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

[Polycarp]

I'm not playing God, I'm simply being Catholic. To some that is offensive. That is their problem, not mine.

[steve-b]

[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . .or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich.

I cannot accept this Gephardt ideology. By and large, the poor and the rich get and stay that way because of decisions that are in their power -- one of which is not to have more children than you can support.

[MEGoody]

So there is no 'spectrum' to pro-life beliefs? So if someone, for example, believes that abortion should only be available if the life of the mother is medically at stake, are they 'dumbed down' or simply not considered pro-life?

[steve-b]

It is pointless from a pragmatic perspective because one cannot "fight" one evil while accepting others.

This is an absurd assertion on its face. Life in the real world requires constant decisions as to which real and perceived evils to fight and which to leave alone.

[Polycarp]

What are the consequences to one's soul of practicing NFP in so-called non-grave situations?

"Sin." Maybe you've heard of it?

Main Entry: ¹sin
Pronunciation: 'sin
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sinne, from Old English synn; akin to Old High German sunta sin and probably to Latin sont-, sons guilty, est is -- more at IS
Date: before 12th century
1 a : an offense against religious or moral law b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c : an often serious shortcoming : FAULT
2 a : transgression of the law of God b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God
synonym see OFFENSE

What more does a Catholic need to hear?

Beyond this comment, I'm done with you CINO types, litany-of-lies.

Any further questions for me, please simply refer back to my op-ed that began this thread, as well as my posts # 156 and 157.

Please refrain from pinging me in the future, and cease and desist your FReepmails to me.

[steve-b]

If a person were doing something that would unintentionally or mistakenly kill another person in a matter of months, there would be no right to kill him

Nonsense. If a lunatic who could neither control nor understand his own actions tried to inflict bodily injuries that might kill me (whether immediately or later), I would have every right to kill him in self-defense.

[steve-b]

"It is not necessary to impute will."
If you are seeking justification for killing a human being, it is necessary. This is why we have lesser offenses that involve homicide but are not punishable by death.

Irrelevant. The fact that the state might not execute the lunatic in my previous example, if he were taken alive, does not change the fact that I have every right to kill him in self-defense.

[Polycarp]

It is obvious that there is a "spectrum" to pro-life beliefs.

Its just that some pro-life beliefs are more pro-life than others. And some who fail to acknowledge the roots of legalized abortion are doomed to see their efforts bear no fruit.

[dsc]

"Nonsense. If a lunatic who could neither control nor understand his own actions tried to inflict bodily injuries that might kill me (whether immediately or later), I would have every right to kill him in self-defense."

You failed to take note of one of the conditions of my statement: "in a matter of months." For instance, if the lunatic were trying to slowly poison you over a matter of months, you would have no justification for shooting him, because you could protect yourself by having him arrested.

If the lunatic were coming after you with a knife, he would still be exercising will. Disordered will, but will none the less. It is the fact that he is acting on a decision to attack that justifies your using deadly force in self-defense.

[dsc]

"The fact that the state might not execute the lunatic in my previous example, if he were taken alive, does not change the fact that I have every right to kill him in self-defense."

Your right to self-defense is grounded in the fact that the lunatic is acting on a decision, however whacked out, to attack you. We do not say that a mentally ill person has no will, but rather that his will is disordered.

[dsc]

"So there is no 'spectrum' to pro-life beliefs?"

Of course there's a spectrum.

I'm disappointed to see that discussion of the differences among those in different places on that spectrum can become almost as acrimonious as discussion of the issue with avatars of the culture of death.

[MHGinTN]

"Its just that some pro-life beliefs are more pro-life than others. And some who fail to acknowledge the roots of legalized abortion are doomed to see their efforts bear no fruit."

Interesting to read that now, having just posted an essay on my blogpage addressing that very thought associated to embryonic stem cell exploitation and cloning!

[litany_of_lies]

I'm disappointed to see that discussion of the differences among those in different places on that spectrum can become almost as acrimonious as discussion of the issue with avatars of the culture of death.

Hear hear on that.

I openly and unconditionally apologize for my contributions to that atmosphere.

[litany_of_lies]

I think the "serious-only" NFP advocates would say that you're in a "serious" situation once you truly cannot afford without "serious" consequences to you or the rest of your family to have another child. The the "premise becomes workable."

Serious consequences is subject to informed and prayerful judgment, but I suppose it might include things like:
- You can't have the child without having to sell the (presumably not opulent) house because of (lack of) medical coverage (spouse who was covered decides to start up a business and gets coverage for existing family members but not new pregnancies, which is not unusual).
- You would have to move to a crime-infested neighborhood with drive-by shootings, immorally subjecting everyone else to unjustifiable short- and long-terms risks, because it's the only area you could afford to live in.
- You'd have to do without a car because of insurance and other costs and walk 4 miles to work, and you're just not physically up to it.
- Or (I suppose) if the next child will cause you to not be able to afford parochial school tuition for some or all of your kids, and you decide, after prayerful deliberation, taht it would be morally wrong to beg the school for a break because you have so many kids, when you and your wife can for the most part exercise control over whether another one comes into the world.

I'm surprised no one from the teaching wing of the NFP advocacy crowd on this thread deemed your eminently reasonable question worthy of a response. Perhaps they're too busy arguing about how many angels on the head of a pin to take advantage of such opportunities.

[fatima]

Polycarp,I am Catholic and for the most part I agree with your posts but I think you are on a roll and need to speak to a priest,

[steve-b]

No, my right to self-defense is grounded in the fact that, if I do not defend myself, I am at risk of death or injury. That's why it applies equally to threats from people who wilfully choose to commit assault, people who commit assault without the ability to take decisions, dumb animals, or inanimate objects.

[steve-b]

You failed to take note of one of the conditions of my statement: "in a matter of months."

Nonsense. I clearly noted that my right to self-defense is independent of whether the injuries I would sustain if I let the lunatic have his way would kill me in five seconds or five years.

[dsc]

"Nonsense. I clearly noted that my right to self-defense is independent of whether the injuries I would sustain if I let the lunatic have his way would kill me in five seconds or five years."

Well, clearly your objective is to be as unpleasant as possible. That wouldn't be quite so obnoxious if you had a point to make.

The fatal flaw in your pretended rebuttal is that you are positing a situation in which an action now would irrevocably result in death five years hence, while the argument actually advanced involved a situation in which the fatality could be prevented.

If, for instance, you discovered that your wife was putting arsenic in your food, and that if this continued it would probably kill you in another couple of months, you would not be justified in taking a pistol and shooting her. Calling the police would suffice.

Here's a hint: if you're out to demonstrate how smart you are, you need to make sure that what you say is correct.

[dsc]

"No, my right to self-defense is grounded in the fact that, if I do not defend myself, I am at risk of death or injury. That's why it applies equally to threats from people who wilfully choose to commit assault, people who commit assault without the ability to take decisions, dumb animals, or inanimate objects."

I can just see steve-b in a shooter's stance, pumping 44 magnum rounds into a falling piano.

That out of the way, we're not talking generally about self defense, but about the specific case of deliberately taking a life.

Well, actually, since you jumped in we've just been wasting time on irrelevancies. I guess that'll be about enough of that.

[steve-b]

You're dodging the issue again, which is the right to self-defense and the fact that it is independent of whether or not the attack being defended against is deliberate.