feminine-genius

Saint Matthew's, Norwalk CT

This Saturday, 27 February, I'll be the guest of the Catholic Daughters of St. Matthew where I'll be offering a retreat for women from 10am to 3:30pm. There will be three talks, opportunity for Confession, lunch and Rosary, and we'll end with the recitation of the Divine Mercy Chaplet. Join us if you're in the area -- more information here.

A fierce (and important) debate: FGM

Hundreds of millions of girls worldwide undergo a mutilation of their genitals based on both religion and tradition. The religious component is related to somewhat obscure Muslim ahadith, which say: 

Abu al- Malih ibn `Usama's father relates that the Prophet said: "Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women" (Ahmad Ibn Hanbal 5:75; Abu Dawud, Adab 167);

Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband (Abu Dawud 41:5251);

There is another hadith (which we'll leave aside because of the explicit content -- common to Islamic discussions of marital relations) and it is equally firm, and then there is the Reliance of the Traveller, on which Shari'a law is based:

e4.3 Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris (this is called Hufaad).

Whether parents can name the specific religious source or not, the tradition has taken hold, and now the affected populations are bringing the practice to the West through immigration. Doctors in Europe, Canada, and the United States have a choice: inviting the parents to bring the girls into a sterile environment to make a "ritual nick" in the appropriate place, or to reject the practice as unethical and unnecessary. In all honesty, the latter will merely lead the parents to take the girls to back-alley practitioners or to send them back to the country of origin for the procedure--again without benefit of hygienic safeguards. It's a horrific choice, and there are compelling arguments on both sides.

Interestingly, there are many who would reject the doctor's offer of a "nick," leaving no lasting effect, because the tradition has an important point: to reduce the libido of the girls by making sexual intimacy less desirable (either through the pain involved or by removing those components that are integral to sexual pleasure). Unfortunately, there is more than reducing the sexual drive: "It can cause urinary difficulties, cysts and infection, infertility and complications in childbirth."

For a first-hand account of the trauma and horror, here is a portion of supermodel Waris Dirie's testimony (found here):

In a nomadic culture like the one I was raised in, there is no place for an unmarried woman, so mothers feel it is their duty to ensure their daughters have the best possible opportunity to get a husband.

And since the prevailing wisdom in Somalia is that there are bad things between a girl's legs, a woman is considered dirty, oversexed and unmarriageable unless those parts--the clitoris, the labia minora, and most of the labia majora--are removed. Then the wound is stitched shut, leaving only a small opening and a scar where the genitals had been-a practice called infibulation.

Paying the gypsy woman for this circumcision is one of the greatest expenses a household will undergo, but is considered a good investment. Without it the daughters will not make it onto the marriage market.

The actual details of the ritual cutting are never explained to the girls--it's a mystery. You just know that something special is going to happen when your time comes. As a result, all young girls in Somalia anxiously await the ceremony that will mark their becoming a woman. Originally the process occurred when the girls reached puberty, but through time it has been performed on younger and younger girls.

One evening when I was about five, my mother said to me, "Your father ran into the gypsy woman. She should be here any day now" ...

The future of the family and the Church

I had a lovely discussion with Sue Brinkmann, the founder of Young Women of Grace, a tremendous program for Catholic girls ages 12 to 18 (and beyond, really!) I cannot recommend it highly enough -- it's beautiful, chock-full of very good information, profiles of young saints, catechesis, and inspiration. Listen to the interview to see how you can introduce the program in your area, or simply buy a copy for the young lady in your life!

Listen here:

Brinkmann

 

Mary Seacole

Before Black History Month entirely escapes, I'd like to point you to a very well-done two-part presentation on Mary Seacole, a contemporary of Florence Nightengale who had the same interests and success:

 

 

I admire her resilience, her fortitude, and her unflagging spirit. We all face obstacles -- they simply reveal our character. This woman was amazing, and a role model for any young woman of any "colour."

Zika, the Congo, and Humanae Vitae

UPDATE: this old post has been updated to consider the current question about contraception as it relates to the Zika virus and the pope's latest comments.

There was intense discussion about the 2007 statement of the Connecticut Bishop's in regard to the availability of Plan B at Catholic hospitals, which is as follows:

The Catholic Bishops of Connecticut, joined by the leaders of the Catholic hospitals in the State, issue the following statement regarding the administration of Plan B in Catholic hospitals to victims of rape:

The four Catholic hospitals in the State of Connecticut remain committed to providing competent and compassionate care to victims of rape. In accordance with Catholic moral teaching, these hospitals provide emergency contraception after appropriate testing. Under the existing hospital protocols, this includes a pregnancy test and an ovulation test.  Catholic moral teaching is adamantly opposed to abortion, but not to emergency contraception for victims of rape.

This past spring the Governor signed into a law “An Act Concerning Compassionate Care for Victims of Sexual Assault,” passed by the State Legislature. It does not allow medical professionals to take into account the results of the ovulation test. The Bishops and other Catholic health care leaders believe that this law is seriously flawed, but not sufficiently to bar compliance with it at the present time. We continue to believe this law should be changed.

Nonetheless, to administer Plan B pills in Catholic hospitals to victims of rape a pregnancy test to determine that the woman has not conceived is sufficient.  An ovulation test will not be required.  The administration of Plan B pills in this instance cannot be judged to be the commission of an abortion because of such doubt about how Plan B pills and similar drugs work and because of the current impossibility of knowing from the ovulation test whether a new life is present.  To administer Plan B pills without an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act.

Since the teaching authority of the Church has not definitively resolved this matter and since there is serious doubt about how Plan B pills work, the Catholic Bishops of Connecticut have stated that Catholic hospitals in the State may follow protocols that do not require an ovulation test in the treatment of victims of rape. A pregnancy test approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration suffices. If it becomes clear that Plan B pills would lead to an early chemical abortion in some instances, this matter would have to be reopened.

What to do about the potential birth defects related to the Zika virus has caused many to appeal to the situation in the Congo 60 years ago:

A recent debate concerning the use of contraceptives in rape protocols has brought up the often-cited case of the “Congo nuns.” As the story goes, nuns in the Belgian Congo during the 1960s were given permission by the Vatican to take contraceptives in situations were it was clear that guerilla soldiers might sack their convents and force themselves upon the sisters. This story is regularly used as a lower-level support of the now widespread practice (enshrined in the USCCB’s Ethical and Religious Directives #36) of allowing women who have been raped to be treated “with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization.”

I think that highly respected ethicists have seen varying angles to what happened in Connecticut, but in all honesty, neither case (CT or the Congo) relates to the recent comments by Pope Francis.

Jimmy Akin offers some good analysis

Let’s look at the Congo nuns story. In that one, the argument was made that it was legitimate for the nuns to use contraception because they did not will the sexual act. It was being imposed on them by force, and so their lack of consent to the sexual act means that they were not consenting EITHER to its unitive OR its procreative aspect.

Thus it is argued that it was just for them to do what they could to avoid the procreative aspects of the act just as much as it was just for them to do what they could to avoid the unitive aspect of the act. The use of contraception, in their case, would constitute a form of legitimate defense against the consequences of an act that were imposed on them, not the frustration of the consequences of an act in which they freely engaged.

Then he reminds us that the language has been badly garbled in translation:

Here’s the Latin original:

Item quivis respuendus est actus, qui, cum coniugale commercium vel praevidetur vel efficitur vel ad suos naturales exitus ducit, id tamquam finem obtinendum aut viam adhibendam intendat, ut procreatio impediatur.

I’ve highlighted the words that the English translation gives as "sexual intercourse." Even if you don’t have a background in Latin, the meaning of these words is pretty clear via their cognates in English. They literally mean "conjugal commerce" or–to make them slightly more idiomatic–"marital exchange."

In any event, they don’t mean simply "sexual intercourse." They mean a specific kind of sexual intercourse: Sexual intercourse which is conjugal or between married persons.

Thus, Humanae Vitae only deals with marital intimacy, not with promiscuity or rape. The waters are very muddy at this point, but the Congo case doesn't relate because it doesn't involve marital intimacy. Humanae Vitae still seems to stand, since the only people who need to legitimately fear the Zika virus are those who are engaging in the conjugal act [read: married couples]. Everyone else -- those who engage in sexual relations outside of marriage -- are already outside the realm of Catholic morality.

ADDENDUM: John Kippley offers a wonderful summary here http://nfpandmore.org/wordpress/?p=3757

Conversations on Downton Abbey

I thoroughly enjoyed a two-part conversation with Mary-Eileen Russell on Downton Abbey -- NOT the plot per se (so no spoilers!) but on the lives of women in the early part of the 20th century. There is so much to unpack, both upstairs and downstairs, but a good understanding of history allows us to consider the world at the cusp of the women's movement -- and what drove it.

Part One is here:

Russell Part One on EFG

Part Two is here:

Russell Part Two on EFG

And all the good work of Mary-Eileen can be found here and here (Kindly note: her nom de plume is Elena Maria Vidal.) Her books are great (my review here) so enjoy!

A barbaric nation

Previously, one could posit that "only a barbaric nation kills its babies in the name of choice," but now we have another accusation that is related and just as foreboding: "Only a barbaric nation drafts its mothers and daughters into combat."

Such a policy inverts natural law and the rules that have grounded our civilization for thousands of years.

Men should protect women. They should not shelter behind mothers and daughters. Indeed, we see this reality every time there is a mass shooting. Boyfriends throw themselves over girlfriends, and even strangers and acquaintances often give themselves up to save the woman closest to them. Who can forget the story of 45-year-old Shannon Johnson wrapping his arms around 27-year-old Denise Peraza and declaring “I got you” before falling to the San Bernardino shooters’ bullets?

Ground combat is barbaric. Even today, men grapple with men, killing each other with anything they can find. Returning veterans describe countless incidents of hand-to-hand combat with jihadists ... That is war. It is not a video game. It is not a movie, where young Hollywood starlets karate-kick their way through masses of inept thugs and goons. When we order women into ground combat, we are ordering them into situations where men larger and stronger than they will show no mercy.

There is the natural law argument, which gets us nowhere in this post-modern age, where it is believed that children can be reprogrammed by gender-neutral childhood, but then there is the concrete reality:

After nine months of scientifically monitored task force field tests, University of Pittsburgh researchers reported that all-male USMC task force units outperformed gender-mixed units in 69 percent (93 of 134) of ground combat tasks.  Physical deficiencies evident in these field tests will undermine “survivability and lethality” in war ˗˗ the two paramount factors that the Marines identified in their report.

Secretary Carter’s unsupported claims that combat effectiveness will not degrade cannot withstand comparison with empirical data that the Marines produced in support of their now-overruled request for exceptions.  His claim that there will be no quotas also stands in direct conflict with the administration’s stated priority: “gender diversity metrics” (quotas) of 25% women in the Navy and other services. 

In order to meet these quotas, officials will have to implement the “Dempsey Rule,” named for the January 2013 admission of former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey that standards too high for women would be questioned.  Gender diversity quotas eventually will lower standards to levels that are equal but lower than before.  This will happen without notice to Congress or accountability for the dangerous results.

Female-friendly training will leave men less prepared for harsh combat realities that will not change.  It will also leave women more likely to suffer disproportionate injuries and resentment they don’t deserve. 

And in case studies are too abstract, how about this assessment from the field:

I served 20 years on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps, and retired as Gunnery Sergeant. Along with multiple overseas deployments and combat-related exercises, I provided logistics and training support to combat arms and wing units. Believe me, I’ve been there. Which is why what I heard at the last GOP debate absolutely shocked me. At one point during the debate, I wondered if everyone had morphed into a liberal Democrat. Suddenly, three candidates proclaimed they supported women signing up for selective service, aka, the draft. I was extremely disappointed to hear Governor Christie say that women should not be discriminated against from selective service. Rubio felt selective service should be opened up for women and Bush agreed.

I was stunned – did any of these candidates understand the question and the reason behind it? The combat exclusion for women has been lifted. This means women can fight on the front lines now. Yes. That means they now can’t be discriminated from hand-to-hand combat with male ISIS fighters who are high on methamphetamines or brutal combat against Taliban. This means extended field operations outside of the wire, vulnerable to the most violent fighting in the world.

The three Republican candidates apparently bought into the left’s argument that this is an equal opportunity issue. No, this is a combat readiness issue. Period. Women in combat isn’t a feel good argument about “if she wants to do it” or “it’s her choice.” We’re talking about the difference between living or dying, and living means crushing an enemy whose only way to survive is by killing his opponent.

None of the candidates stated they researched the issue, or that they spoke to any of the military leaders who have requested exemption for infantry and commando units. So to me, many jumped on board the narrative to appeal to female voters. Before any candidate supports the draft, he or she needs to take a closer look to understand what it really means. It doesn’t mean women will be assigned to desk jobs to “Free a man to fight” like during WWII. It means women can and will be involuntarily assigned to combat and infantry units.

Be straight to the voters. Women in combat will cause women to die at a much higher rate then men in the next conflict.

A radio show!

Yes, I'm thrilled to have been invited to offer a weekly radio show on KYES in St Cloud, MN (an affiliate of Relevant Radio). Exploring the Feminine Genius airs on Saturday mornings, and the latest show can be found here.  I thoroughly enjoyed chatting with Anne Merwin, a convert and author who wrote Elizabeth Ann Seton for Daughters of Saint Paul. The marvel is how the life of Mrs Merwin and that of the saint shared so many parallels! The book is part of the DSP "Saints By Our Side" series, and this one offers both a very good introduction to Elizabeth Anne Seton and many meditative insights that will enrich any reader. Kindly spread the word, and for those who are not in the St Cloud region of the planet, the show may be streamed online (and of course I'll be reminding you of new shows and how to listen to archived materials). Pop this one in your listening device and be inspired as you live the feminine genius in your very own sliver of the world.