NFP: The Unhappy Compromise

The following article is not about the "inadequacies" of the rhythm method often highlighted in family planning literature. The author's frequent reference of the rhythm method could easily be substituted with other modern methods of performing marital relations on certain days of the month based on a woman fertility cycle. If the article had not been written in 1948, and instead had been written this month, one could easily replace 'rhythm method' with 'natural family planning' without changing the intent.

The emphasis in the following article is my own. I do not post it to place a yoke on those families which are hammered by hardships. I share this article to encourage those who feel unduly pressured by the culture of NFP in their Catholic marriage.

Rhythm: The Unhappy Compromise
by Fr. Hugh Calkins, O.S.M.
June 1948 for Integrity magazine
(Reprinted with permission from Angelus Press.)

What about Rhythm? That simple question is rapidly becoming a stormcenter of controversy. It comes up during parish missions, Cana Conferences, bull sessions on careers, even high school retreats. All too often, wrong answers are given, bum theology is handed out. Even more often, right answers are given but very imprudently. These cause confusion among the laity and lead to cynical questioning. Why don’t priests get together on this thing voices that cynicism.

This article will discuss Rhythm [NFP] thoroughly. First, the latest and best theological thought concerning the morality involved shall be presented. This will remove the guesswork of beauty shop theologians and gabfest experts who too easily settle everything with: "Oh, Rhythm’s okay. It’s Catholic birth control." Secondly, we shall present the true picture of how Rhythm is currently being used around America. It is not a pretty picture, but it’s based upon wide missionary experience and thorough research. It may surprise a few too glib advocates of Rhythm —lay, cleric, religious —to see how widely astray Catholic couples have gone on this moral question. Thirdly, we shall discuss how all this fits into a full Christian life, into the synthesis of religion and life any earnest Christian must promote, if we are "to restore all things in Christ."

Moral Considerations

Let’s understand what we mean by Rhythm. [NFP] Incidentally, we are permitted to discuss the method. The only official prohibition issued by the Church deals with the teaching and recommending of the method. Too long have we kept silent, while imprudently zealous advocates spread the method nationwide. The term Rhythm is a convenient name for a systematic method of performing marital relations on certain days of the month. The method is built around the Rhythm of fertility and sterility which occurs in the monthly cycle of a woman’s menstrual periods. Briefly, it now seems medically certain that on certain days of the month a woman is quite likely to conceive new life and on other days she is quite unlikely to conceive. The days on which conception are quite likely are called "fertile": those on which conception is quite unlikely are called "sterile." The Rhythm Method consists in following a systematic method of performing marital relations only on "sterile" days and abstaining on "fertile" days. This method is followed in order to space children or to avoid having children. Whether the method is used for a few months, a few years, or all during childbearing years, the motive remains the same. The motive in using this method is to avoid conception and pregnancy. Let’s have no talk about "virtuous continence." That’s the red herring often dragged in to confuse the issue. The people who use Rhythm are not primarily concerned about continence. They seek to avoid conception. Hence, they restrict sexual intercourse strictly to sterile days, safe periods.

Contrary to widespread misunderstanding, Rhythm [NFP] is not the same as contraception. It’s true that often the aim of the married couple is the same—they use Rhythm to avoid conception—but their method is not the same as the birth-controller. The practice of Rhythm is natural so far as the biological aspect is concerned. The practice of contraception is unnatural, against nature, a perversion just as truly as homosexuality. But just because Rhythm is "natural" doesn’t mean it is always morally good and permissible. The practice of Rhythm proceeds from a free and deliberate will—the will not to have children—that is directly opposed to the primary purpose of marital relations as ordained by God. Is such a free will choice contrary to the will of God and sinful?

Without getting too technical, there are two schools of thought [It seems the author only lists the more common opinion...] on the essential morality of Rhythm [NFP] as a system. The more common opinion, the majority opinion, holds that this method is not of itself illicit, and becomes lawful only when there is sufficient cause present for sidestepping the primary purpose of marriage. Both opinions are approved by expert theologians: you may follow either one until the Church makes an official pronouncement on the subject. But keep in mind that all theologians hold certain basic facts to be true. There is perfect agreement among theologians that Rhythm can become sinful because of circumstances and dangers involved.

Important Conditions

So we can summarize the latest and best theological thought on the subject. The Church neither approves nor disapproves of the Rhythm Method as a system to be followed. The Church merely tolerates the use of this method. Tolerates indicates reluctant permission. And the Church only tolerates this method, when three definite factors are present. These three are: First, there is sufficiently serious reason for a given couple to use this method, sufficiently serious enough to justify side-stepping the first purpose of marriage; Second, both husband and wife are truly willing to follow the method —neither one can force the other to adopt this system; Third, the use of this method must not cause mortal sins against chastity nor become a proximate occasion of such sins. The breakdown of any one of those three factors makes the use of Rhythm sinful. So the correct attitude is this: The use of Rhythm [NFP] is sometimes no sin, sometimes venial sin, sometimes mortal sin. Please stop saying, "Oh, it’s okay, the Church approves it."

Now study carefully those three factors. First, a sufficient reason; theologians admit there are at times solid reasons to justify the use of the Rhythm system. These reasons may be permanent or only temporary —poverty, poor health of the mother (real, not pretended), frequent still-births or Caesarean births, medical necessity of spacing births because of the unusual fecundity of the wife, in other words, solid and honest reasons for avoiding births for a time, or maybe for all time. But even when such honest reasons are present (and so often today they are not) it still remains true that husband and wife must both be truly willing.

But all too often in actual daily life, one spouse is unwilling and is being high-pressured by the other. All moral theologians would condemn as a grave sin the exclusive use of the sterile period when it is not a truly free agreement on both sides. If not free, a grave injustice is done the other spouse. Such dangers and such mortal sins are frequent in our materialistic age. Confessors would do well to investigate the close relationship between "cheating" by married people and their use of Rhythm [NFP]. So a good reason by itself is not enough. Circumstances change cases. A confessor’s help is advised. More about those three factors later.

Assuming there is free consent and no special dangers of mortal sin, would a couple be justified in using Rhythm for only selfish reasons? Theological opinion is divided: some say such a course would be mortally sinful, others say venially sinful. But all eminent theologians say such a course would be sinful and fraught with grave danger. The more you study the theologians on this question, the more you see how cautious priests and laity should be in advocating Rhythm. You see why the Holy See, only with reluctance, tolerates this method. It certainly has never been declared officially that the Holy See approves of the "safe period" method. Not even the much-quoted paragraph from the "Chaste Wedlock" encyclical of Pius XI can be accurately used as giving such approval. It is far more likely that Pius XI was referring to physically sterile people ("certain defects") or those who have passed the menopause ("reasons of time") and not the use of Rhythm. Yet the new supercolossal campaign for selling Rhythm devices by mail dares to quote the Holy Father in approval of such crassly commercial restriction of birth.

Face the Cold Realities

Now that we’ve laid the theological groundwork, let’s be terribly practical. Catholic couples have gone hog-wild in the abusive employment of Rhythm. Theological distinctions have been pitched completely in the utterly selfish desire to avoid conception at any cost. Too many priests are acting imprudently in the public recommendation (in classrooms and sermons) of the method which the Holy See has cautioned "the confessor may cautiously suggest." There is abundant evidence increasing daily that only spiritually strong couples can be trusted really to observe Rhythm prudently, even when a sufficient reason is present. All too many other couples say they’re using Rhythm and they really are following a system of "Don’t become pregnant at any cost." So they use Rhythm, when it "works," varied methods of contraception when it doesn’t work, and even abortion when they get "caught" (what an expression to describe the start of an immortal existence). Yet all the time such people try kidding confessors with "Oh, no, no birth control, we just use Rhythm. [NFP]"

It’s becoming a scandal to their sincere neighbors. John Doe is no theologian. He doesn’t make fancy distinctions between unnatural and natural birth control. All he sees is these selfish couples are married and don’t have kids —even brag about how they’re through having any more. He begins to wonder how they can so easily go to Confession and Communion. I’m beginning to wonder too. Even our adversaries throw a body blow at us by saying: "What’s the difference? You forbid contraception so firmly, but your couples slip through by using Rhythm."

Promoting Sterility

The thing is out of hand. A method meant to be a temporary solution of a critical problem has become a way of life, a very selfish, luxury-loving, materialistic way of life. What theologian would ever justify practices like these actual cases I now cite: parish priests giving a copy of a book on Rhythm to each engaged couple with a word of approval; preachers explaining in weekend retreats the advantages of this method for having children as you planned them; teachers in some of our best colleges teaching the method, often to girls who are well set financially; gynecologists lecturing in leading Catholic medical schools and telling classes of young doctors how to teach this method to patients, so that the doctors assume Church approval to recommend the method has now been given them; engaged couples planning their wedding day with rhythm cycle all plotted so no pregnancy results until a year or two passes, so that they can enjoy all the privileges and none of the obligations of marriage.

It is one thing to permit Rhythm reluctantly, as the Church officially does. It’s quite another to become promoters of sterility, as too many of our people have. Naturally, the commercializing of Rhythm has hit a new high. Expensive gadgets are now available —"every medical and theological student, nurse and social worker should have one," reads the blurb. So now our people have fool-proof methods of "making love by a calendar," effectively blocking God’s creative designs. It’s enough to make God vomit out of His mouth the creatures who ignore so completely the divine purposes of marriage. How will we ever convert godless America, how produce modern saints, if we won’t give God citizens for His Heavenly Kingdom? And most ironic of all, Catholics so anxious to be in on Catholic Action (which to them means anything from bingo to flag-waving) are often the most determined advocates of Rhythm. They labor so hard to get others to attend lectures, Cana Conferences, book reviews; but to have babies as God wants them to —don’t be silly. Have you noticed the heavy emphasis on Rhythm among our wealthy parishes, among our college graduate couples, our social and cultural leaders?

Rhythm Mentality

So there has sprung full-grown from pagan propaganda this vicious Rhythm [NFP] mentality —a state of mind that won’t trust God. Our moderns concede God knows how to balance the universe in the palm of His hand, knows how to harness atomic energy, can dangle stars and planets at His fingertips, but children? Oh, no, God just doesn’t know how to arrange things there. We’ll take care of that through family planning. But the planning centers about how not to have a family. So our do-gooders extol either the practice of total sexual abstinence (oh, so piously), even when the other partner is unwilling and is being unjustly defrauded, or the practice of methodical Rhythm. They don’t admit or don’t care about the mortal sins such systems produce. They are determined: No Pregnancy Now! There is the state of mind that despairs of God’s help.

These bleeding hearts, especially busybodies-in-law, and nosey neighbors, scream protestingly: "Who’ll take care of the next baby?" The simple answer is: The same God that takes care of you even when you resist His Will. "But we must give our children security and education." Just because God doesn’t give parents and children all today’s phony materialistic standards require, doesn’t mean He fails them. He didn’t give His own mother much in material security. But heaven, not security, is the goal set for the babies God sends. God established marriage primarily to give children life in this world that would bring eternal life.

Too many people are trying to play God. God alone is still the Author of new life. And God doesn’t need alarmist doctors, despairing parents, nor even thoughtless priests trying to run His affairs and deciding when new life shall be born. What God wants from us is free will co-operation with His Will. That’s the one contribution we alone can make. What God demands from married partners is willingness to have the children He shall decide to send. People go to heaven only by doing God’s Will, not by planning things for Him.

Well, then, should every couple have a flock of children? That’s up to God. Every couple should have the children God wants them to have. But they are not having them. Forty-four percent of American families have no children. Twenty-two per cent have only one child. And Catholics living in cities now have far fewer children than the families in rural areas (which are about eighty per cent Protestant). Obviously, family planners are planning families out of existence. That certainly is not God’s Will. The use of Rhythm by so-called "devout" Catholics is a major factor in that falling birth rate. You say the birth rate is up higher now? Yes, on the first and second babies. But it continues to fall steadily in the number of third, fourth and later babies.

Too Much Prudence

The Rhythm mentality has a tear-jerker argument. It’s turned on, full stops, something like this: "But God wants people to use prudence in bringing children into the world. Neither God nor His Church demands people have as many kids as possible. People should use discretion, be decent enough to plan their family. Isn’t it far better that a few kids be well fed, clothed, educated than a large family endure poverty." It sounds good, doesn’t it? People advancing this line are often quite righteous about it. With pharisaical smugness, they feel sorry for "imprudent pregnancy" of poor parents. But I’m sick of them. They’re the kind who probably pitied Mary of Nazareth, carrying a Baby God has sent, but for whom Joseph and Mary couldn’t find a home (talk about a housing shortage and tough landlords). They’re the kind who pitied my own mother, when she carried me, her twelfth child. Sweet chance I, and many another poor kids like me, would have to be priests, if Rhythm mentality prevailed. And what would the bleeding heart of another day have done about Nancy Hands carrying the Baby who became Abe Lincoln? There would have been no Bernadette of Lourdes, coming from a jail flat, nor Teresa of Lisieux from sickly parents and a mother who lost three babies in a row, and most certainly not a Catherine of Siena, a twenty-third child, if the "prudent planners" had their way. What all these extollers of prudence forget is: God’s Will is the end of man. The essence of the world: ours to do His Will. Prudence [an intellectual habit enabling us to see in any given juncture of human affairs what is virtuous and what is not, and how to come at the one and avoid the other] is a cardinal virtue, highly praiseworthy indeed. But faith, hope, and charity are supernatural virtues far more praiseworthy. And the greatest of these is charity. What nobler way to practice charity than to co-operate with God in passing on new life, when God wants it to be born, not when humans think it should? Let only God play God.

Hidden Costs

"Such a manner of using the marriage right, followed without a very serious reason during all, or almost all of the married life, is opposed to the plan of Providence for the propagation of the human race, represents a serious attack on the honor of marriage and particularly on the dignity of the wife, and creates grave dangers for the married people." So spoke the bishops of Belgium in their Fifth Provincial Council back in 1937. Their words point up the hidden costs of using Rhythm. Take that point on debasing the honor of marriage and lowering the dignity of the wife. Fifty per cent of today’s mothers are neurotic, say several leading non-Catholic psychologists. In many cases, Rhythm produces the neurosis. It made the "rejecting mother" type. She "got caught" with a pregnancy she had sedulously fled. The unwanted pregnancy results in the lonely, neurotic, unwanted child. Neurosis like this can increase sterility, so often when the "Rhythmeer" ["Contracepter"] finally wants a baby, she can’t have one. It’s odd that women can’t see the debasing results of a system that uses them systematically to satisfy sexual desires but seldom to produce children.

Advocates of Rhythm are fond of stressing how "natural" the method is. But as Fr. Lavaud, O.P., has said: "We cannot see an adaptation to nature in something which is, in effect a trick to frustrate nature." Rhythm is quite unnatural as currently employed. It requires the couple to "make love by a calendar," so charts, gadgets, graphs rule romance, not the loving desire of devoted partners. Some medical men assure us a wife’s desire for marital union is most vehement precisely during the fertile period. It appears the Jews followed a more natural procedure in abstaining during sterile periods, as the Book of Leviticus indicates. Even Dr. Ogino, the originator of the method, viewed the method primarily as a means of having children. "Rhythm in reverse," having relations on fertile days just to have children, is natural.

Another hidden cost is infidelity. Women puzzled by male misbehaving at certain time periods might well remember the desires of the flesh respect no calendar. And remember, too, man’s sexual life follows a monthly cycle of vehemence and subsidence, as well as a change of life later. Men not living a properly satisfactory sexual life with wives, too much calendar restriction, are easy victims to feminine wiles outside the home. The coolness and jittery bickering caused by Rhythm is incalculable. The fulfillment of marriage as a vocation demands that husband and wife minister to each other’s needs through tenderness and understanding often best expressed through love-making and intimate union postponed by the Rhythm calendar. How stupid to live a love-life holding your breath.

Who shall estimate the hidden costs generated in a woman’s finely adjusted emotional and psychical life through fear of having another baby. Once such fear is implanted, how difficult to eradicate it. How easily it leads to desperation about avoiding pregnancy at all costs. Be sure that Satan knows how to employ it to create despair about trusting God. Only in eternity shall we know the immortal souls denied a chance to have life because they were snuffed out through abortions caused by such fear.

The New Synthesis

What’s the answer to all this bogeyman propaganda about babies? It could be expressed in a word Vivant (let them live). One group of splendid parents in Milwaukee have taken that word as their slogan and the title of their magazine circulated among young married couples. It’s a vivid expression of the forgotten virtue of hope. God’s providence still rules the world. True Christians, mindful of their supernatural birth at Baptism, the growth of that life of grace through Mass, Sacraments and prayer know that hope not only springs eternal but it brings eternity as its reward. It devastates right here on earth the creeping paralysis of despair born of these hard times. It cures insecurity by abandoning itself to the constantly supporting arms of God. Married couples, so fearful of what to eat and wear with children arrived or coming, need frequent meditations on that famous sixth chapter of Matthew: "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto you." Seeking His justice means doing His Will, doing it with hope in your heart that God will provide and reward generosity. He never is outdone in generosity, as we all should know from experience. Surprising how God fills your heart and life with pulsating affection of children, once you trust Him enough to have the children. Surprising how little warmth there is in the mink coat, the vacation, the television set, the car that you fought so hard for, while denying your arms the warm embrace of children. Or is all this surprising? God keeps His word.

It would be well to meditate frequently on Paul’s vivid reminders about "the great Sacrament" married people give each other on their wedding day. Matrimony joins two hearts and souls and lives by fusing natural and supernatural bonds that day. God and husband and wife become partners that a great vocation might be fulfilled. The virtue of hope receives a mighty increase that day through the grace of Matrimony. At every instant of their married life, the married couple has God’s assurance that His grace is sufficient for them. No obstacle is insurmountable to God.

As Fr. Orville Griese, in his famous book, The Rhythm in Marriage and Christian Morality, says:

Christian couples ought to realize that it is a singular, providential blessing to be able to bring forth new life, thus assuring man and wife of a deeper, most lasting union, offering them means of personal sanctification and of contributing to the strength and growth of both Church and State. The mere fact that the future looks a little uncertain or that the child might be frail or sickly is no reason for substituting faith in the biological computations of the safe period method for trust in God.

Paul Vs. Santorum?

(Hat tip to Frank Weathers)

Catholic writer Tom Woods (author of How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization) shares his opinion on the Ron Paul vs. Rick Santorum debate.

Personhood forum recording...

Earlier this week, the Personhood forum interviewed some of the candidates on the topic of life and abortion. The responses are worth paying attention to.



Use the following links if you want to jump to a particular candidate:
Rick Perry: 3:08
Newt Gingrich: 23:38
Rick Santorum: 42:20
Ron Paul: 1:00:30

Is Cain Pro-Life?

Herman Cain seems to be floating some odd logic lately when queried on his stance against abortion.

He starts out by saying he believes that life begins at conception, and that he supports "abortion under no circumstances." When Morgan presses him on the government's role in enforcing that belief -- an exchange that at least begins with a hypothetical question about a rape exception -- Cain begins to sound a lot like a "personally opposed to abortion, but still pro-choice" candidate.

But it’s worth mentioning that, as I noted the other day, Cain chose not to run for Senate in 1998 partially because he was unsure his views on abortion would be compatible with the most ardent pro-life voters. ”[W]ith the pro-life and pro-abortion debate, the most vocal people are on the ends. I am pro-life with exceptions, and people want you to be all or nothing,” Cain told Nation’s Restaurant News, adding that he was “not a social-issue crusader” but a “free-enterprise crusader.” However, whatever his concerns were in 1998, he did run as pro-life (no exceptions in cases of rape and incest — the only exception he ran on was for the mother’s life) in the 2004 Georgia senate race, and won an endorsement from Georgia Right to Life that election cycle.

Links of interest:
Whoa: Is Herman Cain Pro-Choice on Abortion?
Herman Cain Might Actually Be Pro-Choice and Not Know It
Herman Cain’s Muddled Abortion Logic

2010-2011 CCHD Update

The 2010-2011 list of CCHD grantees was released in January of this year. The review (PDF) produced by the American Life League produced some disappointing facts.

From the findings of the review:

• 218 organizations funded
• 14 are directly involved in activities contrary to the Church
• 40 are actively involved in coalitions with activities contrary to the Church

Almost a quarter of the groups funded by CCHD are involved in work contrary to Holy Mother Church. The reforms the CCHD attempted to put in place in recent years are not adequate.

Dangerous Ambiguity

What does the Church teach on the death penalty? Have the times changed such that the teachings of Christ's Church are no longer relevant?

The NCR seems to think so... in fact the NCR seems to have completly re-written what the Church teaches on capital punishment. I guess it should not come as a surprise.

Here is another view on the topic. "The Purposes of Punishment" by R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L.

"Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe."

St. Aquinas also has quite a bit to say on the subject. For starters:

"The slaying of an evil-doer is lawful inasmuch as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, and therefore appertains to him alone who has charge of the community. Now the care of the common good is entrusted to rulers having public authority; and therefore to them is it lawful to slay evil-doers, not to private individuals."

Using Babies for Gluttony?

Most of us are familiar with Aborted fetal cell lines being used to manufacture vaccinations. If that detail is not morbid enough, it seems a company is using human embryonic kidney cells taken from an electively aborted baby to produce "receptors" that function as a means to measure flavor.

In 2010, the pro-life organization wrote to Senomyx CEO Kent Snyder, pointing out that moral options for testing their food additives could and should be used. But when Senomyx ignored their letter, they wrote to the companies Senomyx listed on their website as "collaborators" warning them of public backlash and threatened boycott. Food giants Pepsico, Kraft Foods, Campbell Soup, Solae and Nestlé are the primary targets of the boycott, though Senomyx boasts other international partners on their website.

Senomyx website states that "The company's key flavor programs focus on the discovery and development of savory, sweet and salt flavor ingredients that are intended to allow for the reduction of MSG, sugar and salt in food and beverage products....Using isolated human taste receptors, we created proprietary taste receptor-based assay systems that provide a biochemical or electronic readout when a flavor ingredient interacts with the receptor."

Senomyx notes their collaborators provide them research and development funding plus royalties on sales of products using their flavor ingredients.

"What they do not tell the public is that they are using HEK 293 – human embryonic kidney cells taken from an electively aborted baby to produce those receptors", stated Debi Vinnedge, Executive Director for Children of God for Life, a pro-life watch dog group that has been monitoring the use of aborted fetal material in medical products and cosmetics for years.

"They could have easily chosen COS (monkey) cells, Chinese Hamster Ovary cells, insect cells or other morally obtained human cells expressing the G protein for taste receptors", Vinnedge added.

In writing to their collaborators, it took three letters before Nestlé finally admitted the truth about their relationship with Senomyx, noting the cell line was "well established in scientific research".

After hearing Ms Vinnedge speak publicly on the problem, angry consumers began writing the companies. Both Pepsico and Campbell Soup immediately responded.

Shockingly, Pepsico wrote: "We hope you are reassured to learn that our collaboration with Senomyx is strictly limited to creating lower-calorie, great-tasting beverages for consumers. This will help us achieve our commitment to reduce added sugar per serving by 25% in key brands in key markets over the next decade and ultimately help people live healthier lives."

Campbell Soup was more concerned in their response: "Every effort is made to use the finest ingredients and develop the greatest selection of products, all at a great value. With this in mind, it must be said that the trust we have cultivated and developed over the years with our consumers is not worth compromising to cut costs or increase profit margins."

While Campbell did not state they would change their methods, still their response, gave Vinnedge hope. [Update: Cambell Soup is no longer in partnership with Senomyx.]

"If enough people voice their outrage and intent to boycott these consumer products, it can be highly effective in convincing Senomyx to change their methods", she noted. "Otherwise, we will be buying Coca-Cola, Lipton soups and Hershey products!"

Despite the cuteness of this angry baby picture, and my lack of ability to phrase a suitable title to this post... We should all be upset by the absolute ridiculousness of aborted children, and even more enraged about the use of those children for things such as vaccines and food. I'll take my clogged arteries and high blood pressure over food additives that were created through the help of aborted fetal cells. This is sick.

The Great Lie

I came across a post or two at a 'blog named Feministe about the recent horrific discoveries at an abortion clinic in Philadelphia claiming (along with many comments to the post) this case "proves" the same old worn out arguments for making abortion "safe, legal and rare". There were numerous contradictions and blatant inconsistencies in the post and the attached comments, so I wrote a comment in an attempt to address at least a few of them. Since the comment is currently under moderation, and I really have no hope that it will actually be published, I hope you'll forgive me for posting it here:

“The Truth of the matter is that each and every life created, from the moment of its conception, has intrinsic value given by its Creator that is not dependent on whether said life is “wanted” by another human or is useful in some way to another human. This includes tiny embryos up to full term and beyond and the mothers who carry them, and the fathers who gave the other half of the DNA. This is most clearly true of innocent life.

I HAVE “been there”, as a mother who has carried 5 children to term and lost 2 children to miscarriage. I know for a fact that my life DOES have value beyond its role in carrying a “fetus”. Where is the logic in saying that because MY life has value beyond its use to the fetus, therefore the fetus’ life has no value beyond its use to me? You can’t have it both ways, or if you DO want to have it both ways at least have the intellectual honesty to come out and say it. It is this utilitarian claim that says "your life has no value because it is of no use to me" that can carry an abortion doctor from a clean and sterile, well kept and licensed clinic to the horror of Grosnell’s clinic. Just because an abortion was clean and sterile and performed on a tinier human doesn’t mean that that tinier human is any less dead than the ones Grosnell killed.

Just one inconsistency that I saw in the article:
The author states that “outlawing abortion would have done absolutely nothing to help the women and babies who died or suffered in Gosnell’s care.” Ok, leaving aside for a moment the fact that there is NO way to know this with such certainty as she seems to possess, we see that the author then goes on to say “how greater government oversight and enforcement of health care laws could have shut down Gosnell’s operation years ago.” So it’s not practical to enact and enforce laws that are by definition designed to protect both the mother AND the baby, but yet we must advocate for “government oversight” (a.k.a. enacting and enforcing laws) over health care?

If one would take the time to study the pro-life stance, one would be able to see that pro-life advocates are only being consistent when they advocate also for abstinence and against free-range contraceptives (dangerous in their own right). These advocates want to bring about the end of the perceived “need” for abortion by eliminating unwanted pregnancies through educating people on 1) the fact that all life has intrinsic value aside from its usefulness and 2) respect for the sacredness of the act that brings about this life, and the sacredness of the marriage that protects that act.

My heart bleeds for the woman who truly believes The Great Lie that she can have no choice but to end the life present within her, that depends on no one if not her. If I can kill the life within my very womb, what is to stop me from killing the life just leaving it? Or the life that I have far less reason to care about?”

I know these arguments are far from complete and are barely coherent... I welcome additions and corrections.

Follow up: Catholic Campaign for Human Development

In the coming Sundays... many diocesan parishes will have a collection for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). Earlier this week we posted some links about the CCHD and its connection to Saul Alinsky. If you decided not to watch the videos, you would have missed the details on how the CCHD has collected money to provide to "charities" that support abortion and the gay agenda. Some diocesan bishops have seen around this and have not collected for the CCHD, or have used the collection to apply to local diocesan Catholic charities instead. Most diocese in America are still planning for the collection.

A lay man with a wife and family was recently fired from one of the CCHD offices for contacting faithful Catholics about the corruption he had noted in this organization. The currently nameless (for now) individual sent the following email in response to his being let go:

The USCCB, its administrators, bishops or lay people in charge of the entire CCHD program(s) are NOT an official arm or representative of the Vatican or the Roman Catholic Church.

In no way should any Roman Catholic obedient to the Magisterium support a collection that has violated donor intent since its inception. Despite the attempts made by many well intentioned individuals in the [local CCHD office], the powers-that-be at the USCCB and some local bishops and priests, have plans to return to business as usual with this program.

The lack of respect for the sanctity of life and the destruction of the necessary societal institutions of traditional marriage and family are the major reason for the moral, physical and spiritual poverty we suffer in the western world.

Pray that our Catholic church in America be protected under Our Lady of Guadalupe and that the Culture of Life defeat the evil Culture of Death that has permeated the USCCB and specifically the CCHD for far too long.

Please forward this along to Catholics so they can be prepared for this collection this weekend. (It is possible that some diocese will wait until lent.)

Voris at the ND vs Purdue game

I think Voris should attend more games...

Wisdom (teeth)

Would you look at that! Murdered unborn children really are not needed to gather stem cells. It also seems that our "useless" wisdom teeth have some value after all.

Attack on Protesters

This is what abortion protesters in Vienna have to put up with:

The Economic Boycott

A couple good articles on "The Economic Boycott: Is It Moral? Does It Work?" and "History Of The Economic Boycott." The common misconceptions listed under the first article was particularly interesting:

The boycott will make no difference.

LDI has documented over 231 corporations that have pledged to no longer support Planned Parenthood. To understand how corporations might see the results of a boycott, look at the economic effects on a larger scale. Suppose just 250,000 boycotters vowed to spend their money elsewhere and they redirected a small figure of $15 per week. That would amount to $3.75 million per week or $195 million a year. That amount is enough to stand any business executive's hair on end and change philanthropic policy.

Boycotts punish the innocent employees of a targeted corporation.

LDI does not suggest that people cease working for boycott targets unless their job directly influences corporate profits (cashier at a supermarket versus insurance salesman). Those who remain employed by a boycott target are encouraged to work from the inside to change the philanthropic policy. In many cases, corporations that stopped funding Planned Parenthood did so due to pressure from inside as well as outside the company. The goal is not to punish the employees but to change corporate behavior. If the friendly Christian door-to-door salesman wants you to buy a boycotted product, respectfully explain your commitment to the pro-life cause and urge the salesman to ask the parent corporation to stop funding Planned Parenthood.

The Boycott List is overwhelming. It is impossible to keep up and if everything were to be boycotted, we would go naked and hungry.

Boycotting companies on The Boycott List is not as overwhelming as it might first appear. The Boycott List comes with a handy Checkbook List. The Checkbook List is a checkbook-size version of The Boycott List and includes the names of corporations and products/services one may encounter while outside the home. Simply read over the Checkbook List and highlight those products/services you may use. Be sure to put the Checkbook List in your car, pocketbook, or checkbook so it is handy when you leave home.

No one who has been a faithful participant in the boycott has gone naked, hungry or unsheltered. In most cases there are competing products that can be bought in place of those on The Boycott List. CFP guidelines clearly indicate that one should not forgo purchase of a product for which there is serious need and no substitute. The Boycott List is not a call to extreme sacrifice. It is an opportunity to join with like-minded people to encourage the elimination of corporate funding of Planned Parenthood. We are asking you to be a good steward of the resources God has given you.

Boycotting is a strong-armed, political tactic that is tantamount to extortion.

It might be that some understand "boycotting" as meaning something other than it actually does. You might be more comfortable with the term "economic non-cooperation" or "smart shopping." You will shop, support, or buy from companies based on a set of consistent guidelines and principles. That is your right as a consumer and is neither political nor strong-armed.

The LDI boycott is not extortion because neither you nor the organization calling for the boycott has anything to gain financially. On the other hand, pro-abortion groups sometimes threaten corporations with a boycott if they end funding. Such a boycott does constitute extortion (morally, if not legally) because they are demanding monetary gain.

What harm is really being done?

Besides the actual destruction of preborn children through abortion, the anti-Christian and immoral teachings by Planned Parenthood have a devastating impact on young men and women. (For example, one common educational tactic of Planned Parenthood is "desensitizing." The goal is to break down inhibitions about sex so indoctrination can occur more readily accepted. In reality this tactic desensitizes the conscience and reduces the sanctity of the sexual relationship, while actually arousing interest in the topic.) It is important to remember that, in the eyes of God, abortion is murder.

The Cost of Abortion

This video on the costs of abortion has been around awhile now, but it is worth posting about. The video does contain some very graphic reminders of what abortion is, but decent warning is given during the video for those who should turn away.

The video also provides a number of secular arguments against abortion that are worth having on hand. I have not spent much time on the website, but it too seems to contain a plethora of information. Please see: http://thecostofabortion.com/

Being Human

This sequence of pictures is a nice reminder of how spectacular the beginning of life is. I only wish the time periods were shown along with the pictures. More pictures taken by that particular photographer can be seen here: http://www.lennartnilsson.com/child_is_born.html