The Ruth Institute, which has focused primarily on defending marriage to college students, has changed its mission and now hopes to create a mass social movement to counteract the ill effects of the sexual revolution, such as the breakdown of family life, including cohabitation, divorce and unwed pregnancies.
Speaking with Register correspondent Sue Ellen Browder, Ruth Institute founder Jennifer Roback Morse recently explained why she has drawn up a petition urging bishops at the 2014 Synod on the Family in October to “remember the victims of the sexual revolution.”
The institute is also holding a Feb. 15 conference in San Diego to present its vision for “Healing the 21st-Century Family.”
We see the effects of the sexual revolution all around us, with the hook-up culture, high pregnancy rates among single women, same-sex “marriage,” etc. What is the sexual revolution at its root trying to do?
The sexual revolution is trying to disconnect sex, babies and marriage from each other. That’s the agenda.
Which groups have been pushing this sexual revolution?
A mix of people have promoted it: population controllers (who think there are too many poor people); hipsters (who just want to be libertines); radical feminists who think babies are keeping women from being “equal.” All these groups have one thing in common: They’re controlled by elites, people who want to re-create the world in their own image.
What injuries has the sexual revolution caused, individually and collectively?
I think the single biggest injury on a personal level is loneliness, because we’re replacing truly intimate relationships with sex as a recreational activity. Instead of sex building up marriage and the family, sex is something about “me” and “how I feel.” So it’s all led to the idea that you can discard people, which breeds loneliness.
On a collective level, our higher education system and economy are built around contraception and abortion. Contraception is an expected part of a woman’s career path. So that means the whole system is built around women treating their bodies as if they were men’s bodies. Also, with declining birth rates in every industrialized country in the world, we’re contracepting our way out of a future.
Why is the sexual revolution so appealing to people?
The sexual urge is obviously very powerful, and the idea you can have sex without consequences is a very appealing fantasy. But that’s what it is: a fantasy. Even if you successfully avoid pregnancy, you’ve got emotional consequences. The sexual revolution promises that if you just take the baby out of the equation, you can have all the benefits of sex without any of the costs.
The sexual revolution promised freedom and fun. Yet you say it was — and is — a totalitarian movement. Why?
Because its goal — to separate sex from reproduction and both from marriage — is impossible. When men and women have sex, babies have a way of appearing. So the government has to step in and control people’s behavior and even people’s thoughts about what’s possible, desirable and realistic. The HHS mandate is just one example of the government stifling dissent by essentially saying: “This society will be built around contraception, and there will be no dissent from that.” That’s one example of totalitarianism coming straight from the government and literally shutting down people who disagree.
You say we’re swimming in so much sexual-revolution propaganda that we don’t even see it. What’s the propaganda saying?
That it’s possible — and desirable — to have sex without babies and sex without commitment. One of the biggest and most persistent lies of the sexual revolution is: “The kids will be fine, as long as the parents are happy.” That’s basically a blank check for adults to do whatever they feel like, regardless of how it hurts and destroys the kids.
Are children of divorce and aborted babies the primary victims of the sexual revolution?
Children are the most obvious. But there’s a whole list of sex-revolution victims who’ve been silenced. Consider, for example, people who’d like to stay married but their spouse wants a divorce, so that’s the end of it. The government takes sides with the party who wants the marriage the least.
You call those people “the reluctantly divorced.”
Yes. We all know somebody in this category — the jilted wife or the husband who’s kicked out of the family because his wife didn’t want to be bothered with him anymore, and now the courts are making him pay child support for kids he doesn’t see. These people are all around us. Yet no one talks about them. They’re completely invisible.
You call another group of sexual-revolution victims, who bought into the sexual revolution only to discover its promises of fun and freedom are false, “the heartbroken career women.”
These women are also all around us, but we simply don’t see them. [Culture says] the entry fee into the professions for women is that you chemically neuter yourself during your peak childbearing years in your 20s — and if you have an “accident,” you get an abortion.
By the time a woman figures out, “If I have no children, that’s going to be terrible for me,” she’s 35. The in vitro fertilization industry is making huge profits off people’s infertility problems, which often happen because women put off having kids for so long they can’t do it naturally anymore.
And yet when that woman is a lawyer, college professor, TV news anchor or some other professional, she’s going to dig in her heels and defend the sexual revolution, because her life is literally built around it. We want to help this type of woman “connect the dots” and see that she has been victimized because she built her life around the lies.
Isn’t there another group of female victims — women who can’t find suitable husbands because too many men have also bought into the sexual revolution’s falsehoods?
Absolutely. And I hear it from men, too [about not finding suitable wives]. Our whole culture is so sexualized it’s hard to find a suitable mate. Many young people have told me they wish the Church would do more to facilitate young adults meeting each other in a faith environment, where people won’t always be coming onto you.
Why did you create the “Healing the 21st-Century Family” conference?
Because there are a lot of heartbroken career women out there, along with children of divorce and other victims of the sexual revolution. We need to find each other, take strength from each other and know that we can get something done if we discover each other and work together.
What’s your vision for the modern family?
Our vision is that every sexual act would be an act of integrity and love inside marriage and that every child would be born to a married mother and father who love each other. Every little family should be an island of forgiveness, repentance, generosity, service, gratitude and loyalty. Then the community could be built up from a foundation of love within the family. The family is a little society that deserves to be respected and protected, not disrespected and attacked.
Do you see positive developments that indicate this life-affirming vision of the modern family is becoming more widespread in contemporary societies?
I wouldn’t go that far. But I do see more people getting fed up. There’s a new book out — The Big Lie: Motherhood, Feminism and the Reality of the Biological Clock — in which the author, Tanya Selvaratnam, recounts her emotional journey through multiple miscarriages after the age of 37. That woman is an activist for NOW [the National Organization for Women] and writes for Ms. magazine, yet her book is all about her being fed up. That’s what our Feb. 15 conference is about: to find these people, give them a voice, give them a name and help them connect the dots.
What can the ordinary Catholic do right now to make this new vision for the family happen?
The very simple thing people can do is go sign our petition to the Synod Fathers, where we say, “Please remember the victims of the sexual revolution.” The Synod Fathers are meeting to figure out how the Church can better serve the family, and we want them to remember the victims and to organize to help people who have been wounded. So please go sign the petition. And then we want you to come to our Feb. 15 conference in San Diego. It’s open to anyone of goodwill who has a sincere desire to improve their own family life, to heal their own wounds from the sexual revolution and to help us clean up the mess.
Sue Ellen Browder writes from Ukiah, California.
View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
†
TBPlayer, the “pill” poisons people, promotes promiscuity, and pollutes the planet. Those countless millions are in your head. The contraception revolution was poisoned fruit, and those who fell for it were worshipping Hedon, not the One True God.
†
The secret to happiness (true happiness) is to obey the Commandments (and not just some simplistic interpretation of the Ten). I know you want to be happy — we all do. Open your heart to God. Pray for faith, hope, and charity. Read the lives of the saints. Learn the teachings of the magisterium.
†
†
Yeah, all those poor “victims” who only have the number of children they wanted and can support, and had them when they wanted them. My heart bleeds. (Like any major social change, the contraception revolution was not without problems, but the lives of countless millions of people are infinitely better as a result; the good FAR outweighs the bad).
And really, anyone who can look at the world and NOT realize there are just too many people is delusional, at best.
The most powerful statement in the article is that women chemically neuter themselves for the prime twenty childbearing years of their life. It is indeed a Brave New World. We still do not even know the psychological effects of the Pill. A recent study found women who contracept as being attracted to ‘softer’ less masculine men. These hormones obviously DO mess with a woman’s mind.
Nycdreamer - I’m just going to say it - You are wrong. Completely wrong - you literally are “dreaming”. Just off the top of my head - my closest friend got divorced years ago and he gets to see his daughter every other weekend, unless the mother has a “good” reason he why can’t (so, doing the math, he gets to spend, at best, about 13% of his time with her - that’s not enough). Two of my male coworkers are divorced and their wives (legally) moved out of state. Now these men get to see their daughters when they can find the time and afford to fly/drive hundreds of miles, while also paying incredibly high child support (not that they balk at it - they love their daughters). Divorce destroys families and heavily favors the mother. It is part of the scourge of the sexual revolution.
As to your ridiculous assertion that there is a global over-population threat, we could take every person in the entire world and house them in the state of Texas and the population density would be consistent with your beloved city of New York. That would leave the land mass of the entire remaining world to provide food. Overpopulation is a myth created by the pro-contraception/pro-abortion/baby-hating movement. Quite simply, they hate humans. Who else hates humans? Satan - their master. God commanded us very clearly, “Be fruitful and increase in number…” (Genesis 1:28). I caution you to chose carefully whose side you commit to - satan’s or God’s.
Marriage is more than just a contract. It is a commitment for life and the spouses are supposed to work out their problems, not run from them. The baggage stays and there is a reason why second marriages have higher failure rates than first marriages, third marriages have higher failure rates than second marriages, etc. Couples should seek counseling (with a good Catholic/Christian counselor, not someone who will recommend divorce in a non-abusive situation), not divorce. Learn to communicate. Go on date nights so you don’t grow apart. Have mentors you can talk to (match up a newly-wed couple with a couple that has been married for 25+ years) in order to get through the difficult times. Marriages only fail if someone gives up. Divorce should be a legal and financial escape from an abusive situation (someone hitting their family, an addict that spends all the money on alcohol/tobacco/drugs, etc.), that’s it.
People do not need to “save for college.” Although it is nice to pay for your child’s schooling, I paid my own way through college and plenty of others have as well. I graduated in four years and I stayed with family rather than living in the dorms and got grants/scholarships so I had no student debt. My brother is taking the community college route so he’s taking a bit longer to finish school but he also has no debt. And I have more siblings that are still pre-college but are practical about paying for school. I think there is too much focus on non-essentials (houses, cars, vacations) and not enough on essentials (spending time together, formation of faith/values/conscience). I don’t think people regret not paying their kids’ way through college, but they do regret not spending more time with their children.
Sterilization is not an option for practicing Catholics (who receive Communion) but NFP works about as good as the Pill when a couple has a good reason to delay having more children.
Yes, the population is increasing but that is only because people are getting older. People are not having enough children to replace themselves. The average needs to be 2.1 for replacement and yet many countries are below 2… 1.4, 1.5, 1.8, etc. There is also a lot of land out there that could be used for farming to grow more food should the population increase. I believe we are producing/able to produce enough food for 50 billion people each year. More and more families are choosing not to have children. This will continue to harm the economy as there are not enough workers to support the number of retirees so taxes will have to increase to accommodate this. There is also a general distaste for larger families, but those families are needed to make up for all the ones with 0 or 1 child.
How many more women will suffer from breast cancer until we will finally admit to the correlation between hormonal birth control, abortion and the astronomical rise in breast cancer since 1960. Study after study has supported this cause and effect. We women worry about organic food, clean water, getting to the gym and eating only cage-free eggs, but we continue to think it is ok to take a cancer-causing drug to stop a natural process in our bodies.
The sad irony of the sexual revolution was that it was going to free women. Instead, the joke has been on women all along…. a terrible, humiliating joke.
I appreciate people’s responses here. Thank you everyone for writing.
Dr Morse
I appreciate everyone who has posted here. I especially appreciate people saying they are “sinners” and not “victims.” However: I think it is very important that Humanae Vitae Catholics ensure that their voices are heard at the Synod. We don’t have any official standing or anything. But, we plan to share the numbers of signatories (not all their info!) with some members of the Synod. I would urge you to sign the petition for that reason, if nothing else.
There are cases where men are denied visitation because the ex wife lies about his interactions with his children. Just because you don’t experience it or see it does not mean it’s non-existent. A co-worker of mine recently celebrated the fact that child support was no longer taken from his paycheck because his youngest child reached the agreed-upon age. Now he looks forward to the day when his children reach out to him and learn his side of the story. Some people can be very vindictive and miserable, and if you don’t know of these situations, count yourself fortunate that you have not witnessed it. It’s no wonder kids are screwed up these days - and most of it can be assigned to the willful destruction of the traditional family unit. We’re into the second and third generation of this, and the fruits are multiplying.
@nycdreamer: Overpopulation is not a global problem. It is a problem locally in some places—all of which are either communist dictatorships or post-colonial anarchies, so it’s not actually population in itself that’s the problem, but other things that render the population unsupportable.
-
There are, indeed, not sufficient resources to support an “unlimited” number of people. But merely bringing our current agricultural land—not cultivating any new land, just improving our current agricultural land—to the state of the art of the mid-1980s, can feed a population of 35 billion people at an American calorie intake, and 105 billion at a Japanese one (still a first-world country). Humans currently inhabit .42% of the planet’s ice-free land surface, and cultivate another 9%. Even if there were 35 billion of us, we’d only take up a combined 11.1% of the ice-free surface (almost all of which would be farms, not cities); 105 billion would only use 15.3%.
-
It flatters the human ego to believe we have radically transformed this planet in our own image. Like most things pleasing to the human ego it is false. Except for lights on the night side, you can’t even tell this planet has a technological civilization, from orbit.
-
And the reason we say overpopulation-scares are a plot by elites is we have lots and lots of letters and books and speeches, by elites from Malthus to Kissinger, about how they need to advocate overpopulation so Britain doesn’t have a French Revolution or so Brazil can’t compete with America for oil, to just give the specific examples of those two guys I listed. “Population control” and “eugenics” are essentially indistinguishable.
REF: Nycdreamr
“The saving grace of this article is that, for once, someone on the far right has the guts to admit that there is no correlation what-so-ever between gay people getting married and the problems of heterosexual divorce and births outside of marriage”
There is no such thing as homosexual “marriage”. Takes two people of the opposite sex to make a marriage. Read your Catechism, and also the Bible.
The average woman today doesn’t marry until she’s around 26, which is almost getting beyond the peak fertility years anyway. That time in her late teens/early twenties, allows her to get established in her profession and to test the waters and find a suitable spouse.
No one forces a career woman not to have babies. In fact, most I know have one around the late 20s and one in the early to mid 30s. If a woman wants 3, she can manage and still have a high powered career. If she has a career where she can set her own hours or work from home, she can have more as well. Other than that, it comes down to sheer practicality. The cost of daycare for more than 3 children is prohibitive, especially if they’re too closely spaced. The need for multiple maternity leaves is also going to hurt a woman’s professional career, as well as the inevitable problem of sick children needing an absence from work. However, there is no need to resort to chemical neutering, FAM or sterilization will work quite well to space the children accordingly.
Then consider the economic factors. Unless the spouse working for income (and there are men who do the nurturing, too) is making enough, there is usually a need for 2 incomes in order to save for college and retirement to say nothing of having a spare income in case of a layoff or other life emergency. A stay at home spouse going back into the labor pool after an absence of some years is not going to be able to supplement as much as a spouse that has continued working.
As for the reluctantly divorced, I’m sorry but what kind of person would force another to stay in a failed marriage with them? Civilly, marriage is a contract and either partner can break the contract, just as in any other legal partnership. If the mother is not allowing the father to see his children, he should pursue legal options as that is illegal for the mother to do. Also, why can’t he pursue custody? My father had sole, assignable custody of me following divorce proceedings, so it is possible, especially if the mother is the sort to try to stop her child from seeing their other parent.
Don’t forget the victims who end up with sexually transmitted diseases from knowing or unknowing carriers of such diseases. Or how about the heartbroken parents of children saddled with such diseases or a child out of wedlock.
Let’s face it: Humanae Vitae was right—and prophetic.
I’m not signing this petition because
I consider myself a sinner, not a victim. I’m the one who made some of these bad choices in the long ago past. I’m the one who did not listen to my conscience.
It is obvious we need to pray more—for healing, for amending our lives—and go to Mass, Confession regularly.
“We need to go to this Child, this Man, the Son of God, at whatever inconvenience, at whatever risk to ourselves, because to know him and love him will truly change our lives.”—John Paul II (1995)
We “all” know of divorced fathers who pay child support and never see their children?? I live in the “liberal” bastion of Manhattan, have a large extended family around the country and travel often and know of no such person. Family courts across the country favor joint-custody or, at a minimum, liberal visitation by the non-custodial parent. Fathers I know, divorced or otherwise, play a far more active role in their childrens’ lives than the married/never-divorced fathers in the Catholic neighborhood I grew up in. Not to say they were bad fathers, but they were nowhere nearly as engaged as the fathers I know from my generation and the next one. If some father somewhere is paying child support and not seeing his children, it is because of HIS OWN selfishness and not because of any system or popularly accepted belief structure. I find it interesting, too, that the author dismisses over-population as a plot by elites to reduce the number of poor people. Does the author not believe over-population is a problem? Does the author believe there are sufficient resources on the planet to support an unlimited number of billions of people? Is all of the research in this regard some kind of hoax? The saving grace of this article is that, for once, someone on the far right has the guts to admit that there is no correlation what-so-ever between gay people getting married and the problems of heterosexual divorce and births outside of marriage. All you have to do is look at states that have gay marriage (like Massachusetts) and their low divorce rates and compare them with the anti-marriage equality states of the southern “bible belt” which boast the highest divorce rates in the country.
Excellent interview, and Ms. Morse is right to fight the whole sexual revolution rather than merely same-sex “marriage.” After all, it is the damage we’ve done to traditional marriage by our acceptance of no-fault divorce, extramarital sex and the separation of pleasure and procreation that allows anyone to say “gay marriage” with a straight face in the first place.
This is a wonderful article. I especially like the points about the reluctant divorced, and about the lonliness. We do need to reach out to people in this way. Thank you Dr. Morse.
As much as I don’t want to admit to being a victim, I am one according to this definition. I hope and pray the best for this intiative. However, I will not sign the petition - too much personal information is being requested.
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.