Dumbing-Down the Pro-life Movement

CatholicCitizens.Org ^ | 9/1/03 | Dr. Brian Kopp

[Polycarp]

HOME | ABOUT US | PRESS | EVENTS | PEOPLE | ISSUES | NEWSLETTER | CONTACT US | SEARCH
		Dumbing-Down the Pro-life Movement 9/1/2003 4:05:00 PM By Dr. Brian Kopp - Catholic Family Association of America, www.cathfam.org Pope Paul VI warned that the contraceptive mentality was counter to Christian morality, and would open the floodgates of divorce, abortion, euthanasia, and moral decine. He was right, but some pro-lifers still don't get it. In this post-Christian era of American society, where conservative politics and the multitude of Christian sects blur in a desperate attempt to build more effective coalitions, many pro-life activists have embraced a ‘least common denominator’ approach to confronting the problem of legalized abortion. In so doing, basic fundamental tenets of moral theology are set aside in hopes of forging a voting block large enough to accomplish incremental advances in this long entrenched battlefront of the culture wars. But by allowing ‘exceptions’ and contraceptions, has political expediency so diluted the Pro-life movement that its political effectiveness and its very moral foundations have been compromised? Has the Pro-life movement been dumbed-down to the point of being unable to credibly defend the unborn? Broad coalitions and voting blocks are essential for achieving political victories. Unfortunately, each incremental increase in size of the ‘conservative/pro-life’ voting block has been gained by incremental lowering of the ‘least common denominators’ to being Pro-life. The most obvious and most debated lowering is in allowing exceptions for the ‘hard cases’ of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. A further lowering includes a generic ‘health of the mother’ exception, which casts a net so wide that the most ardent pro-lifers leave the coalition, and the line between pro-life and pro-choice becomes hopelessly blurred. The pro-life movement began in the late 1960s and early 1970's in response to efforts to legalize abortion. In the ensuing years, the coalition set aside arguments over ‘exceptions’ to forge a larger coalition. The issue of contraception was never credibly debated because many of the movement’s founders were evangelical Protestants who held that the issue had already been ‘settled,’ in spite of the historic Christian traditions to the contrary. For better or for worse, in the interest of political effectiveness, compromises were made, and a movement was born. The historical Christian prohibition on contraception was first shaken by the Anglican's 1930 Lambeth Conference, and within three decades practically all the main Protestant sects had abandoned the universal Christian prohibition against contraception. A large portion of Catholics joined in the rejection of Humanae Vitae in 1968, so that in the earliest stages of the pro-life movement, contraception, a fundamental consideration in the fight against abortion, was never really examined or debated, in spite of Pope Paul VI’s landmark encyclical. The Pope had warned that legalized contraception would result in widespread divorce, abortion, euthanasia and disregard for life and morality, and of course, he was correct. The connection between the acceptance of contraception, beginning only in 1930, and the legalization of abortion, just four decades later, cannot be overstated. The apocryphal ‘right to privacy,’ upon which the horrid decision in Roe v. Wade was based, was first invented by five justices on the Supreme Court in the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut. That case held that married couples have a ‘privacy’ right to purchase contraceptives. To this day, Constitutional scholars openly concede that there was simply no foundation or precedent for such a ruling, but there was also no means to stop the Justices from imposing their morals on the nation. The Griswold ruling struck down the only remaining ‘Comstock Laws,’ which were written by Protestant legislators in the 1800's, and made illegal the sale or distribution of all forms of contraception. Over time, contraception and birth control became accepted in our culture because certain Christian sects abandoned traditional Christian teaching regarding sexual morality. The Roe v. Wade ruling was based upon that so-called ‘right to privacy’ unknown prior to Griswold’s overturning of anti-contraception ordinances. The fabricated legal foundations for the ‘right’ to birth control progressed naturally to the philosophical foundations of a ‘right’ to abortion. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey the US Supreme Court said: "In some critical respects, abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception... for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail." This brutal honesty on the part of the US Supreme Court should have been cause for the pro-life community to reevaluate the role of secular and Christian acceptance of the contraceptive mentality is fomenting the legalization of abortion. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. To orthodox Christians who form the core of the Pro-life movement, it is morally and philosophically inconsistent to support contraception and oppose abortion. The Pro-life community must come to understand the roots of the acceptance of contraception and the direct correlation between the contraceptive mentality and legalized abortion. Even the US Supreme Court admitted the connection. Surely the Pro-life community can address this topic, which has, for the most part, never even been debated, in spite of its role in the legalization of abortion. It can be argued that the dumbing-down of the pro-life movement (i.e. the acceptance of contraception and ‘exceptions’) has prevented any real success in advancing pro-life legislation, and set the movement back. By diluting traditional doctrines of sexual morality within the Pro-life movement, it has become less of a moral movement, and more of a political fishnet designed for harvesting voters for right of center Republican candidates who are expected to moderate their Pro-life views with sufficient ‘exceptions’ to be deemed ‘electible.’ The difference of opinion regarding contraception demonstrates that even Christians can’t agree on what constitutes orthodoxy in theology or sexual morality. Prior to the Lambeth Conference, the major differences between Catholicism and orthodox Protestantism surrounded the Sacraments and the definition of “salvation.” Until 1930, however, all Christians, be they Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant, agreed on what constituted orthodoxy in moral theology - adultery, abortion, homosexuality, divorce, and contraception were universally condemned as gravely sinful. Sadly, only Roman Catholics have carried this torch into the 21st century. The general acceptance of contraception and the steadfast position of the Roman Catholic Church against it is now one of most compelling arguments that Roman Catholicism is Christ's church. In this context, the abandonment of sexual morality is a harbinger of that Great Apostasy foretold in scripture. And how could it be anything else? The dumbing-down of the Pro-life movement to its ‘lowest common denominator’ is a suicidal policy, and it must be resolved among pro-life Christians, even if the larger political pro-life movement refuses. Failure to resolve the inconsistency between being pro-contraception and anti-abortion pits the Pro-life movement against itself, a position from which we cannot effectively demand public policies protecting society from abortion. The pro-life movement cannot stop judges from ‘playing God’ in courtrooms or women from ‘playing God’ with their unborn babies if they insist on ‘playing God’ in their homes using contraception and birth control. Dr. Brian Kopp - Catholic Family Association of America, www.cathfam.org

[litany_of_lies]

Meant to tell you earlier--I'll refrain from FReepmails but not pings.

If you want to post to this forum, you have to be open to responses from all participants as long as they aren't engaging in harrassment, racism, etc. If you don't like it, don't post, just lurk. Or I suppose you could run to JimRob and try to get me banned. Good luck.

If you're still reading--

Thought you'd find this interesting in light of your position on the use of NFP for grave and non-grave reasons:

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum11&recnu=10&number=375538

*****

Serious reason "quietly "dropped
Question from Kari Beckman on 08-18-2003:

Dear Fr. Hogan' In an article dated 7/30/03 you stated at the end that the Church as "quietly" dropped the serious reason for using NFP, could you please sight your source as I can not find anything to that affect. This is of great concern to me as a Faithful Catholic who out of obiedence to the teaching on marriage has been open to life, I have read Humani Vitae as well as parts of the Theology of the Body and they both refer to NFP as only being used in grave reason, this recently as been brought up by a friend of mine and if true that serious reason is not needed, then many of us are in error of what the Church teaches and need to be corrected. I too thought that this teaching could never be changed as it is a matter of faith and morals. Please answer quickly as this has me greatly concerned about the state of our Church. Pax Christi, Kari Beckman

Answer by Fr. Richard Hogan - NFP Outreach on 08-19-2003:

Perhpas I should not have said "quietly dropped" without qualifying the statement more. They have been "dropped" as a PREREQUISITE for "having recourse to the infertile periods." See the FAQ on this site regarding this whole issue.

To summarize: NFP is the study of the language of the body. The body is the manifestation of the person--our bodies reveal who we are and so they can be said to speak a langauge. The most profound language the body speaks is the language of love because the body is the sign, expression of an image of God, a person. An image of God is called to do what God does, i.e., love, and express those acts in and through the body. So the most profound language the body speaks is the language of love. And the body speaks this language through the sexual powers. NFP is precisely the study of these sexual powers. So, NFP is reading the language of the body.

When this language is understood, i.e., when NFP is known properly, both the husband and the wife come to understand the awesome nature of God's gift of life to each of them and the incredible gift the other is. In other words, the body reveals the person which in turn reveals God because the body reveals an image of God and when an image of God is revealed, something of God is revealed. This newfound respect and awe leads to gratitude, then to love (because having received such an awesome gift, naturally one is grateful and wants to respond) and to generosity (because love is always generous).

With this generosity, NFP couples usually desperately WANT to give of themselves, and to give this awesome gift of life to new human persons. They understand in a profound way the privilege of procreation and want to share in this activity with God. They will only postpone a pregnancy for the most weighty of reasons. Thus, NFP leads couples to "serious reasons" to postpone a pregnancy.

In practical terms, if a couple understands NFP properly, uses it properly, has their life in order (taking care of family obligations, Church obligations, work, social responsibilities, community responsibilities, etc.) then if they decide to postpone a pregnancy, the Church ASSUMES that they have sufficient reasons.

It is not so much that the reasons are not needed, it is that they come as a RESULT of the proper use of NFP and are not required as a PREREQUISITE.

John Paul does not mention serious reasons as a prerequisite for using NFP in his Apostolic Exhortation on the Family.

*******

Don't know how to find the "Apostolic Exhortation," but even you must acknowledge that sincere, practicing Catholic couples get at least a teeny bit of flexibility in this matter.

Or do we put Fr. Hogan up for excommunication?

[dsc]

"Or do we put Fr. Hogan up for excommunication?"

Put him up for the Bill Clinton award for excellence in gobbldygook.

[Polycarp]

My thoughts on Fr. Hogan, from a previous thread.

By the way, a FReeper can indeed be banned for pinging another FReeper who specifically requested they cease and desist. Care to learn the hard way?

[litany_of_lies]

(from Polycarp) By the way, a FReeper can indeed be banned for pinging another FReeper who specifically requested they cease and desist. Care to learn the hard way?

Polycarp, I'll save you the trouble. Let's find out.

(FR) Posting Guidelines

Broadly stated, the goals of this site are to further conservatism, expose political corruption, and recover a truly constitutional form of government. If these are not your goals, you may find another discussion site more suitable.

Free Republic expects users to follow a few simple posting guidelines (described below) and by posting to the forum you and others agree to abide by them. While Free Republic is not edited or censored, it does reserve the right to remove any postings that are considered inappropriate. Examples of inappropriate posts are those that are off-subject or contain advertising, pornography, obscene material, racist material, Nazi (or other hate group) material, materials promoting violence, threats or illegal acts, etc.

These guidelines are intended to help maintain a useful amount of order in a large site like this and to promote better posting. They may be revised without notice. Users of Free Republic should also understand that this is a privately owned, not-for-profit site and that they are guests here. The owner reserves the right to revoke posting privileges and, when necessary, to permanently ban individuals.

(goes on to list guidelines, none of which refer to having to abide by no-ping requests)

*********

Hmmm, Polycarp, your position on banning posters for not honoring no-ping requests while remaining civil must be "emanating in the penumbras," to borrow a phrase. I'll concede that they may be honored or enforced by JimRob informally (perhaps Penumbra is his middle name), which is why he's copied on this post.

Though it seems against the spirit of the Forum, I would abide by JimRob's ratification of your position, and if so, you (Polycarp) could have what looks from here like the smug self-satisfaction of eliminating a challenge to your thinking, rather than engaging in the give-and-take evangelization that someone in an influential position like yours should be engaged in. I have learned a lot from your postings on this and other topics (and the challenges to them), have visited your web site (excellent-could use some design work-no I don't design web sites), and am truly impressed with your dedication to an important, actually all-important, cause. But I feel strongly that with your attitude towards disagreement, which I have managed to transcend while I continue to learn (I suspect most wouldn't, and would tell you to bleep off), you'll never win hearts and minds (but you'll feel good, which from this vantage point appears to be paramount). And it may be that you're different in your presentation and counseling work--in my real life, I'm considered a reasonably nice guy :->).

So, JimRob, go ahead, make Polycarp's day if you think it's in the best interest of this Forum, and tell me I should cease and desist from pinging him. I assume I will still be able to post to his threads, just not to HIM, but you probably should clarify that too, lest we unduly upset the man.

As to Poly's take on Hogan, I am still in learning mode, but I tend to agree with Polycarp that Hogan is wrong, and that a person could drive a Mack Truck through the "evolving towards only serious use" element of his NFP reasoning. But as usual, your post contains the petulant "if they (mainstream NFP folks) don't agree with me totally I'm leaving" threat-for all the good the mainstream NFP movement is accomplishing, you look like a crybaby.

I am leaning towards the idea, and have yet to see a contradiction of it (even from Polycarp), that "uncontrolled" newlywed passion, in light of Corinthians, may be and probably usually is a "serious or grave" situation calling for NFP while couples gain the necessary maturity to become responsible parents, and that they aren't under the stricture of HV's either-or statement until they gain it, simply because they aren't yet a "responsible" couple. Paul specifically acknowledges that couples are not necessarily mature individually or as a couple (not in control of their passions) just because they got married. The reality is that people in his day usually married as teenagers, young enough that it would be difficult to credibly argue a case for their emotional maturity, and that many people today, including Catholics, for better or worse, marry as teens. Not that age automatically confers maturity; I'm sure many couples who marry later still aren't in control of their passions. But it's pretty safe to say that in general the younger you are, the less in control you are.

It even appears that Paul is specifically telling couples who have prayerfully concluded that they should stay together for life "Get married ASAP BECAUSE you can't control your passions (i.e., you aren't emotionally mature)." The grace of the sacrament is powerful, but I don't think one can claim that it confers overnight emotional maturity on its receivers, but rather that it works its "magic" (there must be a better word, maybe "The Holy Spirit does his thing") over time. Taking the position that an emotionally immature just-married couple can do NFP because the immaturity in and of itself constitutes a serious situation seems to resolve things and satisfy everyone (except maybe Polycarp).

One could even go so far as to claim that some couples (one, the other, or both) are "wired" in such a way that they will NEVER truly gain control of their "burning passions" (aside from all of the other aspects of emotional maturity), meaning that they may qualify for "permanent serious" status, and are always eligible for NFP, before, during, and after they have their kids. Paul doesn't claim or state an expectation that couples will evolve to a state of control, and I don't see where the Church necessarily mandates or expects that such an evolution occur.

No one would argue, I hope, that an immature couple having kids early in a marriage is a good idea, or one that the Church would support. For some, it might be the "shake" they need to become mature (I have seen it work this way, but not often); for most, it's a recipe for a strained or doomed marriage and/or a temptation to artificial contraception. NFP looks to be God's gift to an admittedly fragile relationship.

Oh, and my pastoral counselor says that the debate you and I are having is a debate occurring within the Church, and that, even aside from lack of total consensus on how to interpret the published and spoken guidance between sincere parties, what is "grave" can FURTHER cross over into being a matter of conscience. I suspect you'll find that answer less than totally acceptable, but you can't say I'm not taking your advice. :->

Maybe we should put my counselor in line for excommunication behind Fr. Hogan. Better yet, next time I'm near Altoona, PA, or Austerlitz, NY, or wherever you're from (can't tell), we should belt down a couple of cold ones, and THEN continue this exchange. Some Catholics are known to be pretty experienced at drinking (for innocent enjoyment, of course :->), though I'm not one of them-so you could put me under the table and take the argument by default.

[Jim Robinson]

We're also guided by common courtesy. If someone asks you not to ping him, common courtesy says, don't ping him.

[Polycarp]

I tend to agree...that Hogan is wrong, and that a person could drive a Mack Truck through the "evolving towards only serious use" element of his NFP reasoning.

I am leaning towards the idea, and have yet to see a contradiction of it (even from Polycarp), that "uncontrolled" newlywed passion, in light of Corinthians, may be and probably usually is a "serious or grave" situation calling for NFP while couples gain the necessary maturity to become responsible parents, and that they aren't under the stricture of Humanae Vitae's either-or statement until they gain it, simply because they aren't yet a "responsible" couple.

Taking the position that an emotionally immature just-married couple can do NFP because the immaturity in and of itself constitutes a serious situation seems to resolve things and satisfy everyone (except maybe Polycarp).

One could even go so far as to claim that some couples (one, the other, or both) are "wired" in such a way that they will NEVER truly gain control of their "burning passions" (aside from all of the other aspects of emotional maturity), meaning that they may qualify for "permanent serious" status, and are always eligible for NFP, before, during, and after they have their kids.

No one would argue, I hope, that an immature couple having kids early in a marriage is a good idea, or one that the Church would support. For some, it might be the "shake" they need to become mature (I have seen it work this way, but not often); for most, it's a recipe for a strained or doomed marriage and/or a temptation to artificial contraception. NFP looks to be God's gift to an admittedly fragile relationship.

Catholic Caucus, what is your opinion on these statements. I've made mine quite clear.

Any thoughts? Any consensus on the issue of what constitutes a legitimate reason for recourse to NFP or whether the Churc h now says none are necessary?

[litany_of_lies]

If you think abiding by non-ping requests falls into the common courtesy category, I'll gladly stop. I'm a courteous guy.

[Snuffington]

Catholic Caucus, what is your opinion on these statements.

My opinion is that this is a textbook example of how NFP can be twisted to fit the contraceptive mindset as easily as the pill or a condom. It is also my opinion that the majority of U. S. Catholics probably share this contraceptive mindset.

It is not my opinion, rather it is fact, that such "easy-NFP" positions violate the Church's constant teaching on the matter of sex. The ambiguity in certain sections of Humanae Vitae's language (at least the English translation) is partly to blame for this.

What's more, given the prevalence of contraceptive mentality among American Catholics, I think the Church's efforts are misplaced in promoting NFP. It ought to be promoting the value of large families, and holiness of chastity.

[litany_of_lies]

Since I can't ping Poly, I'll have to point out to all that in terms of the question:

...."Any consensus on the issue of what constitutes a legitimate reason for recourse to NFP or whether the Church now says none are necessary?

...I am NOT among those in the "none are necessary" camp. Maybe Fr. Hogan thinks so, but I don't. MY concerns and possible "serious" reasons are clearly ID'd in 224.

[Maximilian]

Oh, and my pastoral counselor says that the debate you and I are having is a debate occurring within the Church, and that, even aside from lack of total consensus on how to interpret the published and spoken guidance between sincere parties, what is "grave" can FURTHER cross over into being a matter of conscience. I suspect you'll find that answer less than totally acceptable, but you can't say I'm not taking your advice. :->

Certainly this is true. There is a debate going on within the Church over this topic. The question is whether one sticks with 2000 years of teaching and tradition, or whether one goes with supposed new teachings that Hogan claims have been "silently" adopted. For the individual Catholic, the situation has got to be very confusing.

[Maximilian]

What's more, given the prevalence of contraceptive mentality among American Catholics, I think the Church's efforts are misplaced in promoting NFP. It ought to be promoting the value of large families, and holiness of chastity.

Exactly! The Church should not promote NFP any more than they should promote annulments. Both are exceptions reserved for exceptional situations. But both are becoming the rule instead of the exception. It's the promotion and encouragement that does more harm than couples who have truly grave reasons. If NFP wasn't being promoted even to teenagers, then couples who had true emergencies would seek out NFP when they needed it, not be told ahead of time to plan to limit their children.

The value of large families. That is what Pope Pius XII spoke about in his "Address to Large Families." As you say, this is the truly Catholic approach which needs to be promoted.

[Maximilian]

I am NOT among those in the "none are necessary" camp.

When this thread started out you seemed somewhat flippant. But just during the course of this discussion it is evident that you have put a lot of thought and research into the issue. And consultation with your spiritual director -- you are to be commended.

[Polycarp]

The Church should not promote NFP any more than they should promote annulments. Both are exceptions reserved for exceptional situations.

This is why I thoroughly enjoy (despite my frequent whining) the give and take of Free Republic's Catholic Caucus, Maximilian.

This is truly a brilliant comparison and illustration. Thank you.

[Polycarp]

But just during the course of this discussion it is evident that you have put a lot of thought and research into the issue. And consultation with your spiritual director -- you are to be commended.

Dittos.

[traditionalist]

If a couple lacks the maturity to be responsible parents, then they have no business getting married at that point in time. The primary purpose of marriage is procreative. If the couple is not ready for procreation, then the couple is not ready for marriage.

[Polycarp]

If a couple lacks the maturity to be responsible parents, then they have no business getting married at that point in time. The primary purpose of marriage is procreative. If the couple is not ready for procreation, then the couple is not ready for marriage.

Thank you. This should be obvious to any properly catechized Catholic.

[sinkspur]

The Church should not promote NFP any more than they should promote annulments.

I was having a discussion not long ago here with a poster who encouraged Catholics to marry as soon as possible, even as young as 18, so they could get a jump on having a large family.

I fruitlessly pointed out, over and over, that young, immature couples divorce at a much higher rate than those who marry well into their 20s or even later.

What's more, this particular poster said that there were way too many annulments, and he opposed annulments for those who enter marriage at a young age (an almost automatic qualifier for an annulment today).

I sometimes wonder if some Catholics live in the real world. I've worked with the Marriage Tribunal, on and off, for 30 years. Those who seek annulments are not doing so cavalierly; and, if their case is taken, it is still a wrenching experience and takes well over a year, sometimes two. There are, in almost every case, some major psychological issues with one or both partners

I'd be interested in how you would pastorally respond to someone who marries young, the relationship turns abusive or a spouse never matures, and that someone then divorces.

Would you condemn them to never remarrying? Or, if they did, just telling them there's no recourse to ever restoring them to the Eucharist?

There's a real harshness to many arguments put forth by "traditionalists" in opposition to annulments. It is telling that even conservative bishops like Bruskewitz have a very active tribunal that uses the American norms for annulment.

[sinkspur]

The primary purpose of marriage is procreative. If the couple is not ready for procreation, then the couple is not ready for marriage.

OTOH, there are those who think they're ready for procreation, and so, marry, and are too immature to handle the responsibilities or just choose not to.

I think early marriage should be discouraged, generally. Too many of them end in divorce to just roll the dice and hope you're one of the lucky ones.

A couple should be at least 21, and some should be even older than that.

[Maximilian]

I sometimes wonder if some Catholics live in the real world.

I can see that you have some valid concerns based on your real-world experience. However, the solution is not to encourage more of the problem. Granting more annulments is like the "giving away free needles to heroin addicts" approach to the drug problem. The solution is to be sure that people, no matter what their age, are aware of the permanent nature of marriage when they make the vow. It's "until death do you part," not until you decide that you want out.

As for immaturity, abuse, etc., these things are not that difficult to predict going in. People know what they are getting into. Lots of women like the "dangerous man" type, and vice versa. Then later they change their minds. But in the meantime they went up in front of the church and stood before lots of people and made a vow that can only be severed by death.

As far as the pastoral response, it is no charity to lie to someone and tell them that they are not living in sin when in fact they are. By doing so you are sharing in the culpability of their sin. Their souls need to be snatched back from the brink of perdition. Making the road to hell smoother and easier is not a true charity.

[litany_of_lies]

Thanks. I seemed flippant in the beginning because what I was reading was so contrary to my (at least partially) flawed understanding of HV's and the Church's position on NFP, and I'm heavy on the defiance gene.

Learning this after 12 years in Catholic schools in the 60s and 70s, etc. is really disturbing (though obviously helpful now-better late than never).

The Church has been actively promoting what I perceived as unlimited use of rhythm and NFP as long as I can remember, so you'll forgive me if "your" position struck me as a reactionary and unwarranted extension of Church teaching. It obviously isn't, which leads me to wonder why the Church, at least the American Church, has been so gung-ho on rhythm and NFP all these years without pointing out its proper place. Perhaps it was fear of losing even more practicing Catholics to artificial contraception and The Faith (not a good reason at all).

Not to minimize personal responsibility for learning the Faith, which never goes away, but this appears to be another in a long line of examples over decades of our leaders letting us down.