feminine-genius

A dose of honesty

Pamela Haag has cut to the chase to remind us what lies behind the euphemism of "women's health:"

This is a polemic:  Access to birth control isn’t really about my “health.” It’s not principally about the management of ovarian cysts or the regulation of periods.

Birth control isn’t about my health unless by health you mean, my capacity to get it on, to have a happy, joyous sex life that involves an actual male partner. The point of birth control is to have sex that’s recreational and non-procreative. It’s to permit women to exercise their desires without the sword of Damocles of unwanted pregnancy hanging gloomily over their heads.

OK, that's pretty straight-forward. She voices the widespread opinion that sex should be "recreational and non-procreative," which even many Christians believe. While a wide swath of Americans live as though this is their creed, she explains that there is a massive pretence to which we're obligated to pay lip service, which is why politicians have to refer to "health" and "personal freedom."

But the truth is that when our children have been given information at school about how to have "safe sex," and when "sex workers" are provided with contraception and abortion by government agencies with no worry about their safety or well-being, and the FCC has no problem with the vulgarity that passes for advertising and entertainment, the bulk of policy makers are obviously on the side of Ms Haag.

And yet, the thought of rolling back any of these policies which undermine the dignity of the human person is anathema to so many, because of the simple truth: there is a "larger population of unexceptional, consensual examples of women who get pregnant or use birth control because they want to have sex."

Well then, thanks for reminding us. And at this point, the arguments concerning sexually transmitted diseases, the broken families, the shredded teenagers, eating disorders, children having children, the suicide rates, domestic violence, drug-addicts, drop-outs, femininisation of poverty and even the related explosion of breast cancer incidents doesn't matter. They just want to have sex!

Ok, now you've been told -- and there's not a hint of irony over the fact that the "oppression of women" before the 1960's was nothing compared to how they're being used and abused now. But what does that matter as long as they can flaunt their inner sex kitten with abandon--and for free!

Komen Caught in the Crossfire

Now that the controversy has died down over the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer foundation, let’s assess the lessons. Readers will recall that Komen had been lobbied for a number of years by concerned pro-lifers, and the foundation finally agreed that offering grants to Planned Parenthood didn’t forward its mission.

An announcement that Komen would henceforth cut off those grants brought two divergent responses:  pro-lifers were jubilant, and Planned Parenthood and its supporters were enraged.  After a relentless 48-hour media jihad, Komen promised to reconsider all grants on a case by case basis—including those to Planned Parenthood. The board member suspected of having influenced the initial change of policy, Karen Handel, tendered her resignation. "I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it. I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen's future and the women we serve."

CEO Nancy G. Brinker admitted, “We have made mistakes in how we have handled recent decisions and take full accountability for what has resulted, but we cannot take our eye off the ball when it comes to our mission.” She mentioned “the need to distance Komen from controversy,” but perhaps didn’t fully grasp that it’s simply too late. Komen is now a symbol of the extreme divisiveness that accompanies legalized abortion, and it may well be the undoing of this noble charity.

Previously, the Pink Ribbon campaign was relatively uncontroversial—at least to the bulk of Americans unconcerned about the wide number of studies linking breast cancer to abortion and hormone-based birth control methods. Few families were untouched by this sort of tragedy and it was reasonably safe to support a search for a cure. Pink was ubiquitous, and most didn’t mind.

No more. Despite all the protests to the contrary, Komen is now a bellwether for people’s opinion about “abortion rights.” Pro-lifers are absolutely justified in withholding support, for there is no guarantee about what will happen in the case of future grants to Planned Parenthood. Komen may actually never give them another dime, but it won’t matter. Having shied from standing by its new policy (which didn’t last 72 hours) there is no firm principle guiding its donations. “Case by case” isn’t enough for serious pro-lifers, and their enthusiastic support withered to wavering disappointment.

But what about Planned Parenthood supporters who crowed over their victory? Technically, it wasn’t a victory. There is still no guarantee that any money will go to the nation’s leading abortion supplier; the success they claimed was actually just the collapsed bravado of a group that works very hard to help women.  Unfortunately, we’ve learned that if such help threatens in any way to impact the sexual license of women, then it must be demolished. Promiscuity is sacrosanct, despite its myriad harms, and Komen—and all others—have been duly warned.

The supreme irony is that pro-abortion women won’t visibly support Komen either. Pink will no longer be a mindless accessory, a nod to an unimpeachable cause. Supporters of Planned Parenthood are fiercely  angry that Komen tried to buck the tide, and they’ll withhold their support as well.

The “Race for the Cure” will lose its community support, large buildings will no longer be bathed in that rosy glow, and Komen’s kitchy couture will be a thing of the past. Rather than having to explain what qualified support stands behind each pink ribbon, women will just pass.

So in that sense, it is a victory for Planned Parenthood, which is a tragedy for women everywhere.

"One in a million"

Dolores Hart was reminded that she was "one in a million," as family members tried to talk her out of leaving a successful acting career to enter the convent, but perhaps that's the very reason that she felt called to the cloister. It was a singular calling, and and at its heart, she knew it provided the stability that her broken family and Hollywood career did not. Those two things had provided her with great heartache--both being the source of constant good-bye's and disjointed relationships, which were shredding her.

She is in the news once again because of her upcoming visit to the Oscars, during which a short film about her vocation will be nominated for an award. This recent 20/20 interview probes her decision to enter the Regina Laudis Benedictine community in Connecticut.

It also brings back my own fond memories of a visit there. While I thought I'd have a quiet relaxing retreat, I worked harder than I'd ever done in my life, as I happened to visit at the time when they were removing an ingrown fence on one of their pastures, which meant uprooting the surrounding trees, hauling the stumps and clearing out years of brush. I was exhausted, but priviledged to work side by side with extraordinary women from all walks of life. My souvenirs were an opportunity for profound spiritual direction and a very sore back. The former, praise God, outlasted the latter!

 

Footnote on Whitney

The latest Rachel's Vineyard newsletter reminds us of a particular song written by Whitney Houston, concerning post-abortion pain. (She later denied the reference, hoping not to alienate any viewers by taking a side in the debate about life, but the lyrics speak for themselves.)

Nothing should matter
Not when love grows inside you
The choice is yours
There’s a miracle in store…
Nothing should matter
Not when love grows inside you
A voice of love is crying out
Don’t throw love away
There’s a miracle in store…

How could I let go of a miracle?
Nothing could ever take its place
Thought I was looking, out for myself
Now it seems the pain
Is all that I have gained

  

Background to the HHS controversy

While Americans are in a lather over the HHS mandate to provide "free" contraceptives to all who want them (paid for by all, despite the moral objections of many) such policies have long been in the making on an international level.

Consider these Yogyakarta Principles approved on an international level in 2007:

The Yogyakarta Principles are a set of principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. The Principles affirm binding international legal standards with which all States must comply. They promise a different future where all people born free and equal in dignity and rights can fulfil that precious birthright.

If sexual expression is a birthright, then it joins the fundamental rights of life and liberty, and must be provided for everyone on the planet, no matter what obstacles cultural norms create. That means that there is no difference between the Muslim endorsement of child brides and polygamy and the Christian call for chastity and fidelity within marriage. Both would be wrong if a young girl wished to express herself as a lesbian, as a prostitute or as a mymphomaniac. No one can tell her "no."

Ubiquitous, sterile sex is the panacea for the left, and is foundational to those who support the Yogyakarta Principles. It will only work if there is:

• sex without babies
• sex outside of marriage
• sex with whomever we want
• sex at any age
• sex without commitment
• sex without any ties or bonds (and babies ruin it!)

This has been the mantra of the UN population control people for years, and this has been the mantra of the SEICUS people who have been corrupting our children's education for decades.

Once people assume they have a right to sex without any restrictions, then it creates a market for abortion, which is lucrative ($$ billions annually).

The only thing better than sex without any commitment or restrictions is making it free -- i.e. making the taxpayers foot the bill. This has been in the works a long time. Pope Paul VI knew this when he wrote Humanae Vitae, and the Catholic Church has been holding the line (alone!) on this for years.

While the HHS manual is primarily a question of religious liberty, it is also a teaching moment to show how contraception has been an integral part of sexual license, promiscuity in all realms of society, and the destruction of the traditional family. Please inform yourselves of the link between contraception and divorce, abortion and sex trafficking. Pope Paul VI was right:

We take this opportunity to address those who are engaged in education and all those whose right and duty it is to provide for the common good of human society. We would call their attention to the need to create an atmosphere favorable to the growth of chastity so that true liberty may prevail over license and the norms of the moral law may be fully safeguarded.

Everything therefore in the modern means of social communication which arouses men's baser passions and encourages low moral standards, as well as every obscenity in the written word and every form of indecency on the stage and screen, should be condemned publicly and unanimously by all those who have at heart the advance of civilization and the safeguarding of the outstanding values of the human spirit. It is quite absurd to defend this kind of depravity in the name of art or culture (25) or by pleading the liberty which may be allowed in this field by the public authorities (HV, 22).

Looking for a Lenten project?

I have a review at Catholic Lane of an excellent study for women -- it would be perfect to do alone, with friends in your living room or even in a more formal parish setting. With larger events swirling about us and making us wonder about how we'll be able to live our faith (with integrity) in the coming years, we would do well to remind ourselves of those who did the same over the centuries in the most trying of times. These books will be a practical and well-grounded help for all of us!

Edging out the men

According to recent statistics, the Anglican Church is now ordaining more women than men.

There is a female majority for the first time in the Church of England, with more women priests joining than men. This certainly bodes well for a final “yes” vote in next July’s Synod that would allow women into the Episcopate. “Official figures show that 290 women were ordained in 2010, the most recent year for which figures are available,” says British newspaper The Telegraph. “By contrast, just 273 men entered the priesthood.”

It was bound to happen. The same thing occurred when girls were admitted into the ranks of altar servers in the Catholic Church -- the more the girls came, the more the boys left. Not all, thank goodness, but a good number. Now, to be sure, there is no dogmatic reason why altar servers should be restricted to boys, only the mundane fact that it was an opportunity for boys to bond with priests and consider the vocation to Holy Orders. Once it became just a group of kids who didn't mind going to Mass and even wanted to help out, the singularity of the service as a stepping stone to a particular vocation had to be minimised, since the priest couldn't be seen favouring the boys and ignoring the girls. They all have souls, and surely they're all precious in the sight of God.

But we still depend on priestly vocations. And the fact that high heels, bracelets and colourful hair accessories are terribly distracting hasn't risen to the level of a serious impediment to allowing girls on the altar. Thus we're left to make the argument that the spousal imagery is clouded when women serve the priest in this way. (I say women, because I just went to a funeral where an elderly woman sat next to the priest on the dais and served him as MC throughout the service. Jarring, to those unused to such things.)

So what of the Anglicans? I suppose their decline will continue, since they've stepped beyond "clouding the spousal image" on a lower level to actually creating a sterile, same-sex union within the priesthood itself (and hope to extend their reach into the episcopacy). How can there be spiritual children and a fruitful growth when Holy Mother Church depends on women to plant seeds? It simply doesn't work that way, as the decline proves. There are no seeds, there is no Eucharist, the Church has no authority, and the emperor lost his clothes some centuries back.

And the Pope in his wisdom calls his children home through the Ordinariate. God be praised!

Reaping the whirlwind

I believe that feminists have sown the wind, in their rejection of the traditional family, esteem for motherhood and collaboration with men. In that sense, having deconstructed so much of the societies in which they live, is there any wonder that they've found themselves filled with furious anger?

Like our love, women’s anger — the simmering rage toward our families, our mates and assorted males that can turn even the calmest woman’s expression into The Death Look — is always there. Even when it’s the last thing on our minds.

Wow. I can honestly say that I have no such simmering, pervasive rage, even on the worst days--nor does anyone I know. Perhaps something's very very wrong in the way they've ordered their lives? My take is at Catholic Lane.