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

[dsc]

"Life was a lot simpler then"

Oh, I don't know. Every age has its problems, and every age tends to think its own are the worst.

"If you lived past 40 you were considered old."

Unless I'm mistaken, menopause still occurs at around the same age.

"Most people did not have to go to school to earn a living...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."

A couple of things I've been thinking about:

1. I recently read that a college education today is approximately equivalent to a high-school education 50 years ago.

2. Any college degree fits one for entry level in all but specialized fields. Lots of people have degrees they never use.

When I look at those two things, I have to ask: wouldn't we be better off to restore the quality of a high-school education and have people finishing their formal education at 15 and 16, rather than using resources to support them in another decade of indolence? (Not that all college students are indolent. Just the great majority.)

I mean, your average liberal arts graduate today is no better educated than Orwell's animals, chanting "Four legs good; two legs bad." What's the bloody point?

Retain universities for real scholarship, and for science and engineering. Enough spending on "psychological" bilgewater like studies that tell us--gasp--that men like looking at women. Universities have entire departments that should not only be abolished, everyone connected with them should be flogged.

Let young people get on with their lives. And if a 16 year old guy wants to marry a 14 year old girl, well, fine. Just know--there will be no divorce.

[Polycarp]

My wife and I used the pill during our first year of marriage. If I seem overly passionate about the contraception issue, it is due at least in part to the bitter remorse of now knowing that we may have chemically aborted babies back then because the Church failed to catechize us, and that now, when our youngest of 3 children is 7 years old, we are seemingly infertile. We both have gotten to the point that it is a very real cross to teach young couples how to avoid conception via NFP when we so desperately desire many more children.

[Snuffington]

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.

And that is something I only discovered on my own. Sadly, the Catholic educators in my experience are more likely to recommend reading Martin Luther before Pius XII. (I REALLY wish I was using hyperbole to state that, but I'm not.)

[dsc]

"I know you question the very existence of the need to mature after marriage."

Beg pardon? I assume that people continue to mature throughout their lives.

"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."

I think the best way to do that is a strict, "You breed'em, you feed'em" no divorce policy.

[Snuffington]

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

I totally agree with this statement. The fact that I experienced it personally only adds to it.

[Snuffington]

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.

What a terribly sad statement from someone who seems to think himself Catholic. Recreational sex makes him happy, so Catholic morality is overruled.

Wow.

[TradicalRC]

Some of us are rather pressed for time, please be charitable.

[Polycarp]

OK, we've gotten past that stage on this thread; several of the orthodox trads have weighed in, but the most radical of the radtrads are still notably absent. I'll try to state the obvious in a more charitable and precise manner in the future ;-)

[Polycarp]

a terribly sad statement from someone who seems to think himself Catholic

I got the impression from the context of his letter that the writer was an anti-Catholic non-Catholic. If he is Catholic, double wow.

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.

If nothing else, he is a typical myopic/moronic libertarian.

[TradicalRC]

You seem to have taken a materialistic approach to the problem rather than an organic one: an ethos that says okay to contraception will say okay to abortion. You may find persons here or there that say the first is okay but not the second but you will not find a society that says okay to contraception but keeps abortion illegal.

[litany_of_lies]

When I look at those two things, I have to ask: wouldn't we be better off to restore the quality of a high-school education and have people finishing their formal education at 15 and 16, rather than using resources to support them in another decade of indolence?

HECK YES! If we did the job teaching kids what they need to know, and only what they need to know, they could be out of schooll by 15-16 easily. At least half of a kid's day is wasted on useless stuff. Most have little or no homework.

There would probably be a useful role for apprenticeships in things like computer science, architecture, chemistry and the like for those interested in them.

Universities (especially the brick and mortar ones)? I'm trying to figure out why, other than societal intertia, they still exsit.

[litany_of_lies]

How did you manage to catch on to the truth after a year of marriage? Most couples are not the most receptive people in the world at that point in their lives. I know my defiance gene was about at its peak at that point, and I probably would have blown any meaningful guidance heading in my direction.

You may not enjoy thinking about this, but maybe God has a reason for your seeming infertility, and it has to do with your pro-life mission.

[litany_of_lies]

Big oops (posting fatigue).

Let's try "I know you question the very existence of a lack of sufficient maturity in a marriage as a reason to delay having children." Closer?

Also, is your no-divorce advocacy position meant for the Church, secular law, or both?

[litany_of_lies]

I've seen the stat about divorce rate of compliant Catholics vs. non-compliants too. Doesn't seem to phase a large portion of the American Church a bit, does it (especially ones who get their jollies by being quoted in the secular press)?

[litany_of_lies]

Just went to NOR and read your "Dear Miguel" piece. There's not a dry eye in the house. If I were you, I'd consider sending it to World Net Daily for publication on next year's 31st "anniversary" of Roe v Wade. If you posted it here at FR, I must have missed it (my activity level here fluctuates pretty wildly).

It's amazing that your story follows a related story line I want to write into a novel "someday." I'm leaning towards how nanotech can be misused if it finds "imperfections" that may lead to the need for costly treatments (so the state silently accomplishes euthanasia to avoid the cost), or finds that you're "too perfect" and you'll live too long (so the state does the same, but this time because you'll drain the Social Security system for too many years).

[dsc]

"Also, is your no-divorce advocacy position meant for the Church, secular law, or both?"

Both. For the Church, because that is the Church's position (or is supposed to be), and I believe there are good and sufficient secular grounds to ban divorce almost completely, even without reference to God's commands.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

At the Pre-Cana class I attended, some attendees during the discussion period commented that you shouldn't have children right away so that you could "grow to know each other better, etc., etc." and other nonesense.

I made the straightforward point that anyone not prepared to have children should not be getting married, nor should anyone be getting married who felt they did not "know each other" well enough to have children. Simple reason, regardless of whether or not one even planned or wished to have children immediately, the possibility does exist. To state such a grand exclusion of them as a necessity until "maturity" or "unity" is achieved supports the mentality of the Pill and Abortion and cannot be squared with the Catholic concept of marriage either regardin procreation or the unitive aspect of marriage. This of course caused an uproar among the Pseudo-Catholics arguing the sed contra.

I still assert - anyone who is not prepared to have children and attempts to enter a marriage to "grow in maturity", does so invalidly. Their marriage is a nullity, because the "marital" contract they are making cannot be squared with the Christian concept of marriage taught by the Church. So they receive neither the Sacrament nor the Grace, and they do nothing but provide further tinder for the Annullment Tribunals. They can make all the promises of eternity they wish, but what they are vowing to each other is not a Christian Marriage, but a sort of quasi-legitimized trial marriage.

As is demonstrated by Polycarp's excerpt, many American Catholics do not understand or accept Church teaching on Marriage, so many of them are unable to contract a valid marriage because what they intend is not what the Church intends. This accounts for the large number of Annullments.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Max - 1/3 of American Annullments - 20,000 per year, are simple documentary cases. These are cases where the couple presents paperwork showing why they were not married. Examples - married without Church blessing outside the Church or by justice of the peace, "married" in the Church but one or both partners was still in a previous marriage, etc.

There is no chance that these cases are invalid - they are simple open and shut follow the paper trail. These 20,000 cases alone, ignoring the more controversial process cases, show a huge failure in marital catechesis on the part of the Church. The number of 20,000 is also a huge proportion of all annullments in the Church worldwide.

[Maximilian]

So they receive neither the Sacrament nor the Grace, and they do nothing but provide further tinder for the Annullment Tribunals.

This raises an interesting question. Let's say that on the day of your marriage you have no intention of ever having children. This is an impediment to a valid marriage. But after a year or two you change your mind and accept children. Does your marriage automatically become valid with the removal of the impediment?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

You still have to deal with Paul's statement in Corinthians:

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

Someone told me today that their take on it is you have to understand Paul in the context of his, and therefore the Church's, position that his calling (celibacy and priesthood) is a "higher calling" than that of marriage. He isn't denigrating people who get married, but he's stating that "sacred celibacy" (don't know chapter or verse) requires more of a person called to it (hard to disagree).

So MAYBE Paul isn't saying "if you don't have self-control, get married even if you're otherwise not emotionally ready so at least you're not fornicating," he's saying "get married when you meet a like-minded person and stay celibate until then, taking comfort in the fact that your passions won't have to burn for a lifetime."

I'll deal with it, because this is such an utter misreading of it. The passage is in 1 Corinthians 7.

The context is St. Paul extolling the virtues of perpetual continence. The statement "better to Marry than to burn with passion" refers not to couples dating each other who cannot control themselves, but people attempting to fulfill perpetual continence who find that they are not called to this work of supererogation. St. Paul says it is better for them to marry than to be burnt for sinning.

"But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt." (1 Cor. 7.8-9)

A dating couple so filled with lust that they cannot control their passions is not going to free themselves from sin by marrying - they will only heighten their sin by abusing the Sacrament. Lust is a sin regardless of whether it is inside or outside of marriage, because it is a disorder placing pleasures above right reason and good.

There is nothing to be "dealt with" in St. Paul except your misreading of his teaching. People not ready to have children are not ready to marry. Sacrmanetal Marriage is not for the supressing of the vice of fornication, but the fulfillment of virtue and the conquest of concupiscence. The power of creating children and the duties they entail give one an appreciation of the consequences of giving in to lust and comitting oneself to a sexual relation one is not prepared for all the possible consequences of.

Sex between married people is for two purposes - the conception of children and the growth of marital love in the Sacramental grace. The supression of lust does not enter into it at all. Marriage was created in the Garden of Eden when there was no lust and already had all its necessary characteristics at that time, other than the bestowing of grace, which was added when Christ came an sacramentalized our life.