Posted on 09/03/2003 1:24:08 PM PDT by Polycarp
The Pill, The Pope and The People: Humanae Vitae at 35
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exclusive commentary by Judie Brown President and Founder, American Life League
Jul 25, 2003
The term “slippery slope” is used far too frequently, I believe. Unfortunately, it is an all too accurate description of what’s happened to the traditional family over the last three quarters of a century. It's a point worth pondering as the Catholic Church marks the 35th anniversary of Pope Paul VI's landmark encyclical Humanae Vitae. In reflecting on the years that have passed, and in re-reading Paul VI's words today, one simple truth emerges: the pope was right.
The slope first began to veer from a level path in 1930. It was then that the Church of England, during its Lambeth Conference, approved a resolution stating that married couples, employing “morally sound reasoning for avoiding abstinence,” were permitted to use “other methods” besides abstinence to limit or avoid parenthood. This decision shunned the collective teachings of 19 centuries and opened the door for Christianity’s approval of the practice of contraception.
Immediately following the Lambeth announcement of this profound break with Christian principles, Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical On Christian Marriage, proclaiming “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
At the time, some of the most influential secular voices agreed not with the Anglicans but with the Catholics. On, March 22, 1931, the Washington Post editorialized, “It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of human birth. The church must either reject the plain teaching of the Bible or reject schemes for the 'scientific production' of human souls. Carried to its logical conclusion, the [Lambeth] committee's report if carried into effect would sound the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be 'careful and restrained' is preposterous.”
The dam had been cracked. Over the next 35 years a growing sense of frustration inspired organizations, including Planned Parenthood and its allies, to struggle with how, when and where to find that magic bullet that would “relieve” couples of their anxiety so that they could enjoy sexual pleasure without accepting the children that might result. As the pot continued to boil, scientists, funded by large corporations, worked feverishly to develop a pill that would provide the “release” couples were allegedly seeking as they wrestled with the reality that sexual relations could lead to children.
In the mid 1960s, when doctors, social workers and others announced that the pill would make its debut, the Catholic Church was compelled to again address the question. Pope Paul VI faced the question head on in Humanae Vitae. He warned of the sociological impact of birth control on the populace and he invited all men of good will to avoid acts that are “contrary to the nature of both man and woman and of their most intimate relationship.”
The practice of contraception is such an act. As Prof. Donald DeMarco succinctly put it in the July 1983 issue of Homiletic and Pastoral Review, “Contraception is the prevention by mechanical or chemical means of the possible natural and procreative consequence of sexual intercourse, namely, conception. The purpose of contraception is to separate intercourse from procreation so that the contracepting partners can enjoy the pleasures of sex without the discomforting fear that their sexual activity could lead to the procreation of another human being.”
At the occasion of Humanae Vitae’s 35th anniversary, it’s fitting to measure the current state of our culture in light of the pope’s prophetic statements of 1968.
In his encyclical, Pope Paul VI set forth three major concerns.
(1) He asked responsible men to consider how the practice of birth control would open a wide road leading to “conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality.”
(2) He expressed a fear that the male, “growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.”
(3) He asked that man consider that “a dangerous weapon would thus be placed in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies.”
On the other side of the coin, birth control proponents told the public that birth control would relieve anxiety, put couples in charge of their sex lives and become the panacea for all society’s woes.
Thirty-five years later, proponents argue that with better birth control there would be less abortion. All the while these individuals fail to point out that the most popular forms of birth control can abort human beings during their first few days of life.
Birth control proponents also play fast and loose with the truth by claiming the pill and other methods using artificial steroids are safe for women. Such chemicals, however, contribute to escalating rates of breast cancer and heart disease, among other effects.
In the early days of the contraceptive movement, there were concerns that the so-called promises of the pill were based on faulty reasoning. In 1972, University of California sociology professor Kingsley Davis said, “The current belief that illegitimacy will be reduced if teenage girls are given effective contraception is an extension of the same reasoning that created the problem in the first place. It reflects an unwillingness to face problems of social control and social discipline, while trusting some technological device to extricate society from its difficulties. The irony is that the illegitimacy rise occurred precisely while contraception was becoming more, rather than less, widespread and respectable.”
Has the pill liberated Americans or enslaved them? Consider these varied statistics on matters of sexual and family health in the United States. These findings are all reported in The Family Portrait, a book published in 2002 by the Family Research Council.
*The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that the United States has the highest rates of sexually transmitted disease in the world.
*Two-thirds of all abortions are performed on never-married women.
*From 1930 to 1934, one in six first births to women age 15-29 was either conceived or born before marriage. From 1990-1994 this figure increased to one in two births.
*The annual divorce rate has doubled since 1960.
*Between 1970 and 1996 the percentage of children living with a single parent increased from 11.9 percent to 25.4 percent.
Other organizations have reported similar findings of cultural concern:
*The United States has the highest adolescent pregnancy, abortion, and birth rates in the developed world, according to the Child Welfare League.
*Since 1960 births to unmarried women have increased more than 400%, according to figures compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control. Nearly half of all adolescent pregnancies end in abortion.
*15.3 million STDs are contracted each year in the United States, according to a Project Reality fact sheet. That is 42,000 new cases daily.
*In 1960 Syphilis and Gonorrhea were the only two known sexually transmitted diseases and each was treatable with antibiotics. Today there are over 20 diseases with 12 million newly infected persons each year. It is estimated that 1 in 5 Americans is now infected with a viral STD. (2) This does not include the bacterial diseases such as chlamydia, syphilis, and gonorrhea, which are at very high levels. Tragically, according to the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 63% of these infections occur in persons under age 25.
*One out of every ten adolescents will attempt suicide before the age of 19, according to figures provided by Life Crisis Services of St. Louis.
So where is the good news in all this? What does the birth control movement have to show for its promises of happier days, complete with fewer worries and fewer children, and freedom of choice? Could it possibly be that Pope Paul VI was right in each of his predictions? Are the purveyors of promiscuity and infidelity witnessing a nation that is reaping the devastating consequences of sexual liberation? Do they care?
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, quoted in the December 1998 issue of First Things, has suggested that our culture is in serious distress. “American society is wracked with sexual identity and behavior dysfunctions, family collapse, and a general coarsening of attitudes toward the sanctity of human life. It’s obvious to almost everyone: We have a problem, and it’s killing us as a people. So what are we going to do about it? What I want to suggest is that if Paul VI was right about so many of the consequences deriving from contraception, it is because hw as right about contraception itself. In seeking to become whole again as persons and as people of faith, we would do well to revisit Humanae Vitae with open hearts. Jesus said the truth would make us free. Humanae Vitae is filled with truth about our sexuality, our purpose as human beings, and the nature of married love. Lived selflessly, it is a source of real joy. We impoverish ourselves and those we love by ignoring it.”
We have not had health insurance for years.
Know what you mean. I grew up in it, not being catholic. What bothers me the most is could I have done it? Would I have done it? I became mentally ill after my first child and had two more.
Knowing what I know now, I probably wouldn't have married and had any children so I wouldn't have had to deal with the conflicts.
It's one thing to govern your own life, but I could never presume to tell your daughter or anybody else they should or shouldn't use artificial birth control.
I think I was a selfish person the way I lived my life, wanting nice stuff for the house, etc., and I wanted the best for my kids because it was a status thing. I would like to think I wouldn't fall into that mental trap again.
Our values are all screwed up. Sometimes I think the love and attention we lavish on our pets is indicative of a deeper ill. Don't get me wrong. I love pets. But we should value people and children more.
Blessings to your daughter and son-in-law and family. In the long run, families like that are stronger and the kids learn to be responsible towards the younger ones and not so selfish. I'm afraid for my granddaughter. She wants lots of children. If I thought she could pull it off, I'd support her 100%. I don't like to think of the sorrows she could have if she has too many kids and can't cope with it all for whatever reason. The best I could advise her was that if she wanted all those children, she'd better figure out a way to raise them all by herself if something happens with the husband.
I didn't either and it is scary if you have any assets. One hospital bill could wipe you out and you might never get back on your feet.
I'll bet you pray a lot that you won't have something you can't pay for.
What's an asset? (I mean that only rhetorically.)
I'll answer it anyway.
b. (a concerned a deceased person)the entire property of a person, association, corporation, or estate applicable or subject to the payment of debts (looked that up, too, just to be precise).
Catholic Moralists state that families should have at least four children. This isn't a matter of sexual morality but of justice towards society.
If no one has more than two or three kids, its unlikely we'll have priests and religious because of family pressures, and the population will not be able to make up for those who never marry or marry to late, and those who are sterile.
So four children is a matter of ones duties towards society. After that, it is up to your free choice.
Anyone can manage with four kids today if they really wanted to.
Lo, Children are an Heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate. Psalm 127:3-5
To the Israelites, a full quiver contained 12 arrows ;-)
Not so. The liberal atheistic section of Europe is killing itself off. Catholics around Europe excepting Italy, Poland, and Spain, are currently averaging 3-4 infant baptisms per marriage depending on the country. This includes Ireland, Austria, Germany, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Netherlands, Britain, etc.
For example, Catholics in France had 125,000 of the 250,000 marriages in 1995, but 400,000 of the 700,000 children. The France has been trending at 3.2 Catholic children per Catholic marriage for the past decade.
The people driving Europe towards ruin are the non-Catholics.
At current birth rates, the population of Italy in 2300 will be THREE!
That seems like an extremely unlikely trend. The Italian Catholic family is averaging two infant baptisms per marriage, and these make up over 90% of the births. The portion of the population not even reproducing their own replacements is the suicidal atheistic portion.
There are 280,000 marriages in Italy in 1995, and 245,000 were in the Church. There were 520,000 births in total, and 480,000 were Baptised. Non-Catholics are averaging one child per famiy, Catholics are averaging two.
I'm trying very hard not to do that. I look at my own life and don't think I could have handled any more children without doing something terrible to myself, not because I didn't want the children but because I could barely cope with the ones I had under the circumstances.
You would have told me God would provide, better I die than cheat God out of more babies, I will go to hell if I use artificial birth control, but you would never have believed that God would heal me so I could have as many children as He saw fit to give me and raise them happily. You would not believe that God would heal my son's wife of her Huntingdon's disease which she may not have but her mother and lots of her family have it. You would have condemned her to hell for having her tubes tied. I would never have encouraged her to do that but neither would I encourage her to produce baby after baby knowing the family history. I tried to keep out of it. I would not do that to anyone over artificial birth control, although I do believe certain forms are not good for your health, and if you are healthy and able, better not to use any of it.
Sometimes desperate people use situational ethics to survive.
That's why I think it is a bad thing for people to try to impose their values on weaker people. That's what I don't like about it and that's what I don't like about the right-to-lifers. They want to fix the symptom and don't have the answers to fix people and society. Sure, they could force everybody to be moral, but they cannot force people to be healthy and able to work and support their families.
how we've managed to get this far in spite of them.
There are lots of reasons. People used to live on farms and grow their own food and make their own clothes like the Amish. I don't know any catholics who want to live like the Amish. Secondly, never in history have people had to live their whole lives like people have to live them today.
I just wish Jesus would come back and make things possible for people to live the way the church teaches us we should. We need more help than we are getting from the church or anywhere else. Do this. Don't do that. But nobody can or will help anyone but their own in a significant way to make the difference. I haven't seen it.
All this poverty and struggling is all right if freely embraced and so long as it isn't forced on others.
One more thing. The genetic pool is deteriorating, in part due to modern medicine. Darwin's law took care of the weak in times gone past and genetically defective people didn't live long enough to reproduce like they do now to pass on genetic defects to their offspring.
But there are no excuses. Better have a bunch of autistic kids, Down's syndrome kids, kids with genetic heart defects and all the other terrible things kids have now that they don't have polio, typhus, cholera, diptheria, tetanus, rabies, than to tie your tubes after you find out you are passing on defects.
I just don't think it is right for people who have all the blessings in life to preach down to people who don't.
I'm with you on that.
Don't you think that is a sin? Deceiving the insurance company? I don't mean that to bash you, but isn't that dishonest? My son sells insurance and I've seen a lot of fudging.
Well, you have a serious disease so scratch some of what I said regarding you. Thank God that it is treatable now. I wish God would heal you. I hate it when people have these terrible illnesses. That's one problem I have with Christianity. God doesn't heal very many people any more. They just have to live with it. St. Peter's shadow healed all who came under it. I wonder and wonder why that gift was lost or withdrawn.
I hope so. I grew up pretty conservative in a very modest neighborhood and I loved it. Everybody lived about the same except when I went to school, I saw lots of the kids were worse off than that. People tried harder then and didn't give up on their marriages like they do now and they made it.
Even so, I had a lot of extra things because there were only two of us children. I used to wish for more (a brother). I don't think my mother wanted any more because she was almost menopausal when she married and having two kids with the father away defending the country for four years, her health started to deteriorate rapidly. But nobody talked about those things then. I never knew about lots of things because people didn't talk about it.
That was one of the few things my mother said bad against the church. Priests tell you how many children to have. That was a euphemistic way of putting it, I now understand. Some of her friends were catholic. We weren't. Some times I think it was a good thing. I was a happy child and didn't have a lot of guilt piled on me about my sins. That came later and was self-induced :-). It got really bad after I became a catholic. The guilt. Not that I didn't carry a lot before that.
I'll bet you have a lot of happy family memories even if your parents had to struggle while you were growing up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.