Replies

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).

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.

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.

However, the case against contraception DEPENDS on Catholic presuppositions in a way that the case against abortion does not.

Not true. It's a teaching based on the natural law. It applies equally to all men of whatever religion. The prohibition of contraception is not specifically Catholic at all. Orthodox Jews have always found contraception fundamentally abhorrent. So did all 3 major protestant founders, each of whom wrote specific condemnations of contraception. Historically, Orthodox teaching did not even clearly distinguish between contraception and abortion, they were considered basically the same crime.

So to call this a "Catholic doctrine" is a fallacy.

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

This is fundamentally wrong and misguided, as well as a recipe for failure. Catholics can never put aside any part of their morality. "Fighting abortion in a secular society" is a pointless task if it requires one to ignore essential moral rules. It is pointless from a pragmatic perspective because one cannot "fight" one evil while accepting others. And pointless from a moral perspective because contraception will send you to Hell just as surely as abortion.

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

Well said.

Polycarp's reasoning re the 'correlation between the contraceptive mentality and legalized abortion' is not lost on me: I understand and accept the immorality of contraception.

Yet I think it is counterproductive for us pro-lifers to insist on this teaching at the same time we try to convince a secular public of the immorality of abortion.

Pursuing the most effective way of ending the hideous crime of abortion must take priority. Slowly but surely we've made progress in re-awakening the public to the truth about abortion.

It would be foolish to take ourselves back to square one by doing something that, while good in itself, would undoubtedly be perceived as doctrinaire, and would open up the pro-life movement to backlash.

We have only to look at the recent public opinion backlash against the abominable radical homosexual movement, to see how overreaching may be the wrong tactic.

Superb response. The writer of this article is sincere and intelligent, but very wrong. If abortion is murder -- and it clearly is -- to equate non-abortiofacient contraception with abortion is to "define the deviancy [of abortion] downward". It is insufficient to say that because birth control opens the door to abortion (which may be the case), that birth control must be opposed legally by all who oppose abortion. This is exactly what Planned Parenthood would like pro-lifers to do: make the fight not about protecting actual unborn life, but about curtailing sex outside of marriage. Those are two different issues, however much overlap there may be when it comes to human experience.

I would go so far as to say this article hurts the pro-life movement because it takes the emphasis off actual human life in the womb and inappropriately puts the emphasis on religion. Abortion is a moral issue, and one can be an atheist and still oppose abortion.