What is Faith?  Paradox #2 - Part ll

By Linda Kracht 

There are zillions of pithy one-liners that try and capture the essence of faith. At first glance they may seem clever and spot on but after closer introspection, they come across as deceptive and shallow. Not one of them can begin to capture the essence of FAITH but yet they try. For example consider the following postings: “Faith is like wi-fi; its invisible but is has the power to connect you to what you need.” [TheDailyQuote.com]  And another: “Faith is the bridge between where I am and the place where God is taking me.” Or this one:  “Faith plants the seed and love makes it grow.”  “Feed your faith and your fears will starve to death.” Finally this one: “Faith makes all things possible, love makes all things easy, and hope makes all things work.”

Again, at first glance each of these ditties seem to capture an element of what many people refer to as faith. But what type of faith is that? Everyone has some kind of belief system which requires a degree of faith - they either believe in themselves, someone else or something else! People even put their faith and trust in the ridiculous like pots of gold at the end of rainbows, fairies, and magicians. But that faith is entirely different from Faith - a Great Paradox. 

So what is Faith and how is it a paradox? The Catholic Catechism teaches us that Faith is a “gift from God and a human act.” God invites our response (Faith); in turn, we give our assent to the  whole truth that God has revealed. [CCC - F; page 878] Note that Faith requires that we give our heart fully to this Divine Revelation. We don’t just believe in bits and pieces; in such case we will have set ourselves up as the judge or arbiter of who God is and who God isn’t; what He does and what He does not do. By setting conditions on our belief about God we have essentially set ourselves up as greater than God Himself. 

Faith requires a two-way communication between God and mankind. We need His revelation in order to believe; He needs our assent to His invitation to Faith in order to allow it to percolate and grow. Part and parcel of the Divine Revelation was the formation of His Church to carry on after Jesus ascended into Heaven. The Church has given us the tools by which we give public and private assent to our Faith. This includes the way we worship God, receive His Divine Grace, pray, seek Forgiveness, and live. 

Father Wilfrid Stinissen wrote that “faith gives us new eyes to discover the divine reality. Faith sees through the outer shell and penetrates to the substance of things. Faith reveals new areas of reality [the Trinity, angels, and so on] but faith also enable us to see everything we encounter in a completely new way. It sees the deep dimension of daily events.” [Magnificat, March 16, 2015. p. 264.] 

And that is why the ditties posted in the beginning of this article fail to give true meaning to Faith. They fail to get beyond the outer shell of Faith. They fail to capture the two way relationship between us and God - a requirement for Faith. In other words, God does not impose His gift of Faith on us any more than we can get Faith all by ourselves. The ditties also fail to regard the necessity of Divine Revelation. They fail to take into account our assent of the full Divine Revelation. They fail to take into account the role of the Church in developing and helping to form and fortify our personal relationships with God. They fail to take into account our obedient responses to His call to Faith. They fail to take into account our obligations that necessarily prevail upon us when we claim to be living a life of Faith. These obligations include striving to become more and more obedient and accepting of God’s Grand Plan, His Will, His natural and supernatural Laws, and His unconditional Love as we grow in Faith, Hope and Love. Speaking of the theological virtues, the ditties also fail to capture the route by which faith naturally produces Hope and Charity and visa versa.

So, what is Faith? It is seeing God and the whole of His Grand Plan and Design as we see air, molecules, space, and all that remains unseen but are ever present. Faith is a paradox because while we can’t prove it, we know God is as real as are the things that we can see. And so with eyes of faith, we “look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.” [2 Corinthians 4:18] And “we live by faith and not by sight. “ [2 Corinthians 5:7] “For in this hope we are saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have?” [Romans 8:24] And “faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” 

These wise words help us to better understand what faith is on a practical level and they come directly from those who walked with God the Son while he was on earth teaching us about himself. 

Compassion or compassion?

by Linda Kracht 

Recently I attended a debate arguing for and against surrogate motherhood — the act of contractually renting out one’s womb for to-be-parents. It takes about a split second of thought to realize that this newest way to technologically intervene/assist in the making of babies and parents is highly exploitable by one or all parties involved including the lawyers writing new statutes; the surrogate mother and/or the contracting parent(s). While compassion is used to argue for and against the procedure, clearly one side uses the term too loosely. So, let’s explore the topic from the perspective of Compassion vs compassion. 

Let’s begin with the actual definition or meaning of compassion; it is the feeling that wells up within someone when confronted by another person’s suffering. But it’s more than just feeling sorry for someone’s plight. Compassion makes us want to help relieve the unfortunate sufferer’s condition. The virtue of compassion is too often interchanged with altruism or empathy but the three are stand alone virtues; altruism is the “kind, selfless behavior often prompted by feelings of compassion, though one can feel compassion without acting on it, and altruism isn’t always motivated by compassion.” And empathy is our ability to ‘feel’ someone’s pain because we identify with or understand another person’s situation or feelings. In reality all three can stray far from virtuosity if/when actions taken [including motives, thoughts, feelings or what we identify with] are impure, immoral or self-centered. Most of us felt compassion for the young, captured Jordanian pilot who was burned alive by ISIS but few of us could do anything about it. For some, the feelings boiled over into feelings of outrage prompting acts of revenge /retaliation towards others. All of these different reactions blurs compassion and altruism and the virtuous-ness of our feelings. 

So what does Compassion vs compassion look like? Jesus has given us many examples and instances of what Compassion actually looks like. Jesus wept before springing Lazarus from his rocky grave; he cured the little girl after consulting with the parents; and he blessed the prostitute (sinners) before exhorting her (them) to sin no more. In each instance, Jesus actions combined Compassion with altruism and empathy to show us how to love those who suffered beside him. He is our model for Compassion - with the capital C. 

Compassion - lower case — is the human rendition of Compassion; it often veers off-course as we let our human thoughts, feelings, judgements, and desires interfere and distract. Other times, it gets pretty close. Thinking right now of Saint Maximillian Klobe, who traded his life for another in Auschwitz; then there is Miep Gies who hid Anne Frank and her sister during the Nazi occupation of Amsterdam. Mother Teresa is also a great example of just Compassion for the poor and impoverished of the world.  

Did you know that feeling Compassion is good for us and good for those who suffer? For instance, social scientists tell us “when we feel compassion, our heart rate slows down, we secrete the bonding hormone oxytocin, and regions of the brain linked to empathy, caregiving, and feelings of pleasure light up, which facilitates the desire to approach and care for other people.” But it does even more than that. By being mindful of other people’s suffering, we actually “feel safer around them, facilitating even more compassion within us.” Compassion also makes it more likely that we will learn how to cooperate with the suffering people rather than work against them. Compassion makes us feel good. Compassionate acts activate pleasure circuits in our brain… Having compassion for others allows us to feel happier in both the long and short term. But we have to keep in mind that feelings of compassion are not designed for self-centeredness but ought to garner more self-less and other-centered behavior and thoughts. If we are not gaining other-centeredness, perhaps we are merely feigning compassion. The whole point of feeling Compassion is to help relieve suffering among those we love or don’t even know. Ironically, studies which study the effect of compassion on the compassionate person seem a bit mis-guided don’t you agree? Nevertheless, the results help explain how natural law works… the more humanely we act, the better we become — morally, spiritually, mentally, and physically. But that should not be the reason to be compassionate, is it? 

Why is the lack of compassion introduced as one of the primary arguments for codifying/allowing/regulating the surrogacy experience? The proponents for surrogacy are quick to argue that the rest of us lack compassion — for the surrogate, the contracting parties, the legal teams trying to make surrogacy fair and ethical, etc. The case made for the need to have compassion the evening of the debate went something like this: “I am as Catholic as anyone in this room … but I believe that it is unjust to allow adoption (which effectively removes a baby from its biological parent and forces the baby into a home absent of the biological parents) while the Church argues against the Surrogacy Experience which unites biological babies [born to surrogate mothers] with their biological parents. This is wholly unfair. Besides that, the technology is here to stay so let’s make it as legally binding and protective of both the surrogate and the biological parents as we can. That is my role in this whole thing. And yes, there are many potential problems with surrogacy so we have to make just laws which protect all the parties involved. And yes, let’s help prevent the exporting of the Surrogacy Experience to third world countries where results can get complicated very quickly. And yes, when someone introduces morality, I lose the argument. And yes, renting out one’s womb is akin to babysitting for someone’s kids for a short while, so why not get paid for the service?”

Here, here said the 17 surrogate mothers in the audience. Hold on there said the other attendees who may not have been able to cogently explain why the Surrogacy Experience is wrong but they just knew it to be wrong in their hearts.

Both sides had plenty of time to present their case and of course the lawyer arguing against surrogacy made the most logical and ethical sense in my opinion. But she lacked compassion according to the other side. Did she really? She introduced facts such as: all in-vitro fertilization procedures create hundreds if not thousands of fertilized embryos that are left in a sort of limbo. In this state, they are not given a chance at life — at least not yet.  Nor are they given an immediate death sentence — at least not until they have served out their utilitarian purpose which is to be ready and waiting if / when the parents decide they want more implantations with a surrogate mother at some future point in time — or not. The embryos in waiting lives are suspended within artificial, sterile and cold (cryogenic ) tubes awaiting a life or death sentence based on feelings.

Isn’t this alone an assault on the dignity of that new little person’s personhood? Where is the Compassion for their existence?  How can one call for compassion for the infertile couple or the surrogate mother willing to rent out her womb for hire while ignoring the plight of the embryo in limbo? What’s more, does anyone display Compassion, if they pick and choose what/who/when to be compassionate about the frozen persons lying in-state? If the contracting parents set up conditions for who they will/will not give life to, why should the rest of us feel any compassion for their condition of infertility? Why should we care about their inability to have any children when they assert their right to deliberately ignore or select the best of the frozen ones? The facts are that every case of surrogate placement creates tens if not hundreds of fertilized embryos that are misplaced, destroyed, or forgotten about. Did you know that most surrogates — the womb for hire nannies — are expected to sign a clause agreeing to having an elective abortion for a less than perfect pregnancy? For example, if at some point in time the fetus is determined to have Spina Bifida or some other anomaly, the surrogate mother agrees to have an abortion. Where is the Compassion in that decision and agreement? It is abundantly clear to me at least that the contracting parents expect to have a near perfect if not blue ribbon baby after paying $35,000 — $65,000 or they don’t want it and neither do they want anyone else to raise this little imperfect him or her. That is conditional love at best and why should we be forced to feel compassion about such a contradiction?

Shouldn’t the contracting parents be concerned about the health and wellbeing of the surrogate mother? Of course they are and that’s why they add clauses about not using drugs, alcohol, etc., during the pregnancy! In reality how does that clause prove concern for - the surrogate or the pregnancy outcome? What about the health of the contracting mother who has to endure super-doses of hormone treatments for purposes of harvesting an abundance of healthy eggs? The proponent for the Surrogacy Experience flippantly said that women naturally have more eggs than they can ever need or use — so pre-gathering eggs is never a problem. This man clearly fails to understand the female reproductive system. Women enter menopause in large part because she has run out of viable eggs — and sometimes that occurs prematurely creating all sorts of problems. When a baby girl is conceived, she will have several hundred million eggs but even at her birth, she will only have one or two million eggs left in her ovaries. By puberty, the number has dropped precipitously to just a few hundred thousand; and by her mid 40’s she will have few left. The egg follicles degenerate over time due to a process call atresia. Factors speeding up the rate of atresia include illness, disease, genetic factors, environmental, and more. So to presume that women have plenty [have more than they need] is asinine at best. Furthermore, the unnatural order of harvesting eggs is sure to put a wrench on the natural-pace of atresia.

And then there are the spiritual and psychological effects to be considered for both the mother and father to be who treat the collection of their sexual reproductive cells, the in-vitro fertilization technique, and the making of their baby as just one more utilitarian activity that will get them what they want! Both collection processes (masturbation for the male and egg harvesting from the mother) render the making of a baby into a commodity that can be bought and sold for a price. And then there is the surrogate mother’s spiritual and psychological makeup to consider. Her sense of compassion for the infertile couple is completely blurred by the exchange of money for her womb for hire services which was previously stated as ranging from $35,000 to $65,000 / baby.

My compassion runs short when called forth by those who profit from things such as the Surrogacy Experience. It makes perfect sense for advocates of surrogacy to use the compassion trump card now. The ordinary facts are too easily refuted. So, it makes sense to employee a battle plan that has worked for other social movements [ gay marriage, abortion, divorce]. This plan tries to engender compassion for the infertile couple/individual while also diminishing all objections to any technological methods used to assert a person’s right to parenthood. But when was that right [to parenthood] established and by whom - other than God? Lots of loaded words from the ‘other perspective’ show put us on alert that something else is going on other than lack of compassion. 

Furthermore, my compassion tank runs out of gas even faster when I hear a surrogate mother suggest:“I have no emotional ties what-so-ever with the baby. It is a business transaction”. Yet Saint John Paul ll reminds us that motherhood itself “implies from the beginning a special openness to the new person: and this is precisely the woman's 'part.' In this openness, in conceiving and giving birth to a child, the woman 'discovers herself through a sincere gift of self. '(MD §18) 

My compassion tank runs empty when hearing a mother whine about having to make a decision about the 5 embryos left in cryogenics after claiming she has enough live birth children. And that was my personal experience with the In-Vitro Experience. One day I had taken our daughter to speech therapy and in walks a mother with three precious young boys — a set of twins (about 4 years old) and a two year old. Yes, they were rambunctious little cowboys! As we talked, the mother revealed that they were the result of in-vitro fertilization. The twins were born after implanting 5/12 embryos — natural selection left her with twins rather than quintuplets. She added that the first pregnancy took a toll on her [that kind of fell on deaf ears since I was there with our seventh child; sorry that seems to be my lack of compassion talking again]. Anyway, the mother horrified me by complaining about the having to undergo a second pregnancy just to use up a few more embryos — although she did admit that she felt a bit guilty about having 7 in Limbo. Not wanting another set of twins, she specified that no more than 3 embryos be implanted knowing that if more than one survived the transplant, she would have elected to have a reduction pregnancy abortion. Lucky for her, only one embryo made it to term and his name was Jimmy. The mother went on to state that she did not want to have another pregnancy but was conflicted about the embryos still awaiting her decision. So she asked me what to do. Seeing my horrified expression and hearing no response, she said “Well - what do you expect me to do?” If she had asked my opinion 10 years ago, I could have given her many answers. That day, I was too dumbfounded to come up with anything remotely compassionate or sensible or ethical. 

We have arrived at a time in history whereby we create contradictions that have no ethical solutions.  We completely fail in Compassion at the right times. I thought of this song written in 1969; it is entitled In the Year 2525 which seems to describe much of modern day thinking. 

“In the year 2525, if man is still alive

If woman can survive, they may find

In the year 3535

Ain't gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lie

Everything you think, do and say

Is in the pill you took today

In the year 4545

You ain't gonna need your teeth, won't need your eyes

You won't find a thing to chew

Nobody's gonna look at you

In the year 5555

Your arms hangin' limp at your sides

Your legs got nothin' to do

Some machine's doin' that for you

In the year 6565

Ain't gonna need no husband, won't need no wife

You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too

From the bottom of a long glass tube

In the year 7510

If God's a-coming, He oughta make it by then

Maybe He'll look around Himself and say

"Guess it's time for the Judgement Day"

In the year 8510

God is gonna shake His mighty head

He'll either say, "I'm pleased where man has been"

Or tear it down, and start again

In the year 9595

I'm kinda wonderin' if man is gonna be alive

He's taken everything this old earth can give

And he ain't put back nothing

Now it's been ten thousand years, man has cried a billion tears

For what, he never knew, now man's reign is through

But through eternal night, the twinkling of starlight

So very far away, maybe it's only yesterday

Can You Name Them?

by Linda Kracht 

Can you name them? Can you name the primary virtue that is one’s personal resolve of the mind and heart to maintain discipline over one’s physical (and sexual) body? The same virtue couples natural desires with what (another virtue)?  What is required to maintain this virtue (three points)? What is the primary and opposing vice to the primary virtue? This primary vice couples natural desires with what other vice?

Please do not plug these questions into your handy dandy internet browsers because, yes, the answers will likely pop right up. These are not trick questions. But if there is a very general inability to get the answers right from among this population of readers, it is highly likely that others will not know the answers either. And if people in general are not acquainted with these virtues and their opposing vices, it helps to explain why society seems to be going in nay wrong directions. When we should know but don’t know these things, then we can’t teach them or give witness to them to those are less likely to understand and/or embrace them. The opposing vices in question explain why hurt people really are hurting many other people - of all ages.  

Please send your answers to each of the above questions along with your name, religious affiliation, age, address, and email address to our email account: info@fortifyingfamiliesoffaith.com. Respondents who answer all five questions accurately will receive a free bookmark from our collection. All names received (with right answers) will be entered into a drawing to receive a free copy of A Book For All Seasons. 

Obviously the readers are on the honor system which means that we presume you will answer the question without any personal help; i.e. you will not look up answers from any sources or resources. And you are the person sending in the response.

There is a purpose behind this quest and it is not to give away free things or to introduce me or my company  [Fortifying Families of Faith] to you. The responses received will help form my next talking points while teaching parents and their adolescents about virtues in general and more specifically about these virtues in question. My hypothesis is already in place; it will be up to the readers to debunk or strengthen it.

If you do not receive anything from me you can assume that your answers were wrong - or at least one of them. You will find the right answers in my column entitled Can You Name Them - the followup or by emailing me. 

Lastly, donations or outright orders of our materials are always welcome to help defray costs for projects such as this one. Mail donations to www.fortifyingfamiliesoffaith.com. 

I am looking forward to hearing from you! 

Bullying - for kids only? 

By Linda Kracht 

Bullying is a hot topic for bloggers, social workers, school officials, parents, psychologists, and even the government! The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) defines “bullying as any unwanted aggressive behavior(s) by another youth or group of youths, who are not siblings or current dating partners, involving an observed or perceived power imbalance and is repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated.” Say again? 

The statement from the CDC implies that bullying is negative behavior limited to youths who are in no way related to or in relationship with the person they are bullying. Is that true? 

Today, the author led a women’s group in a discussion about family life. One of the participants intimated that family get-togethers were getting more and more difficult for her mother because the mother’s siblings were becoming increasingly hostile to the mother’s religious and albeit political beliefs. The adult siblings would gather at family functions and, as if pre-planned, gather around her mother and goad her with obvious, anti-Catholic questions, sentiments, and statements about obvious issues. They appear to sharpen their axes to grind in unison for these occasions. Unfortunately the mother no longer feels welcome or respected at these family functions. Her own immediate family remains faithfully Catholic while her extended family including her siblings and their offspring have chosen to step off the religious grid. 

While the questions and topics are fair to debate and bring up for discussion among honest and open brokers, the siblings don’t appear to be of that mindset. Neither do they try and keep it fair, balanced or sensitive to the social or mental wellbeing of their orthodox sister. The unified front by the siblings causes the Catholic sister to feel as if she is under attack. 

 But, the CDC tells us that adults and/or dating partners do not fit the classification of bullies; so what types of foes are they? Merely domestic aggressors? I disagree. If anything feels like and looks like bullying, the shoe fits and so does the name.

Is the mother’s docile approach the best one to take is the bigger question? Acting indifferent certainly falls within the psychologists’ recommended actions to take against bullies; but, does it work? Normally, a victim of bullying has two basic choices: Fight or Flight. In this case, flight does not seem to be working. In fact, the mother’s anxiety increases prior to extended family gatherings out of concern that it will re-occur and it almost always does. Is there anything else she can do short of cutting off ties with her siblings? 

When resolving situations like this, it is always helpful to ask ‘what would Jesus do’? While this may seem like a trite answer, let’s consider what he did do. We read in Luke 23:9-11 the following:“When Herod questioned Jesus at some length, Jesus gave him no answer. The chief priest sad scribes stood by, vehemently accusing him. Even Herod and his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him, then he put on an elegant robe and had him sent back to Pilate. That same day, Herod and Pilate became friends with each other, before this they had been enemies. “ Is it possible that the siblings have grown closer together because of their collective harassment of their Catholic sister - much like Pilate and Herod? 

Consider what Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote in his Letters From Prison: “Folly is a more dangerous enemy to the good than evil. One can protest against evil; it can be unmasked and if need be, prevented by force. Evil always carries the seeds of its own destruction, as it makes people at the least, uncomfortable. Against folly we have no defense. Neither protests nor force can touch it; reasoning is of no use; facts that contradict personal prejudices can simply be disbelieved - indeed the fool can counter by criticizing them, and if they are undeniable, they can just be pushed aside as trivial exceptions. So the fool, as distinct from the scoundrel, is completely satisfied; in fact, he can easily become dangerous, as it does not take much to make him aggressive. A fool must therefore be treated more cautiously than a scoundrel, we shall never gain try to convince a fool by reason, for it is both useless and dangerous.” 

Are the siblings fools to treat cautiously or simply ones to feel sorry for because of their lack of sympathy and awareness of their sister’s discomfort because of their own insecurities? What exactly should the sister do? Even Jesus remained mute when the questioners were obviously not interested in the Truth. What are in the cards for this woman? Avoidance, ostracism, or remaining angry and anxious whenever the situation reoccurs? What? 

A father recently shared this story to me. Let me tell you about the son’s situation before resolving what the sister ought not do and what she ought to do. The son was being bullied in school by his peers some years ago. The father’s advice to his son was to ignore the  harassment; but, that obviously wasn’t working very well for anyone. The bullies kept bullying and the son was feeling worse about his own situation every week that went by.  The father turned to a book entitled Engaging the Powers by Walter Wink for good counsel. Wink argues in the third chapter [entitled Jesus’ Third Way] [http://cpt.org/files/BN%20-%20Jesus'%20Third%20Way.pdf] that Jesus showed us a third way to respond to aggression (neither fight or flight). His Way included: He seized the moral initiative;  He stood His ground;  He made the powers to be make decisions for which they were not really prepared for; He obviously recognized his own power and restrained himself while facing the humiliating circumstances without resorting to violence; He was willing to suffer the humiliation for  a greater good; He forced his oppressors to see Him in a new light by the words He used and the postures He took; He asserted his own humanity and dignity as a person within the encounters; He met force with opposing, equal non-force; He exposed the injustice of the situation; and He shamed some of his oppressors into repentance. Wink includes other points in Jesus’ Third way and you can read about them at the previous link. Rather than discussing the effectiveness of each one (that is for future essays), let’s look at the overall effect on His oppressors. It sent most of them into situations and decisions from which they never again had the upper hand. 

After reading Wink’s book, the father realized that he needed to teach his son the Third Way. They approached the parents of the bully; forgave the bully (before being asked) and laid out additional steps toward a peaceful resolution. This effectively changed the tides for both families. The bully never did become good friends with the son but at least he stopped bullying him.

Perhaps this is the solution for the Catholic woman as well. Perhaps she should call up each sibling individually, ask to meet with them, forgive them for their mistreatment of her (before they ask) and set the record straight about how she feels about their bullying, her faith and her beliefs. Then she could ask if they have questions about her beliefs and ask for time to discuss it with the individual sibling - then and there. While forging a mutual agreement on all matters of faith and morals is unlikely, it may at least give them the chance to see her in a completely new light. It should prove to them she is willing to stand her ground going forward. It may force a few of them to make different choices when getting together at family functions. They will likely not be prepared for this new found courage from their sister. It will prove to them that she has taken control of the former power dynamic and turned it upside down. It could also end up with various offers of repentance. At a minimum, it will probably take some of the wind out of the coalition of bullying.

Perhaps I ought to take my own advice. It is way too easy for me to act completely the opposite of the docile sister. Perhaps, I have offended others in my own defense of faith and morals. It is easier to see the log in my brothers eyes than in my own that is for sure.  May the Lord have mercy on all of us blockheads.

Because we can… 

Recent comments by Pope Francis elicited pushback from several key public figures - Catholic and non Catholic. Their responses ranged from “the Pope is out of line” to “he’s a bit too liberal for me”.  It seems to me that the only thing the Pope is guilty of is trying to imitate Christ - which is the very thing we should all be praying for and expecting from him. But all too often, many of us tend to expect him to think and act all too humanly. Recall the scene in John 18:10 whereby Peter cuts off the ear of Malchus (“Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it, struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave’s name was Malchus.^*Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its scabbard. Shall I not drink the cup^*that the Father gave me?”

Similarly, are we not all to drink of the cup that the Father gives to us? My personal cross frequently requires that I stop doing the things I can and instead chose to do things that I should - not for my sake but for the sake of someone else. Pope Francis reminds us that just because a person is free to do or say something, maybe he/she should not do or say that. And refraining from doing or saying something for a greater good does not indicate the loss of  personal freedom but its gain.  

While the cartoonists have every right to depict political/religious tensions anyway they want to - just because they can - choosing to defuse tension by avoiding the publication of certain depictions in no way infers that they have allowed themselves to be hand-tied or subjugated to someone else’s beliefs. Although that is what is being suggested. 

Finally, it is argued that the Pope gave excuse to Islamic extremists to continue their murderous rages beginning with non-believers who profane or insult the prophet Mohammed and including the cartoonists working for Charlie Abdo. I believe that what we do and say can provoke someone to anger which in turn leads to irrational actions. But don’t take my word for it; check out Ephesians 6:4b. In this passage even parents are exhorted to “avoid provoking their children to anger and instead raise them in the discipline and instruction of the Lord”.  This biblical reference argues that provocation can bring out the worst behavior and therefore we are instead to raise them with the discipline and instruction of the Lord. 

Let me use this example to further explain my point. When I was just  8 or 9 years old, my parents took us on a trip to visit our cousins living more than 100 miles away. I remember being very excited for the visit as were my other six siblings. The other cousins were obviously happy and excited to see us too! But rather than behaving as we should have, we showed off while trying to impress the others. At one point, for example, all of us (children) started jumping on one of the cousin’s beds as if it were a trampoline. Needless to say, the frame broke! And the antics didn’t stop there! Next, we proceeded to laugh at and taunt their daughter Linda. Linda and I shared the same name and age and cousin status but the similarities stopped there. Linda was significantly mentally disabled having been deprived of oxygen at birth. At the time of our visit, Linda was still wearing diapers and was non-verbal; although she could walk and sign a few words. After awhile, Linda suddenly approached me from behind and started yelling at me while violently pulling away at my hair. She would not let go and I felt helpless and started to cry. Perhaps I was an easy target or perhaps I was the most offensive; either case, both sets of parents had to come to the rescue. The hard lesson learned was to never again laugh at Linda and for a number of reasons. Unfortunately, I also chose not to play with her ever again or be in close proximity to her. 

Who was at fault? It seems that all of us shared a degree of culpability - even the parents for not monitoring our behavior and explaining ahead of time how to act around Linda. This story explains at least in my mind why the Pope said what he did - just because we can do and say something does not mean that we should . And yes, sometimes what we say and do does provoke someone to commit violent acts. No, their own sins are not our fault; but our lack of sensibilities, mis-understandings and lack of compassion for their own lack of virtue, their state of life, their beliefs, their lack of mental capacity, their familiar ways of life; their defense of others, etc. are our own choices.  And yes, the person committing the acts of violence will be held accountable for their actions because they freely chose to do and / or say something. And it doesn’t mean they should have. And neither should have we. 

And with regard to that point, it seems odd that anyone feels the need to defend the reputation of a prophet - from 1500 years ago! Obviously, he was held in such high esteem then and even now that his reputation lingers. Few of us will be remembered even just several generations after we die. Therefore, from a westernized perspective, Mohammed’s shoulders seem big enough to take the personal verbal attacks and criticisms coming his way. In fact by westernized standards, having to defend Mohammed’s reputation seems to diminish the legitimacy of his claim to be a true prophet of God. In fact, the extreme defense gives the impression that the extremists don’t believe him to be a prophet either. At a minimum, it reduces the legitimacy of Islam putting them at even greater risk for ridicule and questioning. Perhaps, the extremists need to take into account how their over-zealous defensive posture seems to sissify Mohammed. Yet, from the Islamic viewpoint, perhaps they are used to protecting their own and don’t have the stigma attached when defending someone being bullied. But the real question remains: aren’t true prophets well aware of the human penalty when choosing to follow God rather than their fellow men? We are reminded about their crosses that they bear willingly in Matthew 23:37:”Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.” And so real prophets do willingly accept the ridicule that naturally comes their way - no matter the era or the culture.

This lesson from Pope Francis is more than about speech. It actually applies to other areas of modern living. Just because we can - doesn’t mean we should. This aptly applies to adultery - heterosexual or homosexual; contraception, assisted suicide; assisted reproduction; abortion; pedophilia; rape; murder; and on and on and on. 

And what is the antidote to doing what we should rather than what we can? Virtues. We have to believe that the virtuous live is worth living before we learn how to live it. We have to recognize that the virtuous living is the antidote to a life lacking in purpose or meaning but full of material pleasures. All of the human and spiritual virtues fully support authentic human freedom and personal happiness. On the contrary, vice opposes human freedoms and true happiness. Virtues perfect us; therefore they help to stamp out tendencies to lust with the mind or body. Virtues allow us to live excellently; they help us accord dignity to other human beings with whom we interact - no matter the culture or belief system. The virtues help us to come alive spiritually; without them we are not receptive to having / acquiring an active faith and love of God. Virtues allow us to mirror God to others. Virtues help us link good actions with good intentions.

How do we get virtue? First, we have to learn the purposes and actions of the different virtues and then we have to want to acquire them.  Thirdly, we have to put them into practice time and time again - consistently and earnestly. This practice convicts us of the ideal notion that yes, we can do anything we want but we will chose to do otherwise for the sake of others. We acquire virtue when we resist our own weakness, sinful inclinations and temptations. We acquire virtue when we serve others. We acquire virtue when we pray for it.

Fifty Shades of Gray - Not the Movie

by Linda Kracht 

“There are all different shades of gray. On some people, it’s quite nice looking and other people it’s really really harsh if its sort of that black-ish, gray, bluish gray color.” Yes, this essay will address the real effects of sporting fifty shades of gray among men and women in America. No, we are not talking about the movie or the book although they are somewhat related as you shall soon read. 

It is ironic how both the anti-aging industries and Fifty Shades of Gray blur what’s right and wrong with America. Some suggest that Fifty Shades of Gray, the movie/book, simply allows women to have harmless flings with sexual imaginations — nothing more and nothing less. Others suggest that the movie/book has everything to do with minimizing sexual abuse of women disguised as entertainment. While the author cannot critique the book or the movie because she has not read/watched either, critical reviewers inform me that boycotting both is a well-enough informed and good personal choice for all of us. None of us need to experience imaginary or real dehumanizing sexual activities. In order to prefer real, honest and intimate relationships grounded in mutual respect we cannot allow ourselves to get distracted or confused by make-believe that touts abusive or dehumanizing activities as worthwhile. I recall the pain in my brother’s voice as he described a make-believe activity his new wife tried to stage on their honeymoon. He had been forewarned not to jump into that relationship but as they say — love is blind — and he was. It seems likely that his ex-wife is still really into the same activities depicted by the movie — maybe she learned about them from the book. 

But enough with the movie and the book although the popularity is related to the detesting of the actual fifty shades of gray among women in particular in America.  Let me explain. 

Women are their own worst critics! Have you ever wondered why that is the case? In general, its fair to state that women detest their own appearance especially due to aging! The first signs are hair-line wrinkles, softening or sagging skin, graying and/or thinning hair, weight gain, hot flashes, the need for cheaters [glasses], menopausal symptoms, and on and on. Men age as well but their reactions seem far less dramatic or expensive compared to women. Why the difference? Very real cultural experiences help to explain the different reactions of the two genders. Let’s investigate a few of them but first let’s debunk what is not true about the tell-tale signs of aging. 

First, none of ought to fear wrinkles or gray hair because there is no proven correlation between one’s imminent mortality and the extent or age of onset of graying hair or baldness or facial wrinkles in either of the sexes [irrespective of age] according to the Copenhagen City Hear Study (Schnohr, Nyboe, Lange & Jensen, 1998). Neither does stress cause gray hair even though legend has it that Marie Antoinette hair turned white the night before she was to be guillotined.   Most women begin to show gray strands by age 35; and the majority of men begin to show gray strands by age 30! A small percentage of both genders begin graying (or balding) in high school or as late as the age of 50! Scientists seem to know what causes hair color to begin changing [it’s the gradual depletion of melanocyte stem cells that leads to loss of pigment] but they don’t know the why! Genetics, lifestyle, stress hormones, and environmental influences seem to work for or against premature graying. For example, people with the darkest hair (African or Asian ancestry) retain their dark hair color longer. Blonds gray at the same pace as other Caucasians - its just harder to notice as the white hair is easily camouflaged by the normally light-colored hair. So, there is no evidence that graying hair ought to scare us into this revulsion against it. What is at issue?

Our cultural experiences help to form positive or negative self concepts and images. What is it about culture that makes men’s experiences different from women’s? First of all, we should all be able to recognize that our culture completely hyper-sexualizes the female body! And studies show that this alone impacts females. In fact, it has a very negative, pervasive impact on females of all ages. In fact, this over-sexualization allows for mindless movies, books, ads, and treatments including Fifty Shades of Gray, Botox, cosmetic surgery, breast enhancement surgeries, hair dyes, etc. Rather than actually helping women to form positive self images, they detract from that process.

We know that negative self concepts emerge even among very young females because it has been well observed and documented within mixed-gender classrooms that female students routinely under-achieve compared to their male counterparts. We also know from other research that women are significantly more dissatisfied with their bodies compared to their male counterparts. Yet we are told in Genesis that God liked what He saw after creating Adam and Eve! So, we should also like what we see! While researching information for my Daughters Forever, Sons Forever series I ran across several very interesting studies which concluded that college women do not like their body shape, size or weight. The study found that a vast majority of women with normal BMI’s (body mass index) still admitted to having dieted during the past 6-12 months. Another study found that the majority of their college age female subjects admitted that they felt like they needed to lose at least 5 pounds despite the fact that they also had normal BMI’s. Ok, readers admit it. How often have you said that you need to lose 5 pounds before a wedding, a family reunion, a Christmas party, etc? The study found that the women enrollees had significantly more body dissatisfaction issues than the enrolled males. A third study [Henry 2007] found that 80% of a group of 10 year old girls had already been on at least one diet! So what are signs of body dissatisfaction? Increased incidence of headache and stomachache compared to their male counterparts; eating disorders, low self esteem, depression, etc. The studies support the theory that ongoing negative cultural experiences disaffect positive self image. Over-sexualization is one of those negative cultural experiences that women face on a day-to-day basis.

If asked to describe a beautiful woman, most of us would come up with the same description because we see her all over TV, ads, magazines, runways, etc. First of all she is young! Secondly, she is extremely slender but very buxom. In addition she probably has a well-shaped (rounded) buttocks which was surgically enhanced and modified as were her breasts. She is blonde. She has Botox-lifted lips, cheeks and eyes. Everything about her screams sexy — from the clothes she wears to the walk she walks. The trouble is, most females simply can never measure up to this ideal, yet they keep trying. And this helps to explain why females feel generally dis-satisfied with their weight, shape and size compared to males who do not experience the same over-sexualization or scrutiny or self-comparisons. [Bearman, Martinez, Stice, & Presenell, 2006.] 

And so it should not surprise anyone that women are developing compulsive disorders related to eating and sexuality not previously observed. And all because they harbor feelings of inadequacy, guilt, shame, emptiness and disillusionment about not being able to measure up to the standards set forth by males, other women, the media, TV, entertainment industry, etc.

In general its fair to see that women largely accept this false definition of beauty. They then cave into the standards for dress, activities, and appearance of the airbrushed, over-sexualized models hired to sell everything and anything including the definition of what women ought to look like. The average woman is made to feel guilty for letting herself go — regardless of age! But what does the term letting oneself go imply? It implies and assigns personal fault or blame for avoiding the newest fashions, the use of hair dye, cosmetic surgery, weight loss, Botox treatments, or wrinkle treatments. I recall the line of a Mary Kay representative used while trying to sell a face moisturizer to me years ago. She said lightheartedly , “Go ahead and wrinkle if you want…” The blame was directly assigned to me if I did not buy the beauty product. But the same blame games are played by those within and outside of our inner circles aren’t they? Sometimes it seems to be said in jest, other times it is said in earnest. 

Now let’s add aging to a woman’s laundry list of things to avoid. What are women told about aging? They are told that they are only as old as they look and so women try and stay young looking. Other times women are told that they can control how /if we age. We have also been told that beauty is only skin deep. However, many of us have come to believe that outer beauty is most important [than our inner beauty] in the long run. Finally, we are conditioned to never reveal our age — lest others learn how old we really are! Women know they really aren’t fooling anyone — especially themselves — but they keep trying. And that is why women have such low self-esteems. They just don’t like what they look like compared to other women! And they don’t like the hamster wheel they spin on but they also refuse to jump off. Ridiculous or ridiculous? 

Think about this — we expect other women to not put up with abusive, bad marriages; terrible jobs; workplace discrimination or sexual harassment.  And yet, women in general, fail to question the discriminatory practices of sexual exploitation and ageism so common in our society directed in particular at women! We instead join in the criticism of those who let themselves go — as previously defined. We have to admit these women are not afforded the same social value as is a highly sexualized female! If you don’t believe this statement, I challenge you to name three women who sport the plain look, have sagging jowls, baggy eyes, and gray hair and have been elected to congress, serve as a major network TV news anchor, has active lead roles in grade A movies, serves as a governor or first lady of a state or nation, or teaches in your children’s school? 

And so, “Aging poses a huge hit to women’s sense of identity,  perceived femininity and sexual desirability because age is an enemy of beauty,” but it need not be if we discipline ourselves! We can preserve the source of our beauty a youthful body.” Holstein (2006) contends that ‘ironically, after years of struggle, as women have achieved a stronger status as agents than every before, we face an escalating set of expectations about our bodies… and the development of more and more beauty products and services as well as the relentless mining of the female body for potential flaws in need of beauty interventions. Societal obsession with youth and appearance, ageist media messages depict later life and signs of aging as the products of objectionable or at the very least to indolent choices that individuals make when they fail to embrace consumerism and the anti aging movement. Moreover, assumptions about the importance of anti-aging technologies and practices have become unquestionably entrenched such that there is relatively little critical examination of aging bodies, ageism, and older adults experiences of oppression within an anti-aging culture.”  

And so women resort to more hair dyes, more plastic surgery, more Botox treatments, more hormone therapies, more weight loss programs, and other interventions just to try and become what they once tried to be — but even then fell short. And if they don’t … their social status is jeopardized and they are criticized for letting go… They hear friends and family and co-workers alike suggest the following.“You should dye your hair so you would look younger. Don’t you want your husband to be proud (really the question is one of sexual attraction not pride but few will come out and say that) of you? You should do this and that in order to fit in… I love your hair; you are so brave. I could never get by without dying my hair. I hate gray hair. You are so lucky to have the hair color you have. My hair color would never look good half gray! Yes, these are comments I have received from well-intentioned friends and strangers alike. And with them saying these things, I wonder what my non-friends say behind my back? But maybe I am making a quiet statement without really trying. 

And these are a few of the reasons why the movie Fifty Shades of Gray is related to the anti-aging, anti-graying of America. Both try and refigure the person[s] they supposedly love. In the movie, the man wants the girlfriend to go along with his selfish interests while pretending that its best for her sake. Ageists arguments try to remake the person[s] comfortable with their own aging process into a newer, younger version. Neither the girlfriend or the gray haired friend is good enough! And if the person refuses to go along with the others’ plans just to get along, there is a good chance the person will be left out of the social relationship or other opportunities. After all, the argument is that it is really our own fault for not going along…

Every person — no matter the age have seven desires according to Mark and Debra Laser. They include: the desire to be heard and understood; to be affirmed; to be blessed; to feel safe and secure; to be chosen; to be included; and to be touched. This might explain why women cave in to impossible and ridiculous ageist comments and philosophies. They are just trying to be loved, accepted, affirmed, blessed, etc. Yet, in the process of caving in, they surrender their sense of  self confidence and satisfaction with self to others. In turn, they lose the sense that God is Creator and His natural law [of aging] serves a very real, worthwhile purpose. 

It helps to be surrounded by males (my sons and husband) and females (daughters) who constantly remind me that they love me just the way I am. It also helps to hear that they love my gray hair and sagging cheeks. It helps to know they do not demand that I look younger. And that is why sporting 50 shades of gray among 50 different women helps to keep life real while anything that adds to the over-sexualization of women does not!

To My Blog Followers

Dear Blog followers,

No I have not stopped writing even though I haven't posted a blog here for the past year. We have been busy developing Fortifying Families of Faith even further. I have also submitted columns  to Catholic365.com and CatholicMom.com and of course my Facebook pages:  Linda Faye Kracht and Fortifying Families of Faith. These efforts have been well worthwhile.

 But, for my followers, if any of you remain, yes, I am still actively writing. Please feel free to follow me on any of the above mentioned pages; Catholic Mom is a brand new experience for me and I have just sent them my first three columns... They will let me know if the articles meet their expectations. Also, I have submitted and had published at least seven columns with Catholic 365; the audience reached has exceeded 700 readers in one select article and over 300 for several others. They range in topic as do my blogs. Check them out. If you want to follow me on any of these pages, please do.

We have also been re-doing our home in hopes of selling it this coming February. Anyone interested in a large home in the St. Paul area? Watch for details.

So, it has been a very busy year.

Linda Kracht


p.s.  Happy Halloween, 2015.

Why I say What I say...

Why I Say What I Say?

As an author of books, workbooks and handbooks for parents, I have been criticized for being too Catholic and conservative. Oddly, we live at a time when both - Being Catholic and Conservative -  are the most contemptible for the public at large. But being odd man out can’t be the reason to change beliefs.  And then along came School Criticized over Sexual Abstinence Talk: but presenter says it wasn’t religious by Jess Baenen reinforcing my worldview.  

Reading the article confirmed two things: I have to stay true to the mission and vision of Fortifying Families of Faith as laid out just 5 + years ago. And it really does not pay to try and preach chastity from a utilitarian vantage point such as avoiding pregnancy and avoiding sexually transmitted diseases. Sex is way more than jus one more merely human thing we do... 

Baenen's article pointed out the humanist attack against the presentation of Jason Evert, Chastity Project -  a very good and successful chastity speaker by the way. The opposing parent(s) had several objections. They opposed subjecting their adolescents to “abstinence talks that have religious aspects” - even though there weren't any such aspects according to many more objective attendees. They also objected to not being informed ahead of time about the talk and its contents even though their students' science, health and biology classes are probably well laced with varying degrees of sex ed without the parents knowing about it. And then there's the discussions in the school hall ways - bet parents don't know what goes on there either! (Principal Gilbertson hinted at this when stating ‘we teach all types of health issues to our kids”.) The opposing parents want assurances that the school won’t endorse similar programs in the future. They want assurances that the public school will avoid presenting religiously biased materials because it is un-constitutional to not separate church and state. Not sure how or where one talk violates that but angry people say things for added measure; and proof of that is their next statement:  "the talk does a disservice to young people." Yet, the paper printed this objection without probing fro the specific types of disservice such a talk does for the adolescents. The statement was declared without minimal back up by facts, data,  points or even additional clarification or opinions. The ambiguity was printed as if his statement was sensible and therefore mattered. Another parent dismissed the principal’s assertion that Evert’s talk was non - religious saying that “they scrub this. It’s very deliberate. Its kind of disguising.” If the talk is scrubbed of all things religious, what is the problem exactly? 

But that brings me back to my original point. I will continue to avoid scrubbing for the sake of making things more palatable. I also refuse to disguise or obfuscate the truth in order to secure a new speaking engagement or point of sale. But then of course, I have the luxury of being married to a man wherein our combined incomes offer us a very nice lifestyle- so that is easy for me to say. I have always believed that it is the parents’ duty to teach their children about sexuality and morality and if not them, then it’s nobody else’s duty or responsibility. 

I can see why the school gets frustrated with parents doing nothing when it comes to morality - they are the ones seeing the everyday bullying, sexual misconduct, sexting, immodest speech and behavior, etc. Yet, despite billions of dollars being poured into sex education over the last 3 decades, the various social problems it was thought to correct have not been eradicated. In fact, many of them have gotten worse. While teen pregnancy rates are down (not because of virtuous choices) the transmission rates of STI’s have increased dramatically along with single motherhood. So have incidence of mental/emotional issues. And the more the schools do for our children in these personal areas, the less the parents do. How/ When did parents go from feeling it incumbent on them to feed their school children breakfast before sending them off to school to sending them off to school hungry and feeling it is incumbent on the school to provide breakfast. The same goes for sex education and moral development. This also explains why 93% of parents believe that sex education belongs in the school! 

While feeling bad for Jason Evert and the Chastity Project and the Principal who has better things to fight, I have a different take on what needs to be done about adolescent sexual morality. I believe the best path forward is to fortify families by evangelizing/teaching/supporting parents who in turn get  better equipped to do what they ordinarily do best: provide good example, teach, and love their children. While going directly to the children to try to make a difference is tempting, it doesn't work and for a variety of reasons.  First, it undercuts parents who want to take on their rightful role. Second, how and what can the school present that will satisfy everyone? Whose moral values will be inserted into the sex ed? That impossible task alone should alert educators that this is not their fight.  How can one really talk about sex without talking about the explicit and implicit understandings about sexuality?  How can you talk about sex from a purely utilitarian approach when you believe that fundamental to sex is an understanding about authentic love? And Authentic Love was shown by Jesus himself - it is unconditional, free, full, faithful, fruitful and forever. And then talking about these things,  makes the humanists react like they did with  Jason Evert's talk. And thirdly, what difference can an outsider have on children when it is true that:  "setting an example is not the main means of influencing others - it is the only MEANS." (Albert Einstein)  In other words, the home life is what really matters when it comes to life and love.