3 things I think about Immigration, and 2 I disagree with

 You'd have to be entirely disconnected if you haven't heard that President Donald Trump, eager to show promised action to his electorate, has begun to flex federal power on deportations.

"Illegal" immigration has been an issue that our country's government has squabbled over, tacitly ignored and simultaneously exploited for most of my life (and maybe, longer). Both Democrat and Republican presidents have vowed to deport those in violation of our country's laws. The only difference, from what I can see, is each of them has a different set point on their "thermostat".

 All immigrants here without the federal government's official blessing are dangerous criminals is the current administration's talking point, meaning their thermostat for deportation has been turned way up to the boiling point. Mass deportations were promised, and it appears that mass deportations will be delivered, with a daily goal currently set by the administration for ICE to round up 1,200 detainees per day. 

Most people, however, recognize the ridiculousness of calling most immigrants dangerous criminals. It's the nasty rhetoric that attempts to make the government's actions more palatable- a "protection from invasion". People who shared a bus with us, bussed our table at a Mexican restaurant, or mowed our lawn last week didn't draw a sideways glance; now, a danger? Statistically speaking, undocumented immigrants commit fewer crimes than citizens, likely to steer clear of the law as a form of self protection. It is estimated by the Department of Homeland Security that 11 million people fall into the undocumented category, having crossed the border or overstayed their current visa. Of those, 650,000 have a criminal background of any sort, which is 5-6% of the total. 

Of course, there are some violent migrant criminals, and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have long been acting to deport these individuals after they have served their sentences here. They're the justification to get us all to stomach the raids, the sweeps. Of course, the new administration has already said that it's fine with "collateral" arrests, those people that ICE were not looking for, but stumbled upon.  So, for the purposes of this conversation, let's focus mainly on the vast majority of migrants and refugees, the collateral detainees, just trying to live their lives in peace.

Here are three perspectives of mine on our current immigration situation

1. People are resources 

The heaviest, most difficult thing to see happening in this country right now is the undervaluing of human lives. Migrants are no exception. Every human brings something to the table, and they all bring different things at different points in their lives. A troubled teen can grow up to be a business owner or a school teacher. An immigrant started the yogurt company, "Chobani".  There's a massive amount of labor going on in our country that is thanks to the migrant workers. Our economy would be severely wounded if every undocumented worker would somehow "disappear".

Of course, " 'cause- the economy" is a shitty reason to do anything. The value that people bring to the table is soul work, not labor. Elderly people teach us wisdom, infants teach us patience, it's all valuable, from cradle to grave. It's important to recognize the impact of mass deportation, but the economy alone matters little when it comes to the worth of any human life. Each human being has intrinsic value, a sacredness that is a form of equality. 

As family size grows smaller, fewer people are having children and fewer children are born in America, you would think that extra workers would be viewed as a benefit. Unless they're not meeting someone's eugenic standards. We don't need a bunch of ultra-rich businessmen defining who's worthy and who's not. 

2. All people have human rights 

Picking up on #1, all people have human rights, that belong to them upon birth. People have come here from the beginning of our country, rich and poor, to make a new start for themselves. Rounding people up in raids and separating them from their whole life and livelihood is a terrible thing to do. Worse, family separations are promised, which compounds the damage by passing it to the next generation. 

3. Legal precedent matters

We've never seen immigration enforcement so swift and so gleeful. Every day a person is in this country, it becomes more of a home to them. It's like there's a reprieve of the law. It's the line from the movie, The Princess Bride, "Good Night, Good Job, Wesley. I'll most likely kill you in the morning." Eventually, the threat wears out.  There's a tacit agreement between the country and these people, by the fact that they have not been deported long ago. The law calls this "precedent", and it's one (good) reason it's so hard to change anything in this country. 

Because, people move on. They start to breathe. They put down roots. They marry, get jobs and go on with their lives. Many begin the process of becoming citizens. Many would love to be able to afford to do that. But that part doesn't actually matter, see, because we've told them for years that it doesn't.

Here are 2 things I hear when folks are discussing immigration that I disagree with:

1. "They're taking our jobs/resources"

Working class Americans often spout this as a reason to proceed with deportations. However, the type of jobs that migrants do are not ones we're really interested in as Americans. No one's looking forward to picking crops or cleaning toilets. It's important work, and it needs done, and there is value in it. But I doubt the Americans who are complaining about the loss of jobs would be willing to do these jobs. 

One of the earliest methods of controlling the poor is to give one subset a slight advantage over another subset. This effectively drives a division between the two.   Sometimes, this works. Sometimes, it doesn't and the natural gregariousness between people means that friendships, romance, family and bonds arise regardless of legal status, cultural differences and across situations. Either way, when you hear this argument, just remember this tactic. 

 It's also a matter of perceived scarcity: The wild lie that we're on our last crumb, and we must cry out selfishly or starve. I'm sorry, you can't convince me we're truly facing scarcity in our country when we have rows and rows of empty homes in our area that only see occasional use; when people spend more than a week's salary on a new phone. Yes, life can be hard and undoubtedly harder for some than for others. But true scarcity? That's a lark.

2. Open borders would be best 

I disagree that the solution to our current situation is just to wave everyone in. First, this would encourage more people to put their lives on the line to undertake a dangerous and uncertain journey. It's a gamble that might not be worth taking. 

Everything is so much harder for those who live outside the system, like undocumented immigrants do. To put it simply, they are harder to help. Sadly, too, our current status quo of "don't ask, don't tell" about migration created a caste system of laborers (and even human trafficking victims) to be exploited at lower wages and poorer conditions. It's kinda like leading people on, right? Unless we actually fix the broken immigration system, letting people in but not actually getting them fully resettled as legal residents or citizens is just another form of injustice. Many people in fact have entered our country and are floundering amongst the challenges.  They may want to go home to family and country, but have either no resources to actually make the trip back  or no situation in their home country that would allow it, like housing or jobs. 

Although we're clearly not at that point, there is also a tipping point where we would reach carrying capacity, a true scarcity situation. Prudent controls on the border, slowing or stopping the number of new immigrants arriving are measures that are a far cry, however, to what is happening today. Careful assessment of potential refugee status should always be part of prudent and ethical border control. 

What's the business case against mass deportations and for widespread amnesty?

Our best hope in all this mess, believe it or not, is that Trump and those in his inner circle are businessmen. Note, I do not say that I am hopeful. But it is our best hope. They absolutely must realize the risk of over-deportation to the point where food would rot in fields and construction would thoroughly stall. I sense the goal here is to shake people up, make a good show of power, and then let things trickle off, after they feel like they've won the pissing contest toying with people's lives.

One of the most difficult and mind blowing aspects of this push for mass deportations is how unnecessary and wasteful it is. It's expensive to detain and deport people. The cost of a military flight back to Central America is more than first class. Rounding up, feeding and detaining the collateral deportees is also expensive. The toll of human costs is far more expensive, though. Collateral damage, indeed. 

Amnesty is one option out of this mess. Setting aside the nightmare and headache of the citizenship process, amnesty would speed up the process to legitimatize those who have been here anything longer than a few weeks or months. 

Those who don't feel too concerned about the collateral deportees or feel they would be justifiably removed because they broke the law coming here, please take a moment to consider the person as a human not a number. The punishment surely overshoots the "crime". It would be like if a state trooper was allowed to shoot out your tires because you were doing 5 mph over the speed limit. 

This has been an emotional blog for me to write. I also recognize with humility how small a voice I have. My intention is to ask each of you to consider this problem thoughtfully, thoroughly ,and respectfully. For further reading, please consider "Solito, Solita: Crossing Borders with Youth Refugees from Central America". If you are interested in helping immigrants and refugees in the US, consider a donation to Catholic Charities in a city near you. 

On Suicide

 Suicide is a painful topic hurting many individuals in our society. Besides ending the lives of many, suicide rips holes through families, traumatizing family and friends of the deceased. September has been named Suicide Prevention Month, and it's as good a chance as any to connect a little more on a heavy topic.

Suicide is a choice, but one brought on by poor mental health, despair and poor thinking. It is not freely chosen. Wrong turns have been taken to come to this wrong-headed conclusion that taking one's life is a necessary evil. For those in modern times who see choice as the ultimate good, it can be hard to have a response to suicide, though we may innately still feel it's wrongness. Suicide is however as much a flaw with our society as it is an individual choice. 

Despair and loneliness have a heavy hand to play in these deaths. Loneliness has reached a point that it is now considered a health crisis. Without a circle of support, it can be hard to keep going in dark times. Depression and other mental health disorders of course play a role. Another less recognized driver is a change in how many view humanity. 

With economy, utility, productivity and efficiency forming a new basis of understanding value to the exclusion of other values, not all human lives are considered equal. While those who are healthy and hardworking are celebrated, those who are ill, including the mentally ill, may not be considered worthwhile. The homeless, the immigrant, the disabled and the unborn (and especially the disabled unborn) are hard to justify when cost and profit are the only measurements taken. When society falls for the lie that some lives are disposable, the fabric of our very society is damaged. Our understanding of who is worthy and who is not is inherently degraded. If net worth is the only thing that matters, a person may feel like they are a burden or worthless unless they are a "well worker" and decide to take their own life. When we unravel one corner of the blanket, we can't prevent other areas from being unraveled as well. One illustration of this is that disabled individuals seeking medical care in Canada are reporting pressure to accept medical aid in dying, even if their condition is not terminal. 

The good news is, life has worth and meaning, in every human being, outside of their utility. You are more than your bank account, your job, your wellness, your fitness level or your credit score. I don't want to live in a society where children are considered a drain but millionaires waste money cryogenically freezing themselves to "prolong" their potential life. I want to live in a world with flawed, broken people, because we're all flawed and broken. Eugenics was the terrible thought experiment of the early 20th century, and it led to the gas chambers of Nazi Germany. When we choose who lives and who dies, we always choose wrong- including if we choose to end our own life. It is never acceptable to solve economic problems with a death sentence. 

QPR training is a suicide prevention program frequently given to healthcare providers. It means: "Question, Persuade, Refer". Asking a loved one whether they are considering suicide is an important first step. Next, we work to persuade them to get help (and stay alive). Finally, we look to making a connection with a competent, compassionate mental health provider or treatment helps to complete the loop. This is one tool that can be used to help those in need. 

Several years ago, I was able to attend a workshop on suicide prevention at the Rocky Mountain Conference, a yearly conference of pro-life pregnancy support centers. One of the things I learned is that frequently those young people who die due to suicide have been found to have 3 things in common: a lack of a sense of who they are, and no sense of who loves them and no sense of who needs them. I have introduced my yearly religious education classes by asking my students to identify various ways to describe those three things. This is one small thing I can do to help remind these children to see themselves as worthy, lovable and loved. 

Pope Francis speaks of St John Vianney consoling a widow whose husband died by jumping from a bridge. St. John Vianney told her, "God's mercy is between the bridge and the river . . ." I will continue to pray for God's mercy for all of us in all of our collective struggles. 

I have a friend who always posts (and rightly so) to call her for support at any time. I'd like to echo that to anyone who's struggling with mental health, with feelings of worthlessness. Don't hesitate to reach out. Your life is worth so much, and suffering is hard, but you don't deserve a death sentence. I want to see you live. 

3 Less-Than-Helpful Things Concerning the Housing Crisis (Plus 3 Out-Of-The-Box Solutions)

It's probably at least once a week that I see posts in our area's community Facebook page where folks with a tone of desperation are reaching out- frantically searching for housing. Sometimes they are folks I know, and sometimes they are total strangers. Sometimes they are long-time locals, and sometimes they are newcomers. Sometimes they are single, and sometimes they are families. Their needs are the same- some sort of semi-permanent or permanent home that they can be secured of in a price point lower than the $2000 + a month range. That seems to be the new price point of our area's meager offering of rentals.

It's heartbreaking. It's also easy to get jaded about this housing crisis as it is a long-term fixture in our area. Too, any time we encounter a problem that keeps coming up again and again that we have little to no personal agency to solve, let alone make any headway on, we tend to have an innate reaction of apathy to some degree just as a protective mechanism for our own sanity. It's normal and natural to want to throw up our hands or wash them of the whole business. We want to walk away from the mess either mentally or physically.

One of the reasons I keep posting on this topic is that I don't like that apathy, normal though it is. It's important to realize that with each name, there is a story of a person whose life is now thrown into chaos because they are lacking one of life's fundamental needs- a roof over their heads.

In various discussions and commentary surrounding housing, I've noticed some common themes in folks' commentary. Here are some of what I hear and see that I could do without:

1. Blame the victims 

This can come in a variety of statements. Locals get blamed for voting for tax increases, for instance. "Well, you did this to yourselves by voting to raise the community's property taxes!" We get blamed for having pets (it is harder to rent with cats or dogs). We even get blamed for "choosing" to live here, "It's an expensive place to live, if you don't like that, you should move someplace else". 

Of course, none of this mentality is new, especially when you consider those who are homeless. How many times have we heard the jib "Get a job, you bum!"? This kind of erroneous thinking was deconstructed in the song "Underwear goes inside the pants", by Lazyboy, making the point that homelessness many time is driven by mental health issues which are not a choice.

Blaming the victim mentality goes far further back, of course. We only have to look to the Book of Job in the Bible. Folks he knew were sure Job's trials were due to his sin, but they weren't. This tendency is ancient and I believe it serves to separate the thinker from the sufferer, preventing the necessity of reaching out and helping. After all, if people dug their own grave, that absolves us from the responsibility of helping to get them out of it. 

2. Recognize that some solutions don't work for everyone

Another thing I've heard are statements suggesting that people just don't know how to leverage this system to get a place. They might suggest a family should just pick up and move to another area, not considering the close personal ties that they may have or the large financial cost of moving. In the case of Resort Town Colorado, they suggest moving to another cheaper town in the area (for us, that town doesn't really exist within commuting distance.)

They suggest to renters who are struggling to stay afloat that home-ownership is the answer. Home ownership after all will give them stability; avoiding constantly rising rent and increasingly fickle landlords who may kick them to the curb at any time. And, in a way, they are absolutely right. However, what are the barriers to home ownership?

They wonder why people haven't been able to save money to afford a purchase and suggest they start setting money aside by budgeting, scrimping and saving. "Give up Starbucks, you'll be able to afford your own place in no time!" In our area, houses below three quarters of a million dollars are becoming few and far between, and those below $500,000 are nearly extinct. Say you were able to find one of those "bargains" at a half million. If you were able to set aside $100 a month towards your future purchase by economizing, that would be roughly $1,200 a year. Not too shabby, right?! If you kept up that same rate, you could save up a 10% down payment in about 41 years. Hope you'll be able to pay the mortgage of $2,250 a month by then- sorry, that doesn't include property taxes or insurance.

Speaking of downpayments, people also mention down payment assistance (a great program that does help!) as a magic bullet to get people into home ownership. Or, they will mention Habitat for Humanity, which certainly does a lot of good! Unfortunately, some of our working class people fall outside the parameters of this program. These are all great ideas, but pointing them out to folks who don't fit the criteria is like pointing out amusement park rides through a fence to a child who only has 2 nickels in his pocket.

Even if a person was able to obtain downpayment assistance, that person would also have to compete in a housing market that has other folks waving around cash offers above asking price. That's to say, they'd have to compete! They'd also have to afford monthly mortgage, property tax and insurance on the high-priced place. Places that might actually be within reach are manufactured homes, which many banks will not lend for. Places that have manufactured homes also don't always include the land, which leaves the buyer paying lot rent ad infinitum. Doesn't exactly sound like a starter home environment, does it?

3. Support inaction

Our local government and our local people can sometimes create barriers to solutions as well. Trailers, RVs and manufactured homes cannot just be placed on a parcel of land, for a land owner to live in (the unsightly-ness!). NIMBYism drives opposition to new affordable housing and trailer parks. (NIMBY =Not In My Backyard). Folks who choose to camp permanently as a solution are forced to move sites frequently as a deterrent to this lifestyle. Irony of ironies, you can park your RV right in your driveway or on your land as long as no one is living there. RVs as displays of wealth are allowed, but displays of habitation are not!

Any time a proposition comes forward, people fight about it. They may feel it won't go far enough. They may feel it goes too far. It may not be affordable enough. It will cost too much. It's natural to want the best plan, but we keep finding ourselves with no new affordable or attainable housing being built. You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Lastly, they may have decided that since the housing crisis is someone else's problem, they don't need to step in or make their voice heard. This damages our community, because we are all interconnected. When we lose those citizens who are forced to leave to prevent their own homelessness, we lose community. Our child's best friend moves away. We cause destabilization. We contribute to the loss of employees and increase the cost of doing business because employee turnover is expensive. For those who manage to stay, but to the detriment of their pocketbook, we create workaholism, absentee parenting, and stress. We create a culture of people living paycheck to paycheck because they can't save to get ahead when all their money is going to rent increases.

We need to change how we're thinking about housing. We need to recognize it's a value to be invested in, that those who need it most don't have the means to solve the problems. The problems existed before them and will continue to exist as long as we don't build the options we need for people in every class.

Now, here are some potential ideas that may be practical solutions in some cases:

1. Intergenerational Housing

Having roommates can be challenging, but what if we have roommates who are our own children, nieces or nephews? Intergenerational Housing has been the norm throughout the world for much of human history. Yet, we speak of a 30 year old who's living in their parents' basement as some sort of failure and a pox on our society. Many of the larger homes in our area are out of reach for a single family, but could be within reach if parents and adult children pooled their resources. Likewise, siblings could share housing. Instead of looking down on this type of arrangement, we can normalize it as a potential solution. Use of written agreements and a set of expectations from all parties decided beforehand can help minimize the potential for familial conflict.

2. ADUs and Resident Owned Communities

Accessory Dwelling Units are apartments or dwellings attached to another, usually larger dwelling. They allow an already established home to create a living space for someone else in our community. They can go a long way towards serving the needs of folks in a variety of situations. New homes could be encouraged to include an apartment in the basement or garage as a way to help someone whose stretching to pay that higher mortgage, thus helping the homeowner and a renter at the same time.

Resident Owned Communities are typically trailer parks or tiny home parks that are not owned by a landlord, but the residents themselves. This allows the lot rent to be used to support the community's upkeep and maintenance and to keep costs low. As far as options that are possible at the lowest price tag, this one is definitely a great option.  Land would need to be purchased, and utilities run to each space. That could be the extent of the investment, which is a fraction of the cost of traditional apartments or houses. It would be fast, too. Residents could then buy their way into the community bringing their own place or some mobile homes could be placed ahead of time. Some lots could be rented or rented to own for those who aren't yet ready or capable of buying into the community. This would increase stability in our community and there is available land near some of our existing trailer parks.

3. Reframing our market-based housing assumptions. 

Folks sometimes assume home owners are the only ones affected with widespread property tax increases. This couldn't be further from the truth. Renters hurt because homeowners are always going to pass their costs on. Rises in property taxes for businesses has made the rental market even more unstable.

 What if, instead of using real estate sales as the basis of our conception of home value, which drives an insanity spiral of tax increases for both renters and owners alike, we reformed the tax code surrounding property taxes? We could divorce our property tax valuation from the market entirely and just create a formula where everyone paid based on square footage, everyone paid a flat rate, we paid by the number of occupants, or so on. We don't have to use the real estate market as a basis for our tax code, we are just used to doing things this way.

Speaking of real estate, instead of taxing the property owners (and therefore the renters) so heavy handedly, why don't we shift some of the tax burden onto the real estate transactions? Last week's real estate sales in our county were lower than most recent weeks at 10 million. Even a transaction tax of a fraction of a percent could generate a lot of local tax revenue in no time! Now imagine if we had the insight to invest some of that capital to make this place a home for people of all classes. Let's start building it!

On Sharing Meals

 My mom learned how to cook as a young housewife, but over the years became a cook with good skill towards simple, filling meals. Nothing fancy or complicated, mom served up chili, red or green, a big pot of spaghetti, or hamburgers with routine and skill. We ate together every evening for dinner. Other kids in our community, like my sister's boyfriend or my best friend, frequently joined our family dinner. Our extended family would join us whenever they came to town. We'd also gather around Grandma Mattie's table for dinner when we were visiting her. In fact, no matter how old Grandma got, she always greeted visitors in the most hospitable way possible- asking if they were hungry and sharing whatever she had in her pantry, no matter how meagre.

My family eats dinner together as well. Of all the other omissions or challenges of modern parental life, I cling to this practice whole-heartedly. Eating together is one true good I am able to provide my family every day, with my husband's brilliant cooking serving as the fare. 

In today's Gospel, a risen Jesus accompanied two apostles on the road. They don't recognize him, but we are told, he was known to them in the breaking of the bread. Even if you aren't a follower of Christ, we can still see the way that this happens in our own relationships. We learn about people, they reveal themselves, through the breaking of the bread. Sharing foods helps us know more about one another. Perhaps we have a conversation with our grandma as she shares a family recipe taking us back through time as we hear about her early life. We might share a meal with our own kids in which we talk about big, important things or small, trivial ones. Or perhaps, you can picture your first date, where you learned something significant about your future spouse.

Community gatherings can go a long way to healing our culture. Every day, loneliness and isolation hurts people in our society. We have a Pandemic of Despair trashing our lives.  These problems hurt the soul and can madden the spirit. What if we had a meal together where we'd talk about our troubles? What if instead of imbibing in ideology and culture war tactics, we sat and ate and asked questions and listened? Our community in Granby Jones has had success in this type of gathering, in large part in due to my dear friend and neighbor's welcoming ways. At our parish, we've been intentional about making more space and time to share meals together and it's something I've really cherished, as well. 

When we're free to really talk and listen, without the self censoring more frequently required in ordinary superficial interactions, we can go a long way towards understanding each other and, likewise, valuing one another. Going deeper, being more vulnerable and genuine, makes one more satisfied in our relationships as well. We also tend to be more peaceful in our own soul.

Last of all, I'd like to remind you that we all need a spot at the table. Jesus calls all people to have a seat at His table; as a follower of Christ, I should aspire to no less.  

What memories of good meals and fellowship do you have? Have you tried to maintain or regain this type of meal? If you could dine with people of a different culture or mindset, would you embrace the opportunity? 

Everything you ever wanted to know about sexual morality *but were afraid to ask

 At one of our Religious Education Family sessions, an enthusiastic priest shared a bit of philosophy with us. He presented Saint Thomas Aquinas' Four Ways of Knowing, a refinement on Aristotle's teachings, to a group of folks ranging from preschoolers to senior citizens and including a few non-english speaking families. The discussion was vibrant and surprisingly easy to grasp even for the youngest students. 

What is Aquinas' Four Ways of Knowing? Here I'll give just the meagerist and most informal summary here, based on the simple example we went over in class. First, imagine a table. Aquinas's first way of knowing has to do with form. This means we can recognize a table as a type, regardless of variations in style or material. His second method, makeup, simply means that we can know about an item by determining what it is made of. For instance, we can determine that a certain table is made of wood, another has a glass top and a wrought iron base. The third method of knowing regards the understanding about how something arises, for instance how the table came to be. In this case, we could probably tell you where we obtained this particular table, but also this type of knowledge could extend back to include the manufacturing process or even the design process or details of the harvesting of the particular tree used to make the table. Lastly, we have the final method of knowing: purpose. The table's purpose is to set food on, or other items; it's purposes does not include sitting on or use as a vehicle.

Later, I was reading "Love your Enemies: How Decent People Can Save Our Nation From the Culture of Contempt". Author Alfred Brooks notes that when talking about morality, individuals on the left and the right have vastly different takes. While the morality of fairness and care of others are nearly universals, other forms of morality, such as respect of authority are treated far differently between people of differing viewpoints.

Nowhere do I believe this difference is amplified than the consideration of sexual morality. Folks on the left are more likely to disregard any sexual morality beyond that of "two consenting adults (or adolescents)", while those on the right are frequently depicted as a group of puritans, hopelessly bogged down in repressive, close-minded rule-making and rule-policing when it comes to sexuality. Has modernity left the need for sexual morality behind with the ideas of the sexual revolution? Were the old rules just a method of repression and control? Or is there something else we're missing when we quickly dismiss sexual morality as a thing of the past?

I think this is a good opportunity to look at sex using Aquinas' perspective of the "Four Ways." When we presently consider sexuality at all; firstly, it seems like we are considering it solely from the second vantage point. The "what is it" is the only question we seem to have- how we are defining our particular sexuality. When we consider sexuality, from the first perspective, form, we can consider the fact that we are all familiar with what makes up sexual expression, even when we are sometimes in denial about it. For instance, we, as a population, did not buy for one minute President Bill Clinton's statement, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." We can also recognize that our children are participating in activities on the sexual spectrum when they are encountering sexting or pornography, though they may not be in physical contact with a partner. Just as a tall table or a small table or a pine table or a marble table are all still tables, sex is still sex even when it comes over the intrawebs.

The harder points for our modern culture to wrap our heads around are perspectives three and four. From an entirely biological standpoint, we're sexual creatures in the same way as all vertebrates, participating in the process of sexual reproduction for literal ages. From a more metaphysical standpoint, I personally believe that God gave us sex as a sacred gift. He gave sex to us to join in union; to be fruitful, to intensify our relationships and to create permanent, loving, and caring families. 

The fourth point seems to be integral to the whole consideration. Why bother? From a Catholic perspective, we've always believed that the purpose of sex is twofold. First of all, it is for procreation. Bringing new life into this world is one of the most basic, primitive, instinctual and obvious purpose of sex. This point is one of inherent beauty, goodness and joy. It's one we can't deny. This purpose is evident based on our biology and our hormones. However, I believe sex for us is different than solely a matter of procreation such as that you would see in other animals. Ideally, it is elevated and goes beyond this first purpose

The other purpose for sex, I believe, is bonding. It is an enjoyable reward to bring two different people together to become one, to lead life together in good times and bad. Since sex is about both bringing children into the world and creating unity in the relationship, we've also always believed that the proper place for sex was within marriage. This protects the children of the union with permanence and security. It protects the woman from the assymetries of sexual risk.  Life's a grinding challenge when needing to simultaneously provide for and care for the children (yes, I see you, single mothers, I respect you and you're doing your best in this challenging situation, but it is hard work to make this happen!)

Also, the bonding aspect of sex is just as important as the procreative part. For instance, which of us don't want a real partner, a truthful and kind soul, to grow old with? We are built mentally, physically and spiritually for relationship. While many are called to other forms of relationship as you may see in single life, a good number of us are called for a desire for relationship that is fulfilled in lifelong union. 

We've seen an unprecedented change in the way we consider sex in our world in the last half of the twentieth century to present, and I'm doubtful that even the most free-love "sex positivity" promoting individual would say it was all for the good. Though there are folks who feel that sexual freedom is paramount, problems arise when sexual freedom is considered more paramount than sexual responsibility. In fact, in all human realms, a balance of responsibility and freedom is necessary to lead to the conditions that lead to human flourishing. To think that sex is any different is to live in denial.

A person who has no interest in a relationship with another, but just wants to use that person's body, either by looking at that person lustfully or having sex, but disrespecting, dismissing or degrading that individual is certainly using sexuality in a way that doesn't lead to human flourishing, for themselves or for their partner. The used one, regardless of whether words of consent were spoken at the time, will most likely suffer due to this ill use. 

What is another risk of the libertine "Do whatever feels good as long as you have consent"? When we remove sexuality from the confines of either of its dual purposes, so it meets neither the purpose of procreation or bonding, it loses all meaning. Meaningless sex, for those who've participated in it, leaves us cold and sad and lonely. Meaninglessness overall hurts our culture because it brings in nihilism and hopelessness. Clinical depression rates and suicides are unfortunately on the rise. If there's no point in life, what is the point? Our culture already struggles with despondency, so we don't really need sexuality to become another source of isolation and despair, no matter how "liberating", do we?

I have a confession to make. It took me a very long time to muster up the courage to finish this blog. I started writing it several years before I actually finished it. I hesitated because of the volatility of the material, and how much our culture seems to draw lines of division around any differences in our thoughts on this subject. Simply put, it is a topic with landmines hidden under the surface at every turn. Likewise, I did not want to cause distress or division between folks who might view this subject differently than me. I don't speak these works today from a place of perfection or condemnation. However, more and more, the large scale stakes of ignoring sexual morality to our society seems clear to me. Also, my continual conversations with many people frequently show me that I had information to impart and explain that might increase more understanding on the topic. We should do the hard work of discussing these topics and discussing them well. I'm a firm believer in hashing these differences out.

We may argue about what should make up our morality. "It may be possible to argue about which morality is the necessary morality," Jordan Peterson explains in his recent book Beyond Order, "but it is not possible to argue that morality itself is thus unnecessary." It's understandable that we need rules to follow in order to keep society functional and to encourage human flourishing Yet, in our society today, at least when it comes to sex, it seems we've declared that no rules need apply. Although we try to pretend they don't, rules actually matter, even if many of our rules are implied today rather than explicit.

Many people consider these discussions of sexual morality as one of their major objections to Christianity, and many Christian groups have therefore made an effort to free their congregants of the "repressive" Christian rules regarding sex. While complete abandonment of these rules don't lead to human flourishing as I've argued throughout, it's important to realize that they are just one piece of our overall picture in Christianity. For instance, Bishop Robert Barron warns against getting bogged down with the "Crotch issues" of the church, as it diminishes the inexhaustible love and forgiveness given to us by our Lord. None of these rules should serve to make us feel like we are gate-keepers of the faith, and church leaders need to serve the needs of people regardless of their sexual practices and identities. If our Lord can call lovingly to St. Mary Magdellen, a former prostitute, our job is to love our neighbors in their brokenness, while sharing the truth that will lead them to greater human flourishing.

Nowhere do we see the failure of disregarding sexual morality and the loss of sexual responsibility than in its most gaping absence; in things that we can nearly universally still recognize as problems. Child sexual abuse is a clear example. We see that one person crosses a moral line and follows only a selfish call to fulfill a desire with no regard to the dignity or worth of the child involved. Another example is human trafficking, while both adults and children are held against their will to generate money for greed-motivated individuals and satisfy the appetites of other depraved individuals. Rape and sexual assault also clearly fall into this category. All these examples point to the need to set boundaries, to follow rules. We're not only talking about ideals and the highest human pursuits, but clearly, the loss of sexual morality can be implicated in some of the worst human rights abuses of our times.

Morality needs to point to an ideal human situation, that leads to the highest level of human flourishing. That doesn't mean that people, in our collective weakness, should despair when we don't live up to the ideal. When the culture at large disregards the meanings of sex, it disregards the meaning of people, family and culture. 

While discussing sexuality, we should emphasize that it is a blessing, both good and important. We need to teach that it is also serious, with serious implications. It's not just one sport or recreation among many, to be taken up thoughtlessly for fun or to please a partner (and lets face it, the lines between consent, coercion and non-consent may be blurred by other factors like substance use, age and power differences and social pressures to conform). There are freedoms, but there are responsibilities as well. We would be well served to remember both.

So Much Stuff . . .

My daughters and I stopped by the thrift store today to look for some needed winter items. We enjoy browsing around as well, finding bargains from time to time. Today, on our way out, my younger daughter noticed an awesome, pink Barbie pickup truck and camper in the free bin. Since the price was right, I went ahead and let her get the item, knowing how much she's been enjoying those dolls presently. The only caveat- we'd have to pick some items to donate because these new items were pretty big.

Once we got home, we headed to the bedroom to look for items that could be swapped out. There was a major hullabaloo about my thoughtless suggestion of donating some Lincoln Logs, though the set had not been played with for years. My middle-school aged son protested deeply and loudly, despite his typical lack of interest in the old building set. As my oldest daughter likes to say (regarding battlefield strategy), "that's not the hill you want to die on"; I decided to let that one lie presently and we discovered other items to purge. It was in the midst of all this that I was really hit suddenly by the weight of all this stuff.

We, I hate to admit, have a "stuff" problem. Our stuff accumulates to the point that it chokes our tiny home. Things that we need can't be found; it's difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Items we'd like to use are difficult to get to, or are lost or overlooked because of other unused items, or we simply don't have the place to adequately enjoy them (like train cars my son got from his grandfather-to use them requires a pretty big space commitment).

On the one hand, it seems downright ludicrous to complain about having too much. Talk about a first world problem! But, we are here in the first world, and these are the times and unique situations we happen to be in. And though we try to keep our consumption in check and thoughtfully and mindfully spend for special occasions like birthdays and Christmas, we aren't Spartans by any means. We enjoy celebrating life in all its stages. If there's a bell curve with massively consumeristic folks at one end and folks who live with virtually nothing on the other, I'd bet we're fair to middlin' (or perhaps just a touch on the lighter-consumption side). Also, knowing how to let something go that once gave you joy is monumentally difficult, even for adults. After all, the self-storage industry is partly built up on the failure we tend to have as a people to both consume less and to let things go.

Then again, certainly it's difficult to determine what to do with things at times. We've got an enormous box of small child-sized ski boots. They don't fit anyone in our family, and there are no skis to match. I'll try to offer them to the thrift store. They aren't recyclable, and I'd hate for them to end up in a landfill, but they also may have outlived their useful life and are well worn, perhaps even too worn to be fit to other skis. How many times can these boots be handed down before buckles and straps and bindings just don't work anymore? Or what if you happen to have a TV or a computer you need to get rid of? What about old power cords or a broken blender? You can't sell or donate or even give away for free most old tech. You'll probably wind up paying someone to take it off your hands.

People used to talk about folks in my Grandparents' generation being pack rats because of going through the Great Depression and living with scarcity. They'd horde up twine or old newspapers; we're doing the same thing with boxes or drawers of old computer cables and power cords. I'm not sure what our problem is, as it's certainly not the same issue. 

I read a book about purging stuff by Marie Condo about a decade ago. She suggests holding onto the item in question and deciding whether it sparks joy. That seems a bit simplistic because there are many items (like my vacuum cleaner) that I need but don't feel passionate about. Then there is the question of how to get rid of the unwanted items. As a thrift store shopper, I get annoyed when I buy pants with a broken zipper, a shirt with a small stain or an appliance that doesn't work. Also, sometimes the work to organize and sell a useful item or even to hall something broken away is JUST TOO MUCH right now. All of this winds up feeling so effort-ful that other more important things like washing dishes or making dinner or coloring take over for my time and attention.

For now, I include my children in the conversation about letting those childhood items go. These items do belong to them, and I think it's important to give them time to obtain this skill, though I do slip items of lessor favor out from time to time. Now and then, I'll go on a purge fest and try to par back some of the items that have fallen to the wayside. Most of the time, I'll suffer from some mild inattentional blindness around the issue. Sometimes I feel and see the weight of the excess, and sometimes I don't.

In Defense of Childhood

While tidying around my house this weekend, I'm half listening to my 7 year old's YouTube session. She's enamored by some live acting Disney princess videos or those of the hyper-enthusiastic Cookie Swirl C, who unboxes American Girl dolls or LOL dolls and plays Roblox with her "cookie fans". Jarring into my consciousness is yet another political ad, discussing issues that my daughter and I have yet to discuss.

Regardless of where you stand in the political battles that are raging in America today, these political ads are full of heavy, adult topics that have just launched themselves at my daughter. This blog isn't primarily about politics, although I've written plenty of blogs on that subject. Mostly, it's a critique of our conception of childhood and what is and is not considered acceptable during those brief years these days.

On the one hand, it seems as if parents are tasked with removing any and all possible physical dangers from the lives of our children. Some used to call this idea "helicopter parenting", as the parents were always hovering over their children. Now, I'd say that we're entering the realm of bubble-wrap parenting, where society is not allowing children opportunities to fail, work hard, do chores or be held accountable for their own actions. On the other side of the great parenting divide is a style of parenting known as free-range parenting. While this can initially sound attractive- go out and get muddy, play outside until the sun goes down, etc.; it doesn't quite feel right for me and our family either. I'm not knocking anyone who finds themselves fitting into either one of these categories. The challenging task of raising children to responsible adulthood feels so daunting these days! Neither am I here to say I've figured out all the answers and have the puzzle solved. We're all constantly making decisions based off of our best judgment, based on the needs of our own particular children. I get that.

When the sheer nastiness of the adult political sphere starts to inject itself into the internet and media our children consume daily, it can be more than disheartening. Our children look to us to set examples and the neuroses of the adult sphere are avalanching into the innocence of youth. We'd like to be able to let our kids play without constantly watching over their shoulders. At the same time, there are lots of pitfalls to be aware of. 

Children start doing or handling things outside of their appropriate developmental level partly because we rush them through childhood, emphasizing that eight year olds are more like tweens, tweens are more like teens, and teens are now autonomous countries where anything goes. Our twelve year olds may still want to play like kids do; our high schoolers still need our guidance, discipline and direction, however. 

Too much innocence can lead to danger. "If you fail to understand evil, then you have laid yourself bare to it", states author Jordan Peterson in his most recent book, Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life. Perhaps this is why so many folktales and fairy tales of previous times contained truly terrifying things, framed in ways that perhaps made them easier for children to process. Instead of simply stating, "Be very afraid when you walk through the woods because a wolf may attack and eat you," we told tales like "Little Red Riding Hood" that had enough of the danger combined with some comic relief that it was neither too tepid nor too graphic for children to handle.

On the other hand, too much emphasis on the dangers of life can make our children shoulder a burden they are not really ready for, at least not yet. Our youngsters can become neurotic worrying about the environment or school shootings. Or, they can become callous and dismissive of risk. When we sound the alarm for too long at too loud of a tone, alarms themselves lose their effectiveness. Flashback to my freshman year in college. A classmate described hiding from her RA during a fire alarm in her closet, because she was exhausted and there had already been false alarms occurring every night that week. I was shocked at the time, having never faced this concept before, but alarm fatigue is a phenomena that's well documented.

We would never let a toddler play with a butcher knife, and we require youth to reach the age of 16 to be able to drive and 21 to smoke and drink to preserve their physical health. Where dangers for our youth are less frequently confronted seems to be in areas of mental, spiritual and sexual health. Mental health risks are well documented from overuse of social media in teens, especially girls. Hyper-sexualized media and early exposure to pornography can affect our young people's attitudes and behaviors in upcoming relationships in negative ways. Pornography can also be highly addictive and increases objectification of women. It can even drive an older youth's sexual abuse of younger children. The dangers to our children in these realms are very real; as issues such as human trafficking, youth depression, despair, self-harm and even suicide affect growing numbers of our youth today in so many heartbreaking ways. 

So, how do we protect our children's childhoods without going too far? How do we protect them while providing enough opportunities for risks and growth? That truly is the challenge!

First of all, our kids still need structure. Simply put, they need the same people showing up in their lives, day in and day out. Family rules and guidelines about expectations, respect, chores and behaviors need not be the same, but are adaptable to your family's wants and needs. Part of this is fostering responsibility in our youth, laying the groundwork for them to grow into capable young people. Boundaries and boundary education by its nature should start early. We should continue addressing growing concerns, more explicitly and specifically, as they grow. For instance, our archdiocese mandates "Safe Environment Training" for all of the children served by our parish. Our instructor for those in grades K-5 is an engaging and understanding educator, who we're fortunate to have, as she has worked as a teacher for many years. The idea is not to shock children with things that could scare them (and they aren't developmentally ready to handle), like explicit examples of child abuse. Language is kept general while also providing our elementary age children basic ideas about concepts like good boundaries (and their ability to set those boundaries), safe and unsafe touch, safe and unsafe secrets and where to turn for help. I love it how she explains to them to trust their gut and says, "No one is allowed to make you feel unsafe, scared or uncomfortable." We can certainly find ways at home to reiterate those safety messages by discussing boundaries at home, as well as listening carefully when our children express concerns about someone they are interacting with.

Children need us to focus on providing for their whole health. This, of course, means physical health such as well child exams, but how do we help buffer them from the damaging mental health effects of our current society? Overuse of social media can push out interactions in real life. It may feel hellish to limit screen time, or unnecessary, particularly when we ourselves may struggle with limits in this area as well. Of course, it may depend on the age, as we want our older children to be able to limit this for themselves. However, regardless of age, being aware of what your children are viewing or how they are interacting with the internet is a good idea. It can at least help them process whatever is coming at them. Wise boundaries about what activities are age appropriate can be helpful, as well as any efforts on your part to make room for offline interactions, activities, recreation and such. Praying together or including your children in spiritual activities can be profoundly grounding and calming. Cooking together, hiking together, playing a game together and sharing family meals may feel old fashioned or unreachable, but even making the attempt (even if not always possible) can let our kids know that we care about them. We should not let the yearning for the perfect to be the enemy of the good when we struggle to do what we can to implement these types of activities 

Brave conversation, to me, seems to be my best answer, as I attempt to walk the tightrope between too much constraint and too much permissiveness with parenting. Children must be taught how to think, not what to think, stated author and anthropologist Margaret Mead. When we get in there and have those brave conversations about our bodies, our boundaries, our health and the consequences for our choices in those regards, our children, particularly the older ones, may not always agree with us. They may form their own opposing opinions; but at least they know what we think about these topics and why we hold those beliefs. Regardless of whether or not we think our kids will listen to us, we have a calling as their parents to share our insights as well as our love with them. One-on-one conversations about difficult topics can feel difficult, but talking and listening, regardless of the topic, will lay the groundwork for something else even more key. Not only will you be providing the structure, moral orientation and character development that your children need as a backbone to human flourishing. You're also sending a very important message. You hear them, and you want to talk to them. Furthermore, you'll always be there to talk to them and help them, regardless of whatever particular difficult situation they are facing. And that is, truly, the most important thing of all.