Consistency

This post at Mere Comments from Anthony Esolen got me thinking about the Consistent Life Ethic. The idea is largely attributed to Cardinal Bernadin, who argued that life issues are to be considered and treated as a "seamless garment." That is, if you tear one piece of the garment out, you've irreparably damaged the entire garment. If you're pro-life when it comes to abortion but not when it comes to other life issues (euthanasia, war, poverty, death penalty, contraception, etc.) your pro-life garment is ruined.

The criticism of Bernadin is that his approach has been misused by pro-abortion politicians to justify their support of abortion. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, for instance, can justify spending federal dollars on "family planning services" because reducing the number of poor people (by keeping them from being born, presumably) has an economic payoff.

But that approach is indefensible using Bernadin's logic (and, no matter what Pelosi says, not Catholic). If you tear opposition to abortion out of the "seamless garment," your position on poverty, global warning, or whatever is ruined. If you don't care about the life of an unborn child, your defense of the lives of the poor is diminished at best, destroyed at worst.

The local ministerial association has a book club. We were exiled from the monthly meeting because not everyone wanted to allot part of our 2 hour meeting to discussing a book. Nevertheless, a few of us continue to meet to discuss an agreed upon book between regular meetings. Most recently, we read Pope Benedict's encyclical Caritas in Veritate.

The encyclical deals with the global economic crisis, but it does so with what seems to be a "seamless" approach to life. Central to any discussion about human development, economic recovery, environmental protection, business ethics, etc. has to be an openness to life. "Openness to life is at the center of human development," argues the pope.

While Esolen's warning about missed opportunities is well heard, the misuse of a consistent life ethic doesn't make it invalid. It only makes those who misuse it look foolish.

What is Marriage?

This article from Touchstone is incisive, cutting like a surgeon's scalpel through the cultural mileu surrounding marriage to expose the cancer beneath.

The premise of the article is that marriage, in addition to being the union between a man and a woman, is two other things that have largely been forgotten today: procreative and indissoluble. Because the church has forgotten these things--that marriage is life-long and that it ought to be fruitful--and has instead allowed couples to marry who hold onto the option of divorce (even if looked at diaspprovingly) and who use contraception so as to avoid God's gift of life through their one-flesh union, she has already lost the debate on same-sex "marriage."

If Christian couples can separate marriage from having children, there is no socially defensible reason to exclude same-sex couples from having a culturally recognized marriage.

Is the Church willing to say that divorce is just as sinful as adultery or that contraception is as sinful as divorce? Is she willing to admit that divorce and cohabitation are cut from the same cloth, just as contraception and and abortion hail from the same anti-birth, anti-child mindset?

The article concludes:

If we are truly to defend marriage in this country, and not the contractual couplehood that has for some time now been disguising itself as “marriage,” then it is imperative for us to recover the full meaning of that beautiful covenant whose embodiment is now clandestine and highly countercultural. This will, I think, have to be done from the ground up, and it will take generations to succeed, if in fact it succeeds at all. It will have to be lived out first in small communities that embrace and support the self-giving, procreative, and indissoluble nature of that union, and who do so not as an unjustifiable exclusion, but as a positive commitment to protect such an important, difficult, and beautiful undertaking.

Don't take my word for it, go read the whole thing.

Choice, the Dragon

See another excellent post by Tony Esolen over at MereComments at http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2009/09/choice-the-dragon.html:

[W]e should conceive of abortion existentially: we should ask what the act is, or does, to the woman who procures it. It is not simply the killing of innocent human life. It is a mother's taking of a life which, unless she has been raped, she herself has conceived, by voluntarily doing what we all know is designed biologically to produce new children. It is therefore deeply unnatural, and is related, alas, to other acts which are now promoted, which are also unnatural; indeed the very category of the "natural" for human behavior is quickly being erased from our common consciousness, and with it any natural end for which human beings strive.

* * *

We should, I think, beware of using the language of the enemy; and the enemy has been bandying that word "choice" about, while political partisans clear across the field assume, without thinking too deeply about it, that choice is an unalloyed good.

Shrinking populations bode poorly for world economies

The Kid Issue

Joel Kotkin, 09.08.09, 12:00 AM EDT

Shrinking populations bode poorly for world economies.

The full article is available at http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/07/japan-elections-birthrates-opinions-columnists-joel-kotkin.html. For an excerpt, see the following:

Japan's recent election, which overthrew the decades-long hegemony of the Liberal Democratic Party, was remarkable in its own right. But perhaps its most intriguing aspect was not the dawning of a new era but the emergence of the country's low birthrate as a major political concern.

Many Japanese recognize that their birth dearth contributes to the country's long-standing economic torpor. The kid issue was prominent in the campaign of newly elected Democratic Party Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, who promised to increase the current $100 a month subsidy per child to $280 and make public high school free. The Liberal Democrats also proposed their own pro-natalist program with a scheme for free child day care.

Japan's predicament seems obvious. Its fertility rate has dropped by a third since 1975. By 2015 a full quarter of the population will be over 65. Generally inhospitable to immigrants, Japan could see its population drop from a current 127 million to 95 million by 2050, with as much as 40% of the population over 65 years of age. By then, no matter how innovative the workforce, Dai Nippon will simply be too old to compete.

While Japan's demographic crisis is an extreme case, many countries throughout East Asia and Europe share a similar predicament. Even with its energy riches, Russia's low birth and high mortality rates suggest that its population will drop 30% by 2050 to less than one-third of that of the U.S. Even Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has spoken of "the serious threat of turning into a decaying nation."

Russia's de facto tsar has cause for concern. Throughout history low fertility and socioeconomic decline have been inextricably linked, creating a vicious cycle that affected once-vibrant civilizations such as as ancient Rome and 17th-century Venice.

Persistently low birthrates and sagging population growth inevitably undermine the growth capacity of an economy. Children provide a large consumer market and push their parents to work harder. By having children, parents also make a commitment to the future for themselves, their communities and their country.

In contrast, a largely childless society produces other attitudes. It tends to place greater emphasis on leisure activities over work. It also shifts political pressure away from future growth and toward paying pensions for the aging. An aging society is likely to resist risky innovation or infrastructure investments meant to serve future generations.

* * *

As the Japanese increasingly recognize, it's better to experience some population growth than to become a giant nursing home. A somewhat youthful, gradually growing population certainly may create considerable environmental and social challenges, but a scenario of persistent decline and rapid aging seems far worse.

Luther to Several Nuns

To Several Nuns
by Martin Luther

(Translated by Erika Bullmann Flores)

From Wittenberg
6 August 1524

Excerpts:

. . .You are correct that there are two reasons for which life at the convent and vows may be forsaken: The one is where men's laws and life within the order are being forced, where there is no free choice, where it is put upon the conscience as a burden. In such cases it is time to run away, leaving the convent and all it entails behind. . .

. . .The second reason is the flesh: Though womenfolk are ashamed to admit to this, nevertheless Scripture and experience show that among many thousands there is not a one to whom God has given to remain in pure chastity. A woman has no control over herself. God has made her body to be with man, to bear children and to raise them as the words of Genesis 1 clearly state, as is evident by the members of the body ordered by God Himself. Therefore food and drink, sleep and wakefulness have all been created by God. Thus He has also ordered man and woman to be in marital union. Suffice it to say that no one needs to be ashamed over how God has made and created him, not having been given the high, rare mercy to do otherwise. All this you will amply learn and read and hear proper sermons about when you come out. . .

Welcome aboard the Black Pearl

There is another interesting discussion over at the blog Four and Twenty Blackbirds showing the error of modern epistemology and ethics that give lip service to absolutes, but functionally end in nothing but moral relativism.

...it reminded me of this dialog from Pirates of the Caribbean:

Elizabeth: You have to take me to shore! According to the Code of the Order of the Brethren.
Barbossa: First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement, so I 'must' do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the Pirate's Code to apply, and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner!

I Pledge

I Pledge Obama

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Obama States of America
and to the stem cell researchers for which he stands
one ideology under UNICEF
imperial
with licentiousness and contraception for all.

P.S. Avoiding bottled water to reduce the number of plastic bottles polluting the environment still leaves another problem unsolved—polluting the environment with non-biodegradable condoms. Some advice is available from Columbia University, but note that the suggestion in favor of lamb-skin condoms may grate against the consciences of those who take seriously the prohibition stated in Leviticus 18:23.

Ah, but such thinking would be so pre-Twentieth Century Project, wouldn’t it?

“Unchastity in general is a homicidal waste of the generative powers, a demonic bestiality, an outrage to ancestors, to posterity, and to one’s own life. It is a crime against the image of God, and a degradation below the animal. Onan’s offence, moreover, as committed in marriage, was a most unnatural wickedness, a grievous wrong, and a desecration of the body as the temple of God.” Johann Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scripture (1864, yep, pre-Twentieth Century)

"Birthing Babies and Other Delights"

Posted by Mollie at Get Religion. Be sure to check out all the links.

The Doctors' Office

Yesterday I went to the baby doctors' office with my wife. It is a practice of 4 MD's and 1 nurse practitioner. I give the Lord many thanks for these people, one reason is that they have taken excellent care of my wife in the births of our children thus far and are now taking care of her and the one not yet born. But also for the reason above. This is a sign that is posted in their office. When anyone comes in, they know where these physicians stand, and for this I am thankful. I wish that more doctors would do the same.

The "Life of the Mother" Exception

In the comment from Rev. Robert C. Baker I shared below, he states in part:

"The world was changing. Because believers also use the language of the world, which brings with it ideas and concepts foreign to the faith, they begin to reflect and write on their faith in a different way."

The concept of a "life of the mother exception" commonly used in both abortion and contraception arguments is a prime example of modern theologians co-opting the language of modern culture, bringing with it ideas and concepts foreign to the Christian faith.

I confess that I once fell into this same error in thinking when discussing the principle of conflicting absolutes here on this very blog. I used the example of an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy as being a case when "abortion" is the "lesser evil." This goes to show just how far this faulty modern epistemology has taken us. This has led to one of the most egregious errors modern theologians in the Missouri Synod have fallen into.

Let me start out with this statement: It is never, I repeat NEVER, justified for us to take it upon ourselves to end one life so that another may live. However, the death of an unborn child may be a tragically unavoidable byproduct ("double effect") of medical procedures necessary to prevent the death of the mother. It is absolutely crucial, though, to distinguish any such procedures from "abortion" because it is not the intent of any such procedure to kill the baby.

This important distinction will seem too subtle to some without further explanation of the principle of double effect.

We may not do evil so that good may come. But this does not forbid doing a necessary good work even when an evil secondary effect may result. Taking this essential Christian doctrine into account, the principle of double effect would, for example, justify the common practice of continuing to give pain relief medication to a terminally ill person near the end of life, even though such medication may hasten the death of the individual through suppression of respiration, etc. We would never equate such end-of-life medical care as murder. My sister has been in this situation as an intensive care nurse too many times to count.

To borrow a brief explanation from a very instructive Roman Catholic explanation of this issue:

However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother's life, is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them.

In the case of ectopic pregnancy, the principle of double effect would justify a salpingostomy, which restores the fallopian tube by re-sectioning the obstructed portion. Without this medical procedure, the fallopian tube is at extreme risk of rupturing and causing the mother to bleed to death. Ideally this surgical procedure would also include an attempt to induce the embryo that has become lodged in the fallopion tube to implant into the uterus. A salpingostomy aims at preserving the mother’s life (the desired effect). Although it almost always results in the loss of the child’s life (an undesirable second effect), it does not use the destruction of the child’s life as an evil means toward the good end of preserving the mother’s life.

Abortion is NEVER a moral option.

Now, contrast this with with the LCMS CTCR opinion from 1984. The influences of the Twentieth Century Project are painfully obvious in this horribly flawed statement:

We have emphasized as strongly as possible the protection to which the unborn child is entitled. We do not overlook, however, the fact that in the gestation and birth of children mothers bear by far the greatest burdens. The child's life is dependent upon his mother in a unique manner, a manner which calls for an act of self-spending on her part. Indeed, we may even say that in the manner of human gestation and birth we see a deeper truth than our attachment to independence and individualism can reach. The life-giving burden carried by mothers, and only by mothers, must be kept clearly in view throughout our ethical reflection. This fact alone gives the mother's claims a certain preeminence in those cases where the life of the unborn child and the equal life of the mother come into conflict. ... In the rare situations of conflict we must recognize the permissibility of abortion. Despite the progress of medical science, there are still unusual circumstances in which a mother will die if an abortion is not performed. ...Even in such circumstances a mother may choose to risk her own life as an act of love, but such an act of self-giving cannot be required. It must be freely given, not imposed.

This error is even included in the most recent Synodical Explanation of the Small Catechism on the Fifth Commandment:

"Since abortion takes a human life, it is not a moral option except to prevent the death of another person, the mother."

This is a HORRIBLE statement. The "life of the mother" exception is based on a fallacy that has been used to justify countless abortions.

“Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years of pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life. If toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, the doctor will either induce labor or perform a Caesarian section. His intention is to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby’s life is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger.”
C. Everett Koop, M.D.
Former U.S. Surgeon-General

For important additional supporting facts and explanations, see these links:

Association of Prolife Physicians

Realchoice: a reality check

Touchstone: Abortion & the Mother’s Life

In addition, the modern concept that the use of birth control is sometimes necessary to preserve the life of the mother flows directly from this false argument used to justify abortion. There may be rare legitimate conditions for the avoidance of pregnancy in which the life of the mother is in danger, but I now believe total abstinence (and perhaps NFP, though I'm still uncomfortable with this for all the reasons I have argued on this blog before) is the only moral option to consider, as other methods are intrinsically sinful. We may not do evil that good may come.

All shall be poor

All shall be poor
How today’s sexual narcissists insist on propagating their dreary values.

See the complete article at http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/all_shall_be_poor/

A hot new must-read book making the rounds is Frenchwoman Corinne Maier's No Kids: Forty Good Reasons Not To Have Children. Having read her embarrassingly superficial Maclean's interview and perused the jejune list of what constitutes "reasons" for Maier --kids cut into your "fun," kids are "conformists" --I'll pass on actually reading the book. Yet, because it would seem there was both money and celebrity to be gleaned from time Maier might otherwise have idly frittered away in an afternoon nap, I'm tempted to give the idea a whirl myself.

Since wisdom clearly isn't a prerequisite for success in this genre, but a knack for "shocking" hopelessly retrograde traditionalists is, how's this for a book concept: Forty Reasons Women Should Love the Burka (1--No more pesky skin cancer fears! 17 --Size 2 or 14, who's to know, so goodbye dieting! 31 -- You're out of that whole beauty rat race thing! etc.).

Does this parodic riff exaggerate the inanity of Maier's thesis? Just a tad. I wouldn't normally dignify such lifestyle bumf with a column, but it struck me that the hoopla around this silly book falls into a cultural pattern, according to which the media eagerly aggrandize purveyors of utter banality, as long as they are advocating for the abandonment of demonstrably valuable social norms.

The 19th-century Yiddish writer Sholem Aleichem commonsensically pointed out what seems obvious to me: "It's no sin to be poor, but it's no great honour either." The problem is, in this age of self-esteem uber alles, in which all must have prizes, being known as "poor" is no longer acceptable to the, er, poor. Or at least not the evolutionary version of poor -- those bent more on their own pleasure than the producing and raising of society's future citizens: you know, the ones paying for Corinne Maier's Parisian nursing-home bed.

* * *

Non-reproductive sexuality-pride, infidelity-pride, divorce-pride, anti-children pride: In this topsy-turvy politically correct world, the media have glommed onto the mantra that poor is rich, even if it's only the exhibitionistic, the immature, the egotistical and the narcissistic who keep repeating it.

Barbara Kay is a columnist for Canada’s National Post, in which this article was first published.

The "Strong Divine Command Theory Ethic"

Two groundbreaking comments last night deserve to be highlighted in a post of their own. They are both of foundational importance to the discussions we have been having on this blog for years. Thanks be to God for the wisdom and insight of these two faithful servants of our Lord!

Firstly, consider this comment by Rev. Gifford A. Grobien over at Four and Twenty Blackbirds:

...Dr. Heidenreich is correct in his account of the history of interpretation of contraception, but Rev. Brown challenges the validity of this interpretation because he does not see the argument in Scripture. The two gentlemen thus have not merely different opinions about contraception or the interpretation of this or that passage of Scripture, but they demonstrate epistemologies at odds. The interpretation offered by Dr. Heidenreich is a classical interpretation that operates out of ontological assumptions: what a creature does is related to who or what it is, and who or what it is is not simply the observable properties and characteristics, but the purpose for which the creature exists and the relationship he is engaged in. When purpose and relationship is assumed, then attributes are less likely to be seen as independent and incidental, but integrated with each other attributes and with other creatures. In other words, for human beings, because semen is emitted through sexual excitement which deepens the emotional bonds between the male and female, sexual relations are for procreation, satisfying sexual urges, and building loving unity. They all go together, and cannot be separated in an independent way, as if each aspect was unimportant for the flourishing of the other aspects.

The interpretation offered by Rev. Brown, on the other hand, even if he does not like it, is a modernist one. Yes, the skeptical aspect is postmodern. But what is fundamental is his move away from a holistic understanding of purpose that relies on ontology and relationship, to a subjective perspective that analyzes act and function as relatively independent from any metaphysical essence and purpose of the creature. Relationships and purposes may even be thought to be unchallenged presuppositions, and therefore should be discarded for a truly proper interpretation of a creature or action. From this perspective it is more difficult to make inferences and draw implications. So just because semen is emitted, and one is sexually aroused, and emotional attachment deepens in sexual relations doesn't mean that these cannot be sharply distinguished or even separated when it comes to consideration of the integrity of the act or the complementarity of the aspects. Thus one would also be in greater need of explicit commands or passages from whatever one's authority is (in this case, the Scriptures) for determining the integrity of the act and what is allowed or prohibited.

So I suspect that you are at an impasse until you address this epistemological difference. Most people don't think the way Dr. Heidenreich is arguing, which I think was his point in the first place.

Secondly, consider this comment last night by Rev. Robert C. Baker in a discussion here on L & P:

...at the turn of the last century many Christians were divided over the issue of evolution, the purpose, role, and authority of Scripture, etc.

The world was changing. Because believers also use the language of the world, which brings with it ideas and concepts foreign to the faith, they begin to reflect and write on their faith in a different way. Some believers followed after the Princeton theologians and accepted Fundamentalism. Others, following Kant and Schleiermacher, accepted Liberalism. When you are accused of being a Fundamentalist, or a literalist, or a traditionalist, for example, most likely the person making such an exaggeration is operating from a Liberal set of beliefs, whether or not he or she is aware of it.

In addition to Fundamentalism, another reaction to Liberalism came through the teaching of Swiss Reformed theologian, Karl Barth. Barth denied natural law and taught a strong divine command theory ethic, which means that the only commands that are valid for the Christian are those that are recorded verbatim in Scripture. If you cannot find a Bible verse specifically condemning any activity, then you are free to do that activity.

I find this line of reasoning being utilized, with no apparent credit to Barth, by Missouri Synod theologians beginning in the 1930's, about the same time as when Barth was having his famous debate with Emil Brunner.

The strong divine command theory ethic is why, in my opinion, that modern Lutherans accept contraception (because it is not specifically condemned in Scripture), whereas orthodox Lutherans (Luther, Melanchthon, Chemnitz, Gerhard, et. al.) condemned it as violating the first, fourth, fifth, and six commandments. This method is also why "conservative" Lutherans are unable successfully to address current moral crises today. To wit, most current condemnations of the ELCA's decision to allow same-sex unions and the ordination of gays and lesbians highlight that these are condemned in Scripture.

True, but same-sex attraction and activity also violates the moral law embedded in human nature. Even without Scripture, these folks should know better. If you don't believe me, ask St. Paul.

For more about my views, log on to bioethike.com.

Blessings,
Robert C. Baker

The Twentieth Century Project

I believe readers of this blog will find the discussion going on at Four and Twenty Blackbirds quite interesting, especially Rev. Grobien's most recent comment last night.

A Husband Desires Children

"A husband does not fulfill God's will regarding marriage simply by being married, if he fails to love his wife, desire children, or raise them in the fear of God and with education." -- Gifford Grobien, "A Lutheran Understanding of Natural Law in the Three Estates," Concordia Theological Quarterly 73 (2009): 211-29, at 218 (summarizing Luther and Bonhoeffer).

A Father's Spiritual Testament to His Son

If the Lord has permitted you to have some trial, bear it willingly and with gratitude, considering that it has happened for your good and that perhaps you well deserved it. If the Lord bestows upon you any kind of prosperity, thank him humbly and see that you become no worse for it, either through vain pride or anything else, because you ought not to oppose God or offend him in the matter of his gifts.

. . .

Be kindhearted to the poor, the unfortunate and the afflicted. Give them as much help and consolation as you can. Thank God for all the benefits he has bestowed upon you, that you may be worthy to receive greater. . . .

In conclusion, dearest son, I give you every blessing that a loving father can give a son. May the . . . Holy Trinity . . . protect you from every evil. And may the Lord give you the grace to do his will so that he may be served and honored through you, that in the next life we may together come to see him, love him and praise him unceasingly. Amen.

(Excerpt from a spiritual testament from King Louis IX, saint, to his son (presumably his heir and successor, King Phillip III, the Bold). St. Louis was the father of eleven children.)

Psalm 127 (The Psalter, 1912)

Unless the Lord the house shall build,
The weary builders toil in vain;
Unless the Lord the city shield,
The guards a useless watch maintain.

In vain you rise ere morning-break,
And late your nightly vigils keep,
And of the bread of toil partake;
God gives to His belovèd sleep.

Lo, children are a great reward,
A gift from God in very truth;
With arrows is his quiver stored
Who joys in children of his youth.

And blest the man whose age is cheered
By stalwart sons and daughters fair;
No enemies by him are feared,
No lack of love, no want of care.

The ELCA and John Piper

John Piper posted a very controversial and very thought provoking blog entry regarding the tornado that damaged a Lutheran church on the same day that the ELCA passed one of its Social Statement on Human Sexuality resolution. See http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1965_the_tornado_the_lutherans_and_homosexuality/. Piper wrote, inter alia:

The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction. Reaffirm the great Lutheran heritage of allegiance to the truth and authority of Scripture. Turn back from distorting the grace of God into sensuality. Rejoice in the pardon of the cross of Christ and its power to transform left and right wing sinners.

Certainly, homosexual behavior is a grave sin. Anyone who has read Scripture and takes it seriously cannot deny that. Yet, the same web site includes the following declarations:

Desiring God and Bethlehem Baptist Church have no formal position on birth control, but John Piper and most of the pastors on staff believe that non-abortive forms of birth control are permissible. The Bible nowhere forbids birth control, either explicitly or implicitly, and we should not add universal rules that are not in Scripture . . . .

Martin Luther called Onan's sin of birth control a "Sodomitic act." That is, he categorized it as the same class of sin as homosexual acts (and, if one studies this matter, heterosexual acts which by their nature are not potentially procreative). To Piper's assertion that "[t]he Bible nowhere forbids birth control, either explicitly or implicitly" we have not only 19 centuries of the most respected Christian pastors arguing otherwise, we have Walter A. Maier, Sr.'s response to a similar assertion nearly 80 years ago:

This is a bold statement. When the first human parent pair was created, the divine commandment enjoined: “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” (Gen. 1:28). After the Deluge, when the world was to take its second start, the blessing for Noah and his sons again required them to “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” (Gen. 9:1) In Ps. 127:3 we read: “Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord, And the fruit of the womb is His reward.” The picture of the ideal home is described in Ps. 128:3: “Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house, Thy children like olive plants round about thy table.” . . . In spite of extended argument not a single passage can be adduced from Scripture which in any remote way condones birth control; and no one acquainted with the Bible should hesitate to admit that it is a definite departure from the requirements of Scripture. See Gen. 38:9, 10.

One wonders when we "conservative" Christians will remove this log from our eyes so that we can better see to remove the specks from the eyes of our more liberal brothers.

What if she were 23 and finishing law school?

Let's assume contraception sometimes is okay and sometimes is not. Where might that lead?

I mentioned my growing horror at abortion as one of the important elements in my own conversion to Catholicism. When we broke into informal conversation over lunch, one of the women drew me aside because she wanted me to know that notwithstanding her respect for the Magisterium, if she had a thirteen-year-old daughter who was impregnated during a rape, she would whisk her off to an abortionist before you could say "boo." Startled, I responded, "And what if she were twenty-three and finishing law school?" She looked startled and suddenly abashed.

Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Marriage: The Dream That Refuses to Die (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2008), 151-52.

Chesterton: "I despise Birth-Control"

G. K. Chesterton on Babies and Distributism

From The Well and the Shallows

Short excerpt:

"...They are preferring the very dregs of life to the first fountains of life. They are preferring the last, crooked, indirect, borrowed, repeated and exhausted things of our dying Capitalist civilisation, to the reality which is the only rejuvenation of all civilisation. It is they who are hugging the chains of their old slavery; it is the child who is ready for the new world."

New Population Control Method Suggested in India

Reader GW just sent me this one [Less Sex, More TV] saying: "The idea being that if they bring electricity to all the villages in India, couples will stay up late watching TV and be too tired to make babies. I wish I was kidding."

Can you believe this??? Wow!