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]

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.’

Ping.(As usual, if you would like to be added to or removed from my "conservative Catholics" ping list, just send me a FReepmail. Please realize that some of my "ping" posts are long.)

[Happy2BMe]

Welcom to Post-Moral America.

[sinkspur]

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.

Brian, this is the kind of "all-or-nothing" menatality that marginalizes conservatives.

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

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

Moral purity is not the problem with the pro-life movement.

[John Beresford Tipton]

"abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception"


Now there's a big tent to get under.
This just shows how extreme some people are.

[VeritatisSplendor]

Kopp ignores a critical distinction. From the point of view of Catholic doctrine, there is a continuity between the teachings on contraception and on abortion. However, the case against contraception DEPENDS on Catholic presuppositions in a way that the case against abortion does not. The case against abortion may be made effectively to a secular but intellectually honest society (which, on the whole, the U.S.A. still is). On the other hand, you will not get an intelligent person to UNDERSTAND, let alone accept, the teaching against artificial contraception until you have first made the case for Christian sexual morality in general (and THAT case can currently be made much more effectively in a private than in a political context).

C.S. Lewis perceived the switch more than four decades ago, when he wrote that contraceptives had removed the biggest practical argument against fornication (because of the great reduction in risk of pregnancy), and that therefore you must FIRST make the case for Christianity to modern adults before you can make the case for Christian sexual morals. (Of course, other religions also condemn fornication, so the same remarks apply, though I am only concerned with Christianity here.)

Catholics may do well to learn the entire doctrine on sexual morals, but in the context of fighting abortion in a secular society (as opposed to persuading just Catholics) the issue of contraception should be put aside (except, of course, that abortifacient "contraception" should be called by its right name of abortion and fought as such).

[Polycarp]

I know all that Sink. Do you at least grasp the point I'm trying to make here? You can't kill a pernicious weed if you don't know it has, or fail to attack, its taproot. Its like fighting dandelions. If you pull off the top every day for a year, you'll still have a dandelion in your yard at the end of the year.

But if you attack its central root, you'll get rid of it.

We've been "pulling the top off dandelions" for 3 decades in the pro-life movement, and the general movement to this day refuses to admit to the existence of the taproot of abortion.

The entire movement either a) is ignorant of the fact the taproot exists or b) knows it exists but refuses to admit or conceive of the fact that if you don't kill the roots, you won't kill the weed. Frankly, I think certain Catholics are just too embarassed to point out the taproot, for fear of ridicule among by the rest of the dumbed down movement.

I want to kill the weed, not continue to pop off its head each day for another 3 decades only to see another or several grow in its place, just because of political expediency. If it can't be done politically, then its time for pro-lifers to pull outta politics and re evangelize the culture about the roots of abortion, which is and always will be the contraceptive mentality.

[Polycarp]

This just shows how extreme some people are.

The quote is from the Supreme Court decision in PP Vs Casey. Or were you pointing out that the Supreme Court is extreme?

[Polycarp]

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.

[VeritatisSplendor]

Furthermore, it is at best very misleading to say that contraception is of the same "character" as abortion. As sins, they are incommensurable. As a matter of personal moral development, it is correct to say that accepting contraception is a necessary preliminary to accepting abortion, simply because no one who accepts the teaching on contraception would deny the teaching on abortion, but that's politically irrelevant.

[sinkspur]

If it can't be done politically, then its time for pro-lifers to pull outta politics and re evangelize the culture about the roots of abortion, which is and always will be the contraceptive mentality.

Brian, this is an even larger uphill climb than arguing against abortion.

Contraception is a settled issue with the vast majority of the population.

Abortion is a much more grievous act than contraception, and contraception doesn't, of necessity, lead to abortions.

This is a Quixote-like quest.

[John Beresford Tipton]

These off the wall extremists, Taliban without turbans, like the writer start off with a plan, the old "slippery slope plan."

They will start with something patently offensive, partial birth abortion.

Then if they can ban that, they will start month by month to move that back to totally outlaw abortion.

Then if they can do that they want to outlaw contraception.

Then I would not be surprised if their next step is to declare a miniumum number of children per couple to be considered "moral persons". If medically that is impossible for an individual then perhaps they will set up a Church court to consider granting an exception, but only if you get a doctor's note.

[Polycarp]

the issue of contraception should be put aside

Its been put aside since the inception of the pro-life movement, unfortunately. Obviously, the pro-life movement has faltered to a standstill.

See my comment #7 to Sinkspur.

[Polycarp]

Furthermore, it is at best very misleading to say that contraception is of the same "character" as abortion.

That was a direct quote from the US Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. It is NOT misleading, if you grasp the core of the battle of the culture of life against the culture of death.

[Polycarp]

Contraception is a settled issue with the vast majority of the population.

So what? Because the vast majority of the population has embraced what is objectively mortal sin, we're just going to walk away from the battle because some bigoted moron calls us TALIBANIC? I'm not afraid to step out of my comfort zone when it comes to the "hard word." I will not be cowed into silence by the dumbed down who think their shouts of "Talibanic Catholic" will defeat the Truth.

contraception doesn't, of necessity, lead to abortions

Are you so deceived by the culture at large that you honestly believe this, or just too embarassed by the pugilistic bullies of this kind of Forum to stand up for the Truth that abortion became legal because contraception was embraced as a way of life?

[litany_of_lies]

Kopp, thank you for your contribution to the forum.

As a pro-lifer, I absolutely agree with the contraception-abortion linkage, and that the pro-life movement MAY have made a mistake in the late 60s to ignore contraception and concentrate only on abortion. If that policy stance had taken place, the pro-life movement would (accurately) have been perceived as a "Catholic-only" movement. It could have influenced the mainstream and moved opinion generally against contraception, at least morally (probably not legally), OR it could have made the pro-life movement into a meaningless fringe group. Given the dominance of libs in the pre-Internet media, I personally think the latter would have occurred, but we'll never know.

The real question is what to do now in 2003. Is it more important to concentrate on outlawing abortion and euthanasia, or is it more important to go for the entire pro-life enchilada, including a ban on contraception? I believe the former is achievable legislatively pretty quickly (saving 1.4 million babies a year), and that the latter will NEVER be achieved legislatively (OK, maybe in 50 years), but instead will occur after decades of changing hearts and minds.

The latter requires a wholesale turnaround of almost all Protestant religions and a return of Catholicism to its orthodox roots before a legislative solution can even be considered. Going for the whole enchilada now, IMHO, guarantees that the abortion holocaust will continue indefinitely.

[Polycarp]

Care to ping your trad list for a little heated discussion on an important culture wars issue?

[Polycarp]

Who is talking about "banning" contraception?!? I'm talking about education and evangelization of the "pro-life" movement ITSELF!

The latter requires a wholesale turnaround of almost all Protestant religions and a return of Catholicism to its orthodox roots before a legislative solution can even be considered.

This is exactly what its going to take to turn around just abortion.

Going for the whole enchilada now, IMHO, guarantees that the abortion holocaust will continue indefinitely.

If Christianity does not return to its roots on all of moral theology, including contraception, it will be a moot point.

The modern culture of death is built upon apostacy of Christianity on contraception. If Christianity does not turnaround on this issue, there will be no victory on abortion, because there CANNOT be victory against abortion in a contraceptive mentality culture.

Its either both or none. The pro-life movement needs to decide.

[VeritatisSplendor]

I support your mission of "trying to educate our separated brethren" 100%. My remarks were about the political struggle in the society as a whole. It seems to me that stopping abortion in the U.S.A. will be easier than converting the whole U.S.A. to the Catholic faith, desirable as the latter may be. We shouldn't deny the existence of the "taproot" (that our society is disordered with respect to sexual morality altogether, and suffers the "contraceptive mentality" Paul VI warned against); but effective collaboration with non-Catholics in the political arena can be damaged severely by overemphasis on contraception (though our discussions with those "separated brethren" AS CHRISTIANS ought never to ignore or set aside Catholic doctrine).

[Polycarp]

effective collaboration with non-Catholics in the political arena can be damaged severely by overemphasis on contraception

But this is precisely my point: there's no effective collaboration with our separated brethren, there is no point in ever trying, WITHOUT addressing contraception.

The pro-life movement will NEVER succeed UNTIL we address the contraception issue. Legalized abortion was and remains the natural and logical result of the cultural embrace and legalization of the contraceptive lifestyle.

Trying to fight abortion without addressing its root cause is pointless. It will not ever bear fruit. Contraception simply CANNOT be overemphasized because it remains the only emphasis never addressed and the only one that holds the key to defeating abortion.