Ruth Speaks Out

This blog is maintained by the Ruth Institute. It provides a place for our Circle of Experts to express themselves. This is where the scholars, experts, students and followers of the Ruth Institute engage in constructive dialogue about the issues surrounding the Sexual Revolution. We discuss public policy, social practices, legal doctrines and much more.


Head of Ruth Institute Appalled by Gene-Manipulation Announcement

November 29, 2018

For Immediate Release

For More Information, contact: media@ruthinstitute.org

The announcement by a Chinese researcher that he has successfully used a “gene-editing” tool to modify two embryos drew a sharp rebuke from Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Founder and President of the Ruth Institute.

“This is appalling,” Morse said. “Supposedly, the gene editing will make these twin girls resistant to the AIDS virus. Whether or not that’s true, it opens the door to all sorts of manipulation. Will gene-editing eventually be used to create a class of genetically-enhanced super humans?”

What about the long-range consequences? “Obviously, the changes are made without the consent of the subjects. The altered genes will be passed on to any offspring,” Morse noted.


Although most in the scientific community are cautious about the announcement of Chinese genetic scientist He Jiankui, Harvard Medical School Dean George Q. Daley says full-speed ahead, as long as the research is done by “responsible” clinics. Dr. Morse asks: “How can you ‘responsibly’ alter the genetic makeup of humans?”

Morse has fought other forms of manipulation on unborn children, including surrogacy, where eggs are fertilized outside the mother’s body and then implanted in the surrogate. That unwanted embryos are then destroyed makes the procedure even more objectionable.

“Gene editing is another step on this perilous course,” Morse noted. “Once a particular gene, or genes, are modified, the child is then placed in the mother’s body, with unknown long-term effects on future generations. The Managerial Technocratic Class is assigning itself the right to play God.”

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse introduced the concept of The Managerial Class in her recent book: The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives and How the Church was Right All Along.She holds them largely responsible for the devastation of the Sexual Revolution. “Not the ‘March of History’ or some impersonal forces: but the well-educated, well-connected technologically sophisticated Elites created and imposed the Sexual Revolution. They are going even further, with their plans to make the manipulation of human embryos sound humane. Enough is enough,” Dr. Morse declared.

For More information, contact: media@ruthinstitute.org


Resisting Sexual Revolution Together May Be How God Unites Christians: Author

By Brandon Showalter

This article was first published at Christian Post on September 5, 2018.

Valerie Marchesi, dressed as a package of birth control pills, waits for U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to be publicly endorsed by Planned Parenthood Action Fund in Hooksett, New Hampshire, January 10, 2016. | (Photo: Reuters/Brian Snyder)

A robust repudiation of the sexual revolution should unite Christians of every tradition, says author Jennifer Roback Morse.

And resisting this ongoing onslaught side by side just might be the very thing God does to heal the Church of the many divides that abound, she believes, because there is no choice but to stand and fight together given the present cultural landscape.


Jennifer Roback Morse, founder and president of the Ruth Institute. | (Photo: Courtesy of Jennifer Roback Morse)

Morse, who is the founder and president of the Lake Charles, Louisiana-based Ruth Institute explained in a phone interview with The Christian Post last week that for far too long, believers in Jesus Christ have been playing footsie with the ideology of the sexual revolution. This deceptive, deadly creed and the accompanying movement is fundamentally opposed to our faith, she insists, and it has created millions upon millions of wounded people whose voices are seldom heard.

In her latest book, The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives and Why The Church Was Right All Along, which was released last month, Morse unpacks how the sexual revolution is an interlocking, three-pronged dogma — contraceptive ideology, divorce ideology, and gender ideology — that has ruined countless lives and has never been properly combated. Morse also offers bold, straightforward advice to Christians regarding what they can do to not only anchor themselves in faith amid the chaos but to push back with the truth in their respective spheres of influence.

"My emphasis on the sexual revolution grew out of my conviction that social conservatives were getting clobbered," Morse said. "We're outgunned, we're outmanned, we're outspent, so what can we do?"

She realized that for many the harms of the sexual revolution have not been fully spelled out and the people who sponsored them have never been held accountable. Meanwhile, the victims — like children of divorce, and women who wanted to have children but could not because of either the contraceptive hormones lingering in their systems or abortions that scarred their bodies — are systematically excluded and marginalized, she said; their perspectives and experiences are rarely considered in the national consciousness.

Such was the thought process that inspired Morse's previous work, The Sexual Revolution and its Victims, a collection of her essays that addressed many of the same themes she expounds upon in The Sexual State in a more sustained form of argument.

The author argues throughout the book that the sexual revolution is fraught with many internal contradictions, and is so irrational it necessitates ever-increasing amounts of state power to maintain it as it continues to ravage communities. The ruling class and America's cultural elites have wielded propaganda and public policies to promote and enshrine what they believe is their inalienable right to sexual hedonism to great, devastating effect, she writes.

Morse spends a few chapters exploring how the contraceptive part of this ideology asserts that modern society should do everything possible to separate sex from making babies. But the big problem with that is that sex does, in fact, make babies, Morse notes.

"And if you think it is possible to create a whole society where sex doesn't make babies, you're going to do a lot of work to keep that belief system alive," she explained to CP.

The divorce ideology of the sexual revolution, which relies on the notion that kids do not need their own parents because kids are resilient and adults can do whatever they want, is best showcased in the legal regime of no-fault divorce, which has proven disastrous, Morse argues. Children do indeed need their own parents and to say otherwise, one will have to work hard to convince others that it is true.

"But this is what we've been doing since 1968, telling people that it doesn't matter, that children will get over it, and if they don't get over it, we'll take them to therapy," Morse said.

"Because this is irrational, you have to keep working on it. You have to keep suppressing the evidence that comes out to contradict the ideological line."

And the third leg of the sexual revolution, Morse says, is gender ideology. She argues this has morphed over the years from the assertion from some feminists that men and women are essentially no different to the radical transgender idea that the human body has no meaning whatsoever and can be reconstructed, complete with state-funded surgical procedures in pursuit of the physically impossible goal of changing ones biological sex.

"It's completely inhuman and it's an attack on the human body," Morse asserted, and that is precisely the reason why Christians must not acquiesce.

The Sexual State by Jennifer Roback Morse | (Photo: Courtesy of Jennifer Roback Morse)

Although many contemporary evangelicals have accepted forms of contraception, provided they are not abortifacients, some are now publicly reconsidering their views and saying that the Roman Church has been right all along, like Morse once did as a Catholic who once disagreed with her church's teaching.

Earlier this summer evangelical author Julie Roys, formerly of Moody Radio, urged evangelicals to rethink their embrace of contraception.

"Clearly, the mentality that drives abortion, drives contraception. And when evangelicals embraced contraception they began thinking like pragmatists," Roys wrote in a three-part series on the subject.

"Children became liabilities, not blessings. Marriage became a means to personal fulfillment, not family and sacrifice. And birth control became essential to personal health, as though our natural design was somehow defective."

And contrary to that pragmatic thinking, Scripture does not teach that sterilizing sex is key to human flourishing, she went on to say.

Morse finds such reconsideration happening among other Christians encouraging.

"I think it would be tragic if the Catholic Church folded on its ancient teachings now because we now have the evidence to see that they've been right all along. The evidence about the physical harms associated with birth control, the evidence is right under our noses that contraception does not prevent unwanted pregnancies," Morse said.

"We need to take courage. We who believe in the Gospel and who love each other as fellow Christians, we need to be unafraid of these matters."

"And the Lord can heal this," she emphasized. "He has healed some terrible things in the history of the human race and He can heal us too. But we have to let Him."

Few people go all in for every aspect of the sexual revolution, she elaborated. Even many secular types recognize the harm no-fault divorce has unleashed, for instance. Notable radical feminists and lesbians fiercely oppose gender ideology, particularly the medical transitioning of women and children, and given the growing numbers of people who are in one way or another fed up with some corner of the revolution, possibilities present themselves for new alliances that seemed unlikely before, she said.

Yet socially conservative Christians have not addressed the heart of the matter, she continued, and their advocacy has thus been compromised, unpersuasive, and ineffective.

Past campaigns in recent years, for example, such as efforts to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, have been undermined from within due to Christians avoiding saying anything negative about the culture of divorce or artificial reproductive technologies, lest they offend their friends and others who have embraced those things, she said.

"All this kind of hanging on to stuff has led people to be basically sitting ducks for the next round of whatever the craziness is," Morse said.

And that craziness is intensifying as more and more people, Christians and non-Christians alike, are expressing their horror at how children and teenagers suffering from gender dysphoria are today prescribed puberty suppressants and cross-sex hormones, and are being approved for permanent, body-altering surgeries, all now backed with the machinery of the government and elite sensibilities.

"We're talking about underage people who are in no position at all to say 'I'm not really a girl because I think I'm not really a girl.' She can't get a driver's license or get her ears pierced without her mother's permission. And you're going to go with her judgement about whether she is a boy or a girl, and do physical things to her body that are irrevocable? Really? That's what we're going to do?" Morse said, outraged.

"It's because we haven't been willing to say that the human body is something [that matters] and we don't have the right to just mess around with it."

Morse tells her fellow Catholics that if they are to be successful in their response to the sex scandals now being exposed in the Church they have to relinquish whatever little thing they are holding on to that is contrary to Church teaching. And that is because those little things, whatever they may be, are the very things that will keep them from being effective when they need to be effective witnesses, she maintains.

For those who pick up a copy of The Sexual State, Morse hopes they will recognize as they read that they are not alone in however they have been scarred by the revolution's rage; that their suffering is not entirely their fault; and most importantly, that they can recover from it. Helping people with these struggles is a key part of what Morse does by day for The Ruth Institute with their retreats on healing family breakdown, which is her organization's core mission.

"You were fed a line of baloney, and a lot of people were too," she frequently tells those who attend their workshops, when speaking of the revolution's promises of sexual liberation that proved to be destructive.

From a more broadly social perspective, she hopes Christians as a whole will be inspired to stand and fight.

"I hope people will no longer be naive about whether this stuff is harmless. It's not harmless," Morse said, "and I hope people will not go back to normal. Let there be a new normal in your life. The new normal is that you're going to see things as they really are, and you really will be more free."

"And given the damage of the sexual revolution," she reiterated, "this could be the thing that heals the divisions among Christians. The Lord can, and I believe is trying to heal these divisions because we have no choice but to work together and fight shoulder to shoulder. And I think that could be, if we let it, one of the great fruits of this whole thing."

"That's the sort of thing God does. He takes our crap and turns it into something good."


Does Divorce Law Treat Marriage Seriously?

by Ruth Institute Circle of Experts Member, Bill Duncan

This article was first published Nov. 21, 2018, at News Max.

 

Does Divorce Law Treat Marriage Seriously?

The U.S. Supreme Court does not often address divorce. In 1992, the Court specified that the federal courts do not have authority to rule on most divorce cases since the Court’s jurisdiction required a dispute between citizens of different states.

This is not say that the Court has never discussed it, though, because it has and those instances are very instructive.

 


 

In 1888, Justice Stephen J. Field (who had been appointed to the Court by Abraham Lincoln) wrote an opinion in a dispute over the ownership of a land grant in Oregon. Although not required to decide the case, Justice Field described the nature of marriage (and, by implication, the nature of divorce): “it is something more than a mere contract. The consent of the parties is of course essential to its existence, but when the contract to marry is executed by the marriage, a relation between the parties is created which they cannot change. Other contracts may be modified, restricted, or enlarged, or entirely released upon the consent of the parties. Not so with marriage. The relation once formed, the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations and liabilities.”

In this case, the Court upheld the validity of the divorce in Oregon, holding that the legislature had the authority to grant divorces and, despite some misgivings about the behavior of the ex-husband in the case. This might seem curious to modern readers who are used to divorces in the court system, but this was not always the case.

The United States did not really inherit a practice for granting divorce from England where divorce was rare, granted by Parliament, and most would either have to be granted an annulment or a legal separation. Some of the states adopted the English approach, others allowed courts to grant divorces and others reserved grants of divorce to the legislature. By the end of the Nineteenth Century, legislative divorce had essentially disappeared, but the legislature provided clear standards for the courts considering a petition to divorce.

As a legal historian has noted, these statutes “were never simple, facilitative laws.” Rather, they specified that a spouse would have to demonstrate that there were serious grounds to justify a court in granting the divorce, such as adultery or abuse.

This is consistent with the rationale for legal divorce recognized in the earliest Supreme Court opinion to mention the topic.

In that 1819 case, Chief Justice John Marshall argued that legislative power to grant divorces only allowed an injured spouse to be leave the marriage because the marriage agreement “has been broken by the other.” Crucially, the opinion continues: “When any state legislature shall pass an act annulling all marriage contracts, or allowing either party to annul it, without the consent of the other, it will be time enough to inquire, whether such an act be constitutional.”

Eventually, though, states began to do just that, to allow one party to end the marriage without the consent of the other. This occurred through the no-fault divorce revolution. Now, if one of the spouses wants a divorce, that divorce will be granted even if the other objects and even if there is no serious fault alleged. It is not just that this kind of “no fault” divorce is allowed, it is the formal or de facto law of divorce in every state.

Now divorce is not a legislative or judicial proceeding as much as an administrative procedure, a mere clerical process where a court always says yes as long as someone asks and then the dispute shifts to splitting up property and child custody.

This is a drastic development given the multiple interests affected. Divorce implicates religious considerations for the parties, property rights, time with children, and on and on. A spouse may lose their opportunity to repair a relationship, may lose the ability to live with their children, may have to pay support to a former spouse when they did nothing to end the relationship, may have to sell their home, and much more, all without a finding that they did anything wrong.

This is a matter of simple justice and it corrodes the perception of fairness in our court system. The law must again recognize that marriage is “more than mere contract.” At the very least, a unilateral divorce should not be granted on no-fault grounds. The spouse who objects deserves a fair hearing. That is simple fairness.

Bill Duncan is director of the Center for Family and Society at Sutherland Institute in Salt Lake City, Utah. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.

 



„Das Leugnen stoppen“

Neue Studie über Zusammenhang von Homosexualität und Missbrauch in der Kirche. Von Konstantin Stein

Sexueller Missbrauch in der US-Kirche - Opfer sollen Geld erhalten

Das Problem Missbrauch endlich konsequent angehen – das fordern immer mehr katholische Gläubige. Das Leid der Opfer – im Bild ein Amerikaner, der einen Suizidversuch unternahm – soll sich nicht wiederholen. Foto: dpa

Sexueller Missbrauch in der katholischen Kirche hat sehr viel mit der Homosexualität von katholischen Priestern zu tun. Die Korrelation beträgt 0, 98, was in der Sprache der Statistik eine nahezu vollständige Übereinstimmung bedeutet (der höchste Wert des Korrelationskoeffizienten beträgt 1, 0). Dieser enge Zusammenhang ist das Ergebnis einer neuen bahnbrechenden Studie des amerikanischen Ruth Institute, die bisherigen anderslautenden Behauptungen widerspricht. Der von Father Paul Sullins, einem Soziologieprofessor im Ruhestand der Catholic University of America, veröffentlichte Untersuchungsbericht spricht darüber hinaus von „homosexuellen Subkulturen“ in katholischen Priesterseminaren, die zu einer Atmosphäre beigetragen haben könnten, die einen Missbrauch von Minderjährigen durch homosexuelle Kleriker wahrscheinlicher machte.


Die Ergebnisse des Studienreports mit dem Titel „Gibt es einen Zusammenhang zwischen homosexuellen Priestern und dem sexuellen Missbrauch durch katholische Geistliche?“ sind spektakulär und bestätigen das, was viele seit langem vermutet haben. Demnach sei der Anteil homosexueller Männer unter den Priestern seit den fünfziger Jahren bis in die achtziger Jahre stark gestiegen. War er in den 1950ern erst doppelt so hoch wie in der Gesamtbevölkerung, so betrug er 30 Jahre später das Vierfache des homosexuellen Anteils an der Gesamtbevölkerung. Dieser Trend war stark gekoppelt mit zunehmendem Kindesmissbrauch. Zudem berichtete ein Viertel der Ende der sechziger Jahre geweihten Priester von einer homosexuellen Subkultur in ihrem Seminar – ein Anteil, der auf mehr als die Hälfte der Priester anstieg, die in den 1980ern geweiht wurden. Auch dieser Trend korrelierte stark mit steigenden Fällen von Kindesmissbrauch. Vier von fünf Opfern, die älter als sieben Jahre waren, sind Jungen. Nur eines von fünf ist ein Mädchen. Normalerweise beträgt der Anteil von weiblichen zu männlichen Opfern beim Missbrauch von Minderjährigen zwei Drittel zu einem Drittel. Trotz dieser Datenlage sei die Vorstellung, „dass der Missbrauch in Bezug steht mit homosexuellen Männern in der Priesterschaft, von den Kirchenführern weitgehend nicht akzeptiert worden“, beklagt Father Sullins. Zudem: „Wenn man auf 16 Prozent Priester steigt, die homosexuell sind – damit ist der Anteil an Homosexuellen achtmal so hoch wie in der Gesamtbevölkerung –, dann ist das so, als ob das Priestertum zu einer für homosexuelle Aktivität und homosexuelles Verhalten besonders einladenden und ermutigenden und diese ermöglichenden Population wird.“ Dementsprechend erschreckend fällt das Fazit aus: Wäre der Anteil homosexueller Priester auf dem Niveau der fünfziger Jahre geblieben, wären mindestens 12 000 weniger Kinder – mehrheitlich Jungen – missbraucht worden.

Der Studienreport entstand zum Teil als Reaktion auf zwei vorangehende wichtige Studien, die von den US-amerikanischen Bischöfen angesichts der Missbrauchskrise in Auftrag gegeben und vom John Jay College of Criminal Justice durchgeführt wurden. Der Titel der ersten Untersuchung von 2004 lautete „Art und Ausmaß des Problems des sexuellen Missbrauchs Minderjähriger durch katholische Priester und Diakone in den Vereinigten Staaten“.

Die zweite Erhebung von 2011 – „Ursachen und Kontext des sexuellen Missbrauchs von Minderjährigen durch katholische Priester in den Vereinigten Staaten, 1950–2010“ wurde heftig kritisiert. Auslöser des Widerspruchs war die Behauptung, man habe keinen Beweis dafür gefunden, dass homosexuelle Priester für die Missbrauchskrise verantwortlich gemacht werden könnten – obwohl mehr als 80 Prozent der Opfer männlich und 78 Prozent postpubertär waren. Der Report habe sich der politischen Korrektheit unterworfen, hieß es seitens der Kritiker. Sieben Jahre später nahm sich des Themas nun das Ruth Institute an, das sich als weltweite gemeinnützige Organisation zum Ziel setzt, den verheerenden Einfluss der sexuellen Revolution zu erforschen und Lösungen zu finden.

Der Leiter der Studie, Father Sullins, der ehemals der Episkopalkirche angehörte und nun verheirateter katholischer Priester ist, legte kürzlich in einem Interview mit der Zeitung „National Catholic Register“ dar, weshalb es im Klerus „keine Bereitschaft“ gebe, sich den Beweisen zu diesem Thema zu stellen: „Es gibt eine weit verbreitete Leugnung etwaiger negativer Auswirkungen homosexueller Aktivität sowie jeglicher Erkenntnisse, die für homosexuelle Personen im wissenschaftlichen Bereich möglicherweise nicht günstig sind.“ So fragt er, ob die Geistlichen „einfach nicht sehen oder nicht wissen wollen“, dass homosexuelle Aktivität unter Priestern „in gewisser Weise Schaden in der Kirche anrichtet?“ Manche bezeichneten das als „Vertuschung“. Als Schwachstellen der früheren Studien benennt Sullins den Fakt, dass die Diözesen und die Priesterseminare, in denen Missbrauch geschah, nicht namentlich identifiziert wurden. So dass es auch keine Möglichkeit gab, hier anzusetzen und Abhilfe zu schaffen.

Sullins' Lösungsvorschlag sieht so aus: Um mit den homosexuellen Subkulturen in den Seminaren fertigzuwerden, sei „das Erste, was getan werden muss, das Leugnen zu stoppen“. Man müsse erkennen, dass es ein Problem gäbe. Dazu gehöre das Eingeständnis, dass es einen Zusammenhang geben könne zwischen „homosexuellem Verhalten in Seminaren oder in der Priesterschaft und dieser Art von Unheil“, dem Missbrauch. Der Impuls, „dass wir nichts sagen wollen, was homosexuelle Personen stigmatisieren könnte, ist verständlich. Doch dies muss abgewogen werden gegen das Schadenspotenzial für die Opfer. Wie oft wollen wir das noch wiederholen und weiterhin das leugnen, was immer offensichtlicher wird?“ Wann ergreifen wir Maßnahmen, um es anzugehen?

Wie für die meisten Katholiken heute stehe auch für Sullins „die Glaubwürdigkeit unserer Bischöfe in Bezug auf dieses Thema infrage: „Ich hasse, das zu sagen. Ich liebe die Kirche, doch im Grunde kann den Bischöfen als einer Gruppe die Lösung dieses Problems in diesem Punkt nicht zugetraut werden.“ Andere Leute, so meint er, hätten klarere Vorstellungen darüber, was zu tun sei.

Ob er nicht den Vorwurf der Homophobie fürchte? Wenn man sich entscheiden muss, so antwortet er, lieber als „homophob“ bezeichnet zu werden oder aber zuzulassen, dass immer mehr Jungen missbraucht werden, so riskiere er eher, homophob genannt zu werden. Denn die Frage sei ja: „Sind wir auf der Seite der Kinderschänder oder sind wir auf der Seite der Opfer? Ich glaube, dass die Worte unseres Herrn über die Bedeutung von Kindern und über die Abscheulichkeit derjenigen, die solche Kinder in die Irre führen, meiner Meinung nach all das wettmachen würden, wie mich jemand bezeichnen könnte.“


Predicar la moral sexual y familiar y ofrecer sanación: eso puede hacer el clero por las familias

by Pablo J. Ginés

Jennifer Roback pide al clero más implicación y a las familias crear entornos seguros en una sociedad especialmente dañina contra la familia y el amor

Jennifer Roback pide al clero más implicación y a las familias crear entornos seguros en una sociedad especialmente dañina contra la familia y el amor

Jennifer Roback, directora del Ruth Institute, lo sabe casi todo sobre la revolución sexual y sus daños. Y en primera persona. "Yo he estado ahí, yo me divorcié, yo aborté, me lo conozco de cerca", declaró en su intervención en el Congreso 50 Años de Mayo del 68. Se casó por primera vez con 20 años, en 1974, lejos de su fe católica de la infancia. Más adelante cuando se arrepintió de su aborto, volvió a la fe y se fue concienciando de la importancia de defender la familia y dar voz a las víctimas de la revolución sexual.


Con su segundo marido adoptó un niño de 2 años en un orfanato rumano en 1991, al poco de caer el Muro de Berlín. El Estado, vio con claridad, no puede sustituir a la familia. Empezó a escribir libros en 2001 y en 2008 fundó el Instituto Ruth cuando se debatía el matrimonio homosexual en California. Pocas personas llevan tanto tiempo con tanta intensidad en el frente cultural de defensa de la vida y la familia. Hablamos con ella en este Congreso que se ha celebrado en la Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, en Madrid, del 8 al 10 de noviembre.

- Lleva usted mucho tiempo trabajando estos temas de defensa de la familia...

- Mi primer libro sobre familia fue en 2001. ¡Hoy me parece tan tierno e inocente! Se llamaba Loving Economics. Buscaba animar a la madres a que no se sacrificasen tanto por sacar títulos académicos, dejando su embarazo para los 35 años. En esa época nadie hablaba de matrimonio gay. Había muchos divorcios y muchos padres o madres solteros. Y yo animaba a las madres a pasar tiempo con los niños, no dejarlos tanto en guardería. Hoy pienso en esa época y me parece tierna. ¡Ahora estamos enfrentando a niños a los que hormonan para bloquearles la pubertad y luego mutilarles con el cambio de sexo!

- ¿Y cómo se interesó en estos temas?

- Adopté un niño de 2 años en un orfanato rumano. Lo habían tratado mal. Lo habían dejado mal. Niños así tienen problemas para relacionarse, para la vida social. A los niños sin lazos sanos en la infancia les costará ser buenos padres, tendrán más riesgo de violencia... Todos esos locos que van a pegar tiros a las escuelas han crecido sin su padre en casa. Desde entonces, pensé que la sociedad debería esforzarse en dar a los niños un hogar, una familia de verdad. La suya, a poder ser.

- ¿Qué ha aprendido en estos años de militancia y estudio?

- En estos 17 años desde mi primer libro nada ha mejorado y muchas cosas han empeorado. Pero he aprendido algunas cosas y quiero compartirlas. La más importante: que la moral sexual tradicional, la de toda la vida, es correcta y buena, ayuda y protege a la gente. Es la moral tradicional, la que comparten católicos, mormones, judíos, cristianos de distintas tradiciones, etc... Mi último libro lo proclama desde el título: “The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies are Destroying Lives and Why the Church Was Right All Along”. (El Estado Sexual: Cómo las ideologías de la élite están destruyendo vidas y por qué la Iglesia tuvo razón todo el tiempo”). Hoy sabemos que a los niños criados por el Estado, por su sistema, les va mal. Sea en EEUU o en orfanatos comunistas, el Estado es ineficaz criando niños.

- Hay quien dirá que la revolución sexual “no ha estado tan mal”, o que los problemas “no son para tanto”...

- Algunos han participado en ella y ahora tienen conciencia culpable y reaccionan negándolo. Dicen: “era mi derecho, yo tenía derecho a todo eso que hice”. Y cuando su familia, su vida, sus relaciones se hunden, buscan justificaciones. Además, reaccionan de forma muy emocional, porque esa herida aún la tienen abierta, aún les duele. Es difícil hablarles del tema. Las personas que trabajan temas provida intentan hablar con mujeres (u hombres) que han abortado, con estrategias para no activar esa culpabilidad en las primeras fases. Hay que ayudarles a fomentar su instinto maternal o matrimonial, empezar a explorar el daño postaborto, etc... Todo eso hay que hacerlo antes de que puedan reconocer los desastres en los que han participado. Esto vale para el aborto, para el divorcio, para el sexo prematrimonial, todas esas cosas que han herido y dañado a personas, pero que se niegan a reconocerlo en un primer momento.

- Pero a lo mejor no lo reconocen como dañino porque no lo han vivido como un daño...

- Sí que les ha dañado, porque saltan en cuanto lo mencionas. Les duele el tema, les dañó y aún les daña. Por ejemplo, dices “el divorcio daña a la gente y la sociedad”. Y saltan respondiendo, muy enfadadas: “¡Pero el mío estaba justificado porque mi marido me hacía tal y tal cosa...!” Eso fue hace 15 años y en cuanto sugiero el asunto saltan y lo hacen personal. Eso demuestra que les duele. Otro síntoma es que reescriben la historia familia. Empiezan a contarte montones de supuestas cosas malas que hacía el marido... pero los hijos luego te dicen: “yo recuerdo esa época con papá, en 1989, lo pasábamos bien, papá era bastante majo, que yo recuerde”.

- También habrá gente capaz de reconocer esos daños de la revolución sexual en su vida...

- Sí. Yo, por ejemplo. Y mucha gente que ha estado allí, ha abortado, se ha divorciado, ha tenido muchas parejas, le dijeron que sería genial, ha visto que no era genial y ha vuelto a la Iglesia. La Iglesia Católica tiene algo muy eficaz, que es la confesión: te confiesas y ya. Has vuelto, ya puedes vivir bien. Lo hace así mucha más gente de lo que parece.

- ¿Tenemos ciencia suficiente para decir que la revolución sexual ha sido dañina?

- Sí, ya tenemos mucha información científica sobre los efectos nocivos del divorcio, el aborto, el sexo prematrimonial. Sabemos por la ciencia sociológica que el estándar de oro, lo que funciona bien, es crecer con tus padres biológicos casados. Hay desastres más modernos, como los hijos del vientre de alquiler o de donantes de gametos anónimos, de los que nos puede faltar más información, pero va en la misma línea.

- Usted habla de crecer no con un padre y una madre, sino con el padre y la madre propio, biológico, pero es usted madre adoptiva...

- Sí, soy madre adoptiva, pero conozco y amo a mi hijo y habría sido mejor que no hubiera estado en el orfanato, con todas las cosas horribles que implica, y que hubiera crecido con sus padres biológicos de ser posible. La adopción es buena, pero existe para dar unos padres a los hijos, no para dar hijos a unos adultos. El vientre de alquiler, que fabrica niños porque lo piden unos adultos, no se parece en nada y es injustificable. La adopción existe porque hay padres que mueren, niños que son abandonados, etc... Pero lo mejor es crecer con el propio padre y la propia madre.

- ¿Qué aconseja usted a los padres que hoy tratamos de educar a nuestros hijos en nuestras sociedades antifamilia, hedonistas, etc...?

- Que los abuelos se impliquen y estén con sus hijos y nietos, eso es muy bueno. Por lo general tienen ideas más sanas. El mundo pre-68 se está perdiendo y los abuelos lo recuerdan y los necesitamos. Además, su ayuda financiera y logística puede permitir a los padres estar más con los hijos.

jennifer_roback_francisco_vitoria

- ¿Tiene sentido crear ambientes “protegidos” para nuestros hijos?

- Sí, esta cultura es demasiado tóxica, demasiado hostil. Antes podías dejar que un muchacho fuera creciendo en la cultura. Ahora no, es una cultura dañina y hay que protegerlos hasta que crezcan. Hay que seleccionar una buena catequesis y buenos programas de educación, también afectiva. Nada de educación sexual en la escuela: la hacen mal. Un padre o una madre se llevan aparte a su hijo o hija y hablan de sexo, adaptado a su caso personal. En cambio, en el colegio viene un desconocido, que no conoce ni ama a los chicos, y les suelta el mismo rollo a todos a la vez, sin intimidad, en público, ante los compañeros. No es bueno.

- ¿Y las pantallas?

- Hay que limitar mucho su uso a los menores. Nada de TV en su cuarto, claro. Y controlar el móvil, que es peor. Un cura me decía: que los adolescentes dejen de confesarse en snapchat y se confiesen más con el sacerdote. En general hay que intentar que los chavales hagan actividades sanas con amigos honestos: pueden ser deportes de equipo, scouts, teatro, grupos de música... compartir con amigos de forma sana, sin engancharse a las pantallas.

- ¿Y qué puede hacer el clero por las familias?

- Que prediquen la moral sexual y familiar cristiana. La paradoja es que la gente alejada de la Iglesia piensa que la Iglesia es rigorista, obsesionada con el sexo, siempre hablando de castidad... cuando la realidad es que no se hace nunca. Es lo peor de las dos opciones: los de fuera nos rechazan por esa formación, pero los de dentro no nos beneficiamos porque no se da esa formación. ¿Cuándo fue la última vez que tu párroco habló de moral sexual en misa? Y en catequesis todo es evanescente, “flafi”. ¡Yo enseño más moral sexual que cualquier cura de Estados Unidos! El clero debería exhortarnos y animarnos. “Sigue mejorando en tus retos, confiésate, si te caes, te levantas”, esas cosas. La realidad es que hay gente que vuelve a la Iglesia por su moral sexual y familiar exigente, porque han visto que la alternativa, el “haz lo que quieras, todo vale”, es un desastre. A la gente sí le interesa la moral sexual.

»Claro que también tenemos el problema de las redes de clérigos homosexuales que se encubren unos a otros. Esos no pueden hablar de la belleza del amor cristiano, la familia, la conyugalidad...

- En una sociedad con tanta gente emocionalmente herida, dañada, abandonada, ¿no cobra más importancia trabajar la sanación?

- Eso también deberían hacerlo más clérigos. Si el clero pasara más tiempo con los hijos del divorcio, con los cónyuges abandonados por sus esposos (a veces muy empobrecidos)... Esos clérigos verían que es importante sanar a estas personas. Ahora mismo, en EEUU los ministerios y servicios de sanación y reparación de relaciones o de heridas emocionales lo están liderando sobre todo laicos. Hay programas buenos, como el nuestro, Healing Family Breakdown. Hay que enfrentarse a la revolución sexual tratándose con sus víctimas, ayudándolas y sacando sus historias a la luz.

(Más información y recursos en RuthInstitute.org, en inglés)

Lea también el contundente artículo de Jennifer Roback "Los argumentos seculares sobre el matrimonio no son suficientes" aquí en ReL

 

 


Lay Catholics should lead, not leave, their church

by Jennifer Roback Morse

This article was first posted October 11, 2018, at Washington Examiner.

Pope Francis reaches out to hug Cardinal Archbishop emeritus Theodore McCarrick after the Midday Prayer of the Divine with more than 300 U.S. Bishops at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington.
Pope Francis reaches out to hug Cardinal Archbishop emeritus Theodore McCarrick after the Midday Prayer of the Divine with more than 300 U.S. Bishops at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington.
(Jonathan Newton/The Washington Post via AP, Pool, File)

 

The “summer from hell” for the Catholic Church has prompted many people to ask Catholics, “Why are you staying in that awful church?” Both the New York Timesand the Washington Posthave run stories with this theme. Many Catholics are privately asking themselves that very question.



Defending the Church in her hour of need – two guiding principles

by Jennifer Roback Morse at Legatus.org on Nov. 1, 2018.

Our beloved Catholic Church is facing the worst crisis in 500 years. Clergy sexual abuse, rampant sexual immorality, and cover-up by Church authorities: it adds up to a Church deeply in need of reform. We are waiting anxiously to see what the hierarchy decides to do. But we have no control over their actions, and indeed, they are divided among themselves. So what can we as laity do to help our mother in her hour of need?

I have been on the forefront of defending the Church’s teaching on marriage, family, and human sexuality for the past decade. In my opinion, the laity can and must do two things.


First, we must make it our business to work for justice for the victims of clergy sexual abuse. No excuse-making. “But the Protestants and public schools have as much abuse as we do.” Perhaps true, but not relevant. The only relevant fact is our commitment to getting our own house in order. That includes: justice for the victims, and punishment for the perpetrators, including those who covered up. Justice also includes protection and support for innocent clergy.

Second, we must make it our business to proclaim the Church’s teaching on marriage, family, and human sexuality in our own sphere of influence. This is directly relevant to the current crisis. If the clergy had lived up to Church teaching, including the 6th Commandment and their vows of celibacy, none of the abuse would ever have happened.

I will go further and say: the world desperately needs to hear the Church’s timeless message. We need not apologize for our beliefs. Sexual self-command, lifelong married love, and the need of children for their parents: These teachings are good, decent, and life-giving.

We now know why we have heard so little from the clergy: too many of them are morally compromised. Others are under the thumb of corrupt superiors.

The only way we can be sure the world hears the Church’s teaching is for us, the laity, to deliver that message ourselves.

Please note: these are guiding principles, not a detailed program. Each person will implement these principles in his own unique way, depending on vocation, location, and the season of life. The mother of school children will have a very different role than an attorney at the peak of his career. Both are different from a college student or a young professional beginning her first job. But every one of these people may be needed to address a situation in a local school or church. Every one of them can spread the message of lifelong, life-giving love.

If we make excuses for ourselves or the Church, we are going to look bad, and make the Church look bad. If we act like “business as usual,” we are going to die in an empty church. More importantly, the Lord will ask each one of us for an accounting of how we handle ourselves in this great crisis.

If on the other hand, we faithful Catholics conduct ourselves with dignity and integrity and charity, we will pull our Church through this crisis. We will expose and correct evils that should have been addressed long ago. We will create room for a genuine flourishing of the Gospel. Our neighbors will be drawn to us.

In other words, this is our chance to become saints. We can be crusaders for the truth like
St. Athanasius and authentic reformers like St. Teresa of Avila. Let’s not drop the ball.


The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives and Why the Church Was Right All Along

by Gerald Korson at Legatus.org on November 1, 2018.

Jennifer Roback Morse
TAN Books, 420 pages

“The Sexual Revolution has never been a grassroots movement,” writes Jennifer Roback Morse in her latest book. Rather, it was manufactured by liberal elites “justifying their preferred lifestyles, imposing their new morality” by harnessing “the coercive power of the State.” As a result, millions have suffered the effects of this revolution. In her compelling indictment, Morse identifies the Contraceptive Ideology, the Divorce Ideology, and the Gender Ideology as the three fronts that built the Sexual State — and the three fronts the Church and social conservatives must focus our own defense and attacks upon if we are ever to restore love, marriage, and family to their rightful dignity.

Order.

 

 



 



About Those ‘Gay Clergy Networks’

by Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse

This article was published November 12, 2018 at National Catholic Register.

COMMENTARY: Church leadership won’t solve this current crisis unless it confronts homosexual practice among the clergy and especially the networks of homosexually oriented clergy operating to protect each other.

Article main image

I hesitate to wade into areas in which I have no direct information. But I feel compelled to point out the illogic of continuing to claim that the current clergy sex abuse and cover-up scandal is unrelated to homosexual activity among Catholic priests.


At this late date, too much circumstantial evidence has emerged to ignore: This crisis would not exist, but for homosexual practice among the clergy and especially the networks of homosexually oriented clergy operating to protect each other.

The most recent denial of the obvious comes to us from longtime Vaticanista and editor of La Stampa, Andrea Tornielli. In an under-reported article from Sept. 14, he asks: “Is the root, the origin of the problem of abuse really to be found in the homosexuality of priests?” He replies:

Even for McCarrick’s case, in fact, the problem is clericalism, the abuse of power and conscience, which comes before sexual abuse and is committed by people — priests or bishops — who can never be considered equal to their victims, on whom they exert an influence and often a subtle or obvious form of blackmail. … No, McCarrick did not have homosexual relations. He harassed and abused seminarians in the name of his episcopal power, making them understand that going to the beach house with him and submitting to his attention was an obligatory step to be better known to him and to land a priestly ordination.

This statement is remarkable on multiple levels. First, he claims that Archbishop Theodore McCarrick did not have homosexual relations. I do not know how Tornielli knows this. Second, Tornielli argues against a position that no serious person holds. No one denies that Archbishop McCarrick and others abused their power and authority. I oppose this corruption, as does everyone I know or associate with.

The important unanswered question, hiding in plain sight like Edgar Allen Poe’s purloined letter, is this: To what purpose did McCarrick abuse his power?

His goal was evidently, at least in part, the pursuit of illicit sexual stimulation. Perhaps he enjoyed having people under his thumb and within his power: That is often part of the profile of an abuser. But we have no basis at all for claiming that sexual activity itself was of no interest to him or had no casual role in his decadeslong pattern of behavior.

Tornielli asks, “Are those who today are whizzing around minimizing child abuse — as if it were a secondary problem — right to focus it all on homosexuality?”

Data from the John Jay Reports in 2004 and 2011, from the Pennsylvania grand jury report, and from the recent report on German clergy sex abuse all conclude that at least 80% of the cases involved teenaged boys, not girls, not prepubescent children. Let me turn Tornielli’s question around: How long are we going to avoid confronting that 80% figure?

We now have two additional pieces of evidence to show the significance of homosexual behavior in the priesthood. The first is the new study conducted by Father Paul Sullins, Ph.D., and published by my organization, the Ruth Institute. In that study, summarized in this two-page backgrounder, Father Sullins finds that the incidence of clergy sexual abuse is strongly correlated with both the number of priests claiming a homosexual orientation and the percentage of priests claiming that a “homosexual subculture” existed in their seminaries.

Even more troubling, the study indicates that the incidence of clergy sexual abuse has increased since 2002 and is now comparable to levels in the 1970s.

The second piece of important evidence comes from testimony of Father Boniface Ramsey in Commonweal. Father Ramsey reports that during his tenure as a faculty member at Immaculate Conception Seminary in New Jersey, he persuaded the faculty to expel a seminarian. He reports:

When I returned to the seminary to begin the next academic year, the rector told me that McCarrick knew that I was largely responsible for the expulsion of the seminarian in question, and that in consequence he had removed me from the voting faculty. I have come to realize, in retrospect, that McCarrick must have learned this from another member of the voting faculty who was present, and that this was a breach of confidence. …

When he described this situation to another cleric, he received a surprising response:

I recall what he said — that “we all know” that McCarrick had “picked up” someone at an airport. From what I understand, McCarrick had met a good-looking flight attendant and invited him to become a seminarian then and there. (I’ve been told this was not the only such spontaneous invitation.) Whether this person shared McCarrick’s bed at the beach house or anywhere else, I don’t know, but he was clearly significant enough in McCarrick’s eyes for McCarrick to fire me when I led the charge to have him expelled.

Let us concede that Archbishop McCarrick abused his power and authority, on multiple levels, in this situation. But to what end? Let’s review:

  • He “picked up” an attractive male flight attendant.
  • He invited him to join the seminary.
  • He had a “mole” on the faculty who breached the confidence of the committee charged with evaluating seminarians.
  • He punished Father Ramsey for dismissing his favored seminarian.
  • Archbishop McCarrick had made other “spontaneous” invitations to join the priesthood.

You can believe what you want to believe. I’ll believe what I want to believe. I believe then-Archbishop McCarrick’s patterns of sexual preference and behavior were relevant. I also believe he had a “network” of people who were morally compromised in one way or another, who helped him accomplish his abuses of power.

No one is minimizing the harm to little girls and boys or to teenaged girls. We want to get to the bottom of this crisis. We want to root out the abusers and the structures that allowed their abuse to continue. We can’t accomplish this unless we confront the 80% figure squarely in the face.

 

Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., is the founder and president of the Ruth Institute, which equips people to defend traditional Christian sexual morality.

She is the author of The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives and Why the Church Was Right All Along.


 



Study shows high correlation between homosexual priests, clerical abuse

Catholic World News

November 02, 2018, at Catholic Culture.

A new study from the Ruth Institute has demonstrated a high correlation between the proportion of homosexuals in the Catholic priesthood and the incidence of sexual abuse by the clergy.

The study conducted by Father Paul Sullins, a Catholic University sociologist, found that the percentage of homosexual men in the priesthood has risen sharply. The study also found a disturbing increase in the number of sexual-misconduct reports lodged against priests since 2010, “amidst signs of complacency by Church leaders.” The incidence of new charges (as opposed to charges involving alleged misconduct in past years) is now nearly as high as in the 1970s.


An earlier study by the John Jay College, commissioned by the US bishops’ conference, had denied a connection between homosexuality and clerical abuse. But the John Jay study had not examined the change in the number of homosexuals entering the priesthood. Father Sullins, using data from the same report, shows a very strong statistical correlation between a rise in the proportion of homosexuals in the priesthood and the number of abuse charges.

The rise in the proportion of homosexual priests has been striking, the Ruth Institute study found. In the 1950s, the homosexual presence within the American Catholic priesthood was estimated to be roughly twice that of the overall population; by the 1980s, it was eight times the level of the overall population. To buttress this estimate, the study notes that the number of young priests who reported encountering a homosexual subculture in the seminary doubled between the 1960s and 1980s.

Father Sullins estimates that if the proportion of homosexual priests had remained that the level of the 1950s, the surge in abuse might not have occurred and “at least 12,000 fewer children, mostly boys, would have suffered abuse.” In an interview with the National Catholic Register, the priest-sociologist acknowledged that his report will be criticized as hostile to homosexuals. But he said: “I would say that if it’s a choice between being called homophobic and allowing more young boys to be abused, I would choose to be at risk for being called homophobic.”

 



Donate now!