Marriage is for Children
In a previous article, ‘A Common Sense Look at Homosexuality’, we indicated how children raised in a home with same-sex “parents” will be harmed. We took a common-sense approach, but are now bringing a professional opinion to this from Dr. Trayce L. Hansen, a licensed psychologist. The following are excerpts from one of her writings.
“All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive.
“Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father. Dr. Hansen outlines five reasons why this is true:
(One) “It’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Only heterosexual parents offer children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. For a girl, that means she’ll better understand and appropriately interact with the world of men and be more comfortable in the world of women. And for a boy, the converse will hold true. Having a relationship with the other (opposite sexed) parent also increases the likelihood that a child will be more empathetic and less narcissistic.
(Two)”Stages of development of children require stages of more from a mother, while others stages require more from a father. During infancy, babies of both sexes tend to do better in the care of their mother. Mothers are more attuned to the subtle needs of their infants and thus are more appropriately responsive. At some point, if a young boy is to become a competent man, he must detach from his mother and instead identify with his father. A father teaches a boy how to properly channel his aggressive and sexual drives. A mother can’t show a son how to control his impulses because she’s not a man and doesn’t have the same urges as one.
“Father-need is also built into the psyche of girls. There are times in a girl’s life when only a father will do. For instance, a father offers a daughter a safe, non-sexual place to experience her first male-female relationship and have her femininity affirmed. When a girl doesn’t have a father to fill that role she’s more likely to become promiscuous in a misguided attempt to satisfy her inborn hunger for male attention and validation.
“Overall, fathers play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually. When there’s no father to perform this function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless children and for the society in which these children act out their losses.
(Three) “Boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. As example, boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion, while girls generally embrace the reverse. An opposite-sexed parent helps a child keep his or her own natural proclivities in check by teaching verbally and nonverbally the worth of the opposing tendencies
(Four) “Same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes, influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message, will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to an even greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality role-modeled by their parents, it was also approved by their society.
(Five) “Other types of marriage will logically follow same-sex marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous. And what happens to the children of these alternative marriages if the union dissolves and each parent then “remarries?” Those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers, or, you fill in the blank.”
Dr. Hansen agrees with many family analysts that in every phase of life, cognitive, emotional, social, and developmental, social evidence shows that there are measurable negative effects when children lack either a mother or a father.
The evidence collected over decades, show that children need both mothers and fathers. Research by dozens of groups show that exposure to both sexes is vitally important to the developmental needs of children because it helps them to form their sexual identity.
Even if the father and mother behave in generally similar ways, they provide contrasting images for the infant. Mothers and fathers have different verbal styles when communicating. Involved fathers are more likely to stimulate the infant to explore and investigate new objects whereas mothers tend to engage their infants in relatively pre-structured and predictable activities. The father and mother offer the child two different role models to learn from as well as providing separate sources of love and support. There are hundreds of nuances in men and women that even newborn infants can readily distinguish and that make a difference in the way the child develops.
Permitting people of the same sex to marry changes the nature of the institution. Rather than the optimal vehicle for raising children, it becomes just the social ratification of the relationship between two adults giving them their seal of approval, so to speak, and they can try to eliminate their feelings of guilt for living in an unnatural relationship.
Marriage is not really about eliminating someone’s negative feelings about themselves. Marriage is about raising children in the best manner possible. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we cannot cave into political correctness and allow the children to lose.
(Dr. Trayce L. Hansen is a licensed psychologist with a clinical and forensic practice. She received her Ph.D. from the California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego, in 1997. Her professional experience includes work in multiple clinical as well as forensic settings. She is particularly interested in issues related to marriage, parenting, male / female differences, and homosexuality)
Fr. Marcel Guarnizo
On Saturday, February 25th, Father Marcel Guarnizo of St. John Neumann Parish, Gaithersburg, Maryland officiated at a funeral Mass for Mrs. Loetta Johnson. A few minutes before the Mass began Ms. Barbara Johnson came into the sacristy with another woman whom she announced as her “lover.” Her revelation was entirely unsolicited. As Father stated, ”If a Quaker, a Lutheran or a Buddhist desiring communion had introduced himself as such before Mass, a priest would be obligated to withhold communion. If someone had shown up in my sacristy drunk, or high on drugs, no communion would have been possible either. If a Catholic, divorced and remarried (without an annulment) were to make that known in my sacristy, they too according to Catholic doctrine would be impeded from receiving communion. This has nothing to do with canon 915. Ms. Johnson’s circumstances are precisely one of those relations which impede her access to communion according to Catholic teaching.”
Due to the above circumstances, Fr. Guarnizo had no choice but to quietly deny communion to Barbara Johnson. For this she publicly chastised him, deliberately misinterpreting the actions of the priest and claiming scandal. It was picked up by the press and published, giving only Ms. Johnson’s version of the event.
Within days, Cardinal Wuerl caved in to the homosexual lobby and decided to “throw” Fr. Guarnizo “under the bus.” On March 9th, Cardinal Wuerl withdrew Father’s faculties (Cardinal Wuerl is not his bishop so he could not suspend him) stating other reasons not related to the denial of communion to an openly practicing homosexual.
A statement read on Sunday, March 11th, during all Masses at St. John Neumann Parish alleged Father was being suspended for allegations of “intimidations” during conversations with the funeral director and a parish staff member present at the funeral. Denial of the Eucharist was not mentioned.
Both instances have everything to do with the Eucharistic incident. The meetings in question occurred due to Father’s effort to document a few facts about the nature of the incident.
Fr. Guarnizo not only deserves a Hero’s Award for upholding Church doctrine regarding the distribution of the Eucharist, but for defending his conduct in these instances. As he stated, “It seems to me, the lack of clarity on this most basic issue puts at risk other priests who wish to serve the Catholic Church in Washington D.C."
Cardinal Wuerl, who is known for making excuses for not upholding canon 915, deserves a Millstone Award for caving in to the homosexual movement and failing to defend his own priest.
Bishop Daniel R. Jenky, CSC
On April 14, Bishop Daniel R. Jenky, CSC, gave a homily before a crowd of over 500 men from the Diocese of Peoria, Illinois, that shook the far left all over the USA. Bishop Jenky gave the homily at a Mass culminating the annual Diocesan Men’s March, “A Call to Catholic Men of Faith.” Jenky issued a bold call for “heroic Catholicism.” He also sparked a firestorm of controversy—including a formal complaint filed against him with the IRS by Chicago’s Anti-Defamation League—by drawing explicit parallels between the path upon which Obama’s administration seems to have embarked and those followed by Bismarck, Clemenceau, Hitler, and Stalin:
Jenky said, “Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care…In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path…Now things have come to such a pass in America that this is a battle that we could lose, but before the awesome judgment seat of Almighty God this is not a war where any believing Catholic may remain neutral.”
Jenky issued a bold call for “heroic Catholicism” to protect our religious freedom from our current administration.
The leftist Notre Dame Board of Fellows called for Bishop Jenky to either renounce his “incendiary statement” or resign from the Board of Fellows. Maybe the supposedly intellectual Board of Fellows should read Pope John Paul II in Centesimus annus? “The root of modern totalitarianism is to be found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human person who, as the visible image of the invisible God, is therefore by his very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate—no individual, group, class, nation, or State… The culture and praxis of totalitarianism also involve a rejection of the Church. The State, or the party, which claims to be able to lead history towards perfect goodness, and which sets itself above all values, cannot tolerate the affirmation of an objective criterion of good and evil beyond the will of those in power, since such a criterion, in given circumstances, could be used to judge their actions. This explains why totalitarianism attempts to destroy the Church, or at least to reduce her to submission, making her an instrument of its own ideological apparatus.”
As Theresa Smart, a political theory student at Notre Dame suggested, Notre Dame as a Catholic university should follow Bishop Jenky’s example in standing up for religious freedom and against the insidious soft despotism of relativism that pervades mainstream culture. Perhaps if more members of the clergy and scholarly communities had issued “incendiary statements” like this one, some of the gravest atrocities of the past century might have been preempted by a bolder and more conscientious citizenry.
Thank you, Bishop Jenky, for being a Defender of the Faith.
Unfortunately, another Millstone Award for Notre Dame University.
Return to Top of Commentary Page
Close this window to return to current Commentary page