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

[Voice in your head]

"Every definition you offer boils down to nothing more than *might.* There's no certainty anywhere. I can't see myself killing one of my kids over "might," and I have to ask again, what kind of mother would?"

We seem to be hung up by your misunderstanding of the word "imminent".

[ninenot]

"The consept of self-defense may also be applied to the case of rape, where a female is in 'imminent' danger of pregnancy and thus the increased risk to her life from same that resulted from a criminal act comitted against her person..."

Well, it's an argument.

Better to shoot the rapist before the crime is committed.

[utahagen]

"One does not have to make something illegal to make it undesirable..."

I don't disagree with you. My gripe with Polycarp is that he is slamming the Pro-Life movement in general without outling specifically what pro-lifers, in the context of their anti-abortion work, should say or do about contraception.

[Polycarp]

Thanks ninenot. (I just got an email that American Life League is going to pass along this article in their regular e-newsletter later this week.)

[MHGinTN]

"Could you explain that?" I'll try, briefly. (yeah, right!)

Unless the pregnancy results from rape, pregnancy is the result of voluntary behavior. The newly conceived individual should have the unalienable right to LIFE, unless the gestational process poses an imminent threat to the LIFE of the life supporting woman. [In the not so distant future -less than a decade- men can be carriers/life support of the gestational age of a fellow human being.] In the case of rape, the person to whom the criminal act has been done must have the right, according to our founding principles and the later amendments addressing slavery, to terminate a pregnancy resulting from the criminal act of rape since to be forced to carry to term a fellow individual human being as an act of enslavement is counter to our principles. BUT neither of these scenarios should carry the evil imprimatur of a right to a dead baby if the sequence of timing may be worked to bring the alive individual through to full viability outside the woman's body as allowed by her choice. [Therein is the true meaning of choice, the right of a woman to accept the risk in order to give life to another. But our principles ought not set her right to life aside and pregnancy does carry increased risk to her life and should not be forced upon her for the required period of gestational age to bring the newly conceived individual to age of viability. I'm not sure if that actually help, don'tcha know!]

[Voice in your head]

Thank you. That is the first rational explanation that I have ever read regarding the difference (in terms of rights) between a mother carrying a baby concieved by consensual sex and a mother carrying a baby concieved by rape.

[MHGinTN]

When one starts with the assumption that a real, alive, fellow individual human being begins their unique lifetime at conception, the above rationale is the only one I've been able to 'conceive'. Sadly, our nation has been programmed to dehumanize the newly conceived, for the expedience and exploitation now our reality. Broad cannibalization is just around our collective corner.

[Polycarp]

My gripe with Polycarp is that he is slamming the Pro-Life movement in general without outling specifically what pro-lifers, in the context of their anti-abortion work, should say or do about contraception.

Prior to saying or doing ANYTHING "about" contraception, the pro-life movement must learn the basics.

If 99% of cancer doctors failed to grasp that the invasive lumps of tissue killing their patients arose from pathological displasia and duplication of the host cells, they probably would not have a very good record in treating cancer.

Likewise, 99% of non-Catholic pro-lifers and too large a fraction of Catholic pro-lifers do not grasp the connection between contraception and abortion.

These invasive lumps of legalized abortion have sprung forth from a pathological embrace of a practice diametrically opposed to Natural Law, scripture, and 2000 years of continuous and universal Judeo-Christian moral theology.

Given the ignorance of these pro-lifers, how can we possibly expect them to have any success in treating/ excising the disease they are fighting?

Doctors have to learn the basics to fight cancer.

The pro-life movement SKIPPED the basics when they failed to address/debate the contraceptive mentality as the root cause of legalized abortion.

Therefore, for all practical purposes, the pro-life movement has failed utterly in treating the cancer of abortion.

outling specifically what pro-lifers, in the context of their anti-abortion work, should say or do about contraception

Here's a start: take the articles in post 41 and 122 along with my op-ed which started this thread, distribute it throughout the entire pro-life movement, and actually educate, evangelize, and train the pro-life movement to understand the very root cause of the cancer of abortion so that we can actually HAVE the discussion of contraception in the pro-life movement that never occurred in its inception.

AFTER that, the pro-life movement, based on a proper understanding of the facts, can decide what to SAY and/or DO about the whole issue of contraception.

Until we go back and do this, we will not go foreward and defeat legalized abortion. 30 years of failure should be enough evidence to prove my point.

And ANY pro-lifer who thinks we are on the verge of overturning Roe vs Wade is delusional.

[Voice in your head]

"Likewise, 99% of non-Catholic pro-lifers and too large a fraction of Catholic pro-lifers do not grasp the connection between contraception and abortion."

In the arena of ideas, even on this topic, I do not think that you should limit your audience to Catholics or Christians or people who believe in God. I happen to have no religion, yet I understand your moral stance and your references to postfertilization effects. For those of us who believe that liberty should be guiding principle of the actions of government, the possibility of postfertilization effects is significant. Also, while any argument resting on the premise that we take a given action, in order to fulfill God's will or some similar notion, will not hold much weight with people such as I, the entire argument will not be totally discarded due to that one "invalid" premise. The rest of the argument can still have merit - and I believe yours does. It is worth consideration, even for those of us who are not religious, to note the slippery slope from contraception to abortion, because it concerns human nature.

[VeritatisSplendor]

Your quote from Paul VI completely fails to address my point. What, specifically, is wrong with NFP, defined as avoiding sex at the fertile times of a woman's cycle, and using various diagnostic techniques to identify said fertile times?

Before you answer: saying NFP can be used wrongly won't cut it. I want to know why you seem to think it is ALWAYS illicit, or have you admit that it is sometimes licit.

[VeritatisSplendor]

Excuse the mistake in my previous post, I meant to refer to Pius XI not Paul VI.

Your citation of Romans is also not pertinent. I am not arguing that sodomy is not a mortal sin; but murder is much worse from the point of view of society because innocents are killed, and I am talking about preventing murders as a better use of one's resources than preventing conceptions.

I am assuming here that your citation of Romans was simply to make the point that sodomy can send one to hell just as murder can, which I had already addressed in an earlier posting. If you instead were citing Romans because you think Paul is saying sodomites should actually be put to death, I don't have a response for you.

[george wythe]

Thank you for your excellent essay on abortifacient contraceptives.

I did not realize the "conception" has moving now to the period after the implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterus.

I still think that pro-lifers complaining about research on frozen embryos might be falling into an illogical position, but what do I know?

Btw, your basic premise that contraception and abortion go hand in hand is very accurate.

[MHGinTN]

As soon as the first cell division of a newly conceived embryonic life is accomplished -and certainly by the second division to net three cells- the newly conceived life is at least one individual human being. Did you know that even before an in vitro tech tries to implant an embryo to accomplish pregnancy, the embryonic individual must evidence the encapsulation of the placental barrier it constructs for its noursihing, 'breathing', and implantation in the uterine lining? The pre-implantation embryo is evidencing its own unique life and will to survive, so the location of the embryo is really not the determiner of human being status.

[Polycarp]

Thanks George.

[litany_of_lies]

Trust me, you'll wait a long time for Polycarp to come up with an officially-dictated answer as to why ordinary Catholic couples can't do NFP, other than to misinterpret the meanings of the words "responsible," "prudent," and "deliberate" in Humanae Vitae to mean that couples shouldn't be responsible, shouldn't plan, and shouldn't be prudent.

His classes on NFP must be pretty short. 99% of the people have to leave within the first hour cuz they learn from old Poly that they can't practice it. It must degenerate into one-on-one counseling pretty quickly. Puh-leeze.

Of course, if Poly has clear citations from official Church dictat to offer, I'm all ears, eyes, and fingers.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for him to state that NFP-practicing couples not in "grave" situations are committing serious mortal sin by practicing it. What other logical conclusion could he possibly reach? C'mon, out with it, Poly.

[Polycarp]

Trust me, you'll wait a long time for Polycarp to come up with an officially-dictated answer as to why ordinary Catholic couples can't do NFP

"In relation to [1]physical, [2]economic, [3]psychological and [4]social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth."

Humanae Vitae section #10, Pope paul VI

(I assume you accept Humanae Vitae as definitive & official Church documentation, right? And therefore admit your error in regards to my assertion that there must be grave reason for having recourse to NFP, "In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions?")

are committing serious mortal sin by practicing it

You'll search long and hard to find me saying this.

With the Church, I have always said that use of artificial contraception, if done with full knowledge and consent, is mortally sinful.

I have never said that sinful use of NFP is mortally sinful, because I have never seen a Church document that specifically calls it mortally sinful.

You seem to have some serious issues with the Church's teaching on contraception, judging from your mocking tone in this post and insults in your private correspondence with me. I have answered your questions. Now I would kindly ask request that you stop pinging me and sending FReepmail, unless you are willing to engage this debate in a charitable and adult manner.

[Polycarp]

I want to know why you seem to think it is ALWAYS illicit, or have you admit that it is sometimes licit.

One of my frequent criticisms of traditionalist Catholics is that they imply that NFP is always illicit, even if they will not admit same explicitly. For this reason I repeatedly spell out the Church's teachings on what constitutes licit and illicit use of NFP. Only the couple, with their confessor, can decide whether their reasons for recourse to NFP are grave or selfish in nature.

However, equally to be condemned is the position that, going to the opposite extreme, NFP can NEVER be used in a sinful manner. It can indeed be used in a sinful manner, as Humanae Vitae so eloquently points out, if grave reason for recourse to NFP does not exist.

[litany_of_lies]

"Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."

Sir, that doesn't prove diddly-do.

If a couple plans their intercourse during a period of low pregnancy possibility (without using contraceptives, of course), they are not "frustrating the natural power to generate life" in any way, shape, or form. There just doesn't happen very much "natural power" at that particular moment.

Couples can choose to have intercourse during "high power" or "low power" times without jeopardizing their souls, and nothing in your quote contradicts that.

It seems that some Catholics won't be satisified until all couples who aren't trying to have kids practice total abstinence. God gave married couples the "low power" times of the cycle to give couples the opportunity to be intimate with little chance of pregnancy. If a couple is lovingly open to a child if their timing happens to be off or an "accident" happens, they are not only not sinning, they are carrying out God's will.

Finally (can you tell I'm jazzed?), Paul tells people to marry rather than fornicate:

1 Corinthians 7:9
"But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

God recognizes that some people can't (not won't, can't) control their sexual impulses totally (imagine that, God recognizes reality, which is why He's God and we're not), and that they can channel their passions appropriately through the sacrament of marriage.

As far as I'm concerned, game, set, and match for NFP for all practicing Catholics, not just those in "grave" situations. Unless of course Paul somehow doesn't count.

[litany_of_lies]

See my post 158-can't wait for your reply to it.

And Humanae Vitae does NOT dictate NFP for grave situations only. The "either" portion of the statement allows couples to be "deliberate" and/or "prudent" (depending on the translation), which NFP is.

And since you apparently don't believe, or at least can't find support for, the contention that practicing NFP in non-grave situations is a mortal sin, venial sin, or any kind of sin, I'll have to take that as a concession.

What I get angry at is people converting preferences that have personally benefitted them into Church doctrine without support. You're Exhibit A.

And I have NO issues with the Church's teaching on contraception what-so-ev-er. Your imagination is acting up again. It frightens me that you're apparently in an influential position.

[dsc]

"We seem to be hung up by your misunderstanding of the word "imminent".

No, we're hung up on your failure to distinguish between "risk" and "certainty."

"Imminent danger" means only that risk is imminent. It doesn't mean that the feared consequence is certain.