feminine-genius

Swerving into politics

I've long nursed a pet theory about the political landscape in America and a recent alignment of the stars gave me a chance to vent it in a completely secular arena. For those who understand the faith, just extend the argument I outlined to those in the Church working at warp speed to deconstruct the hierarchy and the doctrine entrusted to it. The problem with any sort of father-issues is that they cloud the image of our dear Father-God reaching out to His children. He would be the ultimate enemy of those highlighted in the article. It's all of a piece.

UPDATE: Just in from NARTH --

The National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) published byAmerican Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) offers the following conclusion: "Adolescents who have been reared in lesbian-mother families since birth demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment (p. 28)."

 

Authors Gartrell and Bos generalize their findings to the lesbian population at large, claiming their research offers "implications for --same-sex parenting" (p. 28). Making an enormous scientific leap, they conclude that their study provides scientific proof that there is "no justification for restricting access to reproductive technologies or child custody on the basis of the sexual orientation of the parents" (p. 34-35).

 

Implied, though not stated, is the notion that fathers are not necessary or important for the healthy development of children. This implication is a throwback to an article published in the American Psychologist in 1999 titled "Deconstructing the Essential Father." Like the authors of the American Psychologist article, Gartrell and Bos are on record as activists seeking public support for homosexual parenting.

 

However, a cursory review of this study (funded by the Gill Foundation and the Lesbian Health Fund of the Gay, Lesbian Medical Association) demonstrates significant flaws that most first-year graduate students would quickly recognize.  Any reasonable observer would easily conclude that the authors overstated their findings and that in this instance, whatever external review process was utilized, was inadequate. Consider the following:

 

1. The problems inherent in any self-report study.  The lesbian mothers' own reports that their children were well-adjusted were accepted by the study's authors uncritically. The authors should have clarified the limitation and usefulness of such qualitative, self-reported data in light of the fact that the lesbian parents knew that the study would be used to further their political cause; in contrast, the control group had no idea how their reports would be used. In addition, most mothers, lesbian or not, would likely report their children's adjustment in a favorable light. Outside observers such as the child's teachers or counselors, if consulted, could have offered a different perspective.

 

2. The lesbian parents were hardly typical parents: 93% were Caucasian. Most were college-educated (67%). Most were middle/upper class (82%). Eighty-five per cent were in professional or managerial roles. The control sample, however, had significantly more minorities; many more children from the South; they were very different in race composition and socioeconomic status; and the educational level of these mothers was unclear. A statistical adjustment for these differences could have been easily addressed.  Had these differences been controlled, they might have been reduced, been proven negligible, or perhaps reversed.

 

3. The sample was far from random.  Participants were recruited from gay and lesbian venues (i.e., lesbian pride events and lesbian newspapers in three major metropolitan areas--Boston, Washington. D.C. and San Francisco).  Although the authors acknowledge the non-randomness of their subject pool and the potential problems this situation could pose, this limitation did not seem to limit their conclusions. As a result, a very strong case could be made for selection bias having invalidated the findings.

 

Despite the obvious study flaws, the authors offer the following generalization:  "The NLLFS adolescents are well-adjusted, demonstrating more competencies and fewer behavioral problems than their peers in the normative American population (p.34)."

 

Notably absent was data about the sexual orientation of the adolescents or the preferences or expectations for the adolescents' sexual orientation (some of this data was, in fact, collected for the 10-year study). Was this data collected and simply dismissed?

[I'm waiting for them to put up a dedicated link to this article, which was written by A. Dean Byrd]

Face veil = jihad

No, that's not a xenophobic western remark, but the opinion of Al Qaida's second in command:

In the 47-minute recording, Ayman al-Zawahri said the drive by France and other European nations to ban the veil amounted to discrimination against Muslim women.

"Every single woman who defends her veil is a holy warrior ... in the face of the secular Western crusade," he said. "France, with all its power and clout, can't touch the head-cover of a nun, but it can assault any face-veiled woman."

Al-Zawahri also urged Muslims in Europe to support their women in resisting the Western ban on the veil. "We must call upon our girls, our sisters and our mothers to put on the veil. We must support them and defend them."

Obviously the difference between a nun and a woman in a burqa is the face. No one has indicted any form of Muslim woman's dress that shows the face -- only those garments which hide her identity and leave her a walking inhuman shroud.

And for Muslim men to gin up a pep rally in favour of burkhas is tantamount to saying, "Yay -- women who really love God must hide! Encourage them to cover their faces which are not fit to be seen!" An odd way to fight discrimination.

Sadly "support and defend" will really mean oppress and subjugate. Or else.

[For more information on the ban in France, go here and here.]

The TOB discussion (updated)

As editor at the women's section of Catholic Exchange, I've begun a series of articles that respond to Dr Alice vonHildebrand's critique of Christopher West's work on the theology of the body (yes, I know -- that's a twisty turny path). I think she wrote as lovingly as possible, offering an important fraternal correction that may serve to deepen our understanding of this rich subject.

The founder and director of the Theology of the Body Institute, Mr West has virtually made his name synonymous with the fascinating topic, which–in this sex-saturated culture–is at the forefront of the effort to evangelize teenagers and young adults. There are some who take issue with his approach, which can be roughly grouped in two categories: those who are troubled by his language–which is couched in today’s syntax and embellished by examples from the popular, secular media; and those who are troubled by his theological approach–which lays more emphasis on the revolutionary elements of the “theology of the body” than on the “hermeneutic of continuity.”

Part One: What Purity Isn't

Part Two: Necessary Fraternal Correction

Part Three: Reaching the "Objectively Disordered"

Part Four: Custody of the Eyes

Part Five: Three Views on Theology of the Body

(Stay tuned; more to follow)

ADDENDUM: for information on how to obtain Dawn Eden's excellent thesis on this topic, go here. For Barb Nicolosi's view, go here. More concerns raised here. We will run a few more pieces on Catholic Exchange next week.

NOTA BENE: I should mention that Christopher West generously wrote the forward to my book, The Authentic Catholic Woman, for which I am deeply grateful. His words there were quite unexpected, expressing his great desire for women to heal from the wounds caused by the lies fed to them in the sexual revolution (and his sincere contrition for any part in that deception). I found his contribution touching and appropriate, given the breadth of the book. For those who wish to read it in the coming year with a book club, I am happy to send a copy of a free study guide.

Will history repeat itself?

I have a piece at Catholic Exchange today.

Don't miss the weekly "Sunday Snippets" here.

A delightful glimpse

While there is no mention of her faith, this obit details the very interesting life of a humble, sensible woman, and in turn points to other singular women about whom she wrote:

Throughout most of her husband's political career, Edna Healey devoted herself to raising the Healeys' three children and supporting her husband in his career. But after her children had grown up she made an independent career for herself as a historian and biographer.

Her first book, Lady Unknown (1978), was a biography of Angela Burdett-Coutts, the richest heiress in Victorian Britain who, after inheriting a fortune and the family bank at the age of 23, devoted her life to a great number of good causes. She became friend and patroness to numerous 19th-century intellectual and political luminaries, including the ageing Duke of Wellington (to whom she proposed marriage) and Charles Dickens, with whom she became involved in schemes to rescue child prostitutes and founded a home for fallen women.

Among others, she later wrote about Mary Livingstone, Jenny Marx and Emma Darwin. I may look up Mrs Healey's books when I get a moment, and am grateful to know that she found a way to live in the fishbowl of public life without it consuming her or her family. RIP, dear sister.

"Creative solidarity"

Zenit is carrying the obituary of a most remarkable woman, who impacted a great number of families in India:

An untold number of families in the slums of Bangalore have left behind starvation and alcoholism, and owe their financial stability and full stomachs to Sister Nancy Pereira.

The sister of the Daughters of Maria Auxiliatrix died last Wednesday at 87, leaving a legacy of thousands of families who have found dignity within their poverty.

Nancy Pereira was born Aug. 14, 1923, in the Indian state of Kerala. She made her first profession in 1945.

A biography written by members of her community described her in this way: "[S]he was convinced that her vocation was to be with the poor and to devote herself to serving them. She loved all of them and tried to make them aware of their rights as well as their duties and to live their dignity as children of God. She did this with joy, involving many people in her projects for doing good. Forgetful of self, she lived a life of poverty to enrich the poor."

ICN offers a few more details about her lending practices, which incorporates the most prudent of motherly assistance:

The clients of her Bank had to be poor, people from slums, from villages, people who owned nothing and had no opportunity to build a better life. To obtain credit the person had to prove that he or she had saved a small sum for a year and taken part in meetings of the small credit management group. The annual interest rate was so small it barely covered management expenses. The project of the Bank for the Poor involved the whole family and recognised the needs of each member and therefore, inserted in a Family Integral Development and Education Scheme, it helped improve living conditions for many families and even whole villages.

What a fine testament, especially the element of joy, which can be so hard to maintain amidst such hardships. It's interesting how different her vocation was from that of Mother Teresa (with whom one cannot help but to compare her) and yet she was just as generous and firm in her convictions. I am especially touched by how her program strengthened the family unit, whereas the UN often targets women for their micro-lending programs at the expense of men and families. RIP, dear sister, and may God reward you for your total gift of self.

One woman's pierced side

 

 

So much suffering, so much love. Take a moment to think about others in this situation, and perhaps there's more we can all do to prevent such scenarios from multiplying.

A Summer Afternoon in Providence

From Dan Avila, a collaborator on projects of life and marriage:

On Sunday, July 18, I took the commuter rail from Boston to Providence for an afternoon rally. The National Organization for Marriage is conducting what it calls the Summer for Marriage Tour 2010, and landed at the foot of the Rhode Island State House on a warm, breezy day to encourage citizens of that state to defend marriage as the union of one man, one woman. Over two hundred people gathered under the trees of the Capitol’s south lawn to hear speeches, get their marriage tour t-shirts, and prepare for an upcoming legislative battle in that state over the definition of marriage. The crowd reminded me of a church picnic gathering: Lots of families, kids running around, and smiling adults chatting. The idyllic feeling continued even as the first speakers delivered their remarks.

Then a red-shirted army of chanting picketers suddenly emerged from around the western side of the State House and the time of white martyrdom began.

White martyrs are those who witness to truth and faith in ways short of dying. No one died at the marriage rally in Providence but the uninvited demonstrators’ ensuing attempts to disrupt and silence were met with the power of quiet determination and the luminescence of common courage. Rhode Island defenders of marriage refused to be provoked and stood their ground with inspiring dignity.

The National Organization for Marriage has organized the rolling rally to reach twenty different cities during July and August, going from Maine to Minnesota and from Florida to Washington, D.C., stopping in locations where the marriage issue is a broiling political potato. The group’s President, Brian Brown, is travelling the whole route with his wife Susan and six children in a brightly decorated RV, accompanied by a small crew in a van to help manage the trip’s technicalities. Joining the Browns for the New England leg of the trip and speaking in Rhode Island was Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, an expert on the economic aspects of family structure, and a surrogate doting grandmother for the Brown children.

Dr. Morse was at the podium when the insurgents approached. First, the sign carriers and noise makers crowded the listeners from behind. Then a few banner-waving protesters ran around to the front, screaming “bigots” and “haters.” Dr. Morse kept her composure, finished her remarks, and was followed by Brian. That’s when several menacing individuals stormed the podium and thrust their faces into Brian’s, repeatedly shouting at him to shut up. Brian refused to get riled and continued his speech over the din. Before long our entire group was surrounded and the venomous cacophony continued. Many of the placards employed mockeries and vulgarities. The tension was stomach-squeezing.

When the Capitol police, finally, started to intervene, I looked around me and saw the most remarkable thing. I did not see clenched fists, bulging eyes or reddening cheeks. I could not detect any sign of “fight or flight,” anger or fear. I saw heads bowed and hands folded, or eyes raised and arms extended. A frail woman next to me, surely no veteran of political street theatre, had a look of what I can only describe as deep compassion. A man to my left spoke more in wonder than in any tone of disgust or contention, saying softly, “this is what hell must be like.” The picnic had become an inferno, and yet the picnickers did not succumb to the burning.

Other speakers, locals representing Rhode Island, expressed in words what I witnessed around me. They talked of loving their challengers, of forgiving the offenders’ transgressions against the freedom to gather without conceding that freedom, and of bearing witness to the truth without rancor or condescension. And they talked of the need to become active despite formidable opposition and to persevere despite the costs.

Brian closed out the rally by observing that the disruption of the peaceful gathering in Providence on a lazy summer afternoon was only a foretaste of what will occur if same-sex marriage is legalized. What transpired on the public sidewalks that day will be repeated in other public venues, such as the schools, the courts and the halls of the legislature. Proponents of tolerance cannot tolerate what they deem to be hatred and bigotry and the law will have to reflect that harsh judgment.

Readers living in Massachusetts can still hear the echoes of the debate in our own state. It is quiet now, but that outer calm only muffles an inner conflict. Decisions continue to be made behind-the-scenes to aid and abet the radical policy change imposed upon us by the Supreme Judicial Court’s 2003 decision to legalize same-sex marriage. Just one example: In a time of severe economic turmoil, the latest state budget paired sharp cuts in essential services for the poor and struggling with dramatic increases in funding for programs that affirm the same-sex lifestyle.

The Summer for Marriage Tour is a tale between two book covers, so to speak, with the front cover already embossed, and the back cover still being prepared as this article is being written. The opening cover was the ruling in early July by Boston Federal District Court Judge Joseph Tauro in two cases in which he ordered the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA) to be struck down. The closing cover will be the soon-expected ruling by San Francisco Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8. Both DOMA and Proposition 8 define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Take a look at the webpage listing the marriage tour’s itinerary to see where the next stops will be and alert your relatives and friends in those areas about the need to show the same local support that Rhode Island’s marriage defenders courageously exhibited under such trying circumstances.

Daniel Avila is the Associate Director for Policy & Research of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference.