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.


Ruth Institute to be Part of the Largest Pro-life Student Conference in the Nation

The Ruth Institute will be an exhibitor at this year’s National Pro-life Summit, organized by Students for Life America in Washington D.C. January 25, the day after the National March for Life.

The Institute brings a unique perspective to the pro-life cause. Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., explains: “Our mission to strengthen marriage goes hand in hand with the pro-life cause.”

Morse noted: “According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among single women, 27% of all pregnancies end in abortion. But among married women, only 4% of pregnancies result in abortion. In other words, 96% of married pregnant women choose life.”


Morse continued: “Marriage is one of the few things that truly has the power to prevent abortion. We hope to recruit many pro-lifers to join our mission of building a civilization of love, which includes lifelong married love as a cornerstone.”

Along with Students for Life America, sponsors of the 2020 Summit include such prominent pro-life and pro-family organizations as Alliance Defending Freedom, The Heritage Foundation, Heartbeat International, the Susan B. Anthony List, and Live Action.

Students for Life America has been organizing the Summit for 12 years. More than 3,100 are expected to attend this year’s sold-out conference.

“We are honored to participate in the Summit,” Morse said. “It’s an exciting event that brings together student activists and leaders from across the country to learn and network to advance the pro-life cause.”

The Ruth Institute is a global interfaith non-profit organization equipping Christians to defend the family and build a civilization of love.

Dr. Morse is the author of The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives.

In December she returned from her first speech in Africa, at the Uganda National Youth Conference.

Find more information on The Ruth Institute here.

To schedule an interview with Dr. Morse or other Ruth Institute spokesmen or spokeswomen, email  media@ruthinstitute.org.



The Sexual Deep State

By Jennifer Roback Morse

This article was first published December 10, 2019, at American Mind.

The Sexual Revolution was never about freedom. It was always about control.

America is no longer governed by the Constitution in the sense the Founders understood. Instead, we are governed by a collection of unelected, unaccountable administrative agencies. Readers of this site are likely familiar with the concept of the Administrative State.

Readers of this site are also familiar with the concept of the Deep State. The Deep State goes beyond this bureaucracy to include other structures of society that are not strictly part of the government, but which support and promote and protect it in various ways. Media, academia, entertainment, corporations, charitable foundations, and even professional sports have become part of the interlocking structures that constrain people’s behavior and thinking. The “Deep State” is deep in the sense of being pervasive, powerful, and largely hidden.


In this article, I build on these concepts and propose the additional concept of the Sexual State. The sexual regime under which we all live shares key features of the Deep State and relies on and supports the Administrative State. This claim has vast political and personal ramifications.

The Sexual State

Despite appearances, the Sexual Revolution has nothing to do with enhancing individual freedom. On the contrary, cultural elites commandeered the power of the State to implement their utopian social-sexual vision. The Sexual Revolution serves the interests of this elite ruling class. The Sexual Revolution did not arise from a spontaneous upwelling of “cultural change” or the inexorable “March of History.”

To illustrate this point, consider the sexual revolutionary issue du jour: inventing and securing rights for the so-called transgender person. Boys who say they are girls must be allowed to participate in girls’ athletic competitions. Public libraries must host drag queens reading to toddlers. Men who say they’re women must be admitted to domestic violence shelters and incarcerated in women’s prisons. No serious person can maintain that ordinary people are organically demanding these policies, each more bizarre and aggressive than the next.

Although some are True Believers and are motivated by their abstract ideological commitments, for the most part the elites are foisting these ideas on the public to serve a combination of their ideological, financial, and personal interests—to satisfy their raw desire for power.

Pharmaceutical companies, for instance, have a financial interest in the transgender ideology. People who attempt to live as the opposite sex will require a lifetime of medical care, including expensive drugs and hormone replacements.

The enforcers of “politically correct” pronoun usage will need ever-increasing amounts of legal, as well as cultural power. These enforcers include but are not limited to functionaries of the State. The arbiters of taste and public opinion will have their status enhanced. They can announce new standards of behavior, invent new offenses (called “micro-aggressions”), and form twitter mobs to attack violators. No doubt many of them enjoy the rush of power that arises from the socially sanctioned ability to inflict harm on others.

Like the Bolsheviks, the True Believers in the Sexual Revolution have given their lives to an irrational ideology that has no chance of actually working, if by “working” we mean implementation without the continued destruction of what remains of our civilization. But the irrationality of their fantasy does not deter them. They convince themselves that the nobility of their objectives justifies everything and anything. They think they only require more raw State power, and the manipulative power of propaganda, in order to succeed.

The Sexual Revolution Defined

The ideology of the Sexual Revolution includes three elements.

1. The first marker of a “good” and “decent” and “progressive” society is the separation of sex from babies.

Contraception must not only be legally available, but also subsidized and actively promoted. Of course, abortion on demand is a requirement too, as a back-up plan in the event of contraceptive failure. I call this the Contraceptive Ideology.

2. The second idea is that a “good” society should separate both sex and babies from marriage.

A person doesn’t have to be married before having sex or having a baby. Behind this is the deeper idea that kids don’t really need both parents. Kids are resilient. They can survive despite multiple changes in their parents’ choice of sexual partners and living arrangements. In fact, the kids might even benefit, because the kids will be happy as long as their parents are happy. I call this the Divorce Ideology.

3. The third idea is that a “good” society tries to eradicate the significance of differences between men and women.

Certain types of feminism blazed the trail for this ideology. In its early form, it asserted that differences between men and women were socially constructed and almost certain evidence of injustice. The ideology has morphed into transgenderism, which asserts that technology and social engineering can overwrite the sex of the body. In both versions, the sex of the body is insubstantial and can be changed at will. I call this the Gender Ideology.

In fact, we might say that this is the defining feature of the entire Sexual Revolution: human will can override physical realities of sex and reproduction.

This ideology asserts: not only can we obliterate the sex of the body, but we can also build an entire society in which sexual activity is sterile—a society in which child-free sex is the default setting. Reproduction occurs only at the will of the individual parents, and on their terms. The Divorce Ideology insists that we can override the most basic human attachments, that between a child and his or her mother and father. We attempt to convince our children and ourselves that the biological bonds between us are unimportant.

This assertion of human will over nature is the first significant overlap between the Administrative State and the Sexual Revolution.

As Claremont Institute Senior Fellow John Marini, one of the most important theorists of the Administrative State, argues, this shift from reason and natural law to the raw will of the political class is one of the hallmarks of the move away from constitutional governance and toward the current regime of rule by administrative agencies. Marini argues that rule by the elite technocratic class began with Woodrow Wilson in the original “Progressive Era.” It came to full fruition with Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. Congress announces a vision, and tasks the bureaucracy with its implementation.

The natural feedback loops that might correct wildly unreasonable objectives do not operate. Ordinary folk who are subjected to the Administrative State cannot vote it out of office, as they might under a constitutional regime. Nor can they take their money elsewhere, as they might in a market setting. Whether the government’s vision be reasonable or not, whether it be chosen by the people or not, the bureaucracy chugs along.

Let us look at a few recent examples of the Sexual State in action, to see how it fits in with Marini’s analysis.

The Sexual Deep State at Work

#SaveJames: James Younger and the lawlessness of the family courts

A divorced father in Texas wishes to raise his twin sons both as boys. Their mother treats one of the boys as a girl, calls him by a girl’s name, dresses him in girl’s clothing and sends him to school as a girl. The family court had given full decision-making rights to the mother, excluding the father’s input into decision-making about medical and psychological care. Due to a public outcry over the case, the judge backed away from the original decision and is now giving the father shared rights.

Most of the discussion has centered on the transgender aspect of the case. I wish to call attention to the power of the family court in regulating the life of a law-abiding father.

In court documents from this case, we see the mother’s “wish list.” She asks that the father be enjoined from cutting his son’s hair, using the “wrong” pronoun, or calling him by the “wrong” name. At one point, the mother requested that the father be prevented from going within 500 ft of the children’s school. The mother complained that the father might attend a parents’ event at the school, and “out” the boy as a boy to people who had only known him as a girl.

The transgender aspects of this case are built upon existing divorce law. The courts have had this kind of authority over the lives of law-abiding parents for a long time. Family courts regulate the minutiae of family life, including their finances, how they spend their time, where the children go to school, and yes, even the children’s haircuts.

Family courts are an example of the Administrative State on steroids. They are accountable to no one. Often, their proceedings take place in secret. The judge in the Younger case placed a gag order on both parents, preventing them from talking to the media until the boys turn 18. In fact, the documents alluded to above are posted on a website called www.gagthis.org created by friends of the father.

Marini observes that the Administrative State robs citizens of the power of self-government and lodges it in the hands of experts. Family courts and the administrative apparatus around them will say that they decide issues “in the best interests of the child.” The truth is that “the best interests of the child” is for them to live with both parents in a lifelong union of love and fidelity.

Many well-meaning people suppose that “no-fault” divorce means mutual consent divorce. This is not the case. Our divorce regime is a unilateral divorce regime. Anyone who wants a divorce gets to have one: The State always takes sides with the party who wants the marriage the least. The State incentivizes disloyalty and infidelity between spouses. And when things go wrong, the State empowers itself to clean up the mess.

The injustices of the unilateral divorce regime have been known for a long time. The Deep State could, at any time, enact divorce by mutual consent. Yet, they do not. The most reasonable explanation is that they like the system exactly the way it is.

David Daleiden: The Deep State circles the wagons around abortion

Undercover journalists David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt recorded Planned Parenthood employees discussing the sale of body parts from aborted babies. These journalists believed they were “investigating violent felonies committed against children born alive in Planned Parenthood facilities.”

Planned Parenthood filed a civil suit, alleging that Daleiden and his team committed illegal wiretapping, trespassing, breaches of confidentiality, and more. As one analyst put it, Planned Parenthood attorneys must walk a fine line “to make the case that Daleiden and his team illegally recorded private conversations, without admitting what exactly those conversations were about.”

Planned Parenthood won their civil suit with the help of a cooperative judge. U.S. District Judge William Orrick III has ties to Planned Parenthood: he served as secretary and counsel to one of their affiliates, and his wife made inflammatory public statements against the defendants. He did not recuse himself, nor did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals compel Orrick to recuse himself.

Orrick steered the case away from First-Amendment freedom of speech and freedom of the press issues that would normally be at play in a case involving investigative journalism. He cut off testimony and evidence that called attention to “exactly what the conversations were about.” He refused to let the jury see most of the videos in question. He instructed the jury to find the defendants guilty of trespass. The only question for the jury in his courtroom was the amount of the damages to be awarded.

This case illustrates the elements of the Deep State working together. Abortion being legal is not enough for the Deep State. The Abortion Industry must be beyond criticism. And why is that? Because, despite their continual claims to the contrary, abortion is not “just another medical procedure.” If it were, the Abortion Industry and its cheerleaders would not object to health and safety regulations. Nor would the Ruling Elites object to the Abortion Industry being investigated for potential felonies.

Abortion must be protected because it is the ultimate guarantor of the position that sex is a sterile activity. Every person old enough to give meaningful consent is entitled to unlimited, child-free, problem-free, guilt-free sex. If abortion has serious side effects, even if only for some people, publicizing that fact undermines the “right” to sex. If the Abortion Industry is out for its own financial gain and should not be trusted, that too undermines the belief that inconvenient conceptions can always be undone.

That is why keeping abortion “safe, legal, and rare” has never been enough.

This brings us to the personal interests of many in the Elite classes. Delaying childbearing has become the cost of entering the professions. That means many of our most successful and visible and influential people have used contraception or abortion. They literally cannot imagine what their lives would be without it. Journalists, lawyers, foundation officers, business executives, and politicians all join hands to protect the Abortion Industry from skeptics like David Daleiden.

Incidentally, the Abortion Industry makes a lot of money, including millions from tax-payers.

Jeffrey Epstein: tying it all together.

The recent arrest and “suicide” of Jeffrey Epstein brings together all the key features of the Sexual Deep State.

As everyone now knows, Jeffrey Epstein was guilty of a lifetime of sexual abuse of minors and vulnerable young “adult” women. He provided these young girls and women to powerful men in the top echelons of society, including government and academia. We can be fairly sure that top media executives covered for him. Epstein blackmailed the men while he was exploiting the victims. Elites from multiple sectors conspired against the weak. What made it possible, beyond the use of raw power?

Reports from the victims tell us that he preyed upon fatherless girls and girls from foster homes. This is a revealing fact. The fatherless girl is a sitting duck for predators. Fathers are natural authority figures. The ideology of “feminism”—which now holds that all men are potential rapists and not to be trusted—delegitimized fathers in this very role: as authority figures. Between that psychological reframing, and terrible public policies, fathers have been systematically removed from the home—and particularly from the homes of the poorest and most vulnerable. The functions they used to perform are now performed by the State and its functionaries, or not performed at all.

This dynamic has parallels throughout our society.

Law enforcement is now constantly undermined; police officers are ceaselessly delegitimized. Sowing distrust of lawfully constituted law enforcement creates a void in public safety. A paid rent-a-mob steps into the void, with the tacit approval of elected officials. The likes of Antifa are answerable to no lawful authority, only to whoever is paying them and whoever is permitting them to operate with impunity. But as Angelo Codevilla has observed, Antifa violence is only a problem in places where the city fathers allow it to be a problem. Without the protection of local elected officials, “Antifa’s numbers and their capacity for mayhem are no match for ordinary police forces—nor for armed citizens.”

The Sexual Revolution also creates and promotes the Ideology of self-indulgence, conveying the unmistakable message that everyone is entitled to do whatever they can get away with. Prosecutors said Epstein had three active US passports and owned multiple jets and houses around the world, including his own private island. Witnesses and victims feared Epstein’s retaliation and blackmail. This is the sort of man who can get away with a lot.

But the ideology of the Sexual Deep State relieves people of nagging consciences. Epstein’s conscience is malformed, to put it mildly. In 2011, he told the New York Post, “I’m not a sexual predator, I’m an ‘offender.’ It’s the difference between a murderer and a person who steals a bagel.” He once allegedly received three 12-year-old girls as a birthday present. No ideology should justify the actions of a man like that. But the Sexual Revolution provides just such excuses.

Conclusion

I cite many other examples in my book, The Sexual State.

The Sexual Revolution has been a power grab. This is why I capitalize the term “Sexual Revolution.” No matter what one’s opinion of it may be, I think we must give it the historical dignity it deserves. The Sexual Revolution has been every bit as significant in reshaping society as the French Revolution, or the Bolshevik Revolution.

The “social conservatives” are not the ones trying to “impose their morality” on an unwitting society. The Sexual Revolutionaries are enforcing their morality upon our citizenry with impunity. The “social issues” are not just soft, fluffy issues, unworthy of the attention of serious thinkers. Undermining and replacing the regime of the natural family is serious business, with the capacity to undermine everything else traditional America and conservatism claims to hold dear, including fiscal responsibility, the limits of government power, and the primacy of reason itself.

That is why relegating “social issues” to the margins is a big mistake for the future of a free society. The Sexual Deep State needs to be seen for what it is: an essential part of the ruling ideology of the political class and its tyrannical administrative state.

 



Ruth Institute Tells Uganda: Resist Ideological Imperialism

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., Founder and President of the Ruth Institute, warned those attending the Uganda National Youth Conference of the new colonialism of the Sexual Revolution.

Morse declared: “The old economic colonialism attempted to dominate the physical resources of the African continent. The new ideological imperialism attempts to dominate the soul of Africa.”

Morse continued: “The Sexual Revolution is not native to Africa. Wealthy and powerful people have spent vast sums of their own money to promote the Sexual Revolution.” These elites have also “captured the use of government and international agencies to impose these ideologies around the world,” especially in traditional societies.

Morse explained that the Sexual Revolution encompasses three main ideologies:


The Contraceptive Ideology – “Everyone is entitled to unlimited sexual activity without a live baby ever resulting. Abortion is the backup plan for an unwanted child.”

The Divorce Ideology – “A good society should separate both sex and babies from marriage. The underlying idea is that children do not really need to have a relationship with both of their parents. A person doesn’t have to be married to have sex or babies.”

The Gender Ideology – “Any differences we observe between men and women are socially constructed and evidence of injustice. The law and culture must eliminate all these differences.” The latest stage is “transgenderism,” meaning, “The sex of the body can be overwritten by technology and social engineering.”

Morse told Ugandans: “All of these ideas are foreign to your country. They were foreign to our country too until very recently.”

She also cautioned against using the terminology of the Sexual Revolution, which comes with built-in assumptions. For instance, “gay” assumes that those with same-sex attraction are a distinct group of people who were “born that way.” Whereas, in reality, there is no “gay gene.” “There is no scientifically established definition of the word gay.” Also, “Sexual orientation is fluid in many people, meaning that it can change.”

Morse said that the elites behind the Sexual Revolution have targeted Africa because Africans are a threat to them. “The ideologues fear your vitality and your fertility and your faith.” The new Western colonialists “want your conformity. They want your hearts and minds.”

Dr. Morse’s speech was delivered on December 12, 2019, to a national youth conference sponsored by the Diocese of Kasana-Luweero, with more than 4,600 in attendance from Congo, Kenya, and all over Uganda.

The Ruth Institute is considering future activities in Africa, including the possibility of its own events.

The full text of Dr. Morse’s speech --“The New Colonialism of The Sexual Revolution” -- is here.

The Ruth Institute is a global interfaith non-profit organization equipping Christians to defend the family and build a civilization of love.

Dr. Morse is the author of The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives.

Find more information on The Ruth Institute here.

To schedule an interview with Dr. Morse, email media@ruthinstitute.org.


Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse's Uganda Speech

"The New Colonialism of the Sexual Revolution:

An Authentic Catholic Response."

 

NATIONAL YOUTH CONFERENCE, 2019

HOST DIOCESE: KASANA- LUWEERO, UGANDA

 

Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D.

Founder and President

The Ruth Institute

December 2019

Revised for publication

Introduction

Thank you for the kind invitation to address the 2019 National Youth Conference here in the Diocese of Kasana- Luweero. My son and I are honored to be here. I am the President of The Ruth Institute. We are building an international, interfaith coalition to defend the family and build a civilization of love. I speak for the Ruth Institute Board of Directors, staff, benefactors, and followers around the world, that we are honored to be part of this great gathering of Ugandan young people. We are pleased to welcome you to the Ruth Institute’s international, interfaith coalition to defend the family.

I am delighted to be able to learn more about Uganda, as I only know a few things about your country. I am aware of the Ugandan Martyrs. In union with the worldwide Catholic Church, I observe the liturgical feast of St. Charles Lwanga and his companions every year on June 3.


I also know that Uganda had a successful strategy for combating the spread of HIV-AIDS in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Your country did not blindly follow the lead of the international agencies that were promoting condoms as the one and only solution to the spread of the HIV virus. You developed your own program encouraging people to reduce the number of sexual partners they had. [1] And you continue to take a wholistic approach, seeing the person in his social and spiritual context.

My topic today is the Sexual Revolution. The Sexual Revolution is not native to Africa. Wealthy and powerful people have spent vast sums of their own money to promote the Sexual Revolution. These same people have captured the use of governments and international agencies to impose this ideology around the world. This is a new form of colonialism. We could call it sexual colonialism or ideological imperialism, to distinguish it from economic colonialism or imperialism.

I want you to know that many, many Americans share your pro-life and pro-family values. Many Americans have come to realize that the Sexual Revolution is a totalitarian ideology. Those same Americans are deeply ashamed when they realize how our government has historically thrust the values of the Sexual Revolution on people around the world, including you here in Uganda. I am not talking only about American Catholics. Also, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Evangelical Protestants, Latter Day Saints, and observant Jews in America, share your family values. On behalf of those Americans, I apologize for our country’s role in spreading the Sexual Revolution to your country.

Another thing that I sometimes hear about Uganda are confused and vague reports that Uganda has the death penalty for homosexuality. Or is considering the death penalty for homosexuality.[2] Or that American Christians are somehow to blame. [3] So, I wish to say something to this all-Catholic gathering.

As Catholics, we stand by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, on the death penalty, as on all other serious matters. Pope St. John Paul II revised the Catechism to say: “The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, … recourse to the death penalty. … Today, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for [the death penalty]... ‘are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’”[4] We cannot support the death penalty for homosexuality. We don’t need to belabor the point.

My purpose here today is to convince you that you should exercise all morally acceptable means for keeping the toxic ideology of the Sexual Revolution out of your country.

The Structure of the Sexual Revolution

Let me first define the Sexual Revolution. It has three main ideas. The first is that a good and decent society should separate sex from babies. I call this the Contraceptive Ideology. The underlying idea is that everyone is entitled to unlimited sexual activity, without a live baby ever resulting. Abortion is the back-up plan for an unwanted child.

This is why contraception does not prevent or reduce abortion. I gather the evidence to support this in my book, The Sexual State. [5] More people have sex in situations where they would not want to become parents. When their contraception fails, they become afraid of the responsibility of parenthood. They abort the child.

The second idea of the Sexual Revolution is that a good society should separate both sex and babies from marriage. The underlying idea is that children do not really need to have a relationship with both of their parents. A person doesn’t have to be married to have sex or to have babies.

The most extreme form of this idea is third-party reproduction where a person can have a child without ever having any relationship at all with the child’s other parent. People can purchase sperm or eggs or pay for the use of a surrogate mother. This creates the illusion that the baby does not actually have two parents. I call all of this, the Divorce Ideology.

The third ideology is the Gender Ideology, which Pope Francis has condemned so eloquently and frequently. Your Bishop Paul Ssemogerere mentioned this ideology in his talk yesterday as well. The earliest version of this ideology called itself “feminism.”According to this ideology, any differences we observe between men and women are socially constructed, and evidence of injustice. The law and culture must eliminate all these differences. Today, the Gender Ideology has expanded to include the social acceptance of homosexual acts, suggesting that sex of your sex partner is unimportant. Whether a person prefers to have sex with a person of their own sex or of the opposite sex does not matter. The Gender Ideology has now gone even further to include what is called “transgenderism.”The sex of the body can be overwritten by technology and social engineering. The sex of the body is insubstantial and can be changed at will.

All these ideas are foreign to your country. They were foreign to our country too, until very recently. I could tell you many important things about these topics. But I cannot tell you everything you need to know in a mere half hour. However, you can spend a half hour with me every day. You can follow the Ruth Institute on Facebook. Subscribe to our You-Tube channel.Above all, sign up for our weekly newsletter.[6] My son is circulating a sheet where you can sign up for our weekly newsletter. Just give us your email address, and we will send you something to read, and to watch or listen to, every single week.

Today, I want to focus only on two things.

Beyond Left and Right

The modern ideologies include Marxism, fascism and now, the Sexual Revolution. These ideologies all have a few points in common.

They have a Utopian vision of Heaven on Earth. The ideologies differ about what this new Heaven will look like. The Marxists dream of a classless society without private property. The fascists dream of a world united around the Nation or the Race. The Sexual Revolutionaries dream of a world of unlimited sexual activity, that is child-free, guilt-free and problem-free.

But do not be misled by the differences in the final vision. Despite wildly different visions of the Good Society, all the modern ideologies have a similar structure. They all agree that the new Heaven on Earth will come about by the efforts of a Savior Class. That is, as long as that Savior Class possesses enough power to change the world, including changing human nature. The beauty of the dream, justifies anything and everything the Savior Class chooses to do, including lying and violence, twisting the law and all the propaganda money can buy.

The next point all the modern ideologies have in common is that their utopian dream world is impossible. But this does not dissuade the true believer. Doing the impossible just requires a lot of power. Overcoming the natural law requires constant propaganda. For people who desire power over others and over society, an irrational, but appealing dream serves their purposes very well.

And the Sexual Revolution is irrational and impossible. Recall the 3 interlocking ideologies I mentioned at the beginning. The Gender Ideology says that the sex of the body is unimportant. We can reconstruct male and female as we wish. This is untrue. Men and women are different, and the body is significant.

The Divorce Ideology says that marriage is unimportant for children, because children do not really need permanent attachments to their own parents. This is false. Children do need their own parents.

And the Contraceptive Ideology says that we can separate sex from babies. Everyone is entitled to behave as if sex does not make babies. Completely untrue.

Please notice how Christianity contrasts with these fantasy ideologies. The Catholic Church does not need a “Savior Class” of people with unlimited earthly power. We know that only Jesus can save us. In fact, Jesus can save us in the midst of any political system imaginable. Even when the Church has been weak in worldly terms, Jesus still saves people.

The modern ideologies are tools for the accumulation of power. The Church does not need power. And more than that: the Church teaches that people with power and money and influence are not entitled to do whatever they can get away with. The Church told the Emperor Nero that he was not God. St. John Chrysostom scolded the empress for her vanity. The Church today tells Hollywood and Wall Street and Planned Parenthood and the United Nations that they are not allowed to do whatever they want.

This is, in the end, the teaching that gets us in trouble! We are always at odds with the powerful. So be it. Today’s powerful people want unlimited sex and have devised a clever ideology to justify this desire. We must oppose them because they are wrong.

Do not Use the Terminology of the Sexual Revolution

The second point I want to leave you with is that you must not use the terminology of the Sexual Revolutionaries. They have invested millions, by now, perhaps billions, of dollars to craft a manner of speaking that places their ideas in the most favorable light. The terms they have created have ideological assumptions built into them.If you use their terminology, you will place yourself at a disadvantage.

I have already mentioned the term “feminist.” This word carries many positive associations. “Feminism” means “freedom” and “equality” and “education for girls,” and “women get to have good jobs.”

But “feminism” has other ideas associated with it. “Feminism” means “women don’t really need men,” and “women are too good to waste by staying home and caring for children,” and “children hold women back.” With these associations, “feminism” comes to mean abortion and contraception.

This word has assumptions built into it. The interest of men and the interests of women are necessarily distinct from and in conflict with each other. The word “feminism” also assumes that “feminists” and only “feminists” have the right to speak for all women.

That is why I avoid using the word “feminism.”

Another important term to avoid is the word “gay.” I strongly recommend that you not use the word “gay,” or even “homosexual.” I especially urge you to avoid these words as free-standing nouns, as in “He is a homosexual,” or “I’m gay.”

Speaking in this way has ideology baked into it. It suggests that the person is defined by his sexual desires and behaviors. The term suggests that those desires and behaviors are permanent and can never change.

These associations with the word “gay” come from the United States. So let me tell you the back-story.

As you perhaps know, the United States has the terrible history of importing people from Africa to be used as slaves. The trans-Atlantic slave trade persisted for two hundred years. We have spent the past 150 years trying to deal with its aftermath. All of this troubled history has left us with many problems of racial discrimination and prejudice. We have tried to solve these problems with laws forbidding discrimination.

The basic idea of anti-discrimination law is simple enough. People who are the same should be treated the same. People who behave differently, can of course, be treated differently. For instance, employers must treat people who are equally qualified for a job, in the same way.

By now, America has a well-developed body of law defining permissible and impermissible differences in how people are treated in employment, housing, education, and so on. Unlawful discrimination is treating people differently on the basis of in-born characteristics over which the individual has no control. People cannot be treated differently on the basis of what the law calls “immutable traits.”

The Sexual Revolutionaries seized upon this distinction in American law. They wished to gain legal protection for homosexual acts. Their strategy was to create the impression that “being gay” is comparable to “being black.” If they could succeed in making this comparison, then the whole body of anti-discrimination law could be used to protect homosexual acts.

Let me pause to assure you that American blacks deeply resent the way that the Sexual Revolutionaries have used this comparison between race and homosexual acts. Many American blacks are serious Christians who oppose homosexual acts. They are deeply offended by what they consider the hi-jacking of the civil rights movement for defending a set of behaviors and political commitments.

Despite the protests of American blacks, sexual radicals have made a strong effort to create the belief that people are “born gay.” They say, no one chooses to be gay. Being gay is something a person cannot change, they say. It is an “immutable trait.” The Sexual Revolutionary Elites have spent an enormous amount of money and effort to create the impression that these points are true. But none of them actually are true.

We now know that there is no “gay gene.” People may experience same sex attraction as a deep part of their personality. They may not remember ever feeling differently. But no one is “born gay.” The scientific and psychological professions must now admit, (somewhat reluctantly.)

There is no gay gene.[7]

There is no scientifically established meaning of the word “gay.” [8]

There is no scientific consensus on how and why some people develop same sex attraction and others do not.[9]

Sexual orientation is fluid in many people, meaning that it can change.[10]

In short, “being gay” is nothing like “being black.”

My advice that you avoid the term “gay” is more than just a rhetorical strategy. It is also part of Church teaching. Homosexual desires do not define a person’s identity. This is why the Church uses the phrase “men with deep-seated homosexual attractions.”[11]

So, instead of saying “gay,” use a phrase that more accurately describes what you are actually talking about.

Instead of “gay” say perhaps, “same sex attracted,” if you mean someone who experiences these feelings.

Instead of “gay,” say perhaps, “men who have sex with men.” This is what medical researchers say, for instance, when they are studying the spread of disease.

Instead of “gay” say perhaps “self-identified homosexual” if you mean someone who does in fact identify themselves with their patterns of attraction.

And if any of you, dear young people, find yourself feeling same-sex attraction, do not label yourself as “gay.”Seek help and counseling. But do not let anyone call you “gay,” or draw you into what they call the “LGBT community.” Be assured that with prayer and counseling, those feelings can diminish, and you can live a normal life as a husband and father or as a wife and mother. These feelings do not define who you are. That is conclusion that my friend Daniel Mattson came to, and why he wrote this book called “Why I Don’t Call Myself Gay.” [12]

That is conclusion my young friend Hudson Byblow came to. He was not very athletic. He was slightly built. The other boys teased him. He was confused about himself. He doubted his manhood. Then, an older man molested him. So Hudson thought to himself, “I must be gay.” It took him a long time to overcome the problems he created for himself by adopting that label and the behaviors that went along with it. But now, as he says, he is doing “something more beautiful.” He has moved from “LGBT to Jesus Christ.” [13]

Conclusion: New Colonialism, New Slavery

As I said at the beginning, the Sexual Revolutionary ideology is not native to Uganda. It is actually a new form of colonialism. The old economic colonialism attempted to dominate the physical resources of the African continent. The new ideological imperialism attempts to dominate the soul of Africa.

But I will tell you a secret. The Sexual Revolution is an intellectual house of cards. It is fragile because it is untrue. It opposes the law of nature and nature’s God. Therefore, the Sexual Revolution needs to be propped up, coddled, protected. The Sexual Revolution needs conformity. Evidence that contradicts it, is a direct threat. People who dissent are a direct threat. Every chaste teenager is a threat. Every person and institution of faith is a threat.

And you are a threat. The ideologues fear your vitality and your fertility and your faith. The new Western colonialists do not want to extract resources or material wealth from you. They want your conformity. They want your hearts and minds.

Yesterday, you heard Bishop Paul Ssemogerere say that the Christian soul can always be young, no matter how old the person’s body may be. The Christian soul is filled with joy. You all nodded in agreement with him when he said this.

I want you to know that the West is old and tired. They are tired of themselves and their ideologies. They would not say this of course. But I believe they are tired because they have tried to live as if God does not exist. They are tired of this life they have created for themselves.

Chattel slavery and the trans-Atlantic slave trade was the old form of Western exploitation of Africa. Today, Western influence has the potential to create an even more serious form of slavery. Jesus told us to have no fear of those who could kill the body. Rather, we should fear those who can kill the soul. And St. Paul warned us long ago about the enslaving power of sin. In Galatians 5, St. Paul told us, “For freedom Christ set us free; so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery.” [14]

That is why we must continue to be inspired by the Ugandan Martyrs. These martyrs died for their faith at the hands of the king. Sometimes when their story is recounted, the homosexual element is omitted from the story.As all of you know, the king was a sexual predator who preyed upon young men. The king believed he was entitled to do whatever he wanted, and that everyone was required to submit to his desires. Charles Lwanga and his companions refused the king’s sexual advances. The king was enraged and ordered their execution.[15]

When Western aid agencies come around here pestering you to adopt their ways, tell them you reject sexual colonialism. Do not accept the lies of ideological imperialism. Remember the Ugandan Martyrs! The Truth really will set you free.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



[1] Helen Epstein, The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West and the Fight Against AIDS, (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007).

[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uganda-lgbt-rights/uganda-denies-plans-to-impose-death-penalty-for-gay-sex-amid-global-concern-idUSKBN1WT23I

[3] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/uganda-murder-gay-chick-fil-a/

[4] Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2267 Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997. The entire paragraph 2267 reads, 2267 “The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

[5] The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies are Destroying Lives, and How the Church was Right all Along, Jennifer Roback Morse (Charlotte, NC: TAN Publishing, 2017)

[6] For Ruth Institute resources, see http://www.ruthinstitute.org/

[7] “Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behavior,” Andrea Ganna et.al. Science 365, eaat7693 (2019) 30 August 2019 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/eaat7693For a laymen’s explanation of this study and its significance, see Paul Sullins: “The gay gene myth has been exploded.” https://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/the-gay-gene-myth-has-been-exploded/22824

[8] Dr. Lisa Diamond, “New Paradigms for Research on Heterosexual and Sexual- Minority Development,” Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 2003, Vol. 32. No. 4, 490-498, at 492. See also the references quoted in Paul McHugh and Lawrence Mayer, “The New Atlantis, special report on Sexuality and Gender,” Fall 2016. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender.pdf

[9] American Psychological Association, “Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality,” (n.d.), accessed January 19, 2018, http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx , in response to the question “What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?”

[10] This topic has been extensively studied. For representative articles, see, Zhana Vrangalova, “Mostly Heterosexual and Mostly Gay/Lesbian: Evidence for New Sexual Orientation Identities,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 41, no. 1 (February 2012), pp. 85–101, and Lisa Diamond, “Female Bisexuality From Adolescence to Adulthood: Results From a 10-Year Longitudinal Study,” Developmental Psychology 44, no. 1 (2008), pp. 5–14, https://psych.utah.edu/_documents/people/diamond/diamond-female-bisexuality-adolescence-to-adulthood.pdf For book-length treatments about female sexuality see Lisa Diamond, Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2009). Likewise, Ritch Savin-Williams has written extensively about sexual fluidity among men. His book-length treatment is Mostly Straight: Sexual Fluidity among Men (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2017).

[11]“Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders,” 2005.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

[12] Daniel Mattson, “Why I Don’t Call Myself Gay,” (San Francisco, Ignatius Press)

[13] Hudson Byblow, “In Pursuit of My identity,” https://www.lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/title/in-pursuit-of-my-identity-homosexuality-transgenderism-and-my-life

[14] Gal 5:1. Other relevant passages include Romans 6:6 and 7:14-23

[15] African Holocaust: The Story of the Ugandan Martyrs, (Nairobi: Paulines Publications Africa, 2007). On June 3, the country of Uganda celebrates, “Martyrs Day.” Highlights of the 2019 celebration can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdeN2kHijpY

 



Ruth Institute Sends Roses to Grand Rapids Priest Who Upheld Church Teaching on Marriage

The Ruth Institute sent two dozen white roses and a framed commendation to Rev. Scott Nolan, pastor of St. Stephen Catholic Church in Grand Rapids, MI, for upholding the Church’s teaching on marriage.

Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., stated, “By denying communion to a local Catholic judge who ‘married’ another woman, Fr. Nolan wasn’t being mean-spirited, but merely upholding Catholic doctrine regarding marriage.”

Fr. Nolan privately informed Chief Judge of the Kent County District Court, Sara Smolenski, occasional attendee of St. Stephen’s, that while she was welcome at services, as someone who publicly rejected Church teachings on marriage, she would not be allowed to receive communion. Judge Smolenski challenged the decision publicly.


In his defense of Rev. Nolan, Bishop Walkowiak noted that while “inclusion” and “acceptance” are hallmarks of the Catholic Church, they presume “respect on the part of individuals for the teachings and practice of the wider Catholic community.” Furthermore, “No community of faith can sustain the public contradiction of its beliefs by its own members.”

In October, Rev. Robert Morey, a parish priest in Florence, South Carolina, denied communion to former Vice President Joe Biden for his support of abortion.

Morse warned: “It’s not enough that the federal judiciary gave the Sexual Revolution the power to remake marriage. Now the Revolution demands that the rest of us be compelled to endorse its ideology.”

Morse explained that Roses from Ruth are “presented in gratitude for upholding the Church’s teachings on life, marriage and human sexuality.”

Past recipients of Roses from Ruth, which was started in 2016, have included Archbishop Charles Thompson of Indianapolis, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia and Archbishop Alexander Sample of Portland, Oregon.

 

 



Daleiden Verdict Protects Sale of Aborted Body Parts

Commenting on the bizarre verdict in the David Daleiden case, Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., observed, “Keeping abortion safe and legal has never been enough.”

Daleiden and his team covertly recorded Planned Parenthood employees discussing how they illegally planned to sell body parts from aborted babies.

The judge ruled that Planned Parenthood’s privacy had been violated and awarded it $2.2 million in damages. Morse said the verdict is another instance of the Sexual Deep State “circling the wagons” to protect abortion because “it is the ultimate guarantor of sex being a sterile activity.”


“The ideology also holds that every person old enough to give meaningful consent is entitled to unlimited, child-free, problem-free, guilt-free sex. That’s why abortion must always be presented in a positive light – as enhancing freedom rather than advancing an ideology at the cost of countless lives.”

“If abortion has serious side effects for some, publicizing that fact undermines the ‘right’ to sex,” Morse continued. “Further, if the abortion industry is out for its own financial gain and should not be trusted, that too, undermines the belief that inconvenient conceptions can always be undone.”

The Sexual Revolutionary ideology rests on three principles: separating sex from babies, separating sex and babies from marriage, and removing the differences between men and women.

“The Sexual Revolution has been a power grab every bit as significant in reshaping society as the French or the Bolshevik Revolution,” Morse noted.

The Ruth Institute is a global interfaith non-profit organization equipping Christians to defend the family and build a civilization of love.

Dr. Morse is the author of The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives.

Find more information on The Ruth Institute here.

To schedule an interview with Dr. Morse, email media@ruthinstitute.org.

 



'The Sexual State': How Government and Big Donors Gave Us the Sexual Revolution

By Tyler O'Neil

This article was first posted October 4, 2018, at PJMedia.com.

Cover of "The Sexual State" by Jennifer Roback Morse
 
In 21st century America, sex is all around us: on television, in movies, in classrooms, in politics, and even in churches. Sex permeates our desires, our expectations for relationships, even our identity. The Sexual Revolution goes far beyond the LGBT movement, and it has fundamentally reshaped American society. But few Americans actually grasp exactly where this revolution came from. An explosive new book reveals that government and wealthy donors, rather than impersonal historical forces or newly liberated women, propelled the Sexual Revolution.

"The State bears the greatest responsibility for the toxic sexual culture in which we live," Jennifer Roback Morse, founder of the Ruth Institute (RI), writes in "The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologues Are Destroying Lives And Why the Church Was Right All Along." She presented five other explanations for the Sexual Revolution, and found each one wanting.


Many have suggested that the Sexual Revolution came about through the inevitable and impersonal "march of history." This view does not work "because it robs us and our forbears of human agency." Even the overhyped birth control pill "is just an inert piece of technology" that people could decide to use or not use, or use in different ways.

Morse also rebuts the feminist narrative, which suggests that "these changes have been one long string of victories for the benefit and advancement of women." Ironically, the very success of women's liberation "undermines the claim that women have been completely powerless and dominated by the patriarchy throughout all of recorded history." Furthermore, the author argues that "the pro-life movement is dominated by women," suggesting that not all women want more of the Sexual Revolution.

Perhaps the most common explanation for the Sexual Revolution is the "liberationist narrative," which posits that everyone is more free thanks to new sexual norms. This view also cannot explain how age-old oppression was immediately dissolved in one generation, Morse argues.

Furthermore, many people "have become less free, in fact actually oppressed, by the very forces that are supposedly liberating us. The breaking of family bonds has increased the size and scope of the State, including the intrusion of the State into the everyday lives of ordinary people." She mentions college sex tribunals, family courts — which even rule on which schools and churches children can attend — and higher taxes to pay for social workers who manage tough divorces and family breakdown.

Morse also rejects the "over-population narrative," which suggests that "too many people create ecological disaster and economic backwardness," so the State needs to control population through birth control and abortion. Interestingly, advocates of this narrative "haven't been able to adapt the narrative to the changing circumstances of population decline, which the Over-Population Narrative itself helped bring about."

Finally, the author turns to a "steal capitalist narrative," explaining the Sexual Revolution by pointing to the many people who benefit financially from family breakdown. Abortionists, pharmaceutical companies, the fertility industry, pornographers, divorce professionals, family court judges and lawyers, medical professionals who specialize in sexually transmitted diseases, and social workers all perversely benefit from family breakdown, contraception, and abortion.

Even higher education and employers benefit from women choosing to get married later, to go to school and to work, rather than raising a family. Morse claims that employers benefit from easy divorce as well, as women are less able to rely on their husbands to financially support them. She suggests that these factors cement the Sexual Revolution, but they do not explain it.

The author boils the Sexual Revolution down to three basic "ideologies:" the Contraceptive Ideology separates sex from childbearing; the Divorce Ideology separates sex and childbearing from marriage; and the Gender Ideology eliminates the distinctions between men and women that individuals do not explicitly embrace.

"The Sexual Revolution needs the State for one major reason: the premises of the Sexual Revolution are false," Morse declares. "Sex does make babies. Children do need their parents, and therefore marriage is the proper and just context for both sex and childbearing. Men and women are different." The Sexual Revolution requires "reconstructing society" around a rejection of these basic truths, so it involves a great deal of propaganda.

"If you can make people believe Bruce Jenner, the 1976 male Olympic decathlon winner, is a woman, you can make them believe 2 + 2 = 5. If you can make people afraid to say, 'Bruce Jenner is a man,' you can make them afraid to say anything," Morse quips. "The Sexual Revolution is a totalitarian ideology with a blind commitment to the implementation of its tenets, regardless of the human costs."

The book begins with a list of victims of the Sexual Revolution, a topic for a future article. Those victims include children of divorce, spouses who did not want to get divorced, women who waited too long to have children, young women who wanted to abstain from sex, and more. Suffice it to say, the Sexual Revolution has harmed many people.

Morse narrates how the state unleashed the Sexual Revolution, beginning with the Supreme Court contraception case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). The Contraceptive Ideology predated this decision and played a large role in pushing the Court to change the law on contraception.

The author cites liberal attorney Leo Pfeffer and conservative historian Allan Carlson, who agreed that governments will consider contraception necessary once they have established welfare states — in order to prevent the subsidized poor from having children. Tragically, the U.S. government pushed contraception before Griswold, pushing contraception in post-World War II Japan and other foreign countries considered to be U.S. interests.

In the 1960s and 1970s, USAID started pushing contraception and abortion, thinking these "family planning" efforts would help other countries defeat poverty. These policies were also wrapped up with the ugly eugenics movement in America.

In order to downplay the ugly history of eugenics, contraception activists turned to the work of Alfred Kinsey, an academic who claimed that "up to" 67 to 98 percent of American men ha had premarital sex and that 69 percent of American males had at least one experience with a prostitute. His claims were shot down by other researchers, who exposed his shoddy methods. But the Rockefeller Foundation funded his research and sent his crackpot theories mainstream.

Planned Parenthood and its allies enjoyed connections to elites, and helped push the Court in the direction of legalizing contraception for anyone across the country.

Similarly, elite institutions and big donors pushed no-fault divorce, Morse argues. After Ronald Reagan signed the first no-fault divorce law in 1968, the American Law Institute (ALI), founded with support from the Carnegie Foundation, crafted model legislation to insert the state in between husbands and wives — and favor the spouse who wanted a divorce.

The ALI pushed for decriminalizing private sexual acts between consenting adults, a key plank that struck down states' ability to regulate obscene materials and contraception.

By 1974, all but five states had adopted a form of no-fault divorce.

Morse argues that no-fault divorce positions the power of the state on the side of whichever spouse least wants the marriage to continue. This damages spouses who are committed to the marriage, but it also damages children who do not grow up with both of their parents. It also empowers the government, which now mediates between divorced mothers and fathers.

The author argues that the claim "the kids will be all right" is propaganda. She cites the work of Judith Wallerstein, who found that divorce has a long-term impact on children — damaging their prospects for romantic relationships in adulthood. Similarly, the worries about husbands abusing wives are overblown, as studies have shown that women and children are more likely to be abused in cohabiting relationships than in marriage.

Finally, Morse argues that the government and elites pushed the "Gender Ideology" — long before transgender identity went mainstream — in order to encourage women to be "ideal workers:" "a person who never takes time off, is never sick, whose mental and psychological focus is entirely on the job."

"We've built a society around the premise that our educated women must be permitted to time their 1.6 pregnancies right down to the minute when it's most convenient. But convenient for whom? All too often, it means the convenience of the employers, or the interests of the career path, or of those who hold the student debt which the young woman or young couple must pay down," Morse claims.

The author does not lament the fact that women have entered the "managerial class," highly paid professions which do not involve manual labor. She herself is a member of this class. Rather, she suggests that the pressures of work and the benefits of this class enable people to overlook the obvious differences between men and women.

"People who do manual labor aren't deluded for a moment that men and women are interchangeable," Morse quips. For this reason, men are vastly over-represented in the dangerous professions.

Women's involvement in the workforce need not be connected to the Sexual Revolution's Gender Ideology, the author argues. "I claim the right to participate in the labor market as women, not as men in skirts." She suggests that "educated women would be better off if they accepted that their fertility peaks during their twenties and planned their lives around this fact."

Morse lays out a basic life plan: Women should go to college for a liberal education, not a vocational one. They should et married and have kids early, using their higher educations to be involved in educating their kids. "Let your husbands support you. Trust them. Be grateful for them," and when the children are older, go back for an advanced degree and work.

Tragically, activists are pushing on all these issues and more. Morse discusses same-sex marriage in a chapter on the Gender Ideology. She recalls the battle over California's Proposition 8.

"The 'Yes on 8' campaign was arguably the largest grassroots campaign in history," she writes, noting that California's secretary of state website crashed because there were over 5,000 pages of contributors to the campaign. Yet modern "progressives" "took Proposition 8 to court on flimsy pretexts and rich people's money."

After Proposition 8 passed and the people had amended their constitution, California's attorney general refused to defend it. The people's will failed thanks to an effective pocket veto. in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013), the Supreme Court ruled that proponents of ballot initiatives like Proposition 8 could not defend such laws in court, enabling Gov. Jerry Brown (D-Calif.) to resume same-sex marriage in the state. Now-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) performed the first same-sex marriage after this ruling.

As with Proposition 8, wealthy liberals continue to push Sexual Revolution issues, particularly abortion and contraception. George Soros and Warren Buffett continue to fund abortion groups, and they use their money to "shape political institutions so they can use the government to recreate the world in their own image and likeness," Morse alleges.

Importantly, the book notes that contraception carries health risks for women, and some studies have shown that hormonal contraception is as likely to cause cancer as smoking. "Smoking has been all but banned, tobacco companies have been sued, and smokers have been socially shunned," Morse writes. "By contrast, the government actively promotes the use of hormonal contraception while the media plays down the risks."

Abortion, often considered an alternative should contraception fail, also carries tremendous health risks to the mother, which medical associations keep secret for political reasons, the author argues. She also notes that wealthy donors funded abortion activists who convinced the Supreme Court to strike down Texas regulations treating abortion clinics like any other medical facility.

"When the people of Texas, acting through their duly elected state legislators, enacted health and safety legislation for abortion clinics, the elites of society knocked it down," Morse declares.

"The Sexual State" makes a compelling case that state power and wealthy elites pushed the Sexual Revolution, and people should fight back. While Morse does address LGBT issues, her book mostly focuses on the negative impacts the Sexual Revolution has had on family life, harming faithful spouses, children of divorce, and many others.

Morse, a Roman Catholic, presents a very Catholic view of these issues and champions the Catholic Church's approach. Her book was ill-fated to release shortly after the sexual abuse scandal broke, but her points still stand.

The book may be too polemical, but it raises important questions about the hidden harms of the Sexual Revolution and who benefits from this humongous social change.

"The Sexual State" is an important book for libertarians to wrestle with, as it presents a compelling case that big government benefits from the Sexual Revolution, and that marriage and family would help weaken the power of the state.


Clergy Sex-Abuse Victims and Perpetrators Have Changed Since 2000

by Jennifer Roback Morse

This article was first published Jun. 25, 2019, at NCRegister.com.

 
COMMENTARY: Part II — The Ruth Institute report ‘Receding Waves: Child Sexual Abuse and Homosexual Priests Since 2000,’ finds surprising changes in both the victims and the perpetrators of clerical sexual abuse.

The clergy sexual abuse and cover-up scandal evokes powerful emotions. Some people become protective of their views of interecclesial politics. Others become defensive of the Church in general. And the subject of clergy sex abuse itself is intrinsically revolting. Precisely because of these varied and visceral emotions, we must examine the facts with as much sobriety and objectivity as we can muster.

In “Receding Waves: Child Sexual Abuse and Homosexual Priests Since 2000,” Father Paul Sullins finds surprising changes in both the victims and the perpetrators of clerical sexual abuse — and also, more generally, from the more general standpoint of today’s Catholic priesthood. Every one of these changes is sure to upset someone’s preconceived notions about what is going on and what we ought to do.

Read Part I here.

Recent Abuse Is Different

First, let’s take a look at the victims of clergy sexual abuse since 2000.

Fewer males are being abused: The most striking finding in this new report is the decline in proportion of male victims. The percent of abuse victims who were male plummeted from 74% in 2000 to only 34% by 2016. In 1985, males comprised 92% of victims and averaged 82% from 1950 to 1999 (Figures 3 and 4). This finding may disturb those who think that getting the active homosexuals out of the priesthood will solve all the problems. We will still have to be vigilant to protect girls from abuse. The data clearly show a steady number of female victims, year in and year out.

On the other hand, reducing the number of homosexually active clergy will solve a big chunk of the problems. The data show pronounced changes in the numbers of male victims over time. In fact, the changes in male victims pretty much account for the changes in total victims (Figure 14).

And, as Father Sullins showed in the Ruth Institute’s earlier report from 2018, the numbers and percentages of male victims track almost perfectly with the numbers of priests who describe themselves as homosexual (Figure 10 from the 2018 report).

The combination of these facts makes “clericalism” highly unlikely as a causal factor. What sort of undue deference to the clergy could account for a steady stream of female victims and, at the same time, wild swings in male victims? Clericalism is not a good thing, to be sure. But as a causal explanation, it is looking thinner all the time.

Victims being abused today are older: Recent abuse has involved older victims past puberty. Since 2000 half (50%) of abuse victims were teenagers aged 14-17; before 2000, only a third (33%) were this old (Figures 3 and 4). This means that true pedophilia, meaning sexual activity with pre-pubescent children, has been declining. Separating out pedophilia distinctly from sexual orientation as a causal factor is becoming a greater stretch.

Recent Perpetrators Are Different

Mostly not newly ordained priests: Since 2000 only a small fraction (11%) of abuse has been perpetrated by newly ordained priests (that is, those who have been ordained for less than 10 years), while over half (52%) of abuse has been perpetrated by priests ordained 30 years or more. This reverses the pattern before 2000, when a third (31%) of abuse was due to newly ordained priests and only 10% by priests ordained 30 years or more. (See Figure 7.) This suggests that we cannot blame young, testosterone-fueled men for clergy sex abuse.

In fact, since the 1960s, priests engaged in child sex abuse have been relatively concentrated in two age groups: one ordained in the late 1960s and early 1970s and the other ordained in the early 1980s (Figure 8). Tracking these men over the years, one can see that men ordained in these time periods account for an outsized number of abuse incidents.

For instance, Father Michael Guidry was in his 70s when he molested the 16-year-old son of one of his parish’s deacons. Father Guidry was ordained in 1971. Father Robert DeLand, the Saginaw, Michigan, priest who was finally caught when a detective “wired” the 17-year-old potential victim, was ordained in 1973. Men in their 70s usually do not normally groom teenagers for sex.

Few are homosexual: We do not have data on homosexual ordinations after 2000. Based on the sharp decline in the numbers of male victims of clergy sexual abuse, we surmise that fewer men of homosexual inclination are being ordained. In the 1980s as many as half of new ordinations were of homosexual men.

This is a good time to emphasize one of the Ruth Institute’s recommendations: “The Church or interested scholars and lay organizations should conduct further research on clergy self-description of their patterns of sexual attraction and behavior.” Father Sullins’ analysis of self-described sexual orientation of the clergy is based entirely on a 2002 Los Angeles Times survey. No systematic survey has been conducted since that time. It would be beneficial to have direct information, rather than having to draw inferences.

Recently Ordained Priests Appear to Be Different

Orthodox, faithful, younger priests: The drop in homosexual ordinations is congruent with the rise of a newer generation of young, orthodox candidates for the priesthood. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the current generation of seminary directors is more likely to exclude men with deeply rooted homosexual tendencies from the path to priesthood. This policy, if indeed it is a conscious policy, conforms to long-standing papal instruction as well as a theology of priestly celibacy as a calling reserved for heterosexual men, capable of marriage and fatherhood.

Aging homosexual priests: Today, half of all Catholic priests are between the ages of 60 and 84. Father Sullins estimates that about one in five of these priests self-describes as homosexual compared with less than one in 30 priests under age 50 who describe themselves as homosexual. As the wave of older homosexual priests passes on in coming years, the share of homosexual men in the Catholic priesthood will drop rapidly.

What does all this mean to the average Catholic? It means that the truth of the Church’s teaching on marriage, family and sexuality has not been undone by the recent scandals. We have reason to be hopeful that the younger generation of priests, the “John Paul II generation,” are less inclined to sexual misbehavior.

At the same time, as I indicated in my previous column, not all is well in the Church just yet — and we must continue to be vigilant to protect girls and boys alike. It means that people who are tempted to “jump ship” and abandon the Church have every reason to be hopeful and stay. We need the most sensitive and morally serious souls to stay!

We know that God writes straight with crooked lines. With God’s grace, and our fidelity, our Church and our country may yet become the holiest ever known. Let this be our finest hour.


Clergy Sex Abuse Has Changed Since 2000 — and Why It Matters

by Jennifer Roback Morse

This article was first published Jun. 14, 2019, at NCRegister.com.


COMMENTARY: Part I — Clergy sex abuse is rising, not falling.

The Ruth Institute recently released a new report by Father Paul Sullins, Ph.D., on clergy sexual abuse since 2000, showing that clergy sexual abuse has been rising in the years since the “Dallas Charter.” Around the same time, the Catholic League released a statement saying the clergy sexual abuse today is negligible.


Oddly enough, both the Catholic League statement and the Ruth Institute report referred to the “2018 Annual Report on the Implementation of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.”

What accounts for our very different conclusions?

Let’s start with the point on which we agree. The Catholic League states: “During this period (July 1, 2017- June 30, 2018) there were 26 new allegations involving current minors. But only three were substantiated (all three men were removed from ministry). Seven were unsubstantiated; three were unable to be proven; two were referred to a religious order; two were reported as unknown; and three were boundary violations, not instances of sexual abuse” (Page 25 of the audit report.) Don’t those low numbers sound encouraging?

Here is the problem with taking these figures at face value: These are the reports received in 2018 about incidents that took place during 2018. In that same period of time, 1,385 survivors of child sexual abuse by clergy came forward making 1,455 allegations. Obviously, the bulk of these incidents did NOT take place during the most recent year, but from earlier years. Most survivors do not report their abuse until much later. In fact, in the 2018 Ruth Institute study using the Pennsylvania grand jury reports, Father Sullins found that the average reporting lag was more than 28 years!

This means that trying to get a reliable handle on the trend in sexual abuse requires us to be careful with the conclusions we draw from our data. We could easily (and wrongly) conclude that all is well and that clergy sexual abuse is declining. We must make some correction for this very substantial reporting lag.

Father Sullins addressed that issue by comparing year-to-year allegations of current abuse. In other words, he went back to the historic data and asked this question, “In 1950-1954, how many people came forward to say they were abused in 1950-1954? How does that compare with the number of people coming forward between 1955-1959 to say they were abused between 1955-1959?” And so on. Bringing those numbers up to the present does not paint such a rosy picture of rapidly declining clergy sexual abuse.

In fact, this is precisely where Father Sullins found a disturbing increase in sexual abuse of minors since 2002. The priest sexual abuse of children dropped to an all-time low just after 2002, but it has since risen. True, clergy sexual abuse of minors remains well below its peak in the 1980s. Reports of current abuse averaged 7.0 per year from 2005 to 2009, rising to 8.2 per year from 2010 to 2014, a 17% increase. In the 1980s, there were an average 26.2 reports of current abuse per year. (See Figures 2 and 6 in the report.)

This suggests that the 2002 Dallas Charter, for all its improvements, did not solve all the problems. We still need to be vigilant. As a matter of fact, the “Annual Report on the Implementation of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People” made this very point. “The current allegations point to the reality that sexual abuse of minors by the clergy should not be considered by bishops as a thing of the past or a distant memory. Any allegation involving a current minor should remind the bishops that they must rededicate themselves each day to maintaining a level of vigilance that will not permit complacency to set in” (page vii).

Recommendations

Catholics must remain vigilant in protecting minors against clerical sexual abuse. In fact, the audit report clearly states,

“The National Review Board calls for a more in-depth audit, as well as ensuring the complete independence of the audit if the bishops hope to regain the trust of the laity in assuring that children and young people are indeed safe within our institutions.”

We as Catholics must also step up our efforts to proclaim authentic Catholic doctrine about marriage, family and human sexuality. At the Ruth Institute, we agree wholeheartedly with Pope Emeritus Benedict’s analysis. Poor theological formation of clergy and seminarians and rampant dissent on sexual teaching are significant factors in the current crisis.

In fact, that is one of the main recommendations we make in our report:

“The Church or interested lay organizations should increase educational programs on authentic Church teaching on human sexuality. Such educational efforts should include all levels of education, such as seminaries, universities, high schools, elementary schools and parish catechism classes. The topics covered should include Pope St. John Paul II’s ‘Theology of the Body’ and how traditional Christian sexual ethics promotes and protects the interests of children, women, men and society.”

The answer to poor formation, is quite simply, more and better formation.

Most serious Catholics are fed up with clergy sexual abuse: One case is too many. We want it to go away and stay away. In fact, we want it all gone — yesterday! But, as rational adults, we realize that this deep problem will not disappear overnight, no matter what we do.

It behooves us all to figure out what is really going on, to the best of our ability. Sugarcoating the truth does not serve the Church. This is no time for self-congratulation or complacency. This is the time to take our lumps when necessary. And above all, this is the time to roll up our sleeves and get to work.

 

 



Is Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church Really No Bigger Problem Than the Rest of Society?

by Jennifer Roback Morse

This article was first published Oct. 27, 2019, at NCRegister.com.

COMMENTARY: If Catholics face this issue courageously, we could win many souls.

 

A recent study reported, “only 6% of seminarians report sexual harassment.” The McGrath Institute for Church Life at the University of Notre Dame produced this path-breaking survey. One optimistic conclusion people might draw from this report is “Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is no worse than in any other institution of society. People who keep talking about sexual abuse are just bashing the Church.” In my opinion, comparing sex abuse in the Catholic Church with that in other institutions can serve a valid purpose. But I think we need to be careful. Some such comparisons can be actively harmful.


Let me take as an example, The Catholic League’s response to the Notre Dame survey. I choose them because they make a fair statement of a sentiment many people share:

In 2013, Hollaback! commissioned a College Harassment Survey and found that 67 percent of students experienced harassment on campus. In 2006, the American Association of University Women reported that nearly two-thirds of college students experienced sexual harassment at some point during college. In 2018, an online survey by Stop Street Harassment found that 81 percent of women and 43 percent of men said they experienced some form of sexual harassment during their lifetime.

Definitions of sexual harassment vary widely, and incidents range from a sexual joke to rape, thus making comparisons difficult. No matter, compared to life outside the seminaries, the condition in most seminaries today is far better than on college campuses or in the workplace. And they are a vast improvement over what existed in many seminaries not long ago.

The Catholic League’s mission is to defend the Church from slander. Our highly secularized world is filled with people who hate the Catholic Church and miss no opportunity to criticize her. The truly committed sexual revolutionaries honestly believe the Catholic Church is not only bad, but the worst institution ever. I don’t think we should even dignify that statement with a response, should anyone be blunt enough to just blurt it out. The Catholic League, and anyone who loves the Church, is not wrong to defend the Church against scurrilous attacks.

So far, so good.

We might also console ourselves with comparisons with the average state university or our own institutions in years past. Many faithful Catholics are discouraged by the sex scandals. They are looking for good news and solace wherever they can find it. Let’s breathe a sigh of relief, avert our eyes and “move on.”

I understand. I don’t blame people a bit for feeling this way. But we should only take comfort in news that is true. There is plenty of reason for continued suspicion that things are not A-Okay in our seminaries. As Janet Smith recently observed, less than half the seminaries and houses of formation even participated in the Notre Dame study. “Moving on” would be premature and even negligent.

To see why, let me offer an analogy that many readers will recognize. Let’s suppose you have a loved one who has a serious addiction or mental illness. The various family members have complex and contradictory feelings: worry, shame, embarrassment, fear, inadequacy and many others. We are afraid our drug addicted son is going to permanently ruin his life. We feel helpless to aid our anorexic daughter. We are ashamed that our family’s problems reflect poorly on us as parents.

In that circumstance, we might look around at our next-door neighbors. On the plus side, maybe we want to emulate someone who dealt with a similar situation successfully. Maybe we’re trying to avoid something that didn’t work out so well for someone else. That kind of comparison is potentially beneficial.

Alas, we are not always so high-minded. We’re tempted to use the comparison to console ourselves. “At least we aren’t as bad as that family over there.”

But what would be the point? We still have to deal with our own situation. Whatever momentary comfort we might take in keeping one step ahead of the Jones’s, we still have to get on with our business of taking care of our own hurting family members.

To be sure, our neighbors are watching us, but not necessarily the way we think they are. They are not only judging us for the problem itself. They are judging us for how we conduct ourselves. “His daughter is on life-support with anorexia and he’s worried what the neighbors will think. What an idiot.”

The secular world criticizes us for our doctrine, which they find too difficult to live by. But living up to our doctrine is the only lasting and authentic solution to the problem of sexual abuse of the weak and vulnerable. We must show by our actions that we truly believe that Jesus is the “way, the truth and the life.” Deflection or averting our eyes or changing the subject won’t lead anyone closer to Christ and His Church.

And that really is the bottom line for faithful Catholics who love the Church. How we compare to the Boy Scouts or the Baptists doesn’t matter. Catholic clergy sex abuse is our mess. We have an obligation to clean it up. We owe it as a duty of justice to those who have been harmed, directly and indirectly. The world is watching how we handle ourselves.

Our Church really is metaphorically on life support. (Yes, I know about the gates of hell not prevailing and all that. Don’t change the subject.) We must face this issue squarely and honestly. If we do, we could win many souls. If we don’t, well, let’s just say, Our Lord will have pointed questions for us on our own judgment day.

I can speak for myself when I say, I intend to see this through to the end.


Support the Ruth Institute