All our Faith and Family Findings of the last few months drive home the most basic fact about man: We are made to belong. And, cannot belong just to ourselves.
Our capacity to be attached appropriately to the important people in our lives (spouses, children, friends and our colleagues at work) determines our happiness. Yet, our capacity to be attached to others is primarily a product of how attached to us our mother was, which in turn is largely a product of her experiences of attachment in her earliest years. Granted, biological hardwiring of the child has a big effect on how a mother responds to her infant’s need for attachment. Some infants are easier to hold and enjoy. But it is those who are not so easy to enjoy who that affection they seem to reject even as they cry for it.
So much can be unpacked from the data of our recent Findings: the mothers need for a husband (and extended family) who take special care of her as these huge new demands are put on her and the husband’s capacity to take second place to a newborn in his wife’s new life of “distributing affection”. (The first birth is the occasion that triggers more divorces than any other life event – or so the data showed about 15 years ago. I have not seen any contrary data since).
From the mix of our early attachment experiences, combined with our neurological make-up, four main styles of attachment influence arise that shape our relationship dominant style for the rest of our lives: secure attachment (easy to get along with plus a capacity to accept people as they are); anxious attachment (wanting and seeking attachment but never feeling fulfilled because of a fear of not being lovable enough); avoidant attachment style (keeping a distance, reaching out but with reservations, pulling back or with- holding commitment) and then anxious-avoidant (a mixture of anxiously reaching out and then pulling back).
It is amazing to see in the data how pervasive these styles are in our relationships: in romance and marriage; in the “ordinary” settings of work; biologically on the immune system, longevity, capacity to handle stress and even on the capacity to deal with psychosis!
We are made to belong, and the good life is to belong securely with those who are most important to us in life. The growing concern is “How to get there?” One of the greatest mystics in human history (recognized so across all religions) is John of the Cross …so named for his penetration of the meaning of suffering (and he experienced many severe rejections from those most important to his life). His guidance: “Where there is no love, put love and you will find love.”
Behavioral psychologists already know how to help anxious or avoidant mothers break the intergenerational cycle of insecure attachment —not by eliminating the insecurity in the mother, but by teaching her how to act in an attached way towards her infant child (despite her feelings). It works! John of the Cross and behavioral psychologists acting in tandem!
Given the breakdown in family and the almost culturally-normed experience of parental rejection that so many children have in our era, we have an epidemic of detachment, evidenced, for instance, in the opioid epidemic, or in manifestations such as the sexual behavior the Japanese cohort of millennials no longer interested in marriage or romance or even in the opposite sex. Further, new discoveries in making the digital more reality like, and in the games derived, are adding quickly shaping “detachment patterns” of adolescent addiction to the digital, non-relational life.
Much beckons for all parents across the globe in learning how to stem detachment in their children and, instead, to help them be attached human beings. Neurobiological insights will help and motivate. Cognitive behavioral discoveries in therapeutics will help, and stories from those who overcome these habits will help.
We are entering a very new phase in human history: even as we conquer space and the atom and everything in between we are eroding our capacities for attachment. But everything most human depends on attachment. The world will soon be starving for a solution. The data of Mapping America indicates the way.
Today’s findings are body-speak for man’s deepest need: the need to belong, and remind us of the famous sociological phenomenon, the Roseto Effect. Roseto, Pennsylvania, was a virtual transplant of a people and culture of the town of Roseto in southeast Italy. It kept the old country patterns of tight family and extended family ways of life , leading to a total integration of the generations, predictable habits of work, play, family and worship; interdependence on each other in times of need, marriage within the culture. They belonged intensely to each other. And despite breaking all the dietary rules for cardiovascular health they had outstanding heart health, no crime and no requests for welfare assistance. They belonged intensely to each other and had a way of life that protected that belonging. As one author pithily nailed it: “In short, Rosetans were nourished by people.”
As time went on, the more American they became, the more Rosetans’s health resembled the rest of the country. Said differently, the less they belonged to each other the more their bodies revealed the stress.
For both poor and rich the secret of a good life is the same: base life on the important relationships of family and community rather than on “the task”. The pursuit of close relationships yields plenty of tasks — the Rosetans of Pennsylvania worked harder and longer than did their neighboring towns; but the modern way of the pursuit of tasks for the goods they give (grades, degrees, fitness, income, property) does not yield close relationships. To paraphrase a sacred text “Seek first the kingdom of closeness and all these other things will be added unto you.”
Traditional Italian life and Spanish life used to be quite similar in patterns of ‘people-belonging.” But modern Spain has made a Faustian bargain. Today, virtually all mothers, no matter their income level, return to work at month four. Many deliberately avoid getting too attached to their newborn because they do not want to experience the wrenching anxiety that sudden separation will visit on them and their babies.
What a Faustian bargain: work for its own sake. Their household gods have certainly been replaced by a new religion. Such a culture cannot replace itself. It is in a downward spiral.
But maybe family love will be rediscovered by some divine intervention will intervene and let people discover close family again, especially in the newborn infant. It certainly won’t be a government program.
For the good of the child, the future of the world,
To belong deeply some others is man’s deepest need. It lasts beyond death.
First and foremost children need to belong to both their parents and thrive most when those parents belong to each other and to their children. Then life is good, no matter the material circumstances.
In this week’s findings we see, yet again, the negative relationship between cohabitation and belonging. It is a major disruptor of marriage and a predictor of instability in marriage if one has had more than one sexual partner. These data are getting old now. By the mid 1980’s Larry Bumpass (U Wisconsin) and Jay Teachman (then U Maryland) began to put their finger this bad news. Since then the work of many but especially Scott Stanley has unpacked what is happening even when cohabitation results in marriage: “sliding not deciding”.
In the absence of a moral or cultural authority the data make little impact and people suffer, none more than the children of the cohabiting couple. Twenty-five years into the future these children in their turn are much more likely to repeat the pattern.
Cohabitation is faux belonging and helps build a faux society with more and more faux relationships.
The Marxist Feminists by seeking the weakest spot by which to collapse society, found it in the “patriarch” (the father of the family, i.e. the married father, or more precisely in the potential “patriarch”. Remove him and society and its institutions would gradually collapse. Monogamous marriage is their main target. Lenin removed it immediately (1919), but Russian Communists, now with a society to run, restored it in 1929 because of the social chaos it had brought with it. However, for purposes of destabilizing US society, this was a brilliant insight, not recognized by opponents of Marxism, even among those believed in the sacredness of marriage and family. That the role of the father was not fully grasped until these deconstruction effects began to be seen. If anything, traditionally that central role was given to mother, not father. But many mistook the natural emotionally-deeper bonding of children to mother, to be the relational core of family bonding. Father is, not because he is stronger, but because he is weaker and more vulnerable.
The female, the mother, has nature pulling and pushing her into deep relationship with her children. For nine months she gets to know her baby in her womb with increasing intensity. The catharsis of giving birth yields its own bonding. Breast feeding for the months that follow increases the bond, even as the child’s experience lays down the foundations of the erotic in the adulthood.
By contrast the male, the father, gets little help from nature. His bonding is principally an act of the will, of virtue, of good habit. It can be strong, very strong and has huge effects but on the anthropological level the bond with mother wins out, noticeable on the battlefield and in the celibate priest’s relationship with his parents. The bond with mother is stronger.
Thus, the father’s relationship to his wife and to his children is the lynchpin in the family and society, not because of an inherent male strength but because of an inherent male weakness. His attachment is the treasured glue that makes the family whole, because the father-family relationship is the more breakable one (and the one most often broken). Thus, his role is the keystone that supports the “arch” that is the family, and, given society’s dependence on the family, the keystone that holds society together. The father’s embrace of monogamy is the dynamic that yields a strong culture of love, and commitment. Without it we get poverty, violence, abuse, educational failure, crime depression, anxiety. Furthermore, these deficits compound when the brokenness is repeated generation after generation — as has been the case with the Black family.
A strong marriage is thus the core strength of family and therefore of society. Each sex has a unique contribution, mother more anchored in the bios, the father in the will (only because of the relative absence of the bios). Hence the married father is the lynchpin of the family, of the community, of the culture. Remove the male and the structure begins to collapse, no matter how great the female.
The male’s centrality lies in his relative vulnerability on matters sexual, to sex without the acceptance of its burdens and duties — to the child and its mother. The erotic is his weak spot. The female knows this and in turn is tempted to use her attractiveness to him to gain attachment or control – two very different temptations, stemming from two very different characters. The Marxist Feminists realized the potential of male vulnerability for their ends and set it as their main tool. Hence the easy alliance with other groups on all aspects of easy sex: contraception, especially outside of marriage, abortion, gay marriage, sex ed groups (especially SIECUS and its affiliates in the realm of sex education).
Today the breakdown of the family is far advanced as the following chart on the most broken makes clear:
The implications for the society are enormous. As all cultures evolved, they did so around the transmission of sexual mores. Their biggest function is to keep sexual expression within marriage — in slightly different ways in different cultures, but always within the marriage form of that culture. The mechanism of enforcement is the taboo. But the US culture today, defanged with the erosion of almost all taboos, instead of being a culture that preserves the family, instead presents constant dangers through the mainstreaming of divorce, serial cohabitation, out of wedlock births, abortion, hook-ups, and pornography, all with debilitating consequences in the formation of the emerging generation.
The rescue of society must have at its center the rebuilding of the male as the center of the family. When that becomes a cultural movement America might be saved. Otherwise its unravelling will continue. It cannot but. However Americans are practical, “can do” people, so the chances of this happening are good.
Keep this in mind as we celebrate the 4th of July. We need a new generation of “Founding Fathers”.
Father’s Day celebrates the relationship between a father and his child(ren), a relationship that is very generative —-of good or evil, of love or hate — depending on the relationship. Some are blessed with great fathers, e.g. John Paul II and Therese Martin. Others are cursed with fathers who generate hate, as was the case for most of the founders of The National Organization of Women (NOW). I have read the biographies of six of them and the pattern is the same in all. Each had fathers whose treatment of them and their mothers would generate hatred of them in any human being. The same holds for Shulamith Firestone (not a founder of NOW but maybe even more intellectually influential in the long run).
While the erotic nature of male and female is nurtured at the breast of the mother, its capacity to unfold that eroticism in a flourishing heterosexual relationship is found in the relationship with the father (for both son and daughter). The sexual choices that the child’s parents made (sex within or outside of marriage) have a huge amount to do with that peacefulness — not everything to do with it, but much to do with it — as this chart from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent to Adult Health shows:
Here adolescents rated the warmth of their relationship with their fathers (in 1996). The numbers speak loudly for themselves. Living with one’s biological father in an always-intact married family makes a huge difference.
There clearly is much room for improvement even in the intact family. Back in the Bush II Administration, the Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS) sponsored a fatherhood ad campaign in conjunction with The Ad Council. It had big effects. My brother-in-law who was a shipping broker in New York City told me of one pretty powerful effect: within a year or so most married financial services professionals (finance, shipping, wholesale, insurance) who used to treat clients visiting New York to dinner, as standard practice, ceased doing so because, as a result of the campaign, it became a cultural norm in NYC that fathers should be home for dinner with their children rather than out on the town with clients. What an impact!
That Administration’s Secretary of HHS was Dr. Wade Horn, a clinical psychologist who knew his “stuff” and knew, more than anyone else in the history of HHS, how to wield his power for good. But he ran up against the hatred of NOW (remember those foundresses) and hate drives out love. Another project he wanted to pull off was a joint project, not with the Ad Council this time, but with the National Council for Family Relations (NCFR), the publisher of the premier research journal, the Journal of Marriage and Family. A deal was struck to build a publicly available database of findings on the effects of marriage on children and on society. It was moving forward when suddenly it was derailed by an internal revolt within NCFR: a coterie of radical feminists put an end to it. The details of that revolting incident have never been made public, nor a great investigative story ever pursued by any of the top newspapers or magazines. It still awaits an enterprising reporter (and editor).
The influence hate-inspiring fathers continues down through the generations as does the influence of self-sacrificing fathers in the continuing battle between love and hate. in what family structure does hate most reside?
When I (an older white male) feel slighted by a the somewhat over hostility of a young black woman (e.g. in the manner of response at a retail store) I immediately think of what she likely endured in her family of origin, given the unprovoked slighting: she likely was raised in the family structure to the extreme right and likely carries the sexual scars for the rest of her life, depriving her of the capacity to form a loving, enduring relationship with a man who could become the loving father of her children.
We see all around us the battle between love and hate and the body count mounts. While all of us blessed enough to celebrate Father’s, let us remember that many (most?) US children cannot. Let us pray and work to have the nation challenge itself to give to every child its universal, most basic of human rights, the father it needs: a loving father, in a loving marriage.
In the end only love makes the difference we all say we want.
For the good of the child, the future of America,
PS: If you know of stories of great fathers do send them or the link to them to MARRI. Stories of fathers who generate hate will be occasionally useful too, though we need much more of the good kind.
A few months ago while testing my thesis, with an audience of students, about the centrality of the “patriarch” (as defined by feminists) to the thriving family and society, I was struck by the response of one male undergrad. He said that should he speak the way I had spoken he would likely get fired from a job or, at minimum, run into trouble with the HR department. (He was a full-time student in his junior year). I was taken aback and asked the other young men (all full-time undergrads at The Catholic University of America) if they knew what he was talking about. They did and agreed with him.
With this I realized that radical Marxist feminist ideas have already penetrated universally and deep — deep even into the hearts of the best of young men, raised (most likely) in good, intact Catholic families. These young men were in many ways the “cream of the crop”. They were good men: friends, who loved and played sports, looked forward to finding the right girl, valued chastity, worshiped more than weekly, went to confession often, prayed daily, studied hard and helped others get through difficult exams. Yes: “The Cream of the Crop” — yet already afraid of being manly men and scared soon to be such in the workplace.
Given that, I have since put the following question to a number of audiences: “We have women’s study centers/departments/institutes in colleges all over the country (644 in 2014); what do you think would happen if we were to propose similar ‘Men’s studies Centers’ ?” The response is always the same: not just protest, riots!
One could say our ideas are now ruled by academic dominatrices who demand male submissives, nowhere more clearly illustrated than in the American Psychological Association’s new guidelines on “Toxic Masculinities” in which the traditional man (read “married and religious’) is assumed to be domineering and violent.
Earlier this week a director of coaches from a Christian sports organization described to me his concern that a significant portion of the teenage boy is organization deals with are afraid to commit — and committing is key to sports. They are soft. Most are from economically comfortable families in a high-income part of the country. Further, it is the mothers (not the fathers) who voice anxiety about their boys and demand a difference: they are sending their disengaged boys to the care of masculine men — sports coaches — to make men out of them, and often show anger when the project seems not to bring about the expected change, and instead further highlights their sons’ weak stance on life.
Emasculated males, disgruntled, anxious, and increasingly angry females!
The more the coach and I probed this the more we concluded that the Christian vocation of following Christ (becoming His disciple) and becoming totally self-sacrificing, was absent from the modern “Christian” discourse about marriage.
We live in a world of unrivaled comfort. The ordinary college grad (despite debts, etc.) lives as gentry never could even dream of for most of human history, and many young, just-married couples live better than most kings have. On the scale of the human historical experience we are the most pampered generation in all of history (despite the levels of abject poverty — which by the way are constantly dropping, globally, with talk of total elimination of this abject poverty, worldwide, by 2050). Prosperity always breeds softness unless a demanding vocation is expected by the culture and is personally embraced. Christian churches no longer present such a demanding vocation in marriage. It too has become soft.
[Even thought this blog is written for all readers — Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Confucian, Shinto, secular and SBNRs (spiritual but not religious), in this day of mass media all from these religious groupings are aware of what a Christian is supposed to be. They also have similar teachings, for the natural family requires self-sacrifice, sometimes heroic, and in all cultures that heroism is most honored. “Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends” evokes universal agreement.]
With that explanation I now zero in on the problem of the Average American Male (who still is “Christian”):
The fully mature Christian man (deliberate follower of Christ) has come to grips and is at ease (though he struggles and suffers) with being one who gives himself totally for his wife (first) and his children. Everything he does is for their good. However, such a man has one big need: a woman who has embraced the same vocation: to sacrifice herself totally for her husband (first) and then her children (not the other way around), and everything she does is dedicated to that. This is her way, this is her husband’s way, of following Christ.
But, when prosperity is combined with a feminist culture these norms are now avoided by Christians and instead pacts (compromises) with social and material comfort are negotiated, nowhere more than in marriage and family life. And the children suffer: boys become soft and girls come to despise them.
By the way: in today’s culture, which of these two — boys or girls — are called upon to be strong?
The correction needed involves a massive amount of rebuilding of marriage and family. Even in the intact, weekly worshiping family there is a huge amount of brokenness (revealed in softness) and outside of marriage, many, many times more.
But this crisis is beginning to provoke great responses all over the place as Americans awaken to the fact that we are experiencing a catastrophe in civilization. Should this young generation survive and thrive they will truly be “The Greatest Generation” for no other has ever confronted anything like this family situation in all of human history. Even the best of parents wound their children in some way. Today’s parents do so in degrees offspring have never experienced before. Though this is not fully their fault, it is fully their burden.
There are two responses constantly beckoning. They come from two very different parts of the human heart and lead to two very different destinies in human relationships: ‘anger and power’ or ‘love and sacrifice’. The first can win temporary battles but only the second survives to win the war — a war not over for any until the end of each of our times— on the deathbed.
One of these myriad good responses is a work by Dr. Rick FitzGibbons, an APA-award-winning family psychiatrist who, later this year, will release Habits for a Healthy Marriage (Ignatius Press), filled with the distilled wisdom of 40 years of clinical experience. It is destined to become a classic because he lays out for every modern couple, the next steps to take, no matter where one is starting from on the road to becoming a great couple — the couple their children need them to be, and the couple they have always wished they could be.
Can enough people (enough Christians) find the source of hope and confidence to start this journey? For without such widespread hope the burden is frightening — and, not surprisingly, suicide is increasingly seen as the easy way out.
The finding of this hope is the pivot on which the future of our civilization now rests, a hope strong enough to draw all into committing — committing to the work Fitzgibbons lays out so that couples all over the country are talking to each other, about how to turn emasculated young sons into courageous, self-sacrificing mature men that young women will desire to marry. (The answer lies deep in their marriage.)
Whence comes this confidence to commit to such a marriage—– to commit for the rest of the game, the rest of the battle, the rest of the war, the rest of life.
The true answer needs to be seen by many, widely known, believed and tapped into, deeply. Quiet prayer leads to the source..
Those who have the best and most united relationships!
Who has these relationships?
Those who worship God as He asks, weekly or more!
Sex is all about life and love. Life (existence) and love are of the essence of God. The closer man is to Him the more he thrives. That is good spiritual direction. It is also good social science!
The great paradox in the social sciences today is that most social scientists in the academy seem to make the universe orbit around sex but refuse to go where the data on “the best sex” lead: to the intact married family that worships God weekly. The most recent work of one of the world’s leading sociologists, Brad Wilcox of the University of Virginia, and the team of social scientists he pulled together from BYU and Georgetown, have given the academic world yet another major lesson in the fundamentals of sex, of living and of thriving.
By writing in the New York Times and in the team’s new report, “Ties that Bind”, released this week at The Brookings Institute, many more “in the middle or to the left” should see these data. This should help change the debate on campus.
My way of summing up the report is that across families of the world there is a J-Curvepattern in the results: at the lower end of the ’ J’ lie the better results of united “progressive” couples while the best results, lying at the upper end of the J, are those of the united “traditional” couples, especially on matters of relationship quality and sexual satisfaction.
On this cluster of issues, the data is constant. I presented to a college audience in Princeton (the posters “Who has the best sex?” drew a great crowd) in the early 2000’s. There I used similar results — from “Sex in America: A Definitive Survey” (1994) which drew its data from the National Health and Social Life Survey (U. Chicago and SUNY). The results then: ose who were virginal at marriage and worshipped weekly (a rather traditional group) reported the greatest sexual satisfaction in a similar J-curve fashion.
Mapping America, MARRI’s own project, shows national demographic correlations on myriad outcomes, to be seen in the report “Sexuality” with a sub-section reporting ten different sexual outcomes, this time with four different levels of worship (weekly, monthly, annually, none). On all ten outcomes the “most traditional” do best. And, by and large, the more frequently people worship, the better they do.
Life, love and the Creator go together! This is something all cultures have embodied — universally. The force of natural law, and the suffering its violation will entail, will bring many back to sanity. You cannot fool mother nature. However, as an old teacher of mine used to say: “The school of experience is a great school, its fees are mighty high.” Let us go for the gold and follow the data – to the best sex, the best relationships — all to be had by those who marry and worship God weekly!
For the good of the child, the future of the world,
It is no wonder CDC “buries” these data (even though they are visible if you know where to look). STDs were one of the original disease targets of public health, but CDC now resides over multiple epidemics but keeps rather silent on them. Until AIDs came along there was a norm of “tracking and then informing” those likely to have contracted the disease from the now-identified partner. But relative silence on, and abandonment of informing those infected by STDs are the prices we seem willing to pay for our sexual revolution.
The biggest basket case of them all is Washington DC which leads — by far — on HIV, Gonorrhea, Syphilis and Chlamydia. All this in Congress own front and back yard! Talk about burying your head in the sand!
Contemplate and weep for the child who was meant to be,
As I have said many times, Mallory Millett’s 2014 essay “Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives” is the most important reportage of the 20th century because it leaves for history an insider’s view of the work that is by now well on its way to brining down Western Civilization. These highly intelligent and highly educated women were hellbent on completing Marx and Engle’s work by doing what so many (Lenin and Stalin included) could not do: destroy the family and religion, the two biggest obstacles to international materialist socialism. These women burrowed deep to find the ‘epicenter’ of society’s functioning and found it in the marital/sexual act of intercourse, where new life and the next generation of a society begins.
The question then became how to harness this insight to their own ends, the takedown of society, which Lenin had concluded would not be done by the proletariat in the West, who were too comfortable to rise up against their capitalist bosses. They deduced that the way to takedown marital sexuality (the core of a stable society) was to corrupt it. And who is more corruptible, the husband or the wife? The husband! The male and goes outside of the home more and can be tempted more. Specifically, he is weak when it comes to sexual temptations.
They identified this fulcrum on which society is balanced – or teeter-totters. Corrupt the male and the family will fall. Infidelity is the big destroyer of marriage and family, of courtships and engagements, of friendships between a young man and his ‘girlfriend’.
They identified this as the foundational weakness to be exploited.
Just as the most important virtue in life is not chastity but love just as the most important aspect of sexual intercourse is not its enjoyment and the unity it brings between a loving man and woman but instead, the child it brings —its ultimate long-term, “strategic” purpose in the order of nature and creation.
However, one does not get love if chastity is absent, just as one does not get the child if the sexual is corrupted.
Motivated by a desire to destroy, the Marxist Feminists identified the way to destroy — corrupt the male and do that by placing sexual temptation all over the place. Men are suckers for it and fall easily, and with them not only the family but also the worship of God. For the young man who decides to pursue all those beautiful female bodies (sex objects) cannot simultaneously approach the Divinity — unless it be to repent. Thus, the feminists figured out how to kill the two birds (family and religion) with the one stone (sex gone wild).
The saints have often pointed towards chastity as the foundational, but not the most important virtue. Love is the most important. For the sake of all they love — their girlfriends, wives, and families, the men who are going to be husbands and fathers have to step up to the plate to save their marriages, their families and their children’s futures.
For men it takes a special courage to talk this way in male settings and a special wisdom to talk compellingly. But these ways have to be found and cultivated. Peace and prosperity depend on it so much more than they depend on a great economy and a great army, for both of these will become instruments of oppression, not freedom, as the sexual goes really wild.
All men and women and children thrive on love. It is the great source of sacrifice, joy, hope, energy, good health, courage and determination to live life to the fullest. But love —which is easy for everyone to talk about — is not enduring or possible without chastity or purity sustaining and protecting it.
All data, be it mathematics, physics, chemistry, or biology need context and framework to be interpreted and understood. The experience of life (the idiosyncratic data we all report from our experience) needs context and framework to be understood. Great religions and philosophical frameworks have been constructed over millennia to give such meaning. The most all-encompassing of these is Christ’s framework. He is either the greatest man who ever lived or the greatest charlatan, given his claim to be God. I go for the greatest who ever lived — given the fruit He has borne and the fruit of the lives of those who follow Him most closely.
On matters sexual He was radical and changed the sexual paradigm forever for humanity. There are least three ways He flagged this change … revealing man more fully to himself as it were.
He said “There is no divorce” among those who believe in Him. Those baptized into the family of the Trinity cannot divorce, once fully joined, because the Trinity does not “do division”. Unity is Their essence. How did his apostles react to this? “In that case it is better not to get married.”
He heightened the bar still more with “You cannot look at a woman lustfully, but you have already committed adultery with her in your heart.” And when he lists sins (seemingly in order of gravity) murder comes first and adultery just behind it. (More murders are caused by adultery than anything else, so being in the #2 spot might make sense).
He heightened the bar still more with “celibacy for the kingdom” for the few who can take it.
One could sum up all this teaching pithily: His followers are all called to celibacy… a few for life… the majority until they are married. And even then, the difference is not as great as it seems. The celibate Christian “gives up” all persons of the opposite sex. The married give up all but one.
Thus, the virtue of chastity is central to Christian life and was one of the most obvious markers of the early Christians compared to those “pagans” around them.
Christian sexual education and formation is all about forming men and women who can live this way as adults. Among many of its benefits, this way this gives mature adults the probability of the greatest and most enjoyable and most frequent enjoyment of the sexual! The poor youth of today are sold a “pig in a poke” with modern sex ed. Sure they “enjoy” it while young (though the data indicates many are depressed by it), but they are washed up and even disinterested by the time they are in their thirties just as mature Christian adults are coming “into their own” a few years into marriage.
So, the Christian understanding of sexuality is superior in its human fruits (stable marriage, happier, healthier children, and better sexual enjoyment, greater income, health, education, longevity and happiness). The sex ed needed to pull this off is totally different from that pushed by the secularists, e.g. in Fairfax County, Virginia, one of the Left’s experimental counties which constantly “pushes the envelope” so that they figure out how to promote the next stage across the nation.
Furthermore, this form of sexual education and formation, is far superior in all its outcomes than anything the Left can show. The differences in outcomes are so huge the argument for the Left’s sex-ed cannot be based on outcomes and they avoid such comparisons like the plague.
This battle area is the fight to the death or to life: the death of society or the life of our families and futures. Politics and policies are fine, and that work must be done, especially the work of preserving our freedoms to have our own form of sexual education (the superior one) for our children —- but the most fundamental work is at the level of the school: in the classroom and in the home. It is here the hearts and minds (and sexuality) of our children are shaped. It is here the growth or collapse of society is forged.
That we can identify this so pointedly, we have to give thanks to Mallory Millett, Kate’s sister. It is worth re-reading her recounting of the opening of the meetings of those who founded NOW (the National Organization of Women),
It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:
“Why are we here today?” she asked. “To make revolution,” they answered. “What kind of revolution?” she replied. “The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted. “And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded. “By destroying the American family!” they answered. “How do we destroy the family?” she came back. “By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly. “And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied. “By taking away his power!” “How do we do that?” “By destroying monogamy!” they shouted. “How can we destroy monogamy?”
Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.
They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women. It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society. The upshot was that the only way to do this was “to invade every American institution. Everyone must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’”: The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system.
It fell on my ears as a ludicrous scheme, as if they were a band of highly imaginative children planning a Brinks robbery; a lark trumped up on a snowy night amongst a group of spoiled brats over booze and hashish. — I dismissed it as academic-lounge air-castle-building.
The real men are those who step up to the plate on this, and take the education of their boys back into the home, while their wives take over the sexual education of their daughters. It is very late in the game but not too late! Many are beginning to realize the depth of the revolution that has overtaken America,
For the good of the child, the future of all nations,
Ana Samuel, in “A Message to Mayor Pete”, writes about the penetration of the radical effort to distort the sexuality of every child in America. It is brilliant in its appeal and argument ,and wonderful in its recognition of the dignity of every person in the LGBT movement. It says, from a mother’s perspective, everything I see, think and feel from a from a therapist’s point of view and from a social scientist’s knowledge of the data in these fields. What is happening— these are my words, not hers— is child sexual abuse perpetrated by government (state and local) through our educational system, across the nation. It is corrupting almost everything it touches: education, medicine, college tenure, research publication, journalism and even the clergy. It flies in the face of what the data say, and instead of leading children in the ways of a thriving adulthood is deliberately sacrificing their health, happiness, income and education on the altar of an anti-human, ideology, that has nothing to do with the dignity of each person, including the dignity of the lesbian woman, gay man, or transgendered person, behind whom they hide. These folks and their children are also pawns sacrificed on the very same altar.
It is wonderful to have a brilliant, articulate woman and
mother defend our children. But are there
any men around? Do men still protect
their children, or do they now leave it all to the women and hide behind their
skirts? Men need to step up too. Or have the radical feminists succeeded in
their goal of eliminating “patriarchs”?