FRANK J. MONCHER, PHD

Institute for the Psychological Sciences, Arlington, VAAlpha Omega Clinic and Consultation Services, Bethesda, MD

Paper presented at the 22nd Congress of the International Federation of Catholic MedicalAssociations:  Symposium of Catholic Psychologists“Globalization and the Family: A Challenge for Psychology Today”Barcelona, SpainMay 13-14, 2006

Part 1:  The human person and the familyThe dignity of the human person and the stability of the traditional family are under attackin the modern world.  A variety of political and social ideologies have emerged which areantagonistic towards traditional Judeo-Christian values.    Family values have lost muchground  in  recent  decades  to  other,  and  in  some  cases  competing  values,  such  asmaterialism, individualism and consumerism.At the transcendent level, Pope John Paul II (1981) exhorts families to “becomewhat you are…” He continues by stating that “the family has the mission to guard, revealand  communicate  love  …  (and  that)  Family  communion  can  only  be  preserved  andperfected through a great spirit of sacrifice” (no. 17).  At the natural level too, the family isknown as the usual source of the most enduring and formative relationships in a child’slife (Institute for American Values, 2003).   In a series of declarations and conferencesduring  the  20th  century  (United  Nations,  1948;  1976),  the  international  communitydeveloped a common understanding regarding the concept of family as the basic unit ofsociety, and as  such,  entitled to receive  comprehensive protection and  support. Morerecently,  it  has  been  noted  that  rapid  demographic  and  socio-economic  changesthroughout the world have influenced patterns of family life, placing greater strains on thefamily (United Nations, 1994).  Finally, some writers have attempted to use the languageof “various forms of the family” to promote agendas that are contrary to the family as anatural institution (Trujillo, 2004), and to challenge traditional family values (Saunders,2006).3Although many difficulties confronted by families at this time have been presentthroughout time (e.g., geographic separation of the father to enable him to provide for thefamily, and absence of parents through death, divorce or abandonment), more recently,other  complications  have  arisen  (e.g.,  both  parents  working  outside  the  home,  andfamilies living great distances from extended family members).  One particularly harmfulaspect of this trend is the widespread absence of fathers in children’s lives (Popenoe,1996; Pruett, 1997, 2000).  Related to this aspect is the effective disconnection in oursociety  from  what  Erikson  (1968)  called  generativity  in  adults,  where  parents  arechallenged to transcend their own needs and to care for others.  The overall situation isfurther complicated by globalization which has accelerated dramatically the degree andintensity of the contact among different cultures, beliefs, and ideologies, some of whichappear unmindful of the potential impact on the next generations of traditional family lifedeteriorating.    Since the family is the cornerstone of society, and the mental health ofeach  family  member  directly  impacts  the  health  of  the  rest,  a  crucial  aspect  ofglobalization is the psychological effect on the individual human person, and especially onthe child (Sweeney, in press).Part 2:  Children and parentsThe Commission on Children at Risk, a group doctors, research scientists, mental health,and youth service professionals, recently documented that many young people currentlyare suffering from emotional distress, mental illness, and behavioral problems, and in thefuture,  are  at  risk  for  not  achieving  productive  adulthood  (AACAP,  1998;  Eccles  &Gootman, 2002; Haggerty, 1995; National  Institutes of Mental Health, 1999; Twenge,2000).   Their  report  concludes,  that  “in  large  measure,  what’s  causing  the  crisis  ofAmerican childhood is a lack of … close connections to other people, and (a lack of) deepconnections to moral and spiritual meaning” (Institute for American Values, 2003; p.5).Furthermore, the report suggests that social institutions (e.g., the family), which foster4these  two  forms  of  connectedness  for  children,  have  gotten  significantly  weaker.Therefore, the central thesis of this paper is that parents are at the core of the solution tothe problem of childhood risk of mental distress or illness.  Ultimately, many troubles andconfusions  of  children  as  they  grow  and  develop  can  be  managed  and  assisted  byimproved relationships with  parents;  parents who  are  present  physically,  emotionally,psychologically, and spiritually (Sutton, 2005).Parents are called, as the primary educators of children, to foster their children’sphysical, emotional, and spiritual development.  John Paul II (1981, n.25) states that eachhuman  being  needs  to  be  “educated”, which  includes  not  only  the  informing  of  theirminds, but also, and even more importantly, the forming of their hearts and characters invirtue.   Realizing  this,  we  can  then  best  know  how  to  guide  parents  through  thecomplicated, global world in which we live.Part 3:  Globalization: A risk for persons and families, as well as an opportunity for good,through connection with cultural and transcendent valuesThe  phenomenon  of  globalization may  be thought  of  as the widening,  deepening  andspeeding up of worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life(Held,  McGrew,  Goldblatt  &  Perraton,  1993).  As  a  result  of  telecommunications  andeconomic  factors,  the  amount  of  interaction  and  communication  among  peoples  hasbecome increasingly prevalent and immediate (Arnett, 2002). Thus, globalization presentssome risk to the  dignity  of the  human  person  and to the  stability  of the family,  as  itchallenges the culture in which they exist, changing dramatically the number and range ofinfluences on the family:  John Paul II (1981) states that “… in the modern world …somehave become uncertain over their role, confused or unaware of the ultimate meaning andtruth of conjugal and family life…others hindered by various situations of injustice”.  TheHoly Father warns that there has evolved from this phenomena a mistaken concept ofindependence  of the  spouses  in relation to  each  other, misconceptions regarding the5relationship  of  authority  between  parents  and  children,  concrete  difficulties  in  thetransmission of  values, and the  corruption of the idea of freedom, as an autonomouspower of self-affirmation for one’s own selfish well-being (John Paul II, 1981).Furthermore, many secular psychologists, as well as Pope John Paul II, warn thatglobalization as practiced today risks a stifling conformity among cultures and nations,resulting  in  a  loss  of  the  sense  of  particularity  that  is  so  valuable  between  cultures(Sweeney, in press).   Psychology offers a framework for describing the results of intercultural contact and its affect on cultural identity.   The process is called acculturation,which occurs when groups of individual having different cultures come into continuousfirst-hand contact, resulting in subsequent changes in the original culture pattern of eitheror both groups (Berry, 1997).  Because of globalization, the challenge of acculturation nowimpacts  not  only  immigrants  to  a  new  land,  but  potentially  impacts  all  families  andchildren, creating dilemmas heretofore not faced.  However, a proper understanding of the human person, situated in culture 1 canprovide insight into how to manage the dilemmas presented by globalization.  John Paul IIpaints the picture of a modern world united in its recognition of the truth of the humanperson, yet diverse in a culture and tradition arising from dialogue and mutual respect(Sweeney, in press). He states that cultural identity reflects the person’s natural desire tolive  community, to  share  life with others whom they  love, to find meaning  in personalrelationships and in the context that frames those relationships.   Man seeks to createcommunity, and in psychological terms, to find his cultural home and cultural identity2. Theindividual, sure in his identity and insistent on retaining his core values, who comes faceto-face with the global culture and dialogues with it, is the one who benefits the mostpsychologically (Sweeney, in press).  Christian parents can offer their unique contributionin the various situations and cultures in which their family is found (John  Paul II, 1981).6Yet, while parents attempt to preserve the family’s cultural values, the impact ofglobalization instigates conflicts between parents and children (Jensen, 2003), disruptingparent-child  attachment  relationships,  when  children  rebuff  their  cultural  identity3(Sweeney, in press).  Pressure and conflict rise when the child seeks to identify with hispeers in the dominant, secular culture while the family insists on maintaining its culturaland religious traditions (Vivero & Jenkins, 1999).  If a child exposed to the global cultureroutinely gets the message that his culture of origin is worthless, or that he must reject itin order to be accepted by the larger culture, he will suffer psychological conflict (Berry,1997).  The implications of this psychological stress are significant because unsure of hisown  identity, the  child  is  less able to  give and receive  love.  This pattern may becomeingrained, inhibiting future ability to have healthy, giving relationships, for when a child hasimpaired  perceptions  of  emotional  ties  to  his  parents,  he  in  turn may  have  impairedrelationships with a future spouse and children (Sweeney, in press).  These processes arevulnerable  to  the  dilemmas  of  globalization  (Sweeney,  in  press)  and  as  a  result,  anincreasing number of young people are at risk for suffering from emotional or behavioralproblems because of confusion associated with a lack of connectedness to their parentsand traditions that provide meaning.In  summary, it is important to recall that globalization per  se is not necessarilyproblematic. John Paul II (2001a) offered a helpful critique of globalization, noting that“globalization, a priori, is neither good, nor bad. It will be what people make of it … it isnecessary to insist that globalization …must be at the  service of the human person…”Therefore,  it  is  important to  engage the  phenomena  of  globalization with  a  keen  eyetowards  respect  for  cultures,  which  support  preservation  of  healthy  psychologicaldevelopment of identity, and thus of the human person.   A clear understanding of thehuman person at both a natural and supernatural level must be understood in order tonavigate the changing world.7Part 4:  An anthropology of the human person consistent with Catholic Church teachingsWhile the social circumstances of human existence continue to develop and change, thetruth of the human person remains unchanged. Consequently, the goods that mothers andfathers each uniquely bring to the task of parenting and family life must be understoodboth from bio-psychosocial and spiritual perspectives.  The following conceptualization isbased  on  anthropological  premises  generated  by  the  faculty  of  the  Institute  for  thePsychological Sciences in Arlington, VA (Brugger, Donahue, Moncher, Nordling, Palmer,Rondeau, Scrofani, Sweeney, Titus, & Vitz, 2006; I will provide a brief overview of keyconcepts and refer you to the Appendix for a complete description).Regarding the supernatural aspect of the human person, we learn from the truth ofrevelation that the human person is created in the image and likeness of God, is fallen asa consequence of original sin, yet is redeemed in Christ, and ultimately called to holiness,with  a  vocation  of  love.   Nonetheless,  human  nature  is weakened  by  sin,  that  is,  byconcupiscence, with the consequences of disordered emotions, weaknesses of reasonand will, and proneness to disorder in relationships, including relationships in the family.These  weaknesses  manifest  in  a  variety  of  ways,  but  certainly  in  ways  central  tounderstanding the responsibility of mothers and fathers in providing for the formation oftheir children in a manner that promotes flourishing in their lives. This parental vocation tolove is made evident in their relationship with their children, which is present at not onlythe supernatural but also the natural level.At the natural level, we understand the human person to be a unified, integratedwhole, which is at once intelligent, bodily, and relational.  While the coexistence of theseaspects within the unity of the person can never be denied, it is helpful to consider each ofthe different aspects separately.    First we consider that the human person is intelligent,evident in their rational capacities to know themselves, others, and God; to know truth,good and evil; and in the will, as responsible and self-determining beings.  Our freedom to8choose for ourselves and our bearing the burden of these choices responsibly is a vitalconcept for children to learn from their parents.  However, this must be understood in thecontext  of  natural  limitations to  our freedom which result from  concupiscence.   Thus,through multiple factors and to varying degrees, any particular human person will havelimitations on their ability to enact their will. This is in some ways the task of the parents,to minimize the impact of their own natural limitations on their developing children, so thateach child might be as free as possible to know and follow the will of God in his life.Next we  consider that the  human  person  is  bodily, that  is,  emotional, motoric,sensory,  perceptual,  and  situated  in  a  cultural  situation.   In  terms  of  our  focus  onmotherhood  and fatherhood,  it  is  crucial to  understand that  as  bodily  beings,  humanpersons are gendered (Gen 1:27), and that maleness and femaleness are intrinsic andcomplementary, neither identical nor ontologically mutually exclusive. Healthy motherhoodand fatherhood are manifest in marital love and actualized through a husband and wifefirst making a disinterested gift of self to each other.Finally, we consider the relational nature of the human person, wherein we observenatural  inclinations  and needs for  life  in  society.   This  interpersonal aspect  of humannature is first developed in the family, as humans have natural inclinations and needs formarriage  and  children.   Further,  men  and  women  are  different,  interdependent  andcomplementary in relational as well as in physical ways.  Therefore, proper fostering of thedevelopment  of  a  child  requires  mothers  and  fathers  who  each  make  indispensablecontributions. As John Paul II (1981) states “God inscribed in the humanity of man andwoman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion”.One’s sexuality affects not only one’s body but also the totality and unity of one’s body andsoul, including one’s  “affectivity …  capacity to love … and (one’s) aptitude for formingbonds of communion with others” (CCC no. 2332).  In particular, we highlight the essentialappreciation  of  the  unique  contributions  of  fathers  and  mothers  that  are  present  in9assigning meaning of gender to children as a human universal that deeply influences wellbeing.  The importance of these last two aspects at the natural level of the human person,bodily-ness and relationality, is  supported by what is observed  clinically, where peoplemost  often  seek  help  for  problems when  they  are  suffering  interpersonal  troubles  oremotional (i.e.,  bodily)  pain.  Further, the  biological reality that we  are first  bodily  andrelational, before we are  volitional and rational, (personal  communication, C. Brugger)highlights the importance of parental attachment relationships in clarifying for childrentheir course in this complex world.Part 5:  Connectedness with parents: Key to healthy relationships and moral developmentThe formation  of  one’s  identity  is  profoundly  impacted  by  early formative  experiencesattaching to, or bonding with, one’s parents.  While identity depends to some extent onpersonal variables, it is intimately tied to relationships with attachment figures who affordemotional support and protection (Bretherton & Mulnholland, 1999).   Bowlby’s (1969)seminal work on attachment theory has generated a remarkable amount of interest andresearch  on  the  processes  by  which  infants  (e.g.,  Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall,1978),  and  in  later  research,  adults  (e.g.,  Hazan  &  Shaver,  1987;  1994;  Parkes,Stevenson-Hinde, & Marris, 1991), develop the capacity to form bonds with their parents,family members, and ultimately with all human persons.  Attachment is an inborn systemin the brain that evolves in ways that influence and organize motivational, emotional, andmemory processes with respect to significant caregiving figures.  The attachment systemmotivates an infant to  seek proximity to parents and to establish  communication withthem (Bowlby, 1969).It is important to note the universality of attachment across cultures.  Psychologicalresearch  has  demonstrated  that  concepts  such  as  parental  support,  nurturance,closeness, and  caring are  important for  children and adults everywhere, regardless ofrace, language, gender, or culture (Rohner, 1975, 1986, 2006).   The basic fact of this10capacity  to  attach  also  is  found  in  biological  research,  animal  studies,  cross-culturalresearch, and in studies with institutionalized children4.  In addition, the importance ofattachment is persistent throughout the life cycle.  For not only young children, but humanbeings of all ages are found to be at their happiest and best able to deploy their talentswhen they are confident that standing behind them, there are one or more trusted personswho will come to their aid should difficulties arise (Bowlby, 1973).The capacity to attach has been categorized into a finite number of attachmentstyles or types:  the healthy attachment style (called Secure or Autonomous), and a varietyof  unhealthy,  insecure  attachment  styles  (e.g.,  Resistant/Ambivalent/Preoccupied;Avoidant/ Dismissing; or Disorganized/Unresolved/Fearful).  Parents who are perceptive,emotionally  available,  and responsive to their  infants’  needs  and mental  states  haveinfants  who  are  most  often  securely  attached  (Siegel,  1999).  The  theory  posits  thatinternal working models are developed based upon early experiences which form mentalrepresentations  of  caregivers’  sensitivity  and  responsiveness,  which  then  proceed  toinfluence  how  people  perceive,  interpret  and  act  in relationships  across the  life  span(Bowlby, 1969, 1988).   In this way, attachment relationships may  serve to  create thecentral foundation from which the mind develops, and thus secure attachment appears toconfer  a  form  of  emotional  resilience  (Rutter,  1987,  1997).  Alternatively,  insecureattachment, resulting from parents who are unavailable, unresponsive, and/or lackingattunement to their child, may serve as a significant risk factor for the development ofpsychopathology.Furthermore,  the  beginning  of  morality  is  biologically  primed  in  attachmentrelationships.   Stilwell (2002) describes the  child’s quest for parental approval as thefoundation for the emergence of conscience:  “moralization is a process whereby a valuedriven sense of oughtness emerges within specific human behavioral systems …governingattachment, emotional regulation, cognitive processing, and  volition….” (quoted in IAV,112003; p.25-6).  Similarly, Karen (2002) describes the dangers of these attachment needsbeing ignored or denied: “All of the early researchers had found the same symptoms inchildren  who’d  been  deprived  of  their  mother:   (those  symptoms  being)  superficialrelationships,  poverty  of  feeling  for  others,  lack  of  emotional  response,  pointlessdeceitfulness and theft, and inability to concentrate in school” (quoted in IAV, 2003; p.26).In this way, it becomes clear that the task of nurturing children into healthy, functionaladults is one and the same as raising children who are able to function as persons with aclear sense of identity and honorable purpose in their lives.  The call for both mother andfathers to be part of this attachment process is supported in psychological research thatfinds differences in the impact upon children of paternal versus maternal love (Rohner &Veneziano, 2001).Part 6:  Motherhood.The  attachment  literature  makes  clear  the  profound  influence  of  the  mother-childrelationship on future psychological growth, development and potential for flourishing ininterpersonal relationships.   Early attachment research focused on the mother-child bond,based  on  the  premise  that  women  are  genetically  endowed  for  child  care,  and  thatmaternal  love  and  care  provide  everything  that  children  need  for  normal,  healthydevelopment (Rohner & Veneziano, 2001). While this is an incomplete understanding ofthe child’s psychological need for both mother and father, we should not lose sight of thetruth contained in it, that mothers have always been seen, and rightfully so, as essential tochild growth and development.  This is related to how the infant’s attachment and bondingexperiences connect them in a unique manner to the mother, because of, not in spite of,her femaleness.In addition to the psychological importance for children of females, as mothers,John Paul II made clear their profound importance at a spiritual level:   “The moral andspiritual strength of a woman is joined to her awareness that God entrusts the human12being  to  her  in  a  special  way.  A  woman  is  strong  because  of  her  awareness  of  thisentrusting.   That is why when the human race is undergoing so deep a transformation,women imbued with a spirit of the gospel can do so much to aid humanity not falling”(John Paul  II, 1988, no. 1).   All motherhood is understood more deeply as a personalcalling from God for women to humanize humanity in serving the temporal and eternalwelfare of any children whom their lives touch (Sutton, 2005)5.  Furthermore, an essentialaspect  of  what  it  means  to  be  human,  the  gift  of  self,  specifies  a  more  completeunderstanding of women’s motherhood.  In the openness in conceiving and giving birth toa child, the woman discovers herself through a sincere gift of self.  In this way, there canbe no doubt that a mother’s contribution to the task of parenting is not disconnected fromher gender, and that it is precisely because of her femininity that she brings a specificgood to her children.6In summary, the overwhelming evidence psychologically and the clear teachingsof the Church, both reflect the unique  significance of mothers in the lives of  children,which cannot be replaced by society, public institutions, nor by fathers alone.Part 7:  Fatherhood.While there is certainly commonality between mothers and fathers based on their sharedhuman nature7, it is important to understand that similarities do not eliminate differences,and  if  the  goal  is  flourishing  children,  both  mothers  and  fathers  are  needed.Consequently, in a similar yet distinct and irreplaceable way, fatherhood’s influence onchildren and the family can be seen clearly both psychologically and spiritually.The concept of fatherhood has shifted dramatically over the course of history, fromthe stern patriarch, to the distant breadwinner, to the genial playmate, to the more recentco-parent (Pleck & Pleck, 1997).   Furthermore, scientists prior to the 1960s and 1970s13assumed that fathers were relatively unimportant for the healthy development of children(for  a review,  see Cabrera,  Tamis-LeMonda, Bradley, Hofferth, &  Lamb,  2000).   Mostrecently,  however, when  behavioral  scientists  began  to  study  fathers  and  father  lovedirectly,  they  found  that  fathers  are  as  capable  as  mothers  of  being  competent  andnurturing caregivers (Bronstein & Cowan, 1988; Silverstein & Auerbach, 1999), and thatthe  father-child  bond  often  parallels  the  mother-child  bond  both  emotionally  and  inintensity (Fox, Kimmerly, & Schager, 1991; Hanson & Bozett, 1991).Father love is implicated in a wide array of psychological and developmental issues(e.g., adjustment, behavior problems, gender role development, cognitive achievement,social  competence).  Two themes appear to be  key: the warmth of the father, and theinvolvement of the father (see Rohner & Veneziano, 2001 for review). In terms of fatherinvolvement, important factors appear to include the amount of time that fathers spend,the extent to which fathers make themselves available, and the extent to which they takeresponsibility for their children’s care and welfare (Lamb, Pleck, Chernov, & Levine, 1987).It is important to note, however, that one review concluded that it was not the simple factof paternal engagement, availability, or responsibility for child care that was associatedwith positive adjustment and competence, but rather that the quality of the father-childrelationship made the greatest difference (Lamb, 1997)8.    Support for the importance offather  love,  above  and  beyond  the  impact  of  mother  love,  has  also  been  found  incomparative studies of psychological illness and well-being (Rohner & Veneziano, 2001):for example, paternal but not maternal warmth was negatively associated with disruptiveaggression towards  peers (Chen,  Liu, &  Li, 2000);  depressed  or  delinquent  youth feltrejected  by  their  fathers  but  not  necessarily  by  their  mothers  (Andry,  1962,  Cole  &McPherson,  1993);  and  perceived  closeness  to  fathers,  over  and  above  perceivedcloseness  to  mothers,  was  related  to  adult  sons’  and  daughters’  happiness,  lifesatisfaction, and psychological distress (Amato, 1994).   Finally, in a longitudinal  study14(Brody,  Moore,  &  Glei,  1994),  fathers’  warmth  had  a  significant  effect  in  shapingadolescents’  attitudes toward  such  social  issues  as marriage,  divorce,  sex roles,  andteenage childbearing. Apparently, the impact of fathers is not only important for preventingcertain psychological problems, but also for encouraging virtuous attitudes and behavior.It  is  hypothesized that  part  of the reason for fathers’  unique  contribution  is that theyinitiate different types of interactions than mothers, engaging in more physical, rough andtumble,  and  idiosyncratic  play.   In  addition,  fathers  are  more  likely  than  mothers  toencourage  children’s  competitiveness,  risk-taking,  and  independence  (Cabrera  et  al.,2000).In addition to these psychological findings, the role of father is important from aChristian  perspective.   Spiritually,  the  role  of  a  father  in  guiding  his  family  anddemonstrating to children how manhood is powerfully yet appropriately manifest in theworld, has its own dignity and place.   The Church especially venerates St. Joseph as amodel of spiritual fatherhood.  John Paul II (1989) states that all men are called, like St.Joseph, to make a total sacrifice of their lives by submitting their wills to God and givingthemselves permanently, faithfully, and  generously to their wives, and defending theirfamilies from the perils of the world.  A man’s self-gift to his wife promotes and securesher ability to give to the children.  Authentic love and spiritual fatherhood for his childrenrequires that a man develop a profound respect, esteem, and generous concern for eachchild’s dignity and well-being (Sutton, 2005).  A father’s sacrificial approach, in humility toGod’s providence, teaches  children  valuable  lessons that may be  counter to what theglobalized  world  suggests.   For  example,  competent  fathers  importantly  teach  thefollowing: that children are “grown up” when they can take care of others (not when theycan take care of themselves); they teach that success comes from longterm planning (notfrom instantaneous gratification of needs); and they teach that longterm commitments,such as honoring one’s wife and leading children to do so are valuable (as opposed to15spending leisure time away from family responsibilities)   (Stenson, 2000). Fathers alsoproject  moral  leadership  in  the  family,  by  monitoring  and  evaluating what  they  allowchildren to be exposed to from outside the family.Conclusions and RecommendationsTherefore, through faith and reason, we know the crucial importance of both father andmother  in  the  well-being  of  children,  and  their  essential  need  in  these  times  ofunparalleled complexity in the world, for parents to effectively nurture and guide the nextgeneration.   Parents  are  at  the  forefront  of  the  encounter  between  the  unchangingessence of motherhood and fatherhood, and the changing world in which we are living,where  the  meaning  of  motherhood  and  fatherhood  is  being  challenged.   For  thesereasons, it is important to support individual fathers and mothers with a solid declarationof not only their right, but also their duty, to retain their role as primary educators of theirchildren.An integrated, Catholic anthropology of the human person supports this duty in thecontext  of  globalization  because  the  individual  maintains  his  core  integrity  andfundamental  identity.  The  unity  with  which  the  human  person  was  created  by  Godtranscends  contextual  influences  and  compels parents to foster healthy psychologicaldevelopment of the children in the family. This fundamental identity is developmentallyformed first in the bodily and interpersonal aspects of our nature.  Therefore, an essentialneed  for  children  is  that  their  parents,  both  mothers  and  fathers,  are  physically  andemotionally present in order to provide a secure attachment base from which they cangrow and develop.  It is from this secure attachment base that children’s intellect and willcan reach their full potential, unencumbered by anxieties, conflict, and emotional burdensthat weigh  down those who  are  not  confident  in their mother’s  and father’s  love  andsupport. Therefore, it is recommended that fathers and mothers be supported at multiple16levels in their unique and irreplaceable roles as primary attachment figures, educators,and guides of their children.First, individual therapy for fathers or mothers who had not benefited from secureattachment relationships with their  own  parents; to the  extent to which  parents  havepersonal histories that were less than ideal, they will have greater difficulty embracingthere calls to be fathers and mothers, physically and spiritually (Sutton, 2005), resulting indifficulties being perpetuated across generations; Second, marital therapy for parents whoare struggling in sustaining a healthy giving of self in their marriage, which would inevitablyhave bad consequences for the children.  This should include attention by the Church tocomprehensive marriage  preparation  programs  and  assistance for troubled marriages(e.g., Retrouvaille); Third, family interventions that focus on enhancing the filial, parentchild relationship, as well as interventions that support extended family members who playan  invaluable  role;  and  Finally,  systemic  interventions  that  impact  the  societalorganizations by which parents are impacted; for example, corporate policies that freeworkers  to  be  better  parents  and  better  guides  for  the  next  generation  (Institute  forAmerican Values, 2003); schools policies that encourage parental involvement and inputregarding curricula; social or political actions that promote traditional family values, forexample, encouraging the removal of confusing messages about sexuality (e.g., legalizedsame-sex  marriage  and  abortion).   With  support  at  these  multiple  levels,  the  abovementioned  psychological  interventions,  as  well  as  support  from  the  Church  throughcultivation of a sense of meaning and transcendence in their lives, fathers and motherswill be better positioned to provide their children with the nurture and guidance needed forthem to negotiate an increasingly expanding and interconnected world.17ReferencesAinsworth,  M.  D.  S.,  Blehar,  M.  C.,  Waters,  E.,  &  Wall,  S.  (1978).  Patterns  ofattachment:  A  psychological  study  of  the  Strange  Situation.  Hillsdale,  NJ:Erlbaum.Amato,  P.  R.  (1994).  Father-child  relations,  mother-child  relations  and  offspringpsychological well-being in adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56,1031-1042.American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1998). Practice parameters forthe assessment and treatment of  children and adolescents with depressivedisorders. Washington, DC: Author.Andry, R. G. (1962).  Paternal and maternal roles and delinquency. In M. Ainsworth(Ed.), Deprivation of maternal care (WHO Puplic Papers, Vol. 14, pp. 31-41).Geneva: World Health Organization.Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American  Psychologist, 57(10),774-783.Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology,46(1), 5-34.Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol 1: Attachment. London: Tavistock.Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. Vol 2: Separation. New York: Basic Books.Bowlby,  J.  (1988).  A  secure  base:  Parent-child  attachment  and  health  humandevelopment. New York: Basic Books.Bretherton,  I.,  &  Munholland,  K.  (1999).  Internal  working  models  in  attachmentrelationships. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment: Theory,research, and clinical applications. New York: The Guilford Press.Brody, G. H., Moore, K., & Glei, D. (1994). Family processes during adolescence aspredictors  of  parents-young  adult  attitude  similarity:  A  six-year  longitudinalanalysis. Family Relations, 43, 369-373.Bronstein, P., & Cowan, C. P. (Eds.). (1988). Fatherhood today: Men’s changing role inthe family. New York: Wiley.Brugger, E. C., Donahue, M. J. Moncher, F. J., Nordling, W., Palmer, C. A., Rondeau, H.,Scrofani,  P.,  Sweeney, G. M.,  Titus,  C.  S., &  Vitz,  P. (2006). AnthropologicalPremises, 7th Revision. Unpublished manuscript, Institute for the PsychologicalSciences in Arlington, VA.Cabrera, N. J., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Bradley, R. H., Hofferth, S., & Lamb, M. E. (2000).Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child Development, 71, 127-136.Carlson,  M.  &  Earls,  F.  (2000).  Social  ecology  and  the  development  of  stress18regulation.  In  L. R. Bergman, R. B. Cairns,  L-G. Nilsson, &  L. Nystedt (Eds.),Developmental science and the holistic approach (pp. 229-248). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Catechism  of  the  Catholic  Church,  2nded. (1997).  Vatican  City:  Libreria  EditriceVaticana.Chen, X., Liu, M., & Li, D. (2000). Parental warmth, control, and indulgence and theirreactions to adjustment in Chinese  children: A longitudinal  study. Journal ofFamily Psychology, 14, 401-419.Cole, D., & McPherson,  A.  E. (1993). Relation  of family  subsystems to  adolescentdepression: Implementing a new family assessment strategy. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 7, 119-133.Dixon, A., & George, L. (October, 1982). Prolactin and parental behaviour in a maleNew World primate. Nature, 229, 551-553.Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote  youthdevelopment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.Fox, N. A., Kimmerly, N. L., & Schafer, W. D. (1991). Attachment to mother/attachmentto father: A meta-analysis. Child development, 62, 210-225.Haggety, R. J. (1995). Child health 2000: New pediatrics in the changing environmentof children’s needs in the 21st century. Pediatrics, 96(4), 804-812.Hanson,  S. M., &  Bozett,  F. W.  (Eds.).  (1991). Fatherhood and families  in  culturalcontext. New York: Springer.Hazan,  C.,  &  Shaver,  P.  (1987).  Romantic  love  conceptualized  as  an  attachmentprocess. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.Hazan,  C.  &  Shaver,  P.  (1994).  Attachment  as  an  organizational  framework  forresearch on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1-22.Held, D, McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1993). Global  transformations:Politics, economics and culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Insel, T. R., & Young, L. J. (2001). The neurobiology of attachment. Nature ReviewsNeuroscience, 2(2), 129-136.Institute for American Values (2003). Hardwired to connect: The new scientific casefor authoritative  communities. A report from the Commission  on Children atRisk. New York, NY: Author.Jensen,  L.  A.  (2003).  Coming  of  age  in  a  multicultural  world:  Globalization  andadolescent cultural identity formation. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3),189-196.John Paul II (1981). Familiaris consortio. Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media.19John Paul II (1988). Mulieris dignitatem. Retrieved 2-7-06 from http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jpii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.htmlJohn  Paul  II  (1989).  Redemptoris  custos .  Retrieved  3-28-06  fromhttp://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jpii_exh_15081989_redemptoris-custos_en.htmlJohn Paul II (2001a). Address to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Retrievedo n   3 – 2 8 – 0 6   f r o mhttp://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2001/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20010427_pc-social-sciences_en.htmlJohn Paul II (2001b). Message for the celebration of the World Day of Peace. Retrievedon  3-24-06  from  http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_20001208_xxxiv-world-day-forpeace_en.htmlKaren, R. (2002). Investing in children and society: What we’ve learned from sevendecades  of  attachment research  (Working paper 7). New  York:  Institute forAmerican Values.Lamb, M. E. (1997).  Fathers and  child development: An  introductory overview andguide. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 1-18). New York: Wiley.Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J. H., Charnov, E. L., & Levine, J. A. (1987). A biosocial perspectiveon  paternal  behavior  and  involvement.  In J.  B.  Lancaster, J. Altmann,  A.  S.Rossi,  &  L.  R.  Sherrod  (Eds.),  Parenting  across  the  lifespan:  Biosocialdimensions (pp. 111-142). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.National Institutes of Mental Health (1999). Mental health: A report of the surgeongeneral. Bethesda, MD: Author.Parkes, C. M., Stevenson-Hinde, J., & Marris, P. (Eds.). (1991). Attachment across thelife cycle. London: Routledge.Pleck, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1997). Fatherhood ideals in the United States: Historicaldimensions. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rded., pp. 33-48). New York: Wiley.Popenoe, D. (1996). Life without father: Compelling new evidence that fatherhood andmarriage are indispensable for the good of children and society. New York: TheFree Press.Pruett, K. D. (August/September, 1997). How men and children affect each other’sdevelopment. Zero to Three, 3-13.Pruett, K. D. (2000). Fatherneed: Why father care is as essential as mother care foryour child. New York: The Free Press.20Rohner, R. P. (1975). They love me, they love me not: A worldwide study of the effectsof parental acceptance and rejection. New Haven, CT: HRAF Press.Rohner, R. P. (1986). The warmth dimension: Foundations of parental acceptancerejection theory. New Haven, CT: Sage.Rohner,  R.  P.  (2006).  Parental  acceptance  and  rejection  bibliography [Online].Retrieved from http://www.cspar.uconn.edu/CSPARBL.htmlRohner, R. P., & Veneziano, R. A. (2001). The importance of father love: History andcontemporary evidence. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 382-405.Rutter,  M.  (1987).  Psychosocial  resilience  and  protective  mechanisms.  AmericanJournal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316-331.Rutter,  M.  (1997).  Clinical  implications  of  attachment  concepts:  Retrospect  andprospect. In L. Atkinson & K. J. Zucker (Eds.), Attachment and psychopathology(pp. 17-46). New York: Guilford Press.Saunders, W. L. (March, 2006).The State of the [marital] union: International law andthe traditional nuclear family. Paper presented at a symposium of the Institutefor the Psychological Sciences, Arlington, VA.Schore, A. N. (1994). Affect regulation and the origin of the self: The neurobiology ofemotional development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Siegel, D. J. (1999). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact toshape who we are. New York: The Guilford Press.Silverstein,  L.  B.,  &  Auerbach,  C.  F.  (1999).  Deconstructing  the  essential  father.American Psychologist, 54, 397-407.Stenson, J. (Speaker) (2004). Successful fathering (Cassette Recording). Covina, CA:St. Joseph Communications.Stilwell, B. M. (2002). The consolidation of conscience in adolescence (Working paper13). New York: Institute for American Values.Sutton, P. (2005). The universal call to spiritual fatherhood and motherhood. Paperpresented at the Callings Conference, Mount St. Mary’s University, Emmitsburg,Maryland.Sweeney, G. M. (in  press). Culture  and the  individual:  The  psychological  impact  ofglobalization. In A. Rauscher (Ed.), Nationale und kulturelle identität im zeitalterder globalisierung (pp. 55-75). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Trujillo,  A  L. (Sept. 2004). On  the  10th  anniversary  of  the Holy  Father’s  Letter  toFamilies. Key  note  address  at  the  Fellowship  of  Catholic  Scholars  AnnualConference held in Pittsburgh, PA.21Twenge,  J.  M.  (2000).  The  age  of  anxiety?  Birth  cohort  change  in  anxiety  andneuroticism, 1952-1993. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6),1007-1021.United Nations (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved on 3-28-06from http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htmUnited Nations (1976). International covenant on civil and political rights. Retrieved on3-28-06 from http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm#art23United  Nations  (1994).  Programme  of  action  of  the  United  Nations  internationalconference  on  population  &  development.  Retrieved  on  3-28-06  fromhttp://www.iisd.ca/Cairo/program/p00000.htmlVan Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Sagi, A. (1999). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment. In J.Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, andclinical applications (pp. 713-734). New York: Guilford.Vivero, V. N., Jenkins, S. R. (1999). Existential hazards of the multicultural individual:Defining  and  understanding  “cultural  homelessness”. Cultural Diversity  andEthnic Minority Psychology, 5(1), 6-26.22AppendixThe Human Person is …I.  CREATED: humans are created by God in the image and likeness of God1. They are good (as is everything created by God) and have special dignity andvalue as persons.2.  They are  created as a unity, a material body with a  spiritual  soul, and  inspaceand time.3. Since God is a loving communion of persons (a Trinity of Persons), humansare created as persons, whose vocation is love.II. FALLEN: Human nature is fallen: sin, death (mortality) and relational disorder areconstitutive of human life (but are secondary to the goodness of God’s creation).III. REDEEMED: Human nature is redeemed in Christ and restored to right relationshipwith God.        A. In Christ the human person is1. invited into a relationship of adopted sonship2. called to holiness, and to love God and others in this life3. called to eternal beatitude in the life to come        B. Human nature remains weakened by sin (concupiscence—disordered emotions,weakness of reason and will), but can  be assisted, and in certain ways healed,and also divinized, by divine grace.(The above three realities constitute together the cosmic & existential conditions for allhuman life.)________________________________________________________________________IV. The human person is a unified, integrated whole that is at once intelligent (rationaland  free),  embodied,  and  relational.  For  purposes  of  analysis  we  distinguish  thefollowing:       A. INTELLIGENT:1. RATIONAL:       a. Humans are capable of knowing   1) themselves, others and God2) the created order3) truth, including divinely revealed truth4) good and evil, and that good is to be done and evil avoided5) concrete moral norms that guide human action in accordance withgood and away from evil6) and appreciating beauty (they are aesthetic beings).       b. They have rational inclinations to seek and know the truth and findhappiness.Appendix (cont.)            2. VOLITIONAL & FREE:             a. Humans are the subject of moral action, capable of free-choice (i.e., they are     agentic). As such they are1) responsible (capable of responsibility)232) self-determining of their moral character (i.e., dispositions of theirminds, wills and affect)3) creative: like God (only by analogy), they are able to conceive of anddeliberately bring  into existence things that once were not.       b. Although they are free, they are limited by multiple factors and to varyingdegrees.       c. They have volitional inclinations to know and love diverse human goods(and, when baptized, divine  goods)       d. The development of human freedom involves freedom from unduelimitation and growth in capacity to choose good and avoid evil.B. BODILY: Human are bodily, i.e., bodies are intrinsic to human personhood,partially defining of personhood.As bodily, human persons are1. either  male  or  female;  male  and  female  are  complementary  (neitheridentical nor ontologically2. mutually  exclusive)  embodiments  of  the  one  being  we  call  the  humanperson;  this  complementarity  has  a  nuptial  significance.   This  nuptialsignificance is revealed and actualized through a “disinterested gift of self,”typified in and through marital love.3. emotional; through training, humans develop emotional dispositions thatcanbe ordered in accord with what is true and good.4. sensory and perceptional: all knowledge and experience begins with thesenses5. motoric (self-moving)6. situated in history and influenced by their historical situation       C. RELATIONAL: humans are relational, i.e., have natural inclinations & needs forlife in society;  as such they are1. interpersonal, which is first developed in the family, for which humans have a    natural inclination (i.e., for marriage, procreation and education of children)2. situated in a culture and influenced by that cultureBrugger, Donahue, Moncher, Nordling, Palmer, Rondeau, Scrofani, Sweeney, Titus, &Vitz (2006).  Anthropological Premises, 7th Revision, 9 February, 200624                                                  1 Culture understood as “(t)he form of man’s self-expression in his journey through history,on the level of both individuals and social groups.  For man is driven incessantly by hisintellect and will too cultivate natural goods and values, to incorporate in an ever higher andmore systematic cultural synthesis his basic knowledge of all aspects of life… and to fosterthose existential values and perspectives, especially in the religious sphere, which enableindividual and community life to develop in a way that is authentically human.”  (John PaulII, 2001b)2 John Paul II (2001b) says that “the need to accept one’s own culture as a structuringelement of one’s personality, especially in the initial stages of life, is a fact of universalexperience whose importance can hardly be overestimated.  Without a firm rooting in aspecific soil, individuals risk being subjected at a still vulnerable age to an excess ofconflicting stimuli which could impair their serene and balanced development”.3 Vivero and Jenkins (1999) summarize the benefits of cultural identity: Cultural identity isthe discovery of a psychological home, a sense of belonging to an ethnic or geographiccommunity with consistent socialization themes and traditions.  The cultural home providesa set of integrated assumptions, values, beliefs, social role norms, and emotional attachmentsthat constitutes a meaningful personal identity, developed and located within a social culturalframework, and that is shared by a group of similarly located individuals.4 (a) biological research where the mechanisms by which we become and stay attached toothers are primed and increasingly discernible in the basic structure of the brain, throughemotional communication beginning before words are spoken (A. Schore, 1994 quoted inInstitute for American Values, 2003); (b) animal studies which demonstrate thatattachment hormones help to trigger parental care, which in turn helps to trigger the releaseof more attachment hormones (Dixon & George, 1982; Insel & Young, 2001); (c) crosscultural research which indicates that children’s attachment styles can be distinguishedreliably in a variety of cultures (van Ijzendoorn & Sagi, 1999); and (d) studies on theimpact upon institutionalized children raised without attachment figures (see, for example,Carlson & Earls, 2000)(see also Siegal, 1999).5 The theological foundations for the indisputable contribution of females to parenting isexpounded upon in his Apostolic Letter Mulieris dignitatem (John Paul II, 1988).  Heconcludes this letter stating: “In our own time, the successes of science and technology makeit possible to attain material well being to a degree hitherto unknown.  While this favorssome, it pushes others to the edge of society.  In this way, unilateral progress can also lead toa gradual loss of sensitivity for man, that is, what is essentially human.  In this sense, ourtime in particular awaits the manifestation of that “genius” which belongs to women, andwhich can ensure sensitivity for humans in every circumstance: because they are human!-andbecause “the greatest of these is love” (cf. 1 Cor 13:13)….If the human being is entrusted bygod to women in a particular way, does it not mean that Christ looks to them for theaccomplishment of the “royal priesthood” (1 Pt 2:9), which is the treasure he has given toevery individual?” (no. 30)6 This is clarified by John Paul II (1988) extensively in Mulieris dignitatem:  Mary, as thearchetype of the personal dignity of women, signifies the fullness of the perfection of “whatis characteristic of woman”, of “what is feminine” in the expression “handmaid of the lord”(Luke 1:38) in which she demonstrates complete awareness of being a creature of God.25   Implied in this then, is the understanding of “to serve means to reign” showing all people thereality of the royal dignity of service.  Later in this letter, the Holy Father explores how Jesusexpresses appreciation and admiration for a distinctly “feminine” response of mind andheart, a special sensitivity, as in the case of the Canaanite woman as well as the firstwitnesses of the resurrection.7 Some research suggests that fathers and mothers seem to influence their children in manysimilar ways (e.g., warmth, nurturance, and closeness are associated with positive childfunctioning whether the parent involved is a mother or a father; Lamb, 1997).8 It is important to note that much of this research is limited by having been conducted withmiddle-class European American parents (Rohner & Veneziano, 2001) and some variabilitymight be expected in other cultures.