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

[John Beresford Tipton]

"Who is talking about "banning" contraception?!"

But you said that they were equally bad, no, that contraception led to abortion. With that belief system in place would you ban abortion yet let contraception flourish?

[John Beresford Tipton]

"Contraception...holds the key to defeating abortion"

Even you should realize that dog won't hunt.

[litany_of_lies]

Who is talking about "banning" contraception?!?

I assume you were by reference to the Comstock laws and opposition to the Griswold ruling-seemed like a reasonable inference. Sorry if I'm wrong.

We essentially agree (I think). Go for the legislatiion on abortion and euthanasia and change hearts and minds on contraception, and make it TOTALLY clear that we don't intend on imposing a legislative ban on contraception, EVER. This is a winning strategy.

[fourdeuce82d]

I just want to get something straight- are you suggesting that unless each and every sexual act I engage in, even with my spouse, is intended to result in pregnancy, I'm a naughty person?

If that's the case, you and the pro life movement can get stuffed. I have sympathy for a living person that has yet to be born- I do not for my billions of little swimmers.

[MHGinTN]

A SCOTUS quote from the essay/article (let's change a word or two to convey the truthful essence of the assertion in Casey):
"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 killing an unplanned individual human being in the event that contraception should fail."

Crucial in the deception of the Court was the purposeful omission of the truth of contraception practice ... the effort to prevent conception of a new individual human being! The Court at once affirmed that contraception is an effort to prevent a new individual human being, then put a demonic stamp of tacit approval on killing a conceived indidivual human because of 'choice' to not bring the already alive individual human life into the community.

Doctor Kopp, I would add to your essay the notion that it was artificial insemination of human beings that actually played a bigger role in dehumanizing the conceptus. Once the artificial manipulation of conception was tacitly agreed to on grounds of 'helping infertile couples to conceive (note, there's that truth again, 'conception'; and what is conceived?), a whole host of procedures followed, with a 'test tube baby born in 1978 (I think) and now millions each year born via such 'artificial' conception.

Interestingly, the very truth of conception in or out of a human body confirms that an individual human lifetime has begun, else the in vitro tech wouldn't implant the newly conceived individual human lives! Embryonic individuals are whole organisms being implanted, not seeds of a future 'to be realized' orgaism. Embryonic individuals are not organs, they are each a whole, functioning, integrated organism, a human organism.

[John Beresford Tipton]

"Crucial in the deception of the Court was the purposeful omission of the truth of contraception practice ... the effort to prevent conception of a new individual human being!"

Gee, you think they thought I put rubbers on my schlong instead of my feet because I was absent-minded?

[Polycarp]

All of Christianity, protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, always rejected contraception as sinful. Only in 1930 did ANY Christian sect EVER say contraception could be not sinful (The Anglicans, look where they are now.) "Contra" = against. "Ception" = life." When you have a "contraceptive failure" what exactly DO you have? A baby.

How does one repair this "failure"? Abort the baby. Abortion was legalized due to widespread acceptance of contraceptive use and the anti-baby mentality that naturally, logically, and always flows from it. The legal construct of a so-called "right to privacy" that was invented (it simply DOES NOT EXIST in the constitution) to overturn the remaining statutes banning contraceptive sales is the same one that was used to legalize abortion in Roe vs Wade and the same one that was used in Lawrence to grant carte blanc to the homosexual juggernaut.

I'm talking about evangelizing the pro-life movement itself so it can finally address the root of the abortion conundrum: the contraceptive anti-life mentality upon which the rest of the culture of death has sprung and found its legal footing.

[Polycarp]

Thanks for your input. Your points about artificial methods of conception are quite salient to this discussion. Sad I have to rely on my non-Catholic but very wise Christian brother for support for this essay.

[MHGinTN]

I sure did mess that up by leaving off a closure of bold type! Let's try again, for what it's worth ...

A SCOTUS quote from the essay/article (let's change a word or two to convey the truthful essence of the assertion in Casey):
"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 killing an unplanned individual human being in the event that contraception should fail."

Crucial in the deception of the Court was the purposeful omission of the truth of contraception practice ... the effort to prevent conception of a new individual human being! The Court at once affirmed that contraception is an effort to prevent a new individual human being, then put a demonic stamp of tacit approval on killing a conceived indidivual human because of 'choice' to not bring the already alive individual human life into the community.

Doctor Kopp, I would add to your essay the notion that it was artificial insemination of human beings that actually played a bigger role in dehumanizing the conceptus. Once the artificial manipulation of conception was tacitly agreed to on grounds of 'helping infertile couples to conceive (note, there's that truth again, 'conception'; and what is conceived?), a whole host of procedures followed, with a 'test tube baby born in 1978 (I think) and now millions each year born via such 'artificial' conception.

Interestingly, the very truth of conception in or out of a human body confirms that an individual human lifetime has begun, else the in vitro tech wouldn't implant the newly conceived individual human lives! Embryonic individuals are whole organisms being implanted, not seeds of a future 'to be realized' orgaism. Embryonic individuals are not organs, they are each a whole, functioning, integrated organism, a human organism.

[MHGinTN]

What is begun at conception, human conception?

[Polycarp]

History of Christian thought on Birth Control:

191 AD - Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted." (2:10:91:2) "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (2:10:95:3).

307 AD - Lactantius - Divine Institutes

"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . .or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (6:20)

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ['generating'] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (6:23:18).

325 AD - Council of Nicaea I - Canon 1

"[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated [sterilized] himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy"

375 AD - Epiphanius of Salamis - Medicine Chest Against Heresies

"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (26:5:2 ).

391 AD - John Chrysostom - Homilies on Matthew

"[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization]" (28:5).

393 AD - Jerome - Against Jovinian

"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" (1:19).

419 AD - Augustine - Marriage and Concupiscence

"I am supposing, then, although are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives] . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife" (1:15:17).

522 AD - Caesarius of Arles - Sermons

"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive] so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a women does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman" (1:12).

Martin Luther (1483 to 1546) -

"Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed."

John Calvin (1509 to 1564) -

Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race.

John Wesley (1703 to 1791) -

"Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.

(Examining sermons and commentaries, Charles Provan identified over a hundred Protestant leaders (Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical, Nonconformist, Baptist, Puritan, Pilgrim) living before the twentieth century condemning non- procreative sex. Did he find the opposing argument was also represented? Mr. Provan stated, "We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox [protestant]theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900's. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it." )



In 1908 the Bishops of the Anglican Communion meeting at the Lambeth Conference declared, "The Conference records with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family and earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare."


The Lambeth Conference of 1930 produced a new resolution, "Where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, complete abstinence is the primary and obvious method..." but if there was morally sound reasoning for avoiding abstinence, "the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of Christian principles."
1930 AD - Pope Pius XI - Casti Conubii (On Christian Marriage)

"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."

1965 AD - Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World - Gaudium et Spes, Vatican II

Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law. (51)

1968 AD - Pope Paul VI - Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life)

Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, propose, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible. To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom; that is to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life. (14)

1993 AD - Catechism of the Catholic Church

"The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception)." (2399)

After reading the above statements it should be clear that the Catholic Church does not leave much "wiggle room" on this issue. Is should also be clear that rumors that at some time in the near future the Church will have to change this teaching are nothing more than the wishful thinking of its disobedient members.

[Proud Legions]

OK. The SCOTUS did use contraception in their arguments permitting abortion, but that does not mean you need to convince the American public---especially the Protestant public--that contraception is bad in order to make headway on repealing abortion.

For many folks, like myself, I see a big moral difference between preventing fertilization of an egg and killing a baby in its mother's womb. We may disagree on the theology behind my position, but it seems we agree on stopping abortions.

Therefore, I would argue this article is interesting but wrong. Roe vs Wade is only one SC vote away from being overturned, and more than half of American's polled, according to Planned Parenthood itself (Alan Guttenmacher Institute), believe it should only be legal in the case of the life of the mother. We should keep working with that part of the population to further our cause. My bet is contraception will never be outlawed by any decision the SC makes.

[MHGinTN]

Dr. Kopp, allow me to add another point to this discussion regarding the contraception industry and their knowledge, re conception/contraception.

A few deacdes ago, I worked for a pharmaceutical company that pioneered in contraception. As a sales rep, I was expected to sell 'birth control pills' as well as IUD's. We sales reps were trained to perceive birth control as contraception and the possibility of ending a conceived new individual was down-played and omitted from our extensive training and educational preparation.

It was not until I began asking questions of my Regional Manager that I began to realize the IUD's were primarily abortifacient devices. When I confided to my manager that I could not in good conscience sell these items any longer, he took the time to finish my education on 'birth control pills'.

We reps were not told during our training that the hormone pills actually also worked as abortifacients on occasion. The industry knew full well that their products worked as abotifacients on occasion, but that truth was a well guarded secret from the sales field and the non-physician folks we contacted regularly.

A conscious omission of facts and truth is a sure sign that someone knew what they were trying to train the public to rely upon was averse to society's values system of the time, and an effort to bring about acceptance of the products was primary before the full truths would be allowed a full airing. Even today, many do not realize how the pills and IUD's work.

The same process of deceptive omission of truths regarding the embryonic individual human being is used to further the 'development' of embryonic stem cell exploitation and human cloning for harvesting in therapies. ... America is moving from murder, inc. to cannibalism light. It all has origins in contraceptive practices, artificial and in vitro fertilization methods, and abortion on demand. The dehumanization of the earliest age in a human beings lifetime has resulted in the deep slope of degeneration of human life value. Sadly, my friend, it doesn't appear that a leap to the light is now possible, so we must undertake a climb out from the funneled slope toward the abyss.

[Swiss]

Kinda strange that this issue was brought up tonight because I spent the day cleaning up the attic and was looking through some old women magazines from the 60's.

What got me was in either a McCall's or Ladies Home Journal there was an article attacking Pope Paul for his Contraception decision. It just seemed so out of character for the type of magazine it was (Cosmo I could understand) and so into character attacks on the Pope that even though I have no opinion on the matter it reminded me of the left's coordinated attack tactics of today.

[fourdeuce82d]

you have answered my question. Think I'll have to check out bhuddism.

[kidd]

Outstanding article.

See private reply (coming shortly)

[papagall]

Interesting read on the issues. You're not actually advocating an all or nothing, yet you're getting slimed for doing so. The level of evil can't be jumped out from. As a poster above said, it's gonna take an incrimental climb to see the light again.

[Polycarp]

Thanks Kidd.

[ohmage]

A conscious omission of facts and truth is a sure sign that someone knew what they were trying to train the public to rely upon was averse to society's values system of the time, and an effort to bring about acceptance of the products was primary before the full truths would be allowed a full airing. Even today, many do not realize how the pills and IUD's work.

An astute observation that bears repeating. It reminded me of how congressional members manipulated the baby body parts hearing that took place over three years ago.

Life Dynamics

[Polycarp]

You're not actually advocating an all or nothing, yet you're getting slimed for doing so.

Certain talibanic anti-Catholic bigots are pros at that here.