring her home. Due to circumstances beyond her control, she is unable to adopt right now. She prays that this little girl (who has a sizeable grant of over $2500 that can be used toward the adoption) will find a family soon. Maybe you are Holly's family?


And if you want to win a $100 JCrew gift card from Catholic blogger Jennie, check out what she's doing for Stella (remember sweet Stella??), right here:

For Stella, A Giveaway

No donation necessary to enter! 

+++++++

PS: Just a quick heads up that I am going to "go dark" for July and will resume blogging again in August. I still have a couple of weeks! I hope I can survive the time away from the screen! I will also be off of facebook… the hiatus will help me get this house in order and pay attention to many things I've let go. Including reading, family time, and school prep! Ack, I hope I can do this, and you'd better all still be here when I get back!!

Have a great weekend, and thanks to Jen for hosting!



.

How Planned Parenthood talks to your teen

Warning: This post contains sexually explicit language and offensive material. I apologize in advance. 



I love teenagers. I am currently the mother of four teenagers (and four future teenagers) whose moral and spiritual formation is my highest priority.

As a Catholic, I believe it is a parent's sacred responsibility to give children truthful and complete information on sex and sexuality, carefully considering the individual latency stage of each child. As a mother, I speak with reverence for the beautiful gift of human sexuality, always mindful of the children's inherent dignity and innocence. That said, I have never refused to answer any of the many question posed to me by my children.

Planned Parenthood approaches the education of children a bit differently. To help illustrate the difference in philosophy, let's look at Planned Parenthood's outreach to our children, via their website for teens called TeenWire.

Once there, you will find a plethora of options:

Our Bodies
Sex and Masturbation
Relationships
Pregnancy
LGBTQ
Ask the Experts
Health Info & Services

Believe it or not, the following is some of the milder stuff on the site:

From What is Virginity?

Who's a virgin, and who’s not?

Most people would say that a virgin is someone who's never had sex — and by "sex," they often mean penetration of the vagina by the penis. This dictionary definition sounds simple enough, but it leaves a whole bunch of people out of the picture. There are a lot of straight people who don’t think of themselves as virgins because they’ve had lots of other kinds of sex. And then there are all the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people who may never have penile vaginal sex, but who hardly think of themselves as virgins. For all these folks, sex and virginity aren’t so rigidly defined.

Many people define sex in broader terms. For some, "sex" means vaginal, oral, or anal sex, while for others, it could mean mutual masturbation, manual stimulation (“hand job”), dry humping, or using sex toys to penetrate the vagina or anus. Lots of people feel that they "lose it" the first time they share an intimate sexual experience with someone else — not simply the first time penetration happens.

Some also believe that people have to give consent to lose their virginity — that virgins who are raped, for example, do not lose their virginity.

From Myths and Facts About Masturbation

Do girls masturbate?

The myth is that girls don’t masturbate.  Some people think that it's O.K. for guys to masturbate or have other kinds of sex, but that girls shouldn't. Unfortunately, our society is often more comfortable with men expressing their sexuality than with women, so many girls are taught not to masturbate — or not to admit to doing it. But the truth is, girls and women do masturbate, and there's no reason they shouldn't. In fact, one study showed that women who masturbate have higher self-esteem than those who don't.

From All About LGBTQ (FYI, that is "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or questioning")

What’s a sexual orientation?

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and straight are sexual orientations. All these sexual orientations are perfectly normal. Scientists are not yet sure exactly what causes someone to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or straight, but recent research shows that there are biological factors in place before birth that influence people's sexual orientation.

Our sexual orientation is about who we’re attracted to sexually. A woman who is sexually attracted to other women often calls herself a lesbian. A man who is sexually attracted to other men often calls himself gay. People who are attracted to both women and men often called themselves bisexual. And people who are attracted to people of the other sex often call themselves straight.

Why do we say "often"? Because some people don't think these labels describe them accurately. Some people don't like the idea of labels at all!

From Your Vulva, Vagina, and Breasts:

What do breasts have to do with sex?

Breasts can give you a lot of sexual pleasure. They are basically "freebies," since you can't get pregnant or catch sexually transmitted infection by going to "second base." Most girls' breasts and nipples are sensitive to stroking, touching, and kissing. Looking at, feeling, and kissing breasts turns on a lot of people. Some partners are clumsy in the way they handle breasts and need to be told or shown how to do it in a pleasing way. Some women, of course, aren't crazy about having their breasts touched, and this is normal, too.



From What is Sex?

What is oral sex?

Oral sex is using one's mouth to stimulate a partner's genitals.

Just as with any kind of sex, everybody is different — with various likes and dislikes, so communication is the key. In order to make sex more satisfying, it's important to be clear with yourself and your partner about what kinds of sex you want to do and don't want to do.

Learning how to give oral sex is usually done by letting each other know what feels good and what doesn't — so both partners can learn what’s pleasurable.

Although there is no chance for pregnancy to happen from oral sex, unprotected oral sex puts both partners at risk for a number of sexually transmitted infections, whether they are giving or receiving genital stimulation. Although the risks of infection are generally quite a bit lower with unprotected oral sex than they are with unprotected vaginal or anal intercourse, using a barrier during oral sex can further decrease those risks. For safer oral sex, use a condom to cover the penis, or a Sheer Glyde dam, cut-open condom, or plastic wrap to cover the vulva or anus.

{deep, cleansing breath...}

There are links to other (more adult-oriented) sites and sources for teens to explore, and there are lots of creepy pictures of gay and straight teens in various romantic/sexual poses, including a shot of a girl putting her hand down her pink polka-dotted panties to masturbate.

Yes, this is the same Planned Parenthood that comes into your public schools and talks authoritatively to your children about responsible sex. They are the "experts" after all.

(By the way, if you want to know what "the experts" told a teen about how to facilitate anal sex, you'll just have to go see for yourself. I can only imagine what I would find if I had the time or the stomach to look through all the kids' questions.)

Okay, I think that's enough for now. That's about all the "non-judgmental education" I can take.

The only part of this post that doesn't make me queasy?

The U.S. House of Representatives voted today to defund Planned Parenthood! 


We are one step closer to ensuring that not a dime of our taxes goes to this stalwart of the Culture of Death.


Next step? Call your U.S. Senators and ask them to do the same.

And pray.

{The conversation continues here.}

My correspondence with a sex educator, Part III

Read Parts I and II, here and here.


A few days later, we responded to the sex educator:


November 20, 1995


Dear Mrs. [Name],


Thank you for your letter. It is clear that you and your husband truly do care about the children you are trying to educate, and we respect that.


However, you misunderstand much of what our article was about. You claim that we don't want information about sex to be taught at school. Clearly, that's not what our piece said. We simply want the truth to be told to young people, and that truth should be told in the context of the very highest societal standards.


Some of your implications about us and our beliefs are a bit far-fetched. For example, we know that many children do not come from homes that follow "traditional fundamentalist Christian beliefs." Neither of us is a fundamentalist, and in fact, both our husbands are quite secular (one of them is Jewish).* Nevertheless, they and we believe that the highest standard for sex is within marriage. Surely you must realize that teen abstinence is not simply an arbitrary issue of morality as you imply, but a standard of civilization. You want to teach kids about "responsible" sex, but there is no such thing as "responsible" unmarried teen sex! It is by definition irresponsible, and for an adult in a position of power to remain non-judgmental about that fact is hard for us to swallow.


Forget religious morality -- isn't abstinence the best thing for teens' emotional and physical health, as well as for the stability of society? You already know the answer, yet you won't hold up abstinence as the expected standard for teens. And you say the word "marriage" is "judgmental," which left us completely stunned. Who in the world and among all the world's cultures, ethnicities and religions -- except for the tiniest minority of fringe groups -- is offended by the standard of marriage? The day marriage starts to become a negotiable, even undesirable institution, is the day that a society starts to collapse. Surely you must know that all societies that survive are built on marriage. To refuse to hold up marriage as a standard for our society is itself irresponsible and is an attitude that directly helps fuel the very problems you are trying to address!


You admit that many of your students have irresponsible and neglectful parents. Yet you claim that your concern is not to offend the values of these families or parents! Do you see the tragic inconsistency with this posturing? What values of those homes do you wish not to offend? The value of drug and alcohol abuse? The value of neglecting and/or abusing children? The value of moving from one sex partner to another while the kids watch and ultimately imitate? The value of complete lack of parental involvement or concern in any aspect of a kid's life? Yet somehow you are afraid of offending these parents' (if you can call them that) religious or moral values? These kids -- who most need someone, some adult in a position of power or influence (maybe you) to actually hold up a societal standard for them for the first time in their lives -- are instead getting more of what they have (haven't) gotten at home. What a missed opportunity! Shame on all adults who don't hold up the highest standard of behavior for those kids who need to hear from some adult in their life that there are expected standards, standards that will serve them well.


You've admitted that the values you model for your kids and grandkids are the values of marriage, commitment and parental responsibility. You know the values that kids need to succeed in this world. Forgive us, but if the highest standards are good enough for your kids, whey aren't they good enough for less fortunate kids? Isn't it a bit condescending (liberals might even use the term "racist") to assume that the less fortunate kids you teach are somehow incapable of living up to the high standards that you and we set for our own kids? And aren't they the ones in our community who most need to hear about high standards? And isn't it selling out those kids if you teach them the lowest common denominator of sexual behavior? 


We realize that "while AIDS is sexually transmitted, so is life," as you said. But unmarried teens should be transmitting neither! They have no business having sex, risking their own lives as well as the lives of the children they will very likely bring into the world. You surely know that where abstinence programs have been tried seriously, they have worked. We received a letter from a school nurse who gave us some fantastic and dramatic statistics from her school district after it committed itself to teaching abstinence. The same results are found around the country when abstinence-based programs are tried. Can it be that you are not aware of this?


You say you hope our kids will never need our services -- but that's one of the points of our article, that parents too often don't have a say (or even know!) what their kids are being taught in their public school! While we work hard to teach our children (against the prevailing culture) that sex is more than recreational activity, you are in the schools teaching moral relativism to our kids. Whether you admit it or not, you are undermining the values our kids are taught in the home. That is why many caring, concerned and responsible parents are up in arms these days. We should be able to send our kids to taxpayer-supported schools without you or another educator teaching our kids that heterosexual marriage is no better than any other sexual pairing -- something you yourself don't even believe! Bottom line: Adults should not implicitly nor explicitly condone teen sex. Kids should have age-appropriate information, but the message that unmarried teen sex is wrong must be unambiguous.


We know we won't convince you that every child, even the most disadvantaged, needs standards. All we ask, then, is that the truth be told. That's all we said in our article, as you'll see if you read it again critically. And the truth is, like smoking and drinking, sex is not an acceptable teen activity. We are baffled that the same people who have no qualms about teaching children that teen smoking is WRONG and dangerous (even though "they're gonna do it anyway"), will not also say to teens that having unmarried teen sex is WRONG and dangerous! And the consequences of teen sex are much more devastating than teen smoking. Telling teens that a condom or the notion of "serial monogamy" will protect them is flimsy protection to be sure. If teens are not mature enough to raise and nurture children, then they have no business having sex. This should not be controversial!


We are sorry if we sound harsh, but we are so frustrated by this philosophy that says societal standards are bad, or that adults should remain neutral. Too many kids these days have no adults who love or respect them enough to have high expectations from the, either at home or at school. We think that's a tragedy, and the kids are suffering mightily. Setting standards is not a mean and judgmental thing, it is the loving thing to do for our children, within our own families, and within the greater culture.


Sincerely,


Kim Manning    Leila Miller


I still remember waiting eagerly for her response to our letter. What surprised me then -- but does not surprise me today -- is that we never heard from her again.

I think the most disturbing part for me is knowing that adults in this society have abdicated their role. The most vulnerable, neglected children are the ones who most need to hear a message of hope and truth and dignity, and yet all they seem to hear is: "Let me help you to facilitate your catastrophically bad choices." It makes no earthly sense to me.

And the idea that "marriage" or "heterosexual" are judgmental concepts? I am still flabbergasted. But it's the same left-wing, social engineering mindset that recently proposed dropping the (discriminatory!) words "mother" and "father" from U.S. passport applications. Thankfully, that idea was shot down and scrapped. For now.

Anyway, this woman's letter is a perfect example of good intentions gone horribly wrong. I hope those at-risk kids she taught ultimately found their human dignity and worth somewhere, because Heaven knows they weren't ever going to find it in a condom.



*Within two years, both of our husbands became Catholic. Kim and I were their RCIA teachers! :)

My correspondence with a sex educator, Part II

Read Part I here.


So, shortly after the Arizona Republic ran our column on abstinence-based sex ed, we received the following letter:

November 6, 1995


[Name and address of sender]


Dear Ms. Manning and Miller,


My husband and I read your column "Just say yes to abstinence for students" and then checked to see if we had horns growing out of our heads. We are both American Red Cross trained and certified HIV/AIDS educators. We have done that educating in public schools on occasion. That probably puts us in your "free-love liberal" category.


Actually, we are the parents of nine and the grandparents of 13 (with another on the way). We are also in a "monogamous heterosexual relationship in the context of marriage." That is what we live and what we modeled for our children (something they took to with enthusiasm, judging from the number of grandkids!).


We feel you are giving "sex educators" a bad rap. Number one, the Red Cross treats AIDS as health education, not sex education.


It is true that we are taught to be what you call "non-judgmental," meaning we don't include moral teaching in our instruction. The reason should be obvious. We go into public schools where there are children of every conceivable racial, ethnic and religious persuasion. It is our job to try to reach all those children, not just the ones who belong to "our" group.


This is where we disagree with you. You seem to be saying that information about sex should be taught at home, and morality (in this case, your particular moral beliefs) should be taught in school. You have it backwards. This is the United States of America, and our Constitution guarantees that no one religious group will impose its beliefs on all its citizens.


Like it or not, there are children in the public schools whose families do not follow traditional fundamentalist Christian beliefs, and they have that right. Religion and morality should be taught in the homes, according to each family's belief system. Schools are for imparting information, not for imposing moral judgments.


If it makes you feel better, Red Cross instructors do teach abstinence as the best way to avoid AIDS. Of course, permanent abstinence would lead to the extinction of mankind (while AIDS is sexually transmitted, so is life) so we then recommend what we call "mutual monogamy." We leave out judgmental words like heterosexual or marriage, because we know some of the children listening to us are gay (homosexual monogamy is every bit as effective as heterosexual monogamy in avoiding AIDS), and many are from backgrounds where marriage is not held in high esteem. We need to reach those children, too! Every child deserves the information necessary to make intelligent, educated, responsible decisions about their sexual behavior.


We do tell the older children (high school age) about condoms. They need that information because many of them are sexually active. We also tell them that condoms are not 100 percent reliable. We explain that there is no such thing as "safe" sex, only responsible sex. I share the story about a young woman I knew who did all the right things. Unfortunately, her husband did not. She died of AIDS at the age of 26. That's why we use the term mutual monogamy.


My husband and I recently did an AIDS "teach in" at [a local Phoenix high school]. The majority of kids were non-white, and from disadvantaged homes (where parents are often absent or too burdened by life to parent effectively). I asked the students (as I do at the beginning of every talk) to give me a show of hands if their parents had ever given them any information about AIDS transmission. Not one hand went up. I then asked if they had previously had been given HIV/AIDS instruction in the school. Not one hand when up.


I didn't have to ask them if they were sexually active. There is a nursery and preschool on campus for the use of students with children.


In a perfect world, all children would grow up in homes with happily married, financially secure, socially and religiously correct parents who treasure their children and lovingly pass down the highest standards of moral and ethical behavior.


In reality, there are millions of kids outside that cozy picture.


These are the children we are trying to reach.


So, by all means teach your children your religious beliefs and moral standards at home. If you do (and if they buy it), they will never need my services.


Then leave my husband and me and others like us to do our job: which is not to morally corrupt children from good homes, but to try to save the lives of those who are not so fortunate.


Sincerely,


[Name]


Our response to come, in my next post....


+++++++


Footnote: I am NOT comparing the despicable criminal abortionist Finkel with this kind-hearted, if terribly misguided, sex educator, but as I transcribed her words today, I noticed that some of them bore a striking resemblance to Finkel's words. Liberal talking points? I have no idea, but it got my attention:


They refer to themselves as the devil, as if I had said it:
Sex Educator: My husband and I...checked to see if we had horns growing out of our heads. 
Abortionist Finkel: It made me want to polish my horns and my cloven hooves!


They remind me that they do their jobs without a moral compass:
Sex Educator: Schools are for imparting information, not for imposing moral judgments.
Abortionist Finkel: I do not project or inflict my personal spiritual beliefs into the personal tragedies of my patients.


They consider themselves heroic servants of the less fortunate:
Sex Educator: So, by all means teach your children your religious beliefs and moral standards at home. If you do (and if they buy it), they will never need my services. Then leave my husband and me and others like us to do our job....[trying to save the lives of the not so fortunate].
Abortionist Finkel: I am a servant of women. I provide them with service that they want, need, and seek out. I am a physician; not a prosecutor. ... I take a great amount of pride in being there for the woman of Arizona when they need a physician and a friend. 


There were other similarities as well. Anyway, it's not a scientific analysis, I just thought it was interesting.

My correspondence with a sex educator, Part I

So apparently when I have writer's  block, I reach back in time for material.

This time, I will recount an interesting exchange with a sex educator.

In our November 5, 1995 Arizona Republic column, Kim Manning and I lamented the "deluge of morally relative, 'non-judgmental' sex ed programs that have torn through public schools" and "failed to protect America's youth." We went on to laud a newly signed North Carolina sex education law, which included some good stuff:

• "...[P]arents have the primary responsibility for providing for the health and well-being of their children... for instilling values, ethics and character in their children... for educating their children in all areas, including the area of sexuality, and the state should not abridge this responsibility."

• Students will be taught "the positive benefits of abstinence until marriage and the risks of premarital sexual activity."

• Students will be taught to deal with peer pressure and will be given "reason, skills and strategies for remaining or becoming abstinent" with instructors providing positive reinforcement.

• "...[A]ny instruction concerning the use of contraceptives or prophylactics shall provide accurate statistical information on their effectiveness and failure rates for preventing pregnancy and [STDs], including AIDS, in actual use among adolescent populations."

• Students will be taught that abstinence "is the only certain means of avoiding out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, and other associated health and emotional problems" and that "a mutually faithful monogamous heterosexual relationship in the context of marriage is the best lifelong means" of avoiding STDs and AIDS. Abstinence before marriage is to be taught as the expected standard.

After praising the law, we went on to say:

Some won't like this conservative approach. After all, the liberal approach has been forced on the rest of us for a generation. Everyone's best bet is to support school choice, and we parents will all be free to choose the education we want for our kids. But in the meantime, adults have an absolute responsibility to tell children the truth, and above all, to set the highest standard of behavior. 

It's no coincidence that when the greater culture once supported abstinence, the teen culture encouraged virginity. We've since done a 180-degree turn....

If almost half of high school students today have stood firm against the unrelenting cultural pressure to have sex, imagine how many more might abstain if they were supported in that decision.

Our column didn't sit well with some, and we soon received a letter from a local sex educator, respectfully taking us on.

Stay tuned....