Interestingly, the French bishop in charge of interreligious dialogue has condemned a proposed ban on the burqa, noting that “If we want Christian minorities in Muslim majority countries to enjoy all their rights, we should in our country respect the rights of all believers to practice their faith… A dialogue in truth among believers will help us go beyond mutual mistrust.”

His primary appeal to reciprocity is very important, since there are onerous burdens placed on Christians in predominantly Muslim countries. And yet, his secondary appeal—the “dialogue in truth” that makes his statement upsetting, and may compromise the first, because the truth about human dignity has been swallowed in confused notions of both diversity and modesty.

The Enlightenment values that currently prevail in Europe make no distinction among religious professions. Thus Mohammed and Jesus, the Buddha and Lord Shiva must all break bread with Voltaire and Rousseau, and if moral confusion ensues, it is the price of accommodating every worldview as an equal and no confession as true.

Islam, the fastest growing faith in Europe, teaches firmly that men are superior to women, that women are property of the men in their lives (fathers, brothers, husbands and sons) and that women should not mix freely with men who are not related to them. Girding this worldview is the notion that women are temptresses and men are incapable of resisting their crafty wiles.

To Christians, who understand men and women to be fundamentally equal and called to a fruitful complementarity, this view is insulting. The virtues of modesty and chastity are grounded in the call to prudence and self-control, and freedom includes the ability to act in accord with God’s will despite our disordered passions and compromised will. Blaming women for leading men astray and punishing them by banishing them from visible society leads many to say that Islam must not be taken as an equal partner by those who value the gifts of women.

Just as civilization has rightly marginalized racists and anti-Semites, the bigotry inherent in Islam has to be considered from a human rights angle. To consider diversity as a strict benchmark ignores the hard fact that some of the celebrated cultures brought into the pantheon of respect degrade certain persons and deny them authentic freedom.

Thus, while I respect this bishop’ grave concern for the well-being of Christians in Islamic nations, I would warn that if a singular drive to co-exist is the fuel to his response, then authentic freedom is in jeopardy everywhere. Doesn’t the acceptance of fully veiling women indicate that permitting some to exist as non-persons in Europe is an acceptable price to pay for negotiating abroad? What of the countless women who look to the West to honor their dignity and reject those who brand them as chattel?

To insist on decency, integrity and respect for women—Christian, Muslim and other—requires that all forms of oppression be banned, and to this end, a soul-searching inventory of all that contributes to utilitarianism and objectification would benefit all persons who are called to a deeper communion and a higher standard.



Copyright 2010 Genevieve S. Kineke

One important researcher has made an effort to reverse herself, although her words seem to have been spoken in a vacuum. Dr. Louise Brinton, who was the chief organizer of the 2003 National Cancer Institute workshop, assured women at the time that “abortion is not associated with increased breast cancer risk.” That was then; this is now.

In a significant reversal, Dr. Brinton has just admitted that both abortion and oral contraceptives have an enormous impact on breast cancer rates, including the deadly form called “triple-negative” breast cancer (TNBC). In fact, she has acknowledged the credibility of an April 2009 study, which reveals that abortion can raise the risk by 40% while oral contraceptives can increase the odds by between 270-320% depending on the woman’s age. Where is the outcry?

The newest study out of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center is only the most recent of many which were similarly ignored. Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, noted that “the NCI, the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and other cancer fundraising businesses have made no efforts to reduce breast cancer rates by issuing nationwide warnings to women.”

What could be the reason behind the negligence to report such critical information, and what could be the reason that women aren’t angry about it? Is it possible that everyone affected accepts the premise that oral contraceptives and abortion are non-negotiable elements of “reproductive” life? Is it possible that our culture has agreed to stage a collective end-run around the data for the sake of absolute sexual license?

One sees a similar sleight of hand with the “safe sex” campaign that stops short of suggesting that the only guaranteed way of avoiding sexually transmitted diseases is total sexual abstinence. Despite the fact that the human papilloma virus (HPV) is directly linked to cervical cancer and that HIV/Aids is gravely debilitating, information handed to adolescents leads them to experiment with potential lethal activities.

There is a wealth of talk about women’s rights and the overwhelming desire that our children succeed in life. And yet, concerning each, our actions belie our words. American tax dollars fund programs that mislead children about the dangers of sexual activities and mislead women in particular about the consequences of promiscuity. Furthermore, those who insist on focusing on the contra-indications attached to sexual experimentation and homosexual activity are labeled judgmental bigots.

Name-calling may marginalize the voices that highlight the actual data, but it won’t change the death toll—other than to raise it. Will 2010 be the year when those who are tired of being haunted by chronic illness and death say, “Enough!” Women and children cannot thrive when they are utilitarian pawns in a deadly game of “Everybody’s Doing It.”

Presently, there is more than enough proof that sexual promiscuity is grievously unhealthy. The medical community may be playing loose with the statistics, but the general public hasn’t held them accountable. Women in particular continue to pay the price in several ways—there are the cancers, there is the cycle of abandonment that intimacy without commitment brings with it, and there is the heartache of lost and confused children.

If you’re still looking for a New Year’s Resolution, perhaps spreading the word about this would be a good place to begin.

Copyright 2010 Genevieve S. Kineke
Mrs. Kineke is the author of The Authentic Catholic Woman (Servant Books). She can be found online at www.feminine-genius.com.

If the animal trials continue successfully, scientists believe the first children could be genetically engineered in a few years. It has, in fact, already been tried in England, where ten human embryos were created and destroyed at Newcastle University (since the law there will not allow such babies to progress beyond 14 days).

Its supporters see in the process an opportunity to eradicate potentially fatal forms of inherited epilepsy, heart disease and blindness – but seem oblivious to the countless lives sacrificed in the process (those ten mentioned above are the tiniest tip of an enormous iceberg). Calling the children “hybrids,” ethicists have attacked the procedure, which will further erode the sanctity of life and cannot be justified by any purported benefits.

Beyond the issues of life and death – which must take precedence, there is the serious shift in thinking about what constitutes a family. Increasing numbers of people are stepping away from the fundamental premise that children are a gift entrusted to a committed couple who have given themselves totally to one another. Instead, babies are simply one more consumer item – acquired at the convenience of the caregiver. Thus the home becomes merely a form of self-expression rather than a place of communion in which persons may thrive.

Some might protest that guaranteeing a healthy child is in the child’s best interest but the argument is fatuous at best. How can one insist that health is paramount when the death of so many are guaranteed in the process? How can one avoid the obvious conclusion that invisible suffering (in the lab) is preferred to the more tangible suffering that parents themselves might endure with a sick child? And who has taken time to weigh the existential suffering of a child created through such a process? Is it not the parent who is ultimately relieved by sorting through DNA to find the perfect baby cocktail?

The integral needs of the human person should never be reduced to the flat analysis of mundane considerations. In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II decried the reduction of human life to “biological material” through just such heavy-handed scientific experimentation. That document also pointed out that “[t]he eclipse of the sense of God and of man inevitably leads to a practical materialism, which breeds individualism, utilitarianism and hedonism … The so-called ‘quality of life’ is interpreted primarily or exclusively as economic efficiency, inordinate consumerism, physical beauty and pleasure, to the neglect of the more profound dimensions – interpersonal, spiritual and religious – of existence” (EV, 23).

And yet this jarring new twist on the horizon goes hand-in-hand with the push for same-sex couples, parents who are single by choice, serial monogamy and other creative jabs at the traditional family. Those promoting “reproductive rights” have worked relentlessly to recast motherhood, fatherhood and marriage into archaic phantoms. Those vocations are being eclipsed by choices so far removed from the authentic needs of persons that to insist that “healthy children” are the goal is ludicrous on every level. Ultimately, we must accept life on God’s terms – complete with the suffering he humbled himself to endure. In that way, we choose authentic love which alone bears all things.

Copyright 2009 Genevieve S. Kineke

In recent remarks concerning those events, she explained her actions by noting that “choices last.” How very true. Furthermore, she impressed upon her audience that every individual decision we make concerning moral concerns carries great weight, collectively shaping society. “Either we are advancing the cause of life or we are cooperating with the culture of death.” Without such vigilance, “how easily today’s atrocity can become tomorrow’s routine.”

A few recent stories in the news underscore these points, as Montana became the most recent state to sow confusion about the nature of parents and the legitimate needs of children. Two women engaged in a lesbian relationship expanded their “family circle” to include two children and collaborated in raising them for ten years. The relationship subsequently ended and the woman who had legally adopted the children entered into a marriage with a man who offered to stand in as their father.

The shunned lover sued for her parental rights and now the children will have three adults to contend with for the remainder of their minority – for although Montana hasn’t recognized same-sex unions as commensurate with traditional marriage, this case offered the requisite landscape in which motherhood and fatherhood as staples of healthy child development could be picked off like so many squirrels on a fence.

Another newsworthy scenario was found in the lives of twins – the product of an anonymous sperm donation purchased by a woman who felt an overwhelming need to give flesh to her motherly proclivities. The children have exhibited some grave symptoms of a congenital nature, and now she needs the man’s medical records and would like her girls to know their father.

To her great distress, owing somewhat to her confused understanding that the donor would be accessible to his offspring, she discovered that she has no such rights to either demand. Realizing now that purchasing babies as a commodity places them in a horrific no-man’s land of tenuous ties and indifferent legal structures, she is suing to prove that hers and all such babies  “have the same fundamental needs as any other children, and that their interests should be regarded as just as important.”

The Church would agree whole-heartedly with the mothers in both of these cases. Despite the lamentable choices leading to their current circumstances, each woman came to see the overwhelming good in their children knowing a father. The first woman married a man for that purpose and the second has brought her children’s plight to the media in the hopes that their father would volunteer himself despite the shadow provided by a combination of lab and legislature.

And women looking on as these and similar events unfold are reminded by their stalwart sister in faith that “choices last.” Indeed. And the tragedy of fatherlessness has become a mundane issue in a bureaucracy that simply numbers their cases and sends them across the desks of indifferent judges. Routine in all but the mind of God.

Mrs. Kineke is the author of The Authentic Catholic Woman
(Servant Books). She can be found online at www.feminine-genius.com.

The most telling comment from the priest presiding was his reference to the deceased as “patriarch” of his clan – reminding us yet again that motherly love and fatherly love are expressed in more ways than simply through marriage. Like the foster-father of Jesus for whom he was named, this Joseph expressed his paternal affections for those entrusted to him – in the former case first his family and then the universal Church, in the latter case his family, his comrades from World War II, his fellow parishioners, women Religious he had known since his youth, and his parish and its members. For all of these he sacrificed – despite his growing infirmities, his limited means and his growing isolation as they died one by one.

His love was expressed quietly – in sincere smiles, in affectionate words, and most importantly in constant concrete acts of service and oblation. Having survived the war in which many friends were lost, he faithfully had Masses said for their souls in remembrance of particular events endured far from home. Having benefited from a Catholic education and the generosity of the Sisters who made it possible, he always remembered their birthdays and took them out to lunch – which was no easy feat given their ages and the hazards of northern winters. He rejoiced in every birth and took to heart every death – all the while sustained by the faith of his fathers and in imitation of the Father of all.

There were subtle martial elements imbedded in the sober farewell – hinting that there are things worth fighting for – but Joseph knew that the ultimate battle is over the self. Courage may indeed be proven in war, but is more often called for in ordinary life, and he succeeded on both fronts.

Finally, the three faithful priests who carried us through the solid, ancient rites offered their personal expressions of fatherly love. Like the deceased, they have forsworn children of the flesh so that they can be entirely devoted to the spiritual flock under their care – guiding them likewise along the paths of revelation and personal gifts, trusting in the bedrock of love that cannot give way or mislead.

I had the sense that everyone was edified – for his was a life well-lived and of full measure. In a culture hungering for truth, this man embodied it – both the fidelity of God and the incarnational invitation to give flesh to his love.  The family will enjoy a vast storehouse of riches – in stories, anecdotes and memories, and his fellow parishioners could pay respects in a setting that was itself adorned with substantial gifts heretofore anonymous. In all we were reminded of the gentle ways of our Creator, for both Joseph’s chaste love and that of the priests bore witness to the expansive nature of generous service.

Ultimately, women must recognize the need for men to give of themselves in such unique ways. The wider world needs such icons of fatherhood in all its manifestations. This man gave without fear, and there should be no surprise: the response to his gift of self was more love. Humbly, quietly, he gave flesh to spiritual fatherhood – and what could be more valuable to the spiritual orphans of our day.

Copyright 2009 Genevieve S. Kineke

This keen ability to weigh legitimate authority is rightfully carried into adulthood, where the fundamental respect initially given to parents and teachers is extended to the various legal entities. Then there is a looser form of authority given to those with degrees or specific life experience. From medical experts to child rearing gurus, many seek advice that they are free to take or leave. Wisdom must parse the ways of thinking that come into vogue (with the mass media fueling the trends), and those who later wax nostalgic often smile at their gullibility. “Remember when we all thought …?”

Money and power have always confused the issue. While financial remuneration compels people to act – whether for a paycheck or more dubious motives, the wealthy often have remarkable influence flowing from a perverse respect for the material world. As to the other, sheer strength brings compliance virtually everywhere – from playground bullies to drug cartels to international relations – but immoral gain, violence and injustice should never be confused with authority.

Sadly, the modern world has lost sight of the basic moral authority that rests in an office, and what is most perplexing is the lack of respect that Catholics have for the Magisterium, or teaching authority of their own Church. Despite the authority vested in its pastors and the solemn guarantee that Jesus himself would remain with the Church, the majority of Catholics weigh her ageless teachings like passing fashions: “Peasant blouses again? Great – I’ve always liked those! Virginity before marriage? Not so much.”

The Catechism puts it like this: “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome” (CCC, 85).

Thus, as we continue to observe this year dedicated to the priesthood, we should take the time to consider the status of authority and influence in our lives, and where our fealty rests. In particular, it would be beneficial to assess our relationship to the Church and how much respect we give to her Magisterium.

Those who are completely honest in this assessment will find that there is comfort in the part of the Church that caresses and confirms us – from the beauty and culture that affirms our sense of dignity to the embrace that is couched in divine love. And yet we balk when that same love reminds us of obligations, sacrifices and our ultimate dependence on grace.

From our own great desire to have good returned for good, we should recognize the authentic goodness of the priesthood – lives poured as gifts, responding to the overflowing generosity of our Creator. The authority of a priest rests in the same chain of being that children intuit. He speaks from a heart of love, ordained by his bishop, sent forth by the Church, who herself is wedded to the primordial mission of God. Ultimately, God is “the boss of us,” and thereby, we must trust and honor that clergy commissioned to reveal his will.

Copyright 2009 Genevieve S. Kineke

The mass media’s noisy approval of pre-marital sex, contraception, in vitro fertilization, and alternative lifestyles each, in their own way, confuse the young – first about the meaning of sexual intimacy, and secondly about the meaning of fatherhood. When the tragic element of domestic violence is added to the mix, masculinity is seen as toxic and dangerous – something to be avoided, since it’s no longer understood to be beneficial to the family unit.

If the broader culture creates a filter showing masculinity as unstable, irresponsible, and often overbearing, then what relationship is possible for men to establish with women and children. The sexual embrace is often deliberately sterile, we shop for children outside of conjugal intimacy, and we are in the process of redefining the family in language and law, effectively pulling the rug out from beneath the very terms “motherhood” and “fatherhood.”

This culture is hardly conducive to raising healthy children, and yet the women involved choose to allow the men to behave badly – resulting in pain for all involved. Manhood implies fatherhood, either physical or spiritual, which requires the collaboration with women who understand the needs of the human person. In neglecting her vocation as gatekeeper of love and guardian of hearts, a woman thereby allows men to be irresponsible, herself to be used, and her children to be abandoned.

Just as femininity isn’t a list of accomplishments or stereotypical attributes, but a mode of being, the same is true for masculinity. A woman loves in a motherly manner, and the man’s mode of loving is called fatherhood. He may do it well or badly, but to reject him out of hand for being himself is unworthy of us. In considering the essence of fatherhood, a woman’s perception of the masculine vocation will ultimately color her view of the priesthood, which embodies a spiritual fatherhood of enormous proportions.

Thus, we must take stock of the way we value a man’s love – which is all the more important when considering how we receive those men called to be images of Christ himself. If we cannot name the inherent lies in the confused trends named above, then we cannot respond with the truths that define the fatherly vocation of priests.

It should be evident that the women to whom priests minister ought to be open to their gifts, but if women have fundamental reservations about the nature of fatherhood and the importance of collaboration between men and women, then these gifts will lie like seeds in barren soil. Just as the Incarnation depended on the receptivity of Our Lady, God’s actions still depend on the openness of women to his generous and faithful love.

The damage to fatherhood from misplaced intimacy, confusion over masculinity, and the sterility in the beloved affects all men, including – and especially – priests. Their gift of self is meant to bear fruit, and their beloved – Holy Mother Church – is imbued with a mission that should extend God’s fatherly kingdom to all the world. In that sense, the understanding and joy with which women share that mission is essential. It begins with the human person and gratitude for his vocation. Fatherhood itself should be cherished.

Copyright 2009 Genevieve Kineke

One need not illustrate the point that all vocations at present need rejuvenation, encouragement, and divine assistance. Pope Benedict has chosen to petition God for the essential light and leaven needed by the whole Church by concentrating on the priesthood. For this we are enormously grateful and filled with hope for the Mystical Body.

Priests are indispensable to the faithful, who depend on the graces of the sacraments that only those in Holy Orders can provide. While some administrative functions can be delegated, authentic priestly duties cannot – the most obvious being confecting the Eucharist and absolving our sins. At the outset of this extraordinary year, we might be hard-pressed to expand beyond those two items (and even wonder at their worth, in this age of slack Mass attendance and near abandonment of Confession); but, God willing, by the end of this time of grace we will have a far deeper appreciation for the wider, often hidden oblation to which these remarkable men are called.

While priests can easily get bogged down in parish details and financial challenges, their vocation is ultimately “directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church” (CCC, 1547). If priests occasionally lose sight of this, the lay faithful should not add to their burden by pulling them off task or failing to appreciate the “gift and mystery” that Christ bequeathed to us on Holy Thursday.

A man called to Holy Orders is asked to imitate Christ in a tangible way, being “present to his Church as head of his Body, shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, teacher of the truth” (CCC, 1548). This may not sound very tangible to those absorbed in secular pursuits, financial hardships or medical ordeals – but it is more substantial than what we consider the most concrete reality. It is reality – the reality that matters, the reality that grounds all our other actions and gives transcendent meaning to every life. It is precisely by losing sight of this that we’ve come to our present morass.

As we consider the long history of salvation, we see in hindsight that God has revealed a plan that unfolds according to the nature of those he uses to bring it forth. Some are beautifully docile, some are more distracted, and others simply delay in taking him seriously. The Holy Spirit is always at work, and he has led Pope Benedict to turn our attention towards the priesthood. Therefore, we trust that through our prayer, study and deeper appreciation of Holy Orders, all of society can be uplifted and the greater culture enhanced if we participate fully.

Priests come from families where women have a great influence – for better or worse. Priests minister to families, and women can facilitate that work – or hinder it. As living icons of Christ the eternal bridegroom, priests seek to serve Holy Mother Church – and women who learn to receive their gifts will enrich the wider Church by giving flesh to the radiant bride herself. Imagine the limitless graces in that truth!

Copyright 2009 Genevieve Kineke

This common phenomenon came to mind when reading the memoirs of Father John Huang Yongmu, who spent nearly a quarter century in prisons and labor camps under the Chinese Communists. “In that environment of hatred and terror, there was nothing but enmity and cruel hostility. Oh, that oppressive and fatal Communist prison!”

He survived the “thought reform” by relying on his Christian principles, instilled through long years of formation that began in childhood. He relied on memories of home, “especially the affection and concern of my aged father, which gave me courage and strength and allowed me, during that storm, to remain bold and steadfast in my convictions.”

It is a stark reminder that faith begins in the domestic church, in the bosom of the family where affection and faith are instilled with the smallest concrete acts of love. The reality of God is brought home to the family table, in regular conversations which contextualize the larger world, and through humble service that gives each soul a sense of well-being and meaning.

Just as Holy Mother Church catechizes the faithful and spiritually nourishes them, each family setting does likewise, providing a “viaticum” of its own – “food for the journey.” It begins with nursery rhymes and bedtime stories, then builds on the universal faith with family anecdotes and personal examples of humor and virtue, and culminates in an abiding sense of personal worth only truly understood through God’s salvific and sacrificial love.

Father John relied on his knowledge of Holy Scripture, especially the Psalms – but he is clear that he knew the love of his own father first. In that, mothers play a pivotal role, for as Mulieris Dignitatem makes clear, “The man – even with all his sharing in parenthood – always remains ‘outside’ the process of pregnancy and the baby’s birth; in many ways he has to learn his own ‘fatherhood’ from the mother” (MD, 18). While the mother is intricately tied to the child in unique physical and emotional ways, she cannot neglect the essential task of building a bridge for her children – first to their own father, and ultimately to God the Father.

Now none of us are preparing our children for concentration camps or to survive traumas of that magnitude, but we are preparing them for a world that is quite hostile to the Gospel. Just as those little anecdotes about our children’s behavior drift back to us and provide glimmers of hope that our lessons of basic courtesy and decent manners have made inroads – despite their slack efforts at home, we must trust that our words and example take root as well in order to blossom in God’s own time.

When a child is grounded in the Father’s love, given access to and appreciation for the sacramental graces of the Church, and provided with the mutual respect and collaboration natural to a healthy family, he has the tools to endure all things. He has his “food for the journey.” Whether or not we hear of his astonishing acts of virtue from our friends across town, we trust that he’s entirely capable of them – and will come through when it counts.

Copyright 2009 Genevieve Kineke

Surely, the pretty dresses and veils and songs about flowers are sentimental touches dear to children and old ladies. Can Mary handle more than the lisping prayers of little ones or the ancient sighs of those ready for heaven? Can she really know of the grave concerns of hard-working adults in the prime of staking their claim on this world?

For those who cleave to the Church in all seasons, such questions are astonishing. Despite the crowns of fresh flowers placed delicately on demure statues, the faithful know that Our Lady knew hardship in her pilgrimage to God. The stark chill of the Nativity far from the comforts of home was only one stop on her long journey from the Annunciation forward.

The dewy petals offered now are far removed from the dusty paths of her native place, which she trod alongside her Son and his disciples, who heard the familiar parables of rocky soil and roadside villains. How far removed are the sunny songs of earnest children from the proud sophistry flung at the teacher from Galilee, or the jeers of those hostile to the notion of turning the other cheek.

Most of all, isn’t the dedicated shifting of beads which recall epic struggles between light and dark a consolation to both the Mary and her faithful children? As each mystery unfolded in her very life, Our Lady relied for strength on her singular relationship with the Holy Spirit, for she walked by faith herself in uncharted territory amidst those who were unsure of both landscape and true destination. Although many dismiss those very beads as a distracting or useless talisman, they neglect the standing invitation to graft contemporary concerns onto the sturdy tree under which Mary stood as the culmination of her hope in Christ.

The Church holds the fervent hope that these familiar hymns and childhood recollections will winnow their way into the soul and draw out its best inclinations. What was taught in childhood – whether through the witness of pious grandparents, or the fidelity of faithful priests, or the comforts of homes built on love – is grounded in the truth of God’s abiding grace which is sufficient to prevail over every trial imaginable. Trust in those affections and the deeper reality they bear.

For those whose childhoods exhibited more shortcomings than strengths, it may be harder to get past the aches and disappointments, but the truth about love remains. Although mother-love may look merely sentimental and its essential bridge to fatherhood a perilous construct, the reality cannot be eradicated by these family tragedies. This Mary knows. Such disappointments began with the Fall, from which we all suffer. Although untouched by original sin, her sorrows are comprised of ours and compounded when we neglect to ask for her intercession.

Sweet songs and flowers should never mask the strength behind the smile. Mary met sin head-on so that her children might be spared. The heart of the Church is sacrificial love and blood poured out, which should never be confused with sentimental trifles.

Copyright 2009 Genevieve S. Kineke

Our contemporary utilitarian view of the human person, who exists for his own fleeting pleasure and the gratification of others, is a cancer eating at the vitals of the modern world. It is the most pressing concern of this generation, and the crisis which separates the Children of Light from the Children of Darkness.

Ah, the reader will yawn – such drama. It is dramatic, but then all of salvation history is dramatic. We can read the Old Testament accounts and wonder why we don’t have the same opportunities to prove ourselves as David, Esther, Ruth, Daniel, Judith and Joseph each did. And yet, their shining moments facing down the zeitgeist were no different than the one we face in our own cultural landscape.

The trickier part for women is two-fold. First, the sexual revolution could not proceed without our cooperation on many levels. Myriad choices – including fashion, entertainment, consumption and questions of intimacy – are made every day and, at this point, stopping the snowball effect appears virtually impossible.

Second, women rely on relationships for their wellbeing, and making the difficult but necessary choices would lead to breaking up friendships, impacting family bonds and inviting ostracism and hard feelings everywhere. Such is the nature of choice. Consider Our Lord and his reception. “If the world hates you, be sure that it hated me before it learned to hate you” (John 15:18).

We didn’t get here overnight. What may have seemed inconsequential choices thirty or forty years ago have now become monumental choices that have will have the potential to shock others and bear tremendous effects – for the good or otherwise. Perhaps long ago we thought that we could avoid confrontation, but this shrinking from moral clarity has only made everything worse.

Fulton Sheen wrote of this battle of good and evil and how it plays out in every generation. “To share [Christ’s] life was to share His fate. The world would hate His followers, not because of evil in their lives, but precisely because of the absence of evil or rather their goodness… The holier and purer a life, the more it would attract malignity and hate. Mediocrity alone survives.”

As attractive as mediocrity can be at times, it is not an option. All women who love others must consider whether their love is authentic and life-giving, or whether it is based on their own comfort, self-preservation or fear. We can pray without ceasing for a way to stand for the truth without alienating others, but we also might be asking for a way to avoid God’s own suffering. We need to be brutally honest in assessing our real intentions.

Over the centuries, the lives of the Chosen People depended on their fidelity to God’s law – and the children often paid for their parents’ transgressions. If fear is keeping you from standing for the truth, perhaps fear for your children will compel you to do otherwise. Let perfect love cast out this fear, and we’ll make the next forty years a pilgrimage back to God.

Copyright 2009 Genevieve Kineke

We begin by removing ourselves from the immediacy of legislative concerns in order to pray for discernment. What exactly is the goal of our everyday life—the meaning behind our carpools, dance recitals and book clubs? How can we discover the heart of married life, the division of household chores and the drive to succeed at the office? What does national security mean if we live in a global community of expanding markets and international music downloads?

We begin at the end, which is appropriate during the month of the Holy Souls. Death. Judgment. Heaven. Hell. We are not made for this world but work out our human drama in preparation for the next—and that is the backdrop of our worldview. Perhaps we’ve forgotten.

At the heart of the drama is love—love of God and love of neighbor. We are invited to mirror the Holy Trinity with our families, which breathe love and life unto the next generation. With all the distractions around us, we’ve erred in three fundamental ways.

Our stewardship of creation has devolved into utilitarianism that undermines the collaboration between God and man. Our gift of reason has devolved into a rationalism that deifies the intellect at the expense of piety. Finally, our legitimate emotions which should lead us to compassion have devolved into sentimentality—ebbing and flowing in the most random patterns according to the whimsical dictates of the mass media. How else could one explain the tears over minks and tabloid martyrs while ignoring the elderly in the nursing home down the road?

Considering the election, for which we rightly fasted and prayed, Gods answer was in the form of a metaphysical jolt. Now we must return to the core of our thinking, being called to “give a reason for the faith that is in us.” What is family? What is marriage? What is human life? How do we want to arrange our communities so that the next generation is formed in a way that allows them to understand their true end?

It doesn’t take the reins of power to read stories to our children that will solidify the notions of good and evil. It doesn’t take a congressional staff to redeploy a language imbedded with a vocabulary of virtue. One need not be appointed to a government post to remind our friends and family of the various chapters of Biblical and Church history in which God’s humble folk were tested by the wiles of mammon.

In fact, even the simplest woman in the home can embark on this project. A solitary factory worker can sow seeds on her lunch hour. A student in a dormitory can stand up for virtue and human dignity with charity and a smile—reminding those nearby of finer standards by which to live. Oppression is nothing new in Christian history, and if events on the horizon bring about our turn, let us share the dramatic outline with those we know and love, and remind them of the end of the tale.

Not so with abortion. Dozens of studies have credibly linked the alarming increases in the rate of breast cancer with the deliberate termination of pregnancy and yet women are not informed about the inherent risks to the procedure.

Evidence surrounding childbearing and breast cancer has long been available and undisputed. For centuries, the medical community called it “the preventative effect of childbearing.” Beginning in 1970 with a landmark study by Harvard University, scientists simply quantified what lay wisdom had already recognized: having a first child before the age of 24, having several children, and breast-feeding them markedly reduces a woman’s risk of breast cancer.

Since then, with the legalization and growth of the abortion industry into a multi-billion dollar business, the avoidable medical risks have been buried for the sake of selling a highly politicized product. The proliferation of breast cancer it its wake has caught the nation’s attention, and yet the insidious contributing factors have been studiously—and irresponsibly—ignored.

Clearly, not all women who have abortions get breast cancer and not all women with breast cancer have procured abortions, but significant links are still there. Estrogen overexposure is the key. The full explanation can be found at www.bcpinstitute.org but one has to begin by realizing that estrogen is actually a secondary carcinogen. Despite the good it does, it also has the capacity to produce abnormal tissue, especially when an abortion interrupts the body’s delicate process of preparing for pregnancy and nursing.

Dr. Joel Brind, combining many studies for a meta-analysis, concludes that nearly 10,000 cases of breast cancer are presently related to the abortion link each year, and with  abortions being procured by increasingly younger women, that number will rise to almost 50,000 annually by the year 2020.

While many of the studies acknowledging the increased breast cancer risk are conducted by abortions supporters, the contrary studies have been shown to be flawed, biased, and unethically tied to those whose business is the marketing of abortion. Even as the public proved too wise to succumb to such a strategy from the tobacco industry, confusion about what makes an informed “choice” concerning abortion has allowed them to turn a blind eye to industry-based sleight of hand in this realm.

It is gratifying that breast cancer is very much in the news considering its 40% increase in the last 30 years. It legitimately draws on the sympathies of a genuinely concerned population, but to ignore one of the greatest contributing factors is an egregious disservice to all women. Abortion supporters have long argued that the pro-life community is singularly concerned with the welfare of the child, not the mother, and yet it is the proponents of “choice” who have suppressed this critical information. Who really cares for women, we must ask?

The pink ribbons are all around us. Most media outlets cooperate freely in raising both awareness and money to fight this horrendous disease. Perhaps your contribution to the cause this year could be to spread the word about the avoidable risks that can lead to breast cancer. Pro-lifers do care about women—and revealing the abortion link would be a real act of charity.