Monday, October 15, 2018

Is Feminism To Blame When Men Fall Short?

At some point, in between our first spoken word and first professional email, woman’s language becomes spattered with cushions of irrelevant apology

This phenomenon is distracting enough that Chrome designed a plug-in – specifically with women in mind – to help us eliminate the non sequitur verbal clutter of conditional language (and punctuation!! And emoticons :-O).

Why might women experience pressure to constantly and unnecessarily apologize for fault that isn’t theirs? Let’s review some recent issues that reflect an extensive cultural problem.

...

On sexual assault, consider the unfortunately popular idea that the root problem of rape culture is drunk women:




Adopting this perspective, if a girl is exhausted because she pulled an all-nighter to study, would she carry partial blame for the rape committed against her? After all, we don’t have full control of our senses when fatigued and studies have shown that sleep deprivation can cause impairments equivalent to those caused by intoxication from alcohol. Why was she around men when she was tired? What did she think would happen?

God forbid these men get married and have to be in bed next to a sleeping wife. A passed-out woman, right there -- in her pajamas no less! It’s like she’s asking to be raped.

(When I’m really tired, my husband doesn’t have sex with me because he knows it wouldn’t be consensual. He also recognizes that it wouldn’t be mutually enjoyable, and he prioritizes my pleasure as equal to his own.)

...


If not women, then who is to blame when men act out the worst version of themselves? 

We have two parties at fault: 1) individual men who make individual choices, and 2) a toxic culture that grants them permission to behave poorly if they aren’t treated with deference by a fearful, dependent, and insecure member of the opposite sex.


Due to society's implicit bias to blame women when men act out, this reporter headlined an article on domestic abuse and murder with, “If she had just been a good wife despite his domestic abuse, this man would not have killed his own innocent children.” 

Consider a more accurate headline: “Abusive Man with History of Anger and Control Issues Kills 5 Children.”

...

A brave, business-savvy, unmarried woman is no more a threat to true masculinity than a fearful, uneducated, emotionally-needy woman is an affirmation of it, because the one (virtuous manhood) does not depend on the other (deferential women).

Going a step further: a confident, competent, married woman who chooses to view her husband as protector, provider, and lover -- incidentally, this describes me -- is neither the source of his manhood, nor the responsible party for his personal choices in exercising virtue or vice.

...


Please read the rest -- blaming women for men's violence, unaddressed social issues, poor character development, inability to be godly, delayed adolescence, aversion to marriage, and avoidance of children (and pondering which other factors might be more likely to blame) -- over at FemCatholic!


Tuesday, October 9, 2018

5 Reasons A Pro-Life Catholic Might Vote For A Pro-Choice Candidate

For 16 years, I only voted Republican in state and national elections because of abortion.

As a devout, pro-life Catholic, I thought I was morally obligated to vote Republican.

It's not unusual, especially on social media, to read dire warnings for your eternal soul should you vote for a pro-choice candidate.
 




However, this blanket damnation should one vote for a pro-choice candidate is not actually Church teaching. (Further discussion on this under #5 below.)

The intent of this post is not to argue the morality of abortion or any related issues surrounding the lives of pre-born humans. Each of these situations involves sensitive, complicated, deeply personal scenarios, and I do not intend to cast stones at those who are navigating these issues. (There are other sources available for that discussion.)

My aim is to search out how pro-life Catholic voters can best ensure the dignity of every human life, in this case, those who are unborn.


As Americans, we're conditioned to view our faith through an incredibly polarized political lens. But these extremes do not accurately reflect our Church. Neither Democrats nor Republicans fully embrace our values, even on issues of the gravest matter, such as abortion.  



We might recoil at that statement, assuming the party whose platform includes the words "pro-life" indisputably fulfills the Church’s anti-abortion position. However, this instinctive response only indicates to what an extent secular big party politics have manipulated talking points on life issues.

In this discussion, the term "pro-life" describes solely anti-abortion initiatives, not "whole-life" or seamless garment approaches to social justice.

Some may disagree and refute the points made below. I hope they do. Dialogue is always more effective than yelling our truths across a political divide. Please, discuss.

And so, in an attempt to untangle truths from political rhetoric, below are five reasons that a pro-life Catholic might, in good conscience, vote for a pro-choice candidate:



1. Neither major political party in America is anti-abortion. Both major political parties in America are pro-choice.

Jesus tells the parable of a man with two sons. He asks both sons to work in the vineyard. The first son says, "No," but then does the work anyway. The second son says, "Yes," but does not do the work.

If a father cannot take at face value the stated positions of his sons, how much more, as voting Catholics in secular politics -- as sheep among wolves, encouraged by Christ to be both wise as serpents and gentle as doves -- can we not take at face value the words of each party?

Yes, the Democratic Party is clearly pro-choice. But the Republican party -- despite claiming to be pro-life -- is conclusively pro-choice as well.

There is a very profitable, large-scale abortion provider in the United States (not Planned Parenthood) that is almost completely self-regulated and enjoys unlimited bipartisan support.

As pro-life voters, we need to recognize that abortion does not occur solely in women’s health clinics for the poor. It also occurs extensively in fertility clinics for the wealthy.

The process of in vitro fertilization [IVF] creates 15-20 embryos in each process, of which only 1-2 are implanted. The rest (~86% of created embryos) are disposed of as medical "waste," indefinitely frozen in storage, or donated to science.

While the abortion rate in women’s clinics has declined steadily over the years, the CDC estimates, as of 2015, nearly 1 in 50 children are born through assisted reproductive technology. As of 2014, Texas had 28 clinics that offer abortion. Texas currently has 78 fertility clinics.

And yet, Ted Cruz described abortions as "crimes against humanity" when done at women’s health clinics while assuring voters in 2016 that he’s "not interested in anything that restricts in vitro fertilization."
Perhaps, we could argue, IVF is different because people are only killing unborn babies with the intent to create life. 

Perhaps, we could argue, IVF is different because people are so intent on creating life that they don’t even mind killing unborn babies.




What does it matter, one might suggest, since Democrats are also completely ignoring IVF abortions?

This is the crux of it: despite claiming a "pro-life" platform, Republicans are clearly pro-choice. Abortion -- even on a large scale for unregulated, very profitable clinics that give their medical "waste" of living embryos to scientific research, as occurs in IVF -- is acceptable.

Our decision, as pro-life voters, is no longer between a pro-life party and a pro-choice party. No matter what their platforms declare, both Democrats and Republicans are demonstrably pro-choice.


2. With two pro-choice parties, our only attainable voting goal as pro-lifers is to decrease abortion, not to end abortion.

To be clear, our mission includes working toward a world in which a human at every stage of life, even and especially prior to birth, receives the right to life. However, given that both major political parties support abortion (whether admittedly or not), our votes cannot accomplish an abortion ban.

Therefore, the goal of pro-life voting is to discern how best to decrease abortion. In this, people of good faith can disagree about best approaches.

3. Historically, Republican politicians do not have a very strong anti-abortion legacy, personally or legislatively.

Many Republican candidates claim to be "pro-life," but they'll fund an abortion to hide an affair or support and use IVF. They stumble through talking points at debates and then avoid the topic at all costs.

Both Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) -- landmark cases that supported abortion as a right – were decided with a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. The plurality opinion in Casey, fundamental to upholding Roe, was actually crafted by three conservative Justices appointed by Republican presidents.

Despite having control of both houses of Congress from 1995 – 2001 and 2003 - 2007, Republican politicians did not address abortion. Despite having control of both houses plus the presidency from 2003 – 2007 and 2016 - 2018, Republican politicians did not address abortion.




Most recently, in 2018, there was legislation for a 20-week abortion ban. The House had already passed it. President Trump promised to sign it. All that had to happen for our country to have a 20-week abortion ban was for the Senate to approve this legislation.

President Trump, our "deal-making president," didn’t make last-minute phone calls, cancel out-of-town trips, or invite influential Democrats to the White House for private meetings, as he’s previously done to pass controversial legislation (tax reform, for example -- which Republicans bent over backward to make happen).

No one attempted to dialogue with Democrats from red states that just might go for it (though three pro-life Democrats did vote for it). Did McConnell even make a phone call? Did Lindsay Graham put himself in front of cameras for an impassioned, epic rant about justice? Did Republicans stay late to work out needed details? Did this even come up in bipartisan conversation? No one hosted a press conference. No one held other controversial legislation ransom over it. No one revised the bill to gain signature votes. There were some virtue-signaling tweets, but not nearly the storm that Republicans are capable of creating over signature issues. It almost felt like Republican politicians didn't actually mind whether a national abortion ban passed.

Again, what does it matter if Republicans fail at passing legislation that decreases abortion in our country? At least they’re trying, which is more than we can say for Democrats. (Keep reading.)

4. There are more ways to decrease abortion in our country than the current Republican approach. 

Policies sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats can create deterrents and incentives against abortion, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Accordingly, there are two valid voting options for a pro-life Catholic who wants to decrease abortion. Both pro-life Democrats and pro-life Republicans claim isolated, respective policy success, with both groups quoting different statistical data to downplay and deny the influence of each other’s policies on the national downward trend in abortion rates. The reality is, both approaches are statistically proven to decrease abortions:

1) voting for a candidate who will decrease abortion by increasing regulation (clinic ambulatory standards, mandatory ultrasound viewing, wait times, limiting doctors, etc.), or

2) voting for a candidate who will decrease abortion by increasing family-friendly policies (accessible/affordable healthcare that includes maternity care, preventive care for the poor, parent-friendly workplace solutions, livable wages, disability services, fully-funded special education programs, etc.).

Whether or not it’s the stated goal of that candidate to decrease abortion is immaterial as to whether or not these approaches can be successful in decreasing abortion.



Pro-life political advocacy groups usually prefer the first approach, regulating abortion providers to decrease access and therefore, numbers.

Pro-life crisis pregnancy resource centers find success in the second approach. They work to meet the needs of those who feel abortion is their only choice -- connecting women with prenatal healthcare, government safety net programs, infant supplies, education, job stability, and community support. Granted, this doesn’t necessarily align solely with a Democratic Party approach. It’s simply an example that pro-active empowerment policies over punitive regulation policies can be a valid pro-life approach.

5. Guidelines provided by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops [USCCB] give specific circumstances under which a faithful Catholic can vote for a pro-choice candidate.

This section might seem unnecessary since I outlined above how self-proclaimed "anti-abortion" candidates – even those most lauded by pro-life organizations -- are actually "pro-choice." We are ultimately voting between pro-choice candidates, Democrat or Republican, regardless of their stated official positions.

Nonetheless, since there are many "Catholic" voting guides promoted by various partisan organizations that claim to be Catholic, it’s important to reference here the USCCB’s document on Faithful Citizenship. Sections 34-37 address abortion, among other intrinsically evil issues. This is official, non-partisan Church teaching:

"A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter’s intent is to support that position… 
There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil." - USCCB, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship

 The USCCB’s document states that a person can vote for a pro-choice candidate as long as it’s not the reason you’re voting for that candidate, and if grave reasons exist.Well-meaning Catholics often add further definition to "grave reasons" in an attempt to severely limit its application to anything short of voting for a psychotic terrorist; however, this phrase, "grave reasons," is intentionally left non-specific and subject to one’s own conscience and culpability. (It is repeated -- and, again, left undefined -- in the final paragraph of this document by Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, regarding a Catholic’s worthiness to receive Communion based on voting habits.)

The document states that "partisan preferences" are not an acceptable reason to vote for a candidate. (i.e. Just because someone might hate the Republican Party, it’s not a justifiable reason to vote Democrat, and vice versa.)

The document does not state that a Catholic is morally obligated to vote for a candidate who claims to be pro-life, even if they are running against a pro-choice candidate.


Section 36 of the USCCB document clarifies how to vote when every candidate (regardless of stated platform) supports an intrinsic evil (abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior):
"When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods."
The document states it’s okay not to vote, noting this is an extraordinary step. It’s preferable for Catholics to find a way to participate in the democratic process.

The document does not state we must vote according to what an organization, candidate, or party claims will decrease an intrinsic evil (i.e. a candidate declaring
their way is the only way -- whether by increased regulations or increased family-friendly policies -- to end abortion).

The document states it is up to the voter to determine which candidate is "deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods."

To emphasize this point, in Section 37, the USCCB offers four consideration points for voting Catholics: a candidate’s commitments (i.e. obligations to donors who funded their campaign, statements about future voting intentions), character (behavior in private and public), integrity (honesty in personal and political affairs), and ability to influence a given issue. On that last point, does this candidate just repeatedly vote for unsuccessful legislation as a virtue signal to voters, or are they able to work within
our flawed political system to advance legislation toward authentic human goods?
"These decisions should take into account a candidate's commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching."
In Conclusion

The manipulative interplay of politics and religion in our country has led me to this conclusion: pro-life Catholics who are voting their conscience with the intent to decrease abortion in our country are not limited to one political approach or one political party as a means to this end.

For too long Catholics have allowed secular big party politics to manipulate our spiritual values. How committed a person is to one political party or another has become a litmus test of our orthodoxy. The way forward is bipartisan.



My hope is that devout, pro-life Catholics can send a loud message to both parties: our votes are not a given for either party, and if any politician wants to represent us, they need to earn our votes with knowledge, competence, action, and consistency.



Monday, October 8, 2018

5 Ways Dads Can Help With Postpartum Depression

As with many things related to pregnancy and childbirth, dads often feel helpless when it comes to postpartum depression (PPD).

Dads, worry no more. The women of the FemCatholic Forum want to empower and equip you with practical tools to transform your concern into actionable support.

So, how can you help a partner struggling with PPD?

1. Acknowledge it.

Please don’t assume the mother of your child(ren) has it all together simply because everything seems fine and PPD hasn’t come up in conversation. Be aware. Ask her about it. If she brings up concerns about PPD, believe her. This is a common experience and topic of conversation among Catholic moms.

Understand that prenatal and postpartum depression are biological responses caused by dramatic hormonal changesin a woman’s body. Resist the temptation to try to solve the issue, “fix” her, or convince her that everything is okay if she tells you it isn’t.

It is vital to recognize that PPD is not a spiritual state that simply necessitates more prayer or better spiritual direction. The Holy See’s representative to the United Nations, Archbishop Jurkovich, addressed this concern at a meeting of the Human Rights Council in 2017: “Spiritual care should not be confused with, or mistaken by, so-called ‘faith healing’ to the exclusion of medical, psychological, and social assistance.” The Catholic Church supports a comprehensive approach – spiritual, medical, psychological, and social – when it comes to addressing mental health.

Read about four more concrete action items to help support a loved one with PPD at my contributor post on FemCatholic...