You Can Prevent Anxiety in Your Children

Image via shutterstock. Used with permission.

Image via shutterstock. Used with permission.

New research published in the Journal of Child Development shows that the degree to which parents respond to their infants’ and toddlers’ needs promptly, generously, and consistently (the keys to healthy attachment) predicts how anxious their children will be in young adulthood, especially among boys and children who tend to have shy temperaments to begin with. (Read more details here).

This is just the latest in a series of studies that show how responding promptly, generously, and consistently to children’s needs (as opposed, for instance, to letting kids cry it out) decreases their likelihood of experiencing anxiety and depressive disorders in young adulthood.  Parents, you CAN give your kids the edge they need to be healthy, strong, confident, resilient adults.  As I describe in both Parenting with Grace and Then Comes Baby, all you have to do is respond to your children.  Don’t make them work for your attention.  Trust the feeding and sleeping schedule God built into your baby instead of imposing arbitrary schedules on your children.  You are your child’s best hope for a healthy happy life!

How Healthy is YOUR Relationship with God? –TAKE THE QUIZ!

Image via Shutterstock. Used with permission.

Image via Shutterstock. Used with permission.

The following quiz* is a statistically valid and reliable measure that evaluates the degree to which a person’s relationship with God is healthy and secure.   Most people are surprised by the results.  How will you score?

Directions

Circle the number indicates your level of agreement from DISAGREE STRONGLY (DS) to NEUTRAL (N)  to AGREE STRONGLY (AS).  The points assigned will vary from question to question.  Don’t worry about the numbers for now, just view them as place-holders that indicate your level of agreement/disagreement with each question.

1. My experiences with God are very intimate and emotional.

DS ———–N————-AS

7     6     5     4     3     2     1

2. I prefer not to depend too much on God.

DS ———–N————-AS

1     2     3     4     5     6     7

3. My prayers to God are very emotional.

DS ———–N————-AS

7     6     5     4     3     2     1

4. I am totally dependent upon God for everything in my life.

DS ———–N————-AS

7     6     5     4     3     2     1

5. Without God I couldn’t function at all.

DS ———–N————-AS

7     6     5     4     3     2     1

6. I just don’t feel a deep need to be close to God.

DS ———–N————-AS

1     2     3     4     5     6     7

7. Daily I discuss all of my problems and concerns with God.

DS ———–N————-AS

7     6     5     4     3     2     1

8. I am uncomfortable allowing God to control every aspect of my life.

DS ———–N————-AS

1     2     3     4     5     6     7

9. I let God make most of the decisions in my life.

DS ———–N————-AS

7     6     5     4     3     2     1

10. I am uncomfortable with emotional displays of affection to God.

DS ———–N————-AS

1     2     3     4     5     6     7

11.  It is uncommon for me to cry when sharing with God.

DS ———–N————-AS

1     2     3     4     5     6     7

12. I am uncomfortable being emotional in my communication with God.

DS ———–N————-AS

1     2     3     4     5     6     7

13. I believe people should not depend on God for things they should do for themselves.

DS ———–N————-AS

1     2     3     4     5     6     7

14. My prayers to God are often matter-of-fact and not very personal.

DS ———–N————-AS

1     2     3     4     5     6     7

SUBTOTAL SCALE 1  (Q’s 1-14)______________

15. I worry a lot about my relationship with God.

DS ———–N————-AS

1     2     3     4     5     6     7

16. I often worry about whether God is pleased with me.

DS ———–N————-AS

1     2     3     4     5     6     7

17. I get upset when I feel God helps others but forgets about me.

DS ———–N————-AS

1     2     3     4     5     6     7

18. I fear God does not accept me when I do wrong.

DS ———–N————-AS

1     2     3     4     5     6     7

19. I often feel angry with God for not responding to me.

DS ———–N————-AS

1     2     3     4     5     6     7

20. I worry a lot about damaging my relationship with God.

DS ———–N————-AS

1     2     3     4     5     6     7

21. I am jealous at how God seems to care more for others than for me.

DS ———–N————-AS

1     2     3     4     5     6     7

22. I am jealous when others feel God’s presence when I cannot.

DS ———–N————-AS

1     2     3     4     5     6     7

23. I am jealous at how close some people are to God.

DS ———–N————-AS

1     2     3     4     5     6     7

24. If I can’t see God working in my life, I get upset or angry.

DS ———–N————-AS

1     2     3     4     5     6     7

25. Sometimes I feel that God loves others more than me.

DS ———–N————-AS

1     2     3     4     5     6     7

26.  Almost daily I feel that my relationship with God goes back and forth from “hot” to “cold.”

DS ———–N————-AS

1     2     3     4     5     6     7

27. I crave reassurance from God that God loves me.

DS ———–N————-AS

1     2     3     4     5     6     7

28. Even if I fail, I never question that God is pleased with me.

DS ———–N————-AS

7     6     5     4     3     2     1

                             Subtotal Scale  2 (Q’s 15-28) _______                                              

 

 Grand Total of Scales 1 & 2  (All Q’s)  ___________

  

Scoring

Step 1:  Add up the points for all the questions.   This is your Overall Attachment to God Score. This score suggests how secure your relationship with God is overall.  The LOWER the score the better.  The lowest possible score is a 28 (1 point per question) which would indicate an “Absolutely Secure” relationship with God.  A score of 56 or less still indicates a “Very Secure” relationship with God.  Scores HIGHER THAN 57 (up to a maximum of 196) indicate varying degrees of insecurity in your relationship with God.  That insecurity could cause you to be more anxious about your relationship with God than you ought to be or more avoidant in your relationship with God than you ought to be.  Steps 2 and 3 will help you determine which (avoidance or anxiety) is more responsible for the degree of insecurity you display.

Step 2:  Add questions 1 – 14.  Write the total on “Subtotal Scale 1”      This is your score for the Avoidant Scale.    The  LOWER the score the better.  The lowest possible score is 14 which would indicate that you are not at all avoidant in your relationship with God.   In other words, you feel absolutely eager to share your thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams with God and relying on him in every aspect of your life.   A score of 28 or LESS suggests that you are generally very comfortable sharing your thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams with God and relying on him in every aspect of your life.  A score of 29 or HIGHER means that there may be several ways you tend to resist sharing your heart with God or relying on him in parts of your life.  The higher your Avoidant Scale score, the more obstacles you tend to put up between yourself and God and the harder it is for you to let him influence your life and relationships.  The maximum possible score on the Avoidant Scale is 98

Step 2: Add questions 15-28.  Write the total on “Subtotal Scale 2”     This is your score for the Anxious Scale.  The  LOWER the score the better.  The lowest possible score is 14 which would indicate that you are absolutely confident and trusting in your relationship with God.   In other words, you never doubt or question God’s mercy, providence or caring/nurturing presence in your life.   A score of 28 or LESS suggests that you rarely doubt or question God’s mercy, providence or caring/nurturing presence in your life..  A score of 29 or HIGHER means that you tend to worry that God may not always be there for you, that you might behave in ways that could cause him to abandon you, or that somehow, he might forget about you and your needs.  The higher your Avoidant Scale score, the stronger your anxiety is about God either forgetting/abandoning you or alienating him with even simple mistakes/errors in judgment (i.e., scrupulosity).  The maximum possible score on the Avoidant Scale is 98

What Does Your Score Mean and What Can You Do?

To learn more about why you scored the way you did, check out my previous post on attachment styles and their influence on our spiritual lives.

IF you scored higher on the Avoidant Scale.  You will need to make an intentional effort to share more of your life with God.  Make a point of talking to him about your hopes, dreams, fears, concerns, and joys.  It will probably feel silly or unnecessary.  Do it anyway.  God wants to be part of every aspect of your life.  He wants to be one with you (Jn 17:21).   It will take effort to remind yourself that you need God.  Cultivate the discipline of prayer and especially of sharing your concerns even though you tend to feel like everything is up to you in your life. You don’t have to feel so alone any more.  Learn to fight the false thoughts and desolations that cause you to believe that you don’t or shouldn’t need God’s help.   Jesus is standing at the door of your heart knocking.  Make the consistent effort to let him in.  A spiritual director or pastoral counselor can be helpful to you in keeping you accountable for opening your heart appropriately to God.

IF you scored higher on the Anxious Scale.  You will need to make an intentional effort to remind yourself of God’s past providence, mercy and steadfast love.  Keep a gratitude journal to recall the blessings of each day.  Likewise write down the times that God has delivered you from past difficulties and review this list in prayer often–perhaps constantly.  Reflect on passages in scripture that remind you of your ability to trust in God.  Learn to fight the false thoughts and desolations that seek to separate you from God’s grace and peace.  A spiritual director or pastoral counselor can help you find your confidence in God’s fidelity when you are struggling to find your spiritual center.

*Attachment to God Inventory –R. Beck & A. McDonald Journal of Psychology and Theology 2004, Vol. 32, No. 2, 92-103

Most Antidepressants Make it Harder To Get Better, Study Says.

Image via Shutterstock

Image via Shutterstock

A new study from Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Review asserts that the science behind most anti-depressant medications is entirely backwards.  Rather than easing symptoms, the authors of the study argue that serotonin boosting medications may be actually making it harder to depression-sufferers to recover.

The low-serotonin theory is the basis for commonly prescribed serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI) anti-depressant medications which keep the neurotransmitter’s levels high by blocking its re-absorption into the cells that release it.

Those serotonin-boosting medications actually make it harder for patients to recover, especially in the short term, says lead author Paul Andrews, an assistant professor of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

“It’s time we rethink what we are doing,” Andrews says. “We are taking people who are suffering from the most common forms of depression, and instead of helping them, it appears we are putting an obstacle in their path to recovery.”  READ MORE

This latest research adds to the body of literature pointing to the ineffectiveness of serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (the most common type of anti-depressant).  For more information go here and here.

In God Help Me, This Stress is Driving Me Crazy:  Finding Balance through God’s Grace, I point to a number of different psychotherapeutic techniques that have been shown to be effective in helping people overcome depression and anxiety disorders.  My associates and I have a great deal of success helping depression-suffers make use of techniques that can significantly improve their mood and quality of life.  Although medication can be an important part of recovery for many depression sufferers, the truth is, compared to the public’s perception of its effectiveness, most research shows that medication only helps about 50% of the people who take it and may only decrease depressive symptoms by about 30%.   As I noted in the posts I linked above, medication can help, but as with illnesses such as hypertension, depression can only be cured through lifestyle and psychological changes.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of depression sufferers either believe or are led to believe that taking medication alone can be sufficient.  That’s simply not the case.  If you or someone you love are suffering with depression, seek professional counseling help so that you can get the most comprehensive treatment.

Children Raised by Gay Parents WORSE OFF Than Other Kids, New Major Study Shows.

From Mercator.net via the British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioral Science.

Image via Shutterstock. Used with permission.

Image via Shutterstock. Used with permission.

Fresh research has just tossed a grenade into the incendiary issue of same-sex parenting. Writing in the British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, a peer-reviewed journal, American sociologist Paul Sullins concludes that children’s “Emotional problems [are] over twice as prevalent for children with same-sex parents than for children with opposite-sex parents”.

He says confidently: “it is no longer accurate to claim that no study has found children in same-sex families to be disadvantaged relative to those in opposite-sex families.”

This defiant rebuttal of the “no difference” hypothesis is sure to stir up a hornet’s next as the Supreme Court prepares to trawl through arguments for and against same-sex marriage. It will be impossible for critics to ignore it, as it is based on more data than any previous study — 512 children with same-sex parents drawn from the US National Health Interview Survey. The emotional problems included misbehaviour, worrying, depression, poor relationships with peers and inability to concentrate.

After crunching the numbers, Sullins found opposite-sex parents provided a better environment. “Biological parentage uniquely and powerfully distinguishes child outcomes between children with opposite-sex parents and those with same-sex parents,” he writes.  READ MORE

 

Pope Francis and Spanking: 4 Things to Consider

Image via Shutterstock. Used with permission

Image via Shutterstock. Used with permission

People know that, as a Catholic Parenting author and family therapist, I encourage parents to eschew corporal punishment in favor of more effective methods discipline that are more respectful of the dignity of the parent and the child.   As a result, I’ve been getting emails all week from people about Pope Francis’ recent comments which are being touted in the press as a ringing endorsement of spanking.  Before we all get our wimples in a knot, here are a few things to keep in mind.

1.  What did Pope Francis really say?

As usual, when the press reports that Pope Francis said something, we have to look at the context of what he actually said. With Pope Francis, context is everything.  He tends to not make global pronouncement like St John Paul the Great or Pope Benedict XVI.  He is very much a man who is in the here and now, addressing things in a very off the cuff manner.  He expects his audience make the effort to “get” the context of his comments.  Personally,  I think that’s optimistic, but that’s his style and you can’t understand what he means unless you take his style into account.

If you read the actual address–and I encourage you to do so rather than taking the press’ word for it as it’s short enough–the entire talk is about the importance of present, merciful, loving fathers, who aren’t afraid to involve themselves intimately in their wife and children’s lives, lead their families, and discipline their children with love and firmness in a manner that is respectful of their dignity as persons.  Here are the paragraphs leading up to the bit that’s getting all the press.

The first need, then, is precisely this: that a father be present in the family. That he be close to his wife, to share everything, joy and sorrow, hope and hardship. And that he be close to his children as they grow: when they play and when they strive, when they are carefree and when they are distressed, when they are talkative and when they are silent, when they are daring and when they are afraid, when they take a wrong step and when they find their path again; a father who is always present. To say “present” is not to say “controlling”! Fathers who are too controlling cancel out their children, they don’t let them develop.

The Gospel speaks to us about the exemplarity of the Father who is in Heaven — who alone, Jesus says, can be truly called the “good Father” (cf. Mk 10:18). Everyone knows that extraordinary parable of the “prodigal son”, or better yet of the “merciful father”, which we find in the Gospel of Luke in chapter 15 (cf. 15:11-32). What dignity and what tenderness there is in the expectation of that father, who stands at the door of the house waiting for his son to return! Fathers must be patient. Often there is nothing else to do but wait; pray and wait with patience, gentleness, magnanimity and mercy.

A good father knows how to wait and knows how to forgive from the depths of his heart. Certainly, he also knows how to correct with firmness: he is not a weak father, submissive and sentimental. The father who knows how to correct without humiliating is the one who knows how to protect without sparing himself. 

And then he gives his example.  Personally, I don’t think it’s a great example of what he led up to say, but it’s an example and because I’m one of those people who will make the effort to get the context of his remarks, I take his meaning.  After all, as a public speaker, I too, have offered examples that fell flat or detracted from my actual point.  That said, I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to say that Pope Francis wasn’t really giving a speech about the awesome-y awesomeness of smacking your kids as long as you don’t leave visible marks–that’s COMPLETELY out of character for Pope Francis’ general positions on family life and completely inconsistent with both science and Catholic tradition on this matter (more on this below).  Rather, it is clear from the context of his remarks that he was speaking of the importance of dads not being afraid to step up and be dads; involved, loving, generous, engaged leaders of their families and formators of their children’s character and moral life.

2.  How Was He Speaking?

The second thing to keep in mind is how he was speaking–that is, in what capacity.  When he gave the example of the dad who sometimes has to “strike a child lightly” was he speaking as a theologian?  Well, it would not seem so, because he didn’t cite any scriptures, quotes from Vatican documents, or writings of the saints.  A theologian always builds from tradition.  Pope Francis didn’t do that.  He simply offered an example that he thought people could relate to illustrating the point he was trying to make in the three entire paragraphs before the example–three paragraphs, I might add, no one is talking about because his unfortunate example took center stage.  It happens, but when an example falls flat, which counts more?  The example?  Or the 3 paragraphs before it that carefully lays out everything you really meant?  Call me crazy, but I would go with what’s behind door #2, that is, the latter of the two options.

Well, if he wasn’t speaking as a theologian,  was he speaking as a social scientist?  Again, the answer appears to be “no.”  A social scientist also speaks from precedence–he cites research, he uses data. Pope Francis did none of  this.  So, clearly, he wasn’t intending to put forth some final, Catholic judgment on the raging debate in parenting circles and family psychology on the appropriateness and efficacy of corporal punishment.

So if, in giving this example, he was not speaking as a theologian or a social scientist, then what was he speaking as?  I would suggest that he was speaking as he often does, as a pastor, who was simply trying to illustrate his larger, main point in a way that his audience might relate to.  Again, I personally, think his example failed miserably, but it is a miscalculation that speakers often make.  The paragraphs before the example are really quite beautiful and lay out a powerful vision of fatherhood that does, incidentally, track with both Catholic theological tradition and social science.

3.  Discipline is a Matter of Prudential Judgment.

The third thing to keep in mind is that, for Catholics, parenting and discipline is a matter of prudential judgment.  Pope Francis wouldn’t tell people how to raise their kids because the Church doesn’t do that. it violates subsidiarity.   It’s up to parenting experts to state our case for the positions we take and for parents to listen, pray, and decide what makes the most sense to them.  I, and the overwhelming majority of my colleagues in family psychology, make the case that there are much more effective and dignified ways than corporal punishment to correct a child; methods that are also completely consistent with Pope Francis’ message of engaged, effective fatherhood.  That said, the vast majority of parents ignore that advice and still spank in spite of it.  Pope Francis knows this, and so he used an example of someone he felt spanked more mercifully than many other parents to underscore his point and give his message the broadest possible appeal.  Again, I think his example failed to serve his intentions, but that doesn’t change the point of his message; namely, dads should discipline, but only by using means that keep the dignity of the child in mind.  That point is quite clear and literally obvious from everything he says around the example he gave.

4.  What is the Larger Context of This Discussion?

Finally, we need to keep the larger context of this debate in mind.  Catholic theologians always respect the scientific findings that impact a particular subject when attempting to speak to that subject. The Vatican regularly asks scientists of every discipline to consult on various issues it has an interest in.  If Pope Francis were going to make anything more than a colloquial, folksy, comment on corporal punishment, he would need to consult both tradition and social science, both of which weigh very heavily against corporal punishment as an effective, respectful method of discipline.  For instance, here is a summary of the American Psychological Association’s finding on the research about corporal punishment.

Additionally, Pope Francis would need to consult the reflections of those holy men and women who have pronounced on this topic before him.  A while ago I posted an article on what the saints had to say about corporal punishment.  Here are some quotes pulled from that post.

~If thou shouldst see (your son) transgressing this law, punish him, now with a stern look, now with incisive, now with reproachful, words; at other times win him with gentleness and promises.   Have not recourse to blows and accustom him not to be trained by the rod; for if he feel it…, he will learn to despise it. And when he has learnt to despise it, he has reduced thy system to nought.  (St. John Chrysostum)

~The birch is used only out of bad temper and weakness for the birch is a servile punishment which degrades the soul even when it corrects, if it indeed corrects, for its usual effect is to burden (St Jean Baptiste de la Salle, c.f., On the Conduct of Christian Schools)

~Force, indeed, punishes guilt but does not heal the guilty….In the case of some boys, a reproachful look is more effective than a slap in the face would be. Praise of work well done and blame in the case of carelessness are already a great reward or punishment.  A reproachful or severe look often serves as an excellent means of moral restraint over the young. By it the guilty person is moved to consider his own fault, to feel ashamed, and finally to repent and turn over a new leaf.  Never, except in very extreme cases, expose the culprit publicly to shame. Except in very rare cases, corrections and punishments should be given privately and in the absence of companions; and the greatest prudence and patience should be used to bring the pupil to see his fault, with the aid of reason and religion.  To strike a child in any way…must be absolutely avoided…[these punishments] greatly irritate the child and degrade the [parent].  (St. John Bosco)

CONCLUSION

So, yes.  Pope Francis did, indeed, offer an example of parenting that, taken out of the larger context, appears to suggest that corporal punishment is just grand.  Putting it in context, however, it becomes quite clear that his example was just that, an attempt to illustrate a larger point, that unfortunately because of the press’ penchant for sound bites and the volatility of the debate among parents on this topic ended up obliterating the exact point about merciful, loving, engaged fatherhood he was trying to make.

For a thorough perspective on Catholic parenting that takes into account both social science and the fullness of our Catholic tradition, I invite you to pick up a copy of Parenting With Grace:  The Catholic Parents’ Guide to Raising (almost) Perfect Kids and Then Comes Baby:  The Catholic Guide to Surviving and Thriving in the First Three Years of Parenthood.

Fight the Power of 50 Shades: Here’s What YOU Can Do!

I am doing a lot of interviews over the next few days about the appeal of the 50 Shades of Grey phenomenon and what our Christian response should be.  I find that many people are responding to the shutterstock_146909255wide appeal of the film by being outraged, clucking about how disgusting and shameful it is. I want to say upfront that I agree that the content of 50 Shades is, indeed, disgusting and shameful, but I also want to say that I think that being shocked and outraged is not only insufficient it is,  in fact, doing exactly what Satan wants us to do.  He wants us to settle for being scolds when what God needs us to be is evangelists for the truth about the Catholic vision of love.  We have been given a huge opportunity that Satan does not want us to take advantage of!

50 Shades:  A Sexual Da Vinci Code

Many readers may recall the sensation around The Da Vinci Code a few years back.   So many people strangely believed Dan Brown’s wildly fantastical novel to be a legitimate historical work denying the divinity of Christ and suggesting some kind of cover up by the Church of…Heaven knows what.   Many Christians reacted with similar outrage and shock to that film as they are showing for 50 Shades, but other Christians mounted a more effective response.  A small cottage industry of books came out from Christian publishers that tapped into the public’s fascination with Dan Brown’s story while simultaneously rebutting the book’s claims point by point–revealing powerful arguments for the truth of the claims of traditional Christianity. Because of this, Christians who kept a cooler head in the face of the DaVinci Code’s  slanders against the Church were able to turn it into a powerful opportunity for getting the truth into people’s hands. The world was surprised by the forceful and effective response that was mounted by Christians and many people’s hearts were genuinely changed.  At the very least,  good seeds were sown.

 The Hunger

Similarly, I think Christians, and Catholics in particular, are being given a real opportunity.  The popularity of 50 Shades isn’t an anomaly.  It speaks to a deep need among women to be permitted to express their repressed femininity (see my previous blog that develops this point).  As I pointed out in my previous post, St John Paul the Great’s  Theology of the Body reminds us that receptivity is an essential characteristic of femininity.  A healthy woman can be strong, competent, capable, and powerful, but still want a man to to love her, take care of her, and, yes, to lead.  The secular feminist culture seeks to prohibit women from expressing this desire for natural, healthy submission, in which the woman wants a man to cherish and care for her, in which a woman allows herself to be vulnerable–in the healthiest sense of that word–to a man.  But that receptive impulse is so much a part of the feminine character that it cannot be denied.  Any attempt to repress it will result in that desire for receptivity being expressed in distorted ways.  As I’ve pointed out previously, dominance is Satan’s counterfeit of  healthy submission.  Where a dynamic of healthy mutual submission is denied, dominance will emerge.  Poorly formed men will seek to seek to dominate women and poorly formed women will willingly submit to being dominated–just like the female protagonist of 50 Shades.

The point is, what 50 Shades powerfully reveals is that women want more.  They want to be able to stop having to be powerful all the time. To be in charge all the time.  To have to take care of everyone and everything all by themselves all the time.  They want to be able to lay down their defenses, to stop having to pretend that they can be everything to everyone, and to just be vulnerable for a change. But they don’t know there is a healthy way to do that.  They don’t know where to look for it. And the best they can do is fantasize about someone who will come into their lives and force them to give up the control they never really wanted in the first place.

That’s where we come in.  We have a better way

The Answer

We must do more than express shock and outrage.  There is too much work to do.  We can’t afford the luxury of being scandalized.  We must minister to the sickness and heal the wound that drives this phenomenon.  We must show the world that the Christian vision of mutual submission, in which strong powerful, men of God love, cherish, and care for women as Christ loves, cares and cherishes the Church, and strong, powerful women of God know how to lay down their defenses willingly and be loved, cherished and cared for by a man is a real and positive option.   In order to do that, we need to be examples to the world of this in our own relationships and we need to put resources in the hands of those who need them so that the world can discover the truth of the Catholic vision of love.

I would like to suggest something to you. I would ask you to consider purchasing a copy of Holy Sex! for everyone you know who has spoken favorably about 50 Shades, has read the book, or mentions they are going to see the movie.  Don’t cluck at them.  Don’t shame them.  Look at them in the eye, smile, and say, “Hmmm.  You know what?  I think I have something that you’d really be interested in.”  and hand them a copy of the book.  Change the conversation.  Give them the opportunity to see the truth.  Don’t run from the fight.  ENGAGE the culture and EVANGELIZE.  We can use this as an opportunity to change hearts and open minds.    Give people the truth and then stand back and be amazed at what the Holy Spirit can do when we open the door even a crack.

Be not afraid!  Be a force for good.  Light a candle in the darkness, and dispel every shade of grey with the light of God’s grace and love.

Together, we can make a difference.  We can show the world that the free, total, faithful, and fruitful love they long for but are afraid to believe truly exists is more than a fantasy.   Let’s show the world that there is a better way.

Tainted Love: Why is 50 Shades of Grey So Popular?

Note:  The following article deals frankly with sexual topics.  

Image Shutterstock. used with permission

Image Shutterstock. used with permission

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that 50 Shades of Grey, a popular soft-core pornographic movie about a timid young woman who is sexually dominated by a billionaire, is being released this coming Valentine’s Day.  Based on a popular series of erotic novels, the film is being released both to wide acclaim and wider controversy, especially among those who are repulsed by this glorification of domestic partner violence.

Fatal Attractions

Many people are mystified by the movie’s appeal, but research shows a large percentage of women are very attracted to the kinds of sexual activities portrayed in 50 Shades. According to the Journal of Sexual Medicine, nearly 65% of women reported fantasies about sexual submission. Specifically, more than 52% percent of women said  they fantasize about being restrained during sex, 36%of women desire to be spanked, and 28.9% fantasize about being forced to have sex.  Fantasies about being sexually dominated are quite common among women.

Of course, all of this begs the question, Why?  Why are so many women attracted to these behaviors and to this film that depicts such degrading behavior toward women.  Why would women willingly submit themselves to watching or participating in media that, for all intents and purposes, is victimizing to them?

Repressed Femininity

There isn’t one reason, of course.  For some, prior abuse or victimization will be a factor.  But there is a major theme that I have observed that contributes to the tendency for many–even, apparently, a majority–of women to desire and/or submit themselves to this kind of treatment.  Namely,  our prevailing culture’s secular-feminist ethic makes it taboo for women to want to be vulnerable in any healthy ways.  Women are told they must expect to take care of themselves. They must be strong, self-sufficient and powerful. Of course there is nothing wrong–and everything right–with being a capable, competent woman. But many women are taught that they must take this a step further.  They can never allow themselves to be vulnerable. They must be competent at all things, and at all costs.  They don’t let themselves need anyone, least of all a man.  Even in a healthy relationship, there are many women will will not allow themselves to let their guard down, give up control, or open their hearts.

The problem is that this isn’t natural.  The Theology of the Body asserts that an inherent character of femininity is receptivity.  That is, the ability to be open, generous, receptive to others. Not dependent, or needy, or a victim, but intimately relational  in character.  The secular feminist culture pressures women to deny their basic receptivity, but nature will not be denied.  The receptive, feminine impulse continues to assert itself, and if it cannot find legitimate expression in healthy relationships, it will assert itself in more insidious ways.

The Need that Will Not Be Denied

In essence, many women who have been trained to reject their natural, healthy vulnerability, can only allow their feminine impulse to be expressed by permitting themselves to be dominated. Unable to allow their feminine nature to emerge in any other way, many women either fantasize or actually place themselves positions where they are no longer given a choice in the matter.  Domination is, in essence, Satan’s counterfeit of the healthy submission (as opposed to subjugation/dominance) that naturally expresses itself in subtle and psychologically affirming ways in a healthy, nurturing relationship.

Improperly formed men will seek to dominate women rather than love and serve them, and improperly formed women will seek to be dominated rather that willingly allowing themselves to be loved and served.  The popularity of 50 Shades is the bad fruit of a culture that denies the healthy interdependence of men and women and rejects the natural dynamic of mutual submission that evolves when well-formed men and women boldly express their respective masculine and feminine genius in a nurturing, mutually generous relationship with one another.

To learn more about reclaiming a healthy sense of one’s sexuality and living a passionate, loving, soulful sexual life, check out Holy Sex!  The Catholic Guide to Toe-Curling, Mind-Blowing Infallible Loving.

BIG NEWS! Vatican to Launch New Telecom Company

Vatican Radio. Image Shutterstock. Used with permission.

Vatican Radio. Image Shutterstock. Used with permission.

According to sources, Pope Francis has given the go-ahead for the Vatican to launch an international telecommunications company called Viaticom.  Vatican Press Secretary, Fr.  Thomas Rosica, told reporters that Viaticom will offer Catholics cell service via a Natural Family Plan. People say its great, but you have to agree to not use your phone for 7-10 days every month.

Rimshot!

(Can I tell you how proud I am of myself for this?  HA!  I kill me. Seriously, folks.  I’ll be here all week.  Try the gluten-free hosts and don’t forget to tip the altar-girls.)