Skip to content

LGBT Therapy Ban

April 18, 2015
tags: ,

Suppose parents were informed that their child has a serious condition, one for which the recommended treatment included: a lifetime regime of powerful drugs which could cause serious, even life threatening, side effects; mutilating surgeries, which leave scars and compromise urinary track function; total loss of the ability to procreate; and partial or complete loss of genital function and feeling. Even with this radical treatment, their child would be at high risk for depression, other psychological disorders, suicide, HIV infection, and a shortened life span. In addition, their child would probably have to deceive others, including intimate partners, about the nature of the condition.
Should these parents be allowed to seek a second opinion?
President Obama and his advisor Valerie Jarret say, “No.” They support a ban on any therapy designed to alleviate Gender Identity Disorder (GID) in children. Only therapy designed to support the child’s desire to be the other sex would be allowed.
No one can change their sex, but by redefining ‘sex’ to describe only the biological, and ‘gender’ to how a person self-identifies—either as male, female, or something else, — the trans activists can claim that males can become women and females men. ‘Gender reassignment surgery’ (GRS), can create the outward appearance of the other sex, doesn’t change the DNA.’
Obama would support allowing children with GID to dress as the other sex, use the restrooms of the other sex, play on teams of the other sex and be treated with drugs to alter their bodies and fast-track them to GRS. Currently only 2.2 to 30% of boys and 12 to 50% of girls with GID persist in their desire to change. A therapy ban would leave those who don’t want to follow through on their desire to the other sex with nowhere to go for support.
Obama said he was moved by the death of a 17 year old male-to-female transgender, whose suicide note blamed his parents for forcing him into therapy. Suicide, particularly among the young is always tragic. Those threatening suicide need of effective therapy, but there are no guarantees. Suicide among clients in therapy is not uncommon. A study of 26 clients who committed suicide while in therapy found that 18 experienced intense rage “sometimes explicitly expressed in the patients’ suicide note.” Surely no one is suggesting that therapists whose clients commit suicide should be banned from practice.
Suicide among the transgendered is common. While only 1.6% of the general public attempt suicide, according to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey of 6,450 persons who self-identify as transgender, 41% report attempting suicide. According to the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-5, those with GID “are at increased risk for suicide ideation, suicide attempts, and suicides.” While transgender activists argue that failure of society support cross sex wishes are the problem, according to the DSM% even after GR surgery the “suicide risk may persist.”
Children with GID are anxious and cross-dressing is a way to relieve anxiety– to self-comfort. These children are so disassociated from their own bodies that they think mutilating parts of their bodies will make them happy, safe, loved, or comfortable.
Is it in the best interests of children with GID to limit the types of therapy available to them?
What about the therapist whose client gives up transsexual desires in therapy, although that was not the intention of the client or therapist? Could the therapist be accused of violating the ban? This is not unheard. Elaine Siegel, a committed feminist, was asked by a group lesbians to treat some of their members. Although it was not the goal of the therapist or clients, as a result of treatment half the women ceased to be lesbians. Members of the group felt they had been betrayed. Could a law banning therapy be used to punish such a therapist?
Although inherited traits influence who we are, there is no evidence that GID is biologically preterminded and unchangeable. Even if it were, given the risks associated with gender reassignment, parents should be able to seek alternative treatment.
The ‘transgendered’ not only want to pretend to be the sex, they want to force others to participate in their fantasy. Compassion does not require us to give others everything they demand. We do owe them the truth that they are and will always be the man or a woman you were created and envy and desire won’t change reality.
Twenty years from now the children mutilated by false compassion will sue those who should have known better, but it will be too late.

The Media and Marriage

April 7, 2015

The television series MediaBuzz analyzes coverage of current events On the April 5 program, there were some surprising moments of candor from the panelists. One member of the media admitted that while 50 percent of the public considered themselves faithful Christians, only 10 percent of those working in newsrooms would classify themselves as such. The panelists all but admitted that they just didn’t understand Christians. One can guess that the ten percent who are believers probably aren’t always candid about their feelings. Even when big names admit to religious motivations, they are treated with skepticism. When Bill O’Reilly said that he was inspired by the Holy
Spirit to write Killing Jesus, his interviewer Nora O’Donnell of 60 Minutes was incredulous. She asked him if he thought he was “the chosen one.” Ms. O’Donnell is undoubtedly unaware that ordinary Christians often believe they are inspired by the Holy Spirit to take up a particular work.
This utter lack of understanding directly effects the coverage of the marriage debate and other issues involving the LGBTQ community. The secular minded reporters are shocked to discover that Christians reject political correctness to follow a higher authority.
One of the panelists suggested that coverage of the marriage question is shaped by their colleagues desire to report on a “Selma Moment.” These reporters look back with envy on the day in 1965 when on a bridge in Selma AL the black citizen after decades of living with the degradation of Jim Crow laws defied the tear gas, dogs, and the guns of the racist police. Because the television cameras and photographers were there to bring graphic images of the violence to the public, the world changed for the better. The reporters want to see the marriage debate as a clear battle between good and evil. They are looking for their Selma Moment.
It is understandable that the generation of reporters who came later would long for the same moral certainty–the same high calling.” Unable to understand why some people oppose the re-definition of marriage, they have decided to report the marriage controversy as a confrontation between the poor, discriminated against LGBTQ community and homophobic Christian bigots. They overlook the fact that in the current battle it is the Christian owners of small businesses who have been fined and driving out of business, while the same-sex couples have had no trouble finding photographers, florists, and bakers willing to participate in their ceremonies.
Christians do not hate LGBTQ persons. Most have relatives and friends in that community. They would not deny the LGBTQ anything that would be for their ultimate good. However, they believe that calling a same-sex relationship a marriage does not further the ultimate good of society in general or the couples in particular.
It is not that a same-sex couple may not (that is are not permitted) to marry, but that they cannot (are not able) to marry. The LGBTQ activists are not demanding real marriage, but that the definition of marriage be changed and changing the definition of marriage changes everything.
Marriage is not just about words said before witnesses, to be valid it must be consummated by the marital act. This is the one act of intimacy that makes the two one flesh. It is the act that can lead to the conception of a child who is the product of their love and belongs naturally to both. It takes one man and one woman. Two persons of the same sex lack the physical complementarity necessary to consummate a marriage.
LGBTQ activists complain that it is unfair to define marriage in a way that necessarily excludes them, but it is nature that makes the rules. The state may order that birth certificates read ‘parent one’ and ‘parent two’ rather than ‘father’ and ‘mother’, so that same sex couples pretend that a child conceived by surrogacy or artificial insemination donor is the child of two people of the same sex. However, this does not change the fact that somewhere the child has a real biological father or mother. The child will know that he has been deprived of a relationship with that parent, and will know that deprivation was not caused by the tragedy of divorce, desertion, or divorce, but by the planned, purposeful, premeditated act of the people who supposedly have his best interests at heart.
Love wants what is best for others. While it would be easy to say, “Let them do what they want, how does it affect me?” Christians believe that pretending that two persons of the same-sex can marry creates an illusion is not in the couples’ best interest. It encourages them to live a lie.
On the other hand, the media are just looking for a feel-good moment.

Wedding Artists’ Rights

April 2, 2015
tags: ,

Can a for-profit business or an individual employed by a for-profit business make moral judgments? Yes, if they are judging their own actions. They have a right not to be forced to use their talents and skills to create something that they believe violates their sincerely held beliefs.
Suppose a customer comes into a bakery and asks for a cake in the shape of male private parts (I actually heard about such a thing), a baker would have every right to say, “I won’t do that,” and it wouldn’t matter if the client were gay or straight. Suppose a client were to come to a photographer and ask to pose naked or in pornographic positions. The photographer would have a right to say “I won’t do that,” and it wouldn’t matter if the client were gay or straight.
Suppose a group were to come an event planner, and ask them to organize a Circuit party where people engaged in sex with strangers and abused drugs, the planner would have every right to say “I can’t do that.” It wouldn’t matter if the participants were gay or straight.
In each case, the person requesting the service is not being discriminated against. Rather the provider would be discriminated against if he were forced to create something that offends his moral or religious values, or for that matter his aesthetic sensitivity.
The difference is clear if a client comes in and asks for what is already available, the merchant would have no cause not to sell it, but if a couple were to ask for something designed especially for them, the provider would be perfectly within his rights to say that he doesn’t create that type of product or service.
When a baker, photographer, florist or event planner is hired to do a wedding, they are intimately involved in the planning and have substantial contact with the couple. If they could not in good conscious congratulate a same-sex couple, they should have the right to tell such a couple that they could not put their heart into the project.
The bakers accused of discrimination were happy to make birthday cakes for all customers. The photographers were willing to take portraits and the florists to provide bouquets and arrangements whether those requesting them were gay or straight. They just didn’t want to use their artist skill to create a unique item that would celebrate something they didn’t believe in. Perhaps if, rather that guaranteeing religious freedom, the law had been written to guarantee freedom of artist expression, there might have been less controversy.
Put the shoe on the other foot, should a Jewish bakery be forced to make a wedding cake for a Neo-Nazi couple who wanted it decorated with swastikas? Should a black florist be forced to decorate a wedding where the participants came in KKK robes?
Those, who throw accusations of bigotry and hate at anyone who refuses to accept the full gay agenda, argue that a refusal to provide the desired service hurts the couple’s feelings. This is true, but there is no constitutional right not to have your feelings hurt. Yet, this is precisely what the gay activists are demanding. They want to create a legal climate where everyone who disagrees with them is driven from the public square. Those who will not surrender will be fined, sent to re-education sessions, or even jailed.
This is not the first time people of faith have been persecuted, we just never thought it would happen here.

No to Gender

March 6, 2015

The culture war is a war of words and those who defend reality need to choose their words carefully. The word gender has been permanently corrupted and there is no point trying to rehabilitate it. If the Sexual Left insists on defining gender as “socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women and men.” We should let them.
Gender isn’t a synonym for sex and we should not use it as one. Gender is a creation of the mind detached from the corporeal. It floats above the material world, like ever changing clouds, constantly reshaping, renaming itself. There are two sexes –male and female.
Genders are constructions of troubled minds. Wounded, angry, and envious, the so-called transgendered covet what belongs to the other sex. To soothe their pain, they have invented an alternate reality, where people can change from one sex to other and then end up somewhere in the middle. We can sympathize with their pain. It must be terrible to feel out of place in one’s own body, but we should not encourage their rebellion against reality or validate their fantasy solution.
I cringe every time I see my allies and friends substituting gender for sex. We don’t need their word and all the baggage it carries. We already have a perfectly good word. We should say sex when we mean sex. Two sexed reality must be defended against gender activists, who demand recognition of scores of made up genders.
Gender redefined has only recently crept into the language and with a little help can be pushed out. Let us promise to never say gender when we mean sex. Let us not be afraid to use sex specific language: male and female, women and men, bride and bridegroom, husband and wife, father and mother instead of non-specific spouse, parent.
There is nothing anti-woman in defending reality. Men and women are different and equal. Pretending all the obvious difference are mere social constructions, doesn’t make women equal it denies woman’s unique originality and makes man the standard human.

Envy and Narcissism

June 20, 2014

Before we add gender identity and expression to anti-discrimination laws and international agreements, it might be a good idea to try to understand what is driving those the law is supposed to protect –the transgendered, transsexuals, transvestites, cross-dressers, drag queens and kings, gender queer, adults and children with gender dysphoria (previously know as gender identity disorder), and autogynephiles (men who are in love with the image of themselves as a woman).
With such a diversity of expressions of gender dysphoria (being unhappy with the sex you were born), no single characteristic could be expected to be applicable to every person who could claim protection under “gender identity and expression” status, but there is reason to consider the possibility that many could be described as being motivated by pathological envy.
As I was trying to find a way to explain why men who claim to be women trapped in male bodies aren’t women, I came across a web post by Thorin25, a man struggling against the temptation to cross-dress. I felt his insights were significant since dressing in clothes associated with the other sex is the gateway to the transgender world. He wrote:

Recently I’ve been pondering the nature of cross-dressing desires and have become convinced that a significant component of cross dressing is envy or coveting…
What are cross-dressing desires if not envy? We want what females have, things that do not properly belong to us. We envy the beauty of females. We crave and desire that beauty. We want it for ourselves. We want to be as beautiful as the women we see or imagine. We envy the feeling of “being beautiful.” Is it any surprise that cross-dressers are so vain? We spend hours in front of the mirror striving for perfection in our beauty and admiring ourselves.
We envy the feminine experience. We want to experience what it is like to be a woman or a girl. We want to experience how men treat women or how they treat beautiful women. We want to be treated chivalrously. We want to experience the freedom women have to give in to specific emotions or behaviors that our culture tends to not be so accepting of with men. We envy that women get to feel sexy, sensual, spontaneous, daring, free from responsibility, provocative, cute, free to giggle, be expressive, vulnerable, sensitive, flirtatious, or gentle. We improperly think that we shouldn’t show these feelings as much as men, so we envy women being able to have these feelings, and when we cross-dress we then feel free to give in to these feelings…
We envy the soft or silky feel of the clothing. We envy the beautiful colors of the clothing. We envy the beauty of the feminine face with makeup. We envy the beauty of shiny painted nails. We envy the cool look of high heels. We envy what we perceive as the ability to dress in a sexy way. We envy the female clothing that we perceive as more comfortable.

As I read this, as a woman, I could not identify with this man’s idea of what it means to be a woman. I found it demeaning. Where was women’s intelligence, competence, power, motherhood? His envy driving image is not the heart of the feminine experience. I don’t spend hours in front of a mirror striving for perfection. I just try to cover up the obvious flaws, before I face the world. I certainly don’t feel free from responsibility, as a mother (even though my children are grown) I still feel responsible. This is a male illusion of what it means to be a woman and doesn’t match the reality of women’s lives.
The antidote to envy is trust. If we trust God the father, we believe that he will give us what we need. Unfortunately, the transgendered have trouble trusting their heavenly father because they don’t – often for understandable reasons – trust their biological fathers. Some of the transgendered go so far as to claim that God made a mistake that they should have been born with a woman’s body. Some deceive themselves into believing that they can change their sex with clothes, hormones and surgery. They can’t. Our sex is written on our DNA, wired into our brains.
Envy is the sin of wanting what you don’t have and what someone else has. The person who envies is unhappy and imagines that if he has what the other person has it will make him happy. He creates a fantasy, and then tries to make it real. Even if he were allowed to change his documents and be recognized legally as a woman, he wouldn’t be a real woman, only a simulation of a fantasy. Passing as a woman requires wiping out his past and living a lie. Society is under no obligation to give the envious what they covet.
According to the DSM-5, envy is one of the symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder. Narcissists are “hungry for adoration , admiration, acceptance , approval and any other kind of attention… Narcissists are, at times, suicidal and are always self-destructive.
Why does this matter to us? Because Narcissists’ needs can never be completely satisfied. No matter how much adoration, admiration, acceptance, approval and attention they receive it will never be enough. They will notice the smallest slight, the tiniest criticism, the inadvertent rejection and they will demand groveling repentance. If they don’t receive it, they will react with narcissistic rage. According to Heinz Kohut, the narcissist experiences a

…need for revenge, for righting a wrong, for undoing a hurt by whatever means, and a deeply anchored, unrelenting compulsion in pursuit of all these aims…. There is utter disregard for reasonable limitations and a boundless wish to redress an injury and to obtain revenge…. The narcissistically injured on the other hand, cannot rest until he has blotted out [the]…offender who dared to oppose him, [or] to disagree with him.

Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in their blue print for gay activism After the Ball could not help but notice that a significant number of gay men fit the clinical description for narcissistic personality disorder.
If even only a small percentage of the LGBTQ community is pathologically narcissistic, according them legal protection will give them a weapon to use against anyone who so much as looks at them cross-eyed. People of faith who refuse to compromise religious principles are being dragged into court and charged with discrimination. Even those who support their agenda can be targeted, as the case of J. Michael Bailey, author of The Man who would be Queen demonstrates. Several members of the transsexual community were offended by Bailey’s treatment of his subjects and launched a vicious smear campaign against him, his friends, family, coworkers, and casual acquaintences. A comprehensive review of their attack by Alice Dreger was published in Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Narcissistic rage may also explain the LGBTQ activists’ demand that therapy for same sex attraction and gender identity disorder be made illegal. Gerald Schoenewolf, in an article entitled “Gender Narcissism and its Manifestations,” discussed the problem of narcissistic rage among some of his clients:
A number of both female and male homosexuals had politicized their feelings about homosexuality. Not only their gender was idealized, but also homosexuality as well. Homosexuals, they held, were more sensitive, more humane, more refined, and more moral than heterosexuals. “If straights were as peace-loving as gays, the world would be a better place,” was an often expressed sentiment. Underpinning this grandiosity was the narcissistic rage. If I did not mirror their idealization, I would quickly experience this rage in the form of character assassination, threats, or hasty terminations.
If a person who self-identifies as lesbian, gay, or transgendered seeks help with other psychological difficulties (which, as numerous, large, well-designed studies have shown, are more common among LGBTQ self-identified persons) and is challenged by the therapist to explore the roots of his problems, the person may react with narcissistic rage, going so far as to demand that the therapist be punished.
Anne Lawrence, a post operative male to female transsexual, in an article entitled “Shame and Narcissistic Rage in Autogynephilic Transsexualism,” acknowledges the problem of narcissistic disorders among transgendered and warns therapists to be sensitive lest they trigger “narcissistic rage.” All therapy with members of the LGBTQ will be compromised because a soon as the therapist touches on the key issues, he risks becoming a target.
Adding “gender identity and expression” to anti-discrimination laws cannot satisfy the envy that drives narcissistic rage, but will force the entire society to walk on eggshells for fear of being labeled homophobic, heterosexist, transphobic haters.

Envy and Narcissism

June 19, 2014

Before we add gender identity and expression to anti-discrimination laws and international agreements, it might be a good idea to try to understand what is driving those the law is supposed to protect –the transgendered, transsexuals, transvestites, cross-dressers, drag queens and kings, gender queer, adults and children with gender dysphoria (previously know as gender identity disorder), and autogynephiles (men who are in love with the image of themselves as a woman).[1]

With such a diversity of expressions of gender dysphoria (being unhappy with the sex you were born), no single characteristic could be expected to be applicable to every person who could claim protection under “gender identity and expression” status, but there is reason to consider the possibility that many could be described as being motivated by pathological envy.

As I was trying to find a way to explain why men who claim to be women trapped in male bodies aren’t women, I came across a web post by Thorin25, a man struggling against the temptation to cross-dress. I felt his insights were significant since dressing in clothes associated with the other sex is the gateway to the transgender world. He wrote:

Recently I’ve been pondering the nature of cross-dressing desires and have become convinced that a significant component of cross dressing is envy or coveting…

What are cross-dressing desires if not envy?  We want what females have, things that do not properly belong to us.  We envy the beauty of females.  We crave and desire that beauty.  We want it for ourselves.  We want to be as beautiful as the women we see or imagine.  We envy the feeling of “being beautiful.”  Is it any surprise that cross-dressers are so vain?  We spend hours in front of the mirror striving for perfection in our beauty and admiring ourselves.

We envy the feminine experience.  We want to experience what it is like to be a woman or a girl.  We want to experience how men treat women or how they treat beautiful women.  We want to be treated chivalrously.  We want to experience the freedom women have to give in to specific emotions or behaviors that our culture tends to not be so accepting of with men.  We envy that women get to feel sexy, sensual, spontaneous, daring, free from responsibility, provocative, cute, free to giggle, be expressive, vulnerable, sensitive, flirtatious, or gentle.  We improperly think that we shouldn’t show these feelings as much as men, so we envy women being able to have these feelings, and when we cross-dress we then feel free to give in to these feelings…

We envy the soft or silky feel of the clothing.  We envy the beautiful colors of the clothing.  We envy the beauty of the feminine face with makeup.  We envy the beauty of shiny painted nails.  We envy the cool look of high heels.  We envy what we perceive as the ability to dress in a sexy way.  We envy the female clothing that we perceive as more comfortable.[2]

 As I read this, as a woman, I could not identify with this man’s idea of what it means to be a woman. I found it demeaning. Where was women’s intelligence, competence, power, motherhood? His envy driving image is not the heart of the feminine experience. I don’t spend hours in front of a mirror striving for perfection. I just try to cover up the obvious flaws, before I face the world. I certainly don’t feel free from responsibility, as a mother (even though my children are grown) I still feel responsible. This is a male illusion of what it means to be a woman and doesn’t match the reality of women’s lives.

The antidote to envy is trust. If we trust God the father, we believe that he will give us what we need. Unfortunately, the transgendered have trouble trusting their heavenly father because they don’t – often for understandable reasons – trust their biological fathers. Some of the transgendered go so far as to claim that God made a mistake that they should have been born with a woman’s body. Some deceive themselves into believing that they can change their sex with clothes, hormones and surgery. They can’t. Our sex is written on our DNA, wired into our brains.

Envy is the sin of wanting what you don’t have and what someone else has. The person who envies is unhappy and imagines that if he has what the other person has it will make him happy. He creates a fantasy, and then tries to make it real. Even if he were allowed to change his documents and be recognized legally as a woman, he wouldn’t be a real woman, only a simulation of a fantasy. Passing as a woman requires wiping out his past and living a lie. Society is under no obligation to give the envious what they covet.

According to the DSM-5, envy is one of the symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder.[3] Narcissists are “hungry for adoration , admiration, acceptance , approval and any other kind of attention… Narcissists are, at times, suicidal and are always self-destructive.[4]

Why does this matter to us? Because Narcissists’ needs can never be completely satisfied. No matter how much adoration, admiration, acceptance, approval and attention they receive it will never be enough. They will notice the smallest slight, the tiniest criticism, the inadvertent rejection and they will demand groveling repentance. If they don’t receive it, they will react with narcissistic rage. According to Heinz Kohut, the narcissist experiences a:

…need for revenge, for righting a wrong, for undoing a hurt by whatever means, and a deeply anchored, unrelenting compulsion in pursuit of all these aims…. There is utter disregard for reasonable limitations and a boundless wish to redress an injury and to obtain revenge…. The narcissistically injured on the other hand, cannot rest until he has blotted out [the]…offender who dared to oppose him, [or] to disagree with him.[5]

 Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in their blue print for gay activism After the Ball could not help but notice that a significant number of gay men fit the clinical description for narcissistic personality disorder.

If even only a small percentage of the LGBTQ community is pathologically narcissistic, according them legal protection will give them a weapon to use against anyone who so much as looks at them cross-eyed. People of faith who refuse to compromise religious principles are being dragged into court and charged with discrimination. Even those who support their agenda can be targeted, as the case of J. Michael Bailey, author of The Man who would be Queen demonstrates. Several members of the transsexual community were offended by Bailey’s treatment of his subjects and launched a vicious smear campaign against him, his friends, family, coworkers, and casual acquaintances. A comprehensive review of their attack by Alice Dreger was published in Archives of Sexual Behavior.[6]

Narcissistic rage may also explain the LGBTQ activists’ demand that therapy for same sex attraction and gender identity disorder be made illegal. Gerald Schoenewolf, in an article entitled “Gender Narcissism and its Manifestations,” discussed the problem of narcissistic rage among some of his clients:

A number of both female and male homosexuals had politicized their feelings about homosexuality. Not only their gender was idealized, but also homosexuality as well. Homosexuals, they held, were more sensitive, more humane, more refined, and more moral than heterosexuals. “If straights were as peace-loving as gays, the world would be a better place,” was an often expressed sentiment. Underpinning this grandiosity was the narcissistic rage. If I did not mirror their idealization, I would quickly experience this rage in the form of character assassination, threats, or hasty terminations. [7]

If a person who self-identifies as lesbian, gay, or transgendered seeks help with other psychological difficulties (which, as numerous, large, well-designed studies have shown, are more common among LGBTQ self-identified persons) and is challenged by the therapist to explore the roots of his problems, the person may react with narcissistic rage, going so far as to demand that the therapist be punished.

Anne Lawrence, a post operative male to female transsexual, in an article entitled “Shame and Narcissistic Rage in Autogynephilic Transsexualism,” acknowledges the problem of narcissistic disorders among transgendered and warns therapists to be sensitive lest they trigger “narcissistic rage.”[8] All therapy with members of the LGBTQ will be compromised because a soon as the therapist touches on the key issues, he risks becoming a target.

Adding “gender identity and expression” to anti-discrimination laws cannot satisfy the envy that drives narcissistic rage, but will force the entire society to walk on eggshells for fear of being labeled homophobic, heterosexist, transphobic haters.

[1] Anne Lawrence, “Becoming what we love: Autogynephlic transsexualism conceptualized

as an expression of romantic love,” http://www.annelawrence.com/twr/becoming_what_we_love.pdf

[2]Thorin25, “Crossdressing is about Envy,” http://healingcd.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/crossdressing-is-about-envy/

[3] Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition, p.670.

[4]Sam Vaknin “Malignant Self Love – Narcissism Revisited, “ http://samvak.tripod.com/faq18.html

[5] Heinz Kohut, (1972) “Thoughts on narcissism and narcissistic rage,” Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 27, 360–400.

[6] Alice Dreger, (2008) “The Controversy surrounding The Man who would be Queen, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37: 366-421

[7]Gerald Schoenewolf, “Gender Narcissism and its Manifestations,”

http://www.narth.com/docs/1996papers/schoenwolf.html

[8] Anne Lawrence, (2007) “Shame and Narcissistic Rage in Autogynephilic Transsexualism,” http://www.annelawrence.com/twr/shame_&_narcissistic_rage.pdf

 

Preventing Poverty

May 21, 2014

 

Helping the poor is a Christian duty, and the Catholic Church has always been a leader in the works of charity. However in this country we have the opportunity to do more than offer charity, we can be leaders in preventing poverty. This is a task for which the Church is particularly suited.

Experts tell us there are three things which taken together dramatically decrease the chance a person will be poor.

1) Finish high school

2) Get a job

3) Get married before you have a baby.

1) Education.

While college is not essential, a solid high school education is the minimal requirement for most employment, particular a job, which can lift the graduate out of poverty and into income security.

Catholic schools have for generations provided the quality education, which helped the children of immigrants move out of poverty. The problem is that, as the Catholic educated moved up, they moved out of the inner city neighbors and into the suburbs, leaving the parishes and schools, which had helped them achieve their success, without local support. Many dioceses have devoted resources to keeping these schools open, but much more can be done. While it would be great if the government-instituted voucher programs or if additional charter schools were available to provide quality education for the poor, we shouldn’t hold our breath. There are poor children out there right now who can’t wait. They need better schools now, and this is a task at which the Catholic Church has excelled. All Catholics need to commit themselves to supporting schools that serve the poor. These schools serve the double task or evangelization and preventing poverty.

2) Jobs

Welfare programs are a safety net for those who need emergency relief or have suffered unforeseen losses, but permanent welfare is a poverty trap, which leaves generations of mothers, children, and grandchildren dependent of government handouts. The way out of poverty is not welfare or charity, but a job.

My daughter is a teacher at Lexington College, a small Catholic school in Chicago, which prepares young women for jobs in the hospitality industry while at the same time providing spiritual formation. The school focuses on the theology of service. Graduates are in demand. A good paying job with one or the leading companies in the field is virtually guaranteed. We need more institutions that prepare students for careers and scholarships for needy students.

3) Marriage

We should sell the importance of marriage before babies. Our children need to be told about the link between marriage and poverty. Those, who follow the Catholic teaching on waiting until marriage to engage in sexual intimacy, aren’t going to have a baby outside marriage and among many other positive benefits have a better chance of avoiding poverty.

Sex makes babies. Every baby has a biological father and mother. Separating a child from one or both biological parents is perceived by the child as a loss.

Parenthood is a job designed for 2 people – specifically a father and a mother. A single parent must work twice as hard to do a job designed for two parent and is therefore more likely to fall into poverty.

The Church needs to encourage marriage and challenge some of the current customs, such as couples living together before marriage. Young women need to be disabused of the idea that living together is the path to a successful marriage. It may serve the male desire for easy sex and free housekeeping while not having to make a real commitment, but the young women need to be told that they are not a pair of shoes ordered on approval and returned if they don’t please.

Also it might be time to question the ever-increasing size and cost of weddings. There is no evidence that spending two years and thousands of dollars for an extravagant wedding will insure the marriage will succeed. Shorter engagements and smaller weddings may be a wiser course.

Also the fear of divorce and marrying young has led to some parents to discourage marriage when pregnancy occurs before marriage. It used to be that there was pressure on the young man to do the right things and marry the young woman he had impregnated. Today many parents discourage marriage even when the couple desires it. Contrary to modern fears, many of these ‘forced’ marriages prove to be very lasting. Everyone needs to remember that once a child is conceived the couple is forever linked to each other through their baby.

Jesus told us that the poor will always be with us and always need our charity, but that shouldn’t prevent us from doing all we can to prevent poverty.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 443 other followers