Hold On To Your Catholic Kids

Unschooling, Re-attachment and Spiritual Development

2011-06-28T05:06:00.000-07:00

I think a lot of unschoolers are also re-attachers, and when you're re-attaching you simply cannot expect much at all from your children until you've regained their trust and affection and brought them to rest. To continue to expect everything of them that you did before when you were willing to coerce them into your will with force will never amount to a secure relationship. Dr. Neufeld explains this very clearly in his treatment of counterwill.

Children who have been coerced all their lives are usually in defensive detachment mode or hyper compliance mode, and don't want to do anything you want them to do, or will do anything you expect of them to the terrible detriment of their own development. Once you remove the coercion, they're going to go a little crazy for a while until you regain their trust. They have to be brought to rest first, like the new convert comes to rest in Christ in the life of grace before moving into the purgative way. Ideally, parents are already affirmed, mature, and at least on the cusp of the unitive way before they are trying to help their children through these phases of their own lives and relationships. But if you come to parenting more or less stuck in the purgative way, it's going to be hard to support your children through the life of grace, first of all, and especially through the purgative way, since you're still struggling through it yourself. But when you've gotten through that phase, at least on a certain level, then you can begin to really support and nurture your kids. This is why we've always emphasized on this list that before we can really collect our kids, we have to collect ourselves. Re-attachment begins when parents near the end of the purgative way and are now in a position to focus more of their attention on their children, going back to square one, to the life of grace and re-initiating the bonding process. Once there's a secure bond again you can move into phase two of re-building boundaries, structures and strictures, making expectations known, always taking resistance as a possible sign of insecurity and dealing with that before pushing ahead--the purgative way for the child. Probably most of us aren't going to have kids one might describe as having entered the unitive way until they're fully grown, fully mature physically, emotionally and spiritually.

Just based on my own observations, I think each phase has within it a miniature of all three (some authors note 4, 5 or 7) phases, and I'm sure if you looked at each healthy interaction as if under a microscope you'd find all these phases present, from the life of grace in the initial connection, to the purgative way, where expectations are made known and maybe even wrestled with, to the unitive way, where resonance is achieved, an understanding and agreement made. St Teresa notes a phase between the purgative and unitive ways which she calls the illuminative way, where there's a dawning of consciousness, an awareness or mindfulness of one's self with respect to the other, a moment of profound humility where you see a situation or a whole life from another point of view, an awakening. I personally believe that one's style of parenting corresponds to where one is in the spiritual life, those still in the purgative way on the more authoritarian side (possibly those in the life of grace a little more permissive), those in the illuminitave way I would consider in the re-attachment phase, and those in the unitive way enjoying already secure attachment on the parts of their children. (I hope I'm making sense.)

If you skip the life of grace part of the relationship, or interaction, moving immediately into the purgative phase, there's going to be trouble, there's going to be counter-will, and resentment, and frustration. You have to build a bond of trust, make a secure connection first before entertaining expectations. And you'll never get to the unitive phase without the secure attachment forged during the phase of grace. That's why it's so important not to discount the principles that pertain to infancy, like feeding with love and respect, providing nurturing touch and consistent loving care, and providing safe sleep. When you don't invest in the secure bond provided through practicing these principles, you're going to have a very difficult time with responding with sensitivity and positive discipline! And you can forget about balance!

(There's so much more I could write concerning affirmation, or lack of it, and skipping the life of grace phase of the parent/child relationship. There's a wealth of information that could be applied to the re-attachment efforts of parents, gleaned from the work of Drs. Baars and Terruwe on healing the unaffirmed. I just don't want this post to get any longer!)

So, when some say "consider all the chores your own," or "don't expect instant obedience from your kids," or "let them direct their own education," etc. I think you might safely assume they're in re-attachment or the illuminative way moving towards the unitive (or I guess they might be in the life of grace moving toward the purgative way--who really knows for sure!); and those who are comfortable with asking more of their kids, or expecting more, but who are willing to work through resistance with respect and patience, not resorting to threats or force are at least nearing the unitive way. Of course, I'm over simplifying the whole mess, but I hope it makes some sense--that our personal development and the development of our relationships with ourselves, our neighbor, and with God follow a predictable course and that depending on where the two people are in these three areas the dynamics of a relationship will withstand more or less--that life and relationships are processes and that wherever you find yourself and your loved ones, don't worry, God isn't finished with us, yet! And worrying about it is counterproductive because it weakens faith--but even that is probably part of a process, as long as you don't get stuck.

I don't mean to make it seem like it doesn't really matter what you do, God is taking care of everything. I don't mean that at all, because what we do makes it more or less easy for us to submit ourselves to letting God take care of everything. But I do mean that unless we give up on love, and completely lose faith in Him, He will take better care of us than we could ever take of ourselves, and our children, even when we don't realize it, and the only thing holding us back is our own worrying.

"And that's all I have to say about that!"~~Forest Gump

Visiting the Imprisoned, at home

2011-03-03T05:33:00.000-08:00

Parents have daily opportunities to practice the corporal and spiritual works of mercy in their homes. Some of the works of mercy are pretty straight forward, like feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, and visiting the sick, but others, like visiting the imprisoned, and burying the dead, are not so obvious. Could it be that these two are not relevant to our relationships with our children? I suggest that this is not the case and would like to show what these two works of mercy might look like with regard to family life.

One who is imprisoned is one who is cut off from society, one who has suffered a profound attachment rupture and is suffering the excruciating pain of attachment void. Mercifully visiting one in such a state would involve offering comfort and an opportunity to connect or fill the void of loneliness through the senses, hence a “corporal” as opposed to a “spiritual” work of mercy.

Not many of us may have the opportunity to practice this work in an actual prison in the world, but mothers and fathers have numerous opportunities to practice this work in their homes. Sometimes a rupture comes about when parents find it necessary to set limits in order to protect their children physically or spiritually. When this happens, the child may experience a sense of loss, becoming at first angry, and then, as the futility sinks in, sorrowful, grieving the loss of something had or desired, which is usually indicated by the shedding of tears. These tears are the body’s way of cleansing itself of the toxic chemicals that are released when the fight or flight response is triggered. In this case, visiting the imprisoned means providing physical and emotional presence to the child, filling his need for connection with loving eye contact, nurturing touch, soothing voice tones, and active listening. It does not mean imprisoning the child physically or emotionally through disconnection and isolation until he’s ready to visit you with an apology. This is not the picture of a work of mercy, but a work of coercion and manipulation through which is engendered in the child’s soul not charity but resentment. In real life, this is partially why very often prisoners come out of prison more hardened than when they went in.

At other times a child may indicate that he is experiencing an attachment void through boredom, another common problem of the imprisoned. Boredom can occur when a child’s stress level drops below what he is adapted to. The body experiences this drop in stress as a loss of equilibrium. It is unsettling for the child and his first impulse is to go in search of some excitement to restore balance. In this state he is very vulnerable to getting into trouble, or causing a lot of it for others. This in turn makes him vulnerable to having the void deepened through a limit setting rupture. But merciful parents can recognize this condition for what it is and provide a haven for the child in which to come to rest, filling the void with nurturance, resonance, presence. A conversation, a shared snack prepared with love, a game for two, a story, a back rub—all these can help a restless child regain his balance in a wholesome way and draw him out of the prison of idleness.
Another very significant way in which a child may become imprisoned within himself is through the shame that is the terrible consequence of toxic rupture. A toxic rupture occurs when the child experiences himself as rejected by his primary attachment figures (parents, older siblings, extended family members, teachers, coaches, parish priests, etc.) and must retreat to deep within himself to hide what is valuable and vulnerable. This is a prison of abject loneliness where he has locked himself away to defend against the onslaught of an affront to his littleness that is too much to bear. When these kinds of ruptures occur too frequently, a child can soon become imprisoned for life within a dark, small, empty cell that even he eventually forgets. Hidden from the light of day for too long, maturation and development into a healthy, holy adult is stunted. So long as he remains in this prison he will never know joy, peace or love. But a merciful visitation after such a rupture, a humble reconciliation, can free the child from this prison of isolation so that he can re-enter society and grow in knowledge and virtue.

For parents reading this who are just now realizing that their precious child is imprisoned within himself, rest assured, it is not too late to free him. Repeated visitation, and reconciliation can, with time, heal the child’s spirit so that he can emerge once again into the freedom and grace that is the privilege of sons and daughters of God. When parents can confess that it is they who deserve to be punished for their sins against their child, for failing to cherish and respect him in his dignity as a person created in God’s image, they pay the debt for which he has been suffering and free him from it.

The practice of burying the dead in our homes will have to wait for another post. Meanwhile, let us redouble our efforts and resolve to give food and drink to our children with love and generosity; to clothe them with dignity and respect for their individuality; to shelter them with orderliness and care for their littleness; to nurse them to health with patience and gentleness, whether their illness be physical or spiritual; and to visit them promptly and frequently whenever they become imprisoned within a shroud of shame, afraid to live with joy and courage the life you have so generously cooperated in giving them.

Fraternal Charity in the Home

2010-08-10T06:38:00.000-07:00

The last few weeks of Divine Intimacy (starting around #250) have been amazing! All the meditations are on fraternal charity and are so inspiring, renewing my resolve to give my full presence to my children and respond to them with gentleness and joy. I wish I'd been underlining all the wonderful thoughts Fr. Gabriel has included in the last month's meditations so I could go back to them easily and share them with you. Instead, I have only a few:

"Everyone [even a child] has some burden, more or less heavy, to bear: physical or moral weakness, the press of duties and responsibilities, fatigue or other troubles which weigh on his shoulders. Everyone feels the need of a friendly hand to help him carry this weight. This hand should be held out to him in fraternal charity, which for love of God, knows how to be all things to all men. 'Bear ye one another's burdens, and so you shall fulfill the law of Christ' St. Paul exhorts us (Gal 6,2). A Christian knows that he is not isolated, but is a member of a unique body, the Mystical Body of Christ. 'So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another' (Rom 12,5). This knowledge of his solidarity with the brethren [secure attachment] makes a Christian live, not enclosed in the tiny circle of his own interests, but with his heart open to the needs and interests of others."

So it is our knowledge of our incorporation in Christ that should remove our anxiety and enable us to give generously of ourselves to our neighbor, beginning with our spouse and children; and this in turn, will open their hearts to the needs and interests of others.

"Charity always believes in the good will of others, even though it may be accompanied by faults; it always hopes in the good which it knows how to discover in every creature, although it may be eclipsed by many deficiencies [the flight from vulnerability]. What is more important, charity supports everything, never finding any burden too heavy. To support, according to the etymology of the word, means 'to place oneself under a weight to carry it.' Charity feels that it must stoop with love to take up the burdens of others, particularly those burdens which all avoid because they are troublesome."

"Behold the charity which, instead of fleeing, seeks out those who are suffering through natural and moral imperfections [rather than sending them to their rooms to suffer alone!], and busies itself with them so lovingly that they never guess how painful the effort is, nor how troublesome their defects are to others. Charity bears all things, endures all things with a smiling, serene face, never showing itself annoyed or crushed by the burden it bears."

How sensitive children are to perceiving that they are a burden to their parents! I cringe at the memory of so many times when my reactions to their requests have lent themselves to the impression that my children were a burden to me. And even though the memory of their sad expression is punishment enough for me, still the consequence of my sins afflicts my children and often tempts me to recoil from yet another burden I have laid upon them, perpetuating this awful cycle. What a horror and plague is sin! And what an awesome responsibility is parenthood. While lay Catholics stand in outrage over the recent scandals in the priesthood, we may do well to become more mindful of how our own actions offend the innocence of our children.

"Attention to the needs and sorrows of others, with a constant readiness to give one's help, is no justification for expecting a like return... Charity does not give an order to receive; it gives without counting the cost and without measure, for it knows that the honor of serving and loving God in His creatures is ample reward. Charity loves, serves, gives, and spends itself lavishly, solely for the sake of loving and serving God in others, for the joy of imitating His infinite generosity, for the joy of feeling itself the child of the heavenly Father who bestows His favors upon all without distinction. What greater reward can there be than to be able to call ourselves, and to be in all truth, children of God! To enjoy this [intrinsic] reward, charity seeks to fly from every [extrinsic] earthly recompense and hides the good it does... It seeks by preference to benefit those from whom it can expect nothing in return..."

Wow! There's an awful lot about punishments and rewards in that thought that I think even Alfie Kohn would agree with!

"Sometimes, just when one of about to perform an especially delicate act of charity for another, a strong feeling of antipathy toward that person arises from the sensitive part of the soul because of the absence of some sign or token of respect or consideration. This is manifestly a temptation which must be overcome as soon as it appears, that it may not take root. Anyone who would yield to these feelings and act accordingly, under the pretext of justice or of teaching a lesson, would soon become very exacting to the great detriment of charity."

How true this is in parenting! The devil wastes no time at all tempting us to start a tally of who deserves what based on his own contributions! But what a fatal error this is, especially within the family, undermining secure attachment to its foundation. If it were even possible to make a tree bear fruit before it was fully mature, it's roots having spread deep and wide enough to support the weight of its fruit-laden branches, it would topple over and die, its fruit rotting on the ground. But this is exactly what so many of us expect of our children, forcing the flower and stealing young fruit from the branches, not waiting for it to ripen and be offered freely. And what is our excuse? That we ourselves are starving. And why? Because we have still put off the Cross and the imitation of Christ. If we are not living up to the precept of fraternal charity in our own homes, it is because we are only in a casual, on-again-off-again relationship, if at all, with the source of all charity Who is Jesus. Only He can fully affirm us so that we will be empowered to affirm our children; only He can satisfy all our needs so that we will be empowered to fill the needs of our children; only He can satisfy our heart's desire so that we will be empowered to satisfy the desire of our children's hearts; so that having arrived one day at full maturity, our children will be empowered to rest in Him and be affirmed by Him, and fulfilled, and satisfied.

The Neurology of the Spiritual Life

2010-06-11T05:35:00.000-07:00

St. Augustine says, "The increase of charity is the decrease of passion,and the perfection of charity is the absence of passion."

Neurologically speaking, the more charity a person experiences, the more at peace will be his limbic system, enabling growth in his anterior cingulate which increases his capacity for charity and facilitates communication between his intellect and will, bringing his passions into line more and more easily. When the child's lower nature is quieted in appropriate ways, rather than becoming suppressed through deprivation (to which injury is usually added insult when parents punish the child for not being happy and accepting about being deprived!), then the child can focus his energy and attention on developing his higher nature--his intellect and virtue. The more communication between his intellect and will and the greater his capacity for charity, the greater and greater is his capacity to embrace suffering.

A child needs two things from his parents to be successful (besides the obvious!)--to be healthy, happy and holy. He needs security, which is the same as faith, hope and charity. And he needs direction--orientation, toward what is right, and true and good. Direction without faith is impotent, and faith without direction is lost--this is just another way of saying good works without (faith, hope and) charity are empty--they merit nothing; and faith without good works is dead.

Until the child has the opportunity for his anterior cingulate to develop, through secure attachment, he is a slave to his passion and will remain so. He does not have full use of his free will--a function of the intellect--and cannot be held entirely responsible for his actions, anymore than an unskilled rider can be held responsible for the wild rompings of an untrained horse. But the way to train the horse is not to starve it or beat it into submission. Any horse treated thus can only go so far so fast and only when threatened by the rider. But a horse who trusts his rider and whose rider communicates to him gently and patiently, calming his fears, will trustingly orient toward his rider and happily do his bidding.

Secure attachment has to happen in the brain, between the intellect and passions, even as it happens in the parent/child relationship--or rather, it is the security provided by the parent (unconditional love), and the direction of the parent's good example, that makes possible the secure attachment between intellect and passions and the healthy development of the brain and the spiritual life.

All human beings are obedient to someone/thing. We all follow the direction of that which we trust--whether it's ourselves, the media (world), God, etc. But obedience which is a virtue springs from charity like all other
virtues--not from servile fear, which, as the Church has always taught and as is now confirmed through the study of the brain, stunts the growth of charity. When we communicate to our children God's unconditional love and acceptance, they will naturally orient toward us, like a flower does to the sun. They will want to obey us, because they trust us and know that we love them and have their best interest at heart. (This doesn't mean that they will always succeed at obeying us--they are weak just like we are and equally incapable of embracing a Cross that is too big for them. These times should serve to remind parent and child of our ultimate and utter dependence on God, and help us to grow in humility and patience.) If I'm not mistaken, this is how God uses His children, the members of His Mystical Body, as instruments through which, as well as through the sacraments, He communicates His life and His love which is sanctifying grace. When we radiate Christ to our children they will be drawn to Him like moths to the light--this is the meaning of the Canticle, "Draw me, we shall run in the odor of your ointments." I believe, too, that this is the overarching message of Pope John Paul's Theology of the Body--even of his whole pontificate!

In order for parents to do this they must first allow themselves to be drawn, which consists simply of a total surrender of self to Christ--a kind of spiritual marriage. This is why contemplative parenting is so mutually
sanctifying for the spouses, as partners in parenthood, and their children.

The reason we call this contemplative parenting, is because the brain is stimulated in the same way as in contemplation by resonant relationships, which is what kind of relationships the principles of attachment parenting afford the family. In contemplation as well as in securely attached relationships there is a sense of the presence of the other, or feeling felt by the other--it is the sense of the Presence of God in Himself and in one another. This is a Trinitarian relationship in its fullness. This is how, through Christ centered relationships, we are drawn into the life of the Blessed Trinity and how all those we love are drawn with us, "like a torrent in the ocean."~~St. Therese of Lisieux

12 Steps to Re-Attachment

2010-02-03T15:20:00.000-08:00

The 12 Steps

Step 1 - Admit that you alone through the use of coercion, training tactics, behavior modification strategies, etc. are powerless to control your children's lives and that your own life has become unmanageable
Step 2 - Come to believe that the transformative power and joy of unconditional love can restore you to sanity and enable growth in sanctity through horizontal detachment and vertical reorientation
Step 3 - Make a decision to turn your will and your life and the lives of your children over to the care of God through Trustful Surrender
Step 4 - Make a searching and fearless examination of conscience
Step 5 - Admit to yourself , to God, and to one other person, i.e., the priest in sacramental confession, a spouse or trusted friend, the exact nature of your wrongs
Step 6 - Make entirely ready to have God heal all these defects of character by coming to rest in His unconditional love and mercy
Step 7 - Humbly ask God to heal you in His own good time by embracing The Cross for love's sake through an act of blind, profound faith ("The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them..")
Step 8 - Make a list of all the offenses you have committed against your children, and become willing to make amends to them
Step 9 - Make direct amends to your children wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others
Step 10 - Continue to take personal inventory and when wrong promptly admit it and apologize
Step 11 - Seek through prayer and contemplation to improve your conscious contact with God, praying only for knowledge of God's will for you in each moment and the power to carry that out
Step 12 - Having had a spiritual conversion as the result of these steps, embark upon the apostolate of Catholic parenting, bringing this message to other families, and practicing these principles in the context of ALL your relationships

[Note: Each of these steps will be elaborated upon in subsequent posts.]

What is Attachment Parenting?

2010-01-30T13:40:00.000-08:00

Recently someone asked me, "What, exactly, is Attachment Parenting?" For some reason I was completely flummoxed by her question and attempted a response that fast proved itself to be going no where. I don't know if it was not knowing her and her family and their specific needs at this point in time, and consequently not knowing where to begin, or if it was low blood sugar or lack of sleep that was my obstacle, but I felt lost and completely unable to focus. A dear friend jumped in to try to save me, but after all was said and done I was sure all the answer that had been communicated could be summed up in the word, "breastfeeding," which is only the tip of the iceberg. It bothered me all night, but I have learned that if I entrust the Holy Ghost with my nights, things are always much clearer in the morning.

Even though attachment parenting looks different in relationship with a baby than it does with a toddler, or a teen, there are some underlying principles which are constant. I hope that the following will sum it all up:

Human beings are needy and dependent. We depend ultimately on God, and in His wisdom He has made it necessary that we depend on one another, thereby affording each of us the opportunity to share in His power of sanctifying souls. It is in the vulnerability of these interdependent relationships that we learn to love. It is this neediness and vulnerability that is the fulcrum on which teeters the fall and elevation of man's nature. In seeking to be like God, our first parents fled from their vulnerability and denied their dependence on Him. The loss of sanctifying grace through the fall is the primary attachment void. Concupiscence is associated with the anxiety aroused by this void--man fears that he is unlovable and unable to love. Since he was made to love and be loved (as a shark was made to swim and eat), the fear that he is not lovable and cannot love arouses his deepest, darkest passions. If he cannot love he can never be happy--neither in this life nor the next. He cannot give what he has not received. If he is not loved and cannot earn love then he will never be able to give love. The futility is in trying to earn unconditional love, which by its very definition and nature cannot be earned, but is a free gift, already merited for us by Christ. In becoming man--embracing our vulnerability and dependence, submitting unconditionally to the will of men, Christ elevated us to His level--the Divine level--tipping the scale, so to speak, in man's favor. Peace and sanctity consist in embracing our vulnerability and dependence, coming to rest in the unconditional love and bountiful, merciful providence of God, and surrendering ourselves unconditionally to His Divine Will.

Babies and children (as with all human beings) have many physical and emotional needs all falling under the umbrella of their primary need to receive and give unconditional love: food, warmth, touch, security, empathy (emotional safety), autonomy, order, self-control, freedom, self-esteem (a sense that I am lovable and able to love). When these needs are filled in healthy ways children tend to behave as healthy children ought to behave, and their passions are subdued. When these needs are unfilled, their passions are inflamed and they become unruly and uncooperative, in exactly the same way that children do when their hunger for food is left untended. Prolonged deprivation triggers a defensive flight from vulnerability (pride) which can lead to serious habits of vice: rebelliousness, violence, drugs and alcohol, gluttony (and other forms of eating disorders), materialism, backbiting, loss of the sense of modesty, sin and the sacred; sexual licentiousness and perversion; sloth, despair and suicide. The deprived become the depraved. (Dr. Neufeld shows in Part II of HOTYK how prolonged attachment void leads to all these evils).

Gentle birthing, extended breastfeeding and giving children freedom within healthy limits to make their own food choices; holding or wearing your baby as much as he wants and as you are able; ensuring safe sleep emotionally and physically, i.e., co-sleeping or bed-sharing; avoiding separations and providing consistent loving care when they're unavoidable; responding with sensitivity; positive and gentle discipline which seeks to identify and fill the underlying need to re-establish equilibrium and only afterward to solicit cooperation (in the spirit of the words of St. John of the Cross, "Where there is no love, put love and you will find love."), rather than inflicting the suffering of deprivation, i.e. negative discipline: withdrawing physical comfort (spanking), affection (glaring, yelling, etc.), admiration and sense of self-worth (shaming), proximity (isolation in time-out), etc., in order to forcefully modify behavior; and balance--interior and exterior--balanced parents and balanced environment--all work together to provide for the child's needs, and at the same time help parents to become more virtuous people. A Trinitarian relationship is born in which parents, acting as intermediaries of God's grace, give the unconditional love and acceptance the child needs to grow in virtue so that he can eventually return that love. In turn, parents unconditionally accept the child's attempts to love, providing him with encouragement, hope, and a sense of power, autonomy and self-worth. A mutually sanctifying cycle of giving and receiving unconditional love is initiated and the Blessed Trinity is enthroned in our hearts and in our relationships. The feeling of being felt that is the hallmark of the secure attachment is none other than the awareness of the Presence of the Blessed Trinity "incarnated" in our mutual, self-sacrificing love for one another, "Where two or more are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst."

When children's needs are filled, they can remain at peace--at rest, as opposed to in flight from their vulnerability (a.k.a. "flight from suffering," "fear of the Cross"). It is only in this peaceful rest (in Christ--in a Trinitarian relationship) that human beings can grow physically, emotionally and spiritually. Moments of unrest and strife which are unavoidable in this life are easily weathered, and calm is quickly restored.

Parents become more virtuous by learning to depend more and more on the love and mercy of God for their happiness and peace, until they eventually embrace The Cross, surrendering themselves and all whom they love to the merciful providence of God ("Draw me, we shall run in the odor of Your ointments."). Here is where they find balance--the balance of their horizontal humanity upon the vertical beam of Christ's Divinity--The Cross. All virtue springs from charity; all vice springs from fear of the Cross. As they grow in virtue they impart, almost effortlessly, these virtues to their children and to all with whom they are in relationship.

What began as a natural, human endeavor, is seamlessly transported and elevated to the supernatural level, becoming a divine work in the souls of all the members of a family. Though sacntifying grace filled each of our souls at baptism, the cultivation of charity in our souls requires our cooperation--"The Higher does not stand without the Lower" C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves. Wise parents will learn how, by their patient example and guidance, to solicit their children's cooperation through love, which must be an act of their free will and cannot be caused by force--fear of suffering or the promise of a reward which is extrinsic to the act itself.

When children (human beings) are given the opportunity and the freedom to experience the joy and suffering that is intrinsic to their actions (not imposed from without), the development of a true moral conscience occurs. It is only within their own true conscience that they can perceive the impulses of the Holy Ghost and live confidently and joyfully at peace in a state of total abandonment to God's will.

Parents model trustful surrender by accepting unconditionally with meekness and humility their children's needs and feelings, gently redirecting their actions when inappropriate or physically/spiritually dangerous--avoiding the use of force except in cases of imminent danger. When we give loving, validating presence to a child who is suffering through hard feelings--frustration, disappointment, anger, sorrow, fear--we "watch one hour" with Our Lord in His agony, when all His other disciples fell asleep. We refuse to deny Him as poor Peter did. We help to shoulder the burden in imitation of Simon of Cyrene. We wipe the sweat and blood from His brow like St. Veronica, and we weep with the women of Jerusalem over His Passion. We don't deny His suffering; we don't urge Him to flee from it or try to shield Him from it, again as poor Peter did, after which The Master rebuked him, "Get behind me, Satan;" we remain with Him at the foot of the Cross in the company of Our Lady, St. John and the Magdalen until "it is finished;" the meaning of Our Lord's prayer, "Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit" is felt deeply, down to his very bones ("The have pierced My hands and My feet; they have numbered all My bones"); and God's work in this moment is accomplished in the soul of this child.

Of course, sometimes it is we who need someone to watch an hour with us and it seems everyone has fallen asleep. Futility crushes us as we are confronted with our own neediness, inadequecy and dependence and we must pray with Christ, "Not my will, Father, but Thine be done." It is in just such a moment as this that we are given the opportunity to discover the meaning and purpose of suffering, and the entire Gospel message is made clear. Our souls are illumined by the light of truth, and the Holy Ghost can now begin to instruct us, now blind to all other lights, in The School of Charity.

Again, what began as a natural love has been augmented and transformed into supernatural charity.

All parents have this natural love for their children, but it is fear of the Cross which keeps us from cooperating in the transformation. Attachment psychology is God's own gift to a cynical, skeptical, non-believing people who have lost faith and hope in the transformative power of unconditional love. For us who have so much trouble believing in anything we cannot perceive with our senses or measure in a lab, there are now countless studies that demonstrate time and again that it is love, not extrinsic force or fear, which has the power to make us fully human; and horizontal, human love that is elevated and balanced upon the vertical beam of Divine love has the power to transform each one of us into an "Alter Christus," fully human, yet divinized in the Body and Blood of Christ.

This, in a nutshell, is Catholic Attachment Parenting.

Odysseus and Attachment

2010-01-25T00:00:00.000-08:00

George Moore wrote, "A man travels the world over in search of what he needs and returns home to find it."

This reminds me of what G.K. Chesterton said, that "The young man who rings the bell at the brothel is unconsciously looking for God." In our life long quest for satisfaction and happiness it is ultimately Christ we are seeking, as He is the source of all true satisfaction and happiness. This is why it's so important that we take care not to repress our children's capacity to desire, as this is what compels them ever onward toward Divine Union. If it were possible for a man to experience every possible pleasure on the face of the earth, at the end there would be nothing left but Christ. That's just it--He is the end, there is nothing else in the end but Him. The danger is in the fact that few men will live long enough to find out this way. Christ came to call us now, to free us from the slavery of sin, which is our state so long as we are seeking happiness in things. That's why every healthy relationship must begin with an act of renunciation, of detachment. Man leaves father and mother, detaches, and cleaves to his wife. If he doesn't do this completely his gift of self to his wife will not be complete. This is where I see the analogy of cellular mitosis to be most fitting. Cells have to divide completely before they can reattach to one another in a way that promotes growth. When they don't we get anomalies in nature that are not ideal. When we bring a child into the world, the kind of renunciation called for is almost total. I only say "almost" because I'm not sure it's exactly on a par with that called for in our relationship with Christ--maybe it is, I can't say for sure.

Now I'm not sure if this next part is true of cells, although I'm inclined to think it must be, but in the psychological arena, successful individuation prerequires secure attachment. "It is not good that man should be alone." We are hardwired to be attached to someone--and of course as Christians we believe that someone is Christ. Now parents can provide security that surpasses peers, as can spouses for one another, but the attachment figure who can provide security which surpasses ALL created realities is Christ. In Him we have absolute security.

Now another interesting thing about secure attachment is that those who know it, in the experiential sense, are able to share it with those who don't, or in the words of Conrad Baars, more or less, only the affirmed can affirm the unaffirmed. Studies show that children who are securely attached will relate to children who aren't in a way that offers at least a taste of its joy--in a way that provides at least a small portion of what is lacking. Parents who are secure are able to provide their children with security. Parents who are affirmed can affirm their children. We are able to share what we have received, but we cannot give what we have not received.

In the spiritual realm, only we who have been affirmed in Christ, not just sacramentally, but experientially through willingly carrying our cross with love, can share with others the affirmation of Christ which we have received. In doing so, we offer others an opportunity to know and love Christ, and to be known and loved by Him. We offer them an end to their quest, a rest to end all restlessness. We welcome them home after what, for some, has been a long and arduous journey. The world is filled with Ulysseses!

If we're conscious we stand a good chance of diminishing the possibility that our children will ever find themselves among his comrades. And if ever they do, we can trust that Christ is doing everything we're unable to do to lead them back home. It's never too late for us to do our part. Christ prefers to use us as His instruments, but doesn't need our help. It is we who need to help Him. We need to become secure attachment figures to be fully satisfied and happy.

Attachment parenting is as much for our benefit as it is for our children. It's good that babies be carried a lot, but it's better that they have parents who are generous enough to want to carry them a lot. It's good that children sleep in a place where they feel secure, but it's better that they have parents who are selfless enough to want to provide them with that security, even when they're tired. It's good that children learn to be motivated intrinsically by love, rather than extrinsically by fear, but it's better that they have parents who are meek and humble enough to want to provide them with gentle guidance and correction rather than indulging their own insecure egos whenever they feel threatened by their children's foolish choices. It is good that parents provide for all the physical, psychological and spiritual needs of their children as best they can, but it is far better that they acknowledge their inadequacy and entrust all their family's needs to Christ, the one true source of security and rest.

The Good Shepherd and Counterwill

2010-01-20T13:50:00.000-08:00

"Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever does not enter a sheepfold through the gate but climbs over elsewhere is a thief and a robber.
But whoever enters through the gate is the shepherd of the sheep.
The gatekeeper opens it for him, and the sheep hear his voice, as he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
When he has driven out all his own, he walks ahead of them, and the sheep follow him, because they recognize his voice.
But they will not follow a stranger; they will run away from him, because they do not recognize the voice of strangers."

I had the opportunity recently to witness for the first time the Catechism of the Good Shepherd presentation on the Parable of the Good Shepherd and I was struck by the above verses. Immediately I saw a parallel to the concept of counterwill. In Chapter 6 of HOTYK, Dr. Neufeld explains that counterwill is a sort of innate defense mechanism which protects the person's free will from unlawful "shepherds." The idea is that everyone is obedient to someone, and this obedience is rooted in trust, and we should not submit to false shepherds who are not deserving of our trust "because [they] work[s] for pay and [have] no concern for the sheep" Jn 10: 13. Their intentions are self-centered, their motives self-serving. Obedience is virtuous only when we are obedient to lawful authority.

The gate, of course, is Christ, and we enter through Him through love of His Cross. Christ is The Good Shepherd, but parents are also shepherds and when our children are attached to us, they follow us because they recognize our voice. Likewise, "they will not follow a stranger; they will run away from him, because they do not recognize the voice of strangers." But when a child is peer-oriented, his good instincts are skewed, and his counterwill works against him, against his parents, and he easily becomes lost. His peers become the shepherds he follows, false shepherds who are in it for themselves, and his parents become strangers, the child becomes estranged from them.

In Chapter 15 of HOTYK, Dr. Neufeld writes, "Temporary breaks in the relationship are inevitable and are not in themselves harmful, unless they are frequent and severe. The real harm is inflicted when we neglect to re-collect our child, thus conveying that the relationship is not important to us or, alternatively, if we leave the impression that it is the child's responsibility to restore the connection." The Good Shepherd goes out in search of His lost sheep. He took it upon Himself to restore the connection between God and man by laying down His life, asking no more of us than that we put our faith and trust in Him, and having done so, follow Him..

When parents allow their own self-interest to influence their parenting, and their fragile egos, so easily threatened even by their own children, to dominate their interactions with their children, they risk driving their sheep right into the folds of false shepherds and into the dens of wolves.

If Christ calls His sheep by name at baptism (which is not the only way for Him to call us, but one we know of for sure), then the counterwill is God's gift, designed to protect us from being seduced by false shepherds. It is incumbent upon parents to take seriously the goodness of the child's will--to trust that, by virtue of the sacrament of baptism, the Holy Ghost is leading this child who knows His voice and follows it. If we wish to assist the Holy Ghost, we must enter by the gate, by the Cross. Only by uttering the words, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit," can our voices be united with that of The Good Shepherd. Only then do we have the lawful authority with which to lead our children. The Good Shepherd lays down His life for His sheep; He does not force His sheep to lay down their lives for Him, as do the false shepherds.

Maria Montessori, who so understood and loved the child's littleness, and on whose work the Catechesis of the Good Shepherd is based, wrote in The Secret of Childhood, "Since adults are also a part of a child's environment, they should adapt themselves to his needs." It is the height of hypocrisy and immaturity for adults to expect children to do what they themselves are not willing to. She writes, "A child readily obeys an adult. But when an adult asks him to renounce those instincts that favor his development, he cannot obey. When an adult demands such a sacrifice to his own personal interests, it is like attempting to stop the building of a child's teeth when he is teething. A child's tantrums and rebellions are nothing more than aspects of a vital conflict between his creative impulses and his love for an adult who fails to understand his needs. When a child is disobedient or has a tantrum an adult should always call to mind the conflict and try to interpret it as a defense of some unknown vital activity necessary for the child's development."

Only faith will enable us to understand this. Only through love of the Cross and embracing our own vulnerability and all the suffering associated with it, will we ever understand the secret of childhood, and what it means to become as little children. Only when we have entered through the gate can we shepherd our children's hearts. And it is the triggering of their counterwill that is the sign to us that something is yet lacking, that there is blood of ours yet to be poured out for them--either by patient, gentle herding, or by embarking on the long journey in search of the lost one.

Returning to the Beginning for the Start of the New Liturgical Year

2009-11-29T06:47:00.000-08:00

During this Advent season, the beginning of the Liturgical year, in meditating on the meaning of patient preparation and the birth of the Savior, I have found it necessary to go back in my mind to the beginning of our discussion of attachment and our journey as parents toward maturity, and reformulate for myself the premise on which our entire discussion is based. I thought maybe it would be good to post at least that, maybe even at regular intervals throughout the year, as a reminder to all of us of our purpose.

To sum it up in one sentence:

Children, like all human beings, need to feel that they are unconditionally loved in order to develop optimally physically, emotionally and spiritually; and in order for parents to communicate unconditional love in a way that is unmistakably felt by their children, parents must be willing to embrace unconditional suffering--to suffer through generous giving, and to meekly and humbly suffer their own inadequacy, neediness and dependence when it seems they have nothing left to give.

Attachment theory proves at least the first part of this premise, and illustrates in great detail the nature of this unconditional love, all its forms and manners, delineating for us all its benefits and all the dreadful consequences of the lack of it. Catholic spirituality defines for us the nature of love of the Cross and offers us ample testimony of the ability of human beings to embrace suffering for the sake of God's will, and the efficacy and fruitfulness of this surrender.

Attachment theory, in promoting putting the relationship first demonstrates in the natural realm the veracity of St. Paul's maxim, "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all else shall be added unto you," as well as the entire Gospel message, for that matter.

Attachment theory demonstrates the meaning of the Song, "Draw me, we shall run in the odor of your ointments," as St. Therese, for one, explains it--that when we allow ourselves, through love of the Cross, to be drawn by infinite (unconditional) love we will draw with us, "like a torrent in the ocean," all those whom we love. This is the same as Dr. Neufeld's statement that if parents have to become saints to collect, to court, to woo, to draw in their peer-oriented children, or to hold on to their vertically oriented children, then that's just what they'll have to do.

Attachment theory teaches us how to love our children's littleness, and allow them to love their littleness, in the same way St. Therese admonishes all of to love our own littleness. In teaching us how to achieve balance, attachment theory teaches us to accept and love our own littleness, and neediness and dependence and inadequacy, which forces us to lean on the All-Powerful for balance.

Attachment theory teaches us to trust ours and our children's God-given instincts, through which, when properly oriented, among other channels, the Holy Ghost directs and guides our footsteps.

In fostering the full integration of the physical, psychological and spiritual parts of the human person, attachment theory helps us and our children to become "perfect"--one, whole--"as Our Heavenly Father is perfect," as in having no parts but being one--whole--unified--fully integrated--at peace with oneself and with the world.

In the light of Catholic Spirituality, attachment theory teaches us a practical method of detachment along the same path as that outlined by St. John of the Cross, whose feast day is today.

In the light of Catholic Spirituality attachment theory demonstrates the transformative power of unconditional love and shows us precisely how we are to communicate that love to our children and to one another.

In the light of Catholic Spirituality, attachment theory teaches us how we are to become like our Blessed Mother, who loved God perfectly in the ordinary execution of her daily duties to her family, as is so beautifully illustrated for us in The Reed of God.

In exhorting us to give our children presence, attachment theory directs us toward Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence in the spirit of Matthew 6:24-34.

In exhorting us to be emotionally responsive to our children, attachment theory directs us toward meekness and humility in imitation of the heart of Jesus.

In exhorting us to use love and connection, rather than fear and isolation, to cultivate virtue in our children, attachment theory directs us toward the Cross.

When I first read HOTYK I felt the need to consult a dear priest friend of ours, a traditional priest whose seminary formation could never be in question. When I described to him all the things attachment parenting exacts of us, his astonished reply was, "But parents would have to be saints to do that!"

Apparently this is not the case for methods that force independence and exploit the fear of suffering to train up a child. That alone is endorsement enough for me.

Excerpts From Healthy Families: Safe Children Videos

2009-10-07T07:17:00.000-07:00

On The Crisis of Culture

"Humans are created for relationships. Moral growth and emotional growth can only occur within the context of these relationships. Babies hunger for connectedness and warmth. In a society where relationships begin to deteriorate the breakdown of moral behavior is not far behind." Dr. Lee Harrington

"I see many children and families that are involved in far too many activities. They rush around and have little time to talk to one another, too busy for the relationships that really matter and too busy for the relationship with God." Dr. David Willis

On Proactive Parenting

"Experiences with parents are really necessary for children to learn to manage strong emotions." Dr. David Willis

"We are not teaching boys how to care responsibly and morally about others. The goal of our efforts must include the better socialization of our boys and men." Fr. John Cihak

"The way the parent interacts with the child in the first few months and first years of the child’s life has profound impact on the child’s social and emotional development. It sets the course for the predictable developmental pathway. It’s like the trajectory of an airplane. It’s predictable, but it can be modified. Social competence begins in infancy. Self-worth, self-confidence, the ability to pay attention and the ability to communicate all are acquired in the first years of life. And these are the foundations for the four year old to develop self-control, self-assertiveness, self-reliance, and for his ability to form healthy relationships with siblings, other children and with adults. This competence is the foundation for his competence in grade school and adolescence. But the single strongest predictor of a child’s success or failure is the experience of his relationships with his parents in the first years of life. It’s the power of the take-off." Dr. Lynne Bissonnette-Pitre

On Early Childhood Development

"Babies who are left to cry it out cry much more at 12 months than babies who are picked up and held and comforted, and this is because babies who are held and comforted learn more sophisticated forms of communication than crying." Dr. Lynne Bissonnette-Pitre

"When the parent consistently fails to respond to a child’s emotional distress the child begins to feel that his emotions are unimportant or unacceptable. He may even begin to feel ashamed of his emotions and hide them deep inside himself. When he’s under extreme distress he can’t hide them and they come spilling out in an emotional outburst, and if his parents respond negatively to his outbursts, it just perpetuates his feeling that his emotions are unacceptable." Dr. Lynne Bissonnette-Pitre

"Discipline is education and not punishment." Dr. Lee Harrington

"The more self-control and self-discipline the parents have the less they actually have to discipline their children." Fr. Derek J. Lappe

On Moral Formation

"The infant automatically seeks care and nourishment in the relationship with parents. That’s not something the child learns. The child knows that inherently. It’s part of the nature of the child. Likewise, the child has an innate capacity to know and understand good, and he’s looking for that good from parents and from society so that they can fill up within themselves that which they are hungry for, that which is true, good, right and proper." Bishop Robert Vasa

"Children learn the concepts of right and wrong, good and bad, within the context of their relationships, particularly with their parents. Moral lessons are provided within the context of their day to day experiences." Bishop Robert Vasa
Conscience development is closely tied to emotional growth. Dr. Lynne Bissonnette-Pitre

"Men and women have an innate capacity to know what is true. It’s written in their hearts by God. Children have that same capacity to know the truth. God also gives us the capacity to love Him and the capacity to carry out the commands that He gives as a result of that love. Jesus tells us, “If you love me you will keep my commandments.” The fact that the commandment is given—God gives the power to carry it out." Bishop Robert Vasa

"The formation of the moral conscience takes place in concert with the development of the person—the development of moral emotions, the development of self-control, the development of empathy for their peers, the development of an appreciation and understanding of the role of authority in their lives. When parents are connected likewise with the moral teachings of the Church on truth and morality then the children learn the virtues—the moral virtues of chastity, and charity, and honesty, and integrity, and these are picked up almost automatically by the child, and they thus live the rules of the Church without any difficulty or any kind of distress about those rules." Bishop Robert Vasa

On Secure Attachment and Authoritative Parenting

"Secure attachment, authoritative parenting and moral formation are like building blocks, building on one another and culminating in the formation of moral virtues. If any one of the building blocks is missing, it’s very hard to form moral conscience and moral virtues. Children who have insecure attachment to their parents or drill sergeant or permissive parents are handicapped in their development of conscience and moral virtues." Dr. Lynne Bissonnette-Pitre

"Drill sergeant parents tend to be intimidating and use power and control to control their children. Fear and intimidation are the tactics they use to help their children comply and they’re doing this primarily for their own welfare, rather than the welfare of their children. They promote rebellious children, or perhaps even submissive, anxious children who are passive aggressive at a later time in their live." Dr. Lee Harrington

"On the other extreme, there are parents who tend to be permissive. On the outside there’s a lot of love in the family, but there are no real standards. These children grow up without any guideposts and they tend to become antisocial at some point later in life." Dr. Lee Harrington

On Redemption and Healing

"When parents are healed, children are healed and this occurs when parents develop attuned communication, when they become comfortable with all the basic emotions and when they learn self-control—they stop fighting, they stop yelling." Dr. Lynne Bissonnette-Pitre

"The best predictor of how [parents] will parent is how they themselves were parented, and so part of the challenge is to get parents to explore, and look at and reflect upon how they were parented, and then discern, “How do I want to parent my children?” and that may require patience and change and grace in order for them to make the changes which they want and need to make." Bishop Robert Vasa

"Patience really does hurt—it is a self-discipline, it is a dying to self, it is a diminishment of oneself and that is painful—that’s difficult. It is a kind of suffering… This really is not about repressing feelings at all, but rather the full acknowledgement and actual embracing of the unpleasantness. It really is a way of uniting the sufferings of self with the sufferings of Christ, and [a parent] experiences this maybe without even knowing it, that she sacrifices herself in union with Christ for the good of the family, for the good of her children, and she feels good about that. We see the redemptive value of suffering in a small microcosm…" Bishop Robert Vasa

*One caveat: I do not recommend either of the chastity programs suggested for parents in the HFSC program, Theology of the Body for Teens by Jason Evert, et al, or Teen Star by Dr. Hanna Klaus. I believe families would be better served if parents read Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, or Theology of the Body for Beginners themselves and then imparted these truths to their adolescents gradually and naturally as opportunities present themselves.

Humility, ("And the things parents say that work against its instillation.")

2009-08-03T13:21:00.000-07:00

When Christian parents use the fear of suffering to elevate their children to their standards, they inadvertently invert the value system to which we all need to adhere in order to live up to God's standards. The very fears we must overcome to know, love and serve God with humility, are instilled in us and then exploited so that we learn to desire being loved and esteemed by the world above all else. The one thing all but the saints among us care about more than anything else on earth, more than money, more than power--both of which are but means to this end--is what other human beings think of us. The following illustrates what, in my opinion, is part of the reason why.

Litany of Humility

O Jesus! meek and humble of heart, Hear me. ("I refuse to listen to you when you talk in this tone of voice.")

From the desire of being esteemed, Deliver me, Jesus. ("Nobody likes a crybaby!")

From the desire of being loved... ("Nobody's ever going to want to marry you if you keep treating people this way.")

From the desire of being extolled ... ("You'll never amount to anything if you don't work harder.")

From the desire of being honored ... ("You'll never make honor roll if you don't devote yourself to your studies.")

From the desire of being praised ... ("Everyone's going to think you're a loser if you don't get a job soon.")

From the desire of being preferred to others... ("The coach is going to let the other kids play more than you if you don't practice harder.")

From the desire of being consulted ... ("Nobody's going to care what you think if you don't start thinking before you speak.")

From the desire of being approved ... ("I don't approve of the way you're dressed and I refuse to be seen in public with you.")

From the fear of being humiliated ... ("If you ever speak to me that way in front of your friends again, I'll embarrass you in front of everybody!")

From the fear of being despised... ("You should be ashamed of yourself! Just go to your room!")

From the fear of suffering rebukes ... ("I'll give you a good tongue lashing if I ever catch you doing that again!")

From the fear of being calumniated ... ("People will talk if they see you hanging around with the likes of him.")

From the fear of being forgotten ... ("You want people to remember you for what a nice person you are.")

From the fear of being ridiculed ... ("Everyone will make fun of you if you have to repeat this grade.")

From the fear of being wronged ... ("Well I guess you got just what you deserved, treating your brother like that!")

From the fear of being suspected ... ("How can I let you out of my sight if I can't trust you.")

That others may be loved more than I, Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it. ("How could you do that to your sister? Don't you want her to love you?")

That others may be esteemed more than I ... ("How dare you speak so disrespectfully to me. I ought slap your face.")

That, in the opinion of the world, others may increase and I may decrease ... ("If people don't think well of you, you'll never get very far in this world.")

That others may be chosen and I set aside ... ("You'll never make allstars with that kind of attitude.")

That others may be praised and I unnoticed ... ("Stand up straight and fix your hair. Don't you want people to notice how pretty you are?")

That others may be preferred to me in everything... ("No, I'm sorry, your brother gets to ride in the front seat, because he helped me pack the car.")

That others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should… ("Why can't you be more like John. He's such a good boy.")

Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val (1865-1930), Secretary of State for Pope Saint Pius X

Whatever we use to solicit our children's cooperation is what they come to value. If they didn't think it was of value, they wouldn't be motivated by it (or by losing it). Children may be born already valuing these things--I guess God's the only one who knows--but it's the responsibility of Christian parents to see that their values are ordered vertically, toward God. We fail to fulfill this responsibility whenever we say the kinds of things exemplified above. It's natural not to want our children to suffer, in this life or the next. Of course, we know that suffering in this life ends as soon as we embrace God's will. We do that by accepting it in each moment, not prophesying about future impending doom to coerce them to change this moment--and fast. We can and must correct our children's physically and spiritually dangerous choices. But until we embrace God's will ourselves, we won't see how to do it without infecting them with our own horizontal fears. This lesson is best taught to us by Christ, Himself, in his rebuke of St. Peter, from St. Matthew's Gospel, especially verse 23:

21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!"

23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? 27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. 28 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

The Validity of Validation

2009-08-01T07:54:00.000-07:00

The term and concept of "validation" has a wide range of meaning and is often understood to mean approval. In the sense in which we will be talking about it, it is an outward unconditional acceptance of persons and events as they are at this moment. It is a spoken observation of one's perception of another's thoughts and feelings, without judgment or resistance. In Catholic terms, it is the exterior practice of total abandonment to the Divine Will. It's not approval of foolishness, evil or sin, but acceptance of what IS at this moment, without reacting to it unconsciously, bringing clarity and presence to a situation which warrants your full attention.

For any change, development or growth, to take place, whether in nature or in the spiritual realm, there must be a fixed, constant, unchanging object against which another object can
"push." The essence of unconditional love and acceptance is, like God, its "unchangingness." It provides an immovable object against which a thing can push in order to effect change, and in this sense it is satisfying and fulfilling.

Unconditional loving acceptance of God's will is the one thing required of us for growth in holiness and salvation. From page 39 of Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence (TStDP), "Since it is the most perfect act of charity and the most pleasing and acceptable sacrifice that is given to man to offer to God, there can be no doubt that whoever practices entire submission to His will lays up inestimable treasures at every moment and amasses more riches in a few days than others are able to acquire in many years and with great labor. To remain indifferent to good fortune or to adversity by accepting it all from the hand of God without questioning, not to ask for things to be done as we would like them but as God wishes, to make the intention of all our prayers that God's will should be perfectly accomplished in ourselves and in all creatures is to find the secret of happiness and content." All suffering (distinct from pain) is the consequence of resistance to God's will in this moment. From The Dialogue of St. Catherine of Siena, A Treatise of Prayer: "For I wish thee to know that all the sufferings which rational creatures endure depend on their will, because if their will were in accordance with mine they would endure no suffering, not that they would have no labours on that account, but because labours cause no suffering to a will which gladly endures them, seeing that they are ordained to My will." We manifest resistance either by running from the painful memories of our past to the hope of a brighter future, or from making the even more insanely futile attempt to hide from the prospect of a dire future in the happy memories of days gone by. In both cases we are anxiously fleeing non-existent pain, or pain which exists only in our imaginations. (This is life in the darkness of Plato's cave!) It's not pain itself which causes suffering, but resisting pain. The moment we stop resisting God's will for us in this moment (experienced by the mind as embracing suffering, see end note from Divine Intimacy), all suffering vanishes. To live we must die, to be free of suffering we must embrace it. Or in the words of St. John of the Cross, mapping the way of the Nada in his Ascent of Mount Carmel, "In order to have pleasure in everything, Desire to have pleasure in nothing. In order to arrive at possessing everything, Desire to possess nothing. In order to arrive at being everything, Desire to be nothing. In order to arrive at knowing everything, Desire to know nothing. In order to arrive at the wherein thou hast no pleasure, Thou must go by a way in which thou hast no pleasure. In order to arrive at that which thou knowest not, Thou must go by a way that thou knowest not. In order to arrive at that which thou possessest not, Thou must go by a way that thou possessest not. In order to arrive at that which thou art not, Thou must go through that which thou art not." Our children are born already on the way of the Nada. They are born knowing nothing, possessing nothing, being nothing more than what they are in this moment. Communicating to them our acceptance of them and the circumstances of their lives as they are in this moment, loving their "littleness," makes their "Ascent" sweet and light, free of unnecessary obstacles--free of unnecessary suffering--resilient in embracing God's will, not resistant to it. Baptism is the sacrament whereby a person is released from the bonds of sin (detached from horizontal attachment), becoming a child of God (vertically oriented). Parents needn't worry--anxiety cannot exist in the presence of faith. The child's innate drive--to learn to love as Christ loves--is now oriented toward their eternal destiny--Divine Union--and all things (all his impulses) work toward this end. It is the task of parents to bring the child to a deeper knowledge of their Heavenly Father by communicating to them on the deepest level--a level beyond thought and feeling, a level that is known in the core of their very being--the incomprehensible attributes of God--omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. When parents consistently communicate understanding to their children, their children learn about God's omniscience; when parents are consistently present to their children, their children learn about God's omnipresence; and when parents "believe all things, hope all things, endure all things..." with patience and humility their children learn about God's omnipotence. Their faith in their parents transfers seamlessly to faith in God.

Validation, or open unconditional acceptance of persons and events as they are at this moment is a most effective means of teaching our children, by our example, trustful surrender to Divine Providence. In the book, Light and Peace, Fr. Quadrupani makes a distinction between the will, which even God does not attempt to force, and the consequences (including emotional consequences) of one's actions: "These persistent temptations come from the malice of the devil," says St. Francis de Sales, "but the trouble and suffering they cause us come from the mercy of God. Thus, despite the will of the tempter, God converts his evil machinations into a distress which we may make meritorious." (italics mine) While we may not approve of our children hurting each other, for example, in their anger, jealousy, greed, etc., we can accept the thoughts and feelings behind their actions as crosses sent to purify us and them. From page 97 of TStDP, "It is then a truth of our faith that God is responsible for all the happenings we complain of in the world and, furthermore, we cannot doubt that all the misfortunes God sends us have a very useful purpose." When we voice our acceptance of our children's thoughts and feelings, as a manifestation of God's mercy which is happening to them even as it is happening to us, not as who they or we ARE, we show forth that constancy without which no change can take place, and we help them to grow in unconditional love and acceptance of their Heavenly Father and his Almighty Will--with the support of which constancy everything happens.

When children feel the security of unconditional love and acceptance, they can come to rest in the face of a problem and begin to see whether or not it's something they can solve, or whether it's just something that has to be accepted. But when they feel that their feelings and thoughts are unacceptable and rejected, their anxiety leads to confusion and they get "stuck." Validation is a practice we can use not to control our children or change them, but to provide them with a secure refuge of love and trust, from which they can move forward toward growth in maturity and holiness. An action, performed for self-serving reasons, merits no grace for anyone, but an action performed with faith, for the love of God is meritorious, and is therefore transformative. Validation cannot be done to manipulate the child. It must be done with trustful surrender--unconditional acceptance--before any good can come of it.

Additionally, the "safety" parents provide with their unconditional acceptance makes it possible for a child to remain humble by allowing him to accept his own "littleness" (TCJ), growing in self-knowledge, and abiding in the dependability of his parents' care--trustful surrender to "parental providence"--which naturally and easily transfers to trust in God.

Quite often with validation, more crying ensues rather than an immediate abatement. This needn't be cause for alarm. If a child has been "holding on" to a lot of frustration, he will use the safety of this moment to "offer up" all of it, releasing pent up feelings in order to move on with no residual negative "baggage." At these times, parents can focus on being fully present to their children, making of themselves a basin in which to receive all their child's suffering, released by his tears. Both parent and child will come to a deeper faith and trust in one another, growing in humility without fear.

Parents needn't fear their child's cries, frustration, tantrums, or most importantly, saying no to unreasonable requests. These situations are opportunities for parent and child to grow in self-knowledge, and mutual respect. A secure vertical attachment between parent and child supports and facilitates progress in divine union for both. It isn't necessary to dramatize the situation or the child's reactions. Peaceful surrender to the moment as it is teaches children not to fear accepting God's will for them. The unchangingness of unconditional acceptance on the part of the parents gives the child a firm ground under their feet from which to move forward. Children and parents grow in resiliency and problem solving skills.

Avoiding dramatizing their feelings and the surrounding events, evaluating and offering "escape routes" sends the message that suffering is an ordinary part of life, not to be feared or fled from, but accepted, strengthened by and moved beyond, after which comes joy and peace, the fruit of maturity and growth in sanctity.

Of course, there will always be times when we are overwhelmed by our pain and just can't wiggle our way into accepting it, accustomed as we are to resisting it and trying to accomplish things by our own efforts (See note from Divine Intimacy at end). At these times we can at least resign ourselves to our resistance, in humility, conscious of how utterly small and weak we are, and casting ourselves on God's mercy in an act of faith. If we're dealing with a situation that for whatever reason we find impossible to accept, we can at least accept that we are too weak to accept it. St. Thérèse said, "When we accept with mildness the humiliation of having manifested our imperfection, the grace of God returns immediately," and "The weaker we are and the more we are without desires or virtues, the more are we receptive of the operations of God's love in us."

Validating is a very simple "art" which one can begin practicing with a child of any age by expressing with words and "mirrored" emotions what is most obviously the reason for the child's distress. For example, a mother might simply say to a crying infant, "Your tummy hurts," or "You're tired," or "You want mommy to hold you because you're scared." When a child gets hurt or is frustrated a parent might simply say, "You skinned your knee. That hurts. Would you like me to kiss it?" or "You're upset because you wanted to go the store with Daddy and he couldn't take you," or "You want to play with the big boys and they won't let you." A loving embrace, or closeness of a nature that is comfortable to the child reinforces the lesson of acceptance. At this point I want to clarify that nothing parents do out of love for their children is "bad" (Rom 8:28 "And we know that all things work together unto good to them that love God."). It may just be imperfect. But when we make it a habit or rule to manipulate our children's feelings, for better or worse, we may do them a disservice that will have long term consequences for them and us. When we first begin to practice trustful surrender and to learn the skill of validation, it may be necessary for us to have some scripted responses, but as we become more and more attuned to our children's feelings and needs, we can begin to relax and respond with whatever seems appropriate in the moment. If you've acknowledged a child's feelings of frustration or disappointment and it's obvious that the futility is sinking in, that he's "offering it up," so to speak, letting go of his unfulfillable desire at the moment and accepting what is in fact God's will, and your own feelings of compassion and mercy for this suffering child move you to suggest that perhaps some time at a later date he may be able to satisfy this desire, then say that to him. God also supports us with the promise of future fulfillment (fulfillment which can actually be ours NOW, as soon as we are able to accept that we will never find fulfillment by our own means). If you realizes that there was a misunderstanding, I think it's always good to clear it up and make an effort to help your child know and feel that he is understood by you, even when you can't grant his request. The books, Non-Violent Communication, by Marhsall Rosenberg, and How To Talk So Kids Will Listen and Listen So Kids Will Talk, by Faber and Mazlish, are very good help for learning to practice validation, which, in turn, facilitates the practice of submission to the Divine Will, excellently outlined in the books Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence, by Fr. Jean Baptiste Saint-Jeur, and Blessed Claude de la Colombiere; and Abandonment to Divine Providence, by Jean-Pierre de Caussade. Although in my opinion, it's more advantageous to begin with Trustful Surrender, the interior disposition, before trying to change the exterior--Faith before Works.

Some parents inadvertently take on the blame for the child's feelings, saying things like, "You're upset because Mommy won't let you...", "You're angry at Daddy because he..." I would say that it's better to say something like, "You're upset because you wanted... and it didn't work out for you." This is more in keeping with reality (again, see notes below), and will definitely avoid his experiencing those debilitating feelings of victimization which lead to anxiety and the flight from vulnerability, i.e. pride. Even when we apologize for mistreating our children (or anyone), or losing our tempers, it's always better to say, "I'm sorry for the way I behaved today. The things I said/did were unkind/untrue and I wish I hadn't said/done them. I wanted/expected such and such and when I didn't get it I reacted badly/selfishly," (see note from Intro to the Devout Life) or "I'm sorry I hit you," instead of "I'm sorry I hurt you." We can apologize for our own words and actions, or lack thereof, but we can't really apologize for the way another person experiences them. Living this rule will protect us and others from empty, meaningless apologies like, "I'm sorry you were upset by what I said," or "I'm sorry you were offended, etc." Jesus did not aplogize to the crowd for how they reacted to His teaching on the Eucharist. It will also help us not to be utilitarian in our charity, chosing to just do the loving thing whether or not we profit from it. This is a very helpful practice to detach from our horizontal orientation, because we begin to see God's will in all things, and become more blind and deaf to man's will. This will also help us to define our's and other's boundaries, which is essential for our children's healthy individuation, milestones that are necessary for them to reach if they are ever to offer themselves unreservedly to a future spouse and/or God.

(Divine Intimacy, 242, THE OBSCURE LIGHT OF FAITH: Faith is certain because it relies on the word of God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived; in this sense we can say that faith is clear, "free from errors" (J.C. SC, 12,3), admitting no doubt, since no one can doubt God's word. But at the same time, it remains obscure, because it does not show us the truths which it proposes for our belief and, therefore, they remain mysteries to us. Let us remember the pitcher that contains a lighted but invisible lamp. This obscure side of faith is, at the same time, both painful and glorious for us. It is painful because we cannot see what we believe, painful because an act of faith often exacts a leap in the dark, a thing repugnant to human nature which likes to be in control, to know what it is doing and to proceed on known facts. (emphasis mine) The more elevated supernatural realities are, the greater is their obscurity--even darkness--to the intellect, which is incapable of proceeding without the aid of the senses, and incapable of embracing the infinite. On the other hand, however, it is this very obscurity which constitutes the merit and glory of our act of faith: merit, because it is a wholly supernatural act based not on what we can see and verify, but solely on what God has revealed to us; glory, because our act of faith gives all the more glory and honor to God, the more it relies solely on His word.)

(Divine Intimacy, 247, THE MOTIVE FOR HOPE: "God wishes the certitude of our hope to rest upon Him alone. Although He demands our cooperation and our good works, He does not want us to base our confidence on them... Souls who are acuustomed to depend on thier own strength and who delude themselves, thinking they can enter more deeply into the spiritual life by their own personal resources, find this lesson hard to understand. That is why when the Lord wills them to progress, He makes them go through painful states of powerlessness, permitting them to feel the rebellion and repugnance of nature that they may be convinced of the vanity of placing their confidence in themselves.")

(Intro to the Devout Life, on Confession: "Again, do not be satisfied with mentioning the bare fact of your venial sins, but accuse yourself of the motive cause which led to them. For instance, do not be content with saying that you told an untruth which injured no one; but say whether it was out of vanity, in order to win praise or avoid blame, out of heedlessness, or from obstinacy.")

Patience--Obedience, Humility, Charity

2009-07-31T08:04:00.001-07:00

All parents want their children to be obedient, after all, it certainly does make our lives a lot easier! But some of those parents even want their children to have the virtue of obedience. And that is where our focus needs to be, because it's entirely possible for children to be obedient, and not have the virtue of obedience, and obedience that is not virtuous leads to death; but a child who has the virtue of obedience will also be obedient and by virtue of obedience have eternal life.

In St. Catherine of Siena's Treatise on Obedience, God the Father explains that the virtue of obedience is the fruit of charity and humility. One doesn't have to dig too deep to understand that what this really means is that the virtue of obedience cannot exist apart from love of the Cross--embracing suffering, trustfully surrendering to Divine Providence for love of God alone, not by practicing more extreme forms of mortification, but by accepting unconditionally, with blind confidence in God, whatever His will is for this particular moment, stripping ourselves of fear and anxiety. From the Dialogue (all emphasis mine), "And inasmuch as love cannot be alone, but is accompanied by all the true and royal virtues, because all the virtues draw their life from love, [Christ] possessed them all, but in a different way from that in which you do. Among the others He possessed patience, which is the marrow of obedience, and a demonstrative sign, whether a soul be in a state of grace and truly love or not. Wherefore charity, the mother of patience, has given her a sister to obedience, and so closely united them together that one cannot be lost without the other. Either thou hast them both or thou hast neither. This virtue has a nurse who feeds her, that is, true humility; therefore a soul is obedient in proportion to her humility, and humble in proportion to her obedience," and "The sign that you have this virtue is patience, and impatience the sign that you have it not..." We'll come back to this in a moment.

In the supernatural order, man was made to love as Christ loves, unconditionally, and in order to do that he must receive unconditional love, which by its very nature cannot be earned by good behavior. Parents are God's first ambassadors to their children, commissioned to bestow upon them this gift, even as the Wise Men bestowed gifts upon the Christ Child. Parents have the responsibility of being mediators of God's grace to their children by communicating to them His unconditional love, making a gift to their children of the gift of love given to them by God, through the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, Baptism, Confirmation, Confession and Holy Communion. Parents cannot give to their children what they themselves have not received by acceptance as a free gift from the font of God's mercy, merited for us who could not merit it for ourselves, by Christ through His Passion and Death on the Cross.

Returning to the Dialogue, (parenthetical expressions and bold emphasis mine) "[Christ] is the way, wherefore He said, 'He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life.' For he who travels by that way, travels in the light, and being enlightened cannot stumble, or be caused to fall, without perceiving it. For He has cast from Himself the darkness of self-love, by which he fell into disobedience; for as I spoke to thee of a companion virtue proceeding from obedience and humility, so I tell you that disobedience comes from pride (which I describe as the fear of suffering), which issues from self-love depriving the soul of humility (love of the Cross). The sister given by self-love to disobedience is impatience, and pride, her foster-mother, feeds her with the darkness of infidelity, so she hastens along the way of darkness, which leads her to eternal death."

All this to say, parents, that we cannot be satisfied with children who simply know how to be obedient out of fear of suffering/punishment. We must desire to instill virtue in our children, and we can't do that by being impatient, employing every means to produce instant obedience in them--the "definitive sign" that we ourselves lack obedience. How many times have we said these words, "You will obey me now or else!"? Love of the Cross is the means to all virtue, and we can't love the Cross without patience. We cannot instill in our children the virtue of obedience, patience, humility, if we ourselves are without virtue. When we lose our patience with our children (usually displayed by anger without meekness), because of their failure to show us obedience, or any other reason, for that matter, that's the time to ask ourselves, "What suffering am I afraid of? What cross am I running from?" Until it is recognized and embraced with faith, hope and love, we're just spinning our wheels, or even worse, driving our children from our arms and from the arms of Christ, outstretched to embrace them upon the Cross.

Another method of so-called discipline that doesn't "work."

2009-07-18T05:39:00.000-07:00

This article seems to have some good insights, and at first blush appears to be attachment conscious, but I'm afraid after all is said and done, it does rather miss the point.

The problem isn't the mother's failure or inability to understand how unpleasant it is to wait, or feel hungry, or tired, or bored, or hot, etc. She's human--she's felt all these things. The problem isn't that the children are undisciplined or that the mother lacks planning abilities. All these factors may be true, but as problematic as they may be, they are mere symptoms of a disease, which in no way will be remedied by the forewarning of consequences, or the right kind of threat, or a spanking, or a snack, or a nap, as the author of the article suggests (though some of these tactics may "work" for a quick fix in the moment).

The root of this problem, plain and simple, is that the relationship is not working for either the mother or the children. There exists no secure attachment between these children and their mother. (Of course, I realize I can't actually know that for sure, not having a relationship with either the mother in the post or its author, but based on my own experience I can guarantee it's a likely possibility, and for the purpose of making my point, I'll assume this is the case.) When Mother is not attuned to her children's interior lives, children, feeling this disconnection, tend not to be oriented by faith (i.e., trust, confidence) toward pleasing her. This mother, and very probably the mother writing about her, fails to grasp wherein lies a parent's power to woo the hearts of her children. It is not in bullying them, or outwitting them, or even in becoming an excellent planner-aheader, for all these "techniques" have their limitations and are not suited to every possible scenario. Her power to parent, like the Christian's power to draw others to Christ, resides in the faith, hope and charity that binds together--and to God--souls who have transcended the squalor of servile fear.

All parents have the power to woo the hearts of their children, but unless they realize it, and conquer their fear of it, it is useless to them--even counterproductive. In their fear of being manipulated, parents teach their children to be manipulative; in their fear of being bullied, they make victims of their children, and in their fear of being victimized they make bullies of their children; in their fear of being humiliated they provoke their children to pride; in their fear of being slaves to their children, they make of their children and of themselves slaves to their passions; and in their fear of The Cross, they make worldlings of their children and themselves. And how do they do this? By judging external appearances as the world does (“Vanity of vanities…”), and failing to communicate love to these little ones, rather than by disposing themselves to glimpse through God’s eyes the brilliance of the Blessed Trinity in the souls of His children, and radiating to them the grace Christ won for us through His Passion, becoming instruments of His mercy and justice at once. (How can one possibly see the Blessed Trinity in a child they refer to as a "brat?")

This is wherein virtue lies--for parent and child. Not in scolding, threatening, bribing, spanking or time-out. Virtue springs from charity, which must be communicated to the beloved, not just felt or willed by the lover. Love which is not communicated is like the grain of wheat that does not die. It remains always and only a grain of wheat. But even a grain of wheat that dies, can become Christ communicated. How much greater than a grain of wheat is a soul in the state of grace? Through the grace of the sacraments, every baptized soul has the power to love as Christ loves, which is scary because that also means to suffer as Christ suffered--especially humiliation, for without humility there is no virtue. But it can be done! When parents overcome their fear of their children's dependence on them, their littleness, their seemingly insatiable need for unconditional love that is known and felt, embracing every single suffering of their lives, past, present and future, they can hope to love as Christ loves, which is the only kind of love our children can benefit from? If we wish to make disciples of our children we must love them as Christ loves them. And preying on their fear of suffering in order to put an end to ours just isn't cutting it.

Noticing vs. Praising

2009-05-16T12:30:00.000-07:00

Praising a child usually involves passing judgement on him or something he's done, albeit favorable, usually in order to manipulate him into repeating a desired action. It creates expectations in the child's mind that he may not always be able to live up to. He may wonder if we still accept and think well of him when he tries his hardest, but we don't praise him because we can't pass a favorable judgement without stretching the truth. It awakens vanity and narcissism in him because it directs his focus away from doing the act to getting the praise. It creates anxiety ("What will they think of me if I ever fail in the future?"), invites dependence ("I'm not good unless you say I'm good.") and evokes defensiveness ("I'm not the most wonderful child in the world. Last week I wanted to push Johnny down the stairs."). It violates trust in the relationship in the same way punishment does, because it leads him to believe that we don't think him capable of doing good things without being coerced with rewards. It can also rob him of the opportunity to store up riches in Heaven. True praise is due to God, alone.

However the human brain needs feedback to survive--the brain without feedback is like the man who cannot see, hear, feel, smell or taste--senseless. High-quality feedback speaks to the child's efforts and accomplishments rather than his character and personality. It's saying, "This place was a mess before you cleaned it. I didn't think it could be picked up in such a short time. This was a really hard job you did, and I can see by the smile on your face how proud you are. Thank you!" (Harmful praise would have said, "You are such a wonderful child and such a skilled housekeeper. I am so proud of you!")

There are a few criteria for high-quality feedback:

Generally, the more often children receive feedback, the better; the more specific the feedback, the better; the more immediate the feedback, the better; and the more we notice and the less we judge, the better. High-quality feedback encourages a child to continue his efforts. From our feedback, he is able to judge for himself how close he is getting to he mark he has set for himself.

Evaluative praise, on the other hand, can actually be discouraging to a child. Sometimes what we say translates in the mind of the child into something we really didn't mean. For example, after a child hits a homerun in baseball and we say, "You're great! You have a perfect swing. You should be in the Majors!" the child is likely to think to himself, "They think I'm so great, but that was just luck. I didn't even have my eyes open! That may be the only homerun I hit all season. If I never make it to bat again, they'll never know I'm really not such a great ball player anyway. I wish I never hit the homerun at all." It would have been more encouraging for the parents to simply say, "You connected with that ball and sent it sailing right over the fence. I can see how excited you are to have scored for your team." This would likely have translated in the child's mind into, "They were paying attention to me. They like to watch me play ball. I'm valuable to my team."

When we notice our children, simply by saying what we see and how we feel about it, we are showing them a reflection of the beauty that they are without making them feel self-conscious. By noticing, rather than praising, we are acknowledging that we cannot presume to know the wonders God is working in them, only that we see that He is working wonders in them and that we like what we see. We model humility by this acknowledgement, and in so doing begin to sew this virtue in our children's hearts as well.

Heaven and Hell--Reward and Punishment?

2009-05-09T14:59:00.000-07:00

In attempting to reconcile AP principles with Catholic doctrine one must address the concept of punishment and rewards. Naturally, the question arises, "Does God reward and punish sinners?"

Catholic doctrine teaches that Heaven is a free gift of God, the good do not deserve it, nor can they earn it. Therefore, one cannot think of Heaven in terms of a reward.

The opposite of reward is punishment. The dictionary defines punishment as "a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc." But God does not inflict Hell on unrepentant sinners. Quite the contrary! Hell is but the truly natural consequence of a resolute turning away from God--a conscious decision to orient oneself horizontally rather than vertically--to worship oneself, rather than the Almighty Creator on whom one depends for his very existence.

The souls in Hell cannot be happy in Heaven. Their failure to repent in the end is but their refusal to forgive God for loving them enough to create them. Such close proximity to the object of their hatred would be far more unbearable than any pain Hell can offer. In fact, since God is everywhere, even in Hell, and loves every one of us always, the pain experienced by the souls in Hell is because of His presence there and the certain knowledge that He still loves them. The souls of the unjust can no sooner sustain such close proximity to the Almighty, Perfect God than a dry leaf could sustain itself in the heat of the sun. Hell is God's merciful provision for those who refuse to be loved by Him.

A Secure Child, from Bishop Robert Vasa, Baker, Oregon

2009-05-04T11:58:00.000-07:00

This is outstanding! Bishop Vasa and a team of priests and doctors have developed a program designed to teach parents the importance of attachment and how to cultivate it, in order to protect their children while bringing them up in the faith to be strong soldiers of Christ.

This is my neice in the picture!

(aka Attachment Parenting)

At the Service of Love--Cultivating Virtues in Our Children

2009-05-02T15:03:00.000-07:00

Every sincere Catholic parent wants to raise saints, and we all know that in order to do that we have to raise our children in the school of virtue. When I was a very young mother I got a hold of a copy of David Isaac's book, Character Building, which is a one of a kind book that helps parents teach their children 24 different virtues, all geared toward raising happy, holy adults. I didn't really understand most of what he was talking about when I read it 15 years ago. I looked at the little chart that suggests which virtues to concentrate on when, and jumped right into teaching my under-seven-year-olds the virtues of obedience, orderliness and sincerity. Little did I realize how dangerous only a parital understanding of a thing can actually be.

Hold On To Your Kids has been for me a sort of Rosetta Stone for decoding the mysteries of parenting. Now that I have the key, I've been re-reading Character Building, and anything else I can remember feeling the same way about in my pre- HOTYK days. I believe David Isaac's book completes what for me is a syllabus of parenting.

If I'd only understood the importance of the parent/child relationship, the tantamount role of unconditional love, the damaging effects of fear-inducing anger, and the love-excluding nature of punishment, perhaps our family life up to now would have been very different. But since I cannot go back to change anything I must begin anew today.

Dr. Isaac's Character Building is a tremendous wealth of Catholic wisdom--much the same as
Hold On To Your Kids, only openly Catholic. And while he doesn't come right out and admonish parents against punishing their children, he certainly believes it to be a counter-productive approach to teaching virtue, since it relies on the child's own self-interest as a motivation to virtuous actions, which are necessarily directed toward God and one's neighbor. It is a method inherently self-contradicting.

Early on in the book he emphasizes that it is only in the family that we are accepted and loved unconditionally. The world will judge us for our usefulness, but in the family we are not judged for what we do or who we are. Our actions may be judged to be good or bad, right or wrong, but we, ourselves, are loved and accepted for just what we are--our parents' children. The surest way to protect our children from being seduced by the world is to create a haven as unlike the world as we can. Some parents argue that the world is cruel and unfair and that children are better off if they get used to it as soon as possible. Years later, they can't understand why their children don't want to come home. It's very difficult to distinguish between home and elsewhere when the environment at home was not starkly opposed to the ways of the world, in practice as well as in principle.

In the chapter on responsibility, Dr. Isaacs writes, "If [the child] is to act responsibily, in the true sense, he needs a motive for everything he is asked to do, a relationship with another person, for instance his father." While Issacs doesn't use the word "attachment" anywhere in the sense that we use it when talking about "attachment parenting," the principles are upheld throughout his book.

One of the great mistakes of our parenthood, a mistake in which I think we are not alone, was to view obedience as the highest virtue of childhood. We believed that if we could just teach our children to obey our orders instantly, everything else would so very easily fall into place. I guess I missed this line in the book: "I should clarify one more point: obedience is not a virtue designed for small children, it is not meant to make life easier for parents." After exploring several possible motives for obedience he writes, "What sort of motivation could we suggest to small children for being obedient and what is the best way to instill this motivation? A small child can obey because he intuitively recognizes his parents' authority. They give him security, affection, and a sense of well-being, and all this leads him to do what his parents want, even though he feels also inclined to disobey in order to test his own strength and his scope and ability to act independently." This is what Dr. Neufeld calls "mixed feelings," and what Dr. Craig calls "conscience."

In the chapter on prudence Dr. Isaacs describes the prudent person thus: "In his work and in dealings with other people the prudent person gathers information which he assesses in the light of right standards: he weighs the favorable and unfavorable consequences for himself and others prior to taking a decision and then he acts or refrains from acting, in keeping with the decision he has made." Prudence is the virtue which regulates conscience. It is necessary, along with fortitude, for the cultivation of all the other virtues which are at the service of love. When children are forced to ACT virtuously, the possibility of love is excluded from their motives.

Let Go Of Your Catholic Kids!

2009-04-25T08:59:00.000-07:00

Christ is the source of all true happiness, just as the mother is the source of all things good and needful to the baby. Everything we seek in this world as a means to happiness, every pleasure and the fear of losing anything, is our own vain attempt to fill ourselves with something other than Christ. But WE ARE SEEKING HIM nonetheless. When our children find joy and consolation in other things (which isn't always bad or wrong) they are ultimately seeking Christ. When they have our unconditional love and accpetance we free them to seek Him. When they don't have that from us, we insert ourselves into their lives where Christ should abide. We make ourselves obstacles to Christ in their lives, as are they in our own lives. But when we let go of all worldly attachments, even our children, we gain everything, we radiate Christ to our children, thereby allowing Christ to use us as a means to fill the void they are seeking to fill with material things--including US! We must die to ourselves so that Christ lives in us and then through us our children find Him. And when they are fully mature, they can die to themselves so that Christ lives in them.

All the suffering of our entire lives leads us to Christ. He wants us to realize that we can find no happiness in anything of this world. Only in Him can we find true happiness. Man's deepest fear, I contend, is the fear of being unloved and unable to love. We were made for God--to be loved by Him and to love Him. We needn't fear being unloved except by our fellow man, God always loves us. Our deepest fear is being unable to love HIM! If we are unable to love Him we will never find happiness, never reach the end for which He created us, we will wallow in the misery of Hell for eternity. But to love Him we must let go of everything of this world, ourselves, our families and our friends and every material thing. When we do that--which we're afraid to do because we're afraid of losing happiness--we gain everything because we gain Christ! Then our only fear is losing HIM! Our only fear is offending HIM! When we possess Him we can radiate Him to the world and bring others to Him--including our children, our families, our friends.

The saints mortified themselves because they feared with every fiber of their being losing HIM, feared that anything else should creep in to replace HIM who dwelled within them, He was their life and to lose HIM was to die eternally. St. Paul said, "I live now, not I, but Christ lives in me!"

Of those to whom much is given much is expected. Only those who possess Christ can, with sufficient reflection and full consent of the will, reject HIM. Until one possesses Christ, every sin is a vain attempt to find that happiness for which God created us.

When a baby cries out for his mother's breast and we give him a pacifier or bottle instead, or leave him alone to "take care of himself" we risk teaching him that the true source of his happiness lies outside the parent/child relationship, outside the creator/creature relationship.

Just as the babe spits out the pacifier or the bottle or the formula, until futility sinks in and he realizes that he's not getting the real thing, we would find in every earthly thing a poor relacement for the true source of our happiness if we depended on Christ for everything. We would find sin repulsive, abhorent, just as the babe does the pacifier, the baby sitter, the security blanket, the doll, anything meant as a relacement for the parent, the "giver of life" before futility sinks in. When the small child is left to sleep alone at night, and he's scared and lonely, and he seeks to soothe himself he's seeking to fill a void with something other than the comfort and security of his mother. He's seeking the happiness God made him to enjoy, but he's seeking it through channels that can never satisfy his need. As parents we must not provoke our children, we must not throw stumbling blocks in their way. We must teach them that Christ is the source of all their happiness, by allowing Christ to come to them through ourselves, through being His instruments, through radiating Him, through detaching from everything of this world and desiring only Him. We do this by first dying to ourselves, and then by imitating Christ in all our interactions, not just with our children but with everyone; by loving God with our whole heart, whole soul, whole mind, and whole strength; by loving our neighbor as ourselves for love of God; by doing unto others as we would have them do unto us.

The practice of the virtues, kindness, generosity, etc. are good habits to form, but until we die to ourselves and embrace Christ we are fighting an uphill battle. Once we detach from all the things of this world, especially the fear of being unloved and unable to love, and desire nothing but Christ and fear nothing but losing Christ, the battle is easily won.

Much is expected of the soul who has fully embraced Christ, but when this happens, it is no longer "I" who live, but Christ in "me" and we can accomplish all things in Christ who strengthens us.

The Supernatural Motive for Loving Our Children

2009-04-18T11:11:00.000-07:00

"The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because they are generally the same people."~~GK Chesterton

There are a great many Christians who love God for love of themselves, instead of for love of Him, alone. We are the ones who make sacrifices only after considering what we might gain by them. We do good unto others expecting them to return the favor, or so that others will think well of us. We seek to acquire virtue so that it will be easier for us to get along with others here in this life or because we fear the pains of hell, not so much so that, through the practice of virtue we will become pleasing to God, even if our family and neighbors persecute us for it. There are very few of us who would suffer joyfully just for the sake of sharing in Christ’s suffering (or our neighbor’s) without expecting to gain anything in return--not even Heaven. But this is the kind of love we are called to, and the kind of love we learn from our children and which we must also teach to them by our example.

The defining factor between love of God and love of self is fear. A child does not know fear until he learns it—and he learns it from us. He fears nothing until we teach him that he should fear anything. But we, knowing fear, fear the very same thing which we must embrace in order to love selflessly--suffering--by loss, inconvenience, physical pain, humiliation, helplessness. When Jesus said we must become as little children, one of the things He was referring to was the fearlessness of a child. And in order to love fearlessly, we must have total faith and confidence in God, Who is Love. Before we can love God above all, and our neighbor for love of Him, we must have total trust in Him. In order to love God with our whole selves, we must love all whom He loves--everyone. We cannot love some of whom He loves, and not others, for love of Him. We either love everyone for love of God, or we love some, including God, for love of ourselves. There are no halves in God, we cannot have it both ways. It's all or nothing. We love all for love of God, or we love only ourselves, who are nothing without Him. It is the fear of giving and receiving nothing in return that keeps us from loving all our neighbors.

In order to teach our children to love fearlessly, we must earn and preserve their total faith and confidence in us. We do this by loving them as they are, as God has entrusted them to us, and by respecting their free will so that they can use it to learn to love Him. We do not do this by teaching them to fear suffering, either by loss (if you don’t do this you can’t have this), physical pain (if you do this I’ll make you suffer for it), humiliation (get out of my sight/don’t come near me, I’m so ashamed of you). In other words we must make them know and feel that they are loved by us and by God, before we ask them love us or Him.

Why does coercion feel like a lack of love? Man was created to love. The drive to love is in the will--in other words, deep down in his soul he knows that in order to be happy he must learn to love. Love is the desire to share in the joys and the suffering of the beloved, expecting nothing out of it, but to give everything, as Christ gave everything in His Passion and Death. In order to desire suffering we must overcome our own self-love, which is repulsed by suffering. We overcome our own self-love with the love of God (which we learn first from the example of our parents). This is in the will and cannot be forced. When we coerce others we trigger in them the God-given defense of their free will, or "counterwill", inflaming their fear of suffering, which is the consequence of a failure to love freely--we chain them to their self-love. This is the very thing they have to overcome in order to love God. It's as if we keep pushing them down, backwards, instead of lifting them up with the love of God—-with selfless love that expects nothing in return. (God does not expect us to love Him back. He desires for us to love Him back because we must in order to be happy, and He desires our eternal happiness because He loves us. But he does not expect us to love Him back as in, “If you do not love me I will not love you,” for we know that He continues to love even the souls in Hell, who are there because they love no one, not even themselves.) Fear of suffering, i.e. servile fear, is an obstacle to the love of God. Fear of being unable to love is the root of all man's passions. The inability to love results in eternal suffering. Coercion is an assault on man's will, by which he loves. Coercion is an assault on man's eternal happiness. Coercion is not love, because it teaches one to make choices according to the consequences he will have to suffer, rather than helping him to overcome his own self-love and fear of suffering in order to love God. We cannot help someone overcome his fear of suffering by forcing him to suffer. We cannot help someone love by forcing them to love. Love must be free and force destroys love. We may try to coerce a person--his actions, but we can never coerce his will. We can only direct his will to God, by love, or to himself, by fear. We have been putting the cart before the horse.

We Christians who love God for love of ourselves will find it very hard to love our neighbors, whose faults and sinfulness is a stumbling block to our loving them. You see, we know that in order to love God we have to love our neighbor, and since we love God for what we hope to gain by loving Him, our goals are frustrated when our neighbor makes himself so difficult to love. This is why we desire and endeavor with a fierce determination to change him. It is in order to make him more lovable to us, so that we can love him without having to suffer. We make him suffer so that we don’t have to. This is not love of our neighbor for love of God, but for love of ourselves, plain and simple. Sure, it is loving to desire that all men love God, just as God desires that we love Him, but even God does not force us to love Him. God does not desire that we suffer, but He allows that we suffer in order that we learn from the natural consequences of our actions (which He has ordained from all eternity) just as the mother, though she could blow out the flame or move the child, allows him to touch it in order to learn that fire hurts. When she comforts him afterwards he not only learns that fire hurts, but that mother comforts. He learns that in suffering there is love and joy in his mother’s arms. Imagine what he would learn if mother slapped his hand and said, “You naughty boy, I told you not to touch fire! You deserve your pain!” God’s natural order is brought to bear on us without our forcing it. “Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord.” And to us Christ says, “Love one another as I have loved you,”—unto death on the Cross. Our children will learn from their own mistakes, opportunities which God has prepared especially for them, and they will learn what God knows they need to learn in that particular moment. They are only ours to love and teach by word and example, respectfully, as we also learn best. They are equal to us in dignity. They will learn to love us as we have loved them. They will learn to love God as they have learned of His love through our example. We must stop fooling ourselves for love of ourselves. It isn’t good for us.

Re-Orientation Requires That We Stop What We've Been Doing

2009-04-11T12:59:00.000-07:00

I have written elsewhere that the act of embracing suffering is, to a certain degree, experienced by us as quitting what we have been doing to become good. This is the act of faith whereby we acknowledge our littleness and inadequecy and resign ourselves to God's will, allowing Him to lead us blindly. The reason this act of humility, faith and love is experienced by us as suffering is that it has been ingrained in us from our infancy that we have to be constantly doing hard things in order to be doing good--the harder it is the greater the sacrifice, greater the good, the greater the effect in us. In the book, Leisure, The Basis of Culture, Josef Pieper begins to explain to us why this is false:

"'Effort is good'"objecting to this thesis in the Summa theologia, Thomas Aquinas wrote as follows: 'The essence of virtue consists more in the Good than in the Difficult.' 'When something is more difficult, it is not for that reason necessarily more worthwhile, but it must be more difficult in such a way, as also to be at a higher level of goodness.' The Middle Ages had something to say about virtue that will be hard for us fellow countrymen of Kant to understand. And what was this? That virtue makes it possible for us...to master our natural inclinations? No. That is what Kant would have said, and we all might be ready to agree. What Thomas says, instead, is that virtue perfects us so that we can follow our natural inclinations in the right way. Yes, the highest realizations of moral goodness are known to be such precisely in this: that they take place effortlessly because it is of their essence to arise from love. And yet the overemphasis on effort and struggle has made an inroad even on our understanding of love...But what does Thomas say? 'It is not the difficulty that makes this kind of love so worthy, even though the greatness of the love is shown by its power to overcome the difficulty. But if the love were so great, as completely to remove all difficulty--that would be a still greater love."

When our love of God is so great that we surrender ourselves unconditionally to Him by accepting whatever joy and suffering He may desire for us, so that it is no longer We who are trying with great difficulty to love, but He Who in fact loves in us, all obstacles are removed and the practice of virtue becomes effortless. "I can accomplish all things is Christ, Who strengthens me."

Attachment Parenting is Philosophical

2009-04-05T12:50:00.000-07:00

The following excerpts are from "The Philosophical Act," the second lecture from Josef Peiper's classic (and Catholic!), Leisure, the Basis of Culture. The first essay, Leisure, pertains to being at rest, not in flight from one's vulnerability. It's good stuff, if you have the time...

"The philosophical act is an act in which the work-a-day world is transcended." Attachment Parenting is philosophical in that it transcends behavior and the production of a specific "finished product" (the work-a-day world) in favor of the person as he is and his relationship to the rest of the world.

"Ancient philosophy says that this [the philosophical act] is the utmost fulfillment to which we can attain: that the whole order of real things be registered in our soul--a conception which in the Christian tradition was taken up into the concept of the beatific vision: 'What do they not see, who look upon Him, Who sees all?'" Attachment Parenting, because of its inherently vertical orientation in which our attachment to God makes possible our children's attachment to us, and which essentially, in charity, properly "attaches" us to God in every other creature, offers mutual fulfillment to both parent and child.

"Relationship, in the true sense, joins the inside with the outside; relationship can exist, where there is an 'inside,' a dynamic center, from which all operation has its source and to which all that is received, all that is experienced, is brought." In seeking to parent the whole child, body and soul, inside and out, intentions and not just external actions, Attachment Parenting is a means to true relationship.

"...spiritual knowing [is] the power to place onself into relation with the sum-total of existing things. And this is not meant as only one characteristic among others, but as the very essence and definition of the power [to parent]. By its nature, spirit (or intellection) is not so much distinguished by its immateriality, as by something more primary: its ability to be in relation to the totality of being. 'Spirit' means relating power that is so far-reaching and comprehensive, that the field of relations to which it corresponds, transcends in principle the very boundaries of its surroundings." This is why techniques and strategies are inappropriate within the context of a relationship. There are too many factors that must be considered. Philosophical principles provide a framework within which to have a fulfilling relationship based on the wisdom of the combined experience of the partners in that relationship.

"..the soul, basically, is all that exists." For this reason, the relationship between souls is tantamount, and takes absolute priority over the external, work-a-day activity of life.

"'Every other being possesses only a partial participation in being,' whereas the being endowed with spirit 'can grasp being as a whole.' As long as there is spirit, 'it is possible for the completeness of all being to be present in a single nature.' And this is also the position of the Western tradition: to have spirit, to be a spirit, to be spiritual--all this means to be in the middle of the sum total of reality, to be in relation with the totality of being, to be vis-a-vis de l'univers. The spirit does not live in 'a' world, or in 'its' world, but in the world: world in the sense of "everything seen and unseen"... This is precisely why our relationships won't "work" unless they are rooted in Christ (even if unconsciously), i.e., open to suffering the self-sacrifice that is inseparable from charity; nailed to the Cross.

[Those who have read Everyday Blessings, or other such books on "mindful" parenting will quickly see the parallels here.]

"For the stronger power of relating corresponds to a higher degree of inwardness; the power to relate is greater to the same degree as the bearer of that relation has 'inwardness' [mindfulness, awareness of vulnerability, humility]; the lowest power of relating not only corresponds to the lowest grade of 'inwardness,' wheras the spirit, which directs its relating-power to the sum total of being, must likewise have a corresponding inwardness. The more comprehensive the power of relating oneself to the world of objective being, so the more deeply anchored must be the 'ballast' [attachment] in the inwardness of the subject. And when a distinctively different level of 'world' is reached, namely, the orientation toward the whole [vertical orientation toward God], there too can be found the highest stage of being-established in one's inwardness, which is proper to the spirit. Thus both of these comprise the nature of spirit: not only in relation to the 'whole' of the world and 'reality,' but also the highest power of living-with-oneself, of being in oneself, of independence, of autonomy--which is exactly what has always been the 'person,' or 'personality' in the Western tracition: to have a world, to be related to the totality of existing things--that can occur only in a being that is 'established in itself' [not in flight from his vulnerability]: not a 'what,' but a 'who'--an 'I,' a person." For charity to be true, it must encompass ALL, unconditionally, each and every person in every moment, for better or for worse, and it must be felt by both, so that in dying to oneself for love of another, the other is likewise induced to die to himself for love of another. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," is the cardinal rule of all relationships. A love which is not felt fails to penetrate the soul and therefore lacks "inwardness."

How Attachment Parenting Fosters Willing Obedience

2009-04-02T14:02:00.000-07:00

Obedience springs from humility. Humility is the virtue whereby one is enabled to embrace suffering through the acceptance, even love, of one's "littleness," with the acknowledgment of one's dependence on and confidence in a Superior Being. AP preserves a child's love of his littleness through empathy, when the parents make their love felt despite the child's "littleness," and through refusing to use the fear of suffering as a means to coerce a child out of his "littleness."

One's "littleness" is one's fallen human nature, first and foremost. Man's fallen nature consists of his vulnerability, neediness, dependence, faultiness--his absolute need for unconditional love and acceptance--for a Savior--for redemption. The more aware we are of our "littleness" the more aware we are of our need for Christ, and vice versa. The more aware we are of our need for Christ, the more confidence we are compelled to place in Him, the more attached we are inclined to be to Him. In making ourselves dependent on Him completely, we are opening ourselves up to the transforming power of His grace, His love. In so doing we become capable of such a love, or rather, channels or instruments of His love.

The child who loves his "littleness" sees himself as he truly is and therefore possesses the virtue of humility. In his humility he is compelled to be obedient to someone he can depend on--to his attachment figure--ideally his parents. However, every person has to have an object for their faith, trust and confidence. The lack of such an object leads to despair. The use of force through the fear of suffering ultimately undermines a child's faith, trust and confidence in anyone who would use such tactics, since force excludes love, and in order to truly love one must be elevated to embrace suffering, not to fear it.

A child is born with his littleness and it is inescapable. When he has a secure attachment his confidence in his lovableness is bolstered and his confidence in his ability to love is increased. When he lacks a secure attachment he doubts whether or not he is lovable and whether or not he can love. It is from this anxiety that all his passions spring. Man needs to know first and foremost that he is loved for his littleness--his inadequecy--unconditionally. Only through his experience of this kind of unselfish love does he derive the confidence in his ability to love likewise. The securely attached child can rest assured that the purpose for which he was created is within his grasp, is in fact in his possession by virtue of the love he has received from his parents and ultimately from Christ.

Clarification on Embracing Suffering

2009-03-16T00:00:00.000-07:00

The Complete Spiritual Doctrine of St. Thérèse of Lisieux, by Rev. Francois Jamart, OCD, provides excellent clarification on the nature and value of embracing suffering. With regard to some of my previous posts, I wish to clarify that I am referring only to the kind of embracing suffering which is done for love's sake, and not for any earthly gain.

According to Thérèse, "The whole of the spiritual life is thus reduced to two elements: love of God and detachment from ourselves." It is in this detachment that we embrace suffering. So one can say that the whole of the spiritual life is thus reduced to embracing suffering for the love of God. We can never completely detach from our true selves, our souls made in God's image, but the "self" we have to detach from is the ego, or the "defense system" we have woven to protect ourselves from pain. This ego is the same as the bushel basket and our soul is the light. All the sins, faults and imperfections of our lives are strategies we have learned in our flight from vulnerability to protect ourselves from pain. When we "die to ourselves," "embrace suffering," "detach from ourselves," "strip ourselves of our ego," then the image and likeness of God in our souls is made visible and God is glorified in us.

"In order to be a saint, it is then necessary to forget ourselves, to love God with our whole soul and to love our neighbor for His sake. Animated by faith and love, we must cling to Christ and endeavor to reproduce His life in our own. He who imitates Christ necessarily renounces himself and strips himself of inordinate self-love." Here we have further description of what it means to embrace suffering, but it's not yet so clear exactly how one goes about doing this. What is clear, however, is that embracing suffering for the love of God counter-balances our self-love. In this balance we find the capacity to experience the full range of mixed feelings necessary for the effective practice of the virtue of prudence.

"The spirituality of the early Christians was inspired by those principles. They approached God in all simplicity by remaining united to Christ. They avoided everything that might impede that union or distract them from Jesus. They trained their minds and hearts after the model of the divine Master: 'Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus' (Philippians 2:5)." Now we know that whatever it is we must do it is supposed to be simple.

"At a later time it was judged that this goal would be more easily attained with the help of spiritual treatises. Methods of prayer were developed and spiritual formation was synthesized as a means of helping those who could not receive personal guidance. This was very useful but, as a result of it, there developed a multiplicity of ascetical rules and practices which tended to obscure the heart of the matter: that interior disposition of confident love for God, which should be the basis of our relations with Him." (emphasis mine) All the rules and practices, which were more than likely the fruit of this confidence, mistakenly became regarded as a means to this confidence. The cart was put before the horse. Furthermore, as pertains to us today, since it is rather unlikely, given the current trends in parenting, that our relationship to our parents was built primarily on confident love (at least from our point of view as children) rather than on our acceptable performance and adherence to a complex set of rules and regulations, it should come as no surprise that our ability to comprehend such a relationship with God would present tremendous difficulty for us.

"People got the impression that a complex and rigorous course of asceticism was necessary for any one who aimed at perfection. The example of many saints seemed to confirm them in this erroneous view. Most saints had indeed lived a life full of austerity and hard penances, macerations of all sorts, vigils, humiliations, the contempt of men, etc. Holiness thus came to be looked upon as the portion of a few privileged souls. Again, those penitential saints were often favored by extraordinary graces: vision, revelations, miracles, prophecies. Those facts seemed to put the pursuit of sanctity beyond the reach of the ordinary man." Sanctity came to be measured by perfect behavior and extraordinary rewards for such behavior.

"But now, in our own day, there appeared a Carmelite nun, who was young in years and apparently had no authority to speak, and yet she insisted on teaching 'a Little Way very straight and short, a Little Way entirely new; which would lead men to perfection. Whereas others had declared that sanctity was something that was hard to attain, she said that it is easy. She maintained that in order to reach it, it was not necessary to engage in manifold practices, to perform rigorous penances, to receive extraordinary graces. What was needed was simply that we acknowledge our 'nothingness' and approach God with love and confidence. 'Sanctity,' she proclaimed, 'is an interior disposition which makes us humble and little in God's arms, conscious of our weakness and trusting even to audacity in the goodness of our Father.' She was thus inviting a return to evangelical simplicity." Only a childlike confidence in (attachment to) God was necessary. All else was superfluous! At the end of his life, St. Francis declared that he wished he had not been so hard on himself--that it was not necessary! But for us, who have been trained in a rigorous striving for perfection in our behavior, habitually stifling our emotions lest we be impelled to deviate from the straight and narrow road of perfect behavior, abandoning such efforts has the tendency to create the illusion of condemning oneself to eternal misery--embracing suffering. And yet, this is exactly what we must do to become holy. What St. Thérèse calls "acknowledging our nothingness" (she even goes so far as to demand that we love our nothingness), Dr. Neufeld refers to as being keenly aware of our vulnerability. Traditional authoritarian parenting in which the outward signs of love and acceptance of our children are conditional on their desirable behavior teaches them to despise their littleness and vulnerability--the exact opposite of Thérèseian spirituality and the only indispensable interior disposition necessary for their sanctification. Attachment parenting asks of parents that they embrace their vulnerability in order to preserve in their the children an awareness of their vulnerability. Embracing suffering DOES NOT require that we undertake a rigorous regimen of severe penances, fasts, mortifications, etc. It means the exact opposite! It means that we come to rest in the arms of God and allow ourselves to feel, as we did as little children, our dependence, our neediness, our powerlessness, our vulnerability. It means that we no longer trust in our own means but rather submit ourselves unconditionally to the means through which God sees fit to transform us. Knowing full well our own vulnerability, we have nothing more to fear--the weaker we are the smaller the crosses our loving God could mercifully see fit with which to yoke us.

Dr. Neufeld explains the purpose of suffering:
"Our emotional circuitry is programmed to release us from the pursuit of contact and closeness not only when attachment hunger is fulfilled but also when we truly get that the desire for its fulfillment is futile. Letting go of a desire we are attached to is most difficult even for adults (this is what the Spiritual Doctors call "detachment"), whether it be the wish that everyone like us or that a particular person love us, or that we become politically powerful. Not until we accept that what we have been trying to do cannot be done and fully experience the disappointment and sadness that follow can we move on with our lives...

"As with fulfillment, futility must sink in for the shift in energy to occur, the shift that leads to acceptance, from frustration to a sense of peace with how things are. It is not enough to register it intellectually, it must be felt deeply and vulnerably, in the very heart of the limbic system, at the core of the brain's emotional circuitry. Futility is a vulnerable feeling, bringing us face-to-face with the limits of our control and with what we cannot change."
Embracing suffering is what we do when we feel deeply that the way in which we have been loving is not working. God allows us suffering as an opportunity for futility to sink in--in order to draw us to Himself. To admit to ourselves that we have not been loving as we ought is terrifying. Faith and confidence in the God of love will facilitate this letting go. The only reason it is so difficult for us to entertain this kind of blind confidence is that we are unfamiliar with such a fatherly love. This is not a criticism of our own parents, but a general acknowledgment of our collective human frailty.

Psychologically, St. Thérèse spiritual doctrine is perfect. Or rather, the seal of approval the Church has so enthusiastically given her doctrine supports the wisdom of attachment psychology. Fr. Jamart, undoubtedly echoing the sentiments of the Church, writes, "For Thérèse was endowed with a keen and exceptionally precocious intelligence and with a remarkable power of psychological insight and observation." Incidentally, some of the methods of modern psychology such as co-dependency recovery and "healing the child within" are highly adaptable to this spirituality and can go a long way to facilitating such a conversion with God's grace.

Dr. Neufeld maintains that in order to feel mixed feelings, which is necessary to stem the tide of unconscious impulses, we must be able to "feel deeply and vulnerably." When we are in the flight from suffering we are only able to experience the range of mixed feelings contained by our inordinate self-love. By coming to rest in the confidence of God's unfailing mercy (which is experienced by us as a terrifying risk, or subjecting ourselves to unknown and possibly unlimited suffering) we achieve spiritual and emotional stasis, becoming able to experience the full range of mixed feelings humanly possible. The change in our interior disposition is almost instantaneous, although the process of increasing our capacity to experience these new feelings will probably be a life-long growing process. Ironically, the capacity to "feel deeply and vulnerably" actually inoculates us from being easily wounded by others. Having stripped ourselves of our own egoism, or defensiveness, we find ourselves able to distinguish between others' defensiveness and the underlying fear of suffering that motivates their actions. At this level of understanding we are far less likely to take things personally, and far more likely to feel only compassion.

To give an example, in the case of a "noisy" toddler in mass one may wonder what to do with the suffering she might be experiencing. Every situation, practically speaking, will require different action on our own part. In this case, embracing suffering doesn't necessarily mean that you determine to remain in the pews no matter how much noise the child makes, or that you resign yourself to standing in the vestibule for the rest of your life, no matter how the child behaves. What it means is that whatever course of action you choose to follow (presumably, having made the decision to surrender your will entirely to God, you have achieved stasis, charity has germinated in the soul, the virtue of prudence springs from that charity, the impulses of the Holy Ghost move the soul, etc.) you have peace about it. On this subject St. Thérèse said, "I confess that this word 'peace' seemed rather strong but, on the other day, reflecting on it, I found the secret of being able to suffer in peace. To say that we suffer in peace does not mean that we suffer with joy, at least with a joy that is felt. In order to suffer in peace, it is enough to will truly all that Jesus wills." The negative feeling of suffering you experience is not something that you do anything with, but something that is done to you. And why would we want to do this? Fr. Jamart explains, "Being preeminently God's gift to men, it is also, at least after abandonment to God, the best proof we can give of our love for God. More than any other work, it sanctifies us and increases our capacity for happiness and our measure of glory. More than any ohter, it is the instrument of the salvation of souls." And elsewhere he writes, "But a soul matures and perfects itself only through sufferings." Most of us have learned to stuff those painful feelings with distractions, venting, or projecting (transference). We employ the same tactics with our children when they're suffering. We would do well to meditate on Christ in the garden, when in His agony, God almighty sent an angel, not to distract Him from his suffering, or to remove it, but simply to comfort Him. When we have embraced suffering, we understand instantly how to just let these feelings happen to us, marinating in the feeling without having to immediately do anything "about" it. Sometimes, of course, there is something we CAN and even SHOULD do about a situation about which we have strong negative feelings. But giving ourselves time to embrace these feelings gives us time to make prudent, rational decisions about the best course of action, and then be at peace with whatever decision we come to. Embracing suffering endows us with the joy of serenity--to accept the things we cannot change, the strength of courage--to change the things we can, and the humility of wisdom--to know the difference. Until we can feel deeply and vulnerably we cannot effectively practice these virtues. The practice of embracing these feelings, be they joyful or sorrowful, stretches our capacity to experience mixed feelings, which in turn increases our capacity to love.

This brings us to the flip side of embracing suffering: embracing happiness, which is made possible by the decision to allow oneself to feel again deeply and vulnerably. The flight from vulnerability, like strong antidepressants, makes it difficult for us to feel anything at all, good or bad. And most of us won't even realize how numb we've grown until we make the leap. With our capacity to experience stronger and stronger negative emotions, our capacity to experience the positive ones increases proportionally. The greater our capacity to "contain" mixed feelings from farther and farther reaches of the spectrum (picture Our Lord's arms outstretched on the Cross), the greater our capacity to love. Dr. Neufeld deals with the idea of embracing suffering from this angle in Chapter 9, Stuck In Immaturity, under the section, Peer Orientation Stunts Growth In Five Significant Ways, Peer-Oriented Children Are Unable to Feel Fulfilled:
"It may seem strange that feelings of fulfillment would require openness to feelings of vulnerability. There is no hurt or pain in fulfillment--quite the opposite. Yet there is an underlying emotional logic to this phenomenon. For the child to feel full he must first feel empty, to feel helped he must first feel in need of help, to feel complete he must first experience the ache of loss, to be comforted one must first have felt hurt. Satiation may be a very pleasant experience, but the prerequisite is to be able to feel vulnerability. When a child loses the ability to feel her attachment voids, the child also loses the ability to feel nurtured and fulfilled."
Further evidence of this is contained in the spiritual doctrine of St. Thérèse. As if knowing instinctively what psychology has recently "discovered" about praise and rewards, she desired that all should know her faults, and that she should receive no reward for her love. And how well she understood the oneness of charity. Fr. Jamart writes, "From her childhood, Therese had desired to become a saint...But she soon realized that in spite of her good will, her efforts were insufficient...On the other hand, she could not persuade herself that God would inspire aims impossible for us to attain. Hence, she thought, in spite of her littleness she could still aspire to holiness. But how was this to be achieved? It is not possible to add anything to one's stature. She had to accept herself as she was and suffer her imperfections." To love God and one's neighbor unconditionally we must accept and love ourselves unconditionally. This is what I believe it means to embrace suffering--to love to remain as a little child. After all, who in the world today suffers more than children, who are as vulnerable as Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament? Thérèse herself explains: "It means that we acknowledge our nothingness; that we expect everything from the good Lord, as a child expects everything from its father; it means to worry about nothing, not to build upon fortune; it means to remain little, seeking only to gather flowers, the flowers of sacrifice, and to offer them to the good Lord for His pleasure. It also means not to attribute to ourselves the virtues we practice, not to believe that we are capable of anything, but to acknowledge that it is the good Lord who has placed that treasure in the hand of His little child that He may use it when He needs it, but it remains always God's own treasure. Finally, it means that we must not be discouraged by our faults, for children fall frequently."

Lest there be any doubt as to the validity of her doctrine Fr. Jamart provides solid testimony:
"Benedict XV affirmed that 'Thérèse, who was disciple of a Religious Order inwhcih the glory of the Doctorate adorns the weaker sex, has so much knowledge herself that she was able to point out to others the way of salvation.' The same Pope saw in her doctrine 'the secret of sanctity for the faithful throughout the whole world,' adding: 'This Secret must not remain hidden from anyone.' It is not 'reserved for innocent souls in whom evil has not destroyed the graces of childhood; it is also suitable for those who have lost their childhood innocence.'

"Pius XI went even further. He declared that St. Thérèse is 'a WORD OF GOD' descended from heaven to reveal 'spiritual childhood to us by means of her writings and to point out to others a sure way of salvation.' According to the same Pontiff, that young nun, from the depths of her cloister, presents to us 'an example which all the world can and should follow.' She 'opens up an easy road' that we may ascend even to perfection and the fullness of love. He prophesied that the practice of this doctrine would bring about a 'profound renewal of Catholic life in its entirety and the regeneration of society.' (What more appropriate and effective place for this regeneration to begin but within the family, within the parent/child relationship!)

"Finally, Pius XII, completing, as it were, the judgments of his predecessors, said that Thérèse's Way, conceived under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is suitable for the children of God who have reached adult years; it is suitable for learned men as it is for the lowly and the unlettered; it is even very practical for those who, like the apostles (and parents!!!), bear a great responsibility for souls. Such testimonies need no commentary. With perfect clarity they confirm the providential mission of St. Therese and canonize her doctrine."

What a glorious vocation is motherhood! What a sweet means to holiness! In order to "become as little children" we are provided daily example and reminders. How humbling to be helped by the littlest ones among us! Meditate on your children's suffering and joy and submit to sharing in it unconditionally.

Sometimes we realize that we are much more willing to accept suffering in the really big things, but the little opportunities pass us by unnoticed. Thérèse sought to make her entire life "one act of love," while admitting to herself before God that she was unable to do anything good of herself. Our re-orientation, from horizontal to vertical, consists of one act of humility--one act of faith--one act of love. The beginning of sanctity begins with one step: the sincere acknowledgment of our desire to love as Christ loves, and that of our own efforts we are incapable of loving anyone but ourselves, and even that, very poorly. Honestly admitting this to ourselves exposes fully our vulnerability and the very real possibility that we could spend our entire lives never truly loving anyone, living and dying in misery and possibly spending eternity in misery. But since we were made to love--since love is the survival instinct of our souls, we will find ourselves more terrified of never truly loving anyone in this life than we are of eternal misery! And as soon as we embrace the prospect of eternal misery and the futility of our own efforts sinks in, that act of faith is made unconditionally and instantaneously. In that moment, we allow Christ to take full possession of our souls and we begin for the first time, maybe in our entire lives, to love as He loves, no matter what it costs us. This is what it means to say that the saints are not saints because they are afraid of the pains of hell--they are saints because they are not afraid of the pains of hell. By making our entire lives "one act of love," we submit unconditionally to loving every one, including ourselves, at every moment for love of God.

It is simple and yet terrifying. And yet, we can confront this fear now and in a moment be free of this fear for the rest of our lives. The reorientation of ourselves from horizontal to vertical is but a few tears away. If we believe what Dr. Neufeld writes about horizontal orientation amongst our children--if we believe what Thérèse believed about "loving our littleness"--and we desire to raise our own children up to a sainthood such as hers, we must eventually arrive at the realization that our reorientation is an absolute necessity. And as soon as the futility sinks in it will become a reality. In the words of Dr. Neufeld, "...sainthood may be what we are called to." I couldn't agree more!

Striving for Balance: A Catholic Perspective

2009-03-09T11:39:00.000-07:00

Advocates of Attachment Parenting agree on eight principles which together create the optimal environment for raising happy, healthy and holy children. These principles are the pillars which support the overarching philosophy of good parenting, which is that human beings, especially when they are children, need consistent, unconditional love and acceptance, day and night, near and far, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, in poverty and in wealth, until death. Among these principles, and in my opinion the most overlooked, though perhaps the most important, is balance. In the image of the cross we find an excellent metaphor which captures the nature of true balance: the horizontal beam represents a healthy, generous, well-ordered love of one’s neighbor and oneself, uplifted and affixed to the vertical beam representing the unconditional love of God and trustful surrender to His providence. Without balance we will persist in our frantic quest to earn what can only be given freely as a gift. Balance enables us to give freely the gift of unconditional love which cannot be earned in a thousand life times. It is an impossible contradiction.

In the Hidden Power of Kindness, Fr. Lovasik begins the first chapter with these truths:

The standard for the love of God is giving all. It reaches into the very depths of the powers of your soul. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind.”

The standard for the love of neighbor is love of self. “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

So in order for us to give all of ourselves to God we must be in full possession of ourselves—we must know ourselves intimately. And not only must we know ourselves, we must love ourselves, for what love is there in giving God a gift we do not love? It is the gift of Cain, which was not pleasing to God. Cain’s murder of his brother was rooted in his own self-loathing.

To truly love God we must love all whom He loves. He loves all of us and therefore we must love everyone, including ourselves, whom He also loves. In order to love God completely, we must love ourselves completely. In order to love God unconditionally, we must love ourselves unconditionally.

Since the standard for the love of neighbor is also love of self, we will love our neighbor only as well as we love ourselves. And we will love God only as well as we love our neighbor. This is why the entire Christian rule is summed up in these two commandments. True charity consists in loving one’s neighbor as oneself for love of God. No one part is optional.

Fr. Gabriel writes in Divine Intimacy, #181, Mary And Fraternal Charity, “Charity is one in its essence, because of the oneness of its object: God loved in Himself, God loved in the neighbor.” I would add to that, God loved in oneself.

The Baltimore Catechism teaches that man was made to show forth God’s goodness and to be happy with Him in Heaven; and in order to do these two things, we must first know Him, in order to love Him, in order to serve Him. The same is true of our selves and our neighbor. In order to love ourselves, we must first know ourselves. And the better we know ourselves the better we are able to know our neighbor. We are both made in God’s image; God loves and dwells in both of us; knowing ourselves helps us to know God and our neighbor.

One part of knowing God is knowing what pleases and displeases Him. This is completely true of ourselves as well. To truly know ourselves we must be aware of our entire emotional life—our interior life or our spiritual life, the life of our souls. It is here that we find God’s law written in our hearts. It is here that we find His will for each of us, if we can quiet the voices of our fellow men long enough to hear His voice.

We first begin to know ourselves in our infancy through a process of feeling, needing, and acting until a state of stasis is achieved. The infant feels pain in his stomach and, out of pure instinct, cries. His mother, out of pure instinct, brings him to the breast and out of pure instinct he begins to suck. The sucking fills his belly with milk, the pain subsides and a state of stasis is achieved. From the simple process of these natural laws the child learns that he needs one greater than himself in order to be happy, satisfied and fulfilled. He also begins the process of acquiring self-knowledge and self-discipline, which amounts to nothing more than recognizing his feeling, the need indicated by that feeling, and the appropriate action to fill that need in a way that brings lasting satisfaction and growth. The infant is engaged in the act of loving himself, and needs the support and guidance of his parents to perform this action. If his parents support him, he learns that he is loveable. When, unfortunately, they do not, he begins to doubt if he is loveable, for if he cannot love himself, if his parents cannot love him enough to help him love himself, who else can love him? Over a prolonged period of time, suffering from love deprivation, the child will come to believe that he is unloveable, and fear that he cannot do the thing for which he has been created—to love his neighbor and himself for the love of a God who he does not even yet know. Nothing could ever be more terrifying to the human soul.

It is my belief that it is from this fear that all man’s inordinate passions spring. There are volumes of evidence to support this belief from the fields of attachment psychology and mystical theology, both of which seek to direct man toward unconditionally loving and accepting, trust based relationships, first with his parents and ultimately with God. In a trust based, attachment relationship, the child, knowing that all his needs, not just physical, but emotional and spiritual, too, are provided for unconditionally (exactly like the process of Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence), he is free to devote his energy to learning to love others.

When a child is forced to grow physically without the benefit of a secure attachment to his parents, he never really learns to love himself and then others, and therefore, doesn’t mature emotionally and spiritually at the same pace that he matures physically. Without this maturity he is incapable of the kind of self-sacrifice necessary for the practice of true charity. In other words, if he has never learned to know and love himself, he is not in full possession of himself and cannot give freely of himself. He is still in the process of learning to love himself in order to know how to love others. There is good reason to believe that the majority of adults in our world are in this state of paradox—physically mature but emotionally and spiritually immature.

Psychology and Theology both agree that man’s happiness consists in charity which springs form humility, or total self-knowledge. While there may be many ways for one to acquire this knowledge, one way science has discovered for an adult who has never learned to truly love himself to learn this love (which may find its religious parallel in the "general confession") is through revisiting the experiences of his life, especially his childhood, rediscovering his younger self, getting to know that child for himself and not through the eyes of others, wihtout shame, but with full recognition of his weakness; and through this knowledge, growing to love and accept himself unconditionally as a child of God made in His image and likeness, a miracle still unfolding through the power of God’s providence, worthy and in need of unconditional love and acceptance from others and capable, by the grace of God, of such a love for himself and others for the love of God. In the discovery of this truth a man’s fears and defenses are laid to rest and he achieves the balance necessary to love in the truest sense of the word.

For many the thought of revisiting one’s childhood strikes terror in their hearts. There can be a number of reasons for this fear. To begin with, childhood can be a phase in one’s life associated with many difficult feelings, like shame, inadequacy, loneliness and fear. These are unpleasant feelings for everyone and it takes a lot of courage to voluntarily experience them, even if only by memory. Additionally, due to many prevalent ideas about the meaning and obligations of the fourth commandment, there can be a real fear of dying young and spending eternity in the pits of hell for even questioning the treatment one received from one’s parents. This thought alone is wrapped up in feelings of fear, guilt, shame, etc.

But make no mistake. The objective is not to judge one’s parents, question their intentions, or to make excuses for them, for that matter, but to honor them with the truth within the privacy of our hearts—to admit to oneself with all honesty and humility how the experiences of one’s childhood effected one emotionally, physically and spiritually then as well as now, in order to acknowledge one’s true and natural feelings—one’s littleness, neediness, dependence and vulnerability, the awareness of which—called humility—is absolutely necessary to the practice of charity.

In becoming aware of our feelings and the needs to which those feelings were signaling us, we can use the wisdom of our life’s experiences to find appropriate ways to fill those needs and in the process learn what it truly means to embrace our littleness and love ourselves, our neighbors as ourselves, and God with our whole selves.

Once we have laid to rest the fear induced defenses we have been using to protect ourselves from suffering, halting our flight from vulnerability by seeking to earn what can only be given freely as a gift, inadvertently pushing love just out of our reach, like Tantalus in Hades, we can embrace the necessary and inevitable sufferings of life, ultimately finding joy in them. St. Thérèse says, “Let us not believe that we can love without suffering, and without suffering a great deal." According to Fr. Jamart Thérèse believed that, "Love and love alone, has the power to enable us to bear generously and to the end, the sacrifices and suffering of our life." On that subject she herself said, "We can bear much suffering, when we suffer it from moment to moment…I suffer only from instant to instant…from minute to minute…it is because we reflect on the past and think of the future [flight and pursuit] that we get discouraged and despair.” In so doing as parents, we become capable of loving our children beyond the fear that we cannot love them unless we change them. We are no longer driven by the fear that if we hold them as often as they like they’ll always be needy and dependent. We are no longer driven by the fear that if we don’t hold them as often as they like (when at the moment it’s just not possible) they’ll think we don’t love them and grow up resenting us. We are no longer driven by the fear that if we don’t force them to learn good habits they’ll only learn bad ones, and we are no longer driven by the fear that if we do force them to learn good habits they’ll rebel against all our best efforts. No longer feeling that we are unlovable and fearing that we cannot love, we can trust in our ability to love our children and ourselves for love of God no matter what suffering life brings.

Balance is a matter of our self-love being counterbalanced by our love for God. It is a matter of taking responsibility for getting our own needs filled in ways that provide lasting satisfaction and growth, while filling the needs of those we have taken responsibility for by bringing them into the world, until they learn from us how to take responsibility for themselves. Balance is a matter of acquiring the self-discipline to accept our natural feelings as an integral part of the image of God we are, recognizing the needs behind those feelings and getting those needs filled while we teach our children to do the same. Love, Balance and Discipline are inseparable and they begin at the breast—and even in the womb—where, in loving our children we support their efforts to learn to love themselves so that they can know how to love others in order to love God. And vice versa.

Keeping Close While Apart

2009-03-03T06:35:00.000-08:00

We have AT&T to thank for giving is a perfect example of a beautiful little attachment ritual that helps our kids keep us close while we're away. Even the kids can do it!

The power of unconditional love

2009-03-02T10:29:00.000-08:00

From Raymond Arroyo's blog, an account of an inspiring life. I haven't read any of Mr. Nolan's works, but I plan to.

What struck me in Mr. Arroyo's article below is the incontestable evidence Mr. Nolan's life and work provide for the power of unconditional love.

Christopher Nolan: The Unicorn Writer, RIP

This week the world lost a rare writer at the age of 43. He was not a media fixture and certainly not one of those writers making appearances at the literary salons. He was a Dublin homebody. But what an astounding person Christopher Nolan was.

Nolan was born with cerebral palsy, could not speak, nor control his extremities. Confined to a wheelchair, he was the type of person our society looks at with pity or largely ignores. Thankfully, his family never saw him that way. They loved him unconditionally, interacted with him and taught him as one would any child. He would go on to school, though no one fully appreciated his mental acuity.

A drug was discovered that allowed Nolan to move one muscle in his neck. (Bono of U2, who attended school with Nolan wrote the song “Miracle Drug” about the boy). At the age of 11 he was equipped with a “unicorn stick” which was fastened to his head. With it Nolan would peck at a typewriter. His mother had to apply pressure to his chin to stabilize the boy’s head, allowing him to work his art. It was a torturous process, taking him more than 15 minutes to produce one word on the page. And what words they were.

He published his first book at 15, a collection of poems appropriately titled “Dam-burst of Dreams.” His second book won Britain’s prestigious “Whitbread Book of the Year:” in 1988. It was called “Under the Eye of the Clock,” a biographical work in which he refers to himself as Joseph Meehan. At one point in the book Nolan writes of crying upon the realization that he is not like other children:

``Looking through his tears he saw [his mother] bent low in order to look into his eyes. `... Listen here Joseph, you can see, you can hear, you can think, you can understand everything you hear. You like your food, you like nice clothes, you are loved by me and Dad. We love you just as you are.' Pussing still, sniveling still, he was listening to his mother's voice. She spoke sort of matter-of-factly but he blubbered moaning sounds. His mother said her say and that was that. She got on with her work while he got on with his crying.
``The decision arrived at that day, was burnt forever in his mind. He was only three years in age but he was now fanning the only spark he saw, his being alive and more immediate, his being wanted just as he was....
``That day looked out through his eyes for the rest of his life. Comfort came in child-like notions, his clumsy body was his, but molested by mother-love he looked lollying looks at his limbs, and liked Joseph Meehan.'

Nolan was a Catholic, one who was often frustrated by his inability to open his mouth at communion time. But the mark of his faith is evident in his work. In “Under the Eye of the Clock” he wrote of Christmas:
“Bells pealed in all the Dublin churches as midnight nudged home its bashful meaning to all the crazy longing. Christ the God-child now breathed a human breath. The Word became flesh and dwelt amongst man. Manger-cradled the Saviour lay. Midnight Mass marked the moment for Joseph; crested now with knowing, he marvelled at the nobility of the human person.”

His Mother, Bernadette told the Christian Science Monitor in the late 80’s: “``He has shown (people with disabilities) that life is worth living, and it doesn't matter whether you're in a wheelchair or a bed; it's what's going on in your mind and your soul that is important.''

Beyond his somersaulting innovation with language, the thing that lingers about Nolan is the improbable miracle of the man himself. I am in awe of the great sacrifices he made each day to share his voice with the world. Each overwhelming obstacle to communication was soberly considered, and ruthlessly overcome. Of writing he once said: ``My mind is just like a spin dryer at full speed. My thoughts fly around my skull, while millions of beautiful words cascade down into my lap. Images gunfire across my consciousness and, while trying to discipline them, I jump in awe at the soul-filled bounty of mind's expanse.''

How many able bodied people put off their calling, or make needless excuses for doing nothing. The next time those deadening temptations bubble up, we should think of Christopher Nolan. With a stick affixed to his head, in a body he could not control, his mother holding his chin, Nolan managed to produce a book of poetry, a play, a novel, a biography and an incredible witness for us all.

May Christopher Nolan rest in peace.

Let Them Be Little

2009-02-16T06:00:00.000-08:00

I have been reading The Complete Spiritual Doctrine of St. Thérèse of Lisieux, by Fr. Francois Jamart, OCD, and what is clear is that what I call embracing suffering St. Thérèse referrs to as loving one's littleness. This, she says, is what one must do in order to by sanctified and transformed by God, Himself.

It is clear that traditional, authoritarian parenting in which the outward expression of love and acceptance of a child depends on his ability to perform actions deemed desirable by the parents, even going so far as to rush and force his emotional development (something most parents would consider ridiculous with respect to a child's physical development!), inflicting physical and emotional pain on him for his failures and foibles, causes children to despise their littleness, dependence and vulnerability--the exact opposite of the spirituality of Thérèse, who is called by the Church "The Greatest Saint of Modern Times."

Attachment Parenting, on the other hand, provides us with proven successful means for preserving in our children a love for their littleness and their vulnerability by respectfully fostering their dependence on us until they are mature enough to depend on themselves and ultimately God, and demonstrating to them, in ways which they are able to understand, our love and acceptance of them exactly as they are right here in this moment--weak, ignorant, vulnerable, little.

It is precisely this lack of unconditional love and acceptance between husband and wife (for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer) which is the cause of the failure of so many marriages. How much more devastating is this kind of selfish love for a child!

We have all heard the saying, "Idleness is the root of all evil." Well, did you know that St. Thomas defines idleness, or acedia as "the despair of weakness," of which Kierkegaard said, that it consists in someone "despairingly" not wanting "to be oneself."

Given the present and dismal state of affairs of the world, particularly amongst our youth, and the predominance of authoritarian parenting (permissive parenting, though less common, has the same effect only in a more subtle way) I would have to say that it is misguided, or "conditional" parenting which is the root of all evil.

And the remedy, from Billy Dean and St. Thérèse, is that we "Let Them Be Little" and love their littleness so that they can too.

Ways In Which We Teach Children To Despise Their Littleness

Rushing or coercing them to:

emerge from the womb
sleep through the night
sleep alone (in the dark)
wean from the breast
potty train
hold back their tears
overcome their fears
walk
talk (say "please" and "thank you")
swim
sit still
be quiet
share
care
play
pray
apologize
show respect
clean up after themselves
dress themselves
feed themselves
eat food that is distasteful to them
read
write
calculate
cooperate
excel at academics, sports, music, art, etc.

Punishing them for:

feelings
mistakes
reluctance...
refusal...
failure...

...to live up to any of the above mentioned parental expectations.

(Please add to these lists in your comments.)

To teach our children how to "be in the world and not of it," we must create in our homes an environment in which the worldly law of penalties and incentives, violence and power, cruelty and luxury, is foreign and unwelcome; in which the Beatific Vision is glimpsed in the face of the child and reflected back to him for his adoration.

St. Thérèse of Lisieux, a Model for Catholic Parents

2009-01-29T08:11:00.000-08:00

Of all the Saints, perhaps it is Little Thérèse who shows us the most perfect example of what it means to depend entirely on God, to accept His invitation to absolute dependence through total abandonment to His Divine Will--to practice unconditional love and acceptance of God, oneself and all others. In I Believe In LOVE, Father d'Elbee explains how we do that and why it is so hard for us. There's no stretching required to apply this to our parenting. It consists of ceasing our own flight from vulnerability, and abandoning ourselves and our lives and all our loved ones to God's infinite mercy through unconditional love and acceptance that is felt and understood by the receiver:

“What we can always do, however, is to love, with our will, our littleness and our poverty; we can love our nakedness and our powerlessness and come to have nothing but a single treasure: our blind abandonment to mercy.

"That is a program for the interior life which is within your reach.

"Do you know what misleads us? The fact that the best men are often so hard. They grow tired of pardoning. They do not forget the wounds they may have received. The world is pitiless in its judgments. It would seem that the perverted should be less severe than others, if only from looking at themselves. Quite the contrary, because mercy is a fruit of grace. Listen to the Pharisees, behind their whitewashed facades, passing judgment on the poor publicans.

"We apply to the Heart of Jesus the measure of our own miserable little hearts, so mean, so narrow, so hard, and we do not succeed in comprehending how good, how indulgent, how compassionate, how gentle, and how patient is Jesus Himself.

"We are severe particularly through lack of humility. This lack of humility prevents us from going to Jesus with the childlike confidence which permits Him to make our hearts gentle and humble like His, to exchange our hearts for His.

"Yes, it is really this which misleads us. We have not experienced a truly merciful, universally merciful heart, always benevolent and understanding, which attracted by misery, always knows how to bend over it in compassion. Yet that is what the Heart of Jesus is like."

Because of the oneness of humanity with God, it is impossible to unconditionally love and accept our children if we do not ALSO unconditionally love and accept ourselves and our neighbors, and most importantly the infinitely merciful will of God. And this unconditional acceptance is made possible only by the persistent interior disposition to accept ALL the Joy and ALL the Suffering it pleases God to allow us for His glorification. This act of Total Abandonment happens in a moment, in the Present moment. We do not FIRST learn to love our children unconditionally, and THEN ourselves, and THEN God or our neighbors. In THAT moment when we abandon ourselves to the Divine Will, we discover what has always been present in us--that we are capable of unconditional love and acceptance of ALL--that this is the very purpose for which we were created--that the Kingdom of Heaven is truly within each of us.

For some of us, the process toward Total Abandonment begins with the desire to love and accept our children unconditionally. For others another object will be their motivation. The cancer which afflicts our world today is the loss of the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity--the loss of Unshakable Confidence in God and in Ourselves. We have allowed ourselves to be influenced by the heresy of Jansenism, believing ourselves to be depraved and as such, incapable of love, and we have infected our own children with this disease. Because of it's emphasis on preserving an awareness of and accepting our vulnerability, embracing each moment for what it is, and on unconditional love and acceptance, and thereby modelling sanctity for our children, the spirit of what we refer to as "attachment parenting," especially when combined with the transformative power of sanctifying grace, which is the very life and love of God in our souls, is a powerful antidote to this cancer.

There are a few things that Total Abandonment is not, the understanding of which is essential to its practice:

Total Abandonment is not resignation to persisting in our sinfulness, weakness and faultiness. It is a paradox that only after we accept ourselves and others and the suffering that is a direct consequence of our fallen nature, can we begin to transcend that fallen nature. To become like Christ, we must embrace suffering. As long as we are living in fear of suffering, as long as we are seeking to improve ourselves and others in order to avoid suffering, we will never transcend our nature which is the cause of our suffering. The fear of suffering consists of two inseparable objects: that we are unable to love, the consequence of which is eternal infinite suffering, and that we are able to love infinitely, the means to which is eternal infinite self-sacrifice, which we equate with suffering. When we are in pursuit of happiness—the quest to love, and in flight from suffering—the fear of our ability to love, we are running after and away from love. And as long as we are in flight and pursuit we are not in possession and we are not in the moment. Suffering can only be embraced in this moment. Love can only be given and received in this moment. As long as we are living in the past or in the future we are in flight and pursuit and neither in possession of love, nor possessed by it. All virtues spring from charity and charity is practiced right now. To be present right now we must humble ourselves by accepting ourselves as we are and accepting God’s will in each moment. This is embracing suffering. There is no other way. If we wish to find true, lasting happiness, we must turn and face suffering and embrace it as Christ embraced the Cross. Christ’s Passion and Death was His victory over sin, the cause of all suffering. Our victory over sin consists first in our accepting our sinfulness. Our victory over suffering consists in our embracing it. “If you would save your life you must lose it.

Total Abandonment is not withdrawing ourselves or identifying ourselves with our limitations. It is a willingness to take risks for the sake of love. It is opening ourselves up to discovering God’s will for us in the creative impulses of love that we experience from moment to moment. It is accepting the possibility of failure to overcome the fear of failure and all its consequent sufferings in order that we might allow God to use us as His instruments—in order that He might be glorified in us.

Total Abandonment is not indulging in our sinfulness and weakness, knowing the suffering that it brings—or accepting future suffering for pleasure right now. This doesn’t mean that we deny that we have desire for the pleasure, but that we acknowledge and accept the feeling of desire humbly, without acting on in, without criticizing, blaming or judging ourselves for it, but with compassion for our weakness, neediness and vulnerability, and utter dependence on God for our fulfillment; that we accept every moment of weakness, letting it sink into our souls fully, so that our awareness of our vulnerability is increased with our consciousness of our dependence on God. In the words of St. Therese, "How happy I am to see myself imperfect and having so great a need of receiving the mercy of God at the moment of death!...Instead of rejoicing in my dryness, I ought to attribute it to my lack of fervor and fidelity. I ought to be distressed at sleeping during my prayers and acts of thanksgiving. Well, I am not distressed. I think little children please their parents as much when they sleep as when they are awake."

Total Abandonment is not the same as passivity and it is opposed to reactivity. When our interior disposition is oriented toward the love of God, oneself and one’s neighbor, then one’s exterior actions will be appropriate and intentional. When our choices are no longer driven by inordinate self-love, or the fear of suffering, then our choices are informed by the virtue of prudence, which, simply put, is a state of equilibrium between love of God and neighbor, and love of self. Only after we have achieved this balance can we work toward positive change in our world, radiating Christ to all with whom we come in contact, drawing all these in with us. When Jesus says, "He who loves me will keep my commands," He is making a promise, not an ultimatum. When our interior disposition is directed solely toward the love of God and total abandonment to His will, our actions will necessarily be in conformity with His will.

Total Abandonment doesn’t mean we accept ourselves as “selves” but accept the moment to moment events of life and our experiences of them without becoming attached to or identifying with them. We accept ourselves not as separate, distinct and independent individuals, but as parts of a greater whole, parts of the Mystical Body of Christ, sharers in the oneness of His divinity*, united to the Communion of Saints by grace, and to humanity in general in that our souls are all made in His image and have their being in and of Him. In accepting ourselves, we return to Him as the source of our being, discovering our oneness with God and with our neighbors, finding in ourselves and in them God Himself, recognizing a sameness of purpose and of need. Though God doesn’t need man for His fulfillment, since His love is infinite He delights in the magnitude of His love and the plenitude of those He has created to share in His love.

No matter where I begin, I arrive always at the same conclusion: in order to do that for which God created us, to love as Christ loves, we must embrace suffering with a persistent intention and desire. There simply is no other way. And in order to accomplish this all we must do is to overcome a mental block, an illusion that exists only in our imaginations, that has grown up there like a weed and is just as easily plucked.

_______________________________________________________________
*[“From the Holy Spirit springs an unending joy, the likening to God; to be made God, however, is the highest that man can wish and desire.” (St. Basil De Spir. Sancto, cap. 9) "We do not speak of a dissolution of our substance in the Divine Substance, or even of a personal union with it, as in the Incarnation. We speak only of a glorification of our substance into the image of the Divine Nature. Neither shall we become new gods, pretending independence of the true God, but in truth we are made, by the power and grace of God, something which God alone is by nature; we are made like Him in a supernatural way. Our soul receives a reflection of that in a supernatural way. Our soul receives a reflection of that glory which is peculiar to Him and above all creatures." (Fr. Matthias J. Sheeben, The Glories of Divine Grace, Ch. 6]

Servile Fear vs. Filial Fear

2008-09-06T07:18:00.000-07:00

Divine Intimacy, by Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, is filled with wonderful parenting advice!

The Gift of Fear
# 299
p. 895

Servile fear vs. filial fear:

To educate us in the fear of the Lord, the Holy Spirit, instead of placing before our eyes pictures of the punishment and pains due to sin, instead of representing God as a stern judge, shows Him to us as a most loving Father, infinitely desirous of our good, and He presents us the touching picture of God's favors and mercies. "I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore, have I drawn thee," whispers the Holy Spirit in the depths of our soul; "You are not servants, but my friends, my children" (cf. Jer 31, 3 - cf Jn 15, 15).

Captured by love for such a good Father, the soul has but one desire, to return Him love for love, to give Him pleasure and to be united with Him forever. Consequently, it fears nothing but sin, which offends God and alone can separate it from Him.

What a difference there is between this filial fear, which is the fruit of love, and servile fear, which arises from the dread of punishment! It is true that the fear of judgment and the divine punishment is salutary and in certain cases can serve greatly to hold a soul back from sin; but if it does not change gradually into filial fear, it will never be sufficient to impel the soul on to sanctity. Fear that is merely servile contracts the soul and makes it petty, whereas filial fear dilates it and spurs it on in the way of generosity and perfection.

Who's In Charge, Anyway?

2008-07-30T06:54:00.000-07:00

There are a great many confused expectations of society which have contributed to the widespread breakdown of the family in our times, among which one is of significant importance if we would inoculate our own families against this plague. That is the idea that it is the child who is responsible for the relationship and anything that goes wrong within it. In "Our Babies, Ourselves" Meredith Small relates how Freud purported the notion that it was actually the baby who initiated and sustained the attachment with his mother and father. Freud believed that it was the baby's sucking that triggered the mother's maternal response, creating the bond between them, and that so long as he looked to her for nurturance he sustained that bond. If this were so then it would only be logical to believe, further, that any rupture in the bond was instigated by the child, as well. At the core of this notion is another idea just as preposterous: that man created God and God depends on man for His existence. No wonder Freud was so twisted!
Paradoxically, this idea is very evident in the authoritarian parenting paradigm, whereby all the blame is placed squarely on the shoulders of the child, and he is expected always to be the one to make amends for "initiating" any conflict between his parents and himself. If he is unhappy, he is labeled "ungrateful." If the parents are unhappy the child is labeled "difficult" or "rebellious." There are no "bad" parents, only "bad" children; or the only bad parents are the ones whose children "don't know their place."

Actually this idea that children are the ones responsible for the relationship and all the problems in it is inherently horizontal, or perhaps inverted, but definitely not mutually beneficial or sanctifying for parent and child. This idea has been formulating in my mind for months: since the Protestant Reformation, French Revolution, etc. there has been a gradual re-orientation of the world from it's once vertical orientation to one that is decidedly horizontal. As a race, man's ability to experience mixed feelings, love of self counter-balanced by love of God, has all but disappeared. Men no longer love God for love of God, but love Him for love of themselves, or love their neighbors for love of themselves--in other words, man no longer loves God, but himself. This is precisely an effect of punitive relationships--we "learn" to do the "right thing" for fear of what we will suffer if we don't. This creates but the facade of virtue, whilst beneath lies a hard and stony ground covered with thorns in which vice takes root welcomely (Lk 8, 4-15). This is what happens when we love our neighbor and/or God for love of ourselves. I include "or" in that statement because it is well nigh impossible to love them both for love of oneself, the neighbor being an obstacle to loving God because of all the temptations he represents, and God being an obstacle to loving one's neighbor, His laws being too burdensome to keep when all you're really interested in is avoiding suffering and experiencing as much pleasure in this life as you are able.

What this all boils down to is a call to conversion--or we will suffer the natural consequences of our horizontal (narcissistic) orientation in the anarchy--the great chastisement--toward which we are quickly heading. To be vertically oriented--attached to God, the author of life--we have to be willing to suffer--as Christ suffered--to die to ourselves. And we cannot love some for love of God, and not others. We cannot honestly say to God, "I love some of those you love, but not others." Again, this is loving for ourselves. We must love ALL of those whom God loves--EVERYONE! Like Jesus said, even our enemies. If we are not loving everyone for love of God we are loving only ourselves. We love only those who please us, and we love in them only that which pleases us. This is why man is constantly engaged in an effort to change those around him--in order to make them more easily lovable to himself. When we love everyone for love of God we have faith in the transformative power of love, the example of which Jesus demonstrated to us time and time again. Mary Magdalen was a prostitute, for heaven's sake! Jesus didn't tell her He wouldn't allow her into His company until she forsook her sinful ways, or remind her that being stoned to death was the natural consequence of her actions. He told us all to cast no stone unless we were without sin. "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord."

It's important to remember that blaming our friends or relatives for the unfortunate sutuation in which we find ourselves is counterproductive--we must love them exactly as we are aspiring to love our children (a task more difficult than loving our children because of it's inverted nature). They have always done they best they knew how, just like we're doing. They are "victims" of the skewed orientation of society, just like we are. This is something I've always known deep down, but until I understood attachment and orientation I don't think I really understood just exactly what is the nature of the beast. There is no disconnect between attachment theory and theology. Attachment theory is to inter-human relationships what theology is to man's relationship with the divine (and horizontal orientation is the devil's play ground). God provides for all our needs, spiritual and physical, and He loves us selflessly, and it's this love which makes us good--not just act good, but really and truly be good. God has His own set of attachment rituals--the sacraments. He feeds us with his own flesh and blood. He provides for our "nurturing touch" with the sacrament of matrimony. He listens with empathy through the priest when we confess our sins. He bonds Himself to us through baptism--attachment is nothing more than faith, hope and charity between two souls. Attachment theory proves His existence and the Divinity of Christ by demonstrating that the faithful application of the Gospel, even to our children, is mutually sanctifying for both in the relationship. The only reason we don't "just do it" is that we're afraid. We're afraid it won't work; we're afraid our own needs won't be met; we're afraid of being taken advantage of; we're afraid of hell, pain, suffering, etc. Well here's another truth for us:

The saints didn't become saints because they were afraid of the pains of hell, they became saints precisely because they were not afraid of the pains of hell. They loved God fearlessly, desiring to suffer everything for love of Him, without expecting anything in return for themselves. They loved Him only because it pleases Him to be loved. And this is precisely the love we have to bear for one another--especially our children who will learn to love from no one else but us.

God has taken full responsibility for His relationship with us, providing for all our needs, though he delegates to parents first and foremost some of the duties of demonstrating that love and distributing those provisions. And when parents love as best as God has provided them the wherwithall to love, it will transform their children without the need for fear inducing punitive force (this, btw, is the secret to attachment parenting many children close in age). Our parents never heard of attachment parenting and so made use of the best methods available to them at the time. But we have been given a "new" method that is 2000 years old! I believe God has provided the theory of attachment to teach us what love is again, because it's been lost on a vast number of past generations. We have lost our bearings because the world has turned its back on God, and none of us is "without sin." This doesn't change any of the boundaries we are so attached to--right is still right and wrong is still wrong. It simply provides us a way of transforming one another, or rather being instruments of the transforming love of God, which brings out the best in one another instead of--well, less than that.

Virtues flourish in a climate of charity. Vices flourish in a climate of fear. Parents are the greatest influence on that climate in the lives of their children. When St. Paul told fathers not to provoke their children, this is what he was talking about. We may not make our children sin by the way we treat them, but we can certainly tempt them, just as the immodest woman tempts a man. We've been so focused on protecting them from the temptations that the world lays before them that we are blind to the temptations which we lay before them. There is a better way available to us and Hold On To Your Kids, amongst others, lays it all out there for our benefit and our children's. It could have been entitled, "The Case For Attachment Parenting" but if you read between the lines you'll find another book entitled, "The Case For Christ."

The Responsibility of Assisting in the Formation of Saints

2008-07-15T11:34:00.000-07:00

All Catholic parents desire to raise up their children to be Saints. In my search to better understand what motivates parents to take one approach rather than another, I have discovered some rather peculiar and often distressing contradictions in our methods, all revealing the folly of our own human efforts. Blessed Claude de la Colombiere writes in Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence, “A rule also that God usually follows is to attain His ends by ways that are the opposite to those human prudence would normally choose.” If we are to hold on to our kids, we must take this to heart.

One of the most perplexing contradictions that's been on my mind lately is the tendency of well-meaning parents to coerce their children with fear of suffering (corporal punishment, so-called natural consequences, deprivation of some need or want) in order to make them good, and then teach them that if they want to become saints they have to embrace suffering. This is just another way of saying that punitive parenting exacerbates a child's fallen human nature, inflaming his narcissism, whereby he is conditioned to make choices according to what's in it for him, instead of making choices based on how his actions affect his relationship with God and his neighbor. We say to our children, “You do as I say so you can learn to be good, or I’ll punish you.” The child is conditioned to fear suffering in order “to be good.” But in order for a soul to become truly holy, it must be willing to suffer for love of God. It is not fear, but love of which saints are made.

Through developments in attachment theory and research into the brain we now know that a child whose self-love is repeatedly hurt will develop a habit of defending against vulnerability, whereby, in order to avoid the pain of embarrassment, for example, he will hide his faults, blame others for his short comings, or distract himself from the pain. Dr. Neufeld writes, “The brains of children who are defended against vulnerability tune out anything that would give rise to feeling it, in this case the admission of mistakes and failure. Even being mildly corrected by a teacher or parent may threaten such a child with a sense of inadequecy and shame, the sense that 'something is wrong with me.' Pointing out what they did wrong will evoke from such children brazenly evasive or hostile reactions. Adults often interpret these responses as rudeness, but they really serve the function of keeping these kids from feeling vulnerability.” On the other hand, children who feel unconditionally loved and accepted are far more likely to accept loving correction from a trusted attachment figure because their self-love is not threatened by the pain of rejection. If we thought about if for two minutes we could easily see this happening in ourselves and our interactions with others.

Since we know that grace builds on nature, it seems an affront to God's order when we train our children in habits which inhibit the efficacy of grace in their souls. I would even go so far as to say that it’s sinful, for we provoke them to wickedness, we “cause one of these little ones to sin.” When we assume the worst about our children we train them to react to us with pride, but then tell them they have to become humble in order to become holy. We provoke them when we deny them affection, physical or emotional, when they've behaved in a way that angers us, making them long for physical intimacy (I’m not just referring to sex, here, but to the basic human need for touch), then tell them they're wicked and impure when they seek physical intimacy by unlawful means. We inflame their anger by assaulting their God-given free will and then teach them that meekness is a most necessary virtue if we wish to imitate Christ. We attempt to motivate them to try harder by comparing them to others, igniting the consuming fire of jealousy in their hearts, and then teach them that jealousy is contrary to fraternal charity. We deprive them of the experience of the happiness of pure, selfless love, which is the object all men ultimately seek in every good thing, causing them to envy others for their happiness, and then teach them that envy is a sin against gratitude to God. Hoping to motivate them to improve themselves, we cause them to grow discouraged by frequent criticism, driving them to hopelessness and sloth, and then teach them that sloth is directly opposed to the love of God. (I'm not excusing our children's sins here, just recognizing that, as with modesty, we are responsible for the effects our actions have on others. This is a part of the doctrine of the Communion of Saints) There are a great many foolish things parents do to their children--I know because I have been among them.

It took me a long time to realize that the same actions of others that bring out the worst in me, have the same effect on my children when I engage in them. But now, by the grace of God, I see it so clearly. We can teach our children habits of vice just as easily as habits of virtue—it all depends on how we approach them in any given situation. Or more importantly, it depends on our view of them as unique creations of God, with a specific purpose in His plan for mankind—equal to us in dignity—not ours to do with as we see fit, but entrusted to us to safeguard as they grow, through God’s own providence, into the vocation God has called them to--as the deposit of faith is entrusted to the Holy Father, not to change, but to protect in its organic development.

When our children know and feel that they are loved unconditionally, they are open to correction, lovingly offered. They have not been conditioned to defend against vulnerability, to fear the pain of humiliation. When their relationship with their parents is in order, their relationship to the Church and to God will follow suit. They do not learn virtue by force, by being treated as if they are naturally bad--this sort of attitude does not escape them and brings out the worst in them--and us. They learn virtue by love--love for their parents, love for the virtues their parents love, love for the virtues that will make them most pleasing to the God of love.

We live in a culture founded on the ideals of the Reformation and the French Revolution—that man is depraved and that his rights and private judgments supersede those of God or the Church—distinctly horizontally orienting influences in human history. It should come as no surprise to us that un-Catholic ideas about parenting such as I have described here have seeped into our Catholic households. It’s time we reclaimed our children to Christ and the Church—for the sake of the entire world. The emerging devastation of the stagnant, self-destructive orientation of the world is our call to conversion. If we would save our children we must desire to love God with our whole selves in every single moment--even in suffering.

In A Story of a Soul, St. Therese, nearing her death, writes, “He made me to understand these words of the Canticle of Canticles: ‘DRAW ME, WE SHALL RUN after you in the odor of your ointments.’ O Jesus, it is not even necessary to say: ‘When drawing me, draw the souls whom I love!’ This simple statement: ‘Draw me’ suffices; I understand, Lord, that when a soul allows herself to be captivated by the odor of your ointments, she cannot run alone, all the souls whom she loves follow in her train; this is done without constraint, without effort, it is a natural consequence of her attraction for you. Just as a torrent, throwing itself with impetuosity into the ocean of Your Love, draws with her all the treasures she possesses. Lord, You know it, I have no other treasures than the souls it has pleased You to unite to mine; it is You who entrusted these treasures to me, and so I dare to borrow the words You addressed to the heavenly Father, the last night which saw You on our earth as a traveler and a mortal.”

"Draw me, we shall run…"

The Problem of Mixed Feelings and Man's Fallen Human Nature

2008-05-21T14:13:00.000-07:00

The subject of mixed feelings is, at first, a difficult one to wrap one's mind around, but, with sufficient reflection, it is actually rather simple, though, perhaps, not so easily accomplished. It really boils down to the two Great Laws which Christ gave us:

Love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and thy whole soul, and thy whole mind, and thy whole strength.

Love thy neighbor as thyself for love of Me.

The two objects of these rules are love of God and love of self.

Because of man's fallen human nature, the loss of the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in his soul--an attachment void between man and God--man can easily love himself, but can love God only with God's grace and with great difficulty. His love of himself weighs much heavier in his soul that his love of God. Everything he does is first for love of himself. Even if it's objectively good, it's motivated by love of himself--fear of consequences, i.e. sickness, pain, scorn, loneliness, hell, etc. All of man's passions (including our children's) arise from inordinate love of self.

But when a soul dies to itself for love of God, it's love of self is counter-balanced, or even overcome by love of God, which enables the soul to love purely and choose good with ease. (Modern psychology, or more specifically, attachment theory, proves the existence of God, the truth of the Bible and the Story of the Fall, the fact and nature of man's fallen humanity, and the need for and fact of the Incarnation, Passion and Redemption of Christ, etc.! It's simple and incredible at the same time!)

In order to teach our children this we have to do it ourselves. Jesus could have redeemed the world with far less. He did not HAVE to suffer and die to the extent to which He did. But He teaches us by His example, and in order to emulate Him, and bring Him into our homes and to our spouses and children we have to do as He did, and give ALL. He gave ALL of Himself. He held back NOTHING. He suffered loneliness, abandonment, mortification of all His senses, subjection to scorn and ridicule of the cruelest nature. He embraced suffering, even kissing the Cross as it was laid upon the shredded flesh of His shoulders, and died to Himself for love of God and love of man. In the image of the cross we find the perfect balance of mixed feelings: love of man in the horizontal beam and love of God in the vertical. In order to die to ourselves we must nail our horizontal selves to the vertical beam of the Cross, to the vertical orientation of the Love of God.

The fifteen mysteries of the Rosary contain within them all the mysteries of parenthood and the attachment relationship. The seven last words of Christ from the Cross are the foundation for the seven principles for discipline that does not divide.

From the Rosary we are taught that it is good and holy to share with one another all the Joy which God has provided each of us the means to share with one another. It is the fear of spoiling our children that hurts them, not our generosity. They have the same fallen human nature we do and the fact is that all our conflicts with them arise out of theirs and our mutual self-love. We want something and they want something and the two are not the same thing. But when we want only Christ, we can love and guide them in a disinterested way which gives them the freedom to learn to love as God is calling them to. (This certainly could stand more discussion.)

At the same time, however, we should not hide ourselves or our children from Sorrow, which is God's way of inviting us to the Wedding Banquet. God knows that in order for us to come to the Banquet we have to detach from all our earthly attachments (things, honors and even friends and family--but bear with me, I mean for love of them for love of God--this we learn from Christ's example in the Sorrowful Mysteries). Suffering born with peaceful resignation is but futility sinking in--we are not made for this world, this world is passing, and we will never find true happiness in earthly attachments, only in Christ. When Jesus was in His agony in the garden, God sent an angel to comfort Him, but He did not alleviate Jesus' suffering in the least, allowing Him to be further tormented by the Devil. This was to help prepare Him for the suffering He was going to have to endure for love of God and love of Man in the work of the Redemption. When our children are suffering because of a limit setting rupture or the like, it is for us to comfort them, as angels, while the futility sinks in to their souls that no true happiness will be found in this life. Later, after the feelings subside, we can talk to them about this truth--that what they thought would make them so happy before can really never make them as happy as Jesus. Who can look at the love Christ bore us on the Cross and not feel joy and gratitude? Begin gently to show your children that nothing they want on this earth can make them as happy as knowing that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son... This is a lesson they will learn but slowly--it is a lesson WE are still learning.

By sharing ALL the Joy, and hiding none of the Sorrow, our children and we, and the love we bear one another will give greater Glory to God and He, in turn, will glorify us.

Maturity is an ability to die to oneself. This is the Crucifixion. The Resurrection is for our children the necessary move toward detaching from us in order that they can follow their vocations. In Ps. 27:10 David writes, "When my Father and Mother forsake me, the Lord will lift me up." The Ascension. When the Lord uplifts them, the Holy Ghost will dwell in them and will inform all their thoughts, words, desires and deeds.

The last two mysteries of the Rosary aren't even in the Scriptures. Perhaps because these two mysteries are not manifested in our own lives here on earth, but in Heaven--where our Blessed Mother is honored and glorified in her Assumption and Coronation, as we shall be one day if we have lived our lives here on earth for love of God and for love of our neighbor, especially our spouse and our children, for love of Him Who gave them to us and us to them.

Attachment parenting is a type of Rule of St. Benedict for parents. Psychology has proved that these practices are good for our children on a natural level, and the mysteries of our faith demonstrate that these practices, when performed for love of God, are good for the whole family on a supernatural level. Secular attachment parenting is premised on the good will of the child. Catholic attachment parenting is premised on the good will of God, who provides for all our needs--emotional, spiritual, physical, etc., and the Divine inspirations of the Holy Ghost in the soul in a state of grace. In order to practice either "version" effectively, parents need to detach from their own will and die to the good will of another. Attachment parenting is impossible without the spirit of detachment.

Let us look to our own Blessed Mother to discover this spirit, especially as She teaches us through Her Seven Dolors. The School of Mary is also a wonderful book, deriving many rich lessons from Her life, from which we can learn all the habits of truly Catholic attachment parenting, or what could quite appropriately be called "Marian Mothering."

Collecting Ourselves

2008-05-03T06:45:00.000-07:00

As we strive to focus more and more on our relationships with our children we are sure to soon come to the realization that all these "rules" of attachment parenting aren't so much for our kids as they are for us. Not punishing or rewarding our children is good for our kids, but becoming people, ourselves, who rely on unconditional love, rather than fear, to make the world a better place is better for our children than not punishing or rewarding them. Breastfeeding, wearing and sleeping with our babies is good for our babies, but becoming people who give of ourselves generously, selflessly, continuously is better for our babies than breastfeeding, wearing and sleeping with them. As long as we approach these "new" methods and techniques, philosophies and paradigms as just better ways to change our kids into the people we think they should be, we're missing the mark. We have to stop focusing on the changes we hope to effect in others, and realize that we are poor, incompetent, impotent human beings, who have been redeemed by love, and that we can no sooner make our kids better kids than we can make an oak tree a better oak tree. The only person one can make better is oneself--and even that he doesn't really do himself. We can only make ourselves better by throwing ourselves at the foot of the Heavenly throne and admitting that without God we are powerless to do anything for ourselves--let alone anyone else! Before we can collect our kids we have to collect ourselves.

Until we admit to ourselves, before God, that we have selfish, greedy, ambitious, jealous feelings and desires, what they are exactly, and that until we choose, by an act of faith, to detach from the source of these impulses, we are chained to them. Until we accept that we are going to die, we cannot really live. Until we accept that we can and do hate, we cannot really love. Until we accept ourselves for the poor, miserable, wretched, powerless creatures that we are, we cannot accept anyone else. Until we love ourselves as we are, we cannot love anyone else. Until we die to ourselves, we cannot live for anyone else but ourselves. Until we become as little children we cannot relate to our little children. This is the act of humility of which the saints speak as the basis of all growth in the spiritual life. Until we are attached to Christ we must be constantly seeking out a means to provide for our own needs. In this state we cannot give freely, continuously, unconditionally of ourselves.

"Judge not lest ye be judged." A child can not judge another person because he knows only the love of his family, and to him that is good no matter what we may judge it to be. He learns what he lives and what he lives is "normal" to him. He knows only the moment--he remembers the past, but lacks the wisdom to judge it. He doesn't know the future--children lack, to a certain extent, foresight. This is why they fail to grasp the consequences of their actions before they experience them (and have experienced them 1000 times!). Most of all, children are not afraid until they learn to fear. They learn to fear first by losing trust in their parents. Human beings are not born fearful. Fear is learned—every fear! Human beings are not born judgmental. They learn to judge by being judged. When we judge them, we teach them to judge us. When we distrust them, we teach them to distrust us. When we accept them, we teach them to accept us. When we trust them we teach them to trust us. When we fear them, we teach them to fear us. Our children are not ours to judge, but to love, safeguarding the work of the Holy Ghost within each one of them.

Yes! We have to proclaim the truth, from the rooftops! But as soon as we try to force another person to accept that truth, we lose it. Love is a free act of the will. When it is coerced it is not love. The truth of love is lost when it is forced. The truth is lost.

"Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest." It is not our imperfections that keep us from becoming perfect parents--it is fear of our imperfections, resisting them, hiding them, running away from them that keeps us from becoming perfect parents. It is not permissiveness that causes us to spoil our children, it is fear of permissiveness that causes us to spoil our children, and our relationship with them. It is not holding on to our children that makes them dependent on us, it is fear of losing them. Until we accept that they are going to sin and we cannot stop them, we cannot teach them the virtues. Until we accept that they are going to fail, we cannot help them succeed. Until we let go of them, we cannot hold on to them. Until we accept that they are not ours, but have been entrusted to us by their Heavenly Father, for us to safeguard and protect just precisely what it is about them that makes them them and not someone else, we will continue to try, in vain, to change them. There is an analogy between the role of the parent with respect to the child and the role of the Holy Father with respect to the deposit of faith. Each one of us is a mirror of the deposit of faith. The faith has not been entrusted to the Pope so that he can change it. He has been entrusted with safeguarding it AS GOD HAS REVEALED IT, or else it is no longer the truth Christ gave us, but someone else's version of the truth, and in that case, not the truth at all.! The same is true of our children and of ourselves. The organic development of the faith or the liturgy is not unlike the organic development of the child. We can no sooner change the teachings of our faith and still believe it to be the true faith than we can change our children and still believe them to be our children. And they are as truly our children as we truly can NOT change them! We can only accept, again by His grace, that He has made us who we are, depositing within each of us everything that is necessary for our salvation. We have only to trust in Him in order that we grow according to His plan. Our children are like rose bushes, whose blooming flowers we are waiting to know. We must not approach our children as adversaries, unruly bushes in our perfect little gardens, the battle against whom we must win. We must approach our children as souls we must win to Christ by radiating Him in our relationships with others--not by snipping off all their many buds before we know them, because we're afraid of what they may be.

As we try to reclaim our children, especially our older ones, I am discovering, our tendency is to panic. We're afraid that we've already ruined them and that the sooner we reclaim them the sooner we can begin to "fix" them. I have also discovered that it is not they whom we need to fix, nor can we. It is futile to try to "fix" them. But God has given us the power to “fix” ourselves, if only we can correctly diagnose the problem than needs to be fixed. Humility.

Bear with me a moment, here, as I try my hand at a little amateur psychology. Each one of us has two sets of emotions. There are the superficial emotions which we show the rest of the world on our surface. They are changing constantly, from the disappointment we feel when we've burned the dinner to the joy we feel a moment later when our spouse walks through the door at the end of a long day. We also have fundamental, deeper emotions which comprise the backdrop of the stage of our lives. These are the feelings that abide in us from day to day, and that inform our interactions with others. They can be the persistent anxiety a mother feels whose son is a prisoner of war. She may experience momentary flashes of joy at times, but the underlying emotion of her life during his imprisonment is fear, anxiety, anger, loneliness, despair. These fundamental emotions are the proverbial "baggage" we carry around with us everywhere we go. For the saints, this fundamental emotion was trustful, joyful resignation to the Divine Will. For some of us it may be the ultimate fear--the fear of being rejected by the ones who should love us unconditionally. If we always had to work for our family's love and acceptance this is very likely to be the fear to which we are chained. Until we accept that our family may not love us, we will never be free to love them or anyone else, because the love we bear one another must come from loving God with our whole heart, and our whole mind and our whole soul. Our primary attachment, as adults, must be to Him in order for us to fully mature and be able to truly love another for love of Him. Once we are attached to Him we can live by one rule: "Love God and do as you will."

In order to attach to our children, or re-attach if that may be the case, we must first detach from whatever else it is that we are holding on to. Our own compasses are stuck in a horizontal orientation, our piano strings are knotted up so that they cannot resonate, we have not achieved emotional statis, inner peace, or the peace of soul of which the saints write, that is, the trustful surrender to Divine Providence, or total abandonment to the Divine Will.

Each of us looks at the world we live in through an emotional pane of glass (pun entirely intended!). Years of emotional suffering and unresolved conflict and turmoil have accumulated as layer upon layer of grime on this pane. In order to achieve inner peace we have to begin to wash away the layers, or let God wash them away, so that we can see clearly--see God in every moment. Usually we experience a sort of fear over wiping the glass clean. We're not only afraid of being seen by those on the other side of the glass, but we're most afraid of what we'll see in its reflection. Only after we begin to see Him in every moment can we begin to untie the knots in the piano strings of our souls and resonate with those around us. When we wipe the glass clean we can begin to radiate Christ to the world, and His is the reflection we shall see in the glass.

Until we achieve “stasis,” or inner peace, we are not free to fully mature. We are still bound by our hunger. We can think of nothing else but satisfying that hunger. Sin and vice are given an invitation to fill that hunger. When we accept Christ unconditionally, orienting ourselves toward Him, attaching ourselves to Him, we satisfy that hunger and are free to grow. When we accept another soul unconditionally we give it the freedom and security to mature. Only the mature soul can die to itself. Only the mature soul can see itself for what and who it really is. Only the mature soul can cooperate fully with God to better itself.

God did not give us these children so we could fix them. He gave them to us so that HE could fix US. He gave them to us so that by loving them and fulfilling our responsibilities to them we might become holy.

In Winning Souls for Christ, Raoul Plus writes, “We must love souls for three reasons especially: because every soul represents some (perhaps much) fruit of the Blood of Christ; because every soul is a factor (perhaps a very important one) in the coming of the kingdom of God; and because in doing good to a soul, we do good to Christ in His Mystical Body.” When we try to change a soul by our own means we interfere with God’s work, and we convince ourselves that we know better than He.

This book is excellent for our purposes. Our children are souls who need to be evangelized, AS ARE WE in constant need of evangelization. When we try to change a person we give him a reason to distrust us. When we accept him as God has created him, radiating Christ to him through our thoughts, words and actions, we give him a reason to love Christ, and to love us for the love of Christ. (We need to have relationships with others that radiate Christ—“Reladiationships!”) God, through the redemption, did not try to change man as he is, but He gave man a reason to love Him by showing him how much he is loved. When we talk about baptism, confirmation and holy orders as effecting a change in the soul of the recipient, we are referring to a change by way of addition, not a change as in an elimination of something already there (original sin is a void filled, by baptism with the life of Christ). More importantly, we are referring to a change THAT ONLY GOD CAN EFFECT.

With our children, every natural thing necessary for their salvation (baptism is supernatural) is contained within them and within the world into which they have been born from the very beginning! “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.” What could be more reassuring? Do we doubt that He has ordained from the very beginning all the means necessary for the salvation of each and every soul?

In another post I make an analogy between hospital vs. home birth and two different approaches to evangelizing our children. God is so marvelous, astounding, awesome, etc. He has set everything in motion. When we trust in His design everything runs pretty smoothly on its own. When we start to prophesy, predicting one catastrophe after another we panic and cannot keep ourselves from intervening at every turn. All this interference causes things to go wrong!

In order for us to attach to our children, we must first have a secure attachment to our Heavenly Father. In order for our children to trust in us, we must first trust in Christ. In order for our children to love and accept us unconditionally, we must first love and accept Christ and His Gospel unconditionally, with total, blind abandonment. God has gathered His flock unto Himself through the Redemption and the continuing work of the Church. He has collected us already. In order for us to collect our children (and our spouses--but more on that later!), we must first collect ourselves!

Sir Ken Robinson on Education and Creativity

2008-05-02T04:41:00.000-07:00

The Biblical Foundation for Punishment

2008-04-26T13:37:00.000-07:00

I'm sure most everyone is at least vaguely familiar with the passages from scripture used as the basis for the defense of corporal punishment, as well as with those declaring that God punishes sinners.

I'm pretty sure it would be safe to say that we could debate all day long as to whether or not these passages are to be taken literally (to mean that a man who does not beat his child with a rod hates his son) or are metaphors for the natural consequences of one's sins, manifested in the natural order which God has created, to include the spiritual rupture sin creates between man and God--which is the greatest punishment of all. We know that the relationship between God and man is reflected in the relationship between parent and child. Our task is to discern exactly what that relationship ought to be.

For Catholics we have the teachings of the Church to give us an infallible interpretation of the scriptures. Nowhere in the precepts of the Church, any examination of conscience I have ever read, the corporal and spiritual works of mercy, beatitudes, or encyclicals, to the best of my knowledge, does the Church teach that a parent is under a moral obligation to deliberately inflict pain on his child, physically or emotionally. (Here I distinguish between punishment that is rooted in pain, and discipline that has as its byproduct, the emotional pain of having offended/hurt the beloved. Here, too is an interesting correlation: in the attachment relationship, to hurt the beloved is, in itself, experienced as pain for the one doing the action. The realization that the beloved has been hurt by one's actions, whether deliberately or accidentally, gradually sinks in, causing feelings of healthy guilt and the subsequent development of conscience. In the "other" paradigm, to be "hurt" by the beloved is answered by hurting him back, inadvertently creating a viscious circle of vengeance.)

On the other hand, I am aware of numerous references within the body of Church teaching that warn parents, under pain of sin, to "raise up a child in the way he should go." For a parent to neglect the moral upbringing of his child is a grave offense against the child and God, the neglect of which is worse than having a millstone tied around one's neck and being thrown into the depths of the sea. EXACTLY HOW a parent accomplishes this task is not explicitly laid out by the Church. (There are, in fact, bible scholars who interpret "the rod," not as a stick with which to beat the child, but as a shepherd's staff with which to guide the child back to the safety of the fold.)

When I pray the Act of Contrition I say, "O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell (punishment, natural consequences, fear of pain), BUT MOST OF ALL, because they offend Thee, my God, Who art all good and deserving of all my love (love, divine "attachment," fear of separating oneself from God, the beloved)...

The Church also teaches that one must have PERFECT CONTRITION for one's sins in order to be absolved at the time of death without the sacraments. So perfect contrition (love of God--selflessness) is "better" than imperfect contrition (fear of pain--selfishness).

Loving another person, in a nutshell, means wanting and bringing out the best in that person so that they can enjoy one day the happiness of heaven. We must not be a stumbling block, or give scandal. Christ, in His perfect love, set the perfect example of how man should love one another. Recall His chastisement of those who would stone the prostitute, Mary Magdalene, who in turn became one of the greatest women saints in history. Or how He "chastised" Judas, or Peter. There are countless examples: the blind man, the leper, the lame--all suffering, presumably, from the natural consequences of their sins. Nowhere in Christ's example do I find the sort of punishment for which parents argue a biblical foundation for inflicting on their children. I DO NOT believe He meant to exclude our children from this paradigm of loving correction. And He would not call us to something of which we were not capable.

Some will argue that it is an act of love to chastise a child for his wrongdoing so that he will not persist in such dangerous habits, thereby jeopardizing his immortal soul. I agree that our children are also NOT excluded from being objects of the spiritual works of mercy: admonish the sinner, instruct the ignorant, counsel the doubtful, comfort the sorrowful. There are three more however, that are part of the whole package, for these works (as well as the virtues, for that matter) are not independent from one another, but must coexist simultaneously in every good action. These three, as you all well know, are: bear wrongs patiently, forgive all injuries, and pray for the living and the dead. (I believe that the corporal works of mercy can be translated into the parent/child relationship with equal relevance, but that can wait 'til later.) We must admonish and instruct our children thoughtfully, compassionately, patiently, with forgiveness, keeping in mind that they are God's first and will return to Him one day.

Hold On To Your Kids makes a compelling case, using evidence we can all easily relate to, in favor of the idea that a relationship between parent and child based on fear of pain (emotional or physical), does not, in the long run, bring out the best in our children. I for one will testify that it did nothing to bring out the best in myself as a parent, either. [Though the author is not openly Catholic (or privately, for all I know) the book is absolutely filled with Catholic wisdom and could well have been entitled, "How To Protect Your Children From Worldliness And Pass On To Them Your Own Traditions and Values."]

On the other hand, a relationship between parent and child based on mutual love, acceptance and respect DOES bring out the best in our children and in ourselves. It's difficult. It's painful. It's tedious--until we are reborn, in a manner of speaking, into a new relationship with our children. It's joyful. It's exhilarating. It's mutually sanctifying once we are.

All this simply goes to say that the exclusion of punishment from the parent/child relationship does not necessarily exclude discipline, and may, in fact, foster it. The converse is also true: the inclusion of punishment in the parent/child relationship does not necessarily include discipline, and may, in fact, inhibit it.

If one could argue that fear of the parents instills fear of the Lord, then one could argue that love of one's parents instills love of the Lord. Which is the higher road? Which is the nobler motivation? Which yields the greater virtue, in parent and child? A parent can yield no more favorable results by punishing her child, than a wife can yield better results punishing her husband. But to love another, and to enable the other to truly feel that love, FOR LOVE OF GOD, is perhaps the highest calling man can answer to.

This is not a utopian fantasy. If it were then Christ truly was a madman. This IS the way of love. It is the way to perfection. We have Christ's word and example to prove it. I, like Thomas, had to see it with my own eyes, but I have, in my friend, Gracie's family, as well as others, and now, finally, in my own. And it is truly wonderful!

One should not confuse this paradigm with one of permissiveness and tolerance of evil. It is an approach to child rearing that is keenly aware of our fallen human nature, of the narcissism and irrationality of the child. It is an approach that works with man's nature to elevate it with the almighty power of love. Not to exacerbate man's nature by inflaming pride, anger, jealousy, etc. It simply does not make sense that, in order to make a child be good we must make him feel bad; in order to make a child love we must make him feel fear, anger, lonliness. Quite the contrary. In order to teach a child to love God unconditionally, we must show him what unconditional love is. In order to teach a child generosity, we must show him, in a way he can experience, unbounded generosity, as only his own loving parents can. In order to teach him gentleness, charity, respect, compassion, justice seasoned by mercy, etc. we have to enable him to experience these virtues and in so doing, model for him the spirit in which they are to be performed. In this way we become better people ourselves, and surround our children in virtue, not just fill their ears with talk of it.

This is not to say that chidlren who are brought up in the way of fear and wrath cannot become good people. Certainly we all know many good people who were disciplined with punishment, perhaps ourselves included. But I am of the mind, myself, to think that it is in spite of these methods that we are who we are, and not because of them. Then again, I could be completely wrong. Perhaps our impatience with our husbands and children, our criticism, selfishness and resentfulness are because of our upbringing, rather than in spite of it. We may never know. I only know now what motivates me, for good or for bad. And in my own experience, it is as I have explained here.

Is it more saintly to respond with love to those who hate us? Yes, of course it is! Do we want to teach our children to do this? Of course we do! Do we do that by demanding that they love us despite the pain we inflict on them when they have erred? I think not. Besides, that kind of love truly requires heroic virtue. Without a superabundance of God's grace it is extremely difficult for me to do that. Why should I expect so much more of my children? Why not try to ease the acquisition of these virtuous habits by motivating them with love. Is love all that burdensome?

I do not presume to know the answers to these question for all and sundry. I can only answer to God for how I respond to His call as best I understand it. I would never presume to judge someone who answers His call to them in a way different than I have answered. I only hope to share my experience so that others may glean from it what may be helpful, which, I am well aware, may be nothing, and then I urge you to simply to dismiss it outright. If my experience and insights help in anyway at all, then, to my mind, they have been worth sharing.

The Difference Between Enforcing Boundaries and Inflicting Punishment

2008-04-17T11:01:00.000-07:00

A long conversation the other night brought me to the realization that what it all boils down to, at least in the discipline arena, is structures and strictures.

It occurred to me last night as I pulled two of my children out of the bubble bath after they had splashed bubbles and water all over the bathroom, that there's a difference between enforcing boundaries and inflicting punishment. Unfortunately last night, I lost my cool and yelled, "Get OUT!" before I lifted their slippery little foam covered carcasses out of the tub!

Removing them from the tub was enforcing a boundary. Causing them pain by yelling at them was punishment.

Of course, boundaries, or strictures, are necessary to healthy living for all sorts of reasons. Without them we would have total chaos. Many times it is necessary for us to remind our children of the established boundaries, and gather them back within those boundaries when they have strayed. I guess the manner in which we do that makes all the difference.

Escorting a child who is flinging food at the table into a private place where he can settle down and realize what work he's causing his mother, or vent whatever hard feelings are inducing him to behave in such an uncivilized way is enforcing boundaries. I think making him write a 1000 word essay on ingratitude or food shortages in Africa is punishment.

When the Good Shepherd went in search of His lost sheep and found him outside the "boundaries," rejoicing He brought him back to the fold--He didn't beat him with His rod first!

Neufeld talks about creating structures and strictures. He says that just as alcohol would be barred from the home if a family member had a drinking problem, the television would be disconnected if the limits you imposed were being ignored.

Well-attached children are more inclined to stay within the boundaries their parents have erected, provided those boundaries are not unreasonably limiting. Each family has to figure out for itself what the boundaries are for each individual in the family and for the family as a whole. What I've gathered so far (mainly from his treatment of the emergent, adaptive and integrative processes) is that it's good to keep in mind that boundaries that are too restrictive aren't always in the best interest of the child or the parent/child relationship.

I think structures are the fun part. I've been trying to add more structures as we go along trying to strengthen and preserve these ties that empower us. Of course, there are some structures already in place, for example, we have always made the family evening meal a part of the fabric of our family life. It's very important and many people contribute to the event every day. Recommending meal suggestions, assisting in the preparation, setting the table, etc. are all a joint effort. Afterward we clear the table, load the dishwasher, put away the left-overs, take care of littles, etc. again as a collective effort.

The family Rosary is another one, although we haven't always been able to accomplish this. For the entire 17 years of our marriage we have been trying to make this a part of our daily routine, but it wasn't until we completed our first 54 Day Rosary Novena that we discovered HOW to make this structure stick. As a family we choose a very important intention. It could be the conversion of a wayward family member, or for a particular priest, or an end to abortion or the war--something we all take very seriously. This is our motivation to keep up the prayers for at least 54 days. Well, after 54 days it sort of becomes a habit! We're on our 4th 54 Day Rosary Novena and, please God and our Blessed Mother, I can't see any end in sight.

One other structure we have been working at erecting is daily family read-aloud time. (I'm ashamed to admit it but this has not always been a part of our daily life. I used to try to incorporate it, but, in hindsight, I realize that my children's attachments were insecure enough to cause them to feel that this time might be the only time all day when they could be close to me and they were all willing to fight to the death to sit next to mom! I'm hopeful that they're now feeling secure enough for story times to be more happy) After reading Cay Gibson's book, and Jim Trelease's book, as well as so many articles and entire chapters in books, I can't emphasize enough how important this structure is to me and how determined I am to make it as much a part of our daily routine as is breakfast, lunch and dinner!

I'd also like to make it a habit to take at least monthly field trips. I thought if we tied these to birthdays it might be easier to accomplish.

I recently finished reading Sidney Craig's book, Raising Your Child NOT BY FORCE BUT BY LOVE (I highly recommend it right along side HOTYK. Where HOTYK shows parents the negative consequences of certain of our actions towards our children, Raising Your Child helps parents get their hearts in the right place so that we can begin to modify our own behavior toward our children in order to bring out the best in all of us. I have a new post on the blog about what he has to say about discipline. The other book I'd recommend is Parent Effectiveness Training. If we are to change our old habits, we need to replace them with new ones. This book teaches parents just what those new habits should be.) I found this excerpt from Dr. Craig's book to be very enlightening regarding the subject of fun family outings:

"Often parents become both confused and irritated because, in their own minds at least, they are convinced that they have not defined the parental role too narrowly, and yet they have experienced disappointing results with their children in later years. Such parents insist, for example, that they did more than merely teach the child right from wrong. In addition , they tried to make him happy by spending time with him in activities such as scouting and by taking him to places children enjoy. In spite of this however, the parents discover that their child became emotionally disturbed in some way, or even delinquent.
The common error in parental thinking on this matter consisists in the parents' believing that their engaging in child-centered activities is in itself enough to demonstrate their love and to create warm feelings in the child. Undoubtedly engaging in such activities with children helps. However, there is always a great deal of seemingly minor and peripheral interaction occurring that the parent tends to overlook.
Consider a planned trip to Disneyland, for example. To what extent are parents usually aware of the potential impact on the child's feelings of parental actions (1) prior to the trip, (2) while at the amusement park, and (3) in the car on the way home. How many times during the week preceding the trip was the child warned that if he didn't 'straighten up,' he wasn't going to get to Disneyland. How much 'mileage' did the parents get out of the anticipated trip to ensure that the child performed better than he did usually: for example, in doing his chores. On the morning of the trip to the park, how many dirty looks did the child receive for such actions as getting out of bed too slowly, failing to clean up his room, failing to wash or to comb his hair thoroughly, failing to feed the dog, fighting with a sibling over who was going to sit next to the window in the car. Later, at the park, how much scolding did the child receive for running ahead too fast or lagging too far behind, for asking for too much money for 'junk,' or wanting to go on 'just one more ride,' for whining and complaining, or for being thirsty and having to go to the bathroom too many times? And still later, in the car, on the way home when everyone was tired and irritable, how many reprimands, threats of punishment ('I'll never take you to Disneyland again as long as I live!'), and actual punishments did the child receive for losing his balloon, being ungrateful, fighting with his siblings, etc.?
Many years after this day at Disneyland very likely there will exist a difference in perception as to what kind of day it had been and what it had added to or subtracted from the feelings of closeness between the parent and the child. The father will remember with a feeling of pride and satisfaction how much he had tried to be a good father, He had taken the child to the amusement park on a very hot day, spent time with his child, and been generous. The father now hopes that the child's feelings about that day will be shaped by these three aspects of the father's actions.
Unfortunately, however, the child will remember, and his feeling will be affected by more than the father intended or would want. The child will have imprinted somewhere inside his nervous system everything that passed between the parents and himself that day and the days preceding. Everything will have had some impact--the reprimands, the lectures, the threats, and the administration of punishment.
Years later, if the son should come to feel that his father had been 'mean' to him, the father would not know why. The father would find it astonishing that the child would forget such happy experiences as the wonderful trip to Disneyland and all the money that had been spent on him. The father would conclude erroneously that children have poor memories or that they are inherently ungrateful. In reality, the difference between the parents' and the child's perception occurs not because the child recalls less than had happened but because he recalls more of what happened."

It's not enough to have structures, including doing fun things together as a family. Meal time needs to be as low-stress and enjoyable as possible. Family prayer time, or story time, birthday parties, etc. have to be infused with joyfulness and loving acceptance of the individuals involved. I'm realizing so much I never even thought about before. I said at the beginning of this post that what it all boils down to with regard to discipline is structures and boundaries, but I guess it also has to include loving feelings and fond memories otherwise the structures and strictures are preceived by our kids as just more manipulation on our part.

Punishment and the Development of Conscience

2008-04-08T12:19:00.000-07:00

It's pretty easy to recognize that punishment stirs up angry feelings in a child. Really, it can stir up some pretty angry feelings in all of us. When our spouse doesn't talk to us all day because of something we did or didn't do the day before, it can make us pretty mad--especially if our actions weren't intentional, which is usually the case.

When we punish a child we stir up anger in him, which has the very undesirable effect of "crowding out" his feelings of healthy guilt for his personal failure to behave responsibly. The end result is a blocking of the development of the child's conscience. The child was not given a chance for the feelings of healthy guilt to develop in his conscience before guilt was crowded out by anger. Instead, he was given a reason to experience resentment toward us and the values we are trying to teach him. When we punish our child, scolding, lecturing, reprimanding, hurting, etc. we are acting the part of his conscience ourselves, stirring up angry feelings in the process. These angry feelings are directed at us AND at "conscience," which we are trying to be for our child.

This echoes Dr. Neufeld's assertion that we have to cultivate in our children a capacity to experience mixed feelings, a function of the conscience, in order for our children to mature. Attachment is necessary for maturation, attachment is threatened by punishment, punishment retards the development of conscience.

When we respond to our children with anger, criticism, judgement, we arouse in them angry feelings which inhibit the development of conscience. However, when we respond to our children with understanding, patience, compassion, we arouse loving feelings within them, undermining anger and stripping our children of their innately irrational defenses against accepting blame for their own unacceptable actions. These loving feelings give rise to healthy guilt, which, when allowed to linger, leaves a lasting impression, increasing the child's capacity to experience mixed feelings. This makes possible the arousal of their consciences, their ability to experience mixed feelings, like the little devil on one shoulder and the little angel on the other. Conscience, like Jiminy Cricket, is the force which acts to compete with or inhibit further expressions of childish, antisocial impulses. Mixed feelings cancel eachother out, allowing the individual to make a rational decision as to how to act.

As human beings mature our capacity to experience greater degrees of discrepancy between feelings increases. As our capacity to love grows greater, through our being loved and feeling loved, then the greater becomes our capacity to counterbalance feelings that are opposed to love, allowing us to make conscious, rational decisions about our actions. In sum, it's the cultivation of the virtue of prudence.

Children's impulsiveness is the same as their irrationality. Being unable to sustain mixed feelings, they react to strong feelings without thinking about the consequences of their actions, or the rightness or wrongness of them.

Christ's Passion and Death on the Cross, the greatest act of love known to man, is God's way of providing man with those feelings necessary to counterbalance his sinful impulses. He loved us so much that He gave His life for us so that, by His example and the feelings that are stirred up in us whenever we meditate on His act of love, we might be able and know how to love Him in return.

I believe it's safe to say that many young adults do not reach full maturity until after they've had children of their own, because only then do they have experimental knowledge of a love great enough to counterbalance their own selfish, sinful impulses. How scary to think, however, that so many of them have made the permanently life altering choice of a spouse, a decision almost always accompanied by very strong feelings, while they are still emotionally immature!

On the other hand, this demonstrates what a tremendous blessing a child, a baby, is to a family. A baby, so innocent and helpless, and utterly loveable, helps everyone in the family to learn selfless love. Perhaps this is why so many of us are discovering the secret joys and benefits of the large family raised up by love. Unfortunately too many are discovering the heartache of the family, large or not, raised up by force and fear. And why would St. Paul have lied to us when he said, "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." It's time we considered our family members our neighbors, and started treating them as we ourselves would wish to be treated--with love that not just is, but looks and feels like love, as well--the kind of love we wish to receive through the kind of expressions of love we can understand.

Seven Principles for Effective Discipline

2008-04-04T10:19:00.000-07:00

Raising our children by love, rather than force, is the objective every attachment parents aspires to. But there are many times when this goal seems much easier said than done. I was delighted to discover that Sidney Craig's book, Raising Your Child, NOT BY FORCE BUT BY LOVE, which is referenced in Dr. Sears' books, uses the basic Judeo-Christian principles on which our country was founded, to prove that attachment parenting values are not new, but have been in practice for at least two millennia!

It's important, however, as one reads Dr. Craig's book, published in the early 1970's, to remember that Attachment Theory, pioneered by John Bowlby, was only beginning to be understood in the late 1950's, AND that scientific research into the physiological necessity of tears and tantrums did not surface until the 1980's. Keeping this in mind, one can safely apply Dr. Craig's principles for effective discipline to today's child, who is growing up in a pandemically peer oriented culture where parents have very little margin for error.

These seven principles are not dissimilar to Dr. Neufeld's "Seven Principles of Natural Discipline," which is describes in Chapter 16 of Hold On To Your Kids, but vary enough to lend themselves to a better understanding of what conscientious parents are called upon to do in order to raise well-disciplined children AND preserve life-long relationships with them.Dr. Craig uses the word "punishment" when talking about discipline, but those who take the time to read his whole book will realize that what he's referring to is simply the parents' gentle, loving expression of their disapproval for a child's unacceptable actions.

The first principle, according to Dr. Craig, is to avoid the use of disapproval, scolding, threats, etc. whenever it is reasonably possible to do so. A well-attached child is "punished" enough by sensing his parents' disappointment in his actions. This acknowledgment is usually easily read in the child's body language: drooped shoulders, downcast eyes, bowed head. This is the point at which Parent Effectiveness Training comes in very handy. Explaining to the child that 1) what he did (“When you hit your brother…”), 2) made you/someone feel angry, worried, scared, etc. (“I feel sad…”), 3) because of a particular set of reasons (“because I love you and I don’t like to see you hurting one another.”), is usually enough to elicit the necessary feelings of remorse in the child to motivate him to at least want to change his behavior on his own.

Dr. Craig continues, "When it becomes necessary to punish [disapprove], make the punishment as mild as is reasonably possible. Use it primarily for its symbolic value rather than for the supposedly 'therapeutic' value of pain itself." The idea is to convey to the child your feelings without arousing hurt or angry feelings in him. The way we convey our disapproval is the symbol he's referring to. If we use facial expressions, body language, a snap, "whoah!," whatever, the value of the symbol should show our disapproval as mildly as is necessary in any given situation.

Next, parents should anticipate the consequences of their own actions well into the future life of the child. Feelings influence behavior. If our actions stir up negative feelings on our child, he will be more likely to behave negatively. Our actions can bring out the best or the worst in him. When we get into a cycle of negative actions creating negative feelings, which instigate more negative actions, the pressure we feel we must exert in order to rein in the child grows greater and greater, causing the feelings in the child to grow as well. It is a disaster waiting to happen!

Additionally, parents must be careful not to expect more of their children than they are physiologically and psychologically able to perform. A distinction needs to be made between behavior which is necessary for safety, harmony, orderliness, etc., and behavior which would be "nice" to experience. Reserve your disapproval for those actions which you must necessarily disapprove of, bearing in mind that your disappointment may be a result of unrealistically high expectations of your child at his particular developmental level; and script behavior which is "nice" in a way that doesn't embarrass or disrespect the dignity of the child.

Dr. Craig says that parents should "avoid punishing a child for failing to perform routine tasks, such as chores, at levels of efficiency attainable only by mature adults." This includes performing these tasks without being reminded, or not performing them even after being reminded, for reasons of forgetfulness, carelessness, spite, etc. Because of children's immaturity, they are innately unreliable, careless, impulsive, disorganized and incapable of exercising sound judgment. These traits come with maturity, which process can only occur in the securely attached individual. Punishment impedes this process.

When you must express your disapproval, temper your feelings with compassion and understanding. Empathize with your child before explaining to him the unacceptability of his actions. Sometimes this requires that you take a time-out for yourself to let your negative feelings become counterbalanced by feelings of love for your child. When you put yourself in his shoes for a few minutes before engaging him, you are better able to direct him in the manner which is most effective. Sometimes your response may need to consist simply of gathering your child up into your arms, holding him and showing him affection and compassion, just as you would a child suffering from some physical illness. Children who are acting "badly" are usually feeling badly, emotionally unwell or off-kilter.

Finally, don't rush yourself or your child. Acceptable behavior, even necessary behavior, takes time, patience, flexibility, and self-control on your part as well as on the part of your child. "No punishment yet invented has been shown capable of producing instant obedience."

Saints are not made overnight, and the surest way to help our children grow in virtue is to be shining examples of virtue ourselves. The Fruits and Gifts of the Holy Ghost and the grace of the sacraments are at our disposal. The perfect example of motherhood, Our Blessed Mother, is written about in countless books, by countless saints available to us for our benefit from countless book sellers! Daily prayer and meditation on Her life is the best help we can get for ourselves.

May Our Blessed Mother, the perfect model of Virtuous Motherhood, pray for us as we endeavor to become more like Her in every way.

Lack of Attachment and Proclivity to Violence

2008-03-27T05:09:00.000-07:00

A recent study uncovers a link between attachment voids and violent behavior, including murder.

Attachment Parenting Begins at Conception

2008-03-04T03:29:00.000-08:00

The moment your baby was formed in your womb, your relationship with him began. He depended on you for all his needs and you provided them even before you knew he was there. Through proper nutrition, exercise, rest and joyfulness you nurtured his attachment to you, the relationship without which he could not have survived.
As more and more parents get back in touch with their attachment brain, more of them are opting for more traditional birth options, as opposed to the more contemporary option of hospital birth.

The Five Standards

There are five standards of safe childbearing. Evidence and support for these five standards has surfaced over the last 100 years through comparative analysis of birth outcomes at various venues, with different attendants, and pre-natal care emphasis. ALL the evidence of the last 100 years suggests that where these five standards are present, medical professionals, childbirth experts and families can hope for the best birth outcomes possible for each individual child.

The first standard for safe childbearing is good nutrition.

Good nutrition is the foundation for safe childbearing, because a well nourished mother is a strong, healthy mother, and strong healthy women give birth to strong healthy babies. Weight gain in pregnancy is normal and an indication of a healthy pregnancy as long as it is accompanied by good nutrition. A mother may eat what she craves as long as it’s healthy. She should not use pregnancy as an excuse to eat every kind of sweet and junk food she wants, because that results in poor nutrition and poor nutrition creates a ream of problems for both baby and mother including but not limited to toxemia, gestational diabetes, hemorrhage and death in the mother and brain damage, infection-proneness, hyperactivity and death in babies. The March of Dimes says low birth-weight, caused by poor nutrition during pregnancy, is “the cause of the greatest number of deaths in the first year of life and is a major cause of disability in childhood.” Surprisingly, nutrition is not usually taught in Med School and what is taught is usually wrong. William’s Obstetrics, a standard med-school textbook, recommends a goal of only 20 pounds weight gain, which surely increases the chance for low birth weight babies.

The second standard for safe childbearing is Skillful midwifery.

Skillful Midwifery, as apposed to Physician care, is the highest and safest standard. Every study ever published--- currently or in the past in any country (over a span of more than 100 yrs) ---shows Midwives to be safer than doctors. Every study. NO exceptions. Data to the contrary simply does not exist, nor did it ever. The U.S. , despite having one of the highest rates of doctor attended births, as well as perhaps the “best” health care system in the world, also has one of the highest infant mortality rates of every industrialized nation in the world. Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan have the lowest infant mortality rates in the world as well as the highest rate of midwife attended births. Most doctors use too much intervention, rather than begin with prevention by good nutrition. Where doctors emphasize testing to discover problems with the pregnancy and the baby, midwives emphasize prevention through good nutrition, exercise and supporting the natural flow of labor by allowing the mother to do what her body is telling her, like eat if she’s hungry, drink if she’s thirsty, and find the most comfortable position for her to labor in. Most doctors do not attend a woman in labor and certainly not for the duration of her labor, which can last for days with some women; midwives stay with a laboring mother for the duration of her labor and several hours after the baby is born. Most doctors do not develop the supportive rapport with a pregnant and laboring mother to facilitate her ability to give birth safely and naturally by her own efforts; midwives show respect, encouragement and confidence in a laboring mother, regarding her as the true “expert” when it comes to her body and what she needs to safely deliver her own baby.

The third standard of safe childbearing is Natural Childbirth.

Natural Childbirth is intervention and drug-free childbirth. Interventions during labor increase risk, increasing anxiety in the laboring mother, which increases her pain, which increases her desire for drugs which increases risk. Epidurals, among other drugs and interventions can cause paralysis, psychosis and even death in the mother, and brain-damage and even death in the baby. IV’s and fetal monitors limit the possible comfortable laboring positions for the mother resulting in greater pain, decreased blood flow to the baby, which causes the doctors to want to intervene even more. A healthy, comfortable mother has a more productive labor and less need for interventions or desire for drugs.

The fourth standard for safe childbirth is birth at home.

Home has proved time and time again to be the safest place to give birth. There are no strangers, fewer germs, no interventions and no drugs, and a mother is naturally more comfortable and happy in the familiar surroundings of her own home among family and friends who care for her and her baby. Fewer germs mean less risk of infection for mother and baby. No strangers and interventions mean less anxiety for the mother and therefore a smoother, less painful labor and birth. 99% of complications that could possibly arise in an unhindered birth allow for ample time to arrive safely at a hospital, but fewer complications arise to begin with when the five standards for safe childbirth are present.

Breastfeeding is the fifth and last standard to safe childbearing.

Breastfeeding helps a mother’s body finish the birth process; it is also healthy for both mother and child. Breastfeeding immediately after the baby is born stimulates uterine contractions that prevent hemorrhaging, and ensures that a baby’s blood sugar is at a healthy level. Breastfeeding stimulates a hormonal and physiological response in the mother that helps her feel calm, happy and even more loving toward her family, helping her establish a closer relationship with her child. Breast milk is the healthiest nutrition for baby physically, mentally and emotionally. Breast milk contains a mother’s antibodies which are a natural inoculation against germs and disease for the baby. Breast milk changes with the needs of the baby, providing perfectly balanced nutrition throughout all the stages of the young child’s development. Breast milk also promotes a healthy development of the brain, resulting in children who are more intelligent and who have fewer behavioral problems.

The Five Standards together produce the best possible outcomes.

Childbirth experts postulate that an infant mortality rate of 2 to 3 per 1,000 live births is probably the very best human beings can ever expect. Some babies will die no matter what we do. But nations who are most closely approaching this irreducible minimum of nature are those who most fully uphold the five standards, especially midwifery, which is the surest guarantee of the other four standards. Someone once asked, “Got change for a paradigm?” Until we as a nation change the way we view pregnancy and childbirth—until we re-embrace the idea of these events as being beautiful blessings, not bothersome burdens, natural and welcome parts of life, not life-threatening diseases to be cured and avoided, we will continue as a nation to destroy unnecessarily, purposely and not, future generations of American people—of inventors, explorers, discoverers, priests, presidents and even popes. We owe it to our country, to God and to the human race to make childbirth as safe as it can possibly be by upholding the five standards that have sustained the human race for thousands of years and that a hundred years of scientific research have proven to produce the best outcomes humanly possible.

Those Beloved Monastery Bells!

2008-03-03T13:50:00.000-08:00

The vocation to the married life and parenthood is a means of sanctification for a man and woman. But are we really getting all we can out of it? I think the following article will point us in the right direction...

Domestic Monastery

Carlo Carretto, one of the leading spiritual writers of the past half century, lived for more than a dozen years as a hermit in the Sahara Desert, alone with the Blessed Sacrament for company, milking a goat for his food, and translating the Bible into the local Bedouin language. He prayed for long hours by himself.

Returning to Italy one day to visit his mother, he came to a startling realization. His mother, who for more than 30 years of her life had been so busy raising a family that she scarcely ever had a private minute for herself, was more contemplative than he was.

Carretto, though was careful to draw the right lesson from this. What this taught was not that there was anything wrong with what he had been doing living as a hermit. The lesson was rather that there was something wonderfully right about what his mother was doing all these years as she lived the interrupted life amid the noise and incessant demands of small children. He had been in a monastery, but so had she.

What is a monastery? A monastery is not so much a place set apart for monks and nuns as it is a place set apart (period). It is also a place to learn the value of powerlessness and a place to learn that time is not ours, but God's.

Our home and our duties can, just like a monastery teach us those things. For example, the mother who stays home with small children experiences a very real withdrawal from the world. Her existence is definitely monastic. Her tasks and preoccupations remove her from the centers of power and social importance. And she feels it.

Moreover, the demands of young children also provide her with what St. Bernard, one of the great architects of monasticism, called the "monastic bell". All monasteries have a bell. Bernard, in writing his rules for monasticism told his monks that whenever the monastic bell rang they were to drop whatever they were doing and go immediately to the particular activity (prayer, meals, work, study, sleep) to which the bell was summoning them. He was adamant that they respond immediately, stating that if they were writing a letter they were to stop in mid-sentence when the bell rang. The idea in his mind was that when the bell called, it called you to the next task and you were to respond immediately, not because you want to, but because it's time, it'sd God's time. For him, the monastic bell was intended as a discipline to stretch the heart by always taking you beyond your own agenda to God's agenda.

Hence, a mother rearing children, perhaps in a more privileged way even than a professional contemplative is forced, almost against her will, to constantly stretch her heart. For years, while rearing children, her time is never her own, her own needs have to be kept in second place and every time she turns around a hand is reaching out and demanding something. She hears the monastic bell many times during the day and she has to drop things in mid-sentence and respond, not because she wants to, but because it's time for that activity and time isn't her time, but God's time.

The rest of us experience the monastic bell each morning when our alarm clock rings and we get out of bed and ready ourselves for the day, not because we want to, but because it's time. Response to duty can be monastic prayer, a needy hand can be a monastic bell, and working without status and power can constitute a withdrawal into a monastery where God can meet us. The domestic can be the monastic.

By Fr. Ron Rolheiser, OMI, Seattle, WA

The Catholic Northwest

The Gift of Tears

2008-03-01T10:40:00.000-08:00

Tears and Tantrums, by Aletha J. Solter, Ph.D. has proved to be a very informative book which I wish I'd read 20 years ago! She explains that crying and raging (throwing tantrums) are necessary bodily responses to external physical or emotional stimuli. To supress this natural response is physically and psychologically unhealthy and can be a source of major health problems later in life.

In Part I she describes society's harmful attitudes toward crying and raging. There are several ways human beings release stress. One way is through talking out the problem. Another way is through laughter and symbolic play. Giving children permission to act out an event in which they felt frightened, helpless, angry, etc. and laughing, squealing and giggling help the body and mind to deal with the event and release the feelings associated with it. The fourth and last way children eleviate their stress is through crying and raging. Studies of tears reveal that hormones are acutally shed in the tears, a sort of catharsis. She goes on to explain the physiological process of dealing with stress and describes how a failure to release the hormones which build up during the process can be unhealthy and dangerous to the development of human beings. In the same way is it unhealthy to supress a sneeze, hold one's water for too long, supress ovulation, coughing, vomiting, or any natural bodily function, it is unhealthy, not just emotionally, but also physically, to supress the body's natural response to stress.

Stress comes in three forms: hurts by commission, physical or emotional from outside sources--usually other people; hurts by omission, unmet physical or emotional needs, including touch, empathy, and autonomy; and situational hurts caused by life circumstances, like a traumatic birth, overstimulation, natural disasters and disappointment or unexpected occurrences.

The acceptance of crying is important to the attachment relationship between parents and children. Children who are allowed to cry and compassionately supported while they do have higher self-esteem, are easier to live with, and become better learners. She helps parents realize what their reactions are to crying and raging and discover why they react that way so that can learn to respond in a way that is healthy and supportive. Quite different from manipulation, crying is a necessary release mechanism, and when parents understand it as such, they can respond compassionately to their child's needs without feeling manipulated--without feeling the need to either give in, or stop the "manipulative" behavior.

In Part II & III she specifically addresses crying in infants up to one year, and crying and raging in children one to eight years old, respectively.

Part IV is devoted to applying this new information practically. By understanding the reasons children cry, how to support their crying, and help them channel the body's natural response to stress in ways that are not hurtful to others or themselves, we can help our children thrive, growing up to be emotionally secure, and physically and psychologically healthy adults.

I recommend this book for all parents who have trouble understanding their children's crying and raging, and to adults who have trouble crying themselves. I further recommend that we invite our children to cry, but not alone--cry with them. Try a beautiful movie, with a happy ending, but which brings on the tears, like Savannah Smiles. This is a beloved movie from my own childhood that deals with attachment, insecure attachment and loss of attachment. It has a happy ending--well, bittersweet, but satisfying--that's sure to bring on the tears!

The Gift of Fear

2008-03-01T07:23:00.000-08:00

Fear of the Lord and fear of the father. Many parents trying to learn positive discipline methods often get hung up on the issue of fear. "Shouldn't a child fear his father the way the Christian ought to fear God?" The answer is a resounding, "YES!" However, without the proper understanding of the "Gift of Fear"--fear of the Lord--parents can easily create for themselves a stifling, debilitating atmosphere of fear in their children. The following sermon, by Msgr. Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. explains just what fear of the Lord ought to be--God is an Attachment Parent!

(For those who are don't already know, Msgr. Pope is the priest on the cover of the U.S. News issue featuring the segment, A Return To Tradition.)

The Duties of Parents

2008-02-28T11:45:00.000-08:00

You know, attachment parenting isn't just about wearing your baby, the family bed, and positive discipline--it's also about safeguarding our responsibilities to our children, and protecting our rights as parents to form our children as well as we are able. I'm talking specifically about homeschooling and even more particularly about home catechesis, a right and responsibility which even adamant homeschoolers are quick to relinquish to their parish D.R.E.

The following article from Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P., is a very thorough and concise explanation of the nature of rights and responsibilities, especially with respect to the education and religious formation of our children.

In a nutshell the minister of the sacrament, as custodian of the sacrament, has the right to determine that those to whom he administers the sacrament are properly prepared/disposed. However, he does not have the right to dictate the means or method by which said recipients are prepared. The responsibility to catechize children is inherent to Catholic parenthood; therefore, parents have the right to catechize their own children. Since it is the parents who will answer to God for the religious formation of their children, parents have a grave responsibility to safeguard their children's religious education as well as their right to educate them, keeping it entirely under their own control if they so choose. Not even the bishop may/can usurp this responsibility.

Parentis aut in Loco Parentis

The development of the public school system over the last century and a half in the United States[1] seems to have caused a shift in the understanding of the parent's role in education. Most people tend to assume the "normal" thing to do is to send their child to a public school or if one has the financial resources one may opt to send one's child to a private school. Catholics, in the United States, prior to the Second Vatican Council were often told that they had to send their child to a Catholic School under pain of mortal sin. No doubt this was done in order to avoid the lapsing into heresy by a child who is educated in a non-Catholic or even anti-Catholic public or private school system. For example, one reads in the Radio Replies that Catholic parents who send their child to a public school when a Catholic school is available "are violating a grave law of their religion.[2]

From time to time, therefore, traditional parents will ask the question whether they have a grave obligation to send their child to a Catholic school. Usually, this is asked in a context in which it is understood that the available Catholic schools are anything but Catholic. In fact, given the general state of Catholic schools in the United States, it seems that the normal course of advice is to indicate that sending a child to a Catholic school might be a grave violating of the laws of their religion. In other words, parents, who have a moral obligation to ensure the proper doctrinal training of their children, have a grave moral obligation not to send their child to a Catholic school which is not in accordance with Church teaching. Does this seem to violate the pre-Vatican II teaching that parents are morally obligated to send their child to a Catholic school? Moreover, where does this leave the Catholic who has opted to home school their child? Does this not violate the pre-Vatican rule as well? Moreover, what is the role of the state regarding the education of children? Is it the state's responsibility to see to your child's education? The answer to these questions is a bit complex since it includes a clear delineation of four areas of discussion, viz. 1) the distinction between civil and natural rights; 2) the natural law rights of the parents; 3) moral obligations of parents regarding the proper religious instruction of their children, and finally; 4) a sorting out of mentalities that have arisen due to historical circumstances in the United States.

The Distinction between Natural and Civil Rights

A right is defined "as a moral or legal authority to possess, claim and use a thing as one's own[3]or the "inviolable power to do, hold, or claim something as one's own."[4] In other words, a right is a moral claim of an individual of the authority over some thing. The primary term of importance is authority, for authority here means that the person has a moral claim to exercise or to act upon the thing over which he has authority by virtue of who or what he is. Consequently, it means that others must respect that authority which the person has over the thing. For example, a man who possesses a car has the right to do with the car as he pleases, for instance he can get it in an go for a drive if he wants, provided it does not infringe upon the rights of another. If he were to decided to drive the car at high speeds in a downtown area, he would be violating the rights of others over the own bodily well being.

Rights are either absolute or non-absolute, i.e. conditional. An absolute right is one which no individual has the authority to violate whatsoever while a conditional right is one which the right may be suspended or denied by a competent authority due to supervening circumstances. For example, a woman has a right over her body, but not an absolute right. For if she was to become pregnant the child has rights over his/her body and, consequently, the woman cannot abort the child. Since she does not have an absolute right over her own body due to the fact that the child now lays moral claim over her body granted to the child by God Who placed the child in her womb.[5] In a word, men and women do not have an absolute right over the bodies, only God does.

The distinction between a natural and civil right is based upon the source of the authority. A natural right is Aa right coming to man from the author of nature and directly from the natural law for the fulfillment of duties of this law."[6] Whereas a civil right is an acquired right, i.e. "a natural or positive right obtained from a source other than the simple fact of possessing human nature,[7] in which the right is "recognized by human positive law."[8] To clarify, a natural right, also known as human right, is the right or authority one has been granted by God Himself by virtue of the fact that He made that individual according to human nature. In other words, when God made human beings, He had certain intentions in the way that He made him, consequently, the person has rights based upon God's making him the way He has, which expresses His intention and which means that God has given him authority over those things which pertain properly to his nature. The person, then, can exercise his rights because they have been granted to him by God by virtue of the fact that God gave Him that nature by which His intentions express what ought to be done. We see, therefore, that God gave each one of us a body and that our wills exercise a motive function over our bodies and as a result, we have a conditional right over our bodies. The right is conditional since by our bodies we can violate the rights of others and as a result usurp authority over others that does not properly belong to us by nature.

A civil right is one which is granted by positive human law, i.e. it is a right given to the individual by the state. This right, to truly be a right, must not violate any natural right. For since all authority is derived from God, [9] the state can only exercise that authority over those things which God has given them moral claim, i.e. principally and primarily the common good.[10] Consequently, the rights granted by God to the state cannot contradict the rights granted to the individual, for that would imply contradiction in God's causality which is impossible. Therefore, the state cannot grant a right which is contrary to the natural law, without violating the Will of God. Nevertheless, a civil right is a right granted in addition to the natural rights of the person and the authority to grant those rights comes, again, from God who has entrusted the care of the common good to the civil authorities.

The Natural Rights of Parents

What, then, are the natural rights of the parents? The natural rights of parents flow from the nature of the conjugal act as regards to its remote end. According to St. Thomas, "the good of each thing is that it comes upon its end: moreover, its evil is that it turns aside from its due end."[11] The end of the conjugal act is two-fold, viz, the begetting of children and their proper education.[12] For we see that in animals that when, for the proper up bringing of the progeny, two parents are not necessary, the male does not remain with the female once the offspring are begotten. But with man, both the male and female are necessary for the sake of the material sustenance of the child as well as the proper education due to man which requires both the female and the male.[13] One may say therefore that the proximate end of the act of coition, viz. the begetting of children would be impeded if the remote end is not served. That is to say that if the mother and the father do not both tend to the bringing of up the child, the child will suffer in some way.[14]

The actual begetting of the child only begins a process which is fundamentally ordered toward the completion of the individual person. So when the husband and wife beget the child, that begetting sets in motion a process through which the child passes until it reaches the age of majority and therefore can act on its own. This means that the end, perfection or completion of the person which is reached at majority is that toward which conjugal relations, i.e. the begetting of children is ordered. This we see is based upon the natural law which is part of Divine Providence[15] which ordered the conjugal act itself to proper education of children.[16] Therefore, one who has engaged in the conjugal act has a responsibility to see to completion the end for which his act is fundamentally ordered, i.e. parents, by virtue of their being parents, have the responsibility to educate their children which are the proper effect of their conjugal actions.

Therefore, since parents have a responsibility to educate their children by virtue of being parents, it means that they also have a right to do so. For if one has no moral claim or control of educating one's children, one could not have any responsibility in the matter. Yet, because parents have this responsibility, it means that others must respect that responsibility. On account of the fact that God has ordered the education of children to be the remote end of conjugal relations, it therefore means that those to whom He gives children, have been granted by Him the responsibility to take care of those children which means they must have some moral authority over them.[17] By virtue of the fact that they have authority over their children, they thereby have rights over them; we conclude therefore that parents have fundamental rights over the education of their children which is based on the nature of the conjugal act, i.e. the natural law as determined by God.

Since parents have given children their life, they are bound by the most serious obligation to educate their offspring and therefore must be recognized as the primary and principal educators.[18]

Religious Instruction

The Second Vatican Council, along with many popes, affirms that since parents are the primary educators of their children they are also the primary catechists.[19] Parents are:
First catechists because it is their duty to instill into their children, as it were with their first nourishment itself, the doctrine which they themselves have received from the Church. And principle catechists, because it pertains to parents to make sure that the principle matters of faith are learned from memory inside the family.[20]

This means that the primary responsibility of ensuring the integrity and completeness of a child's religious formation falls first and foremost on the parents. This provides the principle by which we can determine whether the teaching that parents have a grave obligation to send their child to a Catholic school is correct or not.

First, let it be stated that there are various means by which parents can see to the proper religious formation of their child. Historically, it has taken three forms, viz. at home, at a Catholic school during a religion class and finally at a CCD (Confraternity of Catholic Doctrine) class provided by a parish for those students who did not attend the Catholic school for some reason. Given the Church's statements on the matter,[21] it would appear that the best way to fulfill this is from within the home where the child would take his full religious instruction in the home. This would preserve a unity between the religious instruction and the proper living of it. When a child must take his religious instruction outside the home, it tends to divide the religious instruction from the reenforcement which is essentially found in the family for the proper living of the faith.

However, circumstances may be such that the parents cannot adequately provide for the child's religious instruction and the reason for it may be numerous. Nevertheless, if a child cannot receive the religious instruction fully from the parents, then the parents have an obligation to seek instructors or catechists who will see to the child's instruction. Consequently, if the parents are unable to fulfill the religious instructional requirement on their own, they would then have a grave obligation to place the child in a Catholic school.[22]

Parental obligations are primarily with respect to the end and not the means. In other words, the begetting of children is ordered toward the child's perfection and if a particular means will aid more and guarantee the arriving at that perfection more than another, parents ought to employ that means. Moreover, if a means militates against the end of ensuring the child will receive a complete and orthodox education, then parents must avoid that means. Yet, responsibility to the means, while clearly being secondary, can still be grave.

Consequently, it seems that if parents cannot instruct their child fully, then they need to delegate that authority to someone who can. Catholic schools are better than mere CCD courses for two reasons. Given that the school is truly Catholic, it provides two things which simulate the family. The family provides constant instruction since the instructor or catechist is always present, so any questions the child may have can be answered immediately and not suspended until later when the child may lose interest. The second aspect is that the family provides an atmosphere in which the religious instruction can be lived and reinforced. In a truly Catholic school, there is a cultural atmosphere, if you will, which provides a Catholic context to the child's life. Moreover, since the child will go from the family, to the school, back to the family, there will be a somewhat continuous support to the child's religious frame of mind.

However, provided that the parents cannot do the instruction themselves and that no Catholic school is available, parents may then send their child to CCD. This implies that the child is either home schooled in secular or natural matters or is being taught in a public school. The public school approach is the least desirous since the child will go for long periods of time away from a specifically Catholic "culture" or atmosphere, running the risk of moral and spiritual bad influences. If the child is sent to CCD, however, and the parents home school the child in natural or secular matters, the continuous Catholic atmosphere can be maintained. Consequently, the grave obligation to send one's children to a Catholic school only occurs when the parents are unable to give the child a complete education and provided that an orthodox Catholic school exists. Likewise, parents would be required to send their child to CCD if neither of the previous options is available.

Modern Mentalities

Cultural habits are a powerful type of intellectual formation. In our society, i.e. in the United States, in the last 150 years, the general tendency was for the state to build a school and parents to send their child there for instruction. Typically, in the past, many parents did not know how to read or if they did read, they lacked the pedagogical skills to teach the basic reading, writing and arithmetic to their children. Consequently, parents, who sought a better education for their children than they had, would happily send their child to a state school for instruction. Over the course of time, this practice grew to the point that it became the normal way of life. Catholics to counteract Protestant affected secular teaching, would often build their own schools, yet in either case, the general practice was to send the child to a school. This practice lead, at least implicitly if not explicitly, to the idea that it was the state's place to educate the child. No doubt. this idea has accelerated in acceptance by the influx of Marxist social teachings[23] in the colleges in the sixties and seventies.

Moreover, this mentality has become transformed into a certain ideology in which there is a seen an antagonism between the state's rights and the parental rights. It is believed that the right to educate children rests on the state and not the parents, and for the state to allow home schooling is merely a toleration. Very often legislation is proposed that would restrict the parent's educating their child.[24] Moreover, some see home schooling as a form of subsidiarity, viz. that a function which properly belongs to the state is delegated to the parents or the state allows the parents to take care of something which the state ultimately has a right over.
However, it must be remembered that for parents to educate their child is based on the natural law and therefore is a natural right and not a civil right; it is not a case of the state granting a right over and above the natural right. The state has a grave moral obligation to respect the natural rights of the parents regarding their children's upbringing. The parents may delegate the right to the state to educate their child, but like all delegation, it is based upon the will of the person delegating and not upon some right that the state may have. Consequently, the state acts in the place of the parents (in loco parentis) which means that the state's action is not of its own accord. Therefore, the parents have every right to retract that delegation at any time.
There is only one instance in which the state has a right to intervene regarding the natural law rights of the parents and that is when the parents are instructing the child to violate the natural law in such a way as to impinge upon the proper competence of the state, viz. the protection of the common good.[25] In other words, the state can stop parents if what the parents teach militates against the common good. Since it pertains to the state to protect the common good, if the parents do something which will affect the common good, the state can intervene.
Home schooling, therefore, has as its foundation the natural law itself. For it was the intention of God from the very beginning that parents should be the primary educators of their children. Consequently, parents who home school fulfil the will of their Creator in a most excellent fashion, for they not only provide the end which God intended when gifting them with children viz. the necessary moral and natural education, but they also employ the best means to that end.[26] Consequently, home schooling should never see the need to justify its existence since parents who do so are fulfilling the Will of their Creator.

Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P., Ph.D.
http://home.neb.rr.com/traditionis/NLHomeSchool.htm

Endnotes: (to be published soon)

[1]

A Nine-month-old Learning that there are Consequences to his Actions

2008-02-28T04:39:00.000-08:00

Hold On To Your Kids (AND Your '62 Missals!)

2008-02-22T08:22:00.001-08:00

In the first chapter of Hold On To Your Kids, Dr. Neufeld describes what sounds to me like the impending implosion of an entire culture. Peer orientation has reached pandemic levels and unless parents realize soon, and begin to take their children back from the world, our country is headed for disaster.

In the section, Normal But Not Natural Or Healthy, I had the certain realization that what he is describing is exactly the problem we're facing in the Church today--a problem of orientation, not just of the priest facing the people, although that's certainly part of it, but a problem of the orientation of mankind in general towards God. Man has turned in on himself, away from God for God's sake (literally), and we see it even in the liturgy, in liturgical music, in church architecture, etc. The sign of peace between all and sundry immediately following the consecration; the priest facing the people, engaging them, making eye-contact with them, instead of leading the people facing towards God, eyes uplifted to the tabernacle and the crucifix; lyrics such as those of "Gather Us In;" churches in the round, where the laity gaze at one another and the tabernacle is nowhere to be found, are all symptoms of a trend toward man-centeredness, a distinctly horizontal orientation, as opposed to the vertical orientation of God-centeredness. In the Advent/Christmas 2007 issue of Latin Mass Magazine, in the article entitled, "A Crisis of Meaning in the Sign of Peace," Dr. Michael P. Foley writes, "It is now more difficult to trace the link between the risen Eucharistic Christ and the peace He diffuses to His Church, for the 'chain of love' has ceased to be visible. The vertical mediation of Christ's peace has been replaced by a horizontal immediacy."¹ On page 10 of Hold On To Your Kids, Dr. Neufeld writes, "Essential to any culture are its customs, its music, its dress, its celebrations, its stories. The music children listen to bears very little resemblance to the music of their grandparents. The way they look is dictated by the way other children look rather than by the parents' cultural heritage. Their birthday parties [liturgies] and rites of passage [sacramental rites] are influenced by the practices of other children [religions] around them, not by the customs of their parents before them. If all that seems normal to us, it's only due to our own peer orientation. The existence of a youth culture [new Catholic culture], separate and distinct from that of adults [traditional Catholic culture], dates back only fifty years or so. Although half a century is a relatively short time in the history of humankind [the Church], in the life of an individual person it constitutes a whole era. Most readers of this book will already have been raised in a society [Church] where the transmission of culture is horizontal rather than vertical. In each new generation this process, potentially corrosive to civilized society, gains new power and velocity." (empasis mine). I know this may sound like sacrelige to some readers, but it really isn't hard to see given an honest look.

Dr. Neufeld decries the current trend as unprecedented. Similarly, the crisis in the Church is like none other she's ever weathered. Her traditions, as with those of the culture of our grandparents, are being rejected outright, and replaced with novelties and aberrations even our own parents probably could never have imagined-- gay priests and gay marriage; the acceptance of contraception by over 80% of Catholic couples, and the rapidly rising teen suicide rate; the acceptance of wiccan practices as a legitimate form of religion on our military bases and the desecration of the Holy Eucharist through the common practice of Communion in the hand are but a few of the fruits of mankind's new horizontal orientation.

In chapter 9, Stuck In Immaturity, he discusses the need for human beings to cultivate attachments in which they can rest secure in order to mature emotionally and psychologically, much the way a plant needs to grow a strong, healthy root system before it can get down to the business of growing bigger and flowering. I believe that Catholics, like children, need to be able to rest secure in the truth, in customs and disciplines that demonstrate the truth, and in a hierarchy that can be trusted to lead us in the paths of righteousness, in order to mature spiritually. But that is another post entirely!

It wasn't my intention here to dive into a subject Catholics have been debating for the last 40 years--I have neither the time nor the desire to attempt that feat. (If you wish to arrive at a better understanding of why the orientation of the priest matters I recommend reading Turning Towards The Lord, published by Ignatius Press.) I only hoped to convey my sincere belief that whether it be sexual orientation, liturgical orientation or peer orientation, we're dealing with a crisis of orientation that has permeated practically every facet of our culture.

It may be bold of me to say, but I think it could be argued that Hold On To Your Kids is to families what Summorum Pontificum is to the Church--a long overdue wake-up call to adjust our orientation and to restore the order God bestowed on His creation--God over Man, Man over Woman², Parents over Children, all stumbling back toward Him in imitation of His beloved Son under the weight of the Cross. I can never forget the scene from the Passion in which our Blessed Mother tried desperately to reach her Son through the throng of people in the streets. And when she did, just after He fell again, she asked to die with Him, to suffer what He suffered. At the same time the scene flashes back to when He fell as a child, skinning His knee, and she flew to Him to comfort Him. Back in the street He says to her, "Mother, I make all things new."

In order to hold on to our kids we have to try something "new." We have to try to feel what they're feeling--to suffer with them, rather than tell them their suffering's not all that much to fret about³. We have to learn to empathize with them. Then, by our example--as by our Blessed Mother's example, they will learn to empathize with others, and in so doing, share, if ever so slightly, in the sufferings of Our Lord on His road to Calvary.

___________________________________________________________________
¹ This is interesting when one looks at the sign of peace as a sort of symbolic "attachment ritual," the loving embrace between man and his God, collecting and connecting with one another physically and spiritually.
² Dr. Neufeld does not address the issue of God and Man or Man and Woman in his book. This is my own conclusion based on my understanding of the problem of orientation.
³ At 5:10 minutes into the video Brian Regan explains it like only he can.

My AP Story

2008-02-12T10:40:00.000-08:00

I think at heart we're all attachment parents, because we're all human. Pressure from family members, friends, healthcare professionals, some child rearing "experts," etc. can squeeze those instincts out of us, or just squish them down so small that we hardly feel them anymore. I guess that's sort of what happened in my case. I certainly didn't set out as a mother, determined to let my infant cry herself to sleep, or intent on beating "bad" behavior out of my offspring, but that's where we ended up for about the first 10 years of our parenthood.

I fell for the notion that children are manipulative, easily spoiled by too much attention, naturally misdirected, and generally in need of fear and pain to learn "good" behavior. It wasn't until I met Gracie that I began to feel the stirrings of attachment deep down within my mother's soul, squeeking and squirming, struggling to re-emerge, if only my heart would let them.

Gracie was the first real attachment parent I had ever met--it was shocking to me to see such well-behaved children WHO HAD NEVER BEEN SPANKED! At first I just convinced myself that she was just so saintly and that her children must have inherited this saintliness from her. I, on the other hand, was anything but saintly and, ergo, so were my children. Their fallen human nature, without some miraculous intervention of grace from God, would never be able to be "good" without punishment. After all, didn't God punish man when he had been "bad?"

I admired her so much, and I wished our family could be as harmonious as hers seemed to be, but I accepted the fact that it just wasn't the way God had made us.

It wasn't until my mother one day, quite without realizing what she was truly saying to me, told me to just follow my instincts when it came to parenting. INSTINCTS!!!!! The mini-me in my brain raced through the corridors of my mind searching frantically for those insticts I had squished somewhere into a corner almost a decade earlier. As I searched, memories flashed before me like movie pictures on the wall--a baby crying in the next room, me crying on my husband's shoulder, telling myself that it wouldn't take long, she'd never remember, it was for her's and our our own good that we do this or she'd become a raging me-monster, expecting the world to revolve around her. There are countless other memories too painful to relate NOW THAT I KNOW.

When I finally found these long hidden away instincts, I had just given birth (our second homebirth) to our sixth child and was totally ready and willing to fully embrace this newly discovered style of parenting. I borrowed every book Gracie owned and poured over them ceaselessly, devouring every word, trying to imbibe every idea and put it into practice. We made the plunge into the family bed, and I even invited our other five children to feel free to camp out in our bedroom for as long as they wanted. I was trying desperately to make up for lost time. We shoved the bed into a corner of the room and the floor was strewn with sleeping bags for a few months. Little by little the older ones first then the younger ones trickled back into their rooms, secure, I hoped, in the knowledge that we were there for them anytime they needed us, for any reason, even in the middle of the night--not like previously when we were "off duty" for anything other than vomitting once taps had been sounded.

Number six is now seven years old and I can find no evidence of that "spoiling" which was surely supposed to happen if I held her all the time and never forced her to go to sleep alone at a certain time.

We dropped corporal punishment for the most part, although an occasional swat slipped in now and then when I had reached my wits end.

But I still thought that in order for kids to learn "good" behavior they had to realize the consequences of their actions. I was quick to point this out to them whenever they made a mistake, or disobeyed. We used isolation for unsociable behavior, fines, rewards, confiscation, scolding, etc. It still seemed that raising kids was so much harder than it ever seemed to be for Gracie. My husband and I were angry all the time, the children were becoming more and more agressive, and I was becoming more and more aware that their actions were motivated by a deep-seated terror of making us mad. Our oldest son, especially, was constantly inflicting pain on the younger ones. When questioned, the underlying reason was always that he had to make them stop some behavior that he was sure was going to anger one of us. Our oldest daughter, on the other hand, would drop anything she was doing to do anything to make us happy. She would begin frantically cleaning the house, gathering little ones to read stories--in short, all the things I should have been doing. Furthermore, she would apologize again and again for any infraction that she thought had met with our disapproval. Our third child wouldn't even talk to me--at least not about anything that she cared about. It took me a whole hour one day, after a dramatic confrontation, to get her to tell me that she thought she was "a stupid misfit who (didn't) fit into this family."

My heart was breaking into a million pieces, but I had no idea what had gone wrong, let alone how to fix it. I thought more quality time was called for, but how to squeeze more hours out of a day that was already a few hours short? Perhaps they needed a social life of their own? Some friends to connect with, have a little fun for a change, not have to put up with all the younger brothers and sisters for a little while.

My children came home different. Something foreign occupying the same space as my child--it wasn't like "who are you and what have you done with my child?" Just like "what did you do to your hair?" only their hair was the same. They were just different. And in a way I didn't quite like.

Some of my friends were having more serious difficulties with their children--difficulties I was glad we weren't having, but I still wanted to ease the difficulties we were having.

We started the family Rosary and drew back from the peer contact. Now I'll never say that the Rosary alone was ineffectual--there were glimmers of hope everyday--but there was still something we needed to do and I just couldn't figure out what. Like St. Benedict always said, "Pray and Work."

Well, I finally got the answer I'd been praying for in the form of a book. Hold On To Your Kids described all the difficulties we've been experiencing, it addressed the problems I've had in my own parent relationships, and it showed me how to begin to fix them. It gave me hope and allowed me to relax as a mother, to not feel threatened by my children's "bad" behavior anymore. I realized that I had been trying to do something that I totally did not understand. I realized that attachment parenting is not just breastfeeding, babywearing and co-sleeping. Attachment is an on-going process that we have to engage in everyday. And best of all, I realized that it's never too late to attach. On the down side I realized that even a very strong early attachment can deteriorate if untended, but that it could be reinforced again with a little effort. Ultimately I now know that my heart's desire, to have life-long meaningful relationships with my children, is attainable, and is up to me, not fate.

Attachment parenting is really not a new concept, just a new name for age-old wisdom. I dare say that our Heavenly Father is an attachment parent, desiring our love, because he loves us--unconditionally--not our love because we're afraid of Him. Not that we shouldn't fear God, but that fear should be a fear of offending Him because we love Him, not because we're afraid of Hell. The saints and martyrs weren't able to do what they did out of fear--only love can empower us to that degree. And man can only serve one master. It's absolutely imperative that my husband and I be the object of our children's affections, not their peers, not the pop idols, not some avatar in a video game. And it's absolutely necessary that their peers be driven by love for their own parents, not my kids or anyone else. Otherwise, those peers are the competition, and just like God, I am a jealous master.

So, I hope together we can come to a better understanding of what our relationships with our children can be, how to get there, and, doing it together, raise up worthwhile companions (and future spouses!) for all our children.

May the Immaculate Heart of Mary, that mother's heart we should all aspire to emulate, bless our efforts and keep us stumbling ever forward, our children in tow, until we reach our heavenly reward.

Hold On To Your Kids Outline

2008-02-09T11:59:00.000-08:00

This outline is based on chapters 2, 14, 15 and 16 of Dr. Gordon Neufeld's Book, Hold On To Your Kids. It begins from the "preventive" position, rather than the "remedial" position. If you have not already read the book, I highly recommend you do. It is packed with information all of which simply cannot be covered in an outline. The purpose of the outline is to pique your interest in reading the book, and to use as a "cheat sheet" if you've already read and are having difficulty recalling information. While the outline cuts to the chase, so to speak, jumping right into how to preserve and fortify the attachment between parent and child, the other information in the book, on "counterwill" or simply the nature of attachment, for example, is invaluable, and very interesting reading, I might add. Not only will this book help you with your relationships with your children, but with your spouse and other family members, as well. You might say Dr. Neufeld is a sort of a Dale Carnegie for families.

I. Preserve the Ties That Empower

A. Make the relationship the priority

1. The child is more important than what he does—unconditional love and acceptance is what he needs to feel good in order to be good

2. Attachment gives parents power

B. Parent with attachment in mind

1. Attachment comes first and is absolutely necessary for

2. Maturity—which a child is able to do ONLY when he has a rest from seeking the attachment

3. Socialization—can only happen safely after the appropriate level of maturity has been reached

C. Help your child keep you close, especially through his main mode of attaching

1. Through his senses—physical proximity: sight, sound, smell, and touch

2. Through sameness—identify with the child and take an interest in the his interests

3. Through belonging and loyalty—lay claim to the child and keep his confidences

4. Through significance—treat each child as though he is the most important thing in your life

5. Through feeling—sharing warm, loving, affectionate feelings

6. Through being known—sharing and accepting intimate thoughts, feelings, desires: secrets

D. Stay connected when physically apart

1. Pictures

2. Jewelry (locket with picture)

3. Notes

4. Phone calls

5. Make a gift of something that is yours

6. Make a gift of your scent on some object

7. Make the child familiar with our whereabouts by giving them a “tour” of where you’ll be—visit the office, see the brochure of the resort, see the website, etc.

E. Cultivate an intimacy with the child that no one else can compete with

1. Draw the child out

a. Regular outings

b. Shared tasks

c. Reading together, or if not together, read the books they have read and enjoyed

d. Retreating to your own space, but welcoming “visits” from whichever child happens to knock at the door

F. Creating structures and imposing restrictions that safeguard the attachment

1. Structures like the family meal, game night, family outings, family Rosary will strengthen the attachment and mend any weaknesses in it (think of the attachment like a fence that keeps the kids in and intruders out—fences need to be mended and fortified)

2. Restrictions on socializing, e-mail, phone, TV and music (because if the bad example of peer orientation therein) minimize the competition for the child’s orientation

II. Discipline That Does Not Divide

A. Good discipline means training, bringing under control, imposing order on the child’s attachments without damaging our relationship with him, triggering crippling emotional defenses or fostering peer orientation, skillfully supporting nature’s built in process of adapt and mature. The less children are in need of discipline, the more effective any method will be. The obverse is also true: the more a child is in need of discipline, the less effective the commonly taught discipline techniques will be.

B. Use the seven principles of natural discipline

1. Use connection, not separation, to bring a child into line

a. A child is most likely to misbehave when his attachment has been weakened

b. Separation further weakens the attachment, increasing anxiety and frustration, which leads to aggression, which leads to more displeasing behavior

c. Connection strengthens the attachment and elicits behavior that pleases the parent—the one he is attached to

2. When a problem arises, work the relationship, not the incident

a. Lessons are not learned when emotions are running high—remove the child from the situation gently and revisit the incident and the behavior later, when strong feelings have died down

b. Fortify the attachment not just before the storm, but during the storm, as well (lest rising waters wash away the levy), by acknowledging the frustration, empathizing with the child

3. When things aren’t working for the child, draw out the tears instead of trying to teach a lesson

a. Lessons are learned from adaptation (when futility sinks in), rather than from right thinking, accomplishing the task of discipline by bringing an end to a course of action that doesn’t work, enabling the child to accept limitations and restrictions, facilitating the letting-go of futile demands

i. Represent to the child a wall of futility by simply and firmly pointing out non-negotiable realities (“there isn’t enough,” “that’s all for today,” “he didn’t invite you”)

ii. Commiserate with the child by lovingly articulating his feelings, drawing out the tears which signify letting go and adaptation

4. Solicit good intentions instead of demanding good behavior

a. Prime the child’s desire to want to be good by collecting him, firing up the attachment mechanisms

b. Coax the child in the desired direction—“Do you think you could put the ladder away when you’re done using it?”

i. Ordering the child around arouses his counterwill (built into all of us as a safety against unlawful manipulators)

ii. Overactive counterwill can drive children right into the den of their peers, rather than into our loving arms

5. Draw out the mixed feelings instead of trying to stop impulsive behavior—which arises out of emotion/instinct: shame, fear, insecurity, jealousy, frustration, guilt, dread, anger, etc., and lives in all of us (maturity must be acquired before these impulses can be controlled, and that comes through adaptation)

a. Temper negative feelings with positive ones, aggression with affection, counterwill with attachment, invite conflicting elements to exist and communicate acceptance of what is within the child—drawing the child to us instead of pushing him away

b. Discuss the incident after feelings have subsided, the storm has passed and the sun is shining again

6. When dealing with an impulsive child, try scripting the desired behavior instead of demanding maturity

a. Collect the child

b. Provide cues for what to do and how to do it in ways he can follow (getting the child to act mature will not make him more mature, but it will keep him out of trouble until the underlying impediments to maturation can be addressed and their maturity catches up

7. When unable to change the child, try changing the child’s world (although overuse of this technique undermines the adaptation process)

a. The parent must be able to feel the futility of other disciplinary modes and to let go of what doesn’t work

b. Have insight about what factors in the child’s environment trigger the undesired behavior

c. Have some ability to change or control these adverse factors