A RESPONSE TO AN ATTEMPT TO DEFINE THE "SERIOUS REASONS" OF PIUS XII

In this post, a Catholic blogger attempts to define the "serious reasons" which allow for the use of periodic continence (NFP) within marriage. 

You can only use NFP for serious reasons…What are these reasons?

by Dr Taylor Marshall

My comment follows:

Because the "Church" never defined "serious reasons", it was left to us to fill in the blank, and apparently this is an attempt to fill in the blank. And even with this attempt, the author implies that our attempt to fill in said blanks will fall short without the guidance of a "solid spiritual director versed in these matters." Well good luck finding one of those. But beyond that, let's examine a few things:

The author says that artificial contraception is "intrinsically evil because they (condoms, pills) intervene in the natural process", but periodic continence is "morally neutral." I would argue that condoms and pills are not intrinsically evil things because they are things. Their use becomes problematic when they are employed with an evil intent: to prevent conception. 

Likewise, periodic continence becomes problematic when it is employed with an evil intent: to prevent conception without "serious reason.". In fact, periodic continence, since it is an act of the will (I will not have sex with my spouse), is NEVER morally neutral. It can be morally good or morally evil, but it is never neutral.

I also find it curious that the central moral dilemma of modern man - the control of procreation (let's face it) was addressed by our Church via a pope in what appears to be a sidebar to an already obscure address to an even more obscure group (Italian midwives). 

One could argue that the moral application of periodic continence had been addressed earlier in more prominent addresses by Pius XI (Casti Connubii) and later by Paul VI (Humanae Vitae), but both encyclicals do not enumerate the "reasons", as does Pius XII,  who in fact provides the grounds for the morality of the method. 

JPII gets into it in his Theology of the Body, but TOB is way down there on the scale of authoritative pronouncements. 

Thus, we are apparently left with a scramble to unpack the four reasons left us by Pius XII in a tiny address that carries relatively little magisterial weight. 

Actually, the Catechism rescues us by its use of the word "just" as in "just cause". However, I've yet to read or hear any attempt to unpack this, so let me give it a go. 

When the Church uses "just" relative to moral issues it generally does not mean "just figure it out for yourself". The best parallel would be the use of the word "just" in defining "just war". 

There are several key provisions which must be in place for a war effort to be considered "just" and therefore morally "inbounds". One of the key provisions for a Just War is "proportionality": the benefits must equal the damage.

Denying God souls to love (children) - by whatever means - is serious business and demands proportionate (just) cause. And when it comes to marital relations the discernment of that cause cannot be reliant on a list, or anyone's attempt to define that list - which is probably why no pope ever has. 

Personal holiness is your only aid in this regard. Total submission to the Holy Spirit and union with God in and through his sacraments is all there is. Throw away your charts and get out your rosaries. 

Disclaimer: Father of eleven who thought one was enough and is so glad things did not go as I planned.

FROM GRISWOLD TO WINDSOR: A RESPONSE TO A FRIEND

NOTE: "Winsdor" was the name of the plaintiff in the case which overturned Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. "Griswold" is explained in the post.

In the wake of the two recent SCOTUS decisions relative to same-sex marriage, I made the following post on Facebook:

In his dissent, Alito defines the argument as a contest between two visions of marriage—what he calls the "conjugal" and "consent-based" views. He defines the conjugal view of marriage as a “comprehensive, exclusive, permanent union that is intrinsically ordered to producing children.” 

And therein lies the achilles heel. Conjugal marriages have not been "intrinsically ordered to producing children" for nearly four decades. The production of children has become something to be mechanically, chemically, or surgically controlled. Conjugal marriages thus become consent-based marriages, which is the fundamental premise of same-sex marriage and why same-sex marriage will ultimately be the law of the land, unless...

A good friend, conservative Christian, and frequent Facebook ally in the culture war, disagreed with my identifying the otherwise unquestioned embrace of birth control by traditionally married couples as the central culprit in the collapse of marriage as “intrinsically ordered to producing children” and thus a gateway to same-sex marriage.

Because most Catholics, let alone non-Catholic Christians, see no problem with contraceptive sex (so long as it is within marriage), I have great understanding for anyone who doesn’t see the connection between contraception and same-sex marriage.  Following is my response.

*****

No worries. I know of only three people who agree with me, so you're in the majority. In any event, it's not my opinion. As a Catholic I would be a hypocrite and a liar and would have no reason to be a Catholic if I did not uphold my church's moral teaching which essentially states that we belong to God, all of us, body and soul, our sex lives too.

Since you're not Catholic, you don't need to worry about it. So you can stop here. However. for the record, our church teaches that God made man and woman to be fundamentally procreative.* Whether procreation occurs is ultimately up to God, not us. However, we have made it up to us by artificially controlling our fertility.

Up till 1930, every Christian denomination taught that the deliberate frustration of the procreative act was a violation of God's plan for our bodies. In fact, selling contraceptives to married couples was illegal in the U.S. until 1965 when those laws were declared unconstitutional in Griswold v Connecticut. The grounds? The "right to privacy". The first instance of this "right" in a judicial ruling.

It's interesting to follow it from there. The next instance where the "right to privacy" was invoked was in Roe v Wade, and the next: Lawrence v Texas wherein anti-sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional. In Scalia's dissent in this case, he predicted (in 2003) that the way was now paved to gay marriage.

Amongst Christians, the Anglicans were the first to allow for contaceptive use in marriages under very limited conditions. But within 30 years or so, every Christian denomination either allowed it or looked the other way. However, for all of Christian history, the chemical (the pill), mechanical (condom), or surgical (vasectomy) frustration of the marital act was seen as an offense to natural law and thus to God, who by design, created our bodies to make more souls for him to love.

Only the Catholic Church has held to the ancient teaching, found in written form as early as 50AD in the Didache - the earliest known Christian writing. HOWEVER, and this is a big HOWEVER, the majority of Catholics, including most of its ordained leaders, at least in the U.S. have chosen to ignore the ancient teaching and have gone the way of the Anglicans.

In fact, even as a Catholic, I was unaware of my church's teaching on birth control until late in life, and had been counseled on several occasions by pastors to go ahead and use it (so long as I prayed about it first!!)

In the end, my intent with this short essay is not to convince you or anyone else to change your mind about birth control, but to demonstrate the legal, judicial, and moral connection between the arbitrary control of fertility to where we are now with same-sex marriage. Whether we agree there is a connection or not, the fact is we are here, and gay couples are claiming the same rights as straight couples: the right to spousal happiness and sexual satisfaction apart from the obligation to procreate.

Thus, my ultimate recommendation - as stated elsewhere: the only way to advance the future of one man one woman marriage is for those marriages to keep their promises: till death do we part and to accept children willingly and lovingly from God - to do what is "intrinsically ordered".

(I am well aware of the financial limits and special circumstances which may call for the limits of family size, but ultimately the question we must answer is whether or not we trust God enough to take care of that. I did not...at first.)

One last note. After the birth of our 10th child, who was born with many complications, the doctor wagged her finger in my face and said "no more children". The little girl in my profile pic is our 11th. Obviously I'm a bad listener.

* Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life," teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 2366)

"...every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil...” (CCC 2370)

A response to a post by Public Discourse: THE SUPREME COURT, YOU, ME, AND THE FUTURE OF MARRIAGE.

(Go here to read the post.)

In his dissent, Alito defines the argument as a contest between two visions of marriage—what he calls the "conjugal" and "consent-based" views. He defines the conjugal view of marriage as a “comprehensive, exclusive, permanent union that is intrinsically ordered to producing children.”

And therein lies the achilles heel. Conjugal marriages have not been "intrinsically ordered to producing children" for nearly four decades. The production of children has become something to be mechanically, chemically, or surgically controlled. Conjugal marriages thus become consent-based marriages, which is the fundamental premise of same-sex marriage and why same-sex marriage will ultimately be the law of the land, unless...

MY RESPONSE TO ROBERT GEORGE

The following is a Facebook response to a friends post relative to the opinion of Robert George in this article:

I am very familiar with George's work, having relied on it to beat back the same-sex union bill here in Guam in 2009. But ultimately I had to move beyond it because the core of his argument is that marriage is inherently fertile. With most of the population chemically, surgically, or mechanically controlling their fertility - including most Christians - the argument, though true, in practice, fails.

Even the use of NFP by Catholics is almost everywhere deeply flawed because the morality of the method depends on "just cause" - a contingency which is rarely examined or counseled.

SSM is simply an extension of the principal of the primacy of pleasure - made possible by contraception and even NFP - already long embraced by supposed traditional marriage couples.

The only argument left to us is the one Sotomayor (amazingly) proffered. It is essentially this question: "where do you draw the line?" If you would not limit marriage to one man or one woman, what would you limit it to and why, or would you limit it at all?

Unfortunately, she waded into the polygamy question and Olson was prepared for that. It would have been better if she had raised the prospects of eliminating already existing restrictions on marriage such as consanguinity, affinity, etc., and asked whether or not even non-sexual marriages should be allowed (e.g. a marriage between a father and a daughter for the purposes of passing on benefits). Since only love is the criterion, all things are possible.

However, the courts best defense is the ruling in Loving v Virginia wherein the court ruled that marriage was necessary for the "survival of society" and the fact that the Loving court did not need to explain it - explains it.

Ultimately, this argument would bring us back to George's point and would force us all to recognize that it is heterosexuals who have abused marriage to the point where advocates of SSM, which is nothing more than the sterile sex most Americans already practice, feel empowered to challenge TM's exclusivity.

THE REAL "VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN"

Published in the U Matuna, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Agana, Guam, 3/10/13.

The number of abortions on Guam were down slightly in 2012 - from 295 in 2011 to 275 last year. There are no changes in trends: most abortions occur during the first trimester, young adults ages 18-22 have the most abortions, and Chamorros account for  the largest share (62%) of abortions. But what do these numbers mean and how can we bring them down?

Some advocate for better education of our youth. But the youth, ages 13-17, account for only 2% of abortions. Some call for greater access to contraception. But contraception is more readily available than ever before. Others would like to see more opportunities for adoption. But there is already a waiting list at CPS of hopeful parents waiting to adopt. Some say we need to improve the economy, but in general, wealthier economies have higher abortion rates.

So, what to do? First, we must put everything on the table. For several years now, our abortion reports have defied the myths that abortions on Guam are either procured by teens or outsiders. They are not. As mentioned, teens account for only 2% of abortions, and “locals” account for more abortions than all other ethnicities combined.

As Catholics, we must further admit that since 85% of “locals” identify themselves as Catholic, abortion is a Catholic problem. Also, for a culture that still largely prides itself as family-oriented and one which has traditionally cared for the children of relatives who were unable to care for their own, we must ask why the number of Chamorro children aborted by their mothers continues to escalate even while the percentage of the Chamorro population on Guam continues to decline.

In short, we must get rid of our myths before we can proceed. I personally tire of hearing “but they’re Catholic” when one learns of a certain lawmaker’s obstruction of pro-life legislation, or the now tired and transparent mantra about the culture being “family-oriented” given the staggering incidence of family violence we are constantly confronted with. Even more wearisome is the talk about the need to reach our teens when it’s the adults who account for 98% of abortions.

Our first reaction is usually “we have to talk about this more.” But as Catholics, we already talk about it “more”: no organization has defined doctrine condemning abortion as clear as ours, no group organizes more public protests, and no group is as active in the charitable ministries which address the social issues thought to be the causes of abortion. Yet our abortion numbers rise, and Catholics throughout the U.S., not just Guam, increasingly accept abortion even while the rest of the nation is heading in the other direction.

Some think that the number of abortions procured by Catholics is high because of the the Church’s teaching against the use of contraception. However, access to contraception has not only NOT slowed the abortion rate, it can be easily proved that contraception’s failure rate has contributed to increased abortions. According to the FDA, condom use, the most common form of contraception, will result in pregnancy 18% of the time, and oral contraceptives, 9% of the time. And of course - thinking “I’m protected” - contraceptive use leads to more frequent sexual activity which increases the number of contraceptive failures leading to more abortions.

It is difficult to battle the rate of abortion when one of its main causes (contraceptive use) is seen as the solution. But telling the truth about contraception’s failure and battling government initiatives to further inject it as a social solution is critical to any effort to decrease abortion.

However, I hold little hope for this. Contraception is a “sacred cow”. Our culture desires sex without consequences - and contraception, despite its glaring failure rate and the monstrous spread of disease, proposes to hold the magic key.

Of course, in the end, women are the losers. Contraception liberates men not women. It’s the woman who end up with a “problem pregnancy” and in the abortion clinic when contraception fails. And in many cases she is drug there by the man who impregnated her.

The Elliot Institute documents that nearly 64% of abortions are coerced. And when the woman is unwilling, she is often beaten or killed: homicide is the leading killer of pregnant women. Also, coerced abortions may account for why the post-abortive woman is six times more likely to commit suicide.

Yet, often the most ardent advocates of increased legal protections for women are also the most ardent advocates of increased access to contraception and abortion. Contraception enables bad men to more easily use and discard women. And when contraception fails, abortion allows men to destroy the evidence. How fortunate for them that so many women believe these both to be “rights”.  

The 2012 Guam Abortion Report can be accessed at www.esperansa.org.

OF POLLS AND PEWS: THE DANGERS OF "TOGETHER FOR LIFE"

Over the course of several columns we have documented the bewildering trend of Catholics increasingly accepting behaviors, acts, and lifestyles that are either condemned or strongly disapproved of by the church they say they belong to.

The trend is not rooted in an ignorance of church teaching - most Catholics appear to know where their church stands on abortion, contraception, and homosexual relations; rather, it seems to stem from a belief that they are wholly free to accept or reject such teachings and remain Catholics in good standing.

Many minds in Catholic leadership have puzzled over this trend, and the church has spilled over with documents and initiatives attempting to address it. One priest, Monsignor William Smith (now deceased) fingers an unlikely suspect.

Smith was a moral theologian who wrote for theological journals as well as a monthly column in Homiletic and Pastoral Review. In a1994 column he challenged a booklet widely used in marriage preparation, “Together for Life” (TL) by Msgr. Joseph Champlin, which was first published in 1970.

In TL (at least the editions used through 1994), Monsignor Smith exposes a pattern of teaching that, given its audience (pre-Cana couples), and its wide usage since 1970, may well explain why so many Catholics feel they are free to fashion their own moral code as well as pick and choose their religious obligations.

In addressing the regulation of births, Champlin quotes the relevant sections of the Catechism and Vatican II’s Guadium et Spes, but then, Smith observes, subjects the moral applicability of the teaching to the intentions and motives of the couple, and in so doing, sets the couple up to decide what is right and wrong “for them”.

Smith notes that this is something the Council expressly said NOT to do: “....with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards....spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily...” (GS 50-51)

The subjective relativization of an objective moral position, demonstrated in TL, is not an uncommon practice. It is common to many contemporary Catholic authors. It goes like this: 1) Catholic teaching is cited, 2) the reader is made aware of dissenting positions, 3) the reader is asked how he “feels” about it, 4) the reader is told that a mature Catholic will need to make his own decisions, 5) the reader is encouraged to pray and “listen to the heart”.

In short, its nothing more than a high school exercise in values-clarification with Catholic truth often only serving as a conversation starter, or as doctrinal cover so that an imprimatur, which TL has, will not be denied (and so that pastors in seeing the imprimatur will feel soothed).

But let’s back up. Many of us are so familiar with this process that we fail to see what is wrong with it. After all, isn’t this what freedom of conscience and religious liberty is all about? Ultimately, don’t we have to make our own decisions?

Yes and No. Yes, we are free to choose BETWEEN right and wrong. No, we are NOT free to choose what IS right and wrong (at least not in matters that are intrinsically wrong). “Conscience”, (literally: “with knowledge), assumes that one proceeds with the knowledge of what IS right and wrong as well as that of the temporal and eternal consequences of one’s choice.

In TL, Champlin leads the couple to decide what IS right and wrong...“for them”. And lest the couple shirk from the imposed dilemma, he assures them: “At those times we purify our hearts, search for God’s light in this special circumstance, then decide what is the best course to follow. And follow it without any fear or anxiety.”

Coming as it does in the section on birth regulation there is no denying what is the matter to be “decided.” So the couple, about to embrace Holy Matrimony, and with the help of their pre-Cana class, is thus freed to contracept “without fear or anxiety” so long as they have “searched for God’s light” in this “special circumstance.”

But Champlin doesn’t stop there. Wisely assuming that some couples might be yet pained by that “still small voice”, Champlin advises them to seek out a priest, BUT not just any priest, but an “understanding priest”, or in the words of Msgr. Smith: “shop around for an affirmative cleric.”

While Smith is primarily concerned with the damage done by TL in marriage preparation, it’s easy to see how its method of moral manipulation might later induce Catholics to feel authorized to arbitrate on everything from abortion to the Sunday obligation: a fact evidenced in both polls and pews - increasingly empty ones.

(Monsignor William Smith’s commentary can be found in the book “Modern Moral Problems”, published by Ignatius Press, and available at the Cathedral Gift Shop.)

STATISTICALLY, CONDOMS DON'T ADD UP TO SAFE SEX

My letter to the editor, printed in the Voice of the People section of the Pacific Daily News, December 18, 2012, criticizing the promotion of condom use as "safe sex" and suggesting legal liability for condom promoters based on statistics from both the National Institute of Health and the FDA.

The letter, once printed, is the property of the Pacific Daily News and cannot be reprinted on this blog. Click here to go to the PDN online and also make comments, or click here to see a PDF copy of the letter.

Here are the links to the references in the letter:

National Institute of Health
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services (2001-07-20). "Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention" (PDF). Hyatt Dulles Airport, Herndon, Virginia. pp. 13–15. Retrieved 2010-09-22.

FDA
Birth Control Guide: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ByAudience/ForWomen/WomensHealthTopics/ucm117971.htm

"other studies"
^ Cayley, W.E. & Davis-Beaty, K. (2007). "Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual HIV transmission". In Weller, Susan C. Effectiveness of Condoms in Reducing Heterosexual Transmission of HIV (Review). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd..doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003255.

RECANT, REPENT, AND RETURN

Printed in the U Matuna, the newspaper for the Archdiocese of Agana, Guam

The Left is all aflutter with the news that on November 6 three states voted to legalize same-sex marriage in popular referendums. The victories are significant because the legalization of same-sex marriage had heretofore been defeated at the ballot box and had only gained ground through the courts and state legislatures.

In response, the Vatican immediately vowed to step up its fight against same-sex marriage and evangelical pastors said the same. The chairman of the USCCB subcommittee on marriage said “it was a sad day for marriage” and urged Catholics “not to give up.”

While we may not “give up”, the reality is that the nation’s march towards same-sex marriage is growing stronger and traditional marriage is fast becoming nothing more than that: a tradition.

So, why are we losing? It comes down to this: we have neutered our own argument.

Traditional marriage advocates argue that children are the central purpose of marriage. In the 2010 California case in which a federal judge overturned a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between one man and one woman, the defense argued: “the central purpose of marriage...(is to) promote naturally procreative sexual relationships and to channel them into stable, enduring unions for the sake of producing and raising the next generation.”

The problem is that the argument is hollow, perhaps even a lie. Christians have long since declared technological sovereignty over the womb. At Lambeth in 1930, Anglicans became the first major Christian religion to allow for contraceptive sex, and they were followed by every other major religion, except Catholics, soon thereafter.

The intent was not to remove children as the central purpose of marriage, but the net effect was that it did. Contraception allowed couples to engage in sex at will without the consequences of fertility. The good of the couple became the central purpose of marriage and children became optional.

This is the core argument for same-sex marriage. In the California case, the judge ruled that gender no longer mattered and that marriage was simply a “union of equals”. It’s all about the couple. Children are optional.

In 1965, the Supreme Court joined the Christians in claiming the same by striking down a ban on the sale of contraceptives to married couples in Griswold v Connecticut. One might think it curious that such a ban was still on the books as late as 1965, but it is evidence (whether or not it was enforced) of just how seriously the state, once upon a time, took marriage.

If the state was going to codify, regulate, incentivize, and otherwise protect the institution of marriage, it wanted something in return: children - “the survival of society” as the Supreme Court put it in Skinner v Oklahoma (1944) and Loving v Virginia (1967).

In striking down the ban, the Griswold court joined the bulk of the nation’s Christians in granting a married couple complete sovereignty over their fertility. This sounds rather liberating and quite commonsensical, but bear in mind, this is the exact same argument for same-sex marriage: the couple is sovereign, fertility is optional.

By 1968, the Catholic Church stood alone in defense of “children as the central purpose of marriage”, a position that was hammered home by Paul VI in Humanae Vitae in which the Pope warned married couples that they are “not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life as if it were wholly up to them”.

Coming as it did at a time when the western world was already salivating like Pavlov’s dog with the mere thought of returning to the fleshpots of Egypt, the Pope’s words landed like a baseball bat to the face.

In response, six hundred theologians immediately signed a joint statement of dissent. The NCCB was a bit more careful. Issuing “Human Life in Our Day”, the nation’s bishops reaffirmed the message of Humanae Vitae but laid out a path for dissent, and dissent we did.

Whether or not dissent from Catholic teaching on birth control can be considered legitimate is another matter. For our purposes we are only concerned with the net effect of that dissent, which was the same as that which resulted from the decisions at Lambeth and in Griswold: the couple is primary, children are secondary, and we’ll do whatever the blank we want with our bodies, so stay the blank out of our bedrooms.”

Same-sex marriage advocates have only said the same. And no amount of feel-good videos posted on the USCCB’s ForYourMarriage website is going make up for the fact that we have long since declared ourselves to be arbiters of the womb. Our only recourse is to recant, repent, and return - return to the reason we were made male and female in the first place.

FREE BIRTH CONTROL LEADS TO FEWER ABORTION - THE REST OF THE STORY

Interesting timing on the story FREE BIRTH CONTROL LEADS TO FEWER ABORTIONS given the new found unpopularity of Obama's "contraception mandate". 

The study is in fact an admission that commonly available contraception is a failure and only surgical implants or physician-inserted devices are effective. Of course neither one of these methods protects from STD's which is the real epidemic. 

The two methods used in the study were the IMPLANTABLE ROD and the IUD, both of which require a physician to insert, the ROD requiring surgery. And according to the FDA's own data, both pose big health dangers - a fact not included in the story. The following is from the the FDA booklet on birth control.

The ROD

• Changes in bleeding patterns
• Weight gain
• Breast and abdominal pain
• Does not protect against STD's
• (not noted in the study is the link between the chemical birth control and incidence of breast cancer)

The IUD

• Cramps
• Irregular bleeding
• Pelvic inflammatory disease
• no periods
• Infertility
• IUD is stuck in the uterus or found outside the uterus.
• Life-threatening infection
• no protection from STD's

And How does (the IUD) work?

• It may thicken the mucus of your cervix, which makes it harder for sperm to get to the egg, and also thins the lining of your uterus.

And so how does THINS THE LINING OF YOUR UTERUS prevent conception (which is what contraception is suppose to do)? It doesn't. It keeps your baby from finding a home and sends him or her down the toilet.

"ARBEIT MACHT FREI"

A few years ago, what turned out to be a seven-week old human fetus was found floating through a local waste treatment plant. Such discoveries make news, but not so the bodies of the nearly seven dead children per week that pile up in dumpsters behind Tamuning’s abortuaries - or wherever it is they throw them.

According to Guam Medical Records, we abort one child every 1.2 days, or one abortion for every ten live births. Our killing spree equates to a rate of 1.85 abortions per thousand population and ranks Guam No. 17 in the world for most abortions. This is an atrocity beyond compare particularly when one considers that more than 50% of these aborted children are Chamorro.

There is also reason to believe that the abortion rate is actually much higher than reported and may be as high as 1000 annually or almost 3 babies per day. A 1990 article about abortion on Guam reported an estimate of 600 to 1000 abortions per year, and fragments of data compiled by Guam Medical Records prior to the imposition of a penalty for failing to report in 2008 suggests that this is true. (For more info see Esperansa.org)

Amazingly, government officials still think the answer to abortion is earlier sex education and increased access to contraception. It’s “amazing” because we have forty years of data showing that the abortion rate has exponentially exploded in the wake of such policies. It’s a simple formula: more contraception equals more abortion. The FDA’s own data on contraception tells us why.

As the chart shows, all contraceptive methods have a failure rate. The availability of contraception eliminates the fear of pregnancy and encourages greater sexual activity. Increased sexual activity results in an increased number of contraceptive failures, which lead to more abortions since abortion is the solution to failed birth-control.

The male condom is the most promoted and most available method of birth control. However, the FDA’s own data tells us that its use will result in pregnancy 18 out of 100 times. Yet we are told that using a condom is “safe sex”. How safe is an airplane that is guaranteed to crash 1.8 out of every 10 times it takes off? Yet we are teaching our children how to put these on in grade school.

But getting pregnant may be the least of your worries. If a condom cannot stop sperm 18% of the time, then what in the world are we doing promoting it as a means of stemming sexually transmitted diseases, most of which are spread by bacteria and  viruses many times smaller than sperm? The FDA’s own data admits this, saying only that the male condom is the “best protection” against STD’s compared to other contraceptive methods which provide none.

Last year, Guam’s Department of Public Health reported the largest increase in sexually transmitted diseases in the last 5 years including 900 new cases of Chlamydia, a disease with which nearly 10% of Guam’s population, age 15 to 24, is infected. Yet, this same Department sponsors Prutehi Hao , a program which promotes condom use as if it is a new found cure for cancer.

Imagine a policy which mandates greater access to guns as an answer to gun crime. Stupid, right? Yet just last week, our Congresswoman announced an Obamacare grant  to Guam DOE to “educate adolescents and young adults on both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.” While the requisite nod towards abstinence education is noteworthy, we can be sure it will get short shrift and condom use will be touted as “responsible”.

A few columns back I quoted Archbishop Sheen’s ominous observation: “God will forgive. Man may forgive. Nature NEVER forgives.” This stark, inevitable truth is never more mercilessly true than when it comes to the abuse of sex. Sex was designed by God for a reason. Whenever it is used contrary to that reason, ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE...literally: a pile of corpses 50 million unborn children high, a pandemic of sexually transmitted disease, tragic rates of infertility, a black plague of female-related cancers, people crippled by rotting genitals, death of the most horrific sort, and for Guam - the self-genocide of the Chamorro.

And what’s our government’s answer? More money for more of the same, and obeisance to a soviet-style mandate coercing us to pay for all this death, disease, and destruction under the guise of “preventative care” - a euphemism as deceitful and demonic as the Nazi’s “Arbeit macht Frei” (“Work makes you free”): words emblazoned in iron at the entrance to Auschwitz. There is much to fear.

NATURE NEVER FORGIVES

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen used to say “God will forgive. Man may forgive. But Nature... (pause)...never forgives.”

The alcoholic who stops drinking but not before his liver is damaged knows this; so too does the smoker who quits smoking but has already cut years off his life; the man who changes his diet but not before heart disease, gout, and diabetes have left him crippled; and the fornicator who repents but whose body remains riddled with disease.

As we move through life and age takes its toll, it is remarkable to reflect on how the rules of our faith, the virtues we were told to inculcate, the morals we were commanded to observe, not only are oriented towards eternity, but also towards a better here and now.

The Seven Deadly Sins, gluttony, sloth, wrath, greed, envy, pride, and lust, not only wreak havoc on the soul but the body as well, just as the Cardinal Virtues, prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude, not only point us towards heaven, but are also meant to spare us an earthly hell of ill health.

Sadly, many of us, either lacking knowledge of this truth or the will to embrace it, are forced to learn this catechism of sin and virtue in the school of disease and death. True, death comes for us all, but we don’t have to rush to meet it. Mother Church wills, rather, that we “might have life and have it to the full”; thus, its prohibitions on things contrary to nature.

The above mentioned bad-habits are well-known and no one is surprised that Uncle John, who smoked for decades, now cannot move about without a 40 pound tank of oxygen in tow. But we ARE surprised when a woman in mid-life is taken down by cancer. Or perhaps not (surprised), since breast cancer and other female-related cancers are occurring with exponential frequency.

Since 1970, the incidence of breast cancer has increased worldwide by 80%.  And in Europe it has outpaced lung cancer as the top killer even though it mostly affects only women. In the U.S., though it still ranks second to lung cancer, the incidence of breast cancer has grown a terrifying 660% since 1973.

Cancer researches know the cause for the epidemic, but carefully hide it from full view. An example of how it is hidden is exemplified in this post by the health editor of a British paper, who, in commenting on the “global epidemic” of breast cancer, says:

“‘Westernisation’ of traditional lifestyles is to blame. A richer diet, smaller families, delayed childbearing and reduced breast-feeding have driven the increase in the West, together with rising obesity and increased alcohol consumption, specialists say. Now these trends are being seen everywhere – with a growing burden of malignant disease in their wake.”

We already know about the risks of a richer diet, obesity and alcohol consumption. What’s new, and rather foreign to this discussion, is the insertion of “smaller families, delayed childbearing and (even) reduced breast-feeding” as drivers of female cancers. Of course, what the author is referring to (but won’t actually say) is The Pill.

In 2005, the U.N.’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, based on recommendations from the World Health Organization, reclassified Hormonal Menopause Therapy (HMT) from “possibly carcinogenic” to “carcinogenic”, in fact a Group One Carcinogen, right up there with asbestos and radium.

The hormones used in HMT, progesterone and estrogen, are the same hormones used in birth control pills, and buried in the report is a reference to the increased risk of cancer by a “common type of birth control pill”.  The report admits that The Pill was already known to cause liver cancer, and goes on to conclude that it also “slightly increases the risk of breast and cervical cancer.”

The near doubling of the worldwide rate of breast cancer over the last four decades and it’s six-fold increase in the U.S. and Europe can hardly be considered “slight”, but the U.N., finding itself at odds with its own population control policy which is heavily vested in the global distribution of hormonal contraceptives, is predictably reluctant to tell us the whole truth.

Our Church, however, has never been reluctant to tell us the whole truth. The Catechism calls intentional contraceptive acts “intrinsically evil”. Yet, for over a generation, many Catholics have ignored, ridiculed, impugned, and openly disobeyed this teaching, and - as if to put an exclamation point on their disdain for the Church’s prohibition on contraception - support the president’s “contraceptive mandate” by a large majority.

However, to paraphrase Archbishop Sheen, while we might thumb our noses at God and the magisterial teaching of the Church, in the end, disease and death will get our attention, for “Nature...(pause)...never forgives.”

CATHOLIC CHICKENS

Published in the U Matuna, the newspaper for the Archdiocese of Agana, Guam, on August 12, 2012.

The conservative media is all abuzz with the hope that the Democratic Party just “did itself in.” With the news that the Democrats will adopt a pro same-sex marriage plank to add to its national platform, conservatives are sure that this will be the last straw for many members who are feeling increasingly uneasy about their party’s hard Left turn.

However, they aren’t factoring in an important wild card: Catholics. Catholics form the largest single voting bloc in the nation (one in four voters are Catholic). And even though Catholics went heavily for Obama in 2008, conservative analysts are sure that the spat over religious freedom has soured them on Obama this time around, and that the official same-sex marriage plank will seal the deal.

But they are mistaken. Such a projection assumes that Catholics actually care about Catholic teaching. They do not, at least not in the numbers necessary to make a difference in the 2012 election.

A Kaiser Family Foundation poll conducted in February shows that 60 percent of Catholics support the contraceptive mandate even though their Church teaches that contraceptive acts are “intrinsically evil” (CCC 2370).

And a Pew poll found that Catholics support “gay marriage” 52% to 37%, which is a larger margin than the rest of the nation, despite Church teaching that homosexual acts - which same-sex marriage would effectively institutionalize - are “sins gravely contrary to chastity” (CCC 2357).

And lest we think these polls do not reflect the opinions of “practicing Catholics”, a Georgetown CARA poll shows that it is “practicing Catholics” - those who go to Mass weekly - who are MORE likely to vote Democrat, despite the Democratic National Platform supporting abortion and embryonic stem cell research, Obama’s attack on Catholic leadership, and now the Party’s official embrace of same-sex marriage.

In other words, it is the Catholics who DON’T go to Mass who oppose Obama, abortion, the destruction of human embryos, same-sex marriage, and the attack on religious freedom! Thus, one might ask “What is it about going to Mass that makes a Catholic more supportive of a party whose positions are officially hostile to Catholic moral teaching?”

It probably has nothing to do with going to Mass, but could have everything to do with the counsel “practicing Catholics” receive privately from some pastors and teachers.

For years, I was counseled, even in the confessional, that the use of contraception was a matter for my wife and I to decide, and was told outright, on one occasion, that birth control pills were “no different than aspirin”.

Thinking that four kids was all we could handle and desiring further guidance, I once approached a pastor on the matter. He gave me a book entitled “Catholicism” authored by Fr. Richard McBrien, a theology professor at the University of Notre Dame. I was impressed by the thick volume and felt assured by the title. But upon opening it, I was instinctively disturbed by what I read.

I had not yet read Humanae Vitae and my only qualms about using contraception were the remnants of parental rumblings over the matter. Yet, as St. Paul says, “All men have SOME light”, and however dim, mine was still on - at least “on” enough to be disturbed by McBrien’s views.

I decided to poke around and soon learned that not only had the book received an official disapproval from the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops for the author’s erroneous views on contraception, but that McBrien had also written elsewhere in support of homosexuality, pornography, and bestiality, calling these “new directions...an indication of responsibly progressive Catholic moral theology...”

The book had one good effect. It caused me to read Humanae Vitae, and I was shaken by the purity and logic of it compared to the disturbing impurity and illogic as well as the defiance which I perceived in McBrien’s book.

I approached the priest who gave me the book and asked him why he supported such dissent from Catholic teaching. His answer was a shocker. He said that “disobedience was necessary for progress.” I never sought his counsel again.

Sadly, though the USCCB may have disapproved of McBrien’s book. It never disapproved of McBrien, and he and his ilk have been allowed to run amok in Catholic academia for decades, producing - according to the polls - a whole generation of Catholics who believe that “disobedience is progress”.

But now, those same bishops are desperately in need of supportive obedience from that generation. They know that the contraceptive mandate is just the first step in the dismantling of the Church, the discrediting of its leadership, and the destruction of the traditional family.

However, as you can see from the polls, Catholics are siding with Obama and against their bishops. America’s Catholic “chickens”, have indeed come home to roost.