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

[Snuffington]

Well, most dioceses require some preparation, including a compatibility profile and some discussions with mature married couples.

I'm extremely well aware of these programs. The best are doing exactly what is required. The worst are a bureaucratic joke. The average are doing more good than harm, but ought to take the job more seriously.

The biggest problem with this marital preparation is with the priest's decision to marry emerging from that process. The vast majority will perform the marriage regardless of the outcome (unless the couple themselves voluntarily break it off).

[Snuffington]

I'm probably as receptive to thought-process change as I have been in a long time, but you can't be telling me that the Church won't marry a couple in their 60s, can you? That seems to be what you're implying as it relates to infertile or couple where the woman is post-menopausal.

If that couple refuses to attempt to have children and raise them in the Catholic faith, yes. That's what I'm telling you. I'm sorry if that's a news flash.

On the other hand, the Catholic Church will marry a couple medical science has given up on, provided they intend to procreate. Check out the story of Abraham and Sarah in the Bible if you want to see why.

I don't mean to mock your position

You're not. And it's not my position. This is basic Catholic stuff that predates me by a LONG way. But it's a common question, and not one that offends me to address.

What it runs counter to is an exclusively modern marital variety: "marriage-as-barren-companionship." For most of human history, such a coupling was called "friendship." For some reason, our modern world decided that was offensive to such couples, and "dumbed down" marriage to include them. The Catholic Church, while highly valuing friendship, never did so.

[nmh]

"If you want to do anything in the political arena, you make compromises."

Wrong. "Compromise" is what got us into this trouble. Look what has happened to the Republican party when it "compromised" on abortion, on homosexuals, on big government etc.. Ever wonder why liberals do NOT compromise?

"If we want to occupy the moral high ground, with no exceptions, we can do that, but we'll do nothing politically."

Wrong. By setting the RIGHT example, and NOT compromising is what gives the conservative movement credibility and momentum. It is conservatives that need to EDUCATE others on WHY they chose this high moral ground. Why they don't is beyond me. Actually is it because they have become cowardly apologetics. Afraid of being villified or having ridiculous stereotypes hurled at them.

Personally I am ashamed of being a Republican. The ONLY reason that keeps me registered as one is the glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe the party MIGHT throw money at a conservative Republican so they can state their views.

I know for a FACT that in NJ the Republican party shys AWAY from pro life canidates. They will NOT give as much money to one that is pro life. This is what compromise has done.

[nmh]

"I am Kopp. See my profile page for the historical timeline of Christian teaching against contraception. I spend the majority of my time here trying to educate our separated brethren on this very issue."

You are Dr. Kopp? If so could you tell me about your personal involvement with the abortion issue? TIA.

[traditionalist]

I don't know how your statement about being ready for procreation and it being the primary purpose of marriage is supposed to apply the infertile or those past their fertile years. With all due respect, I think such people can marry for "secondary," non-procreative reasons without jeopardizing their souls.

Marrying for secondary reasons is morally licit, even praiseworthy, so long as it is not done at the expense of the primary reason. Ergo there is no sin in an knowlingly infertile couple marrying out of a desire to join their lives together, even if there is no prospect for having children. They are not making a conscious choice to reject children.

And finally, in the real world, I don't know if ANY couple REALLY knows whether they have the emotional maturity to be responsible parents when they get married.

Obviously, since we are all fallible human beings, no one is ever prepared to be a perfect parent. The issue is not whether a couple is 100% sure that they can handle children right away, but whether they have enough confidence in themselves to accept the responsibility should children come shortly after the exchange of vows.

If they are not willing to accept parental responsibility right away, they have no business getting married.

I think your exegesis of St. Paul is right on.

[litany_of_lies]

Your input is appreciated. Part of my problem is reconciling Paul's time period with today, but not in the sense you may suspect.

If a priest feels maturity isn't present, he needs to refuse to perform the marriage. He shouldn't marry children hoping they'll eventually grow into married adults.

I believe in Paul's time people married much younger (like 15-18 being typical), and, even if you take away the perpetual adolescent mentality that our society encourages, one would have a hard time claiming that teenagers were on balance mature and "ready" to have kids in "ancient" times. Now of course they probably usually DID quickly have kids anyway and were surely often immature, but they were immediately surrounded by a supportive extended family and community and not a destructive culture (the close-knit early Christian community, not the larger pagan society that in turn surrounded them). Whether we like it or not, that support structure is often lacking, and the hostility of the larger society is in many ways greater (they don't want to kill us, they just want to marginalize anyone who believes "that crazy stuff").

This may seem a bit overprotective, but it seems that many "well prepared" chaste couples that have been living apart before marriage (as they should) at least need to get used to being the same building with their mate 12-16 hours a day and more on weekends. Seems to me that immediate pregnancy can be a tactical mistake that prevents the "getting to know you better" process from getting as far along as it needs to be.

As I said in another post, I'm not sure any couple really knows if they're ready for marriage and to have kids right away, and I'd be concerned about the one who are "sure" they are, because they seem to be implying they need no further spiritual or emotional development.

I also happen to think that a tendency towards recreational sex IS the normative condition of mankind, especially when mankind misues birth-control technology, and that we need to follow God's law and the sacraments to channel that tendency. It was the norm even in the pre-birth control larger Roman society the early Church began in. I would postulate that in most pagan societies, even without birth control, the reality is closer to constant recreational sex than it is to monogamy, but I guess I need to leave that to the anthropologists. Or that the powerful make sure they get all the recreational sex they want, while the masses suffer.

But thanks for your take on things. I'm still digesting a lot of valuable input on this thread today.

[traditionalist]

If a couple of college sophomores wish to marry, are they literally not supposed to until they graduate? You could argue that they're not going to be ready until they graduate because they won't be able to provide for a child. Seems to me that if they're "sure" and "prepared," they should marry ASAP.

What's the rush? What is the harm in waiting at least 2 years until the graduate?

[traditionalist]

If a couple of college sophomores wish to marry, are they literally not supposed to until they graduate? You could argue that they're not going to be ready until they graduate because they won't be able to provide for a child. Seems to me that if they're "sure" and "prepared," they should marry ASAP.

What's the rush? What is the harm in waiting at least 2 years until they graduate?

[dsc]

"But why did he make such a strong statement ("cannot control" and "should marry") if he didn't also expect that some marriages need a lot of work before a couple is ready to have children? I'll give the grace of the sacrament and the Holy Spirit a lot of credit, but I can't support a claim that they are always immediately transformative, especially on an immature couple."

In Paul's time, and for most of human history, the concepts of "ready" and "immature couple" would not have been understood as they are today.

Girls got married at 13 and 14. In the normal course of events children followed closely after that, like morning follows night.

If one completely elminates historical perspective and takes our 2003 ideas in isolation, one has to wonder how the human race could have survived, with all those immature couples who weren't ready and all.

A lot of people only become "ready" when life cracks them across the chops and says, "Get with it."

I don't think the fundamental problem lies in couples being "immature" or "not ready;" I think the fundamental problem lies in the easy access to divorce.

Prohibit divorce, and you'll see a lot of maturing and readiness.

[traditionalist]

Girls got married at 13 and 14. In the normal course of events children followed closely after that, like morning follows night.

Life was a lot simpler then, and people did not live as long. If you lived past 40 you were considered old.

Most people did not have to go to school to earn a living. You either learned a trade from your parents, or you plowed the fields. Waiting till you were older than 15 would not make you any more prepared, at least financially, to raise a family.

Furthermore, the economic and social order was much simpler. All you needed to know to function was the facts of life how to use your hands at some trade, most likely digging diches, harvesting, fishing, etc.

[litany_of_lies]

What is the harm in waiting at least 2 years until the graduate?

Maybe none, maybe a lot.

I'm assuming they're engaged, "sure," and "prepared."

The longer they're engaged, the longer the "danger period" for premarital sex. If they marry, they're under the sacramental umbrella. I think couples have the flexibility to decide if they'll be able to hold out, and I wouldn't want to criticize them if they prayerfully conclude they can't (Paul's magic word, subject to interpretation).

I'd leave it to their discretion, as long as they are open to the possibility of having a child while practicing pregnancy-chance-minimizing NFP during what I still think could be classified as a "qualifying serious situation" (no natural method shuts the door entirely) until they graduate. I think we can give them the benefit of the doubt without accusing them of being selfish if they choose to marry ASAP. You could send the selfishness accusation in the other direction too--"you're sure, you're prepared, and you're not going to take responsibility for each other right away?"

[Polycarp]

"If so could you tell me about your personal involvement with the abortion issue? TIA."

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking for here, but I can list a few bona fides:

--Dr. Brian J. Kopp

Vice President, Catholic Family Association of America,
http://www.cathfam.org/

Officer of the Board, The Polycarp Research Institute,
http://www.polycarp.org/

Former Trustee at Large, Mom's House Inc. National Headquarters,
http://www.momshouse.org/johnstownhq.html

Instructor, Natural Family Planning of the Alleghenies

Board Member, Counselors for Life

Board Member, Lay Stewardship

Freelance writer, with articles published in New Oxford Review, The
Wanderer, Podiatry Today, various Catholic internet websites, as well as
local newspapers and diocesan Catholic papers, some of which are linked
here: http://www.marysremnant.org/Friends/DBK/index.html

Podiatric Physician/surgeon, husband, and homeschooling dad of three

[Maximilian]

It's really not that hard to make this belief seemingly coincide with Humanae Vitae in a vaccuum. But viewed in light of the constant teaching of the Church on the matter, of which Humanae Vitae was only a restatement, it is incompatible.

You've put it in a nutshell. That's the problem with quoting only documents from post-1962. They need to be seen in their proper setting and understood in the context of the hundreds of years that went before.

[Polycarp]

Since I can't ping Poly,

I'm sorry for my prior bad attitude, litany_of_lies. I've got too much on my plate and on my mind here the past 2 weeks, I'm not spending enough time in prayer, and I just didn't have the patience or the grace to answer you as I should have. My apologies. If you desire to continue this debate with me, consider my prior rant withdrawn. If not, I understand.

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.

I also thought a few days ago that the Church MIGHT be okey-dokey with a "mythical" egg-preventing pill (so much for "mythical"). That's obviously not the case.

It seems clear that the Church has three fundamental and clear positions:

- You don't take life in the womb.
- You don't snuff out a life just because it hasn't implanted itself.
- You don't mess with Mother Nature (Natural Law) in the reproductive process, except in "grave or serious" situations (the definition of which is subject to at least some debate).

Most of society buys into #1. People who bother to understand what's involved buy into #2. The American Church at least has done a lousy job of explaining #3. Very few are even aware of #3, and almost no one buys into it. This is not a good thing.

You are a good soul, litany_of_lies.

Good summary...now we have lots of common ground ;-)

[litany_of_lies]

Thank you, sir. More of the fault lies with my earlier posts than with you. I was trying to press your hot buttons, and it worked. That's not the point, although the evolution to the current result has been worth it.

May we have many constructive pings (so to speak) in the future.

No "ain't love grands" from the peanut gallery.

[litany_of_lies]

Don't disagree with any of what you're saying.

But we do have to consider the reality of 2003. We either think that, in a society that encourages perpetual adolescence and discourages responsibility, that we can somehow prevent all "immature" people from marrying (a judgment call at best by a priest who may legitimately not have the time to full screen the situation, which ideally the two sets of parents should be doing most of, but often don't) or acknowledge that some of the immatures are going to slip through and will need some time to, as you say, "get with it."

As I said on a previous post, sometimes the "get with it' sometimes works when a pregnancy occurs shortly after marriage. But it often doesn't. I'd rather give such couples a higher likelihood of long-term success than (if they honestly and prayerfully see it this way) risk an early pregnancy tearing them apart. Of course if they practice NFP, the chance still exists (and they'd better be open to that, or the priest should stop 'em cold), but it's much more likely that they will experience the relatiionship-enhancing benefits of NFP which will "get them with it."

I know you question the very existence of the need to mature after marriage. I think the problem is there, will continue to be there, and needs to be dealt with. Pre-screening needs to improve and extended counseling probably needs to occur for immature couples, but some will still get through.

[Polycarp]

That's not the point, although the evolution to the current result has been worth it.

This op-ed was posted with the sincere desire that many would evolve towards "the current result." Even if only one does so, its worth the effort and frustration, and it balances out the closed-minded anti-Catholic kooks I hear from, for which this email is representative (I'm still trying to find the part in my op-ed where I called for outlawing contraception; hope he reads this thread or someone sends him a link ;-):

From: rebuttal@webtv.net (John Bogner)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 07:04:09 -0500 (CDT)
To: info@CathFam.org
Subject: Dumbing Down

Dr. Kopp:

Face it. You've lost. Americans want contraception and they're always going to have contraception. And what's more, they should have contraception. Here's why: It's called liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That means that everyone in this country, regardless of his or her convictions, has every right to do whatever they want to do and engage in things that they think will make them happy as long as they don't violate the civil rights of any other American. Period. Abortion violates the civil rights of another human being, and that's why we can legitimately work to enact laws against it.

The Catholic Church has every right to make connections between contraception and abortion and to do everything in it's power to convince people not to use it, but it does NOT have the right to try to enact legislations against it. The Constitution forbids it. Contraception is strictly a moral issue and has nothing to do with the violation of someone else's civil rights. That's why the sodomy laws were struck down. That's why you can't be thrown in jail for taking God's name in vain or dishonoring your parents or worshiping a golden calf. That's why the evangelical fundamentalists can't prevent you from having a glass of wine or force your wife to be submissive.

If your bunch and other ultra right-wing zealots like the American Life League think that a Theocratic form of government would be so wonderful, then I suggest you all move to Iran. The rest of us pro-lifers are embarrassed by you and we don't need you anyway. We'll just continue trying to save babies by sending out a message that the most people are eventually going to take to heart.

God bless,

John Bogner
Wichita, KS

[litany_of_lies]

Don't disagree with any of what you're saying.

But we do have to consider the reality of 2003. We either think that, in a society that encourages perpetual adolescence and discourages responsibility, that we can somehow prevent all "immature" people from marrying (a judgment call at best by a priest who may legitimately not have the time to full screen the situation, which ideally the two sets of parents should be doing most of, but often don't) or acknowledge that some of the immatures are going to slip through and will need some time to, as you say, "get with it."

As I said on a previous post, sometimes the "get with it' sometimes works when a pregnancy occurs shortly after marriage. But it often doesn't. I'd rather give such couples a higher likelihood of long-term success than (if they honestly and prayerfully see it this way) risk an early pregnancy tearing them apart. Of course if they practice NFP, the chance still exists (and they'd better be open to that, or the priest should stop 'em cold), but it's much more likely that they will experience the relatiionship-enhancing benefits of NFP which will "get them with it."

I know you question the very existence of the need to mature after marriage. I think the problem is there, will continue to be there, and needs to be dealt with. Pre-screening needs to improve and extended counseling probably needs to occur for immature couples, but some will still get through.

[litany_of_lies]

The reason it looked like you wanted to outlaw contraception is that you disagreed with Griswold and pointed out approvingly that contraception was at one time outlawed.

This initially led me to the same conclusion, which although you didn't specifically state it, is not a quantum leap.

I would tell this writer that if he understands the abortificant nature of The Pill and really respects life, he'd be in favor of at least banning that type of artificial contraception, since we may be losing as many lives to The Pill as we are to legalized abortion. If he doesn't care about it because he can't see it, he's not really pro-life, he's merely anti-abortion.

I've wondered about the anecdotal reports I've come across as to why the divorce rate in fundamentalist churches is (amazingly) high. I would theorize that it's because they're by and large OK with contraception. I can unfortunately testify, as another poster alluded, that using artificial contraception can stop the development of a loving relationship dead in its tracks.

[Polycarp]

I would theorize that it's because they're by and large OK with contraception.

The divorce rate among Catholics who reject contraception is less than 5%, while that of contracepting Catholics approaches the rate of the secular culture. That alone should be a sobering statistic.