Parents, do you know what the latency period is?

I admit that I was shocked to learn that many (most?) young and not-so-young Catholic moms in my Facebook book club were unfamiliar with what the Church calls "the latency period." We were going over the first three chapters of my book, Raising Chaste Catholic Men, and I discovered that this was a new term to most of the women who commented. I decided, and was encouraged, to put this in a blog post, so here we are!

An excerpt from Chapter Three, "When They Are Little":


Most of what you need to know about chastity and your sons’ [and daughters'] early years can be summed up in two sentences:

1.  Respect the latency period.
2.  Don’t freak out about stuff.

The latency period, or what St. John Paul II called the “years of innocence,” spans from about age 5 to puberty and is easy enough to understand. From The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality [Guidelines for Education Within the Family]:

This period of tranquility and serenity must never be disturbed by unnecessary information about sex. During those years, before any physical sexual development is evident, it is normal for the child's interests to turn to other aspects of life…. So as not to disturb this important natural phase of growth, parents will recognize that prudent formation in chaste love during this period should be indirect, in preparation for puberty, when direct information will be necessary. [#78]

Our Church tells us to respect the latency period of children, which would ideally last until the child hits adolescence; however, we live in a society that does not respect a child’s innocence. In fact, the world around us seeks to destroy innocence, by design. The educational establishment, advertisers, books, movies, television, and video games — all push to sexualize children at a young age. In fact, entities like SIECUS and Planned Parenthood, which have routine access to public schools, believe that children should be immersed in secular, relativistic sex education from birth. 

What to do when the latency period is violated? We must step in. Again, from the Church: 

A further problem arises when children receive premature sex information from the mass media or from their peers who have been led astray or received premature sex education. In this case, parents will have to begin to give carefully limited sexual information, usually to correct immoral and erroneous information or to control obscene language. [#84]

Okay, obviously there is more information from the Church about the protection of the latency period (read the entire Vatican document, as I did many years ago), but there you have it. What many moms and dads have intuited actually has a name: The latency period.

Everything in this culture wants to violate those "years of innocence," so be aware. Don't freak out, and all is not lost if your little kids are exposed to too much, too soon, but there should be a certain level of "sheltering" going on, for sure. That is part of your job as a parent.

What is your young, pre-adolescent child learning about if he is not learning about sex? Again from the Vatican document:

During those years, before any physical sexual development is evident, it is normal for the child's interests to turn to other aspects of life. The rudimentary instinctive sexuality of very small children has disappeared. Boys and girls of this age are not particularly interested in sexual problems, and they prefer to associate with children of their own sex. So as not to disturb this important natural phase of growth, parents will recognize that prudent formation in chaste love during this period should be indirect, in preparation for puberty, when direct information will be necessary. [#78]

During this stage of development, children are normally at ease with their body and its functions. They accept the need for modesty in dress and behaviour. Although they are aware of the physical differences between the two sexes, the growing child generally shows little interest in genital functions. The discovery of the wonders of creation which accompanies this phase and the experiences in this regard at home and in school should also be oriented towards the stages of catechesis and preparation for the sacraments which takes place within the ecclesial community. [#79]

As in the first years of life also during childhood, parents should encourage a spirit of collaboration, obedience, generosity and self-denial in their children, as well as a capacity for self-reflection and sublimation. In fact, a characteristic of this period of development is an attraction toward intellectual activities. Using the intellect makes it possible to acquire the strength and ability to control the surrounding situation and, before long, to control bodily instincts, so as to transform them into intellectual and rational activities. [#86]

How beautiful and amazing! Unlike what the culture tells us, not everything is about sex! And children can and should retain their innocence in their pre-pubescent years.

Imagine that.   :)

A reader's questions answered

As I contemplated what to write about in these last days before my July blog fast, I thought about mourning over stolen innocence here (and the outrage of political injustice that fuels it; vote Obama out!), or lamenting our nation's loss of decency and shame here (may our all-pure and all-holy God have mercy), but then I remembered an email from a reader that I have put off answering for too long.

So, let me get to it.

Hi Leila,
I know you have a ton of worthy topics, but I was wondering if you would be willing to address any of these topics?


Sure! I am an expert on exactly nothing, but I love to throw out my thoughts!

* Raising boys in an over-sexed culture. (I am already praying for [my young son's] purity, but I am still concerned. I know guys are way more visually oriented than girls, and that once they get the images in their heads it is hard to get them out. Could you talk about how you parent your boys with regards to this?)


With six boys of my own (from age 19 down to 2), it's a topic near and dear to my heart. You are soooooooo right about the visual nature of the male mind. If women had any flipping idea how different the mind of a man is when it comes to sexual images and urges, they would be shocked, speechless. The very best thing I have ever read on the subject is something that I also required my teen daughters to read. The book made one daughter weep, because before that day she had no idea. Even I was stunned. I thought I knew. Parents, read it first, and then hand it to your teen daughters:

For Young Women Only: What You Need to Know About How Guys Think

It may seem weird that I'm recommending a book for girls when you asked me about boys. But I promise you, this book will give you so much insight into how your son's mind will work when he becomes a teen that you will be well-equipped to teach and understand him.

To specifics: My boys are raised to know that their bodies are made by God and are used to glorify him. Each son is told that his private parts are not play things, but that they have a very special and holy purpose for marriage. One day, if he marries, he will have the privilege of becoming completely and intimately united with his wife in a way that is unique among all other relationships, and which is reserved only for the two of them. This act of love is so sacred, so special, so transcendent, that it has the capacity to create new human beings who will live for all eternity. My boys understand that sexuality is a powerful gift that a man must learn to control, so as not to hurt any woman or child who might suffer for his selfish actions in this area.

We are not prudes here in my house, and we don't shy away from talking about sex (age-appropriate only, of course), but no one has yet had any trouble grasping the concept of chastity as virtue, the sacredness of marriage, and how important it is to live honorably in this regard.

Here's an exchange I have with all my sons (not limited to the sexual issues of course), starting at a young age:

I say: "Who is the strongest man in the whole world?"*

They answer: "The one with the most self-control!"

*I love that when they are little, they answer: "God!" or "Jesus!" Then I clarify for them that I am talking about merely human men.


I also remind my older boys that using pornography is not only a selfish act that is degrading to them and disrespectful to all women, but it is also highly addictive, and they will easily become a slave to it. Porn will render them weak and wimpy and pathetic -- not like real men at all. There is nothing honorable about it.

Also, they know that pornography and all other sexual sins are mortal sins. My boys have a healthy fear of offending the God Who loves them (and Whom they love). And while it's certainly not something we dwell on, they would prefer not to spend their eternities in the pit of hell, so they act accordingly. Go figure. ;)



* A review of how to prove or disprove an argument logically. (This is mostly because people on facebook and who comment drive me bonkers.)


I hear ya on the "driving me bonkers" thing.

I've never studied formal logic, so my approach is just what makes sense to me. When I encounter something nonsensical or evil that is being passed off as something reasonable or good, I start with a simple question (not a statement) that challenges a person to take his idea a little bit further. No more than a question or two at a time, or else the whole thing just becomes a non-productive multiplication of words.

If the person you are debating becomes emotional and insulting, you stay unemotional and kind. And ask the question again. And again (maybe with different words). Make the question concrete and logical, not nebulous or vague. Wait patiently for an answer, and if it comes, move on to the next logical question. Answer any honest question he has with clarity and truth, and if you don't know the answer, tell him you don't know, but you will find out and get back to him.

Side note: One sign that a person is not debating in good faith is when you get a question like, "How does it feel to know that you are entrusting your children to a band of pedophiles with funny hats?" (Though here's proof that on rare occasions even stuff like that can turn into good! She later apologized and was open to being corrected.) Another example of someone debating in bad faith is when a Protestant accuses Catholics of "worshipping Mary" and then won't accept Catholic teaching itself on the issue (i.e., that worshipping any creature, including Mary, is a mortal sin).

Back to the question at hand, I have to be honest and tell you that not everyone should be involved in these kind of deep exchanges with clever secularists and zealous Protestants. We all have different gifts, and not everyone is cut out for long, philosophical debates. Sometimes an ill-advised or badly executed debate can do more harm than good. A person who is not cut out for the "battle" may instead want to be a powerful, behind-the-scenes prayer warrior while others do the debating, and/or simply have links ready so that a challenger can go to other legitimate sources for answers.

However, if one has a fairly good working knowledge of the faith and of the issues, then the debating part can be a learned skill. I'm learning every day, with things becoming more clear and focused to me as time goes on. I know that you (the original questioner) are fully capable of dialoguing in truth and love, so maybe just get some of the basic arguments and questions down pat, on the most important topics, and don't forget to pray before you type! (Or direct the person to the Bubble and I'll take 'em on, ha ha!)

Also, while I genuinely care about the folks I debate and hope to plant seeds, I know that most are not likely to change their ideology. But there are many fence-sitters, as well as Catholics who need to find the courage of their convictions, following the facebook/Bubble conversations. My discussions are often for them more than for the person whom I'm debating.


* Your view on how to best address the cultures descent into chaos. Do you think we should start with whatever the current issue is (e.g., the current one- gay marriage) or just start with contraception (since it all flows from there) or abortion/euthanasia (since you are more likely to encounter people who think they are wrong)?


While six months ago I might have said that gay "marriage" is the most pressing issue of the day, and six months before that I would have said it's definitely the foundational issue of contraception, today it's suddenly, eerily, the very issue of religious liberty itself, and whether we will lose the legal right to speak and live our Faith freely. The battleground is changing faster than I can keep up with it!

So, I guess each encounter in the battle is going to depend on the person and the situation. For example, it can be difficult debating evangelical Protestants and getting them fully on board the Culture of Life, because while they are in love with Jesus and they defend traditional marriage and the rights of the unborn with us (praise God!), they've simultaneously adopted the Planned Parenthood mentality on contraception (as you've said, it all flows from there), and the anti-establishment mentality of bucking (Church) authority. So we Christians are not fighting the Culture of Death effectively, as one Body. That's a sad legacy of the Reformation.

And encounters with secularists have their own special challenges, as it's hard to debate and seek truth among those who see the cultural train wreck as "progress", and who don't believe that an objective moral truth exists in the first place.

Ultimately, it's hard to say precisely where to start on the outside. But we do know where to start on the inside.

While this sexual free-for-all, the destruction of the family, and the loss of a sense of sin and shame has brought us to our knees culturally, it's also brought us to a moment of great grace. It's clear at this low point (ever lowering) that prayer and fasting and a return to God really are the most important weapons in the battle. There is only one thing that has ever overcome the darkness and despair and ugliness of sin, and that is Love. Jesus Christ crushed and defeated evil and death not by overpowering it, but by undergoing it, with love. So, the first step is to remember who we are, where we came from and where we are going. I promise you that the world needs saints more than she needs good debaters. The saints will win the battle for hearts and souls every time, because they have a moral authority and a teaching voice that rises above all others.

Be a saint. Teach your children to be saints.

And please, never despair, no matter how far into the abyss we go, because we have this assurance from the One Who commanded the very universe into being and yet Who stoops to love each of us as tenderly as a Bridegroom loves his bride:

"In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." -- John 16:33

I know that I would really enjoy reading any of your thoughts on these topics.  I know I don't comment much, but I definitely keep up with the reading! 


Thanks!

I did ramble on, so thank you for sticking with me!



PS: Anytime you place an Amazon order through a link on this blog, or click the Amazon link at the bottom, 100% of my commission will be donated to the orphans.



.

Quick Takes: Things that entertain (and boggle the mind)

1) Stop everything you are doing. You have to read the following article. No, seriously, you do. You don't have to read it right now, but click it open and then keep it at the bottom of your screen, or minimize it, or whatever, until you have a quiet few moments later to read it all. Jen Fulwiler (yes, the hostess of Quick Takes and the most insightful atheist-turned-Catholic that I know) has really nailed the problem. What problem? The problem! The reason why we Catholics and the purveyors of human abortion cannot even speak the same language. It's as if we live in two different realities, and this is why:

A Sexual Revolution

Oh, all right, here's a sneak peek, from somewhere in the middle:

All my life, the message I had heard loud and clear was that sex was for pleasure and bonding, that its potential for creating life was purely tangential…. This mind-set became the foundation of my views on abortion…. I thought of unplanned pregnancies as akin to being struck by lightning while walking down the street—something totally unpredictable and undeserved that happened to people living normal lives. 

My pro-choice views (and I imagine those of many others) were motivated by loving concern: I just did not want women to have to suffer, to have to devalue themselves by dealing with unwanted pregnancies. Since it was an inherent part of my worldview that everyone except people with “hang-ups” eventually has sex, and that sex is, under normal circumstances, only about the relationship between the two people involved, I was lured into one of the oldest, biggest, most tempting lies in human history….

And… you'll just have to read the article to find out what that lie is. :)



2) I do love a great quote from a brilliant mind, to be read slowly:

‎We live in a culture where our marketers and entertainment media compulsively mislead us about the sustainability of youth; the indignity of old age; the avoidance of suffering; the denial of death; the nature of real beauty; the impermanence of every human love; the oppressiveness of children and family; the silliness of virtue; and the cynicism of religious faith. It’s a culture of fantasy, selfishness, sexual confusion and illness that we’ve brought upon ourselves. And we’ve done it by misusing the freedom that other — and greater — generations than our own worked for, bled for and bequeathed to our safe-keeping. 

-- Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia from “A Thread for Weaving Joy” 

(Archbishop Chaput makes me swoon!)


3) And now, how 'bout a quote from a not-so-great mind? I have to reprint for you all one of the dumbest things ever said to me. It came during one of my myriad time-sucking facebook debates, from a young male atheist who thinks I'm stupid:

"I don't care if god is real... I care about whether there is evidence of his existence. If there is not, then it makes absolutely no difference if he's real or not." [emphasis mine]

Now, how can I argue with something like that?


4) The annual March for Life and the annual media blackout that accompanies it was actually pretty fun this year! If you read Bad Catholic's smackdown, you can't help but smile:

Media Stupidity at the March for Life

Also, I was originally going to link to the positively reedonkulous "coverage" of the March from CBS news, but they had so many negative comments about their bogus slide show (with ZERO shots of the hundreds of thousands of pro-life marchers, but numerous shots of the same eleven pro-"choice" folks) that they had to go in and add actual photos of the March itself!

Under hail of criticism, CBS relents, adds some photos of pro-lifers to March for Life album

When you look at the CBS slide show, note that the first six photos there now were not there a few hours earlier, nor was the last photo. And even though CBS was shamed into adding those seven photos of the pro-life marchers, the bias still jumps right out: The pro-life side and the pro-"choice" side each gets seven photos? A sea of young, vibrant marchers as far as the eye can see, from all over the nation, hundreds of thousands strong…. versus a handful of protesters that no one even noticed (save the liberal press)? Methinks they missed the story even on their second try!

It is so laughable, and very entertaining, but the big question still remains: Why would anyone trust the MSM these days?


5a) Planned Parenthood, keeping it classy, as usual! Check this out:

Planned Parenthood's cheeky new ad campaign

Ah, those crazy kids! What crude and degenerate thing will they think of next to corrupt our culture? 

(Be sure to read the comments! Some creative pro-lifers thought of their own ad slogans for PP's new campaign.)

5b) It's all over the news that "abortion is safer than giving birth", but of course that's another pro-"choice" obfuscation. Let's look at the facts and see through the spin:

Rehash of Abortion Safety Claim Ignores All Inconvenient Evidence to the Contrary

Word to the wise: Those who make their living killing human beings do not always live by an honor code of truth-telling.

6) Okay, this is serious! I need you all to tell me if you know of any good, eligible Catholic young men who are looking for a bride. There just don't seem to be as many good men out there as there are young women who are looking for them! Please, email me (look under my picture) if you know of any decent, faithful, emotionally stable men between the ages of about 24 and 34. I've got women who want to meet them!


7) Still don't have much to update on my sister's condition, other than one amazing turn of events which has lifted a 10-ton weight off our shoulders: Her first diagnosis of advanced pancreatic cancer was wrong. I cannot begin to describe the emotions that come from believing your only sibling has four months to live, then having the imminent death sentence rescinded. She still has a long road to diagnosis and treatment, so please keep those prayers coming. She has been most grateful for them, as have I!



Thanks, Jen, for hosting!




.

The most important question in the gay "marriage" debate

I am thrilled to have stolen one of Joe Heschmeyer's posts to present as a guest post today in the Bubble. If you don't read Joe's blog, Shameless Popery, you need to rethink your priorities, people. His attorney mind always impresses me. Joe, take it away…. 

The Most Important Question in the Gay Marriage Debate

A lot of people, even a growing number of Christians, have trouble understanding opposition to legalized gay marriage. After all, if the whole "marriage is one man plus one woman" thing is based on religious values, why force views those on other people? And what's the deal about destroying the sanctity of marriage? How is a heterosexual couple's marriage damaged in any way by gay marriage? For me, a single question helped clear up all of this...

“What is marriage?”


I. The Traditional View of Marriage, and Why Society Should Protect It


A. What Traditional Marriage Is

It seems to me that there are basically two views of what marriage is. The first is the traditional view. A good working definition comes from the Code of Canon Law, which says that marriage is that institution “by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring” (Can. 1055 §1).

This view of marriage isn't unique to Catholicism, or Christianity, or even religion. Cultures across the world (with all sorts of religious views, or none at all) have understood marriage to be something very near this for as long as marriage has existed. What's fascinating about this is that even with the diversity of marriage customs and norms, much remains the same.  Even cultures which permitted or encouraged polygamy recognized that the polygamy was heterosexual, and tied to procreation. A man might have two wives, but he's just committing himself to caring for two families as a result. And even cultures which encouraged homosexual and pedophilic sex (like Ancient Greece) never thought of those sexual and even romantic relationships as marriage-potential.

Perhaps more striking, the thing that gets overlooked is: all of these cultures have marriage. Many of the cultures punished premarital or extramarital sex; others simply declared that premarital sex acted as a marital covenant. If marriage is simply a social construct, it's certainly striking that all of these cultures across the globe, in both the New World and the Old, independently enshrined this construct at the heart of their cultures.


B. The Importance of Family

The reason for this universally-accepted tradition of marriage is obvious: family. Parents are the primary educators of children, and they pass on the culture's values. Children raised in this environment are statistically better citizens: more law-abiding, less violent, and so on.  We're born with our own desires. It's largely through education, much of it at the feet of our parents, that we learn how we're supposed to act.

Even animals understand this instinctively. You don't see birds just leaving their chicks to raise themselves, or be raised by some other bird, or by “the village.” A great many species mate for life, and even amongst those that are effectively polygamous, there's a real sense of family tied to the biological parents of the animal youth. Obviously, this isn't true of all animals, but it's remarkable that it's true of any. Now-Secretary Hillary Clinton wrote a book, It Takes a Village. Former-Senator Rick Santorum's response came with a more accurate title: It Takes a Family. Both sociologically and even biologically, he's right.

So “family” is critical to society. And traditional marriage is critical to family. The logic of it is obvious. Our sexual desires are often fleeting, but when we act on them, and a child is conceived, that's a lifelong consequence. In the absence of marriage, women in particular are vulnerable, since they're ones (biologically) who are left to raise the child if the man splits.  By tying heterosexual, potentially-reproductive sex to marriage, society ensures that a family is formed.

Given this, it makes absolute sense for society to enshrine traditional marriage into its laws and norms. We want (and even need) a society in which there aren't a lot of children conceived out of wedlock, and that those children conceived out of wedlock are still raised in a family (thus the popularity of "shotgun weddings" and the like). Enforcing this as the norm by law through legal recognition of the institution of marriage, and the thousands of incentives tied to marriage, is absolutely sensible. It's a principle that virtually everyone in history has understood (including those who freely engaged in non-reproductive sex outside of marriage).


II. The View of Marriage Behind Gay Marriage


A. The “Romantic” View of Marriage

Almost without exception, those in favor of gay marriage approach the question through a common lens. You can discover this quickly, by asking, "Why should gays be able to marry other gays?" The answer will nearly without exception be that  “these two people love each other.” And for about two hundred years in the West, we've really harped on this notion that marriage is the result of romantic love.

Let's be clear a couple of things. First of all, romantic love is ideal: I wish every married couple was romantic towards each other. The biological and spiritual purpose behind eros and romance is to help get through the rough patches in marriage, to make marriage joyful, and to remind us of the incredible love God has for us. But let's be clear about something else: romantic love isn't necessary for marriage. The canon law view calls it a "partnership," and in selecting the word, carefully avoided anything suggesting that romance was necessary for marriage.

Plenty of married couples find the spark dimmed or dead, and marriage can be rough-going sometimes. When you swear your allegiance to another human being "for better or for worse" for the rest of your life, you're knowingly pledging that even though marriage might seem awful, you'll stick to it. If marriage wasn't hard sometimes, so bad you wanted to quit, you wouldn't need to promise you wouldn't quit. No one has to pledge to keep doing something they're obviously going to do, and enjoy doing, like eating or relaxing. They'll just do those things without provocation.

So the problem with gay marriage is actually something distinct from the problem with homosexuality. Homosexuality is wrong because it perverts sex from something reproductive into something non-reproductive. But homosexual marriage goes a step further, and turns the bedrock of society, marriage and family, into something fleeting and pointless.

Here's what I mean. If romance is the critical factor in marriage, just consider that married couples often don't feel romantic towards each other, even if they did at the outset. It's easy to love the other person on your wedding day. It's harder when they've let themselves go physically, there's a screaming baby, and the house is a mess. Meanwhile, there may be someone else -- a co-worker, a friend, whoever -- who you do feel that "spark" with. The New York Times caused a minor controversy in December when it ran in its marriage section, "Vows," a blurb spotlighting a couple who met while married to other people. The story was told as if it was romantic to do the forbidden and abandon your families for a new fling. But this is absolutely consistent with this view of marriage. So is the sky-high divorce rate in America, and the massive amount of infidelity, homosexuality, and premarital sex. We're a culture taught to follow our hearts and our hormones, and those are fickle things.


B. Peering Over the Precipice

So here's my point. Because the heart is fickle, don't condition marriage on romance. If you're serious about being open to having children with this person, and working with them to raise children, and staying together until death, whether things are wonderful or awful, great. If not, wait to marry until you get to that point with someone.  Marriage is one of the single most important decisions most people will make in their lives, and it rarely gets the serious treatment it deserves.

More importantly, even if individuals want to stupidly declare, in a fit of romantic passion, that they'll be together for better or worse (while closing their eyes tightly to what "worse" might mean), as a society, we need not indulge that madness. Society has a huge vested interest in family, and by extension, traditional marriage. Society has no interest whatsoever in just-romantic marriage without a connection to family.

Interestingly, even many gay marriage advocates recognize this. Alan Dershowitz at Harvard argued that the solution to the gay marriage debate is to end governmental recognition of marriage altogether. Time Magazine agreed, arguing that marriage is just a religious or spiritual practice. This is the sort of end-point of the campaign to redefine marriage: leave "marriage" something so vague and meaningless, an idea whose meaning is unique to the person declaring him- or herself "married," that it ceases to be a protectable institution at all.  Of course, the consequences of trying to become the first society without marriage are ones that we can't even fathom.

The point is clear. Society, including the state, has a clear interest in protecting marriage, if marriage means what it always has meant. But if "marriage" becomes an amorphous and individualistic romantic concept, what role could society possibly have in regulating or promoting that? So the end point of the gay marriage debate is necessarily the implosion and unraveling of the institution of marriage, even if individuals still declare themselves "married" in non-recognized ceremonies.


III. Conclusion

Understanding this clash of visions explains nearly everything. When opponents of gay marriage say that it destroys the sanctity of marriage, what they mean is that gay marriage is incapable of being marriage, as that term has been traditionally understood for thousands of years. So a government that embraces gay "marriage" is a government that discards marriage (as traditionally understood) in favor of something much more volatile and dangerous. Likewise, if the government started to declare business merges "marriages," the term marriage would be deprived of its meaning until it meant something vague and sort of meaningless.

To imagine that a culture that drains marriage of its meaning, or tries to substitute (in its place, or in addition) something foreign as a new form of legally-sanctioned "marriage", can do so without it having far-ranging unintended consequence is naivety to an astonishing degree.

My point is that gay marriage is a sort of "point of no return" in a much broader fight that most Americans have somewhat disconnected from. Rather than viewing this as a battle over "gay rights" or anything else, this needs to be understood as a battle of the definition of what "marriage" actually means, and whether marriage is a thing that society and government can and should fight for.


*Be sure to read Joe's follow-up post, "What's the State Interest in Promoting Gay Marriage?"



.

Quick Takes! Marie Bellet, Norwegian wisdom, and a little tiger

1) You may not have noticed, but I am not churning out the posts the way I used to. To avoid blogger burnout (I'd hate to see the Bubble burst!), I've had to slow way down. I hope I won't lose any of you if I publish only once or twice a week, but I have to find balance, especially coming into the holiday season. Of course, it's not as if the action stops when the posting slows, since there is still quite the discussion going on under the last post. We are well into the second page!


2) The fallout from the post entitled "Leila's sins and shortcomings on public display" "Why I never should have had eight children" has been too much fun!

For starters, Marie Bellet emailed me! If you don't know who Marie Bellet is, then I am thrilled to be the one to introduce you! When I was just a wee lass with four children (probably around the same time I was pondering that fifth child), Marie was my constant companion. Her first album, What I Wanted To Say, was written when she had seven small children (she has nine now), and the songs were so incredibly synchronized to my own life and feelings that I often told people it was like she was singing me spiritual direction. I could write a whole post on each of her songs and its meaning to me. Marie added more albums through the years, and I love them as well. Lo and behold, she emails me words of encouragement after having read "that post" and then sends me copies of her brand spanking new album, Everything Changes, which fits perfectly with the time of life and motherhood she and I have reached today. Moms in their forties and fifties with some grown children will especially relate!

I really could go on and on, but I will end by saying that I have two copies of her new CD that have not been spoken for, and if you tell me why you want one, you may be a lucky recipient! As those of you who have yet to receive your Bubble onesies know, it may take me some time, but I will get them mailed eventually. I plan on a random drawing if we have more than two takers.


3) More great responses from "that post" included emails from Catholic brothers and sisters as far away as Portugal and Brazil (LifeSite has an edition in Portuguese!), the gift of a wonderful book from the Jeub family, Love Another Child (which they do well, as they have 15 kids!), and this remarkable video sent by the Schweitzer family, made by their son Josiah about his little sister with Down Syndrome:

Wasn't that cool?


4) Switching gears now, JoAnna found a quote from a pseudonymous Norwegian blogger reprinted on John C. Wright's blog yesterday, and it eloquently states what I have often pondered but didn't know how to say:

I never fail to be amused by how sex transforms liberals from hard-headed sociobiologists into velvet-minded romantics. From a strictly biological perspective, the ultimate purpose of sex is procreation alone, and the pleasure we derive from it is simply nature’s little stick and carrot. Why, then, this irrational and adamant defense of non-procreation and anti-natalism from people who otherwise jump at any opportunity to smugly wax prosaic about man being just another animal or the Darwinian origins of everything from organized religion to the nuclear family? 

The reason, I believe, is duplicitous. To liberals, sexual hedonism is not valuable because it brings pleasure, but because it serves, Rousseau-style, to tear down the deleterious influence of civilized society. Had liberals really been friends of sexual joy and pleasure, they would have realized that sex is more valuable when it is limited or mystified by things such as pre-marital chastity or modest clothing. These things turn sex into the best it can be — a sacred ritual — rather than simply a biological act no different than defecation or sleep. 

Thoughts?

5) Last year I met JoAnna in person at the Bioethics Defense Fund "Passion for Life" benefit, and this year I'd love to have more blogger meet ups! The Witness for Life Honoree for 2011 is Kathryn Jean Lopez, editor of National Review Online, and that alone is worth the price of admission. This annual event is one of the most inspiring nights of the year, benefiting one of the most important pro-life organizations out there, whose work is not typical but is desperately needed. Sign up here, and I'll see you there on November 18!

6) My little tiger! The cute baby fingers just kill me… ahhhh!!!

7) Get prepared. My next post is a guest post by the brilliant Joe at Shameless Popery, "The Most Important Question in the Gay Marriage Debate", and it's a great follow-up to One Man's post about gay "marriage" and civil rights. I can't stay away from that topic for too long, because it's too important culturally to let go. Join us, as it's sure to get interesting….

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

Remember "college student"? She's back. ;)

It's been a while since we've heard from "college student" (who is now a college graduate, by the way -- congrats!).

Longtime readers will recall that she sparred often with the Catholics here over abortion, contraception, women's biology, the hook-up culture and Planned Parenthood. She provided one of the most memorable moments on the blog when she mentioned that all her friends, whom she polled, could not see any downside to the hook-up culture other than the constant sobbing.

I was pleased when "college student" (who is an agnostic) struck up an email conversation with me a while back, and we have occasionally kept in touch. Then, a few days ago, she sent me the following, reprinted with her permission:

I know you are not a Priest and have better things to do than listen to your 22-year-old pen pal confess, but I need someone to agree with me today ;) 

One of the boys I told you about earlier and I starting seeing each other (#3 -- he's a good guy I swear). He was home for the weekend and I went over his house. We went out to dinner with his parents and it was late so I decided to stay over in the guest room. Boy walks into guest room, takes off his pants (non sexually), gets into bed. I tell him to get out, we are in his parents' house. He asks why. His mother comes in and I am just mortified. I tell her not to worry and that [boy's name] will sleep in his room upstairs. She shrugs nonchalantly and says to sleep where we want and no one will bother us in the basement!! 

Thinking it was hilarious and ridiculous I told my friends, "[Boy]'s parents let us sleep in the same bed, can you believe that!" The unanimous answer: "So What?" "We are Adults." Apparently this is normal and a lot of parents are cool with it including my girlfriend's very Catholic parents!! 

Furthermore, when I yelled at my mother for letting me go out of town to see said boyfriend and told her leniency was the result of letting my older sister get away with too much stuff, she told me to stop being so judgmental and live my own life, I love you mom, but C'MON!

So we agree, the world is indeed. GOING. TO. HELL.

As you can guess, my response was to affirm her assessment and her disgust. I also experienced an internal joy that she gets it! Even though it was never explicitly taught to her, she gets, on an instinctive level, that this permissive attitude and lack of judgment on the part of parents today just isn't right. "College student" gets a sense of her own dignity, the dignity of her boyfriend, and the (dare I say?) reverence that is due human sexuality.

In a subsequent email, she went on:

But something didn’t make sense. Parents don’t exercise the same amount of control over a 22-year-old as they do a 16-year-old. Nor should they, we as young adults are charged with making responsible choices. Yet when we are in their presence they still reserve the right to tell us what to. We are still yelled at, still disciplined, and still not allowed to swear. Yet, that on that day at my boyfriend's house, we were autonomous adults who governed ourselves. Go figure.

I suppose it is easy to think the only parents who would allow this are perhaps bringing their own boyfriends to spend the night or are liberal moral relativists. Yet every single person I talked to whose parents allowed them to cohabit was the child of married parents. One was the daughter of a Catholic family who never missed Sunday Mass and educated all of their three children in Catholic Schools. Another was the son of self-proclaimed fundamentalists who devoutly attend church every Sunday and Wednesday. Some voted for Republicans. 

The question is not why are parents who have moral and sexual failings failing to uphold strong standards for their children. That is hardly a paradox and the answer is rather obvious and uninteresting. 

Rather what has me perplexed is why are doting parents committed to structure and safety omitting sex from the discussion? Why are they okay telling their son, even their adult son, to make up his bed and not to smoke so long as he is in their home, but they can not tell him to at least wait to have sex until he gets back to his own apartment? Why do they bombard him with texts whenever he travels to make sure he is safe, yet say nothing when he is potentially catching a disease in their basement (and they are both doctors)? Why? Because I cannot figure it out.

With those questions, "college student" has proven herself wiser than many twice her age. I've yelled out my own similar question for years now: "Where are the grown-ups?!"

And she's right to push further and ask how it is that even Christian parents can wimp out on this issue while taking a stand on things that don't necessarily affect their children's souls and eternal destinies. I believe it has to do with a confusion about God Himself, a profound lack of courage, and/or the all-pervasive desire to be "friends" with one's children above all else.

J. Peter Nixon describes the devastating effects of a generation of Christian parents who refuse to form their children morally:

Our children and grandchildren are abandoning the faith because they perceive -- rightly -- that its demands are at fundamental variance with the lives we have prepared them to lead. We have raised them to seek lives characterized by material comfort, sexual fulfillment, and freedom from any obligations that they have not personally chosen. Should it surprise us that they fail to take seriously our claims to follow one who embraced poverty, chastity, and obedience to the will of God? (From the article, "Only the Saints Can Save Us")

"College student" is obviously on to something with her observations, and she is hoping that her questions and general bewilderment will be the catalyst for a good discussion here. In her words: 

I am really looking forward to what everyone says, as I could use some adult advice on the matter! 

Thoughts, readers?





.

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.



.

Protestants: It's time to come back

To my Protestant brothers and sisters:

It's time to come back to Mother Church. We want you, we need you, we love you.

I've spent a lot of time in dialogue with activist atheists recently, and the direction we are going is not pretty. We are witnessing a rapid cultural decline into amorality.

Satan seeks the ruin of souls through the destruction of marriage and family, and the quickest route to his goal is the profanation of sex. The truth and meaning of human sexuality is our era's cultural fault line, and unfortunately, Protestant denominations have been tumbling into its widening crevace at an alarming pace.

The first cracks denying the sacred nature of human sexuality began mere decades ago with the first tentative acceptance of contraception by a Christian church (the Anglicans). After 1,900+ years of unbroken Christian teaching on the immorality of contraception (including 400+ years of unbroken Protestant teaching), a moral evil was suddenly declared good. The entirety of Protestantism, although horrified at first, soon followed suit.

"Woe to those who call evil good" -- Isaiah 5:20

Then came other issues -- sterilization, masturbation, abortion, fornication and cohabiting, homosexual activity and homosexual "marriage". One by one, Protestant communities have broken from Christian teaching and sided with the secular culture. Many Protestant communities do not accept all the aforementioned evils as good, of course, and some are making a valiant attempt to fight one or more of them. However, there is no guarantee that those denominations won't eventually accept other sexual sins in the same way they accepted contraception, sterilization and masturbation. A majority vote by church leaders could launch an unsuspecting Protestant from the Spirit of the Gospel right into the spirit of the age -- the Planned Parenthood age.

Look where you are standing. Unless you stand with the Catholic Church, you may already have one foot off the cliff.

How to guarantee that you'll stand firmly on the ground of moral Truth? Come back home to the Catholic Church.

For over two thousand years:

The Catholic Church has never taught that contraception is a moral good, and she never will.
The Catholic Church has never taught that sterilization is a moral good, and she never will.
The Catholic Church has never taught that masturbation is a moral good, and she never will.
The Catholic Church has never taught that abortion is a moral good, and she never will.
The Catholic Church has never taught that fornication is a moral good, and she never will.
The Catholic Church has never taught that homosexual activity is a moral good, and she never will.

The moral teachings of the Church have never changed, and they never will.

Human sexuality is transcendent, life-giving and sacred, and the Catholic Church will teach that Truth till the last day.

Dear Protestant, a church with a changing morality is a church built on shifting sand. If you want to build your life and eternity on something solid, build it on the Rock of Peter. Don't be carried about by every wind of social change; come back to the Catholic Church and stand strong with us -- one united Body as Jesus intended.

America may not survive many more generations at the rate we are going, but the Church and her teachings will stand regardless, speaking the same Truths, undisturbed, till the end of time. Believe me, it's a really nice place to be in a storm. Extremely peaceful.

So, come on. You'll like it here, living in peace and joy and certainty. It's your rightful home anyway.

Come back to Holy Mother Church. It really is time.






.

Who is obsessed with sex?

We've heard so many times that the Catholic Church is simply obsessed with sex. It's conventional wisdom.

My two-minute google search turned up ample evidence of the sentiment, including:

"Why is the Catholic Church so obsessed with just about everything sexual?"

"The church's obsession with sex is a cancer that threatens to tear it to pieces."

"[The Catholic Church] is obsessed with sex, absolutely obsessed."

"The [BCC's] Sunday Programme… [asked] the question 'Is the Catholic Church obsessed by sex?'" {To which someone who had watched the show responded: "There's a poll too. 66% thought the church was obsessed with sex."}

This obsession with the Church's supposed obsession makes me scratch my head, for two reasons.

First of all, because I went to mass every Sunday of my life for my first 18 years, and I don't recall ever hearing a homily about sex. Hmmmm….

And secondly, as a political and social observer (and just a regular old citizen!) for the past couple of decades, I do believe it's the "other side" that's obsessed with sex. In fact, it seems to be all they think about and want to talk about. And they want the rest of us to think about it and talk about it, too.

From raunchier and more explicit TV sex to ubiquitous movie sex to infinite internet porn sex to teen and preteen sex and taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood talking to our kids about sex, sex, sex, and non-stop discussions about the goodness of homosexual sex, and sex in the city and sex with housewives and sex in the fast food commercials (my gosh, can't they just advertise the burger?) and full-on sex in music and sex on videos and simulated sex as dancing, and every variation of sex in the hook-up culture, girls and boys gone wild about sex, sex, sex, sex, sex! And even on this blog, we have even had commenters proclaim, quite seriously, that they could not live without sex!

Obsessive? Methinks.

And then we have the Catholic Church, plodding along through human history, saying the same thing about sex that she always has.

The Church, after all, has taught these truths for 2,000 years -- along with all the other moral truths she still holds today. The moral law doesn't change, the virtues don't change, and chastity is simply one of the virtues. It happens to be the one virtue that a sex-obsessed culture does not appreciate, but a virtue nonetheless. Always has been, always will be. Just as marriage is a holy institution established by God. Always has been, always will be. Sex is a privilege of marriage, for the good of the spouses, of the children produced, of the family, and of society. Nothing new here, move along....

But wait, there is something new here, and the secular left can't move along: They want a new sexual paradigm, where anything goes (between "consenting adults", of course!) and there are no moral judgements. The campaign is on, full-swing, to change the very nature, meaning and use of human sexuality. They want to redefine marriage and family to mean things they have never meant before, and they don't want anyone to tell them no. They are so close to their goal that they can taste it, but at least for now, they remain frustrated. Something is keeping them from genital carte blanche.

The one thing standing in their way?

The Church. That's all. No armies, nothing. Just the Church, speaking the same old truths she has spoken for twenty centuries and will speak for twenty centuries more, or until no one is left to hear her. The Catholic Church is the one moral authority who lovingly, carefully, firmly proclaims, whether anyone is listening or not, that sex has a meaning and purpose that cannot be discarded without violating our human dignity.

Despite the utterly predictable, clearly unwavering (and sometimes too-quietly stated) teachings of the Church, her opponents are often violently emotional in their quest to change her mind or silence her voice or run her out of existence. Though they would like to claim an oppressor/victim model here, it's really more like a classic parent/teen showdown. "Give me my way and let me do what I want or I will scream at you and call you obscene names and tell you you are power hungry, irrelevant, out-of-touch, full of sin yourself, and just plain mean!"

And the Church, as a good Mother does, looks on her children with love and concern, even sadness, but stays steadfast, consistent and confident. The rules of life don't change. Truth does not change. Love does not change.

As the sex-obsessed voices get louder and angrier, the Church has tried to raise her voice above the din. She's begun to speak a little more boldly, a little more clearly, stating her case again, in new ways, for a very confused generation. Because responding with love and truth to the prevailing sins of each age is pretty much the Church's job description, and it's what we can expect her to do from now till… well, eternity.

And that's not obsessive, just faithful.

Race, class and gender…less

_

When Complicated Life alerted me to the following story, I first felt sick to my stomach:

Parents Keep Child's Gender Secret

Then, I just felt profoundly sad for the children. It is heartbreaking, and I can barely write about it.

However, it did not surprise me that the father of these "genderless" children teaches in a small school "whose lessons are framed by social-justice issues around race, class and gender" (emphasis mine). I've talked extensively about my disdain for the "race, class and gender" paradigm which is the lens through which the secular Left sees the world. I have also heard from readers who do not see any essential difference between men and women, or between motherhood and fatherhood.

Lately, I sometimes feel like Alice down the rabbit hole.

Then, sweet relief! Balm for the soul in the form of a post by Sarah at Sarah's Journal. She takes on the issue of the "genderless" baby better than I ever could. Run, don't walk, to her latest offering, which includes truthful gems like this:

From a Catholic perspective, the body isn't just a shell in which our "true selves" are trapped. Our bodies don't conceal our identities but are in fact an integral part of our unique selves. 

And this:

When a person asks if a baby is a boy or girl, they aren't really asking about details of their genitalia. Instead, they are hinting at a deeper truth: the reality that our bodies, including our sex, are an integral part of our identities as whole, complete human beings and that a person's femininity or masculinity will be expressed in a myriad of ways.

Sarah reminds us that the antidote to the confused, misguided, and even tragic push for a "genderless" society can be found in Blessed John Paul II's seminal work, Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body. (Or, for beginners, an easier treatment of TOB, here).

I've spoken before about the need to frame things in terms of ordered vs. disordered. There is nothing ordered about a "genderless child". Please Lord, open our eyes and our hearts to see the truth, goodness, and beauty of Your design for our bodies. 

___ 

A sad reminder that the Pill was never designed to improve a woman's health

A wonderful blogger emailed me recently, telling me of a terrible medical emergency unfolding in her extended family. She wanted to let others know about the circumstances of this upsetting situation without posting it on her own blog. I offered her this forum, and here is her story:


We got a call a few days ago from my husband's aunt. His cousin "Jane" was in the hospital with blood clots in her lungs. Jane is 21.

Jane has been on the Pill since shortly after her 16th birthday because her mother believed that sex was a natural thing for young people to want to do. Since Jane was going to sleep around, it was her mother's responsibility to ensure that her daughter was safe. She has repeatedly informed us that our standards of no sex before marriage are unrealistic and that we "need to come into the modern age."

The modern age caught up with Jane last Saturday when she began having a sharp pain in her chest. She called 911 and told them that she was sure she was having a heart attack. The ambulance responded and whisked her to the hospital. Testing revealed that the pain was not from her heart but from the blood clots in her lungs. She had 6 large clots and numerous smaller ones spread throughout both lungs. Blood thinners were started and she was sent for further testing. A full body scan showed diminished blood flow in one of her legs and almost non-existent blood flow to her uterus.   

After several days in the hospital, the clots in her lungs looked better and the blood flow to her leg was at a normal level. Circulation to her uterus is better but is still at a level that causes concern.

The doctors determined that her condition was caused by her use of the Pill.

She was such a healthy person. She didn't smoke, ran regularly, and ate a mostly vegetarian diet (she just couldn't walk away from the occasional steak). She had no risk factors for blood clots except for those birth control pills that were meant to keep her safe.

Jane will be on blood thinners for the foreseeable future. She will have to give up running. She won't graduate in May as was planned, but may get her diploma in December if she is well enough to attend class by then. There is a good possibility that she is now infertile. She is on bedrest until the clots are dissolved and she is out of immediate danger. As of tonight, there are still clots present. She could still die.

Her mother is devastated that her child is in danger, but maintains the stance that this was the right decision because she would "do it anyway."

The slick TV ads and magazine pictures show the sexual "freedom" that the Pill has come to represent in modern society. These ads always include a blurb that the Pill has been linked to blood clots and death. Young women like to think that they are immune to such things. They are not. 


The medical community will tell us that these things happen to such a small percentage as to be statistically insignificant. The problem is, there is no way of predicting which 1-2% of women will die or be affected by medical calamity. They could be fine, or they could be like our cousin, Jane. Last week she was planning her graduation party and had just accepted a new job starting in June. Her life was full of possibilities.


Tonight she just hopes that she won't die.

The "hook-up" culture and a question for feminists

Wow. The commenting has continued at a steady pace for the past three days over at my last post ("How Planned Parenthood talks to your teen"). When a new commenter, "college student", piped in with her own sad experience of the "hook-up" culture on an elite college campus, it had us all -- atheist and Christian alike -- advising her, commiserating with her, and rooting for her.

It's not that we Catholics don't know what the Culture of Death looks and feels like, but her heavyhearted words and resigned attitude made a lot of us pensive, and a bit melancholy. I'm still processing it all, and frankly, I'm angry that we've gotten to this place in our society, and that she and countless other young women are suffering this way.

So, now I'll state the obvious: The situation "college student" describes is the predictable and natural consequence of the sexual revolution: Sex without boundaries, sex without "hang-ups", sex without commitment, sex as recreation. Sex when I want, with whom I want, how I want. Most especially, the free sex must come with no guilt or bad feelings. Yes, the "hook-up" culture is the manifestation of everything feminists wanted, complete with easy abortion to make it all work. They gave us the blueprint, and it's been built to order on a college campus near you, and almost everywhere else.

That leads me to a question that I've often wanted to ask a feminist: How do you think it's working? Do you truly believe that women are happier now that they are experiencing sexual freedom as your philosophy designed it? Does it bring more peace, joy and contentment to a woman's heart? Are women less broken and more whole?

I'm sincerely asking.

"We don't make determinations about who we love."

Not to be controversial or anything... ha ha ha....


This may seem like a post about homosexuality. It is not. One day I hope to address that topic directly, but this is not that day. This is a post about the human will. And it's quite possible that I am just thinking out loud. Bear with me.


At the October 14 MTV townhall event, President Obama was asked whether or not he thought being gay or transgendered was a choice. He responded:

I don’t think it’s a choice. I think that people are born with a certain makeup, and that we’re all children of God. We don’t make determinations about who we love.    (Emphasis mine.)

Again, setting aside the question of homosexual marriage, homosexual rights, whether homosexual orientation is a choice or not (as if it matters), etc., I want to hone in on that statement: "We don't make determinations about who we love." 


What does he mean by that?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Obama was talking about actual "love" and not "sexual attraction." Think of it: "We don't make determinations about who we love"? Baloney! Love -- true love -- is a choice, not a feeling. We choose to love people by an act of our will (remember, I am not talking about attraction or lust). Love is an action and a disposition of the heart; as Christians, we are commanded to love, well, everyone. So in that sense, we very definitely make determinations about whom we love.

However, I don't believe that's the way in which Obama meant the statement. I am pretty sure he meant: "We don't make determinations about who we are sexually attracted to."

Okay, well, let's say he's technically right on that. Physical attraction is involuntary. But what about after that? That's where human will comes in, right?

Here's an example: A married man may find his best friend's wife attractive. He may be irresistibly drawn to her. He may even believe he is in love with her. He may even be in love with her. Does that give him the right to have sex with her? In the liberal mind, maybe the answer is yes, but I can't be sure. Any liberal want to take that?

But in the world of traditional morality (i.e., the world of objective truth), a man's will must override his urges and emotions. He must not proceed with the best friend's wife, even if he believes that she is his soulmate. The will must prevail over attractions and feelings.

In a real life example, I remember what Woody Allen said when he had a salacious, psychologically (if not technically) incestuous affair with Mia Farrow's daughter (whom he had known since her childhood), which caused devastation to many: "The heart wants what it wants." It was just that simple for him: I will do what I feel, and damn the consequences. If it feels good, do it. (This is basically a philosophy of the godless, because it assumes that man is mere animal and there are no eternal consequences anyway.)

So, maybe "we don't make determinations" about who we are attracted to, but we do make determinations about how we act. That's called our will. And we teach our children from a very young age not to act out on their urges or emotions (in all areas of life), but to control their will -- for their own good and the good of others. Our will governs our emotions, passions and urges.

Isn't this common sense? Tell me what I'm missing.

What the heck is so bad about "rules" anyway?

I've never understood why people routinely bash the Catholic Church for having "rules," but it's a classic complaint. 


Recently, I read yet another anti-Catholic comment on a blog, and I thought I would address the main points here. I have edited the original text for clarity and grammar, but it's mostly intact. The commenter's words are in red italics:


I don't want to overstep my bounds here...


(She is about to overstep her bounds here.)


...but I just went through and read all the comments on this post and I have to say, I don’t agree with many of them. 


(Some Catholic commenters had defended the Church's teaching on the immorality of in vitro fertilization.)


I’m not a religious person in the sense that I do not subscribe to any organized religion. 


This line is one of the most common around: "I don't believe in organized religion." I heard a commentator on TV recently make a good observation: Is disorganized prayer somehow more desirable than organized prayer? As for me, I prefer order whenever I can find it, in my home, in my town, in my government and yes, in my religion.


One of the reasons for that is I don’t believe in all the “rules” they make for their followers. 


Who are "they" and what are the "rules"? I wouldn't believe in some random people making random rules, either. However, in the Catholic faith, we believe that truth has its origin in God. If the Catholic Church were just making up arbitrary "rules" willy-nilly, with no basis in reason or objective truth, then there would be no Catholics. I know I'd be gone in a heartbeat.


Many "rules" seem so close-minded and unfair. 


They may "seem" that way to you, but I would bet my last dollar that you haven't studied the reason and meaning behind the "rules". As a random example: If one had no understanding of the beauty of marriage or of the catastrophic damage that results from adultery, one might think it was "close-minded and unfair" that a person can't have occasional sex with the cute man down the street.


I was raised a Catholic... 


Forgive me, but that is usually the signal that someone has no clue what the Church teaches or why, and that some very strong but misguided opinions will soon follow. 


...and even got confirmed (though I didn’t want to). 


Your parish did you a disservice. No one should be confirmed if he or she objects to the sacrament.


I know that the Catholic Church is against IVF, and I have talked with my grandmother (who is VERY Catholic) about it at length. The bottom line is that I just don’t understand how an institution that is supposed to be created in love can deny people a chance at something they so desperately want. 


If you talked about it at length, and yet you still frame the debate as people being "denied a chance at something they so desperately want," then either your grandma didn't have good resources to give you, or you have missed the point. Because "denying desperate people what they want" is not what the Church is about. You wouldn't claim that the Church's teachings against stealing or lying or adultery are simply there to "deny people what they desperately want," would you? Perhaps there are deeper truths that you are missing.


It just seems to arbitrary to me. You can use drugs but not this procedure? What is that? 


"That" is a consistent moral ethic. One may use medication or surgery to restore fertility (i.e., restore bodily health) so that a child may be conceived naturally. But one may not create a child outside of the marital embrace. That's a very clear line. Not arbitrary in the least. 


I feel like the Catholic church is full of discrepancies like that and it makes it difficult for me to take any of their “rules” seriously.


You may "feel" like that, but you need to study more if you are truly interested. The "discrepancies" that you "feel" exist are simply your own misunderstandings based on extremely limited knowledge. I used to misunderstand the Church's teachings, too, and then I set out to learn why the Church teaches what she does. It is the lack of discrepancies in Church teaching, i.e., the breathtaking consistency of it, which convinced me to remain Catholic when I was ready to jump ship.

I’m not trying to be judgmental here, though I’m sure it sounds that way. 


Actually, to me it sounds more like ignorance than judgmentalism.


I don’t presume to say religious people shouldn’t be religious or shouldn’t follow the “rules” of their religion. 


Thank you. (By the way, I'm not sure why you keep putting "rules" in quotes? Do you have something against rules in general? Can you imagine a family, a community, or a nation without rules? I don't think anyone would want to live there.)


But I do think religion should be about spirituality, not a huge bureaucracy that creates endless rules to follow, especially when those rules speak down to some of its followers and keep others from feeling accepted or achieving happiness.


The Catholic religion is based in reason and truth. It has ritual and structure and focus. It is not some fluffy, feel-good, nebulous "spirituality" designed to make us feel giddy. Now, don't get me wrong: Catholicism certainly does have spirituality. In fact, it's the most mind-blowing, transcendent spirituality of any religion I can think of, and you can read the works of St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, or any of the great Catholic mystics to see what that looks like. I think you'd like it. 

I guess what I want to say is that I hope a person's reasons for not wanting to do IVF are her own, and not something that's forced on her by someone else. 


The Church proposes, never imposes. Every soul is gifted by God with free will. It is sacrosanct, and neither God nor His Church will touch it. God forces no one to love Him or do His will, and the Church forces no one to follow her teachings.


If you believe in someone else’s reasons for not doing IVF then that is one thing, but if you feel beholden to an institution and that is why you’re not doing it, even though you want to, well that is a different situation entirely. I hope you can find your own way to your children and feel good about the path you chose.


Can you think of a situation in which what we "want" to do is not what we should do? And, is it possible that an individual could be wrong about something? And could a 2,000-year-old "institution" possibly (maybe even probably) have some wisdom to impart?


I, for one, don't feel "beholden" to the Church. I feel grateful for her clarity, her guidance and the consistency of her teachings, whether in season or out. And yes, I feel grateful for her correction. I love that Church teaching is based in truth and the dignity of the human person. I love that she speaks the truth in love, even when that truth is wildly unpopular and even hated, and when she is the lone voice in a culture which says that anything goes as long as you "want" it desperately enough.


Rules? If they are based in truth and love, then rules are freedom.


Again with my favorite quotes from G.K. Chesterton:


"The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age."

"[When the convert] has entered the Church, he finds that the Church is much larger inside than it is outside."