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.

President of Ruth Institute Says Teacher Fired for Calling a Girl “She” Shows How the Power of Government Supports the Sexual Revolution

For immediate release

For more information:

On Friday, October 7, a group of students at the West Point, Virginia, high school staged a peaceful protest in support of a teacher who was fired for referring to a female student who “identifies” as male as “she.”

“Absurd as it is, we shouldn’t be surprised by this,” says Ruth Institute Founder and President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse. “What’s called transgenderism is a movement that can’t succeed without the raw power of the state behind it.”

Among other “transgender” victories, California now allows “nonbinary” (refusal to be identified by gender) as an option on drivers’ licenses. Some hospitals don’t designate a newborn by sex. Genitalia is no longer enough to distinguish male from female.



In her book, The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives, Morse notes that the Gender Ideology (a key component of the Sexual Revolution) “separates individuals from their own bodies, which are regarded as unreasonable constraints on one’s freedom and self-determination.”

Thus, says Morse: “All differences between men and women, including seemingly natural differences, can be reconstructed with enough re-engineering of human biological hardware and social cultural software. The modern Sexual State will, of course, be on hand to ensure that the entire society conforms itself to each individual’s newly chosen identity.”

In this case, through the unanimous action of the West Point school board, the Sexual State could end up destroying the career of a dedicated teacher for refusing to endorse the Gender Ideology.

The Ruth Institute calls for the reinstatement of the teacher in question, who should not be punished for recognizing reality instead of entering the fantasy world of gender choice.

For more information on The Sexual State:

For more information on The Ruth Institute:

To schedule an interview with Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, email


Punishing the Guilty Is Justice, Not a Witch Hunt

There is no “witch hunt.” I don’t know anyone who wants to drive from the priesthood any celibate holy man who is true to Church teaching.

by Jennifer Roback Morse

This article was first published at National Catholic Register October 29, 2018.

In the fallout from the revelations of former-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s serial sexual predation, some have worried about an “anti-gay witch hunt.”

Recently, a headline in America magazine all but shouted, “Homosexuality is not a risk factor for sexual abuse of children.” Yet, the Pennsylvania grand jury report that came out in August found about 80% of the teenage victims of clerical sexual abuse were male, just as the John Jay Report found more than 10 years ago. This fact cries out for explanation. But many in the media and in the Church seem reluctant to focus on this obvious connection. We must come up with an explanation that is true to the known facts, without harming any innocent person.

Before we tackle this explosive topic, let us clarify some important issues. Let’s think first about individual cases of sexual predation, by one specified person against another specified person.

Every decent person wants the criminal justice system to gather the facts and come to an accurate verdict. Whether this individual perpetrator is “straight” or “gay” is not germane. Percentages and probabilities don’t matter. Only one issue matters in an individual case: guilt or innocence.

Presumably everyone, from every point on the political, ideological or religious compass, agrees on this. Punishing the guilty and protecting the innocent is not anyone’s definition of a “witch hunt.” Behind individual cases, however, lies a whole realm of institutions and structures and rules and incentives. The big-picture institutional question is this: Is an increase in the number of same-sex attracted men in the Catholic priesthood correlated with an increase in the number of incidents of abuse of minor boys? This is the question to which the John Jay Report replied, “No.” (pg. 102.) The answer to this question has potential implications for a whole series of other questions, including but not limited to:

  • Should men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies be admitted to the priesthood? The Church already says “No” to this.
  • Should such men currently in the priesthood be automatically laicized? Not only “No,” but I don’t even know anyone who says “Yes.”
  • Should seminary and parish life be more highly structured to limit temptations for sexual activity? Obviously Yes.
  • How should bishops and religious superiors handle non-criminal violations of celibacy? Many answers are possible, but religious authorities certainly need to take this issue more seriously than they evidently have been.

Let’s get a couple of preliminary points out of the way. First, let us set aside the question of true pedophilia, that is, adults having sex with pre-pubescent children. True pedophilia accounts for about 5% of the cases in the John Jay Report. I’m focusing exclusively on priests having sex with sexually mature, but legally under-aged boys. Let us also set aside the important question of sexual harassment of seminarians, as we have no systematic data on the matter.

Let’s also stipulate that an increase in the number of celibate same-sex attracted men would have a negligible impact on abuse. By definition, a celibate priest is unmarried and therefore is to live the virtue of chastity by not having sex of any kind with anybody. A celibate priest, regardless of his preferred partners, has renounced marriage and sexual relations for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

On the other hand, a person who defines celibacy as something other than complete sexual abstinence is playing word games, which is a problem of its own.

Finally, permit me to register my general complaint with the concepts of “sexual orientation” and “gay.” I have argued in print and in speeches that these terms are imprecise and unscientific, and hence problematic. In what follows, I will concede the use of the term “gay” or “homosexual” to mean either a self-imposed label or as a short-hand for a man who engages in sex with other males.

With all that out of the way, let us return to the One Big Question: Are increases in the number of homosexual men in the clergy correlated with increases in the numbers of incidents of abuse of minor boys?

We must somehow face up to the 80% of the cases of clergy sexual abuse that have teenage boys as victims. If same sex-attracted men and opposite sex-attracted men are alike in every other respect, the only logical explanation is that 80% of the Catholic clergy is homosexually inclined. The highest number I’ve ever seen is 50%, and most systematic estimates are closer to 20%-25% of the clergy being gay.

If that is the case, we have to ask ourselves whether homosexually inclined priests behave differently in systematic ways. Such secondary questions include:

  1. Are homosexual priests more likely to violate their vows of celibacy than heterosexual priests?
  2. Are homosexual priests more likely than heterosexual priests to prefer younger sex partners?
  3. Are homosexual priests more likely than heterosexual priests to abuse without being detected or reported? This is how the widely reported “homosexual networks” could have an impact.

A correlation between numbers of homosexual men and incidence of abuse of minor boys doesn’t prove any one of points 1-3. Possibly some combination of all three are at work in tandem. There could be additional factors we haven’t thought of.

These three points are explosive because they call into question the idea that “homosexual activity is a healthy variant of normal human sexual development.”

Many in today’s world have become deeply committed to that belief. We aren’t really discussing sociological data or “witch hunts.” We are discussing our views of human sexuality, its purpose and place in our lives.

No matter what the truth of the causality proves to be, none of the possible explanations supports or is even consistent with, the claim that “gay is okay.” This, I believe, is the real explanation for the reluctance to accept the “Elephant in the Sacristy.” We would have to abandon a belief that has become a cornerstone of the modern sexual revolution.

There is no “witch hunt.” I don’t know anyone who wants to drive from the priesthood any celibate holy man who is true to Church teaching. But there very well may be a need for people to surrender beliefs they cherish. We are each going to have to decide whether our commitment to protecting children takes precedence over sexual ideology.



Ruth Institute Delighted to Sign Letter Affirming Biological Nature of Sex

For more information, contact:

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Founder and President of the Ruth Institute, said her organization was delighted to join such colleagues as the American College of Pediatricians, Alliance Defending Freedom, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Liberty Counsel in applauding the decision of the Trump Administration to uphold the scientific definition of sex in federal law.

In an extraordinary move, the Obama Administration had urged federal agencies to expand the Title IX definition of sex to include so-called “gender identity” – treating those who identify with the opposite sex as if they were members of the opposite sex.

The letter released today supports the Trump Administration’s decision “to uphold the original scientific meaning and legal intent of the term ‘sex’ in federal law.”

Signers of the December 6th letter to the Departments of Justice, Education and Health and Human Services, noted:

  • Human sex is a binary, biologically determined, and immutable trait from conception forward.
  • Sex differences are real and consequential.
  • “Gender identity” is not a material trait found anywhere in the body, brain or DNA.
  • Upholding the scientific definition of sex in law protects everyone’s rights to privacy and equal treatment, especially that of girls and women.
  • As the biological men and women that they are, transgendered-identified individuals possess the same human dignity and right to equal protection of the law as all Americans.

Besides the organizations mentioned above, the letter was also endorsed by the Christian Medical and Dental Association, the National Task Force for Therapy Equality and the Freedom Defense Fund.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse is the author of the recently published book, The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives, which includes a discussion of transgenderism in the chapter "The Gender Revolution."

For more information on The Sexual State:
For more information on The Ruth Institute:

“With the Help of the State”

by Rev. James V. Schall, S.J.

This article was first published November 2, 2018, at Crisis Magazine.

“It’s time to face up to the harms the Sexual Revolution has caused. Whether you’re male or female, straight or gay, young or old, religious or irreligious: what kind of a world do you want to help create? A world in which every child has a legally recognized right to a relationship with both parents? Or a world in which some children have these legally recognized rights and others do not? Or more radically still, a world in which no children at all have legally recognized rights to their own parents?” ∼ Jennifer Roback Morse, The Sexual State, 2018

“We could talk about the Obama administration passing a federal law forbidding any state from voting to defund Planned Parenthood and similar organizations. This is a perfect example of the Sexual State at work, implementing the fantasy ideology of the sexual revolution. They cannot implement that ideology without the help of the State’s power to coerce and propagandize.” ∼ Jennifer Roback Morse, The Sexual State, 2018

Genesis tells us that man was created “male and female.” The Sixth Commandment forbids adultery. Not all men and women beget children but all children have two parents, one a father and the other a mother. Both the family and the state are “natural” institutions logically flowing out of man’s nature. Christ told the disciples to let the little children come unto him. Human Life International estimates that, in the last 40 years, the world has witnessed 1.72 billion abortions of human children. “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” What happens when these fundamental principles or standards are rejected? As a direct consequence, we have witnessed a logical declination from the original good into a parody of it that is anything but good.

Jennifer Roback Morse’s new book, The Sexual State, is a lively and forceful examination of where we came from, where we are now, and where we ought to be on matters of human life. The book presents a complete argument, based on empirical evidence, about how divorce, contraception, abortion, the gay lifestyle, and gender neutrality fit together in a descending sequence of laws and practices that, enforced by the state, have set an elite class against the normal good of normal human beings.

Morse’s Ruth Institute maintains one of the most thorough and insightful web sites in political and cultural affairs about all issues that concern family life. Her two previous books, Smart Sex and Love & Economics, have already demonstrated Morse’s mastery of the economic, moral, and spiritual sides of womanhood, of the needs of children, and of what the state can and cannot do. Morse writes with verve, often with justifiable anger, with a wealth of personal experience about all sides of family life. She is herself married with two children (one is adopted), has a doctorate in economics, is a debater, and a speaker on college campuses and at legislative hearings. The book is replete with examples of what she has in mind. The reader soon realizers that she knows what she is talking about, the good as well as the awful.


The book details the step-by-step overturning of the classical Judeo-Christian view of man, woman, child, and family. Though she does not cite them, her study is reminiscent of Chesterton’s two books, Eugenics and Other Evils and What’s Wrong with the World, wherein elite intellectuals used coercive state power to impose a completely distorted view of man, woman, and child on unsuspecting citizens. The title of her book, The Sexual State, emphasizes the role that government force played in imposing a distorted view of human sexuality onto all phases of human life.

The book is divided into three parts: the Contraceptive Ideology, the Divorce Ideology, and the Gender Ideology. Alongside these ideologies, Morse presents the alternative Catholic view on each of these three topics. As such, the Church’s position has proved to be the only one that can protect individuals and families from the radical reconstruction of sex and family that has been imposed upon us, although Morse is aware that many Catholics in practice are in agreement with the activities of the Sexual State.

Morse argues, correctly, that we should begin our analysis with the needs of children, not with the autonomous adult who has been the focus of modern analysis. A child does not come into the world with an immediate ability to fend for itself. A marriage of one man to one woman is the best context in which a child should come into the world and be cared for as it develops. Each child needs his own father and mother. The child’s well-being depends on the integrity of this parental relationship. The first question to be asked of legislation and of marriage itself is not what adults need but what the child needs. The ongoing physical existence of mankind depends on the begetting of future generations.

The first step in undermining family life was the undermining of the marriage union. Morse pays a good deal of attention to how divorce affects the welfare of children. Modern no-fault divorce laws have failed to take into consideration the effect of the divorce on the children of the couple. Wealthy men favored no-fault divorce since they could easily afford the cost of separation. For women, divorce has usually meant poverty even though they initiate divorce more often than men. But for the children it has meant an undermining of their world, and of their confidence in who they are. The notion that children of divorced parents will not suffer is simply false.

The second step in undermining the family is contraception. Divorce separated husband and wife. Contraception separates sex and children. Safe sex meant, or was intended to mean, that we could indulge in sexual acts without worrying about pregnancy. It turned out, in practice, that contraceptives did not prevent births but in many cases caused an increase, especially in births to the unmarried. The separation of sex and children made it possible to think that children did not need their specific parents, i.e., a father and a mother. The campaign to make same-sex “marriage” equivalent to that between a husband and wife ignored the child’s need for his own parents.

Gender ideology is the third source of separation. Here, our souls are separated from our bodies: We are not bound by what sex we had at birth or by its relation to the other sex; we could, it is claimed, have a female spirit in a male body. It is our right, not nature’s or God’s, to decide what we are; if I, though male, want to be female, it is up to the state and everyone else to enable me to be what I make myself to be; the body that we possess at conception and birth has no relation to what we are; and we need to be liberated from the idea that what we are points us in the direction of what we ought to be.


The main burden of this book is to show how these separations worked their way into the public order and from there into the lives of every person. Morse maintains that an interested class, in conjunction with the state’s offices and the courts’ coercive powers, imposed these deviant ideas on human beings. The cost in terms of both money and human wellbeing has been enormous. Knowing how these ideas have victimized people, Morse offers a manifesto of proposals on how we might return to normalcy. Basically, it is to undo the damage by getting the government out of the family.

I am not sure that class analysis is the best framework in which to propose a return to a more healthy family relation. Aristotle’s virtue ethics and the corresponding political institutions in the state seem to be a better context. What Morse calls class is really what Aristotle called oligarchy. In any case, the state support of these aberrant ideas about the family has resulted in a thorough undermining of what is the best way to deal with our children and the parents who beget them.

The book carefully outlines the history and development of these ideas that subvert healthy family life. This book, along with Leon Kass’s Leading a Worthy Life and Robert Reilly’s Making Gay Okay, form a basic trilogy to explain the causes and origins of the deviation from the good that we see everywhere in modern life, both public and private. One cannot go away from the Morse book without a deep concern that the Church itself is no longer fully reliable in defending the needs of families in the modern world. Even so, the book is enormously helpful in how the issues we must face are carefully laid out. There will be no change for the better until we see why change is both necessary and possible. The Sexual State offers an unsurpassed analysis of how we arrived where we are and how we can begin to reverse course.

(Photo credit: Shutterstock)

Head of Ruth Institute Appalled by Gene-Manipulation Announcement

November 29, 2018

For Immediate Release

For More Information, contact:

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:

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.


- ¿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, 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.

Support the Ruth Institute