Linkfest

I've got a whole pile of links waiting to be posted, so here you go:

Neat analysis of the first of Titian's famous Noli Me Tangere (above) paintings shows that originally Christ was dressed as a gardener, and his back was turned to Magdalene. Read more here.

It was once looked down upon to have a career. Then it was bad to not have a career and have lots of kids. What are we supposed to think anymore? Virginia Postrel discusses this in the WSJ. Related: Is the male-female wage gap a myth? (via First Things)

We've quoted and discussed much of Kay Hynowitz's work before. Here's a interesting interview from earlier this spring about her controversial new book Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Turned Men into Boys. Related: Read her WSJ excerpt from the book.

Don't blame Ambercrombie if your girls dressing sluttily. The blame starts with the parents who fund them. So argues Pia de Solenni. And while I tend to agree, I don't think they really account enough for the profound influence of advertising and peer pressure. Related: One-third of clothes marketed to young girls are "sexy" according to a Kenyon College Study (via The Atlantic).

Since we've all been a bridesmaid way way way too many times, I wanted to suggest to you ladies this cool new service from bridesmaid company Dessy. Called New Maid you can send in your old bridesmaid dresses, and they will give you a coupon for 30% to 50% off one of their lovely LBDs. Which you really can wear again.

James Matthew Wilson has some thoughts on college administrations counseling students to live chastely.

And, after all that heavy stuff, here's a little fun via the webcomic xkcd:

Clearing the Desk Linkfest

Sorry for my extreme silence on the blog. Life has been busy. But I've piled up a big list of links to share with you all, and am finally together enough to post them. I am so glad Julian brought up the Kay Hymowitz article, and will write my thoughts about it shortly. But I wanted to clear the decks first of all these piled up links. The final 3 have something to do with the Hymowitz article, too.

NOBODY GETS MARRIED ANYMORE by Gerry Garibaldi, City Journal:

Here’s my prediction: the money, the reforms, the gleaming porcelain, the hopeful rhetoric about saving our children—all of it will have a limited impact, at best, on most city schoolchildren. Urban teachers face an intractable problem, one that we cannot spend or even teach our way out of: teen pregnancy. This year, all of my favorite girls are pregnant, four in all, future unwed mothers every one. There will be no innovation in this quarter, no race to the top. Personal moral accountability is the electrified rail that no politician wants to touch.

ZIONIST SECT MARRIES GAY MEN TO LESBIAN WOMAN, by Yair Ettinger, Haaretz via First Things:

Rabbis from the religious Zionist community have launched an initiative to marry gay men to lesbian women - with some surprising successes.

...Etti and Roni, both religious, were married five years ago. Though they were honest with each other about their sexual orientations from their first meeting, to the outside world, they portray themselves as a normal heterosexual couple. Today, they have two children, and are thrilled with the results.

"It's incredible," they wrote. "Six years ago, we didn't think we would ever be this happy. We thought everything was black, that we'd lost our chance of a normal life. But today, things are good for us. There are gaps, but that's true in every case. And we fill them with the great love we give to and receive from our children, and also enjoy the simple human love we give each other, such as any two people can give and receive."

SLACKING AS SELF DISCOVERY by Rita Koganzon in The New Atlantis:

Extrapolating primarily from the statistics on the increasing age of marriage and childbearing in the United States and refusing to lament them, Arnett argues forcefully that emerging adulthood is a positive development. Free from external constraints (and often supported financially by their parents), twentysomethings have the opportunity to try an array of temporary jobs, relationships, educational paths, and residences to find which of these are most to their preference. In winnowing down the options, they are also able to “find themselves,” a discovery that will serve them well as adults, assuming they ever decide to become adults. Armed with the self-knowledge gained from a decade of working at Starbucks, joining the Peace Corps, and sharing a basement studio in Brooklyn with four other emerging adults, those at the end of emerging adulthood will better make the family and career decisions they had been putting off, resulting in a future of greater life satisfaction and stability.

...If this all sounds a bit confused, fluffy, and New Agey, Robin Marantz Henig, the author of the Times Magazine piece, has Arnett’s studies and vague neuroscientific speculation about brain maturation to back it up. Emerging adulthood, she argues, isn’t merely a description of the way a narrow sliver of affluent and well-educated people are choosing to spend their twenties, but a seismic shift that will have political consequences.

THE POWERLESSNESS OF THE SINGLE WOMAN by Drs. J.R. Bruns and R.A. Richards II, in Psycology Today:

These same forbidden themes of women's desire for marriage and their frustrations with men and dating have been box office magic in recent "Chick Lit" movies like "Bridget Jones Diary " and "Sex In The City". Feelings of fear, powerlessness and alienation are safely released as long as it is in fiction or pictured on the silver screen.

It turns out that today's liberated women want to marry. The problem, as Whitehead points out, is that the social infrastructure that was designed to help young women meet marriageable men no longer exists. Once upon a time the American courtship rituals of the Senior Prom and sorority formals accomplished their task of getting young men and women paired off. That era disappeared along with platform shows, bell bottom pants and mood rings.

Since many women are pursuing marriage after they have left high school and college with their pool of available men, these single women must take on this chore by themselves. Instead of dating and mating with men they grew up with or at least shared classes with, many are now dating and mating with strangers.

This new system is tailor-made for the mirage man. He doesn't even have to promise young single women to go steady to achieve his short term goals. He either "hooks up" or is "joined at the hip." The "hook up" is friends with benefits, meaning sex without commitment. The other option is "joined at the hip", where a couple that doesn't know each other very well commits to a sexual relationship and spends all their time together. Neither hooking up or being joined at the hip leads to many strong relationships that can weather the storms of life...

SEX IS CHEAP by Mark Regnerus in Slate:

We keep hearing that young men are failing to adapt to contemporary life. Their financial prospects are impaired—earnings for 25- to 34-year-old men have fallen by 20 percent since 1971. Their college enrollment numbers trail women's: Only 43 percent of American undergraduates today are men. Last year, women made up the majority of the work force for the first time. And yet there is one area in which men are very much in charge: premarital heterosexual relationships.

When attractive women will still bed you, life for young men, even those who are floundering, just isn't so bad.

ON DATING NICE CATHOLIC GIRLS by Max Lindeman on Patheos:

I was approaching carved-wood status, though not quietly, when I met—really met—my first nice Catholic girl. It was at a vocational discernment retreat. I was standing on the monastery porch, peering through the French doors toward the living room, wondering whether I should bolt now and apologize later, or vice-versa. I heard tires on gravel. Turning, I saw a girl step out of a Honda wearing a tight pair of jeans. They were not, I hasten to add, skinny jeans; they were cut '80s-style, high at the waist.
When the girl faced me, I saw that her glasses, too, were cut in the style of the Reagan Revolution: square, in every sense. But her legs—timeless. Perhaps her ensemble seems to spell out a mixed message? Not for me. I read: I am beautiful, but either don't know, or don't care.

Why, you could be my vocation, I thought, as she skipped past me, smiling.

It's moments like this when I love the Church. The world condemns bolts of magical thinking as lunacy. The Church dignifies them as the beginning of discernment. In I went.

Being Contra-Contraception

Edith's post on the pope, the media, and condoms is so good, and one that I need to respond to at length. There has been so much discussion on this in and out of the Church. My students, colleagues, friends, and friends on Facebook (huge distinction...topic for another time) all have been buzzing about it. All that I can think to ask is, "Does anyone feel like they don't want to hear the word 'condom' anymore?"

However, the issue of contracpetion rang a little closer to home this holiday weekend, and kind of pierced my heart. I think it's a safe wager that I might be one of the the only members of my family, both immediate and extended, who supports the magisterial teaching on contraception. And it's a hard place to be in, as my friends begin to have children and as (though I'm not currently in a serious relationship), my family asks me things about how I would have children should I be in that position. There are comments passed because my friends are having their third or fourth child, or how it will probably be difficult for me to settle down with a man if I don't compromise on the birth control issue, which, though stated out of ignorance and out of love, still cuts to the heart of who I am as a Catholic woman, faithful to our beliefs out of joyful obedience and a rich understanding of why we believe what we do.

I know this issue was a huge issue to grapple with for my parents' generation, who was poorly catechized and who had to navigate their way through the sexual revolution, the implementation of Vatican II teachings, and of course, their own relationships and sexual experiences. And since the beauty of this teaching was not really made clear (in my theological opinion) in a way paralleled to the Theology of the Body at the end of the last century, moral confusion and cloudy judgments about assent of our mind and will abound. I try to be cheerful and joyful when explaining the why and the what of our beliefs, but it's not always met with understanding. Sometimes I wonder if my parents or my sibling or my cousins will ever fully understand who I am. Maybe that is the real question I'm asking: How much of a 'cause of division' is the Lord even within family members who all profess belief? How do I avoid the sin of pride or the passing of judgment on others close to me, who have a very deep faith and relationship with the Lord, too?

Dont' get me wrong; I don't walk around with a book charting who believes what in my family. I just feel a little bit of a sting when it's suggested that I'm too rigid or uncompromising when it comes to certain doctrines. I can't pull out theological discourse on the subject (this one has one of the best explanations of Humane vitae, in my opinion) at the dinner table. I suppose I can only witness it in my own life. And since I am not now in a position to be open to new life, I'd better find other ways to demonstrate what this looks like for the single woman.

The Pope, The Press, and Condoms

Ok, so if you are like me, you are so sick of hearing about the 'seismic' or 'cataclysmic' shift the Pope has magically taken on the use of condoms. 'Condoms are the moral solution to stop AIDS according to Pope!' cheerfully declares the press. The Pope's latest books Light of the World was released this week, and as you can see, the press has had a field day. With an article out every day since for nearly a week pretty much saying the Pope is changing the discourse on condom use, it's no wonder people are confused. I am.

Here is what I found out. First of all, the statement was made in regard to Pope Benedict's 2009 trip to Africa when he was lambasted by the press for the Church's "oppressive" stance on contraception. (Little does the world realize that contraception oppresses them, especially the women!) Anyway, the question was posed to Benedict by Peter Seewald as follows: On the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican’s policy on AIDs once again became the target of media criticism.Twenty-five percent of all AIDs victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. In Africa you stated that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.

Benedict went on to discuss his frustration that the press did not highlight the rest of his statement, wherein he announced the Church's continuing to commitment to being one of the only institutions that treats AIDS victims with continued support and dignity...think Mother Theresa, for example. While Benedict does indeed state that perhaps condoms can help stop the spread of AIDS, the use of condoms does not ask or answer the right question about human sexuality. According to Peter Seewald, the right question that Benedict challenges us to ask is "Does sexuality have something to do with love?" It seems quite simple, but in today's world, this is no longer a simple question to ask.

Janet Smith offers a great commentary on the statement which you can find here. And I'll post an excerpt:

What is Pope Benedict saying?

We must note that the example that Pope Benedict gives for the use of a condom is a male prostitute; thus, it is reasonable to assume that he is referring to a male prostitute engaged in homosexual acts. The Holy Father is simply observing that for some homosexual prostitutes the use of a condom may indicate an awakening of a moral sense; an awakening that sexual pleasure is not the highest value, but that we must take care that we harm no one with our choices. He is not speaking to the morality of the use of a condom, but to something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use them. If such individuals are using condoms to avoid harming another, they may eventually realize that sexual acts between members of the same sex are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature. The Holy Father does not in any way think the use of condoms is a part of the solution to reducing the risk of AIDs. As he explicitly states, the true solution involves “humanizing sexuality.”

Anyone having sex that threatens to transmit HIV needs to grow in moral discernment. This is why Benedict focused on a “first step” in moral growth. The Church is always going to be focused on moving people away from immoral acts towards love of Jesus, virtue, and holiness. We can say that the Holy Father clearly did not want to make a point about condoms, but wants to talk about growth in a moral sense, which should be a growth towards Jesus.

I am challenging myself to read this entire book and to get to know our beloved Pontiff better. He challenges us to be a light to the world and to ask those simple questions that have become so obscure in the vision of the world. Pray for him!

Photo

Woman Warrior: St. Mary MacKillop

This weekend Pope Benedict XVI canonized six saints, including the great Br. André (of Montreal), and St. Mary MacKillop, the first Australian born saint. According to reports, Australia had quite a party celebrating Sr. Mary of the Cross.

The first nun, and mother superior of the Josephite Sisters, Mary MacKillop is also somewhat of a rarity in the canon of saints--she was excommunicated for "insubordination" by a bishop. (Her excommunication lasted less than a year.)

The story goes as follows:

But the full story is that Mary MacKillop was excommunicated out of "revenge," in the words of one priest familiar with her life, for uncovering a case of sex abuse by a Father Keating, in a nearby parish. Paul Gardiner, S.J., the former postulator of MacKillop's canonization process, told an Australian television documentary a few days ago, "Priests being annoyed that somebody had uncovered it--that would probably be the way of describing it--and being so angry that the destruction of the Josephites was decided on." A statement from the Sisters of St. Joseph has confirmed that the documentary's reports are "consistent with" studies of the event.

--James Martin, S.J. in America Magazine via The Deacon's Bench. Read the whole story here.

She was clearly a remarkable woman, and a wonderful reminder to us that not only is there a role for women in the Church, but that we have something powerful to fight for: the protection of innocence in all its forms through our witness to the faith.

Superfreaks

Has any ever written to a television station? Because I'm really close to doing so. I'm fed up with virginity being construed as some sort of deviation from nature.

As I was unpacking the last remnants of my trip to France this week, I decided to put on mindless television in the background, namely, Grey's Anatomy. Why? I have no idea. For some reason I'm still holding out hope that this show will touch on very human pain and redemption, but instead, it just riles me up.

One of the latest episodes was entitled, "Superfreak," and intended to tackle the fact that all of us, no matter how put together we seem, struggle with some sort of neurosis or fact about ourselves which can make us feel like a "freak," or just really odd. Someone suffered from arachnophobia, another from PTSD, and another....from being a 28-year-old virgin. As a 26-year-old virgin, I was infuriated, mostly because the young woman didn't seem to be bothered by it, until she was ceaselessly taunted by her colleagues and mocked during several of the vignettes.

My virginity is not something that I am ashamed of, nor is it something that I lord over people who are sexual active. It is something I am convicted about, and not something that makes me a "freak." Why is it okay to engage in all sorts of sexual behavior but not to remain chaste? Why isn't hooking up portrayed as the unnatural route instead of abstinence (which, by the way, was mocked on The Office this past week, too)? Why am I the one with the problem?

With a movie entitle, "The Virginity Hit," out in select theaters documenting a young boy's loss of virginity and mocking the experience, I want to scream loud and proud that this is not a disease, not something freakish. Will you join me?

Deal or No (Big) Deal

Agatha and I had a conversation the other night over dinner about what to do when single friends freely talk about their sex lives. Essentially, if you're friends with either of us, and you're confiding in us about intimacy, chances are you know what we think about the body, sex, love, marriage, God, well-being, et. al. While Agatha's friend was recounting her recent sexual escapades with men after recently getting out of a long-term relationship, my friend was seeking advice about whether or not to have sex with her new boyfriend after 25 years of virginity. Her rationale was that she had never really made up her mind about when she wanted to save sex for, and that now at the age of 25, she had found someone she was reasonably attracted to, was reasonably attracted to her, and someone whom she got along with in a decent way. Tonight she confessed that the "deed was done," last night and that it "was no big deal." However, as she continued to talk, she started to back track in her confidence saying, "I mean I'm still processing it all. I mean, I have to think about what I think about it."

I didn't really know what to say. I could see her trying to convince herself (and me), that it really was no big deal. But shouldn't one want it to be a big deal? What ever happened to the emotional gravity wrapped up in being with someone? Don't we distinguish between making love and having sex? I mean, anyone can have sex, but don't you want to be in love (and I mean the forever-kind of love) with a man when it happens? Look, I know about temptation. I know about the crazy, mixed-up feelings. I've lived it. But at some point, one has to acknowledge that it's not just body parts, not just the next step, and that it is a heck of a huge deal to allow someone to be with you in that way.

What is a friend to say?

A Reply

I've been mulling over Agatha's post on the destructiveness of porn in our culture. This is a tough one. I have experienced people in my life who definitely had a problem with addiction to pornography, and it is beyond destructive. I can even remember some of the boys in high school bragging about their porn collections. At the time, I did not speak, fearing to seem 'uncool.' Oh, to be who I am now back in those days!

I struggled with commentator Aaron's objectives - because addiction to pornography is something that men relapse into (and women too, I am sure - not that I endorse her, but Oprah did a recent show on how the porn industry is more and more marketing 'soft' porn to women, a topic for another post, perhaps.) It is really difficult for women to be a crutch to the men in their lives struggling with addiction. Aaron suggests to us ladies that we should help and encourage fulfilling relationships in those we know with porn addiction. And this is really hard to do, as porn destroys a person's ability to have a fulfilling relationship. I don't have the answer to this, all I know is that porn is seriously evil. And Aaron's advice is good advice, but it is not easy. Let's pray fervently for an end to this epidemic!

A Few Random Notes

I wanted to thank Aaron and Joe for their comments in response to my post about the destructiveness of pornography. I think this is such an important and powerful topic and I was grateful for their insight.

It is interesting and a little scary to begin thinking about this subject. It is both prevalent in our culture, and likely a problem with someone we know and are close to. I was grateful then, especially, to Aaron's three concrete points about what women can and should do:

1) Never cut a guy slack on this issue
2) Yet, be supportive and patient, not "irate"--since this is a lingering addiction
3) Strive for full, loving, fulfilled relationships to battle deep temptations

As a side note: I've always really loved JPII's formulation of the phrases "Culture of Death" and "Contraceptive Mentality". I want to think about this a bit more, but there is surely a connection between contraception and pornography and their widespread acceptance in our culture. I don't suppose we'd have the one without the other (and, lets face it, though the pill is only 60 years old, they are both as old as sin).

Elsewhere, there has been some really interesting discussion about Kagan and her Clinton-era brief about partial birth abortion making her ineligible for the job as Supreme Court Justice. Check out Will Saletan's article in Slate, and Ross Douthat's addendum in the New York Times. Saletan begins:

Fourteen years ago, to protect President Clinton's position on partial-birth abortions, Elena Kagan doctored a statement by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Conservatives think this should disqualify her from the Supreme Court. They understate the scandal. It isn't Kagan we should worry about. It's the whole judiciary.

Kagan, who was then an associate White House counsel, was doing her job: advancing the president's interests. The real culprit was ACOG, which adopted Kagan's spin without acknowledgment. But the larger problem is the credence subsequently given to ACOG's statement by courts, including the Supreme Court. Judges have put too much faith in statements from scientific organizations. This credulity must stop.

On a lighter note: Have you see this? It's grand.

(HT: The Anchoress)

The Destructivenes of Porn

This is a subject I've been wary to approach on The Magdalene Sisters, but I think it needs to be broached anyway. Porn is, alas, incredibly pervasive in our culture. We'd be naive to think that the "destructiveness" of porn does not affect our own lives as single catholic women, but it certainly does, and if we are spared this temptation, then we will almost surely have to confront this issue in someone we love at some point in our lives.

For some reading on the topic I highly recommend Mary Eberstadt's amazing article in the June/July issue of First Things: The Weight of Smut

...No one reasonable would doubt that there is a connection between watching sex acts and trying out what one sees—especially for adolescents, who rather famously and instantly ape the other influences on their lives, from fashion to drug use and more, as has also been copiously studied.

And this list is just one possible way of starting a conversation about the consequences of today’s novel sexual obesity. There is also the question of what the same material does to adults—about which another empirical record is also being amassed, and about which more will be said later in this essay. Pornography today, in short, is much like obesity was yesterday—a social problem increasing over time, with especially worrisome results among its youngest consumers, and one whose harms are only beginning to be studied with the seriousness they clearly deserve.

Other sources:
+ Barbara Hollingworth in the Washington Examiner
+ The Witherspoon Insitute's The Social Cost of Pornography

"Lady" Gaga

Even the name is confusing. A lady? Seemingly far from it. Gaga? A reference to baby language or men's ogling eyes? Just what does this 23-year-old think of herself? And is America really paying attention?

In the piece that I shared with the Magdalene sisters, several points have emerged that I think are worth thinking about as modern, Catholic women (and by the way, Edith, the beats at the very least are helpful in cardio workouts, so I think you can cut yourself some slack).

1. In a postlapsarian world, women use sex (or at least their "wiles") to manipulate men to get what it is that they want. This sin is not new, ladies and gentlemen. Gaga has not invented it. Here I disagree with the author:

The genius of Gaga is to make it seem obvious — more so than even Madonna once did — that feminine sexuality is the perfect shucking knife. And Gaga is explicit in her insistence that, since feminine sexuality is a social construct, anyone, even a man who’s willing to buck gender norms, can wield it.

What is rather shocking to me, though, is the explicit, grandiose, and very "in-your-face" manner in which Lady Gaga is using her sexuality (and oftentimes a violent sexuality) to assert power, self-expression, and liberation from any cultural stereotypes of a woman. I think we have arrived at a place where even her actions are not as shocking to us as they should be. We are becoming comatose in the face of such wild sexual escapades. What will happen when our children think these images are normal to see and experience? What will happen if men (even good, Catholic ones) continue to expect rather extreme behavior in the bedroom to be turned on? What will happen when my young, female students think it is normal to hum, "I want your horror/I want your disease/I want your everything as long as it's free" at a younger and younger age?

2. A Catholic feminist must know that Simone de Beauvoir does not offer the answer for the liberation of women from being objectified by men.

The goal of “The Second Sex” is to get women, and men, to crave freedom — social, political and psychological — more than the precarious kind of happiness that an unjust world intermittently begrudges to the people who play by its rules. Beauvoir warned that you can’t just will yourself to be free, that is, to abjure relentlessly the temptations to want only what the world wants you to want. For her the job of the philosopher, at least as much as the fiction writer, is to re-describe how things are in a way that competes with the status quo story and leaves us craving social justice and the truly wide berth for self-expression that only it can provide.

No, Nancy. Men aren't going to objectify women an less if we throw out a "age-old" norms of what it means to be a woman. I think lumping sexual gratification of men into the same category of other "gender norms" is a mistake. De Beauvoir not only "re-defines" femininity, but she says that femininity is not even a reality. However, there are some realities to femininity that can't be dismissed, or redefined, or relegated to social conventions. Instead, they should be celebrated by women. The gifts we have are actually very powerful, and can be used very powerfully for the good. The problem, as I see it, is that Simone de Beauvoir and Lady Gaga both fail to escape becoming objectified by men. Both are on a quest to move beyond stereotypes and to break from from what they find to be oppressing. The problem, though, is that what is oppressing them both is a failure to see their value precisely in their creation as women -- ladies, even. To be a lady is a privilege and a responsibility, and it requires more guts, more confidence, and more self-respect than what is being offered today by pop star or philosopher alike.

On the Legitimacy of Sex

No, this isn't a Thomistic argument. It's a rant. So, consider yourself forewarned.

Last week I was up on campus picking up something from my classroom when I ran into a middle-aged colleague. We chatted about why we found ourselves inside the gates of the school and realized we were both recipients of grants to write lessons for the summer. After being asked, I divulged that I had been given a grant to write two major units on the Theology of the Body for the sophomore and senior religion classes. The teacher was unfamiliar with what the TOB was, so I took the opportunity to *briefly* explain it as John Paul II's theology of what it means to be an embodied soul and how important the body and all of its actions, including sexual encounters and relationships, are as they have a baring on who we are and who we are becoming.

"So, you're still teaching that sex is only legitimate in marriage?" she said with a demeaning scowl.

I didn't know how to respond other than to get ticked. "Well, yes, I'm not sure why I wouldn't be teaching that at a Catholic school of this caliber. I'm also not sure that 'legitimate' is the best word choice though in explaining what the Church teaches." I wanted to walk away, but I stayed and defended the teaching a bit more, although I was met with even more eye-rolling, raised eyebrows, and a very real judgment in the air of being behind the times. I could just see the steam coming out of her eyes that yet another young person was repressed by the antiquated, oppressive Catholic Church.

Okay, maybe I'm embellishing. But I did feel judged. Legitimate? Do people have legitimate sex? What does that even mean? Are people around the world able to have sex outside of marriage? Why yes, I'm pretty convinced that people all over the globe are able to "legitimately" accomplish the deed. I'm also sure that it's legitimately pleasurable for them. And I'd even go as far to say that I *understand* that she is implying that sex is something good and communicates something between two people who love each other.

I should have responded, "Well, if you actually mean to say when you say "legitimate" is that sex is most sacramental, most an expression of the love between the persons of the Trinity when it's faithful, fruitful, exclusive, and total, then yes, it's only really legitimate in the sacrament of marriage."

Sometimes I think I should be presenting this material to my colleagues in addition to my students. A little seminar on the "legitimacy" of the Church's sexual theology couldn't hurt.

Babies, the Pill, and Infertility Response

Well, Edith, I think I like your theory. Now, I'm no medical doctor. My training is in theological ethics. But I find it really difficult to believe, even after only an undergraduate course in biology, that prolonged (probably around the time you're suggesting...ten years or so), use of the birth control pill wouldn't mess with one's fertility. Even if one stops taking the pill and so begins again to ovulate, it seems to me that it would take awhile for the body to bounce back to regulating itself. So, if my students at age 15 or 16 begin to use the pill, ten years later would mean that they are my age...

I'm also a little frightened at the "mini-pill" which suppresses ovulation and thickens cervical mucus (like the mainstream pill), but is taken for 12 weeks at a time...so you have about 4 periods a year. Call me old-fashioned, but this seems really weird.

What I find most fascinating is the increased rate of infertility in men, possibly linked the "anti-androgen" elements of the pill that are released into water sources.

The question then is: what are we doing??? We are inhibiting our bodies' natural functions to prevent pregnancy, supplementing our bodies with hormones that we should not really need after we get off the pill to get pregnant, risking the fertility of men...all for what...license to have sex?

The most effective way to get from point A to point B is a straight line. Instead we are running circles in our own lives to figure out where we are going.

While We're On the Topic....

Agatha's post of Bristol Palin's abstinence message provoked some reflection for me these past few days. First of all, I found the end of it repulsive. Not the progressively getting poorer and more haggard looking Bristol, though I thought that in very poor taste. But even more so, I found her words 'Pause before you play" utterly revolting - is she reducing sexuality to mere 'play?' Is she saying pause and put on a condom? Is she saying pause and reflect upon what you are about to do? Is she saying pause and wait until marriage? What exactly is the message? I don't know, and I certainly don't think she really portrayed the message quite well, whatever it was meant to be.

And while we are on the topic of teen pregnancy, there is an 11 year-old girl in Mexico City, who, despite pressure from gaping feminists, refuses to have an abortion because she realizes that there is 'a life growing' inside her womb. There are no details about what happened to this poor child, but God has given her a heavy cross indeed, and she bears it with dignity - "out of the mouth of babes." In a follow-up article, Catholic News Agency describes the pressures many young women (and girls) face in Mexico City from pro-abortion organizations:

First they find a girl who has been raped and they keep her hidden and inaccessible to any kind of assistance. Second, they expose the case to the media without revealing any details of her clinical history. . . .

Third, they center their media message on the idea that the legalization of so-called ‘therapeutic abortion’ is the solution for saving the lives of women. Fourth, they present themselves as the saviors of the life of the mother, and anyone who opposes their pro-abortion demands are quasi-criminals.

Sound familiar? It should. It's the same type of strategy Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe) describes happened to her during Roe v. Wade.

The real problem, according to Bristol Palin (well, apparently so) and the Catholic News Agency articles above is teenage promiscuity, and we might add, promiscuity in general. And for a humorous and irrational take on that subject, check what this Iranian cleric has to say...

Bristol Palin's Abstinence Commercial

When I heard about this commercial in the political gossip column of our local newspaper, I was really quite surprised. This seemed entirely wrong headed. Now that I see it, I must agree with Mr. Archibold (of Creative Minority Report) that it is not sending the right message. Or, that the right message is lost in everything else. This could be Jamie Lynn Spears saying "I'm rich and Famous so abstinence doesn't matter to me" and it would be about as effective.

Thoughts?

Sticking to His Principles

Check out this story about an actor on ABC who got fired for refusing to do sex scenes on his show. What a witness from a Catholic man in the industry!

Pope's Letter to Ireland

Have you read the Holy Father's letter, released Saturday, to the Church in Ireland? You should. It is amazing. And new. And bold. And personal. And healing.

(Pope Benedict needs a lot of prayers, by the way. This is a hard time for the Church, but thank God he is our Head.)

The New Virginity

As I lazily channel-surfed my way up to TLC to watch What Not to Wear, I stopped, for what I thought would be a moment, at VH1. A show called "The New Virginity" was airing, exploring the trend in young Hollywood to profess their virginity and commitment to abstinence. The beginning of the show was true to it's stated summary:

There's a trendy pop culture movement that's burst into the mainstream to take a stand against our hyper-sexed society.It's born out of traditional values and sealed with promise rings, abstinence clubs and purity balls. It stars the likes of Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers, who've made headlines with their public pronouncements of sexual purity. It's a hip new calling card: virginity.

However, as I continued to watch, the show began to take a turn for the worse. The reporters argued that these young celebrities were actually selling their sexuality by professing their virginity. "As the show will point out, virginity doesn't stop celebs from looking and acting provocatively--playing both sides with impressive marketing results." Young women who have a highly sexualized image while professing virginity wind up appealing to men (in what some say is an even more sexually aggressive tactic as it appeals to men who desire to "conquer" virgins). What was sad to me, though, was that I don't think the reporters were far off the mark with certain celebrities. I find it troubling that young women and men are getting mixed messages about virginity and abstinence. Well, they are getting one message: don't have sex, but be highly sexualized. What we need is consistency between image and action.

This "new virginity" does have a lot of promise. If it is true that youngsters are getting tired of all the unsolicited sexuality thrown their way, maybe we're on the right track. I just think some of these celebrities could use some help with the steering.

Abortion Postscript

Here is a great article I came across on the abortion debate and the need to understand where women are coming from on all sides and what we can really do to free ourselves and other women illusions about sex and babies.

Carrie Bradshaw and the Feminists

I didn’t really tune into Sex in the City until it was in syndication on TBS. I’m glad too, because I can’t stomach the vulgarity of the full HBO series. TBS’s edits made the show much more palatable to me.

All the same, I followed news of the show while it was running. It fascinated me because a) it had captivated several generations of female viewers and therefore seemed to have its finger on something we yearn for; b) as a TV series it had the time to dive into the characters and show whether these four very different women really could have it all; and c) well…I did love the clothes.

When I started watching the show, I was intrigued. It was daring, carefree, and women centered in a way no other show had been before—and no show has really been since. And it did try to broach significant issues for women—affairs of the heart as well as of modern culture, connectedness, etc. But time and again Carrie picks the selfish route, the writers used Sex as shorthand for a genuine relationship, and I got tired of all those crop tops SJP wore. And while in the final episodes we see four women who are coming to terms with their lives (3 of whom living selflessly—for their families, their children, or in Samantha’s case, learning to depend on another—the movie took that all away and turned what little power there was in the series into commercialism and shoe porn.

Because pop-culture often breeds strange bed fellows, I was fascinated to learn that many feminists are also rejecting the ideal Carrie Bradshaw has to offer. Via First Things, I learn that: “even the feminists who paved the route on which Carrie Brandshaw treads in her Manolo Blahniks are growing disturbed by the consequences of the sexual revolution. A veritable cottage industry of books and articles is now being produced by Friedanesque, first wave feminists, wringing their hands over what their movement has devolved into.”

One such writer is Cassandra Jardine of UK’s Daily Telegraph, who says:

Walter, for those not up to speed on the feminist canon – and who is, these days? – wrote The New Feminism, published in 1998, which delighted in the progress that had been made towards an equal society. ''Here's feminism as phoenix, as blazing torch lighting the way to a new century,'' wrote Michele Roberts in a breathlessly enthusiastic review. Now all that optimism has turned to dust. Living Dolls analyses the increasing sexualisation of feminity and the extent to which young women are led to believe that their bodies are their only passport to success.

Far from relations between the sexes flourishing emotionally and physically, against a backdrop of mutual respect, understanding and equality, a generation of young girls is interpreting liberation as the right to behave like top-shelf models. These women, interviewed by Walter, are also committed to no-strings sex, celebrating one-night stands as notches on their designer handbags. For them, STDs are almost a badge of honour, eating disorders commonplace and men who talk of love and commitment are sneered at for "going soppy"

What eventually turned me off Sex and the City was the fact that ultimately the lives these women lead are selfserving and unfulfilling, because they are centered on personal pleasure and desire--especially Carrie, who tried to be introspective and ended up being whiny.

It is fascinating to me that feminists are disappointed in the same way. Do you get the same feeling? Have you read anything similar? Discuss!