I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimizes my credentials to speak to you with some authority on the issue. I was one of organizers of the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the United States in 1968. A truthful poll of opinion then would have found that most Americans were against permissive abortion. Yet within five years we had convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to issue the decision, which legalized abortion throughout America in 1973 and produced virtual abortion on demand up to birth. How did we do this? It is important to understand the tactics.
The First Key Tactic Was to Capture the Media We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be sounded defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and 60% of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we need to crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalization. The Second Key Tactic Was To Play The Catholic Card. We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its "socially backward ideas" and picked on the Catholic Hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion, this theme was played endlessly. We fed the media such lies as "we all know that opposition to abortion comes from hierarchy and not from most Catholics" and "polls prove them again that most Catholics want abortion law reform". And the media drum-fired all this into the American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under enlightened and forward looking. An inference of this tactic was that there were no non-Catholic groups opposing abortion, the fact that the other Christian as well as non-Christian religions were (and still are) monolithically opposed to abortion was constantly suppressed, along with pro-life atheist's opinions. The Third Key Tactic was the Denigration and Suppression of All Scientific Evidence That Life Begins At Conception I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionist to pro-life advocate? In 1973,1 became director of obstetrics of large hospital in New York and had to set-up a pre-natal research unit, just at the start of a great new technology which we now use everyday to study the fetus in the womb. A favorite pro-abortion tactic is to insist the definition of when life begins is impossible; that the question is theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific one. Foetology makes undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy.. Why, you may well ask, do some American doctors, who are privy to the findings of foetology, discredit themselves by carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic at $300 a time, 1.55 million abortions means an industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pockets of the physicians. Abortion is purposeful destruction of what is undeniably human life. It is an impermissible act of deadly violence. One must concede that unplanned pregnancy is a wrenchingly difficult dilemma, but to look for its solution in a deliberate act of destruction is trash the vast resourcefullness of human ingenuity, and to surrender the public weal to the classic utilitarian answer to social problems. As a scientist I know, not believe, that human life begins at conception. Although I am not a formal religionist, I believe with all my heart that there is divinity of existence, which commands us to declare a final and infinitely sad and shameful crime against humanity.

(Dr. Nathanson has since converted to Catholicism, being baptized in 1996. He is the doctor in the documentrary film on abortion, " Silent Scream".)

The Early Church Fathers were undivided in their condemnation of artificial birth control. In fact, all Christian churches were in agreement on this until 1930.Letter of BarnabasMoreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29]. For he means, "Thou shalt not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness" (Letter of Barnabas 10:8 [A.D. 74]).Clement of AlexandriaBecause of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature (ibid. 2:10:95:3).Hippolytus[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, they use drugs of sterility [oral contraceptives] or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered [abortion] (Refutation of All Heresies 9:7 [A.D. 225]).Lactantius[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife(Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ['generating'] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring (ibid. 6:23:18).EpiphaniusThey [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).John Chrysostom[l]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet) and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization] (Homilies onMatthew 28:5 [A.D. 391]).Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth?. . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and Fight with his [natural] laws? (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).JeromeBut I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility [oral contraceptives] and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion] (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).AugustineThis proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her, is joined to the man to gratify his passion (The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 [A.D. 388]).You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your [religious] law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [I Tim. 4:1-4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps (Against Faustus 15:7 [A.D. 400]).For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny (ibid. 22:30).CaesariusWho is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive or an abortifacient] so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a women does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman (Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]).Copyright © 2004 StayCatholic.com

Editors note: Pope Paul VI's encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (on the regulation of birth) was promulgated July 25, 1968. TCA receives many letters about the Churches teaching on marriage and sexuality, one of which is here printed at length because it is representative of confusion among Catholics in the United States. With this answer to the letter below, TCA commemorates the 25th anniversary of Humanae Vitae.

You clergymen are a joke! Who are you -- the Pope included -- to tell anyone when and what kind of birth control to use?
I am 40. I have two gorgeous sons. When the second child was born, I (for my own personal and very seriously and prayerfully thought-out reasons) knew that my family was complete. My husband was sterilized, and it was finished. Do you think that I would want to check myself every single day of my life to see if I am or am not ovulating? When are you clergymen going to get out of our beds?

My neighborhood is 90 percent Catholic. Everyone quietly ignores you and prevents conception in the way he or she sees fit. We receive the sacraments, send our children to CCD, and do what is best for us individually and what is best for our families. Give us credit. We support our churches and our clergy and many charities.
Jesus never mentioned birth control in the gospels. Perhaps He realized that His people would know when to reproduce and when not to. Yet all of you clergy--including the Pope--insist on guiding us all in family planning and lovemaking. Grow up!
Very few people care what you think...Teach us about the Lord and trust us to know how many children to have and when to stop and how to stop it. Until you have practiced natural family planning, don't tell me how easy it is and how close my husband and I will be for following it. These stupid rules will change because we the people are Jesus' Church, not you the clergy.
On first glance, this letter seems to be about artificial contraception. The Church teaches that the use of contraception, including sterilization, to prevent conception is contrary to the will of God. The letter writer, on the other hand, is certain that the Church's teaching on this matter is false, but she is also concerned to show that, despite her disagreement with the Church, she remains a good Catholic.
In her zeal to prove that she is right, the author makes several observations and claims about the nature of the Church, alongside her discussion of the teaching on contraception. The writer's own introduction of these remarks gives testimony that neither her letter in particular nor the debate about contraception in general is simply concerned with sexual ethics. Rather, this debate ultimately raises these questions: What is the Church of Jesus Christ? What authority has the Church to teach? So, before Christians can discuss the morality of contraception--or any other moral question--we must first agree on what the Church is.
Jesus asked His disciples, "Who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" (Mt 16:15-16). Here is the first direct declaration in the Gospel of the true identity of Jesus; Peter calls Him "the Messiah"--the Christ, the Anointed One of God. And in response to Peter's confession of faith, Jesus declares: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Mt 16:18-19).
What are the ramifications of this exchange? First, our Lord Himself is forging an unbreakable link between His Person and the Church. When we confess Jesus as Lord, Jesus directs us immediately to His Church. Later, this identification between Christ and the Church will become even more explicit. When Saul the Pharisee was fiercely persecuting the Church, Christ appeared to him and asked: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" (Acts 9:4). The lesson is as clear as it was for St. Paul: Jesus Christ and His Church are inseparable.
The second lesson to learn from the dialogue of Jesus and Peter is no less important. The Church founded by Christ is placed by Him under the authority of Peter and the other apostles. The power of binding and loosing given first to Peter for the whole Church is later extended to all the twelve for their particular communities (see Mt 18:18). But what is this power?
Binding and loosing are technical terms describing the power of rabbis to govern the people of God, and this power confers the authority to rebuke the devil in exorcism, to excommunicate a sinner or heretic from the assembly, and to make decisions binding the whole community. Jesus Christ entrusted this same power to the apostles. But even this was not enough.
Our Lord commissioned His Church to go into the world and continue His work until the end of time. To accomplish this task, He endowed the Church, through the apostles, with His own messianic authority: "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me" (Lk 10:16). In other words, when we listen to the voice of Peter and the apostles--or their successors, the Pope and the bishops--it is Christ Himself to whom we listen. And conversely, when we reject the teaching of the Church and prefer our own judgment to that of the Church's sacred teaching office, the Magisterium, it is ultimately Christ Whom we reject.
This doctrine of Catholic Faith has important practical consequences for us today. The writer of the letter quoted above asserts that Jesus never mentioned contraception, and that is true. But neither did He discuss nuclear weapons, abortion, surrogate motherhood, genetic experimentation on fetal tissue or any of the other vexing problems confronting the world today. Does Christ's silence on such questions in the Sacred Scriptures mean that there can be no definitive Christian judgment on them? Would our Lord leave us without a reliable guide for making choices that can affect our salvation? Not at all.
The Church speaks on earth with the same voice and authority as Christ Himself and is able in every age to apply the principles revealed by God to particular moral problems as they arise. And more than that, Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit preserves the Church from error when she teaches on a matter of faith or morals. In other words, the Church can teach infallibly, even on a disputed point of morality.
The Second Vatican Council clearly teaches in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church that the Church cannot err in matters of belief (Lumen Gentium, no. 12), but it is also clear that honest Catholics of goodwill frequently disagree over matters of faith and morals. In such cases, some authority must resolve the dispute if the authentic Christian answer is to be known. But how and by whom are such decisions made?
The letter writer asserts that "we the people are Jesus' Church, not you the clergy." Such a notion is clearly false. The Church of Jesus Christ is composed of all the baptized, clergy and laity, who are now living or have ever lived. It is the sacrament of Baptism that makes one a member of the body of Christ, the Church, and this membership is brought to its fullness by the sacraments of Confirmation and the Holy Eucharist. In this sense we are all one in Christ.
But within this unity, there is also diversity. There are different functions for the various members of the body. By her nature the Church is a hierarchical society, and the fundamental structure of this hierarchy was instituted by Christ Himself. As Vatican II put it: "Jesus Christ...set up the Holy Church by entrusting the apostles with their mission as He Himself had been sent by the Father (cf. Jn 20:21). He willed that their successors, the bishops namely, should be the shepherds in His Church until the end of the world" (Lumen Gentium, no. 18).
The Council explained in Lumen Gentium that Catholics are obliged to follow the teaching of the Magisterium. Because this point is at the heart of the debate over the Church's competence to teach about contraception, it is well to hear the council at length:
"Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra..."(Lumen Gentium no. 25).
In other words, Catholics are obliged by their baptism to accept and obey the teachings of the Pope and the College of Bishops on all questions of faith and morals. Moreover, to refuse to accept the Church's teaching damages and can even destroy the communion of an individual Catholic with the Church. Put simply, by believing falsely or acting immorally, a Catholic can cease to be a Catholic and place himself in grave spiritual danger.
So far we have examined what the Church is, how she is structured, and why she has the authority to teach in the name of Christ in a way that binds all the faithful to obedience. Now let us look at the teaching that is a stumbling block for our letter writer: the immorality of contraception.
The first scriptural reference to contraception is in the Old Testament, Genesis 38:9-10. The sin of Onan was his diversion of semen to prevent conception, and this passage was invoked frequently by early Christian authors to show that contraception is contrary to the will of God.
Then there are four indirect references to the immorality of contraception in the New Testament. Galatians 5:20 and Revelation 9:21, 21:8 and 22:15 all condemn what is usually translated in English as sorcery. But the Greek original in each case is a form of the word pharmakeia, practicing magic with drugs. The connection to pharmacy is obvious, and the wickedness wrought by drugs in these cases was the attempt either to prevent conception or to induce abortion.
The next written rejection of contraception by Christian authority came late in the first century in the document called the Didache. It was written at about the same time as the Gospels, but it was lost for several hundred years. It was uncovered in the 1800s and is now recognized as an important and an authoritative statement of very early Christian belief and practice, although its author or authors remain unknown.
Then from the second to the fifth centuries, no fewer than six Fathers of the Church--men noted for their personal holiness and the excellence of their teaching--explicitly condemned all forms of contraception as contrary to the law of God and the law of nature. St. Hippolytus of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine all taught unequivocally that Christians were forbidden by God and their own nature to try to prevent the natural consequence of sexual intercourse: the conception of a human child.
In the early-12th century, this teaching was formally incorporated into Church law in the Decretum of Gratian, and Pope Gregory IX (c.1170-1241) enacted universal legislation against contraception. It is also significant that throughout the long theological controversies of the Middle Ages and the Protestant Reformation, no theologian ever rejected or even attempted to challenge the Church's teaching on the immorality of contraception. Finally, in the late 1800s, Pope Leo XIII restated the constant teaching in his encyclical letter Arcanum (on Christian marriage).
This brings us back to the 20th century. In 1930, Pope Pius XI again condemned contraception in his encyclical letter Casti Connubii (on Christian marriage). Then Pope Pius XII rejected the use of progesterone pills in 1958.
In response to inquiries about the status of Pius XII's decision, Pope Paul VI said in 1964 that rejection of birth control pills was still in effect but agreed to study again the whole question of the regulation of birth, especially in light of rapid population growth and its attendant problems. The result of that study was the encyclical letter Humanae Vitae. Since then, Pope John Paul II has reaffirmed the Church's teaching many times, most notably in the 1981 apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio ("Community of the Family").
In sum, based on both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the Church has taught from the beginning and without fail that any attempt by any means before, during or after sexual intercourse which is specifically intended to prevent the conception of a child is intrinsically immoral. This teaching is clearly irreformable, and some theologians even argue that it is infallible. In any case, what is absolutely certain is that this teaching is true and binds all Catholics to obedience. Let us now see what this teaching means in greater detail.
That contraception is intrinsically immoral means that the contraceptive act is immoral in itself, rather than made immoral by bad motives. This means, moreover, that no good intention can ever make contraception good or even morally neutral. It is evil in itself.
Next, all means to prevent procreation are illicit. This includes temporary or permanent sterilization, chemicals (like birth control pills or foams), mechanical devices (like the condom or diaphragm) or premature withdrawal.
Of course here is the next question: Why is it true that any and all attempts to prevent procreation as the natural consequence of sexual intercourse are immoral? The answer is found in the purpose and nature of marriage and human sexuality.
Marriage is a solemn and irrevocable covenant of love between a man and a woman that was designed by God to be a profound and permanent union ordered to their mutual happiness and to the procreation of children. This covenant of love must be total, exclusive and permanent in order to be fully human, and the sexual union that is the proper expression of spousal love must always remain open to the transmission of life.
In order to understand why every act of intercourse must be open to the transmission of life, one must remember that every marriage involves not two parties, but three: the husband, the wife and God. God is the Creator; human parents are procreators. For this reason, and because human life is an absolute good to be desired for itself, no human person can arrogate to himself a decision which belongs to God alone--when to give another human life.
One way of expressing this truth is to say that every act of sexual intercourse must be truly unitive and procreative, in order to fulfill the demands of human nature. If either or both elements are missing or damaged, then the act of sexual love is more animal than human. Several examples will illustrate:
Two people who are not married do not posses the true communion of life that their complete surrender to each other in marriage would bring. Therefore, if they have sexual intercourse, their bodies are intimately connected, but their persons are not joined in a unity of life.
A married couple who find that they cannot conceive a child even with medical assistance resort to in vitro fertilization. They seek to make possible procreation without the union of intercourse, which is the natural way designed by God for the transmission of life.
A married couple desires to have intercourse but, for whatever reason, do not want a child to be the result of their love. They use contraception to make union possible without procreation.
In each of these examples, the unitive and procreative dimensions of human sexuality have been sundered by human will. When this separation occurs, any act of intercourse that follows is objectively disordered because some demand of human nature--given by God--is neglected or denied. Therefore, contraception is always and everywhere immoral.
But this does not mean that the Church endorses the unregulated birth of children or is not concerned with the potentially dire consequences of irresponsible sexual conduct. Quite the contrary.
The Church teaches clearly that all people are called to chastity, each according to one's state in life. For those who are not married, chastity requires that they abstain from genital sexual behavior of all kinds. For those who are married, chastity requires that they exercise their sexual powers in keeping with the laws of God and nature. This means that unmarried people must learn to govern their passions by self-denial and frequent recourse to the Sacraments of the Holy Eucharist and Penance and that they must never approach their spouses as objects to satisfy lust but always as partners with whom they cooperate in an essential work of marriage--the procreation and education of children.
God has woven into the fabric of human nature periods of female infertility that, with a little effort, can reliably be charted and predicted. The Church teaches because these periods of infertility are the work of the Creator, it is perfectly in accord with God's will for married couples to have sexual intercourse during those times. Moreover, it is by making use of these infertile periods that couples may responsibly regulate the birth of their children while still enjoying the intimate union of spousal love which is a supreme good of their married life.
As we have already seen, Catholics are not at liberty to decide whether or not to accept this teaching and remain Catholics. This is a true teaching, and to reject this truth either in belief or action can damage or destroy one's communion with the Church--and with God.
But though she rightly demands obedience, the Church does not desire that Catholics simply accept this teaching on marriage and sexuality without understanding why it is true. Contraception is not immoral because the Pope says it is; the Pope says that contraception is immoral because it is. And it is possible for human reason, aided by grace, to know the reasons why such behavior is contrary to human nature.
Standing behind the teachings of the Fathers of the Church and of the popes on sexuality and many other misunderstood Church doctrines is a profound Christian anthropology worked out over 2,000 years. This wisdom is the product of human reason, but it flows from divine revelation and is derived from what God has revealed to us about ourselves.
Perhaps a fitting observance of the 25th anniversary of Humanae Vitae would be to read a book or two on the Christian understanding of man. Before he became Pope John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla wrote a book called "Love and Responsibility" (Ignatius Press, 33 Oakland Avenue, Harrison, NY 10528) that beautifully expresses the wisdom of Christian doctrine on family life and sexuality. His apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio is also in print. (For information, write to the Daughters of St. Paul, 50 St. Paul's Avenue, Jamaica Plain, Boston, MA 02130.)
Another excellent book that lucidly explains Catholic doctrine is "Catholic Sexual Ethics," by Father Ronald Lawlor, O.F.M. Cap., and Joseph Boyle Jr. and William E. May (Our Sunday Visitor, 200 Noll Plaza, Huntington, IN 46750).
Finally, perhaps now is the time to read Humanae Vitae. A copy in pamphlet form is available from both the Knights of Columbus and the Daughters of St. Paul. (For information write to the Knights of Columbus, Catholic Information Service, 1 Columbus Plaza, New Haven, CT 06510, or the Daughters of St. Paul.) It is a short document and can be read in 30 minutes.
The deep compassion and profound humanity of Pope Paul VI shine through every word of his much-reviled and seldom-read letter. For example, in his instructions to priests, he writes: "Teach married couples the necessary way of prayer and prepare them to approach more often with great faith the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Penance. Let them never lose heart because of their weakness" (Humanae Vitae, no. 29).
I suspect that a little time spent with this beautiful exposition of the Church's teaching on marriage and sexuality will help every reader understand more fully why "in preserving intact the whole moral law of marriage, the Church is convinced that she is contributing to the creation of a truly human civilization" (Humanae Vitae, no. 18).
Reprinted with permission from Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., Copyright © 2000. http://www.osv.com/

Father Newman, a convert to Catholicism, is a priest in the Diocese of Charleston, S.C. He studied canon law at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome.

Amid the domestic fallout of skyrocketing food and oil prices world-wide and a tottering international financial system, some lawmakers have embarked on a high-profile campaign to ram through a population control-driven bill that threatens the sanctity of human life, family life and marriage, without regard to their honored place in our Constitution and our Christian culture.

The population has many problems. But population is not itself the problem. Assuming there are problems associated with population growth, the reproductive health bill does not provide any answers. I hope the following will help put this bill to rest and allow the nation to devote its time, energy and resources to its real and more pressing problems.

1. THE BILL IS BASED ON A FLAWED PREMISE. There is no “population explosion” and the country is not overpopulated. The population growth rate and the total fertility rate (TFR) have declined. The National Statistics Office puts the growth rate at 2.04 %, the TFR at 3.02. However, the CIA World Factbook (2008), for one, puts the growth rate at 1.728%, the TFR at 3.00. Whatever the real numbers are, at least one million Filipinos leave the country for foreign jobs every year. There are at least 12 million Filipinos now living and working abroad. The country has a population density of 277 Filipinos per square km, with a GDP per capita (purchasing power parity) of $,3400. The Central African Republic has a population density of 6.5 and a GDP per capita (PPP) of $700. At least 50 countries have a much lower population density than that of the Philippines, yet their GDP per capita is also much lower. Fact: the few are not always richer. On the other hand, at least 36 countries have a much higher population density than that of the Philippines, yet their GDP per capita is also much higher. Macau has 18,428 people per square km and a GDP per capita of $28,400; Monaco has 16,754 people per square km, with a per capita income of $30,000; Hong Kong has 6,407 per square km, and a per capita income of $42,000; and Singapore has 6,489 per square km., and a per capita income of $49,700. Fact: the many are not always poorer. The most critical statistic has to do with the age structure of the population. Worldwide, the median age is 27.4 years. In the Philippines, it is 23 years. In at least 139 countries it is higher than 23; in 73 others, lower. All the developed countries are on the high side. Monaco has the highest (45.5 years), followed by Japan (43.8), Germany (43.4), Italy (42.9), Sweden (41.3), Spain (40.7), Switzerland (40.7), Holland (40), United Kingdom (39.9), France (39.2), Singapore (38.4), Russia (38.3), United States (36.7), South Korea (36.4). In China, the world’s fastest growing economy, it is 33.6. This means a Filipino has more years to be productive than his counterpart in the developed world, where the population is graying and dying, without adequate replacement because of negative birth rates. Those who understand this well will tend to be more confident of the future; they will see the need to invest more extensively in the development of this resource.

2. THE BILL IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY Except for the purported objective of treating fertility and preventing abortion, which (if government is serious) may be immediately addressed by secondary health policy, the things the bill wants to do are already being done, whether legally or not. Officially-sponsored contraception and sterilization are ongoing with foreign and local funding, even without a legal mandate. Punishable abortions go unpunished. Certain things that are lawful and necessary (like promotion of breast-feeding, infant and child health and nutrition) can be done easily without legislation. Some truly repugnant things (like mandatory sex education for young children, inclusion of contraceptives and abortifacients in the National Drug Formulary as essential medicines, and making a family planning compliance certificate from the civil registrar a requirement for marriage) should not be legislated at all. There is free access to information on contraception. No law bars anyone from using contraceptives of their choice, it is a free market. You don’t need the government for it. Consumers however must pay for their own, as they pay for everything else. The Philippines is not a welfare state, nobody gets a free lunch. If the government has the money, it should spend it to save women from killer-diseases, not on trying to cure pregnancy, which is not a disease. At least 80 women are said to die from heart diseases everyday; 63 from vascular diseases; 51 from cancer; 45 from pneumonia; 23 from tuberculosis; 22 from diabetes; 16 from lower chronic respiratory diseases. This is where the State should provide, if it could, free medicine and medical services. Now, out of every 100,000 live births, some 107 women are said to die from complications during childbirth. This is 107 too many. But the local executives of Gattaran, Cagayan and Sorsogon City have shown that maternal death during childbirth could be brought down to zero simply by providing women with adequate basic and emergency obstetric care facilities and skilled medical services. Not contraceptives. On July 29, 2005, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization (WHO) announced that after a thorough review of the published scientific literature, it was concluded that oral contraceptives are carcinogenic to humans ---they cause breast, liver and cervical cancer. In light of that, the government should probably ban the carcinogens or at least label them as “cancer-causing,” or “dangerous to women’s health.” But some legislators, some of them doctors too, still want to distribute them as “essential medicines” to our women. Why?

3. THE BILL ASSUMES THAT THE STATE IS OMNIPOTENT. IT SEEKS TO CONFER UPON THE STATE A RIGHT AND AUTHORITY IT DOES NOT, AND CAN NEVER, POSSESS. No one questions the right of the State to levy taxes, to expropriate private property for public use, to conscript able-bodied young men for its defense. But the State may not enter the family bedroom and tell married couples how to practice marital love. For while it is a citizen who casts his vote, pays his taxes and fights for his flag, it is a man who embraces his wife and fathers her child. There are certain areas, certain activities of man as man where every individual is accountable only to God, and completely autonomous from the State. These are sacred and inviolate areas where the State may not intrude. Allow the State to invade our innermost private lives, and it will just be a matter of time before we are told we can no longer breathe unless the State allows it.

4. THE BILL IS PATENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. a) Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution provides: “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.” “Sanctity”---the state of being holy---is an attribute of God. God is not outside our lives; the very first words of the Constitution proclaim it: “We, the sovereign Filipino People, imploring the aid of Almighty God…” Obedience to God’s laws, therefore, is not only a solemn teaching of the Church, but also an express constitutional mandate. The government cannot be party to a program that seeks to prevent one married woman from conceiving, without making a mockery of that mandate. That is the necessary implication of the State’s duty to “equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” b). Article XV recognizes “marriage as an inviolable social institution,” and “the foundation of the family.” Which, in turn, the State recognizes as “the foundation of the nation.” Section 3 (1) of the same Article binds the State to defend “the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood.” Clearly, this does not allow the State to tell members of any faith ---in this case the Catholic faith---not to listen to what their Church teaches on faith and morals, or responsible parenthood, but to listen to the politicians and the population controllers instead. But this is precisely what the bill seeks to do.

5. THE BILL IS DESTRUCTIVE OF PUBLIC MORALS AND FAMILY VALUES. It seeks to legislate a hedonistic sex-oriented lifestyle whose aim is to assure couples and everybody else of “a safe and satisfying sex life” (the other term for contraceptive sex), instead of a mutually fulfilling conjugal life, and ultimately change time-honored Filipino values about human life, family life, marriage, in favor of the most destructive counter-values that are wreaking havoc on the morals of many consumerist societies.

6. THE BILL IS PARTICULARLY UNJUST TO CATHOLIC TAXPAYERS, WHO CONSTITUTE THE MAJORITY, AND WHO WILL BE MADE TO BEAR THE COST OF THE PROGRAM THAT WILL ULTIMATELY ATTACK A CONSTANTLY HELD DOCTRINE OF THEIR FAITH. The same objection would hold even if the affected party were a religious minority. In fact, it should be interesting to find out whether any legislator will dare propose any legislation that is doctrinally and morally offensive to Islam or to any politically active local religious group.

7. THE BILL IS NOT WHAT ITS AUTHORS SAY IT IS. IT IS EVERYTHING THEY SAY IT IS NOT. Not only is it hedonistic, it is above all eugenicist. It seeks to eliminate the poor and the “socially unfit” while paying lip service to their cause. While it neither mandates a two-child family nor legalizes abortion, it prepares the ground for both. Its declared objective of population reduction conforms to the global population policy launched by U.S. National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200 in 1974, under the title IMPLICATIONS OF WORLDWIDE POPULATION GROWTH FOR U.S. SECURITY AND OVERSEAS INTERESTS. It targeted the Philippines, along with India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Columbia. NSSM 200, also known as The Kissinger Report, called for a two-child family worldwide by the year 2000, using universal contraception and abortion. “No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion,” the Report said. In 1974, NSSM 200 estimated thirty million abortions worldwide. The annual rate has doubled since.

8. ENACTMENT OF THE BILL WILL ONLY DEEPEN THE IGNORANCE ABOUT THE ISSUES INVOLVED. Some defenders of the bill claim that nine out of ten women (who must be Catholic) want to contracept, regardless of what the Church teaches about it. Sad, but if the claim is correct, then nine out of ten “Catholic” women need to be instructed more deeply on the doctrines of their faith and on the harmful effects of contraceptives and abortifacients. Not everything an individual wants is good or right; the truth is never the result of opinion surveys. Contraception is wrong not because the Church has banned it; the Church has banned it because it is wrong. No amount of surveys can change that. The authors of the bill suggest that Catholics need not follow what the bishops are saying because Humanae Vitae, Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical on the regulation of birth, is not an infallible document. This is an unfortunate conclusion from an incomplete premise. Church teaching on contraception did not begin with Paul VI. Onan’s case (Gen 38:8-10) is absolute proof; Pius XI and Pius XII pronounced on it before Humanae Vitae, appealing to Scripture, to the Fathers of the Church, and to tradition. While Humanae Vitae was not infallibly proposed, its teaching has been held definitively by all Catholic bishops. It meets the criteria set forth by Vatican II for an infallible exercise of the ordinary magisterium of the bishops throughout the world. As the theologian Russell Shaw points out, the Church has always taught contraception to be gravely sinful; she has never taught that it is good, permissible, or even only venially sinful.

9. THE NATURAL REGULATION OF CONCEPTIONS DOES NOT OFFEND THE CONSTITUTION OR THE RELIGIOUS BELIEF OF ANY COUPLE; IT IS IN FULL ACCORD WITH THE DEMANDS OF RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD, AND IS NOT CONTRACEPTION AT ALL. NO LAW IS NEEDED FOR THE STATE TO SUPPORT IT. The Billings Method, which takes advantage of the fertility rhythm of the human body, has been attested by the WHO to be 99% effective. But as there is no money in it, no industry has promoted it like the various contraceptives and abortifacients. State support for it could spell the difference.

(Former Senator Francisco S. Tatad represents Asia-Pacific on the Governing Boards of International Right to Life Federation, Cincinnati, Ohio, and World Youth Alliance, New York, NY.)

My fellow Pro-lifers, download it at
http://www.filedropper.com/thechurchanditspro-lifestandon

BIRTH CONTROL

"The way to plan the family is Natural Family Planning, not contraception. In destroying the power of giving life, through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self and so destroys the gift of love in him or her. In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each other. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily."- Mother Teresa (in front of Bill and Hillary Clinton)
"I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives] . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning, they come together not joined in matrimony, but in seduction."- St. Augustine
"No Christian married couple can want to block the well-springs of life. For their love is based on the love of Christ, which entails dedication and sacrifice. . . Moreover, as Tobias reminded Sara, a husband and wife know that 'we are children of saints, and we cannot come together in the way of the gentiles, who do not know God.'"- St. Josemaria Escriva

PURITY

"Only the chaste man and the chaste woman are capable of true love."- Pope John Paul II
"Chastity is a difficult, long term matter; one must wait patiently for it to bear fruit, for the happiness of loving kindness which it must bring. But at the same time, chastity is the sure way to happiness."- Pope John Paul II
"Deep within yourself, listen to your conscience which calls you to be pure . . . a home is not warmed by the fire of pleasure which burns quickly like a pile of withered grass. Passing encounters are only a caricature of love; they injure hearts and mock God's plan."- Pope John Paul II
"[God] has assigned as a duty to every man the dignity of every woman."- Pope John Paul II
"To be pure, to remain pure, can only come at a price, the price of knowing God and loving him enough to do his will. He will always give us the strength we need to keep purity as something as beautiful for him."- Blessed Mother Teresa
"Holy Purity is granted by God when it is asked for with humility." - St. Josemaria Escriva
"'Purity?' they ask. And they smile. They are the ones who go on to marriage with worn-out bodies and disillusioned souls." - St. Josemaria Escriva
"By Lust I mean that affection of the mind that aims at the enjoyment of one's self and one's neighbor without reference to God." - St. Augustine
"Lust indulged became habit, and habit unresisted became necessity." - St. Augustine
"There is need for a crusade of manliness and purity to counteract and nullify the savage work of those who think man is a beast. And that crusade is your work." - St. Josemaria Escriva
"Many live like angels in the middle of the world. You, … why not you?" - St. Josemaria Escriva
"When you decide firmly to lead a clean life, chastity will not be a burden on you: it will be a crown of triumph." - St. Josemaria Escriva
"Don't be such as coward as to be 'brave.' Flee!" - St. Josemaria Escriva
"When you have sought the company of a sensual satisfaction, what loneliness afterward!"- St. Josemaria Escriva
"To defend his purity, Saint Francis of Assisi rolled in the snow, Saint Benedict threw himself into a thornbush, Saint Bernard plunged into an icy pond . . . You . . . what have you done?" - St. Josemaria Escriva
"Don't say, 'That's the way I am—its my character.' It's your lack of character. Esto vir!—Be a man!" - St. Josemaria Escriva
"Purity is the fruit of prayer."- Blessed Mother Teresa
"Purity prepares the soul for love, and love confirms the soul in purity." - John Henry Cardinal Newman
"Holy Purity, the queen of virtues, the angelic virtue, is a jewel so precious that those who possess it become like the angels of God in heaven, even though clothed in mortal flesh."- St. John Bosco
"As soon as you willfully allow a dialogue with temptation to begin, the soul is robbed of peace, just as consent to impurity destroys grace." - St. Josemaria Escriva
"Temptation is necessary to make us realize that we are nothing in ourselves."- St. Josemaria Escriva
"More souls go to hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason."- Our Lady of Fatima

the thing called LOVE

"Love to be real, it must cost—it must hurt—it must empty us of self."- Mother Teresa
"Intense love does not measure . . . it just gives."- Mother Teresa
"The person who does not decide to love forever will find it very difficult to really love for even one day."- Pope John Paul II
"Man cannot live without love. He remains a being that is incomprehensible for himself, his life is senseless, if love is not revealed to him, if he does not encounter love, if he does not experience it and make it his own, if he does not participate intimately in it. This is why Christ the Redeemer 'fully reveals man to himself.'"- Pope John Paul II
"There is no place for selfishness—and no place for fear! Do not be afraid, then, when love makes demands. Do not be afraid when love requires sacrifice"- Pope John Paul II
"Real love is demanding. I would fail in my mission if I did not tell you so. Love demands a personal commitment to the will of God."- Pope John Paul II