My mom, unfortunately, left the week before—headed home 542 miles away to her own family, my dad and my eight younger siblings. My mom needed to be home. I desperately wanted her with me.

It was a lonely moment.

But in my loneliness, I prayed. I asked God to help me find a fellow mom to learn from and lean on.  I hoped for a friend, but a wise friend, one whose footsteps I might follow on this journey of faith called ‘motherhood.’  God provided, all in His perfect time. I met an older mom who gently shepherded me through many a low point, sharing encouragement, wisdom, and, most powerfully, her gift of faith. At two other critical junctures in my life, additional “mentor moms” stepped forward, blessing me with perspective, encouragement, and practical help.

I didn’t have a label for these important women—I just knew I was grateful for their friendship and prayerful encouragement. They (as well as my own mom) made a tremendous difference to my mothering and my own spiritual growth.

A Heartfelt Need

Recently, I asked some blogger friends to pose these questions to their Catholic-mommy readers: “Would you be interested in a mentoring relationship with an older mom, and, if so, what qualities would you look for?”

The floodgates opened.

Mother after young mother posted a reply. Honest, emotional, and hungry, they shared how lonely and difficult motherhood can be. Our fast-moving consumer culture under-appreciates the intangible value of shaping a child’s heart and soul—and these mothers feel keenly that lack of support. In addition, these were Catholic moms, committed not only to raising their children well in secular terms, but also to raising them right in the eyes of God.

They need mentor moms. One young mom, Jenny, put it simply: “I would just love to have someone in real life to whom I could go to with questions or just for encouragement during rough times.” Patrice, a Catholic writer and mother, values a mentor’s sense of perspective and hope: “They can show me that I will live through whatever life stage I’m currently going through with my children.” Emily, an artist and teacher, remembers how overwhelming life seemed as a first-time mom. “In the beginning I was completely sleep-deprived and I just needed to have someone visit me and talk, maybe bring a meal and care about what was going on.” Mary Beth hopes for “someone who is . . . a few steps ahead on the journey of motherhood, someone willing to share wisdom they’ve gained on this journey, [and] who is faith-filled, encouraging, and has a bit of time.” Kate Wicker, a popular blogger whose writing encourages moms daily, summed it up: “What so many of us long for is maternal empathy.”

These moms yearn for basic mothering support, but within the rich context of their lives as Catholic mothers. Yes, they need practical help, but, as Emily says, “combined with prayer and spiritual wisdom.” For a mom like Christine, a mentor mom would build on the foundation laid by her own mother. “My mom was my first and greatest mentor. She shared with me her love for God and our Catholic faith.”

Very few women, though, seem to have their own moms, sisters, or grandmothers nearby. Even those who do, Antonina points out, don’t necessarily find support for a faithful Catholic life. ”We are either too far away from family or have made lifestyle choices that differ dramatically from their experiences, i.e. faith, home schooling, parenting.” Women who were mothered poorly, were not raised Catholic, or whose extended families embrace cafeteria-style Catholicism feel the need for a Catholic mentor mom most acutely. Tosha’s experience is typical: “My generation needs mentor moms! Many of us grew up in broken homes. Our mothers did not pass down any of the ‘female arts’ and homemaking skills that they took for granted. We are left with the Church to guide us and reading about raising a godly family in books and on blogs.”

Divorced Catholic moms face similar struggles—plus more. Lisa Duffy, who ministers to divorced Catholics through her excellent website (www.divorcedcatholic .com), finds that divorced Catholic moms want “what married mothers want . . . to be accepted, not judged, and loved. To not be excluded simply because they are divorced, to not be judged (because oftentimes they have fought valiantly to save their marriage and are divorced against their will), and for other women to be genuinely friendly to them, to listen patiently to them without having answers. Just to be interested and compassionate.”

Today’s young women struggle to raise not only healthy families, but also holy families anchored in Catholicism. They want to know how to:

● love their husbands and children more deeply and sacrificially

● pray and pass on the faith to their children

● raise happy, balanced children

● live the Church’s teachings on marriage and sexuality

● accept their trials, struggles, and mistakes without discouragement or resentment

● become holy, peace-filled moms

They are looking for something akin to spiritual mothering.

A Scriptural Solution: Titus 2:3–5

Elizabeth Foss, a mother of nine and an award-winning blogger, believes that mentoring “re-creates” the extended family culture, allowing experienced moms to pass on the vision, skills, and faith at the heart of Catholic motherhood. It is spiritual motherhood, rooted in Scripture: “Older women . . . are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind, and submissive to their husbands, that the word of God may not be discredited” (Tit. 2:3–5).

In addition, Elizabeth points out, mentoring younger moms is a practical way to build the culture of life, “helping moms create strong families that will nurture” life. Emily’s situation provides a case in point: “I want to have a second child. Yet without support, I am scared.” Lack of support for motherhood creates a ripple effect across the lives of women and their families.

So, if younger women are eager to learn, are “older women” available to guide them? I turned to experienced moms and asked. Darby, an active parish volunteer, replied: “I would love to be a mentor. I’m a mother of 4 and a soon-to-be first-time grandmother! My youngest is going off to college in the fall. . . . The empty nest is becoming a reality too soon!” Colleen, whose youngest is in college, recalls John Paul II’s teaching that “every woman is a mother whether she is married or single, with children or without.” Genevieve Kineke, author of The Authentic Catholic Woman, agrees. “We’re called to this. . . . Every woman should be assessing her experiences for the wisdom to be gleaned” and shared, when appropriate.

Some mature moms very naturally share their time and wisdom. For others, it’s not so easy. “That is actually one of the biggest challenges,” shares one mom, “to ask seasoned moms, who have their own busy lives, to sacrifice quality time for younger moms.”

Kate Wicker, who writes beautifully about the generous mentors in her own life, sees humility rather than lack of generosity as the limiting factor. “So many of us long to have a sister in Christ to mentor us; yet we see ourselves as unworthy of ministering to other moms.” Jenn, whose five children range from 2 to 14, interpreted her own loneliness as God’s nudge to serve moms foundering in isolation. “Instead of answering my pleas directly, God has [given me] a passion for assisting other women so they don’t have to ‘go it alone.’”

Genevieve, a seasoned mentor, reassures us that although “women worry about one more demand on their time . . . I find the blessings, rewards, and joys far outweigh the demands and the energy [spent].”

What Makes Mentoring Successful?

Both experienced moms and newer moms identify similar qualities for a successful mentoring-mom relationship.

Be an Example. Nearly all the younger women were drawn first by the veteran mom’s example. A woman mature in the love of Christ, kind and friendly to others, teaches others constantly—and inspires imitation.

Be Real. Megan, a Texas mother of five, cautions, “Young moms need mentors . . . but they need real ones. [Otherwise] the expectations are too high and these poor young moms are left wondering what is wrong with them.” Elizabeth Foss highlights the need to “share your failures, your foibles, for someone else’s benefit. It’s almost impossible to mentor if you’ve set yourself up on a pedestal as someone who never made a mistake.”

Be Humble. Genevieve Kineke notes, “Others will be put off if we think that we are better, smarter, holier. Besides, it’s not true!” Say “I don’t know” if you don’t. Be willing to learn.

Be Empathetic. Seek to understand—to meet her where she is—and help her grow from there. Listen well. And never dismiss the younger mom’s struggles as insignificant.

Be Patient. It takes time for a relationship to grow and for insights to bear fruit. Helpful friendships may move forward before anyone labels it a “mentoring” relationship.

Be Confident. Elizabeth believes that “women are afraid to mentor because they think, ‘I don’t have it all together.’ Ask yourself instead, ‘What’s worked?’ and reflect on that.”

Instill Confidence. A mentor’s goal is not to micromanage or control, but to encourage and guide. Affirm good intuitions and decisions; help her learn from experience.

Be Charitable. No need to air the dirty laundry (about husband, children, mother-in-law, and other women) under the guise of mentoring.

Be Prudent. Tread delicately when it comes to marriage issues, moral questions, and childhood wounds. Know your limitations— and defer to a priest or professional counselor when needed.

Be Open. Moral issues aside, there may be many solutions to a particular issue. Each family is different. Jenny urges mentors “to be open to new or different ideas. . . and to encourage what works. . . . [Do] not judge, but offer constructive, helpful criticism.”

Be Available. Mentoring does not require a 24/7 commitment, but, like other important relationships, it thrives on availability. It takes “consistent time, energy, and vulnerability,” observes one mom. Agree on frequency and mode of communication (phone, email, in-person).

Be Trustworthy. Like any good friendship, a mentoring relationship requires trust. Keep confidences confidential.

Create the Opportunity

What’s the best way for mentoring relationships to develop? DeAnn, a home schooling mom, suggests “a balance between forming natural relationships with people that you are drawn to and doing so through an organized means provided by a church or home schooling group.” Moms on both sides of the relationship seem to find relationships that develop organically, arising naturally from situations that bring moms of a variety of ages together, most appealing. This requires, however, that moms of all ages “tune in” to both needs and opportunities. Dawn, another homeschooler, observes that “more experienced moms in our group who could be a great source of wisdom . . . tend to ‘hang out’ with each other and not with the younger moms. . . . I think it’s just that they have more in common with each other. They may not be aware that some of us would really like to form mentoring friendships!”

Conversely, younger moms must be careful not to prejudge, ruling out a good mentor in favor of an illusory “perfect” one. “My ideal mentor,” says Melanie, “would be a woman whose personality is similar to mine. . . . On the other hand . . . sometimes a woman who is very different in personality and in life situation may still have much wisdom to dispense. Perhaps the people we wouldn’t choose for ourselves are the very women God would put into our lives to challenge us, to help us grow and change beyond what we can imagine for ourselves.”

So what situations might bring women of all ages together? Anything that meets the practical needs of moms and family life. Elizabeth Foss suggests anyone with a heart for mentoring consider making herself available to new moms. “Bring meals to a woman after a baby is born,” suggests Elizabeth, “and strike up a conversation, telling them ‘I remember when . . .’ Offer perspective.”

Any parish ministry offers possibilities. One pastor let a parishioner teach free aerobics classes at the parish so moms could attend with their kids. Older women came as well, and mentoring relationships were born. Similarly, in another parish, a grandmother who teaches Atrium to four-year-olds lingers to chat with moms as they pick up their kids. They, in turn, seek her wisdom on all sorts of topics.

Sacramental preparation creates prime opportunities for mature moms to connect with younger moms on a sustained basis. In some dioceses, baptism classes for new parents are taught by couples who remain in touch even after the baptism. Similarly, Amy from Minnesota finds that, although she is only 31, “people that have come to me as a ‘mentor’ noticed me mostly because I have volunteered as the confirmation teacher at our parish for 10 years and take those children as my own.”

Sometimes mentoring relationships begin right next door. Maryan remembers living with her husband in military housing, right next door to “a family of 6 kids. . . . Being away from my mom (who would be a natural mentor), I was so consoled to have Joan right next door to answer all diaper, first aid, discipline, and home schooling questions. . . . Her mentorship to me was invaluable.”

As Internet-connected lifestyles become the norm, moms are plugging in to mentoring opportunities online, discovering relationships through influential mom-bloggers or social media, like Facebook and Twitter. According to the latest stats, web-savvy moms typically log on at least three—and sometimes up to a dozen—times a day. No wonder that many Catholic women increasingly turn to these virtual relationships for advice, encouragement, and support. One woman shared, “The Lord has slowly worked to mold and soften my heart for motherhood, and I truly believe that [a momblogger] played a large role in that, even though we have never met. . . . In the conversation about mentor-moms, Internet friendships must be included.”

Similarly, Kate Wicker writes, “I continue to be grateful for the online community and how it has allowed me to connect so many godly women. . . . Finding the right fit for a mentor . . . is in some ways easier online. We simply have access to more moms with just a click of a mouse.”

“Perhaps the reality is that there are different types of mentoring relationships that suit different needs, and we might have several different women who mentor us in different ways at different times in our lives. For me,” writes Melanie, “there are some distinct advantages to an online versus a ‘real life’ mentoring relationship. I am an intensely private person. . . . I often find it much easier to write about my interior struggles than I would to voice the same sorts of concerns to a friend over coffee. It would take years and years to build up that kind of trust and friendship and, frankly, I need help now.”

Finally, ministries that focus on pregnant teens or underprivileged women clamor for women to volunteer as mentor moms. Colleen, who works with Birthright, encourages moms to be “solid role models for these women to move out of a lifestyle pattern their moms and grandmoms have lived and are handing on.”

Are Catholic mentor moms needed? Absolutely. Hungry hearts are waiting. Genevieve Kineke offers two final thoughts to women who wonder whether to serve as a mentor mom. First, “It’s because we’re not perfect that we can do this,” and second, “Be not afraid to open your heart to one more soul.”

We will never regret giving of ourselves to others. And to my own mom, and the moms who have given to me so generously over the years . . . I cannot thank you enough! Happy Mother’s Day!

A version of this article was first published in the May/Jun 2010 Issue of Lay Witness Magazine, under the title “Catholic Mentor Moms—How to Find One, How to Be One.”

A modern evangelist, Annie basks in Christ’s love and shares it with a simple, winsome touch. A heart overflowing with love is a powerful testimony, I’ve learned.  “We love because He first loved us.” (1 John 4:19). Annie’s love spills over, mysteriously opening hearts long shut to God’s mercy and love.

You’ve got to meet her—so I’ll tell you more about her in a second.

First, a confession. Annie’s love humbles me. It’s so natural, immediate, and unselfish that it stops me dead in my tracks. She’s the perfect foil for my easy self-absorption and carefully calibrated giving, because Annie is never calculating. She reaches out, gives, and loves, without measure.

Meet Annie: she’s almost two, with feathery blond hair, the most beautiful blue eyes, and a smile that lights the sky. She knows sign language and loves music. The cherished youngest of ten children, Annie gives hugs all day long. She also has Down Syndrome.

Ok, she’s cute. But an evangelist?

Yes. From the start, her very existence witnessed to the goodness of all life. When a routine sonogram showed “problems” in utero, the obstetricians sent Annie’s mom for a more precise sonogram in another building. Radiology was on the ground floor. When a sonogram confirms a Down Syndrome diagnosis, a mother need only ride the elevator a few floors up for an abortion.

So convenient. That’s the way it is now. Women don’t want babies like Annie, so they abort them.

Except that Annie’s mom would never consider it. This was her daughter, after all, no matter what.

A few weeks ago, the New York Times published a reaction to new North Dakota legislation, which outlaws abortions sought because of fetal abnormalities (including Down Syndrome). The writer, Alison Piepmeier, a feminist, gender studies professor at the College of Charleston and the mother of a Down Syndrome child, faults the legislation. In her view, women should be allowed to have abortions “for whatever reason they choose.”

Piepmeier’s research on “reproductive decision-making” found that a woman carrying a Down Syndrome baby typically viewed “the fetus” as a child already, sometimes with a name. Piepmeier defends the decisions of women who aborted their Down Syndrome children, noting that those decisions were “incredibly painful.” (Agonizing over a decision seems to confer moral legitimacy, as least in the New York Times.)

The women in Piepmeier’s study denied that they chose abortion because “they wanted a ‘perfect child.’” Their decisions were justified, in Piepmeier’s view, “because they recognized that the world is a difficult place for people with intellectual disabilities.” One mother called her decision “the protective choice” for her baby.

The reigning philosophy seems to be better dead than disabled.

In an unpublished letter to the Times, Annie’s mom, also a professor, rejected Piepmeier’s justifications. “My own experience is that Alison Piepmeier’s pro-choice position is very much an outlier – most parents of Down Syndrome children whom I have met view the eugenic abortion of Down Syndrome children as tragic and shameful.”

Annie’s mom also observed that many women who choose abortion because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis do so out of fear and misinformation. Medical doctors don’t do much to allay those fears—partly because they see mostly gloom and doom statistics. According to the National Down Syndrome Congress, “many obstetricians are inadequately prepared to explain a diagnosis of trisomy 21, often using overtly negative language or out-of-date information.” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), for example, targets Down Syndrome (trisomy 21) for routine screening (with termination likely), devaluing the lives of Down Syndrome people and discouraging parents from welcoming them into the family.

What’s to be done?

One of the first press reports after Pope Francis’s election recalled that, as Argentina’s archbishop, he admonished his fellow bishops for their timid, reluctant witness to the Gospel. He said, “Jesus teaches us another way: Go out. Go out and share your testimony, go out and interact with your brothers, go out and share, go out and ask. Become the word in body as well as spirit.”

That’s Annie–the word in body as well as in spirit.

Annie evangelizes wherever she goes, always on-message. Six months ago, she captivated a room full of med students who had gathered to hear how Annie’s mom “coped” with the “burdens” of her Down Syndrome child. After all, Annie’s medical trail was significant, her individuality buried under a litany of diagnoses. To their surprise, these students met a delightful little girl with a “match me” smile.  They learned of her fiercely protective father and retinue of devoted siblings, all of whom delight in teaching, cuddling, feeding, diapering, and—best of all—playing with her. They listened to Annie’s feisty mom and heard, in her infectious laugh and passionate voice, great hope for her daughter’s future. Surely some of these doctors embraced the “good news” about children like Annie.

That’s one of the things Annie does best—spread the good news. Last weekend, she charmed two hundred people at an elegant dinner. Though a guest, she provided delightful, spontaneous entertainment, dancing with her cousins and brothers. Day by day, she stirs the hearts of ordinary people in chance encounters—in the produce aisle at the grocery store, at the snack bar during a local basketball game, and in smiles exchanged during Mass.

She’s cute, not scary. She’s lovable and loving. And she has that mysterious power to stir love in the souls of others, sometimes even in spite of themselves.

She’s “Annie,” not a dreaded Down Syndrome kid. Her life has value, and she’ll wrap you in love if you give her a chance.

That’s our Annie…the smiling evangelist.

He wore a cape, fought imaginary bad guys, and insisted on being called Superman.  His mom and dad played along—until the day “Superman” decided he could fly and jumped off the garage roof. Fortunately, he only broke his arm, not his neck, and his parents went back to calling him Tommy.

Tommy was limited, you might say, by a very concrete, physical reality: he was a boy, not Superman. No matter how hard he imagined, how strongly he believed, and how soaring his lift-off, he would plummet straight down to the ground. He could not fly.

Initially, his parents indulged his childish, wishful thinking. But Tommy’s painful collision with reality jarred them back into their authoritative role as parents. Tommy needed their guidance.  He needed them to explain the truth inscribed in his body: the ‘real Tommy’ wasn’t Superman—he was a boy. And God made him for something far better than being “Superman.” His happiness, not to mention his safety, depended on accepting and embracing that reality.

Fast forward to Massachusetts, 2013.

Just as Tommy needed his parents to ground him in reality, the children of Massachusetts need the adults in their lives to do the same.

But the Massachusetts Board of Education has done the opposite. It recently established a harmful protocol for Massachusetts’ public schools, under the benign title, “Creating a Safe and Supportive School Environment.” The document offers “guidance” for elementary and secondary schools as they implement new state laws prohibiting gender identity discrimination.

Specifically, schools must remove all “obstacles” which prevent ‘transgender or gender non-conforming students’ from enjoying “equal educational opportunities.” (Massachusetts law defines a ‘transgender’ student as one “whose gender identity or gender expression is different from that traditionally associated with the assigned sex at birth.”)

Much of the outcry centers on three points:

• Transgender children must be allowed to use restrooms and locker rooms of the opposite sex, if they so choose.
• Transgender children may use any name or pronoun, regardless of its biological mismatch (e.g., a boy who identifies as a transgendered girl may insist on being called “she”).
• Schools must “eliminate” gendered dress codes and classroom management strategies that divide children by gender.

The Board’s policy manufactures ‘solutions’ to an imaginary problem. It cites the “reality” that children with gender identity issues are enrolled in Massachusetts’ schools, but offers no evidence that any of them actually have been excluded from “educational opportunities,” such as chemistry, math, or English classes, because of their gender identity.

But facts don’t matter to the Massachusetts propagandists. Their real goal has little to do with educational access and everything to do with indoctrinating teachers and children in radical gender theory.

The Massachusetts policy systematically foists a perverse orthodoxy on every public school teacher and child. It promotes the core belief—the big lie—that there is no such thing as human nature or natural distinctions of male and female. Instead, the Board of Education embraces the queer gospel that each person is a god unto him or herself, creating a gender identity based on feelings, or one’s “internalized sense” of self, regardless of biology.

“Male and female He created them?”  Not in Massachusetts.

The Board of Education insists that schools proactively “create a culture” that would make gender-nonconforming and transgender kids “feel safe, supported, and fully included.” But the new transgender-safe culture is insidious. It must be created even if the school currently has no transgender or gender-nonconforming children. Why? Liberals presume that unknown numbers of transgender children are suffering alone and in secret, and that they will only ‘come out’ if the coast is clear.

So everyone must play the transgender game. The indoctrination (“education and training”) will be part of every school’s “anti-bullying curriculum, student leadership trainings, and staff professional development.”

Worse, the Massachusetts Board of Education clearly expects all students and teachers to go along with the big lie:

• Students who object to the intrusion on their privacy (from an opposite sex, ‘transgender’ child in restrooms or changing facilities) will be told, effectively, ‘Too bad. Get over it.’
• Students who refuse to go along with the fiction and refer to the transgender child by his or her gender “assigned at birth” instead of the preferred pronoun, will subject to “discipline.” Teachers must “model” the required speech and attitude.
• Schools will train students and teachers in Orwellian doublespeak: gender is “assigned” at birth (as if ‘male’ and ‘female’ were arbitrary classifications, as random as being assigned to the blue team or red team in gym class) and transgender students may elect “gender-confirming surgeries” (as if double mastectomies, genital removal, and other gender-mutilating surgeries ‘confirmed’ anything).
• Children will bear the new burden of discovering their gender identity, but will be taught that their bodies offer nary a clue. They will be taught that the transgender identity, perceived as young as “age four,” is “innate” and “largely inflexible.” (The Board ignores decades of research to the contrary. Dr. Kenneth Zucker, head of the Gender Identity Service at Toronto’s Center for Addiction and Mental Health contends that, “The majority of children followed longitudinally appear to lose the diagnosis of GID [gender identity disorder] [by] late adolescence or young adulthood, and appear to have …a gender identity that matches their natal sex.”)

In Massachusetts, a transgender-supportive culture means that school officials will insist that normal children squelch instinctive reactions that something is wrong when a dress-wearing boy calls himself a girl. Children will be taught that religious truths about sexuality are bigoted relics of a less-enlightened time. They will learn that their bodily reality is nothing more than an arbitrary “assignment” at birth—there is no “human nature,” only personal choices and self-definition along a shifting spectrum of human sexuality. Finally, they will be taught not to judge: Who is to say that one’s chosen gender identity is any less normal, natural, or good than another?

Remember my friend Tommy? He needed the truth. He needed to embrace his bodily reality instead of wishing for something different.

The children of Massachusetts need the same. The ‘Big Lie’ can never substitute for the truth.

What they “do” behind the scenes is another story.

GSUSA’s hefty brand power—and funding—continue to fuel the pro-abortion advocacy of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (“WAGGGS”). And the Girl Scouts have refused once again to take responsibility for that.

I recently exchanged emails with two Girl Scouts USA spokespersons, Joshua Ackley and Michelle Tompkins, asking them to clarify the Girl Scouts’ “no position” stance in light of WAGGGS’ leadership on the pro-abortion Bali Global Youth Forum Declaration (December, 2012). Their responses highlight GSUSA’s corporate unwillingness to take any actions to distance themselves from WAGGGS’ global advocacy for youth “sexual rights” and abortion—even though WAGGGS claims to speak for all its members, including GSUSA.

First, realize how radical the Bali Youth Declaration really is: it asserts “sexual rights” for youth (including 10 year-olds) on nearly every page and demands, over a dozen times, youth access to “abortion” or “reproductive rights” and services. It marginalizes families—decrying parental consent and “age of consent” restrictions in sexual and reproductive matters—and casts religious objections to LBGT lifestyles as “religious intolerance.” Not surprisingly, the pro-abortion chorus embraces the Declaration.

There’s more to know about the Bali Declaration, but what’s most relevant here are the architects behind its design.

The Declaration reflects the handiwork of the Global Youth Forum’s International Steering Committee, a group stacked with abortion providers and abortion-advocacy groups, such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and the Youth Coalition.

Who else’s fingerprints are all over the Declaration?  WAGGGS.

WAGGGS was heavily invested in formulating the Declaration. Its leaders, including WAGGGS’ Senior Advocacy Coordinator, not only served on the Forum’s Steering Committee, but also worked for six months on the Taskforces that shaped the conference agenda, the resulting Declaration, and follow-up activities.  At the Bali summit, WAGGGS representatives facilitated breakout sessions and presented youth “recommendations” to the plenary sessions. Now WAGGGS promotes the Declaration and advocates for its implementation.

So that leaves the Girl Scouts with a problem.

In light of their officially neutral position on abortion, it should have been a no-brainer for the Girl Scouts to repudiate the radical, pro-abortion Bali Declaration. Or at least to clarify that WAGGGS’ does not speak for GSUSA when it advocates on sexual and reproductive matters, including the Bali Declaration.

GSUSA refused to do either.

GSUSA informed me that, “GSUSA does not have an official position on the Bali Global Youth Forum Declaration,” and demurred further comment because “the lengthy declaration deals with very complex issues… [and] deserves a thorough review.”

There’s nothing “complex” about the Declaration’s aggressive push for abortion and youth sexual rights.

GSUSA reiterated that it “does not take a position on abortion” and asserted generally that, “all [WAGGGS] members reserve the right to have their own positions on certain topics.” But when I requested documentation that WAGGGS members “reserve the right” to differ on advocacy positions, GSUSA produced an off-point WAGGGS memorandum discussing programming decisions, not advocacy.

The WAGGGS memo states, “Member organizations engage with WAGGGS’ programmes in a number of ways, from helping develop and piloting them, to integrating them into their national programmes, to not using them at all.  As a membership organization, it is entirely at the members’ discretion what programmes they use and how they are implemented.” This “discretion” clearly applies to program implementation not WAGGGS advocacy. WAGGGS’ advocacy positions are adopted and implemented on behalf of the entire organization. (See below.)

(Incidentally, the WAGGGS document supplied by GSUSA also falsely claims that, “There are many issues WAGGGS does not have a position on, including abortion; nor does WAGGGS have a partnership with Planned Parenthood International.” For GSUSA to put forth this document while discussing WAGGGS’ and IPPF collaboration in Bali and WAGGGS’ open support for abortion and youth sexual rights is laughable.)

A Damning Silence on Abortion

My email to GSUSA underscored WAGGGS’ strong support for the Bali Declaration—including its abortion advocacy—and asked, “If the Girl Scouts USA does not support the Youth Declaration, or portions of it (please specify), will the GSUSA publicly repudiate WAGGGS’ claim that it speaks for 10 million members, including Girl Scouts USA, in its advocacy for the Youth Declaration?”

GSUSA spokesperson Joshua Ackley replied, “Regarding how we use our voice, GSUSA will use its voice in a fashion that we believe constructively contributes to the conversation. We have in the past and we will continue to share our positions with our sister organizations in WAGGGS.”

In other words, “No.”  The Girl Scouts will not publicly disavow WAGGGS’ pro-abortion actions. Instead, it hums along with the pro-abortion chorus.

It’s not hard to see why.

The Girl Scouts USA and WAGGGS have a long history of interlocking financial ties, brand alignment, and collaborative activities. (And GSUSA’s leadership team syncs well, ideologically, with WAGGGS’ advocacy positions.) GSUSA wields outsize influence in WAGGGS because of its status as founding member, its membership (GSUSA’s 2.3 million girls members constitute nearly one-fourth of WAGGGS’ “10 million” members), and GSUSA’s contributions of money, resources, and talent.

The Deputy Chairman of WAGGGS, for example, is USA representative Sapreet Saluja, who rose to leadership through U.S. Girl Scout Councils. The Girl Scouts’ New York headquarters plays host when WAGGGS delegates advocate at the U.N. for abortion and sexual rights. And GSUSA money flows generously to WAGGGS: GSUSA pays over a million dollars annually to WAGGGS for its “membership quota” and leans on young girls, from Daisies to Ambassadors, to donate to WAGGGS through “World Thinking Day” fundraisers and Juliette Low Fund contributions, generating hundreds of thousands of dollars for WAGGGS’ coffers. Girl Scouts USA also supports WAGGGS through a private foundation GSUSA created expressly for WAGGGS, funding world centers that offer WAGGGS seminars and teach girls to ‘take action’ for adolescent sexual and reproductive rights.

Actions Speak Louder

No Girl Scout in America could miss the closeness of the relationship between GSUSA and WAGGGS. That close relationship, coupled with WAGGGS’ ardent advocacy for sexual and reproductive rights and the Girl Scouts’ refusal to disown WAGGGS’ handiwork (the Bali Declaration) raises some questions: does GSUSA do anything to prevent its brand power, funds, and resources from supporting WAGGGS’ global advocacy for sexual rights and abortion? Corporate responsibility demands as much. After all, GSUSA stakes its relationship with families and churches on the credibility of its promise to ‘take no position’ on sexuality and abortion.

The bottom line: Beyond its thin disclaimer (GSUSA “does not take a position”), GSUSA appears to do nothing to ensure that the funding, brand reputation, and practical support it provides to WAGGGS are not used to support WAGGGS’ pro-abortion and sexual rights advocacy.

GSUSA: The Silent Gorilla

WAGGGS routinely claims that its advocacy represents the voice of all its members—not a subset. For example, in July 2012, World Board Chair Nadine El Achy highlighted the advocacy of “WAGGGS delegates at [the U.N Conference] Rio+20” who “represented each one of our WAGGGS members: YOU - in this process.” (The WAGGGS delegates at Rio lobbied for “sexual and reproductive health rights.”)

According to its World Conference reports and World Board statements, WAGGGS embraced “a new image and new positioning” in 2008, embarking on a global advocacy “agenda.” WAGGGS’ advocacy positions are framed by its World Board, confirmed during worldwide Conferences (with GSUSA present and participating), and referenced in annual statements. They are promoted on behalf of the entire membership, not Balkanized subsets.

The Girl Scouts know this.

In its communications with me, GSUSA could not offer any instance when WAGGGS qualified its sexual and reproductive rights advocacy by stating that it only represents 7.7 million members (10 million general membership minus 2.3 million GSUSA girls) on issues related to sexuality and reproduction.

It has never happened. And it won’t, because GSUSA is the silent gorilla in the room when WAGGGS speaks at the UN or at global events. It’s a gorilla with financial heft (GSUSA’s budget is twenty times the size of WAGGGS’  budget) and chummy connections to the Obama administration, whose global agenda supports abortion and family planning worldwide.

If GSUSA really objected to being included under the WAGGGS’ advocacy umbrella, which promotes sexual and reproductive rights on behalf all  “10 million” members, GSUSA lawyers would lock down WAGGGS’ representations in a heartbeat, to protect the Girl Scouts’ costly re-branding efforts.

So I asked spokeswoman Michelle Tompkins if GSUSA had ever asked WAGGGS to ‘cease and desist’—to stop representing itself as the voice of its entire membership, including GSUSA, when WAGGGS advocates for sexual and reproductive rights. I also inquired whether GSUSA sought assurances from WAGGGS that “no funds which GSUSA provides to WAGGGS (whether as its membership quotas, World Thinking Day contributions, proceeds from merchandise sales, training and travel fees) shall be used to support WAGGGS advocacy on sexual and reproductive rights.” Finally, I asked whether GSUSA had taken its own steps “to ensure that GSUSA funds do not end up supporting WAGGGS’ advocacy” for abortion.

GSUSA bobbed and weaved. Spokeswoman Michelle Tompkins first replied, “This is going to take quite a while to review because it gets into the bylaws of WAGGGS and many other areas.” (Note: I checked. WAGGGS by-laws don’t apply.) I clarified that my question was factual: whether GSUSA has in fact made any requests or instituted any structural measures to ensure that GSUSA does not fund WAGGGS’ abortion advocacy.

GSUSA’s response: those questions are “under review.” And GSUSA is in no hurry, because, “we have quite few things on our plate right now and resources are limited.”

The reality is this: GSUSA has not once objected to WAGGGS’ global advocacy on sexual and reproductive issues, nor to WAGGGS’ claims to represent its entire membership, including GSUSA, on those issues. They refuse to disown even WAGGGS’ most radical pro-abortion efforts (e.g., the Bali Youth Declaration). And they continue to fund and support WAGGGS’ global megaphone, as it amplifies “progressive” messages promoting adolescent abortion and youth sexual rights.

They will do nothing to impede or even distance themselves from WAGGGS’ pro-abortion, pro-contraception, “sexual rights” advocacy.

Those GSUSA assurances that it “does not take a position” on abortion and birth control? Lip service.

I’m really not surprised that GSUSA won’t make a serious effort to ensure that its assets, reputation, and financial contributions are not used to support WAGGGS’ global advocacy on sex and reproduction.

But I am astounded that pro-life families—and sponsoring churches—are willing to go along with that.

Last week the sports world was stunned at the arrest of “the Blade Runner,” South African Olympian Oscar Pistorius, for the murder of his beautiful girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp.  Pistorius, whose legs had been amputated below the knee in childhood, gained fame competing in track during the London Olympics against able-bodied athletes.

While the full facts have yet to unfold, this much is certain:  Reeva is dead and Oscar did it. And her death is a tragic lesson in the perils of intimacy too-soon.

Hours before her death, Reeva tweeted coyly, “What do you have up your sleeve for your love tomorrow? #get excited #ValentinesDay.” She expected a sexy sleepover with Oscar, followed by a “day full of love,” not a violent death.

In the wee hours of their Valentine’s morning, Oscar shot Reeva four times. Her skull was fractured and police found a bloody cricket bat at the scene. Although Oscar claims he shot Reeva because he mistook her for a robber, police have charged him with premeditated murder. News reports suggest that Reeva’s friendship with another man might have triggered murderous jealousy in Oscar.

The murder is shocking enough. Reeva was stunningly beautiful and, by all accounts, kind and intelligent. A 30-year old law grad, she gained celebrity as a lingerie model and reality TV contestant. Her life was precious to family and friends.

But the context of the murder is disturbing too. Oscar and Reeva had begun dating in November—three short months before her death. Sparks of intense attraction, fueled by the aura of celebrity, ignited a ‘relationship’ in a flash. They quickly became physically intimate.

Like many, if not most, young women her age, Reeva put herself in a vulnerable situation, willingly: she became sexually intimate with a man she hardly knew.

How, after all, could she really know Oscar’s history, much less his character, in the space of a few months? Sure, she could learn the basics in ten minutes on the Internet. She knew he was a sports hero, a national favorite who gave back to his fans and his country. On Twitter, he encouraged disabled kids and veterans and tweeted inspirational Scripture verses. He professed his faith, saying, “Christ makes all the difference. He aids me in all my struggles…” And, ironically, Oscar declared his solidarity with abused women, retweeting, “Girls and women need to be valued, respected, and feel safe, not only at home but also in public spaces.”

Interesting stuff, perhaps.  But public information is no substitute for the test of time when it comes to understanding another’s character, personality, or morals. With more time, Reeva might have learned what Oscar’s friends already knew: that he had dated numerous women, not necessarily one at a time, and had displayed raging anger and a pattern of domestic violence in other relationships.

But instead Reeva lived by the gospel of female empowerment, standing on a platform of sexual freedom. For sophisticated young feminists, women’s empowerment includes the right to pursue casual sex—the power, as Hanna Rosin wrote in The Atlantic, to enjoy “sexual adventure without commitment.”

Whether it prompts a one-night hook-up or a scorching love affair, the feminist lie that left Reeva so vulnerable is this (in Rosin’s words): ”Women benefit greatly from living in a world where they can have sexual adventure without commitment or all that much shame, and where they can enter into temporary relationships that don’t get in the way of future success.

Feminists perpetuate the myth that casual sexual relationships signify female agency and independence. Ambitious women manage their “sexual careers,” eschewing time-consuming relationships in favor of commitment-less sex and “temporary intimacy” (an oxymoron, surely). Later, when it’s convenient, these women might make room in their lives for a committed, long-lasting relationship, though not necessarily marriage.

Oscar clearly supported the feminist script. His “complex love life” was a revolving door through which women came and went—a succession of ‘empowered’ girlfriends ‘benefitting’ from temporary sexual adventures and truncated relationships.

It’s the great feminist lie. And it makes women more vulnerable than ever.

Sex without commitment hurts women. Worldwide, “intimate partner violence” occurs more often in women who cohabit than among married women. A 2012 Child Trends analysis of relationship violence found that 52% of young adult cohabiting couples experienced some form of relationship violence, ranging from threats or shoves to injury-causing outbursts. And in U.S. high schools and colleges, condom giveaways and Plan B vending machines co-exist with programs, rallies, and bumper stickers decrying “dating abuse.”

Perhaps Reeva didn’t know that sexual activity itself lowers a woman’s instinctive, protective barriers. Oxytocin released during intercourse increases a woman’s trust in and sense of bonding with her partner—good for married couples but risky for women in casual relationships. Reeva wasn’t stupid—she’d been in an abusive relationship before. But she was blinded by her own empowerment, blinded by the false intimacy that sex-too-soon begets.

So Reeva was vulnerable: barely clothed, sexually willing, but locked in the fortress-like estate of a man who kept his character hidden and guns exposed.

I sometimes ask young women whether, after a first date, they would turn over their debit card and pin number to the man and invite him to help himself. They’re appalled. “No way.  I don’t know what he’s going to do.  He might steal all my money or spend it on something stupid.”  I follow up, “Even if you’re very sexually attracted to him? Would you give him the debit card and pin number after three dates?  A month?” Not a one would grant financial access or presume a man trustworthy so quickly.  But young women willingly grant quick access to their bodies, trusting their emotions, safety, and reproductive future to a sexual partner they barely know. Aren’t women’s lives, integrity, and wellbeing worth more than their bank accounts?

Reeva struggled with those very contradictions. According to friends, Reeva was “very passionate” about “women and empowerment” and was set to give a testimony of sorts on Valentine’s Day. She had suffered from a previous sexual relationship gone bad, and blamed that abusive relationship for her “loss of self-worth.” She wanted to encourage students to be empowered, to  “make your voice heard” and to hold onto the truth she belatedly discovered, of her “value in this world.”

It’s a crying shame that Reeva did not get the chance to deliver her message. But it’s even more tragic that she did not see her value apart from the feminist myth of sexual freedom. Perhaps young women will see in her life—and death—the lesson that Reeva herself missed.

In a surprise statement, Pope Benedict announced that, “After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry.”

I’m struck by three points:

First, Benedict’s humility. Benedict’s decision is grounded first and foremost in his fidelity to God. His conscience called him to step down…and he responded with a humble “yes.” Known as a man of formidable intellect and deep prayer, he is also no stranger to suffering. There’s no doubt that he would willingly bear the duties of leadership, in spite of exhaustion and struggle, if he could do justice to those responsibilities.

Throughout history, countless leaders in both business and government have held onto high positions even as their physical capacities have waned. They have simply surrounded themselves with more advisors and surrogates, delegating functions of greater and greater significance.

But Papal leadership—and its demands—cannot be grasped by a glance at the ceremonial duties, administrative meetings, and private consultations that fill Benedict’s schedule. Nor by the hours spent celebrating liturgies or traveling to far-flung dioceses all over the world. At heart, the Pope is a Shepherd, guided by the Holy Spirit’s whisper, following in the footsteps of St. Peter, and embracing the servant leadership of our Lord Jesus Christ. He ministers “for the sake of others,” for the good of the whole Church.

Recognizing the “essential spiritual nature” of the Papacy, Benedict sought to know God’s will—and embraced what he was shown.  For John Paul II, God’s will was to suffer greatly and carry on as Pope. For Benedict, God’s will is to suffer greatly but “with full freedom,” and for the good of the Church, to “renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter.”

Humility, the spiritual giants have taught us, means recognizing the truth about God—His infinite greatness—and the truth about ourselves. And it means trusting the Scriptures that “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” (2 Corinthians 12:9) Sometimes that means receiving the grace to plow through adversity. And other times, as for Pope Benedict, it means receiving the grace to acknowledge weakness with great humility, and then stepping back so another may lead.

Second, the blessings of our institutional Church. There’s no doubt that Benedict’s decision—which he described as “of great importance for the life of the Church” —was guided by the Holy Spirit. And the choice of his successor will be guided the same way.

The news media is already framing the choice of Benedict’s successor in political terms, stirring speculation about leading contenders and voting alliances within the College of Cardinals.  It’s great sport and pleases an audience hungry for news. But it’s irrelevant.

As the Catholic Catechism reminds us, “The one sent by the Lord does not speak and act on his own authority, but by virtue of Christ’s authority; not as a member of the community, but speaking to it in the name of Christ. No one can bestow grace on himself; it must be given and offered.”

God’s in charge. And He’s chosen to work through the grace-filled structure of our institutional Church.  Indeed, Benedict’s statement reminds us of God’s sovereignty over His Church: “[L]et us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff.”

Let’s pray that our Cardinals hear the whisper of the Holy Spirit, and heed God’s will with the humility shown by Pope Benedict.

Third, great challenges lie ahead. As Pope Benedict himself warned just a few short months ago, the world is losing its sense of humanity because it is losing its sense of God.

“When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man.” (Address of Pope Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia, Dec. 21, 2012)

And that will be the huge task confronting the next Pope: to defend not only God but also the dignity of the human person, in a world that has so lost sight of God, that it no longer understands its own humanity.

Pope Benedict has been a tireless defender of God, the Church, and the dignity of the human person.  He will be missed. And we can be grateful that, even after his Pontificate ends, he will continue to serve the Church “through a life dedicated to prayer.”

Like Benedict, let’s turn in hope to our God and our Church…and await the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. And in the meantime, also like Benedict, let’s respond faithfully to God’s call on our own consciences.

This column was first posted February 11, 2013 at Catholic Stand. 

The tall woman waiting alone outside the Germantown abortion clinic shivered. She’d taken a taxi to the clinic, and arrived early, a good half-hour before it opened. Standing, pacing, stomping her feet to stay warm, the tall woman stole a glance across the parking lot, towards the voice. It was a “sidewalk counselor” from the pro-life pregnancy center across the way, and she was gesturing to a warmly lit, friendly office. The tall woman’s fingers were already stiff with cold, and she wrapped her coat tighter around her belly.

The cold won. “All right. Thanks.”

Moments later, she was inside the pro-life pregnancy center, warming her frozen fingers as she gripped a steaming cup of coffee.  Little by little her story came out.

She was three months pregnant and suddenly homeless. Her father was in jail and the baby’s father was unreliable. She was twenty-something, had one child already, and no job. Her own mother would tell her to get an abortion, if she knew, but her mother was knee-deep in troubles of her own.

Abortion seemed like her only option. The tall woman knew nothing about the clinic’s abortionist, Dr. LeRoy Carhart, nothing about his chilling defense of partial-birth abortion, and nothing about the women who had suffered serious complications, even death, from his abortion ‘care.’ Those issues meant little compared to her own overwhelming troubles.

But over coffee, and warmed by the volunteer’s compassion and energy, the tall woman changed her mind about the abortion. An hour and several phone calls later, she had a place to stay, a doctor’s appointment, and transportation.

In the following months, the volunteers became the tall woman’s support system, driving her to prenatal appointments and dropping everything to be there during childbirth. They helped her find a job and child-care and shared her worries and joys. These days, the tall woman stops by for coffee and conversation when she can, and even spent a morning doing sidewalk counseling outside the clinic. She empathized with the women who found themselves at the clinic’s door. Cradling her one-month old son, she became the voice across the parking lot, urging vulnerable women to choose life.

 “Choose Life.”  It’s been the pro-life movement’s cry for decades. And yet Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, has left a gruesome legacy after 40 years: 55 million tiny lives extinguished—poisoned, dismembered, stabbed, and suctioned into pieces.

But “life” will prevail.

In fact, the abortion landscape has changed markedly.

• Courageous state legislators passed record numbers of new abortion restrictions in 2012.
• Few doctors do abortions anymore, with only four U.S. doctors hard-hearted enough to perform barbaric third-trimester abortions.
• Americans cannot deny the humanity of the unborn child as new ultrasound technology captures their breathtaking images in the womb.
• Better pro-life media and investigative journalism have shaped public opinion favorably: Eighty percent of Americans believe third trimester abortions should be illegal, and 64% say the same about second trimester abortions.
• Young people are driving the pro-life bus, confounding pro-choice elites. It’s hard to demonize a generation that’s passionate enough to travel hours by bus, sleep on church basement floors, and brave chilly weather to raise their voices against abortion at the March for Life. And this pro-life generation understands “the pain that abortion causes women,” and cares as much about women as their unborn babies.

But as important as those factors are, the pro-life position will prevail for a deeper reason.

At heart, the pro-life movement is about people, its message intensely personal: “You are loved. You have infinite dignity and value. And we will care for you.”

Resonating deeply in the human heart, this is the truth that vulnerable women need to hear, for themselves and their babies.

It’s a message best delivered person-to-person—and young people know this. Their generation, halved by abortion, shares its stories, feelings, and experiences of abortion in intensely personal language and images, in social forums from Twitter to Snap Chat to YouTube and Facebook. It’s powerful and effective.

So too is the work of pro-life pregnancy centers. Years ago, as a law student, I was part of the first team of counselors at the Women’s Care Center, a crisis pregnancy center in South Bend, Indiana. The Center opened in a tiny, donated house right next to the city’s only abortion clinic. Our small group of volunteers worked in a spirit of prayer, with a clear mission: to welcome each woman who walked through our doorway, offering care and support even if she chose an abortion next door.

From one tiny house, offering simple pregnancy tests, practical resources, and loving attention, the vision took wing. The Women’s Care Center now has 19 different locations in Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin and serves nearly 22,000 women annually. Abortion rates in those communities have dropped and Women’s Care Center clients deliver healthier babies than their peers.

Today, U.S. pro-life pregnancy centers outnumber abortion clinics nearly three to one (twenty-two hundred pro-life centers compared to 724 abortion clinics). And because successful pro-life pregnancy centers threaten the abortion industry’s profits, abortion advocates have sued (unsuccessfully) to muzzle or close pro-life centers.

Remember the tall woman, and the cup of coffee that changed her life?

Abortion will end, because pro-life volunteers really care whether a pregnant woman stands cold and alone in front of a gritty abortion clinic. And they care enough to offer not only an easy-pour cup of coffee, but also hours of dedicated time and resources throughout her pregnancy and beyond.

Will you help pro-life centers reach women like “the tall woman”?

Please consider a donation, large or small.  Because somewhere, standing in the cold, is another young woman who needs a good cup of coffee…and your support to do the right thing.

First, you might wonder, are there really any Catholics still in the Obama camp? Plenty, unfortunately.

A recent Gallup poll showed that Obama’s maneuvering on the HHS regulations hasn’t cost him much, if any, Catholic support. Even regular Church-goers (46% of them) continue to back the President, counting him more friend than foe.

Think of the kind-hearted, stubbornly optimistic Catholics you know who insist that President Obama is really a good guy–that we should give him another chance to get it right. You know, the middle-aged social worker who drives to Sunday Mass in a Toyota Prius sporting an Obama bumper sticker. Or the bird-watching professor who praises the compassionate features of Obamacare as he sips coffee in the lounge after daily Mass.

Obama-Catholics insist that, despite actions to the contrary, Obama deeply respects religious freedom and abhors abortion. (And besides, they murmur, who really cares what the Bishops think about birth control?) They still plan to vote for Obama, in spite of the lingering sting from his slap in the face to Catholics–and other believers–whose consciences resist being forced to pay for other people’s abortion-causing drugs. These Obama-Catholics have put all that behind them in light of Obama’s respectful “compromise.” (It’s worth noting, that President Obama’s grand speech declaring that insurance companies, not religious organizations, would be forced to pay for contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs, was just speechifying—a promise of fig leaves to come. No rules have actually been changed yet.)

Yes, our good, but misguided, friends are ripe for an intervention. They need help.

By the way, I sadly think it’s past the intervention point for the Doug Kmiecs or Sr. Carol Keehans of the world—their disappointment over the initial conscience-quashing HHS regulations proved but a momentary (strategic?) pause in their unrestrained adulation of Obama-the-good. A promised cosmetic change to the regulations and they both inhaled deeply—again—and floated back into the elevated status of Obama-believers, those who know better than the rest of us that the great Barack “understands the truth of a human person” and rules accordingly.

No, let’s tend to the average person of faith, naïve perhaps, but unwilling to desert the first African-American President, whom they see as an upright family man with a big vision and a very, very hard job.  It’s time to have a sit-down with these people, particularly Catholics, and help them admit they’ve reached rock bottom in this relationship with Obama. It’s time to let go.

How to help your friends see the light? Two excellent articles provide food for thought, from two different angles: sin and psychology.

In Carrie Severino’s light-hearted, but pointed, column over at the Daily Beast, she argues that Catholics who remain enamored of President Obama exhibit the classic signs of co-dependency in an abusive relationship.

And over at his new blog, Notre Dame Law Professor and constitutional law expert Charles E. Rice (my father) makes a compelling case that our Catholic Bishops, individually, as an expression of their personal conviction, ought to tell Catholics in the pew that to vote for Obama would be a sin—an act deeply offensive to God.

Provocative, no?

Read and tell me: What do you think?

Easy. Kind of like buying a bag of Doritos.

Women who wake up in unfamiliar beds or sober up and wonder,  “What were you thinking, girl?” needn’t worry much. Stride across campus, past the dining hall (grab a doughnut for later), and into the University Health Center. Flash a student ID and head to the vending machine in the “self-help” area. There, next to the cough drops and Mucinex, in discreet, feminine packaging, is Plan B One Step. No questions asked. Feed the bills into the slot, grab and go. Empowered with “choices,” these women pop the package blister, swallow the pill, and breathe easy.

Problem solved. Glad that’s over.

Only it’s really not.

Billed as “emergency contraception,” according to the package insert, Plan B inhibits ovulation and thus prevents conception.  But it also alters the lining of the uterus, preventing a newly conceived child from implanting in its mother’s womb.  Without implantation, that tiny human being cannot draw nourishment and will die. (Occasionally, Plan B fails and the pregnancy continues.)

In most cases, however, Plan B ‘succeeds.’

But ‘success’ is not pretty. Our Shippensburg student will have a one-in-three chance of heavy bleeding. And 13% of women who take Plan B One Step end up curled up in bed with nausea, abdominal pain, and fatigue. Worse, nearly one in ten women who use emergency contraception (compared to 2% of pregnancies in the general population) develop severe abdominal pain and require emergency treatment for an ectopic pregnancy.

But no worries, this is a private decision between a woman and her vending machine.

(Maybe the Supreme Court should update that hallowed language about abortion being a private medical decision between a woman and her doctor, eh?)

Back in Shippensburg, it’s been a bad few days for the University’s PR team–one negative link on Drudge would keep anybody hopping—and they’re feeling a bit defensive. “We’re not the first” to make Plan B available on a college campus, they say.

But from a vending machine?

Has our culture so trivialized sex and baby-making that the ‘solution’ to an unintended pregnancy comes out of a vending machine? And the grown-ups in the room don’t even blink?

Shippensburg’s decision seems destined to create a campus norm of casual sex. But in its February 7^th statement, the University asserted that it’s “not encouraging anyone to be sexually active. That is a decision each student makes on his or her own.”

But why offer students abortion-inducing drugs, right on campus? (Ironically, the University vending machines don’t carry condoms, the typical must-have accessory for promiscuous sex).

In a phone interview February 7^th, Dr. Peter M. Gigliotti, Executive Director for University Communications & Marketing, said the university installed the vending machine “several years” ago after a student survey showed that 85% of students favored on-campus access to emergency contraception. He defended the decision, expressed surprise at the media coverage, and insisted that no one under the age of 17 has access to the vending machine. (By law, Plan B cannot be dispensed to anyone under 17 without a prescription.)

In Shippensburg’s public statement, Dr. Robert Serr, Vice-President for Student Affairs, also downplayed the disclosure and framed the issue as support for reproductive choice: “Reproductive services are a personal decision to be made by every man and woman. As such, the university is providing students with a medication that they can obtain legally elsewhere as part of their ability to make their own choices.”

Put differently, Shippensburg wonders, “What’s the big deal?”

That attitude is precisely the problem.

“Emergency contraception” dispensed from a vending machine is the perfect icon of our culture’s impersonal–and utilitarian–view of sex and reproduction.

The icon’s meaning:

• Sex is no big deal. It’s entertainment. Condom malfunction? Fix the problem in less time than it takes to rent a Redbox movie.

• Making—or destroying–a baby is no big deal either. Using ‘emergency contraception’ has the moral significance of taking a cough drop. (One button on the vending machine gets you Plan B, another gets you lemon-flavored cough drops.)

• Convenience rules. Why bother with nine months of pregnancy—and 21 years of child-rearing–when freedom is just a vending machine away?

• Like casual sex, abortion (even disguised as “emergency contraception”) turns a union of two into a solo event. No strings. Just another individual experience that requires “appropriate decisions.”

• Repeat business is a given—the abortion industry depends on it. No one visits a vending machine just once.

To the women of Shippensburg University: wake up! What could be more lonely than heading across a cold Pennsylvania campus “the morning after,” alone, to rendezvous with a vending machine? It’s an automated ‘problem-solver,’ stoically dispensing drugs that not only kill your baby but also numb your heart.  All so you can go back and do it again.

That’s not ‘choice.’ It’s exploitation. And people who really care about you won’t exploit you.

Please, reach out.  Because you deserve better.

Last week the pastor of St. Timothy’s Catholic Church in Chantilly, Virginia, made national news. He banned the Girl Scouts from his parish because of the Girl Scouts’ connections to pro-abortion groups, including the international scouting group, the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS).

A Washington Post writer, who called the parish decision “extreme,” rode to the Scouts’ defense, arguing that the “Girl Scouts say explicitly, repeatedly, at the neighborhood, regional and national level, that they have no stance on birth control or abortion.”

Now that’s not the part the Post got right. The Post columnist is dead wrong on the underlying facts because, while it’s true that the Scouts say they take no official position on birth control and abortion, it’s what they do that’s a problem.

Numerous sources—including former Girl Scouts, Scout leaders, and pro-life leaders—have documented hundreds of examples of the Girl Scouts promoting pro-abortion and LGBT resources, recommending sexually explicit books and movies, highlighting pro-abortion leaders and lesbians as role models, partnering with LGBT and pro-abortion activist groups, including Planned Parenthood, and referring girls to pro-abortion organizations to learn about “advocacy” (a pet word in the new Girl Scouts).

Consider: New York’s Real Life, Real Talk sex education program, “initiated by Planned Parenthood,” partners with the NYPENN Girl Scouts; The Girl Scouts’ curriculum (Journey books) promotes the Scouts’ “sisterhood” with pro-abortion WAGGGS (WAGGGS CEO Mary McPhail led the radical, pro-abortion European Women’s Lobby before joining WAGGGS, and a 2010 International Planned Parenthood Federation report (p. 13) credits Planned Parenthood’s “close relationship” with WAGGGS for Planned Parenthood’s success in promoting sex and abortion to youth); and in Chicago this July, GSUSA will co-host the Girls’ World Forum 2012 with WAGGGS, to “develop action steps” supporting the U.N. Millennium Development Goals (MDG #5 supports abortion and adolescent sex). See more here.

The Girl Scouts (GSUSA) has yet to refute even one piece of documented evidence. They can’t.

And the Scouts’ general denials highlight the contradiction between what they say and what they do. The bottom line: the Girl Scouts seem to have a truth-in-labeling problem. Parents—and sponsoring churches like St. Timothy–are right to protest the deception and pull their girls out of the organization.

So what, then, did the Washington Post columnist “get right”?

The Post columnist inadvertently shone the spotlight on why the Catholic Church has a Girl Scout problem: the National Federation of Catholic Youth Ministry (NFCYM).

According to the Post, “Another defender of the scouts is the National Federation for Catholic Youth Ministry, a group that ought to have some credibility with Catholics. It’s an official church organization and has been actively investigating — and mostly refuting — the accusations for several years…The federation’s Web site devotes a page to knocking down rumors. Girl Scouts support Planned Parenthood? ‘Not true,’ the federation says.”

Thank you for shining that light on the NFCYM, Mr. Columnist.

But let’s get the facts straight. First, the NFCYM does not have a track record of “investigating” the Girl Scouts’ problematic ties and activities; it has a track record of whitewashing them. Second, resources promoted on the NFCYM’s website and in the NFCYM Executive Director’s book on Catholic youth advocacy suggest that the NFCYM has little “credibility” to speak to the Church on these issues.

First, the NFCYM track record. When parishes, dioceses, and parents want to know if the Girl Scouts support contraception, teen sex, or abortion (or partner with organizations that do), they ask the NFCYM, or its subsidiary, the National Catholic Committee on Girl Scouts and Camp Fire. Although the NFCYM has never conducted or commissioned a rigorous, independent investigation of the Scouts, it reflexively picks up its Girl Scout megaphone and shouts, “Not true!” It reports Girl Scouts’ denials as fact.

In its 2011 “Position Statement” on the Girl Scouts, the NFCYM declared itself “satisfied” with GSUSA denials. Further, the NFCYM decided that the Scouts’ “official statement clarifying their relationship with WAGGGS and Planned Parenthood…and emphasiz[ing] the primacy of parents’” authority on sexual topics sufficed to end the discussion. The NFCYM “investigated” no further than the words on the Girl Scouts’ printed page.

No sense checking the facts. (Scouts’ honor, right?)

Not one of the Google-topping websites created by former Girl Scouts, concerned parents, and troop leaders to document the Girl Scouts’ problems has received any inquiries or corrections from Bob McCarty, NFCYM’s Executive Director, or from the Scouts. Ever. Will McCarty specify which of their links, statements, or page scans are “not true?” Does anyone at NFCYM even realize how much evidence contradicts the Girl Scouts’ denials? Does NFCYM recognize the ideology driving the Scouts’ leadership?

The deep documentation on the whistleblowers’ websites is a damning indictment of the Girl Scouts. It’s also a damning indictment of the NFCYM—for its failure to investigate allegations about the Scouts.

Perhaps the NFCYM won’t address the facts because it thinks they don’t really matter. In my second interview with Bob McCarty (November 2011), I asked him about the Girl Scouts’ relationship with pro-abortion WAGGGS: the Girl Scouts fund WAGGGS (over a million dollars annually); the GSUSA website and materials routinely promote WAGGGS; Scouts typically wear a WAGGGS pin, signifying their sisterhood; and the Girl Scouts promote WAGGGS’ international “cabanas” and advocacy training programs as the ultimate destination for senior Girl Scouts. Bob was untroubled, dismissing those points because, “Catholic youth ministry is not in relationship with WAGGGS.”

It’s as if NFCYM’s priority is the paper trail that gets the Scouts off the hook and keeps the bishops out of their hair. One former Girl Scout mom wonders, “Why so little concern for the girls?” Girls who, for example, might innocently read the Girl Scout-recommended book, the Gate to Women’s Country, with its explicit descriptions of brutal sex and distorted relationships. Or who might be invited to attend a WAGGGS abortion-advocacy event as the culmination of their Girl Scout training.

In the Washington Post article, McCarty minimizes parents’ concerns about the relationships between the Girl Scouts and WAGGGS, Planned Parenthood, or other pro-abortion groups. “It’s the whole thing of guilt by association,” McCarty says. “Does one policy with which you can’t agree prevent you from being involved in broader coalitions?”

Yes, Bob, at times it should. I suggest that an organization’s pro-abortion stance is not just “one policy with which you can’t agree.”  Respect for life—from conception to natural death–is so fundamental to the Catholic view of the human person and to Catholic moral principles that an organization that advocates against that principle should be disqualified from sponsorship by a Catholic parish—and from running character-shaping activities for Catholic girls.

The NFCYM disagrees.  Which brings me to my second point: the NFCYM and its Executive Director, Bob McCarty, have little credibility to judge whether the Girl Scouts’ resources, relationships, and role-models offend Catholic standards. The NFCYM website and McCarty’s book contain similar problems.

McCarty’s book, Be a Champion of Youth: Standing With, By, and For Young People (co-authored with his wife, Maggie Wilson McCarty), draws on his NFCYM experience to promote “youth advocacy.” But Bob’s book relies on and recommends an organization that he says, “[P]rovides information on peer education, youth development, and youth-adult partnerships.  It also provides excellent resources for actively involving young people in their own learning.”

The organization: the pro-abortion Advocates for Youth, formerly known as the Center for Population Options.

In contrast to McCarty’s sanitized description, Advocates for Youth admits it “champions” the right of “young people [to] make informed and responsible decisions about their reproductive and sexual health…boldly advocating for a more positive and realistic approach to adolescent sexual health.”  Remember McCarty’s praise for the way Advocates for Youth “actively involve[s] young people in their own learning”? Their method: to train young people as peer educators, “helping” peers with concerns about “sexual orientation, gender identity, or sexual health,” and as “Youth Activists,” advocating for sex and abortion, unfettered by parents’ rules or religious beliefs.

Advocates for Youth, in case you don’t know, is the enemy. They actively oppose the Church on every sexual issue in the public arena, including abstinence education, same-sex relations, contraception, and abortion.

Let’s be clear:  I am not saying McCarty is personally pro-abortion. But he doesn’t seem to think an organization’s policy on sex and abortion matters much, as long as there’s something arguably good about them.

In this case, McCarty likes the Advocates for Youth model of youth advocacy. That’s a problem in itself. Both McCarty and Advocates for Youth ascribe to the “youth-adult partnership” model of youth advocacy that rejects the “myth of adult wisdom.” They don’t believe that “adults know what is best” or that young people need protecting. See McCarty, p. 33. That’s baloney. The ‘learn-by-doing’ model has built-in limitations, particularly in the sexual and moral arenas. And the benefit of “youth advocacy” depends entirely on the values being advocated.

Besides Advocates for Youth, McCarty’s book recommends other gems like the pro-abortion Children’s Defense Fund, UNICEF, and the Youth Activism Project (which trains youth as mini-community organizers, agitating for things like Gay and Lesbian Student Rights Laws, an example McCarty notes with approval in his book).

The NFCYM website is more of the same.  On the NFCYM’s “Healthy Adolescent Development” page, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry tops the list of “Key Resource Organizations.” The Academy promotes “comprehensive sexual education,” including school-based distribution of contraceptives, and opposes parental notification requirements in sexual and reproductive matters, including abortion. Further, the Academy supports same-sex marriage and adoption and affirms the adolescent’s ‘right’ to decide sexual orientation or gender identity without interference (like from parents). This is an organization parents should trust for guidance on “healthy adolescent development”?

The NFCYM website also recommends the Faith Trust Institute as a resource on preventing sexual abuse. The Faith Trust Institute is a Pope-bashing website run by a female, pro-abortion minister who signed a statement condemning the murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller, mourning the “untold number of women and families who have been deprived of his compassionate care.”

I could go on.

But here’s the point.  The Girl Scouts have a demonstrable credibility problem.  They have not been forthright with Catholics and other folks who support traditional sexual morality.

The Catholic Church needs to insist that if the Scouts want to recruit young Catholics, seek sponsorship from Catholic parishes, and sell cookies to parishioners, then the Scouts must make radical changes, including severing ties with WAGGGS and other pro-abortion, pro-teen sex, and LGBT activist groups. They must clean up offensive materials and quit elevating lesbians, gays, and pro-abortion activists as role models and convention speakers. Finally, they must champion a return to character, based on virtues and objective morality.

And the NFCYM? McCarty states that, “the only way you can advocate for the church’s position is to be engaged in the dialogue.” I submit that the NFCYM and Bob McCarty are the wrong folks to “dialogue” with the Girl Scouts on these issues.

Under McCarty’s leadership, the NFCYM’s premise seems to be that because Catholics are involved in the Girl Scouts already—as Scouts, leaders, and supporting parishes–the end goal is to stay in that relationship. So he elevates the cause of “dialogue” over fidelity to Catholic moral teaching.

But I think Denver Auxiliary Bishop James Conley gets it right. He writes, “Catholics involved in the Girl Scouting movement should make it clear to leadership that Scouting is only a means to an end—the proper formation of young character. It’s not an end in itself; and should Scouting ever fail in that proper formation, other groups can be found or formed to take its place.”

I think that time has come.

And I salute the Pastor of St. Timothy’s in Chantilly, Virginia, for his courage to do the right thing.

NOTE: Prior to the publication of this article, I contacted NFCYM head Bob McCarty numerous times by phone and email.  He elected not to respond in any substantive way.