A Day of Mourning

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade legalized abortion. To mark this day, Dr. Ryan MacPherson offers us an enlightening book review at the Hausvater Project about how Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) became a Christian and now opposes abortion:

How a Christian Child's Love Won Jane Roe's Heart

A review of Won by Love by Norma McCorvey (with Gary Thomas) Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998

Christ's love, communicated in actions and not just in words, transformed America's most infamous abortion advocate into a Christian defender of purity and life. Wouldn't it be wonderful if no one could ever hear the phrase "Roe v. Wade" without remembering "Jane Roe's" repentance and Christ's forgiveness?

“What Jesus has to do with your body”

The text of this sermon on 1 Corinthians 6 is reprinted here by permission of the vicar who wrote it and told us about it in a comment here.

Epiphany 2B
1 Cor 6v12-20
“What Jesus has to do with your body”

One common bumper sticker these days reads, “Keep your laws off my body!” It’s a sentiment the Corinthian church of St. Paul’s day would echo whole-heartedly. They write to him asking, in effect, “What does Jesus have to do with my body?” This is a question that, in various forms, has engaged Christians through the centuries. If grace be true, if the freedom of a Christian is real, if God has indeed redeemed our souls—what’s to keep us from living however we wish? Who’s to say otherwise? What does Jesus have to do with my body?

To better understand where the Corinthians are coming from we need a brief church history lesson. In the first couple centuries of the church, a heretical movement snuck in called Gnosticism: G-N-O-S-T-I-C-I-S-M. From the Greek gnosis, knowledge. Gnostics held that

• The soul, not the body, is man’s essence
• That soul is in fact imprisoned by the body, but freed from that imprisonment—redeemed—by “knowing the right things”, secret things
• Since the soul is what matters and what has been redeemed and what will be set free, the body should be treated accordingly: either whip it like a trained monkey or indulge it like a spoiled grandchild. Typically the latter.

This ancient heresy of Gnosticism is a perpetual heresy, afflicting the church both then and now. It pops up whenever believers would pride themselves on knowing the right things, contenting themselves with nebulous “spirituality”, to the neglect of concrete life in the world. Gnosticism exists wherever the soul is prized over and against the body. Hence the question: “What does Jesus have to do with my body?”

The quotes in our text this morning are Corinthian slogans that Paul is repeating back to them; these are the arguments the Corinthians were offering Paul:

• “All things are permissible for me”—What good is “grace”, what good is “freedom”, if it doesn’t mean I can do whatever I want?
• “Food for the stomach…God will destroy them both” and “Every sin…the body”—all that matters is my soul, and this body’s just a shell; what difference does it make how I live in it, what I do to it?

It’s like this. I know many of you went to college. Did any of you stay in a rental house or apartment during your time in college? Let’s just say, these are not the finest dwellings one can live in—but my junior year of college a few friends and I decided to do just that. We were moving into Haslett Arms apartments in East Lansing, and our first day seeing the place, the out-going tenant showed us around.

Now, this was one of those apartments that is furnished, so it had desks, bunk beds, chairs, and so forth. And it had a couch: a sagging, worn, coffee-stained-teeth colored couch. And the former tenant says to us, “Do not—do not—under any circumstances or for any reason whatsoever, sit on or lay on this couch. Trust me on this one.”

The Corinthians’ attitude toward the body is like a college kid’s attitude toward his apartment: it’s just a rental, so what do I care? I am just a stranger here; this is not my true home. I will live as I please, with no one to tell me otherwise. Such is the so-called “freedom” of the Corinthian—and college freshman. It’s a freedom to do whatever I darn well please with my body.

And so the Corinthians, in the name of Christian freedom, were engaging in some stereotypical college freshmen revelry, if you catch my drift. Their bastardized pseudo-gospel held that they could live however they wanted. It doesn’t matter: our souls are redeemed. That’s the Christian message. Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die—and our stomach’s gonna be destroyed, so we might as well enjoy it!

Is such an attitude unique to the Corinthian church? Hardly. Among Lutherans, it’s not uncommon to eat like an ox and drink like a fish—as signs of how orthodox you are! But Paul addresses the issue of sexual immorality specifically, and so let’s stay with him for a moment.

The Corinthians justified taking prostitutes with their laissez-faire attitude toward their bodies. I doubt many among us would stoop that far, but that doesn’t mean other aspects of our sexual ethic are above reproach. The Gnostic inclination is a weed that bends to reach light wherever it may be. To offer only a few examples:

• A recent study found that teens who took a “virginity pledge”—a promise to abstain from sex until marriage, taken almost exclusively by Christians—were no more likely to remain abstinent than those who did not.
• Statistics vary, but according to several sources no less than half of Christian men view pornography on a regular basis.
• And at risk of sounding too Roman Catholic: the uncritical acceptance of birth control methods and the contraceptive mentality propagated by our culture is a mark against the Church. We are called to “be fruitful and multiply”, and though sex is not merely for procreation, attempts to sever the God-ordained connection between sex and procreation are sinful. Though we oppose abortion, we neglect the silent abortion perpetrated everyday by IUDs, hormonal methods of birth control, and other abortifacients.

Our culture teaches us that our bodies are our own, and that we should do whatever we desire to maximize our pleasure. Nothing could be more hazardous than our culture’s licentiousness met with a Gnostic view of the body. Go ahead: stuff your body—or starve your body. Do what feels good. “Food for the stomach…” Just so long as your soul is okay, your body may do as it pleases.

Brothers and sisters in Christ, these are not edifying exercises of Christian freedom. You are not being more “spiritual” by neglecting and denigrating life in the body. We Lutherans have never been ones to shy away from boasting in our Christian freedom, but we need to take heed, for neither were the Corinthians. A “freedom” that boasts of its license to do as it pleases, confident that the soul will escape unscathed, is not Christian; it’s Gnostic. We’re that college kid throwing up on the carpet and sleeping on a bed of pizza boxes and punching a hole in the wall: eh, what’s it matter? All things are permissible! Food for the body and the body for food—and they’re both gonna burn!

Paul has a word for both the Corinthians and us: not so fast. “All things are permissible for me”? No: you are a member, a limb, of Christ’s body. You belong to Him and to your fellow limbs in the Body of Christ. “Food for the stomach, and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both”? No: God will not “destroy” our bodies; He raised Jesus’ body, and will raise ours, too—emphatic evidence that the body is of utmost importance.

You are not your own, Paul says; you were bought at a price. That body, which you are so wantonly abusing, happens to be a body Christ purchased with his blood. It is not just some dump you can let rot; it houses the Holy Spirit. Yes: Jesus has everything to do with your body.

[Recount scenes from Les Mis.]

And you and I are not our own, Paul says; we were bought at a price. Like Fantine, like the Corinthians, like humans through the ages, we prostitute ourselves and become slaves to sin. We abuse this body, which is a gift, and we place it in low esteem. But your body, your very self—you—are a person for whom God is willing to fight for. Our Lord Jesus shed His own blood to redeem you from your sinful way of life, to give you the fairy tale ending. Jesus has everything to do with your body: it belongs to him.

Your body is not your own, and so you are also not at liberty to ridicule it, despise it, loathe it. You might look in the mirror and see a body that’s too ugly, too fat, too skinny, too short, too old, too decrepit. That’s not what your Heavenly Father sees. He sees his child, whom he made, whom he gave His Son for to reclaim. He sees the jewel in his crown, the apple of his eye. You may wonder why God made you, but God says you’re fearfully and wonderfully made.

And I don’t just mean your soul; it’s no less stained than your body. No: body & soul, Jesus died and rose for you. Our God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is so enamoured with you, body & soul, that he will raise you, too. He thinks that that supposed “decrepit old shell” of yours isn’t a college-campus rental; it’s a Holy Spirit palace. Like the old poster says: God made you, and he doesn’t make junk. And he bought you—and there is no more savvy shopper than Him.

So what do we do? Having been freed from that old way of life, do we go back to it? Does Fantine return to the streets? No! Of course not! Like Eric Liddell knew, the Scottish Olympian of Chariots of Fire fame, Jesus gave His body to redeem our bodies, and so we feel His pleasure when we run, or exercise, or live chaste and disciplined lives, or whatever: we glorify with our body the one who has bought it. You and I are not our own. Thanks be to God!

Now may the peace of God, etc.

Revised LCMS Report on Contraception

Last summer we discussed an LCMS position paper. Entitled "Christ in Your Family", the paper was published in June, 2008, by the World Relief and Human Care Sanctity of Human Life Committee in answer to LCMS Resolution 6-10, which requested: "That the Board for Human Care Ministries review the various birth control products, clarifying which ones act sometimes or all the time as abortifacients."

The committee's original report was in error on many points of fact. However, as of January 9, 2009, I am pleased to report that the original paper has now been replaced by a vastly improved document entitled: "Guidance on Contraceptive Methods". Thanks be to God!

Among other positive changes, this revised document no longer addresses the broader issue of contraception in general. For that reason, it is two pages shorter (18 rather than 20). While I am happy to report that the revised document is significantly better than the original, it still contains serious errors.

The most egregious error that remains, in my opinion, is a one-sentence statement claiming that the anti-implantation effects of ECPs ("emergency contraceptive pills") have been "refuted" by an endometrial study. This is NOT a factually true statement. Studies of ECPs thus far still cannot fully explain ECP's rates of "success" without taking anti-implantation effects into account. There are anti-implantation effects that the endometrial study wouldn't even address. Some of the research suggests abortifacient effects arrising not from failed implantation, but rather from such things as luteal phase dysfunction. The whole section on ECPs should have been re-written.

For this reason and others, this new report is still not a document I would direct anyone to for an accurate evaluation of the abortifacient properties of various birth control methods. However, it is not as grossly misleading as it was before on most counts.

Below is an important excerpt from the new report showing a vast improvement in the language of this revision as compared to the original document. While the third (one-sentence) paragraph in the snippet below is absurd (as I already abundantly informed them), it is at least offset by the context.

Concluding Remarks on hormonal contraception

Insofar as no hormonal contraceptive can suppress ovulation all the time there is some risk, whether great or small, of breakthrough ovulation, thus creating a scenario in which the egg may or may not be fertilized. If fertilized (which would lead to a pregnancy) it may or may not be able to successfully implant in an altered endometrium (which would either lead to a pregnancy or a chemical abortion).

The LCMS has historically determined that human life begins at conception. This position is firmly grounded on the science of embryology and on Holy Scripture.[1] Because of this confession on human life, some people have ethical concerns about the use of hormonal contraception. Some pro-life medical organizations have not taken a stance against hormonal contraception.[2] Other pro-life medical organizations emphasize “that the pill and similar birth control products act, part of the time, by design, to prevent implantation of an already created human being. These products clearly cause an early abortion and are - despite the semantic gymnastics of their ardent apologists - abortifacient.”[4] Nearly all scientists and medical professionals agree that this is a possible action of the pill; however, scientific data does not exist to state with certainty how frequently such events occur. Therefore, the scientific data does not allow one to state definitively that hormonal contraceptive methods are abortifacients, but the possibility that this can occur must be acknowledged.

There are also some pro-life health care providers and theologians who believe that the Pill works solely by preventing ovulation.

The LCMS Sanctity of Life Committee following the mandate given to it by the Synod in Convention, cannot state definitively that hormonal contraception does not at least some of the time cause a chemical abortion. The medical and scientific community acknowledges this possibility but cannot state how frequently or if in fact this does occur. In light of this, some Christian couples may have concerns about hormonal contraception. Rather than defaulting immediately to the Pill or other hormonal methods, they should keep an open mind and make themselves aware of all forms of contraception including natural family planning, barrier methods, and sterilization in certain exceptionally difficult situations.

So, read the new report and then comment below as to what you think of the revision.

Birth-control pill linked to male infertility

Catholic News Service reports:

The birth-control pill is causing "devastating" environmental damage and plays a role in rising male infertility rates, said the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano.

"We have sufficient evidence to argue that one of the considerable factors contributing to male infertility in the West -- with its ever decreasing numbers of spermatozoa in men -- is environmental pollution caused by the byproducts of the pill" released in human waste, the article said.

Pedro Jose Maria Simon Castellvi, president of the Vatican-based World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, wrote the article that appeared in the paper's Jan. 4 edition.

In another article, also linked in the post below about Djerassi, we read:

...the Spanish doctor pointed to the Federation's recent document commemorating the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae, which "irrefutably shows that the most widely used anti-ovulatory pill in the industrialised world, the one made with low doses of estrogen and progesterone, in many cases works with an anti-implantation effect; that is, abortifacient [effect], because it expels a small human embryo.

Castellvi also pointed out that "this anti-implantation effect is acknowledged in scientific literature, which shamelessly speaks of an embryo loss rate. Curiously, however, this information does not reach the public at large."

I can't find the original source article in L'Osservatore Romano, so if anyone has a link, please post it in the comments.

Austrian Chemist Carl Djerassi, Co-creator of the Pill

CathNews reports: Eighty five year old Carl Djerassi the Austrian chemist who helped invent the contraceptive pill now says that his co-creation has led to a "demographic catastrophe."

He described families who had decided against reproduction as "wanting to enjoy their schnitzels while leaving the rest of the world to get on with it."

The fall in the birth rate, he said, was an "epidemic" far worse, but given less attention, than obesity. Young Austrians, he said, were committing national suicide if they failed to procreate.

Whoever Sows Sparingly Will Also Reap Sparingly

Complete article available at http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11597904/

Japan: Attack of the Senior Citizens

Chuck Colson

BreakPoint


January 9, 2008

Japan has a well-earned reputation as one of the most orderly societies on earth. Its crime rate, while rising in recent years, is still low by Western standards. When crime does spike, many Japanese are quick to blame foreigners.

But a recent crime wave is undeniably home grown—in more ways than one.
The surge in lawlessness involves not only property crime such as shoplifting, pick pocketing, and embezzlement, but also a rise in violent crime. In response, the government is planning three new prison wards—complete with “metal walkers and support rails.”

Metal walkers and support rails? Oh, did I mention that the new “usual suspects” are Japanese senior citizens?

* * *

If more senior citizens don’t explain the phenomenon, what does? A popular explanation is “financial hardship.” Koichi Hama of Ryukoku University spoke for many experts when he said that “it’s very difficult to live on their small pensions.” They shoplift to make ends meet, and then it escalates.

While this may be part of the explanation, Japanese elderly are hardly unique in their economic vulnerability. Around the world, economic downturns hit pensioners living on fixed incomes especially hard. Yet we don’t read about crime waves among European and North American elderly.

An important part of the explanation lies in the increasing isolation of Japan’s elderly. Japan’s microscopic birthrate has produced an aging population with no one to care for it, whether children or paid caretakers. Japanese elderly are so starved for companionship that they buy talking dolls they think “are actual grandsons and granddaughters,” according to the manufacturer. [See Erich's post related to this phenomenon below.]

* * *

No society that devalues marriage, that ignores the importance of child rearing, and that rejects the foundational role of families can sustain itself over time.

While we may not experience a geriatric crime wave like Japan’s, unless we change our ways, our future will be just as bleak—and lonely.

"Reborn" babies

Have any of you heard of this disturbing new trend?

"One woman in the BBC documentary [My Fake Baby], married and in her 40s, said she wanted a real baby, but was too busy to commit to caring for a real one. A reborn doll satisfies her maternal instincts, she said, without all the carrying on and mess."

How long do you think it will take before we hear stories about these "babies" being baptized?

"You show us there was never a wrong time to have you. Only a right one."

Du bist Deutschland...

("You are Germany") was a social marketing campaign in Germany. Its aim was to achieve positive thinking and a new national feeling. It was created by the initiative "Partner für Innovation" consisting of 25 media corporations and was co-ordinated by Bertelsmann. The large-scale campaign caused much controversy and discussion.

The second campaign seems to encourage to procreate:

In 2007 the campaign appeals for more child friendliness in the German society because of the steadily falling birth rate in Germany. In the manifesto this becomes clear especially by the last verses: “Wir brauchen mehr von deiner Sorte, weil ohne dich die Gegenwart keinen Spaß bringt und die Zukunft bereits vergangen ist. Du bist Deutschland.” (We need more of your kind because without you the present brings no fun and the future has already passed. You are Germany.)

Here is the ad with English subtitles:

At 1:17 into the ad, there is this line:  "You show us there was never a wrong time to have you.  Only a right one."  

It almost seems as if the leadership of "Partner für Innovation" immediately responded to pages 109-110 of America Alone (2006), in which Mark Steyn dismissed its first campaign, by producing in 2007 this second, more controversial campaign which actually encourages Germans to value and have children.  I wonder if the political and business leadership of Europe is secretly reading Steyn...

Servus!

Virginity Pledges, Abstinence Education, Law and Gospel, Take 2

From the Opinion page of the JANUARY 6, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Journal, we read:

Like a Virgin: The Press Take On Teenage Sex
Yes, attitudes do make a difference in behavior.

By WILLIAM MCGURN

The chain reaction was something out of central casting. A medical journal starts it off by announcing a study comparing teens who take a pledge of virginity until marriage with those who don't. Lo and behold, when they crunch the numbers, they find not much difference between pledgers and nonpledgers: most do not make it to the marriage bed as virgins.

Like a pack of randy 15-year-old boys, the press dives right in.

"Virginity Pledges Don't Stop Teen Sex," screams CBS News. "Virginity pledges don't mean much," adds CNN. "Study questions virginity pledges," says the Chicago Tribune. "Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective, Study Finds," heralds the Washington Post. "Virginity Pledges Fail to Trump Teen Lust in Look at Older Data," reports Bloomberg. And on it goes.

In other words, teens will be teens, and moms or dads who believe that concepts such as restraint or morality have any application today are living in a dream world. Typical was the lead for the CBS News story: "Teenagers who take virginity pledges are no less sexually active than other teens, according to a new study."

Here's the rub: It just isn't true.

* * *

The real headline from this study is this: "Religious Teens Differ Little in Sexual Behavior Whether or Not They Take a Pledge."

* * *

Most parents appreciate that a pledge of virginity -- a one-time event that might be made at an emotional moment in a teen's life -- is not some talisman that will magically shield their sons and daughters from the strong and normal desires that grow as they discover their sexuality. What these parents hope to do is direct these desires in a way that recognizes sex as a great gift, which in the right circumstances fosters genuine intimacy between a man and a woman and at its freest offers the possibility of new life.

To read more, see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120095259855597.html

A Common Fallacious Argument

We've perhaps all heard this argument:

Non-abortifacient contraception is fine because if it's God's will for you to have a baby he'll just see to it that the contraception doesn't work.

This argument is wrong on so many levels that it is hard to begin assessing them all: Calvinist assertion of inviolability of God's will, begging the question, putting the Lord your God to the test, basic stupidity, etc.

So, I'd like to ask for further exposition of everything that is wrong with this statement. And, more importantly, what would be the best pastoral response to such an erroneous assertion?

Virginity Pledges, Abstinence Education, Law and Gospel

Perhaps you saw the recent headline: Many Teens Don't Keep Virginity Pledges. It would seem that a recent study apparently found that abstinence pledges don't work. The study also apparently found that those who make virginity pledges are less likely to use birth control. Liberals would have us believe that this study is evidence that we should be providing birth control to teens rather than preaching abstinence to them.

All of the mainline media stories I saw claim that this new study provides a direct indictment of abstinence programs. Mollie Hemingway has posted a good analysis of the wrongheaded media coverage of the story. It appears from Mollie's post that this study cannot rightly be used to support such a claim.

However, regardless of what this study means or doesn't mean, let's entertain a Christian ethical analysis of the hypothesis. What if it is true that abstinence education and/or virginity pledges are proven to be ineffective means of reducing teen sexual activity? What would this tell us? That we should stop telling teens they shouldn't have sex before marriage? That teens should stop making resolutions to lead a sexually pure life? That we should just accept the fact that teens are going to engage in premarital sex and provide the necessary means of preventing disease and "being punished with a child?" I hope the Christian answers to these rhetorical questions are obvious.

More to the point, from a Lutheran Law/Gospel perspective, I'd like to ask:

Would the "failure" of abstinence education tell us that preaching and teaching on the Sixth Commandment is useless?

Answering this question right depends on whether or not you understand Law and Gospel from a truly biblical (Lutheran) perspective. Rather than answer this question myself by expounding on the three uses of the Law, I'd like our readers, and perhaps the pastors who are authors on this blog, to give their perspective. Perhaps another question is: What enables the Christian to live more in accordance with the Sixth Commandment?

The Family of God

This is my first attempt at a post here, so I'm not sure if it properly falls within the parameters of the site, but it is something that has struck me with some interest recently.

I've simply observed that — in addition to the one true God being Father and Son (not to discount the Holy Spirit, who with them both is one) — the Church is also identified in distinctively familial terms. That seems significant and not at all accidental. It coincides with St. Paul's description of the Church as the household of God in the pastoral epistles.

The natural relationships established by God within creation — that is to say, in contrast to the voluntary relations of friendship and the coincidental associations of mutual context or shared activities — the natural relationships are that of husband and wife (the original human relationship, out of which all others emerge), father and mother and child, brother and sister. These relationships belong to the Lord's creative design, and, I would argue, reflect the image and likeness of God in man. By that I mean to suggest that, as marriage is iconic of Christ and His Bride, the Church, so do parental and fraternal relationships signify the life of the Church as the family of God.

Thus, pastors are spiritual fathers to those whom they beget and nurture by the Gospel. Not only that, but they are to regard older men as fathers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters (1 Timothy 5). Likewise, Christians are bound to each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. The Church collectively is the Bride of Christ and the Mother of His Christians.

So, what does this mean for us? At least a few things, I think. First of all, it indicates the significance of marriage and family as confessing the Gospel of Christ and His Church, and precisely in that way manifesting the creative intention of God. Especially in the face of sin, death, the devil and hell, entering into marriage, being faithful in marriage (and remaining married!), and welcoming children, each and all of these things confess the faithfulness of the Lord as our Creator and Redeemer. Even under the cross, marriage and family are not meaningless or pointless, but gracious gifts of God to be received with thanksgiving.

Second, though, as significant and important as marriage and family are, these human relationships point beyond themselves to that which is ultimate and eternal, namely, to those relationships in Christ which belong to His Church. His Father is the one Father by whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named. Christ Himself is the the true and heavenly Bridegroom of all His Christians. United to Him, we belong to a great company of many brothers and sisters, to whom we are more closely bound, even here in time and hereafter in eternity, than we are by human flesh and blood to our kindred here on earth. Thus, we are not to make idols of spouse, parents or children, but defer all fear, love and trust to God above them all.

Third, those who are not given the gifts of marriage or children in this life on earth may rejoice with special comfort and peace in the family and household of God. Those who bear the blessed cross of celibacy, for example, may rejoice in the Bridegroom of the whole Christian Church; and those who are widowed, abandoned or divorced (irrespective of fault), may likewise rejoice in His undying love, His unfailing promises and eternal faithfulness, and His gracious reconciliation of those who have been unfaithful. Orphans may rejoice in their heavenly Father, who hears their cries and cares for them. Grieving parents bereft of their children may rejoice in the salvation of Christ for the tiniest infant, even in the womb or yet at the breast. And childless couples may rejoice in the opportunity to love and serve the children of God within His Church on earth, wherein no one is alone or without a family.

Intelligent Life: Faith and Fertility

Demographics. It is a fact that populations who are more "religious" tend to have more children. In this story in the Winter 2008 issue of INTELLIGENT LIFE magazine, Anthony Gottlieb suggests that something else might also be going on [HT: Christopher G.].

Does having more children also tend to make people more religious? I confess that the more children we have had, the more important church and theology have become. I think this author might be on to something. He cites anecdotal evidence that secularization tends to follow demographic declines in fertility, not visa versa.

But what, then, causes the decline in fertility? In a previous post here, Oswald Spengler offers some historical insight. Cultural attitudes about children come first. Cultural attitudes tend to infect even the religions themselves. Look at what happened over the past century in Christianity, and what happens to Muslims who live in post-modern cultures. And, even though the Roman Catholic church maintains its official position against contraception, the majority of those who claim to be Roman Catholic tend to contracept right along with the rest of the culture they live in. Gottlieb suggests that the resultant decline in fertility then brings about a population's gradual abandonment of religion.

Now, other religions aside, let us consider what correlation faith and fertility could have for Christians. Does having more children make one more faithful? I think not. Faith comes by hearing, not by procreating. Faith is created, maintained, and strengthened by God's Word and Sacraments. Children certainly are blessings, but they are not a means of grace. Scripture would even suggest that those who have the gift of celibacy can be even more devout. However, consider this: perhaps contraception and faith are not very compatible. Unrepentant sin chases away faith and the Holy Spirit. I should hasten to add that I do not mean to imply that all use of contraception is unrepentant sin.

Katharina Luther

Today we remember a charter member of the Concordian Sisters of Perpetual Parturition,
Katie Luther.

Katharina von Bora (1499–1552) was placed in a convent when still a child and became a nun in 1515. In April 1523 she and eight other nuns were rescued from the convent and brought to Wittenberg. There Martin Luther helped return some to their former homes and placed the rest in good families. Katharina and Martin were married on June 13, 1525. Their marriage was a happy one and blessed with six children. Katharina skillfully managed the Luther household, which always seemed to grow because of his generous hospitality. After Luther's death in 1546, Katharina remained in Wittenberg but lived much of the time in poverty. She died in an accident on December 20, 1552, while traveling with her children to Torgau in order to escape the plague.

Dignitas Personae

The Vatican's first authoritative statement on reproductive science in 21 years, Dignitas Personae, approved by the Pope on June 20 and published on December 8 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has triggered intense debate about some of the most contentious issues in surrounding procreation, including stem cells, designer babies, cloning, and a host of techniques widely used as birth control and to help infertile couples have children.

Links for summary and Q&A: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Regarding what weight this carries for Roman Catholics, the following statement is made in the Vatican Summary:

The document is an Instruction of a doctrinal nature, published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and expressly approved by the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. The Instruction therefore falls within the category of documents that "participate in the ordinary Magisterium of the successor of Peter" (Instruction Donum veritatis, n.18) and is to be received by Catholics "with the religious assent of their spirit" (Dignitas personae, n.37).

Especially of interest is the following excerpt (emphasis mine), which doesn't beat around the bush the way some do regarding abortifactient methods of birth control (i.e. IUDs and all hormonal contraceptives such as the Pill and so-called "emergency contraception"):

23. Alongside methods of preventing pregnancy which are, properly speaking, contraceptive, that is, which prevent conception following from a sexual act, there are other technical means which act after fertilization, when the embryo is already constituted, either before or after implantation in the uterine wall. Such methods are interceptive if they interfere with the embryo before implantation and contragestative if they cause the elimination of the embryo once implanted.

In order to promote wider use of interceptive methods,[43] it is sometimes stated that the way in which they function is not sufficiently understood. It is true that there is not always complete knowledge of the way that different pharmaceuticals operate, but scientific studies indicate that the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present, even if this does not mean that such interceptives cause an abortion every time they are used, also because conception does not occur after every act of sexual intercourse. It must be noted, however, that anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion.

When there is a delay in menstruation, a contragestative is used,[44] usually one or two weeks after the non-occurrence of the monthly period. The stated aim is to re-establish menstruation, but what takes place in reality is the abortion of an embryo which has just implanted.

As is known, abortion is “the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth”.[45] Therefore, the use of means of interception and contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral. Furthermore, when there is certainty that an abortion has resulted, there are serious penalties in canon law.[46]

I found it interesting that the document takes the position that vaccines which have been developed using cells from aborted fetuses are acceptable, while questioning the morality of adopting embryos to give them life through implantation. They warn that the latter action could help perpetuate the creation of more embryos. Here's the document's statement:

According to this criterion, the use of “biological material” of illicit origin would be ethically permissible provided there is a clear separation between those who, on the one hand, produce, freeze and cause the death of embryos and, on the other, the researchers involved in scientific experimentation.

Simple Irreversible Sterilization for Women

Essure--a newer, cheaper, faster, scalpel-free alternative to tubal ligation that is irreversible. Story in this week's Time Magazine.

<--An Essure device is seen in the tubal opening

Their advertising slogan:
"When your family is complete, choose Essure."

"What I do with my body doesn't affect you!" Oh, Really.

From the British publication, The Independent, we read this headline:

It's official: Men really are the weaker sex
Evolution is being distorted by pollution, which damages genitals and the ability to father offspring, says new study. Geoffrey Lean reports

The article, published on Sunday, December 7, 2008, begins:

The male gender is in danger, with incalculable consequences for both humans and wildlife, startling scientific research from around the world reveals.

The research – to be detailed tomorrow in the most comprehensive report yet published – shows that a host of common chemicals is feminising males of every class of vertebrate animals, from fish to mammals, including people.

Backed by some of the world's leading scientists, who say that it "waves a red flag" for humanity . . . .

What does this have to do with the subject of this blog? Read on. In a part of the article dealing with the impact on fish, the writer informs his readers:

Female hormones – largely from the contraceptive pills which pass unaltered through sewage treatment – are partly responsible, while more than three-quarters of sewage works have been found also to be discharging demasculinising man-made chemicals.

In other words, contraceptive pills are entering the water supply, chemically emasculating fish, as well as males of other species.

Not only are we males less fertile than our ancestors, there are proportionately fewer of us:

Communities heavily polluted with gender-benders in Canada, Russia and Italy have given birth to twice as many girls than boys, which may offer a clue to the reason for a mysterious shift in sex ratios worldwide. Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls, but the ratio is slipping. It is calculated that 250,000 babies who would have been boys have been born as girls instead in the US and Japan alone.

And sperm counts are dropping precipitously. Studies in more than 20 countries have shown that they have dropped from 150 million per millilitre of sperm fluid to 60 million over 50 years. (Hamsters produce nearly three times as much, at 160 million.) Professor Nil Basu of Michigan University says that this adds up to "pretty compelling evidence for effects in humans".

Contraceptives are not the only factor, of course. But it turns out that what you do with your body does affect me.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden?'" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

We never learn, listening again and again to the same old serpent, who whispers in our ears that we can be like God, knowing good and evil, if we just ignore His injunctions, and that no harm will come of it.

See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/its-official-men-really-are-the-weaker-sex-1055688.html

L&P Book of the Month

From Redeemer Press, by Rev. Kurt E. Reinhardt

My Light and My Salvation

Here is a sample:

Lost in the Terror of the Night
by Kurt Reinhardt c. 2008

Lost in the terror of the night,
The thorns had caught me in my flight,
My bleating cries would soon be still,
The wolf was circling for the kill.

But then His voice came on the wind:
"My precious Lamb, I know you've sinned,
Yet I have come to seek the lost,
To rescue them at any cost."

He traced my path into the wild,
His heart set on His wayward child,
Until He found me where I lay,
His foolish sheep that went astray.

Into the thorns He stretched His arm
With boundless love, enduring harm,
His hands were cut and pierced for me
To break the snare and set me free.

With tender mercy I'm held fast;
Around His neck, now safe at last,
My shepherd bears me through the night
Towards the joy of dawning light.

What a great Christmas present idea!

Trivia

My second oldest daughter's "Page-a-Day" trivia calendar had this entry for Friday, November 28:

What popular performer, in accepting an Oscar for Best Actor, said, "I'd like to thank my parents for not practicing birth control"?

Answer: Dustin Hoffman, when he won the Oscar in 1980 for Kramer vs. Kramer

Contraception and the Innocent Spouse

An interesting ethical Q&A submitted for your consideration from the Winter 2008 One More Soul Update, Volume 13, Issue 2, page 6 - just received in the mail:

Question:

May a husband engage in the marital act when his wife is using the Pill, even though he knows that contraception is wrong? Would not the innocent spouse need to refrain from the marital act when the Pill or other hormonal contraceptives are involved because of the abortifacient capacity of these birth-regulating methods? --JMJ

Answer:

Dear JMJ,

This is a tough question, because there is clear teaching from the Church that contraception is intrinsically evil and sinful. Despite this, there is massive moral non-compliance among Catholics. Eighty-five percent of Catholic couples of childbearing age are contracepting or sterilized. Yet many of these receive the Eucharist on a regular basis without using first the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Very seldom do Catholics hear anything from the pulpit about the moral evil of contraception.

This leaves the impression that the teaching church is clear about the immorality of contraception, but is not prepared to put that teaching into pastoral practice. If there is silence from the pulpit, then the unspoken message is that couples can continue in their contraceptive lifestyle and not be concerned about the morality of what they are doing.

A very different situation would arise if an entire diocese, with all the priests in a united front with their bishop, were to take a clear position on the immorality of contraception. Then all engaged couples would be strongly encouraged to learn NFP. The intention to use contraception would be grounds for a priest to refuse to marry a couple. For already married couples, pastors would teach that contraception is a serious moral evil, and must be confessed and repented of before receiving the Eucharist. All couples would be strongly encouraged to learn morally acceptable ways of planning their families. Some proportionate form of restitution would be recommended for those who have sterilized themselves. Catholic doctors would be warned that they cannot receive the Eucharist if they are prescribing contraception, performing sterilizations, or making referrals for these.

It is in the present situation of massive moral non-compliance that I make my comments. What follow is not Magisterial teaching; rather, it is an informed theological opinion. I speak to what an innocent spouse can do on his own to rectify the abuses of his marriage. At this point in time, he is largely on his own, without the explicit public support of the clergy. The innocent spouse must continually pray and work for the conversion of the offending spouse. This requires understanding what the spousal act was designed to express and accomplish. It means talking about these important matters. It means making sacrifices for her. The innocent spouse should remind the other of the total immorality of contraception, and the possible abortifacient factor in using the Pill, and encourage her to move in the direction of NFP. A good husband should encourage his wife to transfer her trust away from the Pill and place it in God’s providence, in her husband’s willingness to share with her the burden of family planning, and in God’s inexhaustible love for us. Our Lord took people where they were, and pointed them in the direction they should be taking. He appealed to their good reason and to their better selves. He respected the freedom of their conscience. He proposed God’s plan for us, while never imposing it. He gave people, and continues to give us, a little time so that we could freely come to our senses. Eventually, however, the time will come when we will have to give a thorough accounting for all our choices and deeds. The Lord warned us that we are responsible for how we use our freedom.

What can an innocent spouse do if the other refuses to move away from contraception? Could he decide to forego the marital act? Since we are not to cooperate with sin, and contraception is sinful, the innocent spouse has a right and a duty to refuse to cooperate with evil, insofar as that is possible. A contracepted act is not a marital act, since it has separated the unitive from the procreative dimension. Now it is simply a sexual act. It is an act of conditioned self-giving, with many reservations. Such an act does not enrich the relationship; rather, it tends to unravel the fabric of their bonding. Rather than make a lie with their bodies, a couple should simply remain silent.

Such a choice will bring tensions to the marriage, but unnecessary tensions already exist. The only proper solution is to cease doing what is evil, and begin doing what is good. If nothing else, simply do nothing!

Many divorces can be traced back to the damage done by contraception. The high divorce rates in this country took off at the same time that the Pill arrived. If we are to address the problem of a 50% divorce rate among Catholics, then we must get to the root cause. And if this requires a change of attitudes, values, and practices, then that is what must be done.

Doing good for our neighbor also includes helping them resist evil.

Cordially yours,

Fr. Matthew Habiger OSB, PhD