Category Archives: contraception

What the Pope Really Said on Condom Use


Does the Pope approve the use of condoms?
Jenn Giroux
November 21, 2010

The media is at it again.
They are trying to say that the Pope approves the use of condoms

Below Professor Janet E.Smith. provides explanation and clarification of the Pope’s comments:

Conversion, Not Condoms

Pope Benedict on Condoms in the Light of the World (p. 119)
In Light of the World, these answers appear:

To the charge that “It is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms,” Pope Benedict replied (This paragraph is at the end of an extended answer on the help the Church is giving the Aids victims and the need to fight the banalization of sexuality.):

    “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.”

Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

    “She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

Commentary:

What is Pope Benedict saying?

We must note that the example that Pope Benedict gives for the use of a condom is by a male prostitute; thus, it is a reasonable to assume that he is referring to a male prostitute engaged in homosexual acts. The Holy Father is simply observing that for some homosexual prostitutes the use of a condom may indicate an awakening of a moral sense; an awakening that sexual pleasure is not the highest value but that we must take care that we harm no one with our choices. He is not speaking to the morality of the use of a condom but to something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use them. If such individuals are using condoms to avoid harming another, they may eventually realize that sexual acts between members of the same sex are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature. The Holy Father does not in any way think the use of condoms is a part of the solution to reducing the risk of Aids. As he explicitly states, the true solution involves “humanizing sexuality.”

Anyone having sex that threatens to transmit the HIV needs to grow in moral discernment. This is why Benedict focused on a “first step” in moral growth. The Church is always going to be focused on moving people away from immoral acts towards love of Jesus, virtue and holiness. We can say that the Holy Father clearly did not want to make a point about condoms but wants to talk about growth in a moral sense, which should be a growth towards Jesus.

So is the Holy Father saying it is morally good for male prostitutes to use condoms?

The Holy Father is not articulating a teaching of the Church about whether or not the use of a condom reduces the amount of evil in a homosexual sexual act that threatens to transmit the HIV. The Church has no formal teaching about how to reduce the evil of intrinsically immoral action. We must note that what is intrinsically wrong in a homosexual sexual act in which a condom is used is not the moral wrong of contraception but the homosexual act itself. In the case of homosexual sexual activity, a condom does not act as a contraceptive; it is not possible for homosexuals to contracept since their sexual activity has no procreative power that can be thwarted. But the Holy Father is not making a point about whether the use of a condom is contraceptive or even whether it reduces the evil of a homosexual sexual act; again, he is speaking about the psychological state of some who might use condoms. The intention behind the use of a condom (the desire not to harm another) may indicate some growth in a sense of moral responsibility.

In Familiaris Consortio (On the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World), Pope John Paul II spoke of the need for conversion which often proceeds by gradual steps:

    To the injustice originating from sin … we must all set ourselves in opposition through a conversion of mind and heart, following Christ Crucified by denying our own selfishness: such a conversion cannot fail to have a beneficial and renewing influence even on the structures of society.

    What is needed is a continuous, permanent conversion which, while requiring an interior detachment from every evil and an adherence to good in its fullness, is brought about concretely in steps which lead us ever forward. Thus a dynamic process develops, one which advances gradually with the progressive integration of the gifts of God and the demands of His definitive and absolute love in the entire personal and social life of man. (9)

Christ himself, of course, called for a turning away from sin. That is what the Holy Father is advocating here; not a turn towards condoms. Conversion, not condoms!

Would it be proper to conclude that the Holy Father would support the distribution of condoms to male prostitutes?

Nothing he says here indicates that he would. Public programs of distribution of condoms run the risk of conveying approval for homosexual sexual acts. The task of the Church is to call individuals to conversion and to moral behaviour; it is to help them understand the meaning and purpose of sexuality and to help them come to know Christ who will provide the healing and graces that enable us to live in accord with the meaning and purpose of sexuality.

Is Pope Benedict indicating that heterosexuals who have the HIV could reduce the wrongness of their acts by using condoms?

No. In his second answer he says that the Church does not find condoms to be a “real or moral solution.” That means the Church does not find condoms either to be moral or an effective way of fighting the transmission of the HIV. As the Holy Father indicates in his fuller answer, the most effective portion of programs designed to reduce the transmission of the HIV are calls to abstinence and fidelity.

The Holy Father, again, is saying that the intention to reduce the transmission of any infection is a “first step” in a movement towards a more human way of living sexuality. That more human way would be to do nothing that threatens to harm one’s sexual partner, who should be one’s beloved spouse. For an individual with the HIV to have sexual intercourse with or without a condom is to risk transmitting a lethal disease.

An analogy:

If someone was going to rob a bank and was determined to use a gun, it would better for that person to use a gun that had no bullets in it. It would reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries. But it is not the task of the Church to instruct potential bank robbers how to rob banks more safely and certainly not the task of the Church to support programs of providing potential bank robbers with guns that could not use bullets. Nonetheless, the intent of a bank robber to rob a bank in a way that is safer for the employees and customers of the bank, may indicate an element of moral responsibility that could be a step towards eventual understanding of the immorality of bank robbing.

Prof Janet E. Smith
Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics
Sacred Heart Major Seminary
Detroit, MI
profjanetsmith@comcast.net
734 883 4080
http://www.aodonline.org/SHMS/Faculty+5819/Janet+Smith+9260/Dr.+Janet+Smith+-+Welcome.htm

Resources:

Edward C. Green, “The Pope May Be Right” Washington Post (Sunday, March 29, 2009); http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

Edward C. Green and Allison Herling Ruark, “AIDS and the Churches: Getting the Story Right” First Things (April, 2008) http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0126.htm

Edward C. Green, Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries (Praeger: 2003)

Matthew Hanley and Jokin de Irala, Affirming Love, Avoiding AIDS: What Africa Can Teach The West, (National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2009)

Susan E. Wills, “Condoms and AIDS: Is the Pope Right or Just “Horrifically Ignorant?” The Linacre Quarterly, 77:10 (Feb 2010) 17-29.

Edward C Green AIDS, Behavior, and Culture: Understanding Evidence-Based Prevention (Left Coast Press: 2010) forthcoming


Jenn Giroux is the new Executive Director of HLI America, a program of Human Life International. (You can visit HLI America at www.hliamerica.org)

Before joining Human Life International, Jenn was the CEO and Executive Director of One More Soul. Prior to that in 2003, Jenn began Women Influencing the Nation (WIN), an organization dedicated to reclaiming traditional morals in our society with special emphasis on encouraging women to have more children once again in America.

Women Influencing the Nation was heavily involved in supporting the efforts of Former Attorney General Phill Kline in his criminal charges against Planned Parenthood and to enforce the Late Term Abortion Law inside Kansas, the abortion capital of the World. Jenn testified before the Kansas Legislative Committee on September 6, 2007 representing over 5500 petitions asking Kansas official to prosecute George Tiller for doing illegal abortions.

Jenn has been a Registered Nurse for 24 years where she has witnessed first hand the devastating physical, mental, and spiritual fall out from the feminist movement, especially in areas of birth control and abortion. This has been the foundation of her inspiration to form this nationwide network connecting women to counteract the negative impact that the feminist influence has had over the past 40+ years in destroying families.

Jenn was a former radio talk show host with Salem Communications and also worked as Assistant to the President for Citizens for Community Values where she led the Catholic outreach for school presentations to parents on how to keep their children away from Internet Pornography. Jenn has been a regular guest on Catholic Radio to discuss women’s issues in the Church and politics. Jenn has also been seen debating many political and religious issues on MSNBC, CNN, FOX, and COMCAST NEWS NETWORKS.

Jenn regards God’s gift of motherhood as her most important and fulfilling work. She and her husband, Dan, have 9 children. They are the owners of The Catholic Shop and currently live in Cincinnati, Ohio.

© Copyright 2010 by Jenn Giroux
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/giroux/101121

Share

The Pill: A Prescription for Breast Cancer?

Catholics have had a lot to cheer about lately. Midterm election victories for the unborn. Justice for those in office who betrayed the value of human life and have been voted out of office. Clear guidance from our Holy Father on how our conscience must vote.

But no matter who is in office, an alarming threat remains for women and their health: the widely used carcinogen known as The Pill. 

We are calling on St Michael Society members to become educated on the pill so that you can share the health dangers with the women you care about in your life.

The Birth Control Pill Isn’t Just a Catholic Issue

We know the Catholic Church opposes artificial contraception because it defies Natural Law and how God intended us to work with him in procreation. Even more serious, some of these contraceptives – like the Pill – can act as an abortifacient, ridding a mother’s body of her embryonic child without her even knowing she is pregnant.  But the consequences also go beyond Catholic morality …

In order to silence the public discussion of the harms of contraception we have often been told that we are pushing our ‘Catholic’ views on women. This has effectively kept many health care providers and pro-life groups silent on this issue. Do you know what has nothing to do with being Catholic? Experiencing breast cancer in your 30s, having a stroke in college, or having an undetected and sudden blood clot that results in permanent health damage or death are life-threatening side effects that visit women of all faiths.

This is according to Jennifer Giroux, registered nurse and executive director of HLI America. We’ve written about Ms. Giroux’s work before  and she has a new Zenit column with medical evidence from credible experts citing the connection between hormones in the Pill and deadly breast cancer.  

Read it in full here. 

But only if you’re willing to share it with friends and family who may need an unwelcomed wake-up call.

Because withholding information like this from a loved one may put their health – and their life – at risk. And  there are too many bad consequences in this life and the next that might result from silence.

Women deserve to know the truth. They have been failed by physicians in not being warned of the physical damage that they are doing to their bodies, and they have been failed by their priests in not being warned of the spiritual damage that they are doing to their souls.

May God give us the courage to share this with the women who matter most in our lives.

Share

“Women: Where Are Your Children?”

In an insightful new commentary  on the rise of “childlessness” in America, a Catholic woman who has experienced the joys of life as a mother of nine children and nurse addresses the pain experienced by women who “bought into the myth that contraception and abortion would liberate them for an awesome career in a ‘man’s world.”

Jennifer Giroux, Executive Director of HLI America, lays out a very strong case for the risks of deciding not to bear children. She cites recent census data that projects which groups of women are on track for “loneliness in their twilight years” due to being childless, describes the “prison of loneliness” that traps people in nursing homes or retirement centers with no children or grandchildren to visit them, and sheds new light on the Gospel of Luke that has sadly come true.

An excerpt from Mrs. Giroux’s piece:

Jennifer Giroux, HLI America

When I was a child we lived 5 doors from St. Margaret of Cortona church. I recall how often we would walk down the street during Lent to frequently attend the Stations of the Cross. It is not until recently that I have been able to fully grasp what was meant by Our Lord as he met the women of Jerusalem on the way to the Cross:

“Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed!’ “(Luke 23:28)

Let us pray for a conversion of heart for those who have bought into the myth that a lack of children will afford a better life, and ask Our Lady to comfort those who regret decisions not to bear children.

Join HLI America, a program of Human Life International, to spread the word that protecting life begins at home.

Share

“I was conceived in a test tube”

A heartbreaking story ran today in the Daily Mail in the UK about the feelings of children conceived in a test tube with a sperm donor instead of through a loving union.

Again, like we wrote about this week, there are severe consequences of when a baby is conceived by other means rather than the natural union, preferably a marital one, of man and woman.

The UK story talks to a number of children conceived with the help of a sperm donor and a new study, the first of its kind, which reveals how sperm donor children feel about how they were conceived and how they view their lives now.

The study says that the children often feel confusion, isolation and hurt, even more so than those children who were adopted. Here’s a sample of what these children said of their conception:

“Adoption is very different – not only can you usually find your real parents, but also you don’t have to cope with the psychological effects of knowing you were conceived in a test tube. That’s unsettling and weird. Being a sperm donor child makes you question everything about your humanity.  I can honestly say that no matter how desperate I might be for a child, I’d never use a sperm donor. I wouldn’t condemn any child to grow up as I did.”

“He’s my father, and I have no idea who he is. I think it would be easier if I was the product of a one-night stand – at least then there would have been a connection between two people.”

“My brother and I were told that we were conceived using donor sperm. We were shell-shocked, and it has affected me to this day…All that time I’d been growing up with an image in my head which was one big lie. That had a huge impact on me.”

“I’m not a scientific experiment, I’m a person, yet I don’t know half of my identity. I have my mum’s hair and eyes, but the rest of me is a mystery.”

Another thing to consider is that many times, a particular sperm donor donates more than once so it’s likely that these children have half-siblings that will never know. And what if they end up dating or marrying one of them? They may never know.

Add this to already long list of reasons why the Catholic Church forbids conceiving a child outside of a marital union.

Share

New “Morning After” Takes Life Up to Five Days After Conception

Please join us in supporting this petition drive by Students for Life.  The FDA Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs just approved what they claim is a contraceptive drug, ella.  But the ella drug is more than a contraceptive drug, it is also a pill which destroys the life of a human embryo. 

Read more below from Students for Life and please sign the petition

For Immediate Release
Contact: Lucy McVicker, 703-351-6280, lmcvicker@studentsforlife.org
 

SFLA Reaction and Petition Against FDA Approval of New Abortifacient Drug
www.ellacausesabortions.com

Arlington, VA – On June 17th, the Food and Drug Administration’s  (FDA) Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs approved  “ella”,  a dangerous abortifacient drug, for sale within the U.S.  The drug now goes before the FDA for final approval.

While being billed as a contraceptive pill,  “ella” does not only prevent conception from occurring but it can also terminate the life of an existing human embryo. Women can take the drug up to five days after intercourse, well after life has been created. Because “ella” blocks the progesterone receptors needed for the continued development of the human embryo, “ella” causes an abortion if taken after conception occurs. This makes “ella” an abortion drug, not a contraceptive drug.

Kristan Hawkins, SFLA’s Executive Director, stated, “Because of the deceptive tactics by Planned Parenthood and their abortion industry allies,  many women will take this drug thinking it will only prevent pregnancy. However, if they take it after fertilization – when a new human life, separate from the mother and father is created – ‘ella’ will cause an immediate abortion.”

In response to the FDA Advisory Committee’s decision of this new super-abortifacent, Students for Life of America has launched a petition, www.ellacausesabortions.com, against the FDA decision, addressed to the Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. “We want the Secretary to know that pro-life Americans will not tolerate these new life destroying and deceptive tactics from the abortion industry,” said Kristan Hawkins.

Students for Life of America is a non-profit organization dedicated to equipping the pro-life generation with the resources they need to end abortion in America. Since launching its historic Field Program in 2006, SFLA has helped start over 350 new student pro-life organizations and trained thousands of pro-life students. For more information on SFLA, please visit www.studentsforlife.org.

###

Students for Life of America
4141 N. Henderson Rd., Suite 7
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 703.351.6280 Fax: 866.582.6420
www.studentsforlife.org

 

Share

Can’t Save The Environment By Declaring War On Creation

Environmentalist that advocates for massive changes in US life style and wealth transfers to developing countries displayed their ugly side yesterday. A story titled Population Control Called Key To Deal in the China Daily exposed what has been a fear here at St Michael Society; the environmental movement’s war on children in the womb.  Here is one of many horrible quotes from the story:

 “Although China’s family planning policy has received criticism over the past three decades, Zhao said that China’s population program has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society.”

 As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao said.”

A refresher; “China’s family planning policy” is nothing to be proud of and includes forced abortions as a way to enforce their mandated one child per family law.  Saving the environment does not include declaring war on children in the womb. Nor does it include removing the gift of creation from the sexual act.

UP DATE:  Finacial Post runs a horrible op-ed that concludes climate warming or cooling is not the problem, but humans are overpopulating the world and the world should adopt the China one child policy.

Let’s be clear. We are all called upon to be good responsible stewards of creation.  The world around us is a living display of God’s great love for mankind.  As we have written before, we at St Michael Society do not oppose legitimate efforts to ensure that we pass on this gift intact to future generations. 

On the other hand, we will fight any effort that pits mother against child in her womb, husband against wife or couple against their gift of making a new life.  Population control can never be a solution.

Share

“I am Whole Life” Makes Waves

There is a new pro-life movement out there called “I am Whole Life” and it’s taking the world by storm.  What does it mean to be Whole Life?  Fresh from its site, www.Iamwholelife.com, the campaign seeks to promote a respect for the intrinsic dignity of the human person regardless of ability, age, status, ethnicity or sex.  To be Whole Life means to acknowledge that “issues that appear to be separate such as human sex trafficking, political violence, famine, abortion, female genital mutilation, euthanasia, pornography, embryo destruction and many others are actually related threats to the dignity of the human person.  The Whole Life ethic recognizes that a threat anywhere to human dignity constitutes a threat to human dignity everywhere.  The Whole Life ethic is dedicated to promoting and defending human dignity in all its stages. In the United States the biggest threat is abortion, other places it may be female genital mutilation, famine, forced sterilization, or lack of civil rights.”

img_PledgeTop

People are encouraged to sign the pledge and join as members of the Whole Life community.  They can share their Whole Life video testimonials right next to celebrities such as Eduardo Verastegui (actor), Angela Baraquio Grey (former Miss America 2001) and Jason Jones (American movie producer, humanitarian, and grassroots activist).  The site also has a section that recommends movies, books, articles, and websites which inform and inspire people to live Whole Life.  High school and college students are also invited to submit YouTube videos showing how they are Whole Life for a chance to win a $5,000 scholarship contest .

For more ways for you to get involved with the Whole Life movement, please go here.

Join Our Mailing List
Email:


For Email Marketing you can trust

Share

Showdown – Boycott Second Collection

This is the week that the Catholic Campaign for Human Development has approval from the US Bishops to solicit funds from parishes across America.  And it is a moment for all Catholics to say “No More!”

Previously, we wrote about the problems with CCHD and how Catholics should boycott the second collection that goes to support organizations that promote abortion, same-sex marriage and other things that run contrary to Church teaching.

We at the St. Michael Society have no idea why this second collection is still scheduled despite all of this controvery coming to light.  But, we hope that there is a good explantion.  And we stand by our plea to all of you to boycott this weekend’s second collection and to instead place a card that explains why you will not give your financial support to such an organization.

The following two videos are instructive on the specifics of CCHD and why Catholics cannot support it.

And here is the statement that we encourage Catholics everywhere to drop into the second collection basket this weekend. 

Join Our Mailing List
Email:


For Email Marketing you can trust

Share

Fr. Thomas Berg: “Fruits of the same tree: embryo-destructive research and the contraceptive mentality”

Scientists can now make human eggs and sperm — no men or women needed.

Let me repeat that: as reported recently in the journal Nature, researchers at Stanford University have successfully produced human sperm and eggs from embryonic stem cells. This should come as no surprise since sperm and eggs are specific kinds cells, and human embryonic stem cells have the capacity to give rise to all cell types in the human body. In fact, researchers have been working hard to make this happen for the past few years. And while biotech is hardly on the cusp of mass producing human eggs and sperm by such artificial means, this disturbing biotech achievement should have us all thinking.

The science of making human sex cells is aimed at more easily manufacturing and manipulating human embryos, whether for reproductive or research purposes. Making and manipulating human embryos, destroying them for stem cells, studying them under the microscope, using them to test drugs: it’s only taken about fifteen years for Americans by and large to become comfortable with this prospect. The question is: how did we get here?

If you turn the clock back fifteen years or so, America was definitely not comfortable with the idea of using human embryos as disposable laboratory material. In 1994, for instance, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) convened the Human Embryo Research Panel in response to growing tensions over the issue of using human embryos for research purposes. That panel eventually recommended that, in some circumstances, federal funds should support the direct creation of human embryos for research purposes. When Dr. Harold Varmus, then director of the National Institutes of Health, publicly endorsed that recommendation, he was soundly rebuked by no less than The Washington Post editorial board. The editors wrote:

The creation of human embryos specifically for research that will destroy them is unconscionable…. [I]t is not necessary to be against abortion rights, or to believe human life literally begins at conception, to be deeply alarmed by the notion of scientists’ purposely causing conceptions in a context entirely divorced from even the potential of reproduction (Editorial, “Embryos: Drawing the Line,” The Washington Post, October 2, 1994 at C6).

Oh, how times have changed.

Fast forward to today and the conventional wisdom tells us it would be — to borrow the Post’s term — unconscionable to oppose the sacrifice of thousands of unwanted IVF embryos if experimentation on them could lead to life saving cures. Today biotech is slowly cajoling Americans into taking things a step further and accepting the direct creation of embryos solely for research purposes.

In asking how we got here, we have to turn the clock back to the late sixties, when Americans first became comfortable with another startling technical intervention into the beginnings of human life: the chemical contraceptive. It took only a decade or so for the contraceptive mentality to sink in. Successive generations have since taken as a matter of convenience the possibility of manipulating the corporeal/biological dimension of human love, severing it from the loving union of married couples. When Americans became comfortable with these technical and chemical interventions, the first step had been taken toward the crass disregard for embryonic life which is commonplace today.

While that connection might not seem immediately obvious, it doesn’t take too much mental work to grasp it. Pope John Paul II drew a similar connection between abortion and the contraceptive mentality in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae. “Despite their differences of nature and moral gravity,” the Pontiff wrote, “contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree.” Contraception, abortion, the in vitro fertilization industry, rapidly growing designer baby technologies, along with our broad acceptance of embryo-destructive research: these are, indeed, all fruits of the same tree. They all stem from the same tragically distorted, dualistic understanding of human personhood in which our bodies — even embryonic bodies — are there for the using, to be manipulated and even destroyed for our utilitarian purposes. Sadly, couples who contracept unwittingly propagate the darkest inclinations and most destructive innovations of a culture of death.

***

Fr. Thomas Berg is Executive Director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person.

Share

Tyranny Through Health Care – The Final Prediction of Humanae Vitae

by Patrick Looby

20 years ago, Professor Janet E. Smith wrote an article entitled “Humanae Vitae: A Prophetic Document?” where she took a close look at Pope Paul VI’s predictions of what would happen in a society that embraced artificial contraception.  With all of the new technologies developed since that article was written, and the possibility that Health Care may come under government control, it is time to take another look at those predictions.

There is no doubt that Humanae Vitae is one of the most despised documents ever composed by a Pope. It seems that every time there is positive news about the Catholic Church, the media trips over itself to make a non sequitur mention of the “controversial” and “divisive” document that promotes an unselfish view of human sexuality and marital love, condemns the contraceptive and eugenic movements of modern society, and gives what has proved to be prophetic warnings about where society is headed if it embraces such movements.

The reason for this fixation on a 40 year old document – one that was summarily rejected by society even before it was formally promulgated – is that for over three decades it has been an accurate predictor of the social ills caused by our unwillingness to heed its simple warning – that a contraceptive culture will usher in a culture of death, whereby free people will eventually surrender themselves to tyranny.

We would do well then, to recall those predictions of Humanae Vitae, even though most of them have already taken hold in society. The hope is that we can hold back the inevitable – that perhaps we can begin to reverse the movement toward what will be the end of our American experiment and the beginning of what has been the fate of all the previous civilizations who were foolish enough to think they were ‘too big to fail.’

The First Prediction – “Infidelity and the general lowering of morality”

The public acceptance of artificial contraception would begin to cause the moral decay of society. The Church stated that the bodily pleasures of man are all tied to some higher good. The purpose of the pleasure is to guide human beings to obtain the good. And the seeking out of ways to enjoy the pleasure without the higher good always leads to excessive behavior and an eventual decline of morality.

The physical pleasure of eating, for instance, if separated from the higher purpose of nutrition leads to a society infected with health problems associated with such habits. Human sexuality, which provides even greater physical pleasure and also has the highest good of creation, if separated from its higher purpose would cause even greater problems for society – the first of which was predicted to be an increase in infidelity and promiscuity.

And so it has.

The biggest natural deterrent to infidelity, promiscuity, premarital sex, and the like is that sexual intercourse can create children that are the responsibility of the parents. Contraception gives the false hope (hardly a guarantee) that this need not be a worry, and people feel the freedom to seek out the pleasure for pleasure’s sake wherever and however they can.

Who can deny the fact that since the public acceptance of contraception human relationships have devolved into an embarrassing display of irresponsible animalism – not befitting a species equipped with the power of reason. From the 50% divorce rate, to the increase of promiscuity even among children, to the spreading of countless diseases, contraception has proven to be exactly what it was feared to be – not an answer to social problems, but the genesis of them. In our attempts to solve one problem, we have unleashed a Pandora’s Box of problems onto society – the effects of which plague children and the poor most especially.

And what is the next logical step for a culture that values contraception if that contraception fails to be effective? Since the creation of new life is now separated from the intention of those engaging in sexual intercourse, then whatever life is created is nothing but an unfortunate accident. There cannot be a contraceptive culture without there also being one that embraces abortion as the safety net.

The Second Prediction – Loss of Respect for Women

People are always amazed to learn that all of the early feminists who are now revered as revolutionaries were vehemently opposed to contraception and abortion. It was the eugenicists – and not the feminists - who were pushing for acceptance of contraception and abortion because eugenicists saw both as a means by which the undesirables of society could be controlled or even eliminated. In addition, the eugenicists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were largely socialists who desired a class of workers who were ‘freed’ from domestic affairs.

Early feminists denounced such movements as just another attack on women. In fact, they feared that if abortion and contraception were accepted by society that women would become sexually enslaved to men, since there would be no way for wives to reasonably refuse the sexual advances of their husbands, and eventually men could look elsewhere to satisfy their sexual desires without fear of consequences if their wives did not submit.

And what reason could unmarried women give to reject the sexual advances of men if contraception and abortion were normalized? They feared that women would eventually be reduced to using their sexuality to get ahead in society since contraception would give men the ability to seek out sex without consequences.

The only reason abortion and contraception are now key elements of modern feminism is because socialist and population control advocate Lawrence Lader, who was struggling to help his eugenics movement find a voice, convinced a hesitant Betty Friedan – founder of the National Organization of Women (NOW) – to adopt abortion and contraception as a central tenet of neo-feminism in the late 1960′s.

This caused a rift in Friedan’s organization and only the women that sympathized with the socialist or eugenic agenda remained. The others quit and formed Feminists for Life of America in 1972. Unfortunately, FFLA could not compete with NOW’s propaganda machine which got a boost from its convenient partnership with the abortion industry. It is important to note that this unlikely partnership was yet another example of men exploiting the success of women. Lader and his eugenic ideas would have gotten nowhere in society if he had not convinced Friedan to go along.

The Final Prediction – Tyranny Through Population Control

At the time, critics of Humanae Vitae thought the claim that contraception could usher in an age of tyranny was about as far-fetched as one could get. How could something so personal and so seemingly reasonable wreak so much much havoc on society?

The greatest power given to humanity is the ability to create new life in an act of love, and then to raise that new life, passing on ones values, faith, and philosophy of life. This power is what builds up society to truly reflect the values of the people.   It is this power of procreation that is the final check and balance on a democratic government, for it is the people who literally create, raise and educate the very leaders they will freely elect to govern over society.

It is no wonder, then, that in every age we have seen governments that have sought to steal this procreative power away from the masses and wield it themselves – especially when that government does not share the values of the citizens it wants to control.

With technological advances in abortion, sterilization, cloning, mass vaccinations, and as of last week even the ability to create human sperm and eggs in the lab – eliminating even the need for human sexual reproduction – and with a population that has forgotten the goal of sexuality, the stage is set for any government with the right amount of power to completely subdue its citizens – and to do so without the bloody public spectacle that made previous attempts fail.

In fact, the only thing preventing our American government from being able to accomplish such a eugenic program is that our health care system is private. Even though it is regulated and in need of improvement, it remains an endeavor of the people, and these technologies are not under the control of those in power.  And it should stay that way in order to prevent the possibility of this last prediction of Humanae Vitae from becoming a reality.

The principle of subsidiarity, which has long been a tenet of Catholic social teaching, insists that “health care” is too broad of a power to be handed over to a federal government like ours.  Any technology, no matter how deadly or diabolical, can be brought under the umbrella of ‘health care’ and imposed on the public if it be the will of those in power.

It does not matter which side of the political spectrum you support. You may even be an ardent supporter of this current administration and trust in their intentions to bring health care under governmental control to accomplish good. But this is shortsighted. This would be a bell that cannot be unrung. Imagine the next administration, or perhaps one decades from now when our children or grandchildren are grown, that is not so trustworthy, and is tempted to bite the apple of ultimate control with so many technologies at their fingertips and the power to wield them to ensure their continuation of power.

People of every political and religious persuasion should resist the current movement toward a government controlled health care system.  What good is a democracy that continually votes itself out of power?

-  Mr. Looby is a graduate of Wadhams Hall Seminary and has been teaching Theology and Philosophy for 13 years.  In addition, he is a freelance writer and speaker on issues pertaining to the Catholic faith.

Share