Oh, the gift of life-giving love

Matt and Mindy Dalton

Following God’s design for how he created us as male and female brings great peace, harmony and unity to marriage, family and our world. I can remember vividly feeling as though I was a bystander with each of the seven cesarean sections that Mindy endured. “Lord Jesus,” I would pray, “help me to be a supportive husband and please, Heavenly Father, give me your grace to be a worthy father.” Witnessing the gift that my wife made of herself in childbearing and beyond gives me the desire to lay down my life as Christ does for his bride, the Church. It is always amazing how God created women to be the “Garden Enclosed” — the paradise where new life begins. With each daughter and son, I can recall the lump in my throat, filled with deep emotion, some trepidation and lots of gratitude that God would entrust us with these precious children.

For certain, God is generous — now our oldest, who married her husband in late July, is carrying their first precious child due in late May, our first grandchild. What joy and anticipation we have, although the thought of being “Grandpa” makes me feel seasoned. When they went to their first doctor’s appointment to have an ultrasound and determine the due date of the baby, their OB/GYN introduced herself along with some small talk and then turned to Josh, her husband, and said, “We are now going to talk about some female issues that might make you uncomfortable.” Josh then said, “I learned in marriage prep how to chart Karlie’s fertility symptoms and temperature through Natural Family Planning and all of this fascinates me.” The physician was pleasantly shocked and put at ease by Josh’s passion and concern for his ‘bride’ and mother-to-be. Father Brendan Rolling, the Benedictine priest who witnessed their marriage, said, “Josh is a scholar of the Catholic faith disguised as a football player.”

After the good news was confirmed at their doctor’s office, they let others know, along with posting the news on social media. Not everyone had a positive response. “So soon?”; “Don’t they want to have time for themselves?” And some even had their suspicion: “Were they pregnant before they were married?” Comments rolled off peoples’ tongues. As parents and grandparents, we were taken off guard as to how to respond. Then it came to me: “There is a nursery rhyme that we learned as kids which has deep theological meaning.” One person responded, “There was an old woman who lived in a shoe, she had so many children she didn’t know what to do.” I responded, “God knows what to do.” However, the one that came to me was, “Karlie and Josh were sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G. First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes baby in a baby carriage.”

Pope St. John Paul II put it this way, in Familiaris Consortio (“On the Family”), Article 28. With the heading, “Cooperators in the love of God the Creator,” he wrote: “Thus the fundamental task of the family is to serve life, to actualize in history the original blessing of the creator – that of transmitting by procreation the divine image from person to person. … Sexuality is not just something biological but concerns the ‘innermost being of the human person’ (Familiaris Consortio, 11). This narrative of God’s love for each of us is far more important than any guarantee of wealth or fame — but possibility… in a word – hope. Why hope? JPII gives us the answer: “The fruitfulness of conjugal love is not restricted solely to procreation of children … It is enlarged and enriched by all those fruits of moral, spiritual and supernatural life which the father and mother are called to hand on to their children, and through the children to the church and to the world.”

There is no other glorious blessing for parents, now grandparents, to be caught up into the experience of our own children cooperating with the Lord and giver of life, the Holy Spirit. It makes real and visible the reality of the eternal exchange of the life-giving love of the blessed Trinity that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit long for each of us to participate in.

COMING UP: Don’t be fooled: Feminism isn’t really about choice

Sign up for a digital subscription to Denver Catholic!

OK, call me crazy. But I the only one who remembers, in my formative years, hearing repeatedly from the feminists that feminism was about freeing us women to make our own choices about our own lives? If we wanted to pursue high powered careers, we should be free to do that. And if we wanted to stay home and raise babies . . . well, that was a valid choice as well. One got the impression that they didn’t understand why any self-respecting woman would make such a choice. But they nevertheless gave some good lip service, sometimes through rather clenched jaws, to our right to choose it.

Well, apparently not so much anymore. Everything I have been reading lately indicates that the facade is gone. Motherhood is out. Careers are in.

That previous incarnation of feminism — the one where women get to make their own choices about their own lives — is now called “Choice Feminism.” And it is so 1995. If you don’t believe me, just google it. I did.

What I found was a whole lot of academic, Marxist-sounding ideology about class and the patriarchy and struggle and some “queer” stuff that I didn’t quite understand. Basically it all boiled down to this: we women may think we are making our own choices. But we aren’t, because our choices are all so influenced by the patriarchy and the oppressive conditions under which we are forced to exist.

So, we should instead choose what they tell us to choose.

At least that’s what it all sounded like to me.

I understand the criticism of “choice feminism” to a certain extent. Many writers spoke out against this idea that any choice a woman makes is somehow a feminist statement. The most-common example I saw was that of the “liberated” stripper who celebrates her stripper-ness as some kind of victory for feminism. Which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.

But, do you know what the second-most common example was? The choice of a mother to stay at home with her kids.

It seems to baffle them that any woman would make such a bizarre sacrifice. It must be because of the patriarchy. Or because child raising is still perceived by our sexist society as “women’s work.” Or because we are still tethered to a ”1950’s male breadwinner model.”

It doesn’t seem to occur to them that it could be because women, having nurtured these tiny little creatures within their own bodies, may actually want to spend their time nurturing and raising them.

The piece de resistance was a widely circulated article in the Australian magazine RendezView, which actually proposes that mothers of school-aged children be forced, under penalty of law, to be “gainfully employed” outside the home. Says Sarrah Le Marquand, somewhat awkwardly, “Only when the tiresome and completely unfounded claim that ‘feminism is about choice’ is dead and buried (it’s not about choice, it’s about equality) will we consign restrictive gender stereotypes to history.”

So, I’m thinking that by “choice” she means “freedom of self-determination”; by “equality”, she means “women being just like men.”; and by “restrictive gender stereotypes”, she means “biological and psychosexual differences that impact our lifestyle choices.”

But the women of the world clearly aren’t voluntarily marching into her brave new world of gender uniformity. And so it is time to employ the long arm of the law. Says she, “. . . it’s time for a serious rethink of this kid-glove approach to women of child-bearing and child-rearing age. Holding us less accountable when it comes to our employment responsibilities is not doing anyone any favours [sic].”

(I have to confess I’m somewhat curious about what will happen to unemployment numbers in Australia when every mother exercises her “employment responsibilities” and enters the workforce. But I digress.)

And so, the mask is off. Feminism was never about allowing women to choose what they want. It is about coercing women to choose what these feminists want them to choose.

It is not not surprising that, in a recent poll, 85% of women responded that they support equality for women, yet only 15% said that they identify as a “feminist.” The movement has moved away from the women it is supposed to represent.

As for me, I don’t want the State, or the Feminist Powers That Be, to issue a list of acceptable choices for women. Particularly when it comes to the often complicated question of whether a mother works or stays at home.

I still subscribe to the apparently antiquated notion that decisions like these are best made by the couple in question.

I know. Call me crazy . . .