Moms’ Response to Baby’s Cries May Indicate Unresolved Childhood Wounds/Need for Counseling

Posted on by

A new study suggests that the way a mom feels about responding to her child’s cries may indicate the presence of unresolved–and perhaps unrecognized–childhood wounds.shutterstock_215227429

The research found that moms who either come from healthy families-of-origin OR have successfully resolved their childhood issues tend to respond more sensitively and compassionately to their baby’s cries, seeing those cries as a call for help.  By contrast, moms who had not adequately come to terms with their own negative childhood experiences tended to focus on how their baby’s cries affected them. Moms in this latter group tended to experience a crying baby as manipulative or a nuisance.   Instead of being prompted to provide a nurturing response, these moms tended to worry about how they were going to get their own needs met if they responded to their child as much as their child seemed to need them.

“Responding sensitively to infant crying is a difficult yet important task,” notes Esther M. Leerkes, professor of human development and family studies at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, who led the study. “Some mothers may need help controlling their own distress and interpreting babies’ crying as an attempt to communicate need or discomfort.”   READ MORE

The study presents a powerful argument that moms who struggle to respond compassionately, promptly, and sensitively to their baby’s cries should not write their resistance off to a difference in parenting style, but rather see it for what it is, a sign that there may be work to do on healing from childhood wounds. Rather than experiencing these findings as a judgment, moms who struggle to be nurturing in response to infant crying should be encouraged that there are effective ways to resolve the inner-tension that robs them of the joy of motherhood.

While every parent has off days, if you habitually tend to feel that you are in competition with your child to get your needs met, or experience your child’s cries as manipulative or a nuisance, contact the Pastoral Solutions Institute’s tele-counseling practice (740-266-6461) to learn more about how you can begin to heal your childhood hurts and free your heart to love your child the way God intends him or her to be loved.  You can get your needs met while being present to your child.  Let us show you how.

Maximize Your Baby’s Word Power with This ONE Simple Tip!

Posted on by

Parents may not understand a baby’s prattling, but by listening and responding, they let their infants know they can communicate which leads to children forming complex sounds and using

Vigorous response to baby babbling leads to better verbal skills.

Vigorous response to baby babbling leads to better verbal skills.

language more quickly.

That’s according to a new study by the University of Iowa and Indiana University that found how parents respond to their children’s babbling can actually shape the way infants communicate and use vocalizations.

The findings challenge the belief that human communication is innate and can’t be influenced by parental feedback. Instead, the researchers argue, parents who consciously engage with their babbling infants can accelerate their children’s vocalizing and language learning.

“It’s not that we found responsiveness matters,” says Julie Gros-Louis, assistant professor of psychology at the UI and corresponding author on the study, published in the journal Infancy. “It’s how a mother responds that matters.”

…What researchers discovered is infants whose mothers responded to what they thought their babies were saying, showed an increase in developmentally advanced, consonant-vowel vocalizations, which means the babbling has become sophisticated enough to sound more like words. The babies also began directing more of their babbling over time toward their mothers.

On the other hand, infants whose mothers did not try as much to understand them and instead directed their infants’ attention at times to something else did not show the same rate of growth in their language and communication skills.

In other words, when a baby says, “BLALALALALALALALA!”  Parents who say, “What’s that, Baby?  You want cuddles?  Does my baby want cuddles?  Yes you do! (kiss, kiss, snuggle, snuggle)” have infants who learn better language skills  more quickly and efficiently than parents who don’t say such things often and consistently.

Communicating with infants is a wonderful and engaging activity.  Check out Parenting with Grace  for more ways you can get the most out of your relationship with your little one!

Is It Time for a Catholic “Tenderness Revolution” In Parenting?–Updated

Posted on by

Disturbing new research suggests that by the time they reach age 18, about 12 percent of American children are maltreated: neglected, or abused physically, sexually, or emotionally.

Researchers at Yale University say the numbers are even more sobering for black and Native American children, with one in five black children and one in seven Native American children experiencing maltreatment during the time period studied. The results are published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics.   The authors estimated the cumulative prevalence of confirmed childhood maltreatment by age 18 using the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System Child File, which includes information on all U.S. children with a confirmed report of maltreatment.

Analysis of data between 2004 and 2011 showed that over 5.6 million children had experienced maltreatment during this time period.

“Confirmed child maltreatment is dramatically underestimated in this country. Our findings show that it is far more prevalent than the one in 100 that is currently reported,” said first author Christopher Wildeman, Ph.D.   READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE.

Time For a Tenderness Revolution in Catholic Families

Reading this study in light of comments in the press about Pope Francis’ “Tenderness Revolution” really drives home–for me–what a radical witness it would be for Catholics to take up the challenge of gentle parenting and launch a Tenderness Revolution in family life.

Parents are afraid that gentleness equates indulgence, but it doesn’t.  Indulgent parenting means surrendering standards.  Gentle parenting, on the other hand, maintains high standards, but uses gentle means to achieve those standards.  Indulgent parenting simply ignores misbehavior.   Gentle parenting, by contrast, directly challenges misbehavior using powerful tools like relational guidance, encouragement, catching kids being good, skill building, virtue-training, and logical consequences.

Gentle Parenting:  Too Hard?

Obviously, gentle parenting requires more effort.  Honestly, that’s the biggest objection most Catholic parents I encounter have to gentle parenting.  “It’s too much work.”  But that has always struck me as a silly argument.  After all, what about being a Christian in general–and a Catholic Christian in particular–isn’t “too much work?”  If that’s really the standard, why bother with any of it?  For the Christian, the question isn’t, “Is it too hard?”  The question is, “Is this means of achieving my goals more consistent with the witness of Jesus Christ?”    If it is, we do it.  If it isn’t, we don’t.  Period.  It doesn’t matter if “it’s hard.”  Put on your big kid pants.  That’s the everyday martyrdom of Christian family life that perfects us and makes us saints.

Gentle Parenting:  What if My Kid Doesn’t Respond?

The second objection is that “all kids are different and need different things.”   While there is truth to this, parents who trot this out usually mean “some kids just need a beating.”  Taken in that way,  this statement is nonsense.  Of course all kids need different things, but no kids need to be treated harshly or with anger, scorn, or violence.  None.  No one flourishes in a relationship defined by these qualities.  Moreover, for the Christian, I can’t see how it’s possible to reconcile these qualities with the gifts and fruits of the Spirit.   I’m going to let you in on a secret that a lot of people pay me a lot of money to learn.  If your kid isn’t listening to you, it isn’t because you aren’t being hard enough, angry enough,  mean enough or haven’t let them fail enough. It’s because there is something wrong with your relationship with your kid.  Fix that, and the listening issue will solve itself.

Distance =  Demotivation

Now, when I say this, parents usually assume I think the problem is that they aren’t being “nice” (read, “indulgent”) enough to their kids.  I don’t mean that at all.  The truth is, neither the children of  authoritarian nor indulgent parents believe their parents really care about them–just for different reasons.  Kids of authoritarian parents doubt their parent’s love because they’re distant and mean.  Kids of indulgent parents, on the other hand,  doubt their parent’s love because they’re distant and neglectful.  That said, both types of parents are experienced as distant and that’s the problem.   The more distant the parent (whether due to either an authoritarian or indulgent style) the more demotivated the kid.

Which leads to another important point.  When it comes to your relationships’s ability to generate good behavior in your kids, the closeness of your relationship to your children isn’t determined by how close you think you are as a parent.  It is determined by how close your kids feel they are to you.  Every parent thinks they have a great relationship with their kids. Fewer children actually feel like this is really true.   Here’s a good rule of thumb, the more your kid misbehaves, the less your kid feels connected to you.  Incidentally, I’m not telling you this to make you feel guilty.  I’m telling you this to empower you.  Now that you know what the problem is, don’t sit around mooning about whether or not you’re a bad parent. That’s what bad parents do.  Good parents take the information and do something about it.   There have been plenty of times where, perhaps because I have a busier week, my relationship with my kids isn’t what it needs to be to get either the behavior or the quality of interactions that I want.   Realizing this enables me to be intentional about carving out the time it takes to set things right again.  And that’s–as Martha Stewart used to say–a good thing.  Being an effective gentle parent means learning to read the barometer of family intimacy that is represented by your children’s behavior.

Gentle Parenting:  How Does it Work?

Gentle parenting isn’t about being a helicopter parent who never leaves your kids alone, but it is about being engaged, not just in your children’s lives, but with their hearts.  What does that mean? It means taking the time to identify what their needs are and teaching them how to meet those needs in a godly and effective way.   The thing is, most parents simply assume they know what their kid needs (or they think they can tell their kids what they should need) but most parents really don’t know.  The gentle parent takes the time to ask questions of themselves and the child that help them ascertain what motivates this particular kid and what that specific child was trying to accomplish (however clumsily) by doing X, Y, or Z.  For gentle parenting to work, a parent must buy in to the idea that bad behavior is the result of a child either not knowing how to meet a certain need appropriately, or not knowing how to use what they know in a particular context.  Solving the problem behavior means giving the child the missing skill or information and providing the support and structure the child needs to succeed.

A Call to Action:

The point of this post, however, isn’t to teach parenting skills.  It’s to get you to reflect on the way you parent in general–and why–and to suggest that, as Catholic parents, the way we parent is not just about raising our kids.  It’s about changing the world’s attitude toward children in general.  I think that too often, we say, “Well, my kids are just fine. So, I guess I’m doing just fine.”  But I don’t think the Catholic parent can really get away with this especially in light of the study that began this article.  We are called to be salt and light.  How does having the same attitudes toward our kids that every other parent does accomplish this?  Catholic parents–especially in light of Pope Francis’ “tenderness revolution”–need to ask themselves, “What kind of witness will my family be?”  Are we going to be the kind of family that just bitches about our kids over coffee like everyone else and complains (however jokingly) about what a chaotic mess our lives are, or are we going to be the kind of families that make other people want to get to know their kids better, hold their kids a little closer, treat their kids with a little more gentleness and dignity?

Catholics have been given a special insight.  We know how precious life is. We know what a treasure our children are.  Isn’t it time we started doing more than paying lip service to these ideas? Isn’t it time to take up Pope Francis’ example and start a Tenderness Revolution in Catholic parenting that can bear witness to these truths and show the world how it is possible to use gentle means to accomplish terrifically high standards; to parent our children just like God parents us–with standards that reach to the heavens (literally) supported by a love that knows no bounds?  I think so. How about you?

If you’d like more ideas on how you can start a tenderness revolution in your home, pick up a copy of Parenting with Grace:  The Catholic Parents’ Guide to Raising (almost) Perfect Kids.

UPDATE—I’ve been discussing this post with several of my Patheos colleagues.  Jen Fitz, in particular, asked some especially helpful questions that, I think might be useful for clarifying some point on this post. 

–First, I want to be clear that I am not equating spanking parents with abusive parents. My only point is that Catholics have an obligation to evangelize the culture. One of the ways that Catholic parents can do this is through gentle parenting, which bears witness to the gift of life and the treasure that children are. 

Abusive parents aren’t abusive because they are mean, evil people. They are abusive because they don’t know what else to do and they are at the end of their tether. But if, as a people, Catholics led the way in showing the world how to achieve great parenting ends through gentle means, we would be able to show parents who are struggling with their children that there truly is a better way. And we could do it by example–without judgment or shaming. 

To paraphrase Tertullian, it would be a case of, “Look at those Catholic families, see how they love one another!”

–Second, regarding the attempt to articulate a “Catholic position on spanking.” It is my understanding that in moral theology, Catholics operate from first principles, not from situational ethics.  I never claim that Catholics can’t spank. I just apply the same theology of punishment to spanking as Catholics apply to punishment in general. Where a lesser intervention can correct an offense, Catholic moral teaching obliges us to prefer that intervention to a harsher intervention.   I can tell you that there isn’t a situation I have encountered–clinically, personally or empirically–where spanking was either necessary or superior to other more gentle methods.  Regardless, for the Catholic, punishment is permissible, but at all times we must consider punishment in light of the dignity of the person, the proportionality of the intervention to the offense,  and the overall call to live lives of virtue.

Attachment and Faith Style: How Parenting Affects Your Experience of God

Posted on by

Yesterday, I linked a study reporting that 40% of US children suffer from insecure attachment.  To the degree that anyone thinks about attachment at all, most people tend to think of it in terms of its psychological and relational ramifications.  What fewer people realize is that, because attachment style predicts people’s attitudes toward all their relationships, it also impacts our experience of God.  Let’s take a look at four of the most common attachment styles and how each influences our faith walk.

Secure attachment  (Confident in Relationship Stability)

The securely attached child knows that when he cries out, his needs tend to be addressed promptly, consistently, generously and cheerfully.    He feels a sense of personal power, because he feels that he can do things to get his needs met.  He feels a sense of trust and confidence in others because the most important people in his life respond generously and predictably when he calls out.  The security he experiences in his interactions with his parents become his internal working model for all relationships, including his relationship with God.

Securely attached people tend to agree with the following statements: “It is relatively easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable depending on others and having others depend on me. I don’t worry about being alone or having others not accept me.” This style of attachment usually results from a history of warm and responsive interactions with relationship partners. Securely attached people tend to have positive views of themselves and their partners. They also tend to have positive views of their relationships. Often they report greater satisfaction and adjustment in their relationships than people with other attachment styles. Securely attached people feel comfortable both with intimacy and with independence. Many seek to balance intimacy and independence in their relationship.

–Spirituality and Secure Attachment.  The person with a secure attachment style is confident in God’s love and providence.  He may struggle with normal doubts and questions but he approaches these with confidence, assuming that answers to his questions are available even if those answers escape him at this time.  The securely attached person is comfortable expressing his feelings–positive and negative–to God (including anger).  He is also comfortable sharing his weaknesses and struggles openly in prayer without fear that God will disapprove of him or abandon him.  He is confident that God wants to play a helpful, nurturing, positive role in his life.

Anxious–Preoccupied Attachment  (Latches on quick and doesn’t let go but tends to be always worry about abandonment).

The person with Anxious/Pre-occupied attachment got his needs met as a child, but he had to work harder to make it happen.  He had to cry a little harder and a little longer to get mom and dad’s attention.  As a child, he often felt he had to convince his parents that his needs and concerns were legitimate.  Needs were met often enough, but not always.  As a result, this person tends to have questions about the stability and security of his relationships.  He may tend to  let people in too quickly, sharing too much too soon and then worrying that the person may have somehow put the relationship at risk.

People who have a more Anxious-Preoccupied Attachment Style tend to agree with the following statements: “I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don’t value me as much as I value them.” People with this style of attachment seek high levels of intimacy, approval, and responsiveness from their partners. They sometimes value intimacy to such an extent that they become overly dependent on their partners. Compared to securely attached people, people who are anxious or preoccupied with attachment tend to have less positive views about themselves. They often doubt their worth as a partner and blame themselves for their partners’ lack of responsiveness. People who are anxious or preoccupied with attachment may exhibit high levels of emotional expressiveness, worry, and impulsiveness in their relationships.

–Spirituality & Anxious/Preoccupied  Attachment.  The person with an anxious-pre-occupied attachment style may love God deeply but he often struggles to trust in God’s love and providence.  He may have  concerns that God will always “be there” for him.  He may know intellectually that God will never abandon him but he may have a hard time always feeling or believing it.   Struggles with normal doubts or questions about faith may be attended by guilt or fear that he is betraying God or letting him down.  The anxious-preoccupied attached person may be uncomfortable expressing his negative feelings and faults to God (especially anger at God, which seems particularly scary).  He may tend to be somewhat scrupulous and experience some worry that God  will disapprove of him or abandon him if he doesn’t toe the line.  He may know that God wants to play a helpful, nurturing, positive role in his life, but he may have a harder time always feeling or believing that.  He may have a sense that unless he hounds God with his needs that God will forget about him, but if he hounds God too much God will tire of him.

 

Fearful–Avoidant Attachment (- i.e.,  “I want you around but I’m afraid of letting you too close so I’m not going to let you know how much I care”)

The person with a Fearful-Avoidant Attachment Style had his basic needs met but had very little control over when and how.  As a child, he may have been attended to on a strict schedule that had little to do with his actual needs and cries and, instead,  everything to do with arbitrary rules that made sense to the parents but none to him. He learns that needs may be met, but whether they are or not has little connection to his efforts to get them met.  When the needs are finally responded to, it is often a bit of a surprise, and he is left feeling, “Why now?”  He learns that relationships are mysterious things that follow rules he can’t possibly begin to understand so why bother trying.  As he gets older, he tends to be suspicious of the motivations of others.  He wants people around but tends to be fairly guarded, sending a “come close but not too close” message to others.

People with Fearful-Avoidant attachment  tend to agree with the following statements: “I am somewhat uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to trust others completely, or to depend on them. I sometimes worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others.” People with this attachment style have mixed feelings about close relationships. On the one hand, they desire to have emotionally close relationships. On the other hand, they tend to feel uncomfortable with emotional closeness. These mixed feelings are combined with, sometimes unconscious, negative views about themselves and their partners. They commonly view themselves as unworthy of responsiveness from their partners, and they don’t trust the intentions of their partners. Similar to the dismissive–avoidant attachment style, people with a fearful–avoidant attachment style seek less intimacy from partners and frequently suppress and deny their feelings. Instead, they are much less comfortable initially expressing affection.  They also tend to attribute negative motivations to other people’s behavior and tend to be more defensive.  Where the Anxious-Preoccupied person blames himself for relationship problems, the Fearful-Avoidant person tends to think that any struggles in the relationship are the other’s fault.  They are very good at blame shifting and denying that they have any responsibility for improving things.

–Spirituality & Fearful Avoidant Attachment.  This person tends to often feel that he is going through the motions in his relationship with God.  He may struggle to trust God on a personal level.  If he is religious, religious involvement tends to be pro-forma and habitual even if he  professes real and serious devotion.  The relational dimension of faith is often lost on this person. If interpersonal relationships are mysterious, a relationship with a transcendent being one can’t see is infinitely more complicated and so he may tend not to think about it much.  At best, faith is often something that is important  to study or practice more than feel or experience.  Where the Anxious-Preoccupied person tends to blame himself if God feels distant, the Fearlful-Avoidant person may tend to feel resentful and angry toward God for withdrawing or abandoning him in difficult times and treat God as if God has a lot to answer for with regard to the problems this person has in his life.

Dismissive–Avoidant Attachment  (Avoidant Personality–i.e., “I’m a lone wolf. I can take or leave relationships. I can take care of myself.”)

People with this attachment style were largely left to fend for themselves.  Feeding and nurturing occurred when the parent felt it was necessary but these tasks were performed in a functional rather than relational way.  Parents of such children are not affectionate or affirming.  They don’t encourage much talk about feelings or an emotional life in general.

People with a dismissive style  attachment tend to agree with these statements: “I am comfortable without close emotional relationships.”, “It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient”, and “I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me.” People with this attachment style desire a high level of independence. The desire for independence often appears as an attempt to avoid attachment altogether. They view themselves as self-sufficient and invulnerable to feelings associated with being closely attached to others. They often deny needing close relationships. Some may even view close relationships as relatively unimportant. Not surprisingly, they seek less intimacy with relationship partners, whom they often view less positively than they view themselves.   Adults with this attachment style tend to define “intimacy” or “relationship” in purely sexual terms if at all.   Investigators commonly note the defensive character of this attachment style. People with a dismissive–avoidant attachment style tend to suppress and hide their feelings, and they tend to deal with rejectionby distancing themselves from the sources of rejection (i.e., their relationship partners)

–Spirituality & Dismissive-Avoidant Attachment.  The person with a Dismissive-Avoidant Attachment style believes he needs God like he needs everyone else…that is to say, little, if at all.  This is a person who believes that he is completely self-sufficient.  The problem is, he is unaware of the impoverishment of his alleged self-sufficiency.  He trades accomplishment for intimacy and achievement for attachment and he burns himself out trying to fill the relational and spiritual void in his soul with the acquisition of things and approval.  But once he gets these things, they become worthless and he is after the next goal.  If he has a faith life at all, it tends to be because his church membership conveys some social or professional advantage.  If he believes in God, then his vision of God is one of a distant God who is only useful to the degree that he conveys certain benefits or privileges.

The Upshot

Parents rarely appreciate the power their interactions with their children  have over their children’s view of relationships and spirituality, but these simple exchanges between parents and children set the stage for both relationship and spirituality in tremendously powerful ways that have been demonstrated by hundreds of studies over decades and decades.  Responding to our children’s needs–especially in infancy, but also throughout childhood–in a manner that is prompt, consistent, generous and cheerful is the best tool we parents have to raise well-adjusted, healthy, loving, moral kids who are capable of deep and meaningful relationships with others and God.  Rather than spoiling our children, responding to their needs in manner that is prompt, consistent, generous and cheerful allows our children to grow up expecting their relationships with others and God as well to be rewarding, enriching experiences where they can experience all the virtues that make life a gift; love, intimacy, hope, joy, and all the rest.  If parents would like to learn more about raising well-attached children, check out Parenting with Grace:  The Catholic Parents’ Guide to Raising (almost) Perfect Kids or to learn more about healing your own attachment wounds, contact the Pastoral Solutions Institute to learn more about how our telephone counseling practice can help you get everything God wants you to experience in your relationships with him and the other important people he has placed in your life!

Parenting Crisis in America: 40% of US Children Have Insecure Attachment to their Parents

Posted on by

Attachment is psychological term for the process that wires the social brain.  Strong attachment is correlated with strong empathy, good moral reasoning, strong faith, insight, impulse control, and  emotional and bodily regulation (i.e., the ability to reset yourself after stress).

Having poor attachment leads to deficits in all these areas.  If you’ve been wondering why so many kids are selfish, morally lax, faithless, deluded, impulsive and reactionary look no further than this study of 14,000 American children.

In a study of 14,000 U.S. children, 40 percent lack strong emotional bonds — what psychologists call “secure attachment” — with their parents that are crucial to success later in life, according to a new report. The researchers found that these children are more likely to face educational and behavioral problems.

…The approximately 40 percent who lack secure attachments, on the other hand, are more likely to have poorer language and behavior before entering school. This effect continues throughout the children’s lives, and such children are more likely to leave school without further education, employment or training, the researchers write. Among children growing up in poverty, poor parental care and insecure attachment before age four strongly predicted a failure to complete school. Of the 40 percent who lack secure attachments, 25 percent avoid their parents when they are upset (because their parents are ignoring their needs), and 15 percent resist their parents because their parents cause them distress.

…”When helpless infants learn early that their cries will be responded to, they also learn that their needs will be met, and they are likely to form a secure attachment to their parents,” Campbell said. “However, when caregivers are overwhelmed because of their own difficulties, infants are more likely to learn that the world is not a safe place — leading them to become needy, frustrated, withdrawn or disorganized.”  MORE

If  you want to “evangelize the culture”  as Blessed Pope John Paul II challenged us to do, then the most effective means is to parent with attachment in mind.  Books like Parenting with Grace can show you how to parent in a manner that makes your life easier as a parent (because you will fight less with your kids) and shows the world there is a healthier and godlier way to be a family.  The way you parent matters more than you think!  Love your child and save the world.

Predicting Addictions/Eating Disorders By Age Four: What Parents Need to Know

Posted on by

Pope Francis has been beating the drum for more affectionate connections in families, again and again urging parents to “Be close to your children.”   Two new  studies show the practical import of Pope Francis’ words.

First,  new research from the University of Adelaide shows that disturbances in the development of the child’s oxytocin system (aka “the love or bonding hormone”) predicts later drug use.  Newborns do produce some oxytocin, which facilitates the biological foundations of bonding,  especially when being held or nursed, but the child’s oxytocin system isn’t fully developed until about age 3.  According to the report,

“…studies show that some risk factors for drug addiction already exist at four years of age. And because the hardware of the oxytocin system finishes developing in our bodies at around age three, this could be a critical window to study. Oxytocin can reduce the pleasure of drugs and feeling of stress, but only if the system develops well.”

Development of the oxytocin system is facilitated by prompt, consistent responses to children’s needs/cries, and high levels of affection and skin-to-skin contact between baby and parents.  Once again, this study highlights the importance of approaches to parenting that encourage extravagant affection and intimate connection between parents and children, especially in the first years and months after birth.

If this wasn’t enough, a second study drives the point home.  Research published in the journal, Psychoneuroendocrinology, points to oxytocin therapy as a  promising new treatment for eating disorders.

“Our research shows that oxytocin reduces patients’ unconscious tendencies to focus on food, body shape, and negative emotions such as disgust,” said lead author Dr. Youl-Ri Kim.  “There is currently a lack of effective pharmacological treatments for anorexia,” she said. “Our research adds important evidence to the increasing literature on oxytocin treatments for mental illnesses, and hints at the advent of a novel, groundbreaking treatment option for patients with anorexia.”

As parents, we often worry about giving our children everything they need to be mentally and emotionally healthy. The good news is that it may be easier than we think.  In fact, Pope Francis may very well be pointing parents in exactly the right direction.  “Be close to your children.”  To learn more ways to help your child develop his or her full capacity for resilience, check out Parenting with Grace:  The Catholic Parents’ Guide to Raising (almost) Perfect Kids.

A Psychopath Gives Parenting Advice

Posted on by

Dr. James Fallon, neuroscientist, is a psychopath (albeit a “pro-social” psychopath in that he hasn’t killed anyone).  He discovered this himself after looking at his brain scan in comparison to the brain scans of serial murderers.  The images were disturbingly similar.  At first he denied it, but then family, friends and professionals started chiming in, “We’ve been telling you for years you are a psychopath.”    They weren’t kidding.  His insensitivity to others, risk taking, pathological attention-seeking, lack of compassion and absence of empathy all fit.

He wrote a book about his attempts to heal–as best as one can–his psychopathy, The Psychopath Inside.

In an interview in the Atlantic promoting his book, he describes what parents need to know to prevent psychopathy and good moral formation.  The upshot?  Treating the first 3 years after birth as a “fourth trimester” that focuses on parenting approaches that emphasize attachment and bonding.  The whole interview is fascinating.  Here’s an excerpt of the parenting bit…

And though there isn’t an absolute “fix,”  [for psychopathy] you talk about the importance of the “fourth trimester”—the months following a baby’s birth when bonding is key. What are other really crucial moments where you can see how someone may be at risk, or where this convergence of genetics and environment might be crucial for intervention, or at least identifying what is happening?

There are some critical periods in human development. For the epigenome, the first moment is the moment of conception. That is when the genetics are very vulnerable to methylation and, therefore, the effects of a harsh environment: the mother under stress, the mother taking drugs, alcohol, and things like that. The second greatest susceptibility is the moment of birth and, of course, there are the third and fourth trimesters. After that, there is a slow sort of susceptibility curve that goes down.

The first two years of life are critical if you overlap them with the emergence of what are called complex adaptive behaviors. When children are born they have some natural kinds of genetic programming. For example, a kid will show certain kinds of fear—of certain people, then of strangers, then it’s acceptance of people—that’s complex-adaptive behavior at work in social interactions. But even laughing, and smiling, and making raspberry sounds are all complex-adaptive behaviors, and they will emerge automatically. You don’t need to be taught these things.

One idea is that over the first three years there are 350 very early complex adaptive behaviors that go in sequence, but if somehow you’re interrupted with a stressor, it will affect that particular behavior that’s emerging or just about to emerge. It could be at a year and half, 3 months, or 12 months. After that, the effects of environment really start to drop; by the time you start hitting puberty, you kind of get locked in.   READ MORE

Breaking Up is Hard to Do–There’s more going on than meets the eye with heartbreak

Posted on by

Breaking up is always hard, but some people rebound more easily than others.  According to new research, it turns out a person’s ability to recover from a break-up has even more to do about their attachment style than it does with the depth of feeling for the object of one’s unrequited affections.  

New research shows that people with secure attachment styles handle breakups much more efficiently than those with less secure attachment styles.  There are 4 basic attachment styles (Secure, Anxious-Preoccupied,  Anxious-Avoidant, Dismissive-Avoidant) that dictate our basic attitudes and behavior in relationship.  We learn these styles based upon how promptly, consistently, and compassionately our parents responded to our needs as children.  These patterns of engagement between parent and child form our deep-seated attitudes about our relationship for the rest of our lives.

4 Basic Attachment Styles

People who are Securely Attached tend to be comfortable in relationship and by themselves.  They are capable of both being appropriately vulnerable and setting appropriate relationships in relationship.  Securely attached adults tend to experience the most stable and satisfying relationships.  People with secure attachment were raised in homes where parents responded to their needs promptly, consistently, and compassionately.

Those who exhibit an Anxious-Preoccupied attachment style tend to be somewhat nervous in relationship.  These folks value their relationships a great deal but tend to be preoccupied by fears that they might do something to alienate the other person or cause the other to want to leave them.  They tend to take the blame for any relationship problems whether they should or not and they often need a lot of reassurance that things are really OK between them and the other.  They often struggle with being alone and can be somewhat dependent or emotionally needy. People with an Anxious-Preoccupied attachment style were raised in homes where there parents tended to ignore initial cries and requests for help. Ultimately, the child’s needs would be met, but only after the child was made to work for it by crying a little harder and longer, or asking one more time.  In this model, the parent was a benevolent god who required some degree of supplication before favors were granted.  These individuals are at higher risk for anxiety disorders.

Those who exhibit an Anxious-Avoidant attachment style like the idea of being in a relationship, but tend to have a hard time opening up in relationship.  They can communicate their feelings but they typically don’t do so willingly or without a great deal of effort.  They tend to send mixed messages to the people they are in relationship with insofar as they want the other to be close to them, but they don’t want to return the closeness.  They fear being hurt or left so they often remain aloof even when it would be safe to open up.  People with an Anxious-Avoidant attachment style were raised by parents who only met those needs the parents felt were worth meeting and only when the parents felt it was worth meeting them.  Often, the decision to meet or not meet a child’s needs would be based more on how the parent was feeling in the moment rather than any discernible logic, so the child is left with the impression that relationships are a mystery that they have no direct control over.  These people tend to be suspicious of the motivations of others and often read negative intentions into even unintentional slights.  They have a strong tendency toward depression and substance abuse issues.

Finally, those with a Dismissive-Avoidant attachment style are lone wolves.  They can take or leave relationships.  They tend to be fairly out of touch emotionally and don’t do vulnerability. They can be very task oriented and accomplished in their lives because all of the energy other people spend on relationship they save for achievement.  These individuals were raised in homes where needs were largely ignored.  The child learned to rely almost entirely on his or herself and to believe that needing others at all was a weakness not a strength.  Because these individuals are largely unable to get any joy or satisfaction from being close to people, they have a much greater tendency toward substance abuse and other compulsive behaviors (sex, gambling).

Attachment Style and Coping with Break-ups

So, what does all this have to do with ability to recover from romantic breakups?  Quite a bit.

According to new research by Cornell University, Those with a secure attachment style usually have the healthiest response to break-ups. They are more likely to turn to close friends and family for support as opposed to using drugs or alcohol as a means of coping. They are more open to authentically grieving the loss, and are better able to understand, or empathize with their partner’s reasons for the break-up which allows them to respond in a less hostile manner. And—this is important in regard to future relationships—they are less likely to blame themselves for the relationship ending.

People who have an anxious attachment style are more likely to turn to unhealthy coping strategies, such as abusing drugs or alcohol in the wake of an emotionally distressing situation such as a break up. They are prone to jealousy after the end of a relationship, particularly if they are not the ones who ended it, and they will be more likely to try to re-establish the relationship, even if the relationship wasn’t a healthy one. Some research suggests that those with an anxious attachment style would be the most likely to engage in unwanted pursuit behaviours such as stalking, threatening, or even attempting to physically harm their previous partner.

Those with an avoidant attachment style tend to turn less to friends and family after a break-up, and are more likely to use drugs or alcohol as a means of coping. They may avoid the former partner, sometimes going so far as to change jobs or schools, consistent with the inclination to suppress distressing thoughts, or in this case any reminders of their former relationship.  READ MORE HERE.

The takeaway for those grieving the loss of a relationship is that your reaction may have more to do with what’s going on inside of you than your feelings about the other person.  If you are having difficulties recovering from a breakup that are affecting your well-being, seeking help can empower you to heal a less-than-secure attachment style.  Look for someone trained in  Mindfulness Based Therapy which has been shown to be effective at helping to heal damaged attachment styles.  If you’re looking for help, the Pastoral Solutions Institute Catholic Tele-Counseling service can help you find healing.

The takeaway for parents is that attaching to your child by meeting your child’s needs promptly, consistently, and compassionately does more than help your relationship with your child.  It gives your child relationship and coping skills that can last a lifetime.  To learn more about how you can give your  child everything he or she needs to have healthy adult relationships and strong coping skills, check out Parenting with Grace: A Catholic Parents’ Guide to Raising (almost) Perfect Kids.

 

Martha Sears Invites Dr. Greg Popcak to Serve on Attachment Parenting International–Resource Advisory Council

Posted on by

I was genuinely honored today to receive an invitation from internationally-recognized parenting expert/author, Martha Sears,  and  Attachment Parenting International Board President, Janet Jendron, to become a member of API’s Resource Advisory Council. 

Dear Greg,

I am happy to inform you that the Board of Directors for Attachment Parenting International has voted to ask you to become one of our advisors on the API Resource Advisory Council.  Having you as a resource, as an advisor, for the work API does will be valuable in many ways.  You will bring a much needed expertise to API, and we appreciate that you have been a friend of API for a long time.

We are looking forward to your acceptance and your increased involvement with the important task we all have to help parents be the best parents for the children they have in their care.  We thank you so much for considering this, as we have enjoyed the writing and media work you and Lisa do.

All best,  Martha Sears

I look forward to lending my professional support to API and helping them continue their excellent work of helping moms and dads raise truly remarkable children.  To learn more about attachment parenting and applying the principles of Blessed Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body to parenting and family life, check out the many great resources at the Attachment Parenting International website, as well as my and Lisa’s books, Parenting with Grace and Beyond the Birds and the Bees.

Why Johnny Can’t Pray– Why Catholic Religious Education is Doomed to Fail.

Posted on by

Over at Egregious Twaddle, my fellow Patheosi, Joanne McPortland, has a provocative post about What’s Really Wrong with Catholic Religious Education?  You should go read it.  Chances are, it will do two things.  First, I suspect,  it will piss you off.  Then, I suspect, you’ll find yourself agreeing with it.  At least, that’s what happened to me.

Her argument is essentially that the academic model of the religious education of children is a completely wrongheaded approach that should be scrapped forthwith.  But really, you should go read what she says for yourself.  Go ahead.  I’ll wait.

Back now?  OK.  Let’s chat.

My first reaction to Joanne’s piece was, “That’s not right!  You can’t baptize babies and then not teach children to appreciate the gift they’ve been given!  Of COURSE we need religious education for kids.”  But see, that’s not what she’s saying (and I did confirm this with her directly).  Her point isn’t that kids shouldn’t be catechized.  It’s more that the Church shouldn’t be doing it.  The religious education (and formation) of children is the job of their well-formed parents.  It is the process by which children are discipled in the faith by their faithful mom and dad.  What’s that you say?  Parents aren’t well-formed?  Exactly.

And that’s the problem.  The Catholic Church is trying to make up for parents’ lousy faith-formation by teaching children the faith in the parent’s stead.  But there are several problems with this.

1.  Church-Based Religious Ed.  Fills Head with Facts, Not Hearts with Love.

The first problem with Church-based catechesis is that the Church, or more specifically, a parish school–or worse, CCD program (or whatever they call it now)–simply can’t create the kind of loving atmosphere that disciples a child’s heart and leads him or her to love Christ and his Church.  All it can do is (a) fill the kids head with faith-facts or (b) recognize that facts aren’t enough, so go in the other direction and produce a lot of tree-hugging, “you are special” twaddle that lacks authenticity or credibility much less content.

If it is true that education is not so much the filling of a bucket as it is the lighting of a fire, so much moreso is religious education.  Research actually convincingly demonstrates that religious education and formation of anyone–especially children–can only  be effectively done in the context of a loving, discipleship relationship.  It’s interesting that Joanne would have picked this past weekend to write her post, because this past weekend, the NYTimes did an article about a new book, Families and Faith:  How Religion is Passed Down Across Generation by USC Social Work Professor, Dr. Vern Bengtson.  The entire article is worth a read, but here is the piece that is most relevant to our reflection.

As to why some children follow their parents, spiritually speaking, Professor Bengtson’s research confirmed some common-sense assumptions. For example, it helps if parents model religiosity: if you talk about church but never go, children sense hypocrisy. And intermarriage doesn’t help. If you’re Jewish (or Mormon, Catholic, etc.), and want your child to share your religion, it helps to marry someone of the same faith.

But Professor Bengtson’s major conclusion is that family bonds matter. Displays of parental piety, like “teaching the right beliefs and practices” and “keeping strictly to the law,” can be for naught if the children don’t feel close to the parents. “Without emotional bonding,” these other factors are “not sufficient for transmission,” he writes.  (Incidentally, the article goes on to say that an emotional bond with a religiously involved FATHER is the. single. most. important. factor. in transmission of religious faith to the next generation–but that’s another blog post entirely).

The bottom line is that any institution, including church institutions, can’t bond with anyone and if bonding is essential for faith transmission to children–which it is–then Church-based catechesis is doomed to fail because if can’t provide the most important element of faith transmission; that is, the emotional bond that serves as the heart of the faith that beats behind the facts of the faith.

2. Church-Based Religious Ed. Can’t Stick.

In addition to the fact that an institution can’t provide bonding, even if the Church offers the best catechesis possible in the most supportive environment imaginable, it is still doomed to fail because catechizing children and then sending them home to poorly formed parents is the exact definition of sowing seeds in rocky soil–and Jesus had something to say about that.   It is extraordinarily difficult for a child to learn to cherish and develop what his own parents don’t appreciate, validate or practice themselves.  If you want a disturbing illustration of how true this really is, check out The Crescat’s powerful post.  Terrifying!

3.  Church-Based Ed. of Children is (potentially) Against Church Teaching (sort of).

In Gravissimum Educationem, Pope Paul VI says,

Since parents have given children their life, they are bound by the most serious obligation to educate their offspring and therefore must be recognized as the primary and principal educators.(11) This role in education is so important that only with difficulty can it be supplied where it is lacking.

Catch that?  Parents are primary and principal educators of their children in the faith.  That’s not to say that the Church doesn’t have an important role to play in religious education.  It absolutely does!  But it does an injustice–and in fact, defies its own teaching–if it in practice (if not in intention) ends up communicating to parents, “You don’t have to educate and form your kids in the faith!  That’s what religious ed. is for!”  That message–albeit unintentional– is not only wrong-headed, it is contrary to the Church’s explicit teaching about the nature of religious education.  Again, no one is suggesting the Church means to do this in its current approach to the religious education of children but in counseling there is a saying that, “the meaning of the message is the response you get.”   That is, it doesn’t matter what the intention is, if parents respond to the Church’s effort as if it is saying that parents don’t have to educate and form their kids in the faith because the Church will, then that’s as good as the Church actually saying it.  Obviously that is a serious problem.

4.  Knowing isn’t the Same As KNOWING

The fourth problem with the Church-based approach to the religious education of children is that this approach fails to consider the Christian context of knowing.  For the Christian, “knowing” doesn’t mean head knowledge.  It means “having a transformative encounter with.” Institutional religious education is not giving children an encounter with God that truly prepares them for receiving Jesus in the Eucharist or any of the sacraments. The current approach to catechesis is to teach kids fun facts (or, really, not-so-fun facts) about the faith and then “reward” their time in class with a pretty dress and a Jesus-cookie.  We have to do better. All we’re doing now is inoculating most kids against a real encounter with Jesus. The Church can’t catechize kids. Only parents can because faith is relational and kids have a relationship with the parents, not the church. Kids “catch” their relationship with the church from their parents.

So What Do We Do?

How do you fix the problem?  I believe that the short answer is that we need to do as Joanne at Egregious Twaddle suggests.  We need to stop focusing 99.9% of our effort on educating children–not because they don’t deserve a religious education, but because this approach to religious education doesn’t work.  In fact, in most cases it is an anti-education.  It is a faith inoculation.  Instead we need to make intentional disciples out of parents so that they can form their own children.  How do we do that? I’m sure there are lots of ways, and I don’t have a definitive answer to this question.  But the first step is to scale back on our effort to keep doing what doesn’t work (church-based religious ed of children) so that we can put our energy, thought, and effort into adult education and formation–almost any form of which would work infinitely better than what we’re doing.

For more information on raising faithful kids, check out the chapter titled SOUL FOOD in Parenting with Grace:  The Catholic Parents’ Guide to Raising (almost) Perfect Kids.