The liberal prejudice against marriage revealed

Two-parent families are beneficial for children. This is common sense, but when Melissa S. Kearney, a professor of economics at the University of Maryland, wrote a book showing empirical evidence for this simple claim, she experienced hostility and rejection.

“The Two-Parent Privilege” is a recent study proving that, all things considered, the best place for children to grow up is in a family led by a married couple.

Melissa S. Kearney has researched the economics of families for over 20 years. Having sifted through the evidence, she concluded that two parents offer their kids more resource advantages that one parent alone. If we want to reduce poverty and social inequality, we should promote marriage, she says.

“This is not to judge, blame, or diminish households with a single parent”, she writes, but data and rigorous studies prove that a married couple is more beneficial for children, and also for society.

Even before the book was published, she received pushback. She comments: “I happen to know that behind the scenes [at her publishing company] there were definitely some people who were less keen or had strong reactions to the topic”.

Since the publication, things have only got worse. Prof. Kearney has received two kinds of hostile responses to her book: firstly, she is accused of wanting to force people to marry or to stay trapped in an unhappy marriage, which is something that she explicitly rejects in her work.

“We're in the midst of a conservative push, aided by the mainstream media, to bully women into young marriage. We're told it will cure everything from male loneliness to child poverty”, tweeted a journalist of the liberal website The Salon.

“I am quite clear that just telling women to marry undesirable partners is not helpful”, Kearney replied.

The second kind of response is more defeatist: there is no point trying to address the decline of marriage as nothing can be done about it anyway.

The problem with this response is that social trends are the outcomes of policies and also of the ideology behind them. Too often, it is impossible to have an honest discussion about the value of marriage without being labelled and ostracised. This is particularly the case in the academic world.

In her book, Prof. Kearney recalls a conversation with a fellow economist who told her that she sounded “socially conservative” and so she wasn’t academically serious. The merits of her studies were easily dismissed.

In our liberal societies we don’t like to sound judgemental about people’s life choices, Kearney reckons, but avoiding conversation about empirically supported data is counterproductive. We need to address uncomfortable questions.

She asks why so many parents are now raising children outside of a marital union, why marriage is becoming a privilege.

The decline of share of people getting married is common in all advanced economies. In Ireland, for instance, 50 years ago the marriage rate was 7.4 per 1,000 thousand people. It dropped to 4.1 in 2019. (Statistics during the pandemic and immediately after it are not significant as many marriages were postponed).

As a consequence, there has been a decline in the share of children living with married parents, particularly outside the educated class. The well-off are more likely to get married.

This has a tremendous impact on the lives of those children in terms of opportunities and achievements, prof. Kearney’s book shows.

“The number of parents in a home is a crucial determinant of a child’s experiences and life trajectory. Debates about this issue should not be relegated to the culture wars. Family structure is an urgent policy matter, and we should treat it that way.”, she writes.

The reactions to her publication demonstrate how difficult is to defend the institution of marriage in the public arena, where prejudice prevails even when all the evidence is offered.

It’s not that they are against marriage per se, but they strongly resist the idea is that it matters to society. This is despite the fact that they are far more likely to be married than those less well educated than them are.

The European Parliament launches a new attack on the right to life

 Last week the European Parliament paved the way for the commercialisation of human embryos and foetuses when, by an overwhelming majority, it passed a regulation of “Substance of Human Origin” intended for human use. This text has far-reaching implications as it regards not only blood, tissues or cells but also embryos and foetuses. Moreover, the regulation imposes genetic selection and the destruction of embryos with genetic anomalies, such as Down Syndrome.

The Catholic Bishops in the EU and also the European Federation of Catholics Families have expressed serious ethical concerns about this proposal.

All in all, the proposal, which now goes before the European Council and the European Commission, is a terrible piece of work that thoroughly disrespects human life at its earliest stages. The regulation was better before it reached the amendment stage.

While the purpose of the “Substance of Human Origin” (SoHO) regulation is to set standards for new forms of processing and use of human organic material, as we can see, it makes no proper distinction between human blood, cells and tissue on the one hand, and human beings themselves on the other, in this case embryos and foetuses, , as well as non-viable prenatal life. They are all regarded as products for scientific and medical use with an embryo put on the same moral plane as a blood cell.

If the proposal becomes law, it will allow human embryos created in laboratories specifically for research purposes, or ‘spare’ embryos left over by the IVF process, to be used for commercial scientific research. In other words, they will be for sale. It might even include naturally conceived unborn children.

This broad categorisation reduces unborn human life to the status of a mere substance, equivalent to saliva, skin cells or blood plasma, which disregards its inherent dignity.

The Catholic bishops’ office in Brussels (COMECE) has expressed concern that the regulation equation could extend to other areas of law, undermining the protection of unborn life in the EU Member States, which is already weak in most cases.

The EU Parliament vote also raised allegations of promoting genetic selection and eugenics.

The SoHO regulation establishes that clinics should “achieve a high level of assurance that genetic conditions are not transmitted to recipients or offspring from medical assisted reproduction” (art. 58) The Bishops’ document questioned how this would be possible without testing embryos or foetuses for such conditions for the purpose of selection. This means that embryos with some genetic anomalies, including Down Syndrome, for instance, have to be destroyed. Genetic selection is a violation of human dignity.

“Does the European Parliament want to promote eugenics?”, asked Vincenzo Bassi, the president of the European Federation of Catholic Family Associations.

The COMECE document highlights the indivisibility of human life, emphasising that an embryo is a human being continually developing without qualitative breaks. “Already with the fusion of the nucleus, an individual human being with own unique DNA comes into being”, it says.

The draft regulation reduces fertilised human eggs and embryos to “mere raw materials without human quality”, potentially compromising their consideration in ethical and legal assessments.

The value and dignity of human life remains unchanged, regardless of whether it is created within a laboratory, through medical intervention or naturally. Human life has inherent value and needs protection, especially in contexts involving research and pharmaceutical production.

The COMECE document emphasises the need to respect the ethical decisions of EU Member States regarding the use or restriction of certain types of ‘substances of human origin’. Additionally, it advocates for Member States’ rights to refuse recognition of authorisations granted by other Member States when they conflict with national regulations.

The regulation approved by the EU Parliament is not final yet, but it will represent the position of the European Parliament in the upcoming negotiations with the EU Commission and the EU Council. To address the aforementioned concerns, the negotiations should produce a new text that will scratch unborn human life from the definition of “substance of human origin” and respect its dignity.

Sensationalist claims about Canadian ‘mass graves’ prove unfounded

 

Two years ago, claims emerged in Canada that mass graves of indigenous children were found in residential schools run by Catholic and other religious groups. There was an instant outburst of public anger, some of it implicitly endorsed by Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, and in the aftermath of the claims, at least 83 churches have been burned or vandalised.

Nevertheless, since then, not one single mass grave has been discovered, despite several excavations. It appears that initial reports were grossly exaggerated.

At the time, horrific announcements were based on the unsubstantiated presupposition that some anomalies in the soil at the sites of the old schools detected by ground-penetrating radars were unmarked mass graves.

The Catholic and the Anglican Church, which administered those schools on behalf of the Canadian government, were accused of genocide. Protests and violence erupted in the country and abroad.

After three weeks of attacks on churches, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that the vandalism was wrong but “understandable given the shameful history we are becoming more aware of”.

However, no human remains had been unearthed then, and the most recent dig in the basement of a Catholic church in Manitoba also yielded no remains. This is the third excavation case that has turned up no results.

Jacques Rouillard, a professor emeritus in the Department of History at the Université de Montréal commented: “I don’t like to use the word hoax because it’s too strong but there are also too many falsehoods circulating about this issue with no evidence.”

There is no dispute among historian that the conditions of those residential schools were poor, some terrible abuses took place, and the mortality rates were significantly higher than among pupils in regular schools, due to malnutrition and infectious diseases that spread easily in such environments.

Documentation regarding the burial of these children frequently went missing over the years. However, there is no evidence to suggest sinister intentions or the existence of mass graves. Nevertheless, a wave of hysteria swept through, with those advocating for a balanced historical perspective on the schools being labelled as "genocide deniers."

James C McCrae, a former attorney general for Manitoba, had to resign from a government panel after he wrote a piece which questioned the sensational approach employed by campaigners.

He said: “The evidence does not support the overall gruesome narrative put forward around the world for several years, a narrative for which verifiable evidence has been scarce, or non-existent. … anyone who asks any questions or presents real evidence that might bring some relief and peace to indigenous families across Canada is silenced and/or shamed. Is the real truth not ugly enough? Everyone knows of the existence of the schools. Everyone knows there was abuse at some of the schools. Everyone knows there were criminal acts perpetrated against some unfortunate students. Everyone knows the schools played a regrettable part in the history of our country. It is not credible to deny those parts of our history. Why then, is it necessary to exaggerate and tell tales that make the history uglier than it already is?”.

Something similar happened here in Ireland, where many were led to believe that 800 children died in the Tuam mother and baby home that was run by the Bons Secours order and were dumped in a sceptic tank, even though the excavation to establish the truth is yet to begin.

The notion of sinister religious figures responsible for the deaths of children in their care through malnutrition or violence, and disposing of them in undignified ways, might make for a gripping plot in a horror movie. However, while tragic episodes have undeniably occurred in history, concrete verification consistently refutes sensationalistic approaches.

As in the case of the Canadian residential schools, the worst claims about the mother and baby homes in this country have run ahead of the evidence.

Indeed, the official report into those homes ordered by the Government did not fit the most lurid claims about them and not did heap all the blame for their existence or how they were run on to the Catholic Church or the nuns.

Now we must wait for the results of the excavation at the former mother and baby home at Tuam and put the most sensationalist claims about what happened there on hold in the meantime.

Godowsky: Passacaglia in B Minor (Siirala)

A report from a meeting of pro-‘assisted dying’ leaders

 

End of Life Ireland (EOLI), a group campaigning for the legalisation of euthanasia, held a public meeting in Dublin last week to present their views. It was a revealing insight into their objectives and how to get there.

The main speaker was Greg Mewett, a palliative care doctor from Australia who believes that patients have a right to end their lives. He admitted that this view is quite “heretical” among palliative care circles. (The Irish Association for Palliative Care is opposed to ‘assisted dying’. You can find their document on the matter here).

Dr Mewett said that “voluntary assisted dying” should not be seen in opposition to palliative care as more than 80% of patients who wish to end their lives have gone through some form of palliative care before.

He stressed the importance of language in trying to convince people, saying that euthanasia or assisted suicide are bad terms, while the word “voluntary” is key.

He wants the law in Australia changed so that doctors can offer patients the option of assisted suicide.

One of the local speakers was John Wall, an Irish campaigner who said he was able to convince the Government to change the definition of ‘terminal illness’ and, as a consequence, to extend the eligibility for a medical card to those who are given a prognosis of up to 24 months.

He believes that ‘assisted dying’ is simply a matter of choice, and it should be available even for prognoses longer than 24 months. He claimed that the life span of 6 months or shorter, which is common in other jurisdictions that allow euthanasia, is too short. “How long do you want me to suffer?”, he asked.

Another speaker was Dr Brendan O’Shea, a GP from Kildare. He is former head of the Irish College of General Practitioners and was representing on this occasion a group of about 100 healthcare professionals, mainly GPs, working with End of Life Ireland. They call themselves ‘Irish Doctors supporting Medical Assistance in Dying’ and believe that ‘patient autonomy’ should be always respected, even when patients wish to be killed.

All the Irish medical bodies that have taken a public position on this topic are of the opposite view.

Doctors are probably the major opponents to changes in legislation in this area. When, during the debate, someone pointed out that the Hippocratic Oath clearly rejects euthanasia, Dr O’Shea replied that nowadays Hippocrates would have written a different oath. We cannot know this, of course, and it is hard to see why, as suffering is a permanent feature of the human condition and pain was far less treatable by doctors in Ancient Greece than it is today.

EOLI on their website acknowledge that “it can be difficult for healthcare professionals to publicly support providing Medical Assistance in Dying.” To help their campaign an anonymous register of healthcare professionals has been created.

Another speaker was Tom Curran from Exit International, which is probably the most radical pro-assisted suicide organisation in the world, as they believe that it should be available to any mentally competent adult, for whatever reason.

Mr Curran, partner of the late Marie Fleming whose request for assisted suicide was rejected by the Supreme Court, told the audience of how he helped to draft legislation in this area.

Justin McKenna, a solicitor that deals with health cases, also spoke. Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland, who could not attend, sent a video showing full support for the event.

The public meeting was attended by about 60 people, mostly sympathetic with the aims of the organisers. During the debate following the presentations only a couple of interventions showed some concern. A man suggested caution and mentioned how the slippery slope has operated in other countries, such as Canada, after assisted suicide has been legalised.

The organisers are very confident that the general population and most politicians are on their side and will hold similar events in the future. In 2024 they will host the World Federation of Right to Die Societies conference.

Those opposed to assisted suicide needs to be as well organised as its proponents.

New sex education programmes completely ignore long-term commitments and marriage

The new sex education programmes in Irish schools completely ignore long-term commitments and marriage. They promote the bare minimum, i.e. consent, rather than what is necessary for a goo relationship, i.e. commitment.

Sex education programmes are constantly updated at the different levels of the Irish education system. The Social, Personal and Health Education (SPHE) curriculum for junior cycle (age 12-15) has been recently changed and will start in September this year.

While contraception is explicitly mentioned in one of the learning outcomes it is extraordinary that a course about sexuality and relationships nowhere refers to pregnancy, birth, parenthood, or raising children, which are natural consequences of a sexual relationship.

The course specification also never mentions marriage and or long-term commitment. The emphasis is on the bare minimum, i.e. consent, rather than on what makes relationship lasting, i.e. commitment, long-term plans, mutual obligations, etc.

One of the eleven learning outcomes is about consent and says that students should “appreciate the importance of seeking, giving and receiving consent in sexual relationships, from the perspective of building caring relationships and from a legal perspective.”

While consent is a basic and necessary element of a sexual relationship, it is not sufficient.

The Senior Cycle sex education course is also currently being redeveloped. Consultation is ongoing and the new course will start in September 2024.

When assessing the review documentation generated by the NCCA up to this point in comparison to the curriculum framework that has been in effect since 2011, it becomes evident that the identical criticisms of the Junior Cycle review still hold true.

For instance, the 2011 framework has a section about parenting and one of its aims is to “discuss the role of commitment and relationship skills in marriage and other committed relationships, that help to support lasting relationships and family life”. (p. 28)

There is no mention of marriage or other committed relationships in the new draft specification. It has been deliberately removed.

Lasting relationships, family life, marriage, or commitment are all absent from the consultation report as well.

The background paper presents an analysis of international practice, focusing on New Zealand, Ontario and Canada. In the overview of key concepts and topics it mentions “long-term commitment and parenting” and one of the key ideas proposed to be discussed is “marriage and long-term commitments can be rewarding and challenging”. (p. 23)

This proposal, coming from a comparison with international practice, has found no place in the new draft specification by the Department of Education. As consultations are still ongoing, it is possible that a future draft will be amended to include marriage and long-term commitment but their removal from the current curriculum, should be noted.

This minimal-value approach which inspires the SPHE courses fails to promote proper relationship education. A good relationship is more than “healthy”, particularly when we consider the unhealthy psychological but also physical consequences of consensual promiscuity, casual sex, etc.

Consent education is not enough without commitment education.