The Palins and Chastity

[Catholic_Dude]

I simply do not agree that fighting a fight about sterilization keeps one on track for fighting abortion. They are different issues

A consistent sexual ethic shows all sexual perversions are interlinked, so even if say contraception and sterilization are not the same thing as abortion, they still directly relate. Sterilization is a perversion stemming from the mindset that sex can be freely engaged in without the ‘danger’ of conceiving a child. Such a perversion is no less monstrous than fornication.

I repeat: the category responsible for the stunningly high abortion rate is the category of women aged 20-24, unmarried. Second highest rate is by women aged 25-29, unmarried. Third highest rate is teenagers, most of whom are unmarried. … it is the unmarried who still represent a minimum of 80% of abortions in this country and as much as 90%. In other words, fornicators who are clearly not sterilized, or they would not be having abortions!

I accept that data, and it’s perfectly reasonable, I’m just saying this reduces down to: “married couples abort less because they are smarter at using birth control.”

Why is it that whenever one tries to seriously address the need for reducing abortions in this country, people get sidetracked talking about the need to eliminate contraception and sterilization, instead of the clear need to reduce fornication

The biggest promoters of contraception are those who argue “responsible use” of contraception is the key to reducing unwanted pregnancy. The category of “fornication” doesn’t truly exist in this world-view, since an unintended (abortable) child is simply one who came about because contraception was not used “responsibly”. The unmarried have abortions for the same reasons married couples do: they feel they’re in no position to care for an unintended child.

The only disparity between the rates is purely incidental: the unmarried are simply more often likely to not be in a position to care for the unintended child. The married are more often in a position to ‘absorb’ an accident or two, but the child was no less unintentional, and their “resolution” is to become more “responsible” at contraception, especially the “sure-thing” of sterilization.

Married people are using contraception at very high rates, Catholics and non-Catholics, and I promise you that no effort to eradicate contraception among legally married adults in the U.S. has a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding.

It has a chance of succeeding if Catholics of all states of life, lay and religious, would live faithfully to the teachings of Christ and His Church.

As it turns out, the ‘White’ populations in America and Europe are disappearing and being replaced by Mexican, Arab, African, and Oriental populations because the White populations are having fewer and fewer children while their immigrant families are having more and more. So God’s Providence will deal with the problem of contracepting “Christian” nations one way or another.

Now, if you want to talk about seeking ways to severely reduce the easy availability of contraception among the unmarried, I’m all ears.

Such a proposition cannot fly because you’re saying contraception should be limited to those who can use it “responsibly,” and only married couples are “responsible,” which is a largely arbitrary argument. Such is similar to the logic of saying pornography should only be legal for those mature enough to handle it, meaning “adults” who are 18+. (Notice there is zero reference to the fact porn is just as poisonous and sinful for those above 18 as it is for those under 18, just as contraception/sterlization is no less sinful for married as it is for unmarried.)

I would love to see that, although I think that is also very much an uphill fight.

And the “Palins and Chastity” article shows the ‘chastity movement’ is an uphill (even losing) fight precisely because it’s preaching a message without much of a coherent foundation. How can someone preach chastity when they’re also preaching sex is simply a matter of being “responsible” (i.e. using contraception ‘smartly’)? All the child hears is that they just need to be “responsible,” and when their unmarried friends are being “responsible,” then they can too. Thus the teens who get pregnant were simply too irresponsible, and are the equivalent “oops” to those married couples who got pregnant on their honeymoon.

I would love to see easy sex with no consequences becoming very inconvenient --as inconvenient as it was prior to The Pill, when unmarried couples had to be a lot more circumspect about taking big risks in that department – and when there was an “accident,” the default choice was not (an illegal) abortion, but often marriage!

I agree. The key is a consistent Message: “Sex is principally for procreation,” rather than “Sex is principally for recreation.” If contraception were outlawed, then this Message would become easier to preach and accept.

That was also a different era when (1) women had much fewer choices for sustaining self-support outside of marriage, and (2) men and women, both, took far greater responsibility for all of their private actions, and (3) casual sex was hardly unheard-of; however, unmarried couples tended to become intimate more often when they were already serious about each other, and less as a form of detached recreation.

I also agree. I would just add that there is another dimension that wasn’t a reality in that era, and that was rampant divorce and fatherless households. All those dynamics generally rise and fall together, since they’re all interrelated.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The category of “fornication” doesn’t truly exist in this world-view

The world view doesn’t matter. The fact is they are not married; therefore there is no commitment, therefore no interest in keeping a child. It’s very simple. The statistics bear it out. Not complicated.

the unmarried are simply more often likely to not be in a position to care for the unintended child. The married are more often in a position to ‘absorb’ an accident or two, but the child was no less unintentional,

My point exactly! That is the bottom line. A child’s life is saved.

Who cares about purity of motivation, when the end result is that a child’s life is saved? If some of you keep on demanding a Catholic world-view, you are (1) not going to get that world-view, of non-Catholics and of non-practicing Catholics, and (2) while you’re waiting for the world-view to change, unborn babies will be aborted.

And the “Palins and Chastity” article shows the ‘chastity movement’ is an uphill (even losing) fight precisely because it’s preaching a message without much of a coherent foundation.

I agree that without a spirituality, it is difficult. No question. But in the meantime, I’ll take it. And so should everyone who cares about abortion. I’ll take secular chastity for utilitarian or even political reasons, because that is a better starting point than nothing. Eventually, behavior changes one’s heart and mind. We become as we behave. Thousands of Catholics, for example, who were living apart from their faith, then starting “going through the motions” for appearance sake, for legalities’ sake, for the sake of their first child, etc., have come to conversion/reversion because external compliance led them to deeper reflection.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The world view doesn’t matter.[1] The fact is they are not married; therefore there is no commitment,[2] therefore no interest in keeping a child.[3] It’s very simple. The statistics bear it out. Not complicated.

[1] The “world view” does matter, because that is the lens by which people are operating within. This can be seen as I comment upon your next sentence:

[2] The concept of “commitment” is more or less severed from marriage in our society. Most mid- to long-term cohabiting couples would insist they are committed, and that they don’t need a man-made piece of paper called a marriage certificate to prove their commitment. In fact, they would argue that they’re more caring for each other than most married couples, and that many married couples divorce anyway. So there very much is commitment.
The only ‘slam dunk’ argument for commitment that can be made is arguing the Catholic position, which is that marriage is permanent, where as society says marriage or any relationship can be dissolved as soon as one party is dissatisfied.

The number of second marriages is so high and unregulated that second marriages could be a more formalized version of cohabitation.

[3] As for “no interest in keeping the child,” I’d say a better statement would be in less likely to be able to care for the child. There could be interest, and the fact many mid/long term cohabiters have children shows they often are interested in having children.

My point exactly! That is the bottom line. A child’s life is saved.

Who cares about purity of motivation, when the end result is that a child’s life is saved? If some of you keep on demanding a Catholic world-view, you are (1) not going to get that world-view, of non-Catholics and of non-practicing Catholics, and (2) while you’re waiting for the world-view to change, unborn babies will be aborted.

The motivation is important because if you want to reduce/stop abortion you must transform the mind. To say a Catholic society or Catholics making any impact on pagan society is unrealistic, that comes off as defeatist to me. The only advances in the pro-life movement are baby steps in which the more ‘conservative’ parts of the country are taking a stand and promoting the traditional family. Even you agree strong families reduce abortions.

But if couples are going to see children as intended versus unintended changes their mindset to that of a utilitarian view of sex and relationships. We must take extreme care not to settle with putting a band-aid on the scar rather than healing it. To me, to only rejoice that married couples are less likely to abort is simply less of a tragedy, a band-aid on the epidemic, not cure.

I agree that without a spirituality, it is difficult. No question. But in the meantime, I’ll take it. And so should everyone who cares about abortion. I’ll take secular chastity for utilitarian or even political reasons, because that is a better starting point than nothing. Eventually, behavior changes one’s heart and mind. We become as we behave. Thousands of Catholics, for example, who were living apart from their faith, then starting “going through the motions” for appearance sake, for legalities’ sake, for the sake of their first child, etc., have come to conversion/reversion because external compliance led them to deeper reflection.

I agree: something is better than nothing. But Catholic spirituality and tradition teach that we should always be aiming higher, and that it’s a tragedy to settle for less if you can help it. A solid, coherent Catholic sexual ethic transforms hearts most perfectly, cutting to the chase, rather than the other very inferior paths that make little progress. Religion cannot be separated, because secularism by definition has no moral foundation, and the fact Protestantism as a whole gives the green light to divorce, contraception, and to various degrees abortion, makes any chastity-pro-family talk an uphill battle.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Catholic spirituality and tradition teach that we should always be aiming higher, and that it’s a tragedy to settle for less if you can help it. A solid, coherent Catholic sexual ethic transforms hearts most perfectly,

We can’t help it. Why have you failed to notice this?

You may or may not be aware of this, but even Archbishop Dolan is not willing to wait for Perfect. In the meantime, he’ll settle for Pragmatic. And so will I. It’s absurd to wait for “a coherent Catholic sexual ethic” from the millions of non-Catholics and non-practicing Catholics who are engaging in abortion every year and are within anywhere from days to a few weeks between conception and abortion.

inferior paths that make little progress.

I hate to break this to you, but traditional Catholic prayer methods are making little progress. Further, traditional Catholic-ethos-centered activism, with Catholic language, is making little progress – in fact minuscule progress against an epidemic. Those who have been keeping up with this (such as many activists who work in the anti-abortion arena) acknowledge this. Some of them, like you, think that minuscule is acceptable. I do not.

Religion cannot be separated, because secularism by definition has no moral foundation…

The language of religion can most definitely be relegated to the position of being one of many approaches in a diverse, multicultural, largely anti-religion society. Religious language & assumptions will appeal to some, but not many. For the rest, a different approach is necessary. The same thing has been proven true with the gay “marriage” issue. To reach secular society, you are not going to have much progress waiting for their conversion first, as a condition of discussing abortion with them.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Catholic spirituality and tradition teach that we should always be aiming higher, and that it’s a tragedy to settle for less if you can help it

I think we can help it. Consider the “options”: (a) do nothing, let rates remain the same or increase; (b) say no to fornication, which would slightly reduce levels; and (c) teach a well rounded sexual ethic that would significantly reduce levels and transform minds. Now how much more effort would it take to go from (b) to (a) in terms of preaching? I think very little, and in fact (a) would come more naturally and more solidly.

This isn’t about waiting for perfect - and if that’s the impression I gave, then I should correct that. There is a reason why the Catholic presence in this country used to be very clearly established and felt within society, and that’s because people were more informed by a coherent Catholic sexual ethic.

And the ultimate proof that “we can help it” is I and many others can say that if we were teaching catechesis classes at a parish, we’d make sure your children and the others were hearing the Catholic faith in its fullness and not settle for pragmatic, watered down, or anything of the sort. And if I and others can say that, then certainly priests and bishops (who are much more educated and respected). There is a very real correlation between faithful parish priests and orthodox parishioners.

I hate to break this to you, but traditional Catholic prayer methods are making little progress. Further, traditional Catholic-ethos-centered activism, with Catholic language, is making little progress – in fact minuscule progress against an epidemic. Those who have been keeping up with this (such as many activists who work in the anti-abortion arena) acknowledge this. Some of them, like you, think that minuscule is acceptable. I do not.

I’m not sure what you mean by “traditional Catholic prayer methods” and “Catholic language”. The ‘traditional-Catholic-ethos activism’ is as modern as the iPod, because every modern Catholic pro-life apostate knows cafeteria-catholicism is a joke. That’s why you don’t find liberal Catholics in pro-life apostolates; it just doesn’t work.

Also, I’m not sure what you’re getting at by “minuscule progress against an epidemic” - are you saying there is a method I’m not considering that makes/making “major progress” against the epidemic? I find it is no accident at all that major Protestant pro-life advocates are converting to Catholicism and not the other way around. Every time the Catholic side gains a passionately pro-life Protestant, that’s serious progress in my mind. I’ll take a passionately pro-life convert over doing nothing or setting a stack of pamphlets in a rack any day.

I can’t be sold on preaching simply “wait until marriage [because sex is only for adults]”.

The language of religion can most definitely be relegated to the position of being one of many approaches in a diverse, multicultural, largely anti-religion society. Religious language & assumptions will appeal to some, but not many. For the rest, a different approach is necessary. The same thing has been proven true with the gay “marriage” issue. To reach secular society, you are not going to have much progress waiting for their conversion first, as a condition of discussing abortion with them.

I’m mostly focused on the Protestants who have some glimmer of pro-life in them. That just needs to be awakened in them. For the purely secular/atheistic minded, there isn’t much that can be said, and such an effort would require many hours of go-nowhere philosophizing.

If there is no moral code, then you cannot win the heart and mind with any amount of preaching. If fonication, abortion, etc, are not sinful, then they’re just as acceptable as deciding what you want on your pizza or the color of your car. But if the person accepts that they are sinful, they already have reason to stop. A chastity talk simply centered around not wanting to offend Jesus will reach miles among Evangelical young folks.

And lastly, we’re totally kidding ourselves if we think any of this will go anywhere if we’re not uniting it to the Will and Power of the Holy Spirit - so in a very real way, it’s not an exaggeration to say we cannot separate this from religion.