If you don't support same-sex marriage, don't look for a legal career in Canada

Currently there is something like a collision of two galaxies going on here in Canada. With its efforts to start a small Christian law school, Trinity Western University has set off a massive head-on confrontation between the same-sex rights movement and Evangelical Christianity.

The result so far has been an incredible and unprecedented war within the legal profession, which has seen Ontario and Nova Scotia’s law societies take controversial and shocking steps to bar TWU graduates from becoming licensed in their provinces. In British Columbia, we have witnessed literally thousands of lawyers revolt against their own law society and demand that it, too, reverse its earlier positive decision and take a stand against Trinity Western University. And now, with the launch of Trinity Western’s legal challenge against the worst rebels with a cause, the whole show is on the road and headed for a finale in the Supreme Court.

Community Rules: Is it okay to say no to gay sex on campus?

At the epicenter of this storm is this question: can a Canadian law school ask its students to agree that same-sex marriage is wrong? Trinity Western University maintains a community covenant that spells out its Christian code of conduct, beliefs and mission. This covenant is 4 pages long and asks its students to, among other things, “treat people and ideas with charity and respect” and “cultivate Christian virtues”.

That would all be just fine, but the covenant also prohibits sexual intimacy “that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman” and emphasizes that sexual intimacy is “reserved for marriage between one man and one woman”. All students and faculty are asked to agree to this covenant if they choose to attend Trinity Western University. 

Unfair discrimination or religious freedom?

Many of the lawyers who have been up in arms about Trinity Western University are alleging that this covenant discriminates against LGBTQ persons by making them feel not welcome on campus, by asking them in effect to deny their sexuality and requiring them to abstain from sexual relations even in a civil marriage. The upshot of the argument is that a school which discriminates against gays and lesbians isn’t qualified to teach law.

But the word “discrimination” already skews the debate towards the perspective of TWU’s opponents. Here is another way to pose the question: does Trinity Western University have the freedom of religion to maintain a campus covenant which asks students to abide by its religious teachings, including the tenet that sexual relations are reserved for heterosexual marriage?

There seems to be no possible compromise here. If Trinity Western puts its religious morality into action on the campus of its fledgling law school, then homosexuals will cry discrimination. But if this small, private Christian school is forced to allow its campus to become the antithesis of its own religious faith teachings, this is a serious restriction on the public expression of its faith, and might even eliminate the very raison d’etre why such a school exists in the first place. A religious private school is not in the business of providing a secular education that merely echoes the creeds of contemporary political correctness.

To put it bluntly, either sexual orientation or religious orientation will have to retreat into the closet at Trinity Western. Either the gays and lesbians who choose to attend, fully aware of Trinity Western’s creed regarding same-sex sexual relations, will promise to respect the school’s faith beliefs, or the Evangelical Christians that run this small, faith-based school will have to forget about maintaining a campus reflective of their own religious teachings and morality. 

The Supreme Court votes in favour of religious freedom

Thirteen years ago, when the Supreme Court of Canada considered this very question, it decided in favour of religious freedom for Trinity Western University. In a case that involved the B.C. teachers union refusing to allow TWU graduates to become teachers due to their opposition to same-sex marriage, the Court acknowledged that gays and lesbians might not want to apply to TWU, but it concluded that no major harm would be done by such students going elsewhere. 

In other words, the Supreme Court found that protecting the religious freedom and freedom of expression of Evangelical Christians at Trinity Western University, as a faith community formed by free association based on their adherence to certain religious and moral values, was more important than the right of anyone to engage in open same-sex relationships on their small campus, especially given the enormous wealth of alternative schools available in British Columbia. In the Court’s own words: “While homosexuals may be discouraged from attending TWU, a private institution based on particular religious beliefs, they will not be prevented from becoming teachers.”

Rebellion of the lawyers

But the times, they are a-changing. While the 2001 decision of the Supreme Court is still good law here in Canada, many of our most prominent lawyers are now openly defying this decision, as evidenced by the tidal wave of protest by law societies across the country.

Ontario, Nova Scotia and B.C. are but the tip of the iceberg. Important groups of lawyers in other provinces have also been been voicing their opposition to TWU. In Alberta, the President of the Law Society issued a statement saying that “we are aware of and concerned about the impact of the TWU community covenant on gay and lesbian students”, and “we would welcome a judicial determination on this question. We would also welcome the opportunity to work together with the other law societies in Canada, through the Federation, to consider amending the law degree approval criteria to address these issues.” Manitoba’s law society met on this question in late May and decided to do nothing because “ the Federation of Law Societies of Canada may shortly be reviewing the national requirements”.

End of religious freedom for all lawyers in Canada?

What is coming next? Get ready for the end of religious freedom in the legal profession, if the national Federation of Law Societies decides to change the law degree approval criteria to include some kind of litmus test on same-sex marriage for faith-based schools. Will official support for same-sex marriage soon become a prerequisite to being an approved faculty of law? Will support for same-sex marriage perhaps even become a prerequisite to licensing for individual lawyers in Canada?

Move over Justin Trudeau, your abortion decree within the Liberal party will have just been made small peas by the lawyers of Canada. Indeed, it is a short step from requiring Trinity Western to abandon its religious morality on campus to requiring all lawyers to personally support same-sex marriage. Lawyers who believe that sexual intimacy should be reserved for marriage between a man and a woman, even if they are not graduates of Trinity Western University, represent the same alleged threat of “discrimination” in the legal profession, so it follows that sooner (rather than later) they too will be an item on the law societies’ agenda.

They said this would never happen

How far we have come, at breakneck speed. Rewind to 2005, when same-sex marriage was just being enacted. At the time, opponents of the new law were being smothered in all kinds of assurances of religious freedom:

• The Supreme Court stated, in its Reference Re: Same-sex Marriage, that “The protection of freedom of religion afforded by s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad and jealously guarded”. 

• The Civil Marriage Act itself was padded with rhetoric protecting divergence of opinion, stating that “nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs”, and “it is not against the public interest to hold and publicly express diverse views on marriage”, and: 

“no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.”

Note that in the above paragraph, Parliament is only promising that there won’t be any federal law that violates religious freedom on this question. Right from the start, there was no assurance of religious freedom continuing to be respected by quasi-governmental institutions like the Federation of Law Societies. Still, in the social climate as it was back then, most people never considered the present situation a possibility. The belief in the traditional heterosexual definition of marriage still had considerable clout and respect among the leaders of society.

Christians as the new anti-Semites, racists and misogynists

A decade later, as I discussed in an earlier article, Christians who oppose same-sex marriage are being proclaimed the new public enemies, analogous to irrational racists, anti-Semites or misogynists. The British Columbia and Ontario law societies provide online public transcripts and even recordings of their debates on Trinity Western, and it is disturbing to see such comparisons being made by numerous Benchers. Keep in mind, these are some of the most influential lawyers in Canadian society!

One of the most outspoken Ontario Benchers who opposes Trinity Western is Clayton Ruby, a prominent defense lawyer whose clients have included the first openly gay Canadian Member of Parliament, Omar Khadr’s brother, and the anti-capitalist group that started the Occupy Wall Street movement. Mr. Ruby has called the belief in heterosexual marriage “stupid” and “hateful”, and has compared it to racism and anti-Semitism. He has further said:

“A minority within Christianity is entitled to believe that being gay is antithetical to Christianity; that it is an abomination. They are entitled to teach such silliness and try to persuade others to adopt that view. But we should remember that though they assert that the Bible is the sacred authority, and must be accepted literally, law schools ought to accept and teach the Constitution. In Canada we draw a line between discriminatory belief and discriminatory acts.”

Free to think, but not to act

If Clayton Ruby and the increasing numbers of lawyers who appear to agree with him have their way, then our religious “freedom” will effectively be reduced to the confines of our heads. Since mind control has yet to be developed, we will still be “free” to think whatever we want, but don’t try living out your religious beliefs in any public way.

Mr. Ruby doesn’t want to sound that extreme just yet, and so for now he states that Trinity Western has the right to teach their “silliness” (though he would not permit their graduates within the ranks of his profession). The trouble is, the logic of his own analogy to anti-Semitism and other forms of irrational hate demands that our laws should not permit such crazy, hateful beliefs to be propagated on any campus. Would we allow any school in Canada to teach white supremacy?

If Trinity Western’s Covenant is really “hateful” for its confirmation of traditional marriage, then surely, gay students who choose to attend TWU should still be spared demeaning and “hateful” lectures on how their sexual behavior is not acceptable. If Mr. Ruby is pressed on the issue, he would most likely have to concede that Trinity Western should not be permitted to be teaching “hate” at all. (Indeed, he contradicts himself later in the same quote by insisting that law schools should teach the Constitution - thus, how can Trinity Western’s law school also teach its “silliness”?).

Christian beliefs as the new "hate speech"

This is where we are: things are getting serious as the effects of the legalization of same-sex marriage are coming home to roost, so to speak. The Civil Marriage Act did much more than usher in gay marriage. It has helped to alter our fundamental attitudes about the nature of marriage, and it has enabled a far more effective social ostracism of its opponents.

Now this shift in philosophies is hardening into an official public exclusion of proponents of traditional marriage from professional life and even from the realm of education. The very ability to oppose same-sex marriage is becoming circumscribed as it becomes synonymous with irrational “hate” and discrimination, and thus increasingly falls outside the once-promised protection of religious freedom and freedom of conscience.

In 2001, the Supreme Court argued that “It cannot be reasonably concluded that private institutions are protected but that their graduates are de facto considered unworthy of fully participating in public activities.” The Supreme Court found that religious freedom protected Trinity Western and its covenant, and therefore, its graduates could not be excluded from professional organizations.

Today, many of our lawyers are thinking backwards: they find the belief in traditional marriage so odious that they are unwilling to admit TWU graduates among their ranks; as such, they insist on forcing the conclusion that Trinity Western’s Covenant is outside the protection of religions freedom, even in clear opposition to actual legal precedent.

The showdown is coming: stay tuned

Now that Trinity Western has gotten the ball rolling into the courts, the Supreme Court will be addressing this issue again in the near future. Will it affirm the religious freedom of Trinity Western University, as it did over a decade ago? Or will the nine Justices move on with the times and agree with the majority of their Ontario colleagues, finding that Trinity Western must eviscerate itself as a faith institution if it wants to produce lawyers?

Religious freedom in Canada hangs in the balance, attacked by the very profession that is supposed to guard it most zealously. If our lawyers no longer uphold our freedoms of conscience and religion, then the future looks more totalitarian indeed.

Photo: scazon via photopin cc

Why the Law is a Terrible Profession for Mothers

Certain professions may offer a decent work-life balance for mothers, but the practice of law is rarely one of them.

Hence the very poignant crisis of a fellow Catholic blogger mom, who also happens to be a lawyer. This is how she describes her daily life:

My children are growing up before my eyes. I am working a million hours, tied to my smartphone, and, all too often, missing the little bits of progress my children make every day on their journeys towards adulthood.

My children each spend 10-11 hours in the care of others every day. And, when I am with them, I am running at break-neck speed just to keep them fed, bathed, and healthy.

The house is always a mess, the laundry rarely done or folded. There is precious little time to read books, play games, or go to the park.

I worry over my two-year-old’s limited diet, my four-year-old’s oft overly defeatist attitude, and my failure to expose my nine-month old to as many new foods as possible; however, I have very little ability to control these things or make the changes that I think would serve them well to confront these challenges.

I’m always exhausted and, therefore, less patient and more inclined to anger or get frustrated easily, even at the slightest offense or affront.

And, although I know I want more kids, the thought of having more induces nausea and gut-wrenching stress. Moreover, is it even fair to bring another child into such an environment?

And amidst all of this chaos, I am realizing that, somewhere along the line, I have lost myself, lost track of the dreams and ambitions I had for my life, none of which included being beholden to a job or the “golden handcuffs” it has used to trap me.

I feel for her, I really do. This poor mother at the edge of sanity could easily have been me, had I stayed at the firm. Big cities are teeming with stressed mothers; her crisis is so common that it is nearly the norm in our frantic double-income society, especially in certain very demanding professions like law.

Mothers are burning out from trying to fit a circle into a square. We are not well-suited to the male career trajectory or to the traditional, highly structured and inflexible workplace. We need the Lego approach - employers should present a bucket of pieces, and let the women piece them together into whatever suits them best. We need options, we need freedom to fit together our work and family in individual ways that work best for our circumstances, we need part-time work arrangements, we need so much more.

And while we are on the topic, what about fathers? Yes, they should have more options too. Families in general need more understanding in the workplace. Having a family should not be seen as a weakness or a liability. The ideal professional should not be a twisted version of a religious celibate. On the contrary, for the good of society, having a family should be viewed as a positive, it should be encouraged and enabled through flexible policies.

Otherwise, our society is burning the bridge to its own future.

Photo: BrittneyBush via photopin cc

How to Win the War on Abortion and Lose All Your Friends

Andrea Mrozek, an extraordinary and courageous fighter for life, justice and the true health and happiness of women and the unborn, recently posted a short discussion on the sexual revolution. One of her concluding remarks was this:

“Truly, you can be pro-life. That’s an acceptable position even in Canada, even today. But you cannot be in favour of the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. There is nothing so wildly unpopular.”

Andrea, whom I am fortunate to call a friend and fellow Czech Ottawan, has represented the pro-life side in many venues and ways over the past few years. She has looked the opposition in the eye, and having nerves (and muscles) of steel, she has come to play a major role in the Canadian public debate on family issues including abortion.

Andrea is very familiar with the Evangelical Christian community, and she also has her finger on the pulse of our society at large; she has the “street cred” that makes the above statement so concerning.

Unfortunately, I think she is right. Even more unfortunately, her statement applies to Catholics nearly as much as to society at large.

The elephant in the pews

It’s a well-known fact that most Catholics resort to artificial contraception or sterilization. And I’m not talking just about the secular non-practicing “pretend” or cultural Catholics like Justin Trudeau. I’m talking about people who actually bother to show up to church on Sundays. I’m talking about people who even take on leadership roles in their local parishes, somehow reconciling that contradiction in their minds (yes, I know such people personally). Maybe they figure “hey, everyone else does it too, so what’s the big deal”?

Regrettably, I’m talking even about some of those Catholics who might have large families, whom you would never suspect of using contraception. Some time ago, a friend of mine who is in medical school told me about her experience in the U.S., where she worked for a time with an ob-gyn as part of her medical training. As a practicing Catholic herself, she was greatly disillusioned by her experience of witnessing many large Catholic families (mostly Hispanic in that part of the U.S.) accepting artificial birth control after having babies.

This is a huge problem in the Church. Huge. I would wager that if there was a free vote on contraception within the Catholic Church (if truth and morality were to depend on public inclinations) then the Pope (and God) would lose by a large margin.

And yet, it has been a very, very long time since I have heard any homily that even mentioned contraception. Why is that?

I figure that even the priests are afraid, and honestly I don’t blame them too much; they are only human, after all. The monster of contraception has truly gargantuan proportions. Its tentacles stretch out over so many people in the congregation that any priest might certainly worry with good reason that he will cause a general public exodus (at least of souls, later of bodies) before his homily has even concluded.

Contraception is so divisive among Catholics that few lay people dare to mention it even among their friends, for fear of accidentally putting off someone who might appear to be a good Catholic but actually be on the Pill or using condoms or an IUD, or having had a vasectomy, or what have you. It’s don’t ask, don’t tell.

So Andrea is right.

Which means, we pro-lifers have our work cut out for us. Why? Because as hard as we work at stemming the tide in other ways, the public demand for abortion will not go away unless our society adopts an entirely different attitude towards sexuality. In essence, as impossible as it sounds, I believe that we do need to reject artificial means of birth control in order to end the abortion mentality.

What is the abortion mentality? It is really an entitlement, a belief in the personal right to experience sexual pleasure anytime without the natural consequence of having a baby. Artificial contraception has bestowed us with this supposed “right”, and in truth, many people have gotten addicted to this free supply of on-demand pleasure.

Of course, the fantasy of consequence-free sex regularly comes to a screeching halt; as in, about 100,000 times each year in Canada, and about 1 million times each year in the U.S. That’s where abortion comes in and “saves the day” for the fantasy to continue. Having erased our “ooops”, we can go back to our “regular” means of birth control.

It’s not a fantasy; it’s a nightmare. The alarm clock is ringing every time a baby is torn out of the womb. How many times can our culture hit snooze? We have to wake up from the expectation of no-consequence pleasure.

But again we hit snooze. It’s really, really hard to give up on pleasure, and currently our society is not even close to hearing or accepting that message. Our boys and men are steeped in porn, and our women are brainwashed into thinking that it is “liberation” to let their bodies be used without commitment.

It is all lies, and so much terrible unhappiness attests to it. The aftermath of the sexual revolution has been incredibly dismal; aside from addicting people to on-demand sexual pleasure, it has given them pain and misery. The breakdown of families, the sad hook-up culture that leads to emotional emptiness, the despair of post-abortive women and men.

Time for a new attitude

Right from the start, we have to think differently. The hard truth is that we don’t actually have any “right” to be free of the natural consequences of our acts. The harder truth is that when we try to escape those natural consequences, they still come back to bite us. In fact, our fantasy is killing not just our unborn babies but ourselves (just think about the warnings on birth control pills - stroke, blood clots, even breast cancer…)

We need to accept that there are limits to our actions. No, it’s not some celibate guy in a skull cap who is trying to impose on us his outdated views of women and the world. Think of it as Mother Nature. When we launch a war against our own bodies, how can that be a war we could possibly win?

We are made in a certain way; men and women together make babies. It’s not just a physical reality. We are also emotionally and psychologically wired for this natural reality. This part of our nature is so fundamental to humanity that it is far bigger than ourselves; we don’t fully grasp it, and we certainly can’t control it in any general fashion. For instance, while we might have a birth control pill, we have no “control” pills for the emotional fallout of easy and casual sex.

The trouble is, as anyone knows, once you give candy to a kid, it will be really hard to get it back.

Can we really practice enough self-discipline and self-restraint that we stop ourselves from resorting to those pleasure-enabling methods which society readily makes available for us?

The jury is still out.

As far as the personal cost, we also need to be prepared for this: the minute we take a stand against artificial contraception, many of our friends (and not just the secular ones) will consider us extremist. That's just how it is today, and that's why Andrea is right.

So garner up your courage; we need to be prepared to lose our friends over this one. We might lose our friends, but we will win the war on abortion.


Photo: Photosightfaces via photopin cc

How can Catholic moms balance work and family?

Jumping right into the heart of controversy, here is my question: how can a married woman, who wants to sincerely follow the Catholic faith to the fullest, balance working outside the home with her role as a wife and mother?

Now, I know several great Catholic women who in different capacities work outside the home, and I believe that some ways of working outside the home are perfectly fine for mothers. It would be wrong to arrive at the conclusion that women must become homemakers and stay in the home forever after getting married. I chose to stay home myself, but I am absolutely not trying to say that all women must make that choice in order to live out their Catholic faith.

On the other hand, it is definitely a thorny, tricky question trying to arrive at the proper balance of work and family life from a Catholic perspective. The main limitation on any career, it seems to me, is the imperative of staying open to life in a marriage, and then being responsible for raising that new life. Here’s what I mean:

We are supposed to have babies

Once we get married, the Catholic Church teaches that a marriage ought to remain generously open to life whenever prudentially possible. This means that NFP is not to be understood as a “natural” form of contraception! No, we are not supposed to be using NFP as an “organic” alternative to artificial contraceptives like the pill or condoms (by the way, some secular people do use NFP this way). Let me unpack this further:

• If the finances are tight, if there are serious health issues or other major difficulties that would make it hard for the parents to care for a new life at that time, then the spouses have a total right to use NFP to avoid pregnancy (while still not using artificial means, thereby remaining open to the possibility that God has a different plan). They can do this until circumstances improve and they are able to care for a new baby again.
  
  
• On the other hand, unless they have such serious impediments presenting themselves, it is not okay for the spouses to say: “hey, we’ve got two kids so we’re done, let’s stop there.” If the spouses could actually afford to raise 8 kids and if they have no other serious issues standing in the way of more babies, then they should not be using NFP to avoid conception. Otherwise they are actually participating in the contraceptive mentality and turning NFP into the “environmentally friendly” equivalent of using artificial contraception. 

What about the mom wanting to launch her career? Well, I am not a priest but my hunch is that it would not be okay in most circumstances (unless the family depends on her income) for the mother to cite the desire for a career as a good reason for shutting the gates of the womb, so to speak, and using NFP to avoid having more children. In other words, the Catholic mother cannot say “well, we have four kids and I am 35, so now we are done with having children because I want to focus on me and go ahead with my career”.

What this appears to mean (and correct me if I’m wrong), is that once a woman marries, she should then be open to having children for the rest of her fertile years, as long as no serious difficulties present themselves (financial strains, health problems, etc).

The result is exactly what happens in many Catholic families - women bearing several children until their fertility runs out in the late 30s or early to mid 40s. It also means that many practicing Catholic mothers in their 40s still have infants or very young children at home.

BUT - follow the logic here - if moms keep having small children, and they are committed to raising those small children in the early years, then where does that leave space for their careers? In effect, it appears to mean that a married Catholic woman without fertility issues will end up being available for a career only when she is in her late forties or older. So, for a Catholic mom, 45 or 50 would be the new 20, the time when she could finally go out into the world and start working.

Does that mean Catholic moms can’t work outside the home?

No, I will not end with the conclusion that mothers can’t leave the home until they are almost 50. That would be completely unfair.

Some people do claim this as the Catholic position, and they argue that the woman’s role as the wife and mother is to stay in the home while the husband provides for the family. In my opinion, that is confusing traditional cultural practices with religious teaching (which is not unusual, incidentally - people fairly often believe that something is required by religion when in fact it is merely a cultural tradition).

I believe that Catholic mothers can indeed choose to work outside the home, and if they choose to do so, it does not mean they have been brainwashed by feminism (as I have seen others suggest). Women have a lot to contribute to our society with their intellect, skills and abilities, and they do not have to employ 100% of their talents and energies only on raising their own family.

Happily, in reality I see various possible arrangements being made by Catholic families, which do allow mothers - even the mothers of large families - to work outside the home at least to some extent.

Dad is a parent too

The main acceptable alternative arrangement, I believe, is labour-sharing with the father. For instance, I see some Catholic families working out arrangements where the parents “change shifts,” so to speak. When the mother is out working, the father is home caring for the children, and vice versa. That way the children are always cared for by at least one of their parents.

While this arrangement can place more strain on a marriage, because the spouses might see each other less often, it might actually even strengthen the relationship and attachment that fathers have with their children, because they experience times of being the primary caregiver. It’s great that we are living at a time when many men are much more open to such arrangements.

Grandparents can help out

The other possible arrangement that might work to some extent is the use of extended family, especially grandparents, to watch the children while the mother is working.

This kind of labour-sharing has been used for centuries, of course. Back when most people lived in villages with extended family all around them, parents did not experience the kind of pressure they are under today, to single-handedly raise their children and juggle all family responsibilities only among two people. It used to be common for grandparents and even great-grandparents to help watch and raise the new generations. Aunts and uncles, and even long-time neighbours who had become like family, also used to help out.

Today in our mobile society, the nuclear family is often very much isolated, and many people don’t have the option of getting the extended family involved in helping with their children. Grandparents and other family members may live far away, and neighbours hardly know each other in many of our large cities. Urban sprawl has often placed even good local friends out of easy reach.

For those who still do have the option, the use of extended family is a good arrangement in smaller doses.

Unfortunately, I have also seen this taken to extremes that I don’t believe to be in the best interests of the children. For example, I know grandmothers who have become, for all intents and purposes, the mothers, raising the kids all day, every day while the mother is AWOL. It broke my heart when one grandmother told me that her granddaughter whom she watches constantly, tries to call her “mom”.

If the children are being raised by the grandparents most of the time, then they are still being robbed of a deeper relationship with and primary attachment to their parents. And the parenting of grandparents, while it is often a good addition to the parenting of parents, is actually not a great substitute for the parenting of parents - grandparents may not share our faith or values, and they tend to have less energy, be more permissive, etc.

What about paid caregivers?

For those without other options, what about the use of paid caregivers, such as daycare or nannies? (I am not talking about the use of occasional babysitters, which is surely done at some point by most families).

First of all, there is no official Catholic teaching on this. It is in the prudential judgment of Catholic parents to figure out the best way to raise their own kids, and the option of paid caregivers is not precluded by our faith.

At the same time, it does strike me as not exactly in the spirit of Catholic teaching to have your children be raised by strangers so that you can both pursue your own careers. Working to bring bread to the table is one thing, but working for reasons of personal choice is quite another thing. Even if you are doing great good in the world, your own children are paying the price at home.

As Catholics we believe that each person is called to the service of others, but as mothers this would appear to mean that we place our children first in our lives and focus on raising them, especially in their earliest years, even if we have to sacrifice our personal ambitions for that time period.

So look, you can do what you want, but how different are you being from your secular neighbours if your family looks like this: parents at work full time, small kids in daycare or with nanny?

I think we all know at this point that such an arrangement is not ideal, and that children often pay the price in the short and long term. It might not be a price that is immediately evident - your children will continue to be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, they might perform well at school and in their activities. But I do believe that a lot of research confirms just how important parents are to their children in the first few years of their life, and there are indeed psychological and emotional consequences, among other things, to being raised by paid caregivers.

As practising Catholics, it does seem to me that we should be setting a higher standard of childcare for ourselves, and that we should be willing to sacrifice more in order live out our vocations. Otherwise, I question the extent to which we are putting our energies in the wrong places. Our vocation within the family is supposed to be primary, and this goes against the current practices of society.

Can Catholic women have it all?

The honest answer is that no woman has it all, including the secular moms who are trying madly to balance full-time jobs with being moms: I have seen these women have lots of regrets down the road about not developing close relationships with their kids.

For practicing Catholic moms, remaining genuinely open to life in a marriage will often mean more compromises than are necessary for secular moms. You will likely have more children, and if you keep having babies who need their mommy above all else, then your career will probably end up snoozing in the back seat while you focus on your vocation as a wife and mother.

But while Catholic moms may not “have it all,” they can have the most important thing in life. I don’t want to sugar-coat it, but there is great happiness to be found in raising great kids. As much satisfaction as your job can give you, the ultimate reward in life is surely having wonderful adult children that you can be proud of. Conversely, if you do everything else in life well, but your own children turn out rotten, then how much joy can a parent really feel in life?

What’s more, Catholic moms can still have a slice of the working world pie, if they desire it. There are various alternative arrangements for childcare that can allow these moms to have a leg out in the working world, though probably not as CEOs of startups working 80-hours per week. Which might be a good thing, because research has shown that workplace stress is as big a killer of women as of men.


Photo: GSCSNJ via photopin cc

Will doctors continue to be free in Ontario?

I have an article up on LifeSiteNews today about a new threat to the freedom of conscience of doctors in Ontario, and this time my article comes with a call to action.

The licensing body of physicians and surgeons in our province has started a public consultation on revising its policy regarding the freedom of conscience of doctors, and there is a very real possibility that as in 2008, they will again try to diminish this basic freedom of our doctors.

Please get involved if you can, and let the Society of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario know why the freedom of conscience of physicians is a fundamental right that must not be restricted or removed without placing in peril our pluralistic, tolerant and democratic society.

The deadline for public input is August 5, 2014.

To add your comment to the CPSO public consultation, go to http://policyconsult.cpso.on.ca/?page_id=3403.

Photo: a.drian via photopin cc.

5 Ways to Keep Kids Normal in an Age of Narcissism

Dental hygienists like to tell me their stories, and at my last appointment the hygienist explained to me why she has no room in her life for another child.

She is 32, happily married, and lives in a beautiful new house in the suburbs. After many years of putting off babies they now have a one-year-old boy, but they have decided he will be an only child. Why? Because, she openly admitted, “I am selfish.” Another child would interfere too much with her “me time” and their plans for travel and enjoyment in life, including her regular eyelash extensions.

The hygienist seemed to consider her selfishness normal, but as our conversation developed (whenever I could do more than grunt), she admitted that her attitude was likely due to her upbringing.

“We had everything growing up, whatever we wanted,” she told me. Her father ran his own business and her mother was a homemaker. They doted on their children and showered them with whatever their interests or whims desired. “Sometimes they made us save up for things, but if we really wanted something, even if it was expensive, there was always a way that we could get it.” The family travelled frequently. and she was given a new car at 16.

Interestingly, even though her parents had catered to her every desire, the hygienist was ultimately not appreciative: “Looking back, it was probably not good that we got everything.”

She realized that she was self-focused, and was aware of some of the costs of her behaviour: “I feel bad leaving my son in daycare, but I wanted the huge house with the 'wow factor,' so my husband said I have to go back to work to help pay for it.”

Despite her self-awareness, the hygienist never indicated any intention of changing her ways. Instead, she seems to be self-consciously creating a life that revolves around herself, apparently with the conviction that she needs such a life in order to be happy.

Young people are becoming more narcissist

It is disturbing that the attitudes of my dental hygienist are becoming more common among our young people. Psychologists have caught on to this fact, as study after study confirms that narcissism is on the increase in our society. There is even a book out about this problem, entitled The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement.

I haven't read this book, but the authors, Jean M. Twenge and W. Keith Campbell, also maintain a blog, and some of their posts discuss the role that parents and educators play in turning out self-absorbed children.

So how can we, as parents, do it right? How can we keep our children normal and not narcissist? Here’s my mixed bag of tricks, mostly picked up from Drs. Twenge and Campbell:

(1) Teach self-control

Dr. Twenge must have met my dental hygienist, since she zones in on overindulgence as the worst possible parenting error. Research confirms that "narcissists often had parents who were overly permissive and put their child on a pedestal." Such parents fail to teach children the crucial skill of self-control: "A child who gets what she wants and follows whims doesn't learn to delay gratification, to consider the needs of others, or to keep going when a task is difficult."

For a better way to parent, don’t satisfy your children's every whim and desire, even if you can afford to. Rest assured that you will not impair their development if you deny them the object of their pleading; on the contrary, you might well impair their development if you never hear those classic teenage words, “I hate you”. If you always say yes, your kids might stay nice to you but they will be unbearable to everyone else.

(2) Let Your Kids Stay Insecure

Nothing is more countercultural than rejecting the cult of self-confidence. Parents and educators have been told for decades to focus on building up children's self-esteem, and I have seen baby books which tell each child that he or she is the most special child in the whole wide world. Parents mean well when they say such things, but the danger is that over time, such messages might actually lead the child to believe that he or she really is somehow better than everyone else.

But isn’t high self-esteem necessary for success in a competitive climate? We are told that if we “believe in ourselves” then we can accomplish anything, and we try to instill self-confidence in our children by eschewing win-lose scenarios and handing out feel-good trophies “just for showing up”

As it turns out, the research shows that high self-esteem doesn't actually help academic performance. In fact, it can even make students more likely to drop out. The highest achievers in society are apparently often insecure around the edges, and they worked their way to the top by trying to prove they were good enough, rather than believing they were good enough from the start.

So to really help your kids succeed in life, stop artificially building up their self-esteem. Let real-life accomplishments be the source of their self-confidence, and don’t try to fix their mistakes for them. It’s good for their egos to suffer from the truth. Failure is a great teacher - let them rise above it. You might even consider enrolling them in competitive sports, as one of the best schools of personal discipline, hard work, and coping with failure.

(3) Avoid Entertainment With "All About Me" Messages

Four years ago, Mattel introduced “My American Girl", a doll that could be customized to look like your daughter. It is still going strong today, and the website shows mostly photos of little girls holding doll versions of themselves, complete with identical clothes (like Austin Powers and his Mini-Me). A creepy education in loving oneself.

What’s more, there is also a hidden problem with various tween TV shows, even the "clean" shows on kids' channels that we often think are okay for kids to watch. Big parental wake-up call here! A lot of these shows encourage young girls to desire celebrity status, and that leads them right on the narcissist track:

Very young girls now watch TV shows like Hannah Montana and High School Musical. Even though these shows are about teens, their biggest fans are elementary school and even preschool kids as young as 3. Girls are now exposed to “tween” culture at age 5 or younger, eschewing Sesame Street and Dora the Explorer for Hannah Montana, The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, and other preteen shows.

Although these shows are free of inappropriate sexuality and crass language, they are unfortunately not free of narcissistic attitudes. “You get the limo out front,” sings Hannah Montana in the show’s theme song. “Yeah when you’re famous it can be kinda fun.” She then goes on to sing about going to movie premieres and getting your face in magazines. Hannah Montana draws more viewers age 6 to 14 than any other show on cable, reaching 164 million viewers around the world.

Finally, don't primp and pamper your little girls with make-up and polish and make them into little princess-divas. According to a 2007 survey, "55% of 6- to 9-year-old girls said they used lip gloss or lipstick, and 65% said they used nail polish." What this shows is that “Our little girls now grow up thinking they need to be ready for their close-up, lest the paparazzi arrive.” The best thing we can do is tone down the whole obsession with physical appearance, and stop encouraging our little girls to be pre-pubescent versions of a Hollywood celebrity.

(4) Take Less Photos of Your Kids

How many people have noticed that many children are being turned into celebrities by their own parents? I didn't pick up this point from the authors of The Narcissism Epidemic, but I believe it goes right along with what they are saying. Armed with good intentions and a phone or camera, many parents have become the family’s paparazzi, snapping dozens of photos of their kids each day. As if that was not enough, there are sometimes regular sessions with professional photographers who pose the children and take magazine-like closeups.

There is lots of evidence of this parental behaviour online, from blogs to Facebook pages. The kids of such parents are literally growing up in the public eye, with hundreds, if not thousands, of their photos shared with a wide circle of family and friends, and even the world. They are catching up to Suri Cruise!

But posting online isn’t the whole harm of the matter - even if these photos are simply stored on the hard drive or used for scrapbooking, the volume itself is a problem. What happens to the innocence and lack of self-consciousness of childhood, when the spontaneity and immediacy of so many moments is usurped by the camera’s eye, when children constantly redirect from enjoying to posing or even repeating just for the camera? And what happens when children see so many photos of their own faces in the family’s photo collection?

No one yet knows the effect of all this camera attention on such children, as this is the first generation to be growing up so self-consciously under the camera lights. But I believe it's possible to anticipate what happens to these kids. In fact, I have already seen it happening on Facebook: not picking on anyone in particular here, but I have seen the children of paparazzi parents, when they grow up and start their own Facebook pages, start posting selfies and magazine-like photos of themselves. While it might have been cute when their parents did it, it is far less cute when teens and young adults become their own paparazzi.

(5) Don’t Forget to Look In The Mirror

As many parents know, no parenting strategy is as effective as leading by example. So as we try to keep our children normal in a culture of entitlement and excess, we need to look closely at our own behaviour. Even adults are under a constant stream of influences which tempt them to focus on themselves, and they may struggle with the desire to look like movie stars or a strong appetite for material things. As Twenge and Campbell point out: “Five times as many Americans undergo plastic surgery and cosmetic procedures as ten years ago, and...for the past several years, Americans have been buying McMansions and expensive cars on credit they can't afford.”

To resist narcissism, both in our children’s lives and in our own, is to become truly counter-cultural. It is no easy task, and many people who have come to view narcissism as the standard might consider us oddballs. At a time when the Joneses are living in the McMansion and driving the latest, the family that resists societal peer pressure may live much more modestly. They may not splash their family photos all over the Internet, and their children might not have the latest and greatest, or have the lowdown on popular TV shows.

There is so much more to life than ourselves. Our society has bought into the lie that happiness is to be found by feeding our own desires and pleasures, and many children are being sent on this wild goose chase that will ultimately leave them empty inside. Modesty, humility and self-sacrifice may be the losers in our society, but they remain the keystones of a healthy, balanced and moral human life, and they are well worth it.

Photo: MTSOfan via photopin cc