Cool Sticker

I saw this on a most unlikely of vehicles:

Ads on METRO #6: CFFC - Part II

Catholics for a Free Choice put up this ad (63k PDF) at Washington, D.C. METRO stops. It proudly proclaims, "Nobody wants to need an abortion" (the fine print remains the same).

CFFC's contention breaks down the moment one recognizes that abortion does violence to a living human being. Imagine an ad that proclaims, "nobody wants to kill their next door neighbor."

The theory that abortion should be discouraged but remain legal is common in liberal circles. Well meaning Catholics who identify with most liberal causes (except abortion) are tempted to compromise on this central life issue. They think if abortion is prevented then it does not need be outlawed. I'm not sure they see how detestable that position is.

Imagine if CFFC's fine print read something like this:

Picture a world where safe and reliable sexual gratification is affordable and everyone uses it.

Where the decision to have sex is made responsibly.

Where men have easy access to prostitutes.

Where people have sexual fulfillment whether or not they have a job.

Where sex is both available and pleasurable.

In this world, rapes are not illegal. They're prevented. Isn't that the best choice of all?

Certainly such a world is no more likely to prevent rape than CFFC's world is likely to prevent abortion. One can easily see that substituting the word "rape" for "abortion" clearly highlights the folly of "preventing" abortion while keeping it legal.

Prevention is a good thing. I'm all for crisis pregnancy centers and other ways of prevention (except for contraception). Feminists for Life has some good ideas for supporting women who are faced with unplanned pregnancies. But, if society is to protect life, then it must do more than encourage people to not do violence to their children. It must take a moral stand by making such violence illegal.

Ads on METRO #5: CFFC - Part I

The paradoxically named "Catholics for a Free Choice" placed this ad (63k PDF) in several METRO stations. It boldly tells us "how to end the abortion wars."

The fine print gives CFFC's utopian solution. First, widely distribute contraception and encourage people to use it. Second, provide universal health care and child care. Third, prevent abortion, but keep it legal.

How implementing their socialist agenda will encourage the pro-life movement to give up the fight remains unclear.

Let me address CFFC's fine print one line at a time:

Picture a world where safe and reliable birth control is affordable and everybody uses it.

We already live in such a world. The safest and most reliable form of birth control is abstinence. It is already available for everybody to use and it is free. You can't get more affordable than that.

Where the decision to become a parent is made responsibly.

No disagreement here. The most responsible time to be a parent is in marriage. Everyone knows how one becomes a parent and we all know the most effective way of not being a parent (abstinence). The Church teaches chastity all over the world. Responsible people should listen.

Where parents have easy access to child care.

Parents could care for the child themselves. Of course some working parents are in the difficult position of not being able to be with their kids 24/7. They would certainly benefit from universal child care. CFFC's socialist agenda would have that service provided by the state. If the government raised poor children the way it educates poor children, the prospects are truly frightening for the kids who are most likely to need government care. Charitable organizations, or better yet, extended family, are best suited for this task. Besides, if a pregnant woman cannot afford child care and therefore decides she should not keep her baby, there is a long line of couples waiting to adopt.

Where people have health care whether or not they have a job.

Another noble ideal. However, socialized medicine has been a failure almost everywhere it has been implemented. We have an imperfect health care system to be sure, but CFFC's proposal will only make things worse. Besides, crisis pregnancy centers (which outnumber abortion clinics) offer free health care to pregnant mothers. The thousands of couples waiting to adopt are often willing to provide care to the mother during pregnancy, and will certainly provide care to the child after he or she is born.

Where sex is both serious and pleasurable

I fully agree. The Church teaches sex is not just serious, but sacred. Birth control distorts the sanctity of sex. By the way, according to Pope John Paul's II Theology of the Body, sex is definitely meant to be pleasurable. It is most fulfilling physically, emotionally and spiritually when it is practiced within the bonds of matrimony and open to life.

In this world, abortions aren’t illegal. They’re prevented.
Isn’t that the best choice of all?

This CFFC utopia would not prevent abortions. If it would, then why would abortion need to be legal? Aside from abstinence or surgically removing the sexual organs, no form of birth control is 100% effective. Further, many forms of contraception actually cause early abortions.

Birth control is not about preventing pregnancy or abortion. Abstinence can do that. Birth control is about allowing people to have sex whenever they want without the consequence of children. Abortion is the last line of defense against that unwanted consequence.

Pope John Paul II addresses this issue in EVANGELIUM VITAE:

It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the "contraceptive mentality"—which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act—are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro-abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected.

Finally, opposing abortion by "preventing" it while advocating for keeping it legal is morally untenable position. More on that next week.

Hannity’s Insanity

I thought the title was cute, and it is one Sean Hannity uses himself. I am not suggesting Sean Hannity is insane, but he is misguided with respect to Catholic teaching. On March 9th, Hannity sparred with Father Euteneuer of Human Life International. The priest challenged Hannity’s dissent from Catholic teaching on artificial birth control. Honestly, I was disappointed with Hannity. Instead of addressing contraception directly, he obfuscated the issue by talking about the Church’s sex abuse scandal.

Why is it whenever someone disagrees with the Catholic Church, they bring up the scandal. As terrible as the abuse and scandals may have been, the Faith is still the Faith and the Church is still the Church and ultimately the scandals are irrelevant to the issue at hand. It is a shame the Church has damaged its moral credibility, but clergy and laity alike still need to stand up for the Truth. Good on Father Euteneuer doing just that.

That being said, I believe Father E had three goals when he wrote Sean Hannity a letter:

1. To correct the misinformation promulgated by Hannity
   
2. To save the souls of people who may have been deceived by Hannity
   
3. To save Hannity’s soul
   

Father E certainly accomplished #1, it is questionable whether he accomplished #2 and he definitely did not accomplish #3. To accomplish those last two objectives, one must follow Father Morris’ advice and “speak out…with palpable love.” Sean Hannity’s aggressive tactics made it difficult for Father E to exude “palpable love” during his Fox News interview. Father E did the best he could under the circumstances, and Father Morris could learn from the former's devotion to the Truth.

However, Father E’s response to Father Morris’ letter was not entirely charitable in tone. When Catholics speak in the public sphere, they must do with the utmost charity. I applaud Father E for having the courage to speak the Truth publicly. More Catholics should step up to the plate, but charity must lead everything we do.

You can read about the whole affair at Father E’s website.

Beating a Dead Horse Deader

Recently I listened to Jason Evert speak about NFP on Catholic Answers Live. His explanation of the difference between NFP and artificial birth control (ABC) is worth quoting:

NFP is entirely different [from contraception] because you are not doing anything to interrupt or sterilize the act of intercourse between a husband and a wife. As the two bodies come together it is exactly as God has designed.

Some people say, “I don’t understand the difference. Aren’t you both trying to avoid kids?”

Well, to determine the morality of an action, you not only have to look at the ends but also the means.

For a couple who might say, “Financially, we can’t afford any more kids. My wife is at her wits end. Now is not a good time for kids.”

A couple using contraception might have that intention, and a couple using natural family planning might have that intention. That is both of their goals. But, they take different means to arrive at those goals. So you have to look at the morality of the means.

With NFP, it is kind of like the difference between bulimia and dieting for a woman. Both women want to have a slim figure. So one engages in bulimia. She binges on food and then she purges the food out so she can stay skinny. The woman on NFP is like the woman who diets because she wants she wants to maintain a slim figure, she refrains from eating fatty foods, and she achieves the same goal. So you see, they both get the same goal, but through entirely different means. So one has the virtue of temperance (NFP), and the other lacks that virtue with contraception, where you want the pleasure but you don’t want the kids.

He says later:

The church is not opposed to birth control to space children. The church is opposed to contraception, things that deliberately interrupt or sterilize an act of intercourse.

What is a legitimate reason for using NFP? Jason answers that as well:

The church does not say you need a serious, grave reason use NFP. The church’s wording is that you need a “just” reason. It doesn’t need to be some massive extreme circumstance.

For LSU fans, I’ve created any easy-to-follow matrix to determine the morality of a particular act of birth control:

	Just ends / intentions	Unjust ends / intentions
Just means (NFP)	Not sinful	Sinful
Unjust means (ABC)	Sinful	Sinful

I know I’m just repeating what has already been written ad nauseam in this forum. But, I like making sure the dead horses I encounter are really good and dead.

Great Minds Think Alike

Just hours before I wrote “A Quiver Full,” Ryan T. Anderson blogged about the Quiverfull movement in First Things. Andersen informs us of other similar movements in the protestant and secular worlds. I find this one particularly intriguing:

But have you heard about the students at Princeton? Frustrated with the sexual chaos on campus, they founded the Anscombe Society, named for the Cambridge philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe, author of the famous essay “Contraception and Chastity.” Without appeals to revelation or authority—that is, by human experience and reason alone—members of the Anscombe Society are making the case on the Princeton campus for chastity, authentic feminism, and traditional marriage. And I believe that thinking through the case for traditional marriage may be a key element in the reevaluation of attitudes toward sex even within marriage.

Anderson makes a good point. If the procreative element of marital love is neither important nor required for authentic self-giving, then what is wrong with homosexual sex, bestiality, sodomy or a myriad of other sexual perversions? He contends the recent brouhaha over same-sex marriage may spur more understanding and accepting of the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception. I hope so.

Back to the issue of NFP, Anderson is careful not to endorse Quiverfull’s complete rejection of all family planning methods, natural or otherwise:

Some Christians will undoubtedly take issue with [Quiverfull’s] understanding of trust in God’s providence (describing their attitude as presumptuous) and wish they would place emphasis on discerning God’s will for family size and come to see Natural Family Planning as a responsible way to avoid conceiving when spouses have good reasons to postpone pregnancy. Be that as it may, the Quiverfull movement does embody a powerful reaction against a contraceptive mentality that views children and childbearing as inconveniences in adult life, to be planned around adult desires, using whatever means necessary.

Notice his careful wording. NFP is a way to “postpone” (as opposed to “avoid”) pregnancy. Part of responsibly using NFP means being open to life.

A Quiver Full

Diane sent me a Newsweek article about a protestant movement to raise large families. What has been traditionally a catholic phenomenon seems to be catching on in protestant circles. That is welcome news indeed.

More interesting than the article, were the readers’ responses. Some people were vehemently opposed to large families. They considered it an affront to the gospel to have lots of kids. Here is one of the more colorful comments:

This movement is WHOLLY UN-CHRISTIAN... IT IS frought [sic] with greed, selfishness and vanity…to selfishly ignore LIVING, STARVING children at the expense of your own genetic seed is SELFISH and flies in the face of everything JESUS CHRIST, LORD AND SAVIOR TAUGHT US.

I didn’t get his point until I read Wendy King’s comment:

[My] major concern about large families of eight or more children is the long-term impact of so many children on our planet's resources. One reason men and women use birth control is to ensure that they will have only as many children as they can comfortably raise on their income, without taxing their city's financial resources.

Now it makes sense. They have bought the overpopulation myth hook line and sinker. I’ll save debunking that myth to the experts. For now, let me share a little about my family.

My father has nine brothers and sisters. I have twenty-three (give or take) first cousins and twice as many second cousins. Family reunions are a blast. We need a family newspaper just to keep up with everyone.

My grandparents emigrated from Mexico in the 1930’s. They worked any jobs they could find to put food on the table. My grandmother worked all day as a seamstress most of her life while my great grandmother raised the kids. My grandfather worked many jobs, which included opening a grocery store. In today’s world they would have qualified for welfare, but they never took a government handout.

They taught their ten children a strong work-ethic, a patriotic spirit and good catholic values. Those kids grew up to be lawyers, college professors, bankers, businessmen, school teachers, psychologists, and, last but certainly not least, home-makers. All four of the boys served this country in the military. Not one of them is on welfare.

To those people who think it is irresponsible to have large families. Answer me this. Which of my grandparents’ children do you think should have been “contracepted” out of existence: the lawyer who spent 17 years in the military and served as an ambassador; the IBM executive who pioneered digital music; the college professor who teaches business law to future generations; the high school teacher who has two children serving in the military; or the house wife who raised an investment banker, a lawyer and a civil engineer? Had none of them been born, my grandparents would have had a much more “responsibly-sized” family, and they would have been impoverished because of it.

What is the difference between NFP and artificial birth control?

A few weeks ago, the USCCB issued a statement on married love (104k PDF). They are for it. The usual suspects editorialized against the bishops’ reaffirmation of the Church’s consistent teaching. Catholic Pillow Fight did a fine job of refuting NCR’s editorial.

JCEICL3 took a slightly more nuanced approach, in which he raises a good question. What makes NFP morally different from artificial birth control (ABC)? Many otherwise orthodox Catholics see no difference between the two.

Some use this belief to conclude that no form of contraception, natural or otherwise, is permissible in marriage. I disagree with their position, but I must respect the fact that they are erring on the side of life. For those like who cannot in good conscience see a difference between NFP and ABC, the only morally acceptable option for avoiding pregnancy is abstinence.

Others use this belief to accuse the Church of hypocrisy and to attempt to debunk the Church’s teaching. If NFP is permissible, they argue, other forms of birth control must also be acceptable because there is no essential difference between the two. To draw this conclusion, they must ignore the large body of Catholic teaching about the evil of contraception. JCEICL3 seems to be doing just that. He writes:

The real question it almost seems that the Church is avoiding is this: What renders it morally licit to deliberately, freely, and knowingly engage in conjugal acts during a period when the woman is known to be infertile?

The most obvious answer I can discern based on the doctrinal statements from the Vatican such as Humanae Vitae is that the expression of unitive love renders conjugal acts licit even when the procreative dimension is entirely absent.

What JCEICL3 is missing from his formula for licitness is openess to life. This leads him to conclude:

If this is true, we can ask if there are situations where unitive love can be expressed even when the procreative end of sexuality is neither primary, or present. There obviously are, such as when the woman in a married couple passes the age of menopause, or when infertile heterosexuals marry. Can this same logic apply to contraception practiced within a marriage that is open to children overall? Can this same logic apply to gay unions?If it cannot, how do we show that it cannot without calling into question how natural family planning is morally licit?

For the unitive aspect of the marital act to be complete, the couple must be willing to give everything to eachother, including their fertility. They must be open to life. The question arises, why is NFP open to life when ABC is not? Maybe this analogy from Christopher West will help answer that question:

A young couple are planning their wedding. They can only afford to invite a small number of guests to the reception and the groom has a huge family. Conveniently, the groom’s family all live overseas, so it is not likely that they will not be able to make it to the wedding. If they sent the groom’s family invitations, knowing they were not likely to come, would they be open to the groom’s family attending? Let’s answer that by posing this question. If, by some miracle, the groom’s family did show up, what is the couple’s response? If they were overjoyed to see his family then I’d say they were open. If they were disappointed and really did not want them there, then I’d say they were not open. It’s a matter of their interior attitude. Conversely, if the couple did not send the groom’s family invitations, or worse, went out of their way to ask them not to come, then, regardless of their interior attitude, the couple would not be acting in a way that is open to the groom’s family.

Happy Advent.