INTRODUCTION

    In the June 18-24th issue of the National Catholic Register, the son of American Atheist founder, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, was interviewed. She was the person who brought the landmark case before the Supreme Court that got prayer banned from schools. Part of the interview reads; "My mother was an atheist because of her lifestyle. Her personal conduct and the Bible and the Ten Commandments just didn't match up….She was so angry that her two sons were going to be taught the difference between right and wrong, and good and evil, that she decided she wanted the word of God out of the schools. There was no care about church - state separation. She later discovered that it was a popular stand with some, and that she could make an issue out of it…..But the original desire to get prayer out of school was just anger at any teaching her family something she detested."

    I once wrote how, before the Revolutionary War, the rallying cry of 'No Taxation Without Representation' was nothing more than that. That the early revolutionaries didn't want representation, even if it were offered. But that "it was a popular stand with some, and that [they] could make an issue out of it".

    St. Maximilian Kolbe once wrote how when people are burdened by sin, and reject the consolation of the Church, first turn away from the Church, then act to attack the Church in an effort to alleviate their burdened consciences. "Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted" (1 Timothy 1:8-11).

    We've heard the rhetoric that artificial contraception has to be accepted and taught because of teen pregnancy. Yet these same teens are also taught that that sex outside of marriage, even at their age, is natural and healthy. So, they're encouraged in this activity, and the consequences of that teaching is used as an excuse to allow artificial birth control. It's essentially promoting immorality, and giving a band aid solution to avoid the consequences. Of course, the pill alone doesn't stop other consequences of that activity, for that we need a condom (which, if used properly, is only about 90% effective in stopping pregnancies and less in regards to STD's) "I was hardly dressed for what was coming, in my miter, full vestments and holding my staff in hand, waiting outside Our Lady of Sorrows 125-year-old church to begin the anniversary Mass. Her look almost withered my miter. Her words withered my ears. 'How many kids will die in these streets because you won't give out condoms in the schools?' I could have shrugged it off as a no-win 'When are you going to stop beating your wife' question. I didn't. It disturbed me because she meant it and she was sincere. Nor is she alone in her thinking. Various school boards throughout the country are saying much the same; cheered on by editorials in some of the most important newspapers. I'm told a delegation of assemblymen from Albany want to come to see me to tell me that Catholic teaching on condoms is leading to genocide" (WHAT ARE WE DOING TO THE YOUNG? John Cardinal O'Connor).

    We're all concerned about our children. We teach them in their infancy, not to play with matches or the stove. To look both ways before crossing the street, etc. But here, we seem to be encouraging them to practice something that could not only be emotionally harmful, but deadly. "I quote from his article in the latest issue, Summer 1993, The Straight '90s. Speaking of the striking down of a Louisiana sex-education curriculum by a state court, he writes: 'The curriculum recommends sexual abstinence as one means of preventing pregnancy and sexual disease. Ah, but the court reasons that the promotion of abstinence violates 'the taboo on interjecting religious beliefs and moral judgments into teaching.' Such a finding is as interesting as it is outrageous. What the court has done is concede to religion the high ground of common sense. In other words, it can't be argued that abstinence doesn't work. Of course it works. Avoid sex, and you avoid the consequences of sex. But abstinence is also a moral proposition; in other words, morality equates with common sense. To do the right thing is to do the sensible thing, the thing that works. The court's problem is the moral connection. The Constitution (on the court's showing) rules out the interjection of moral and religious beliefs into public discourse" (IBID).

    But why? Because those who want to support their lifestyle, their agenda, can't stand being reminded of their error. Under many guises, we see them try to divert attention from their real aim and place it in socially and politically palatable issues. Where the Church wants us to teach our children their worth as human beings, able to control themselves. But instead they're told that they're just animals, driven by animal instincts. "Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based, if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificial birth control. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men - especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point-have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anticonceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion" (Humanae Vitae; Grave Consequences of Methods of Artificial Birth Control, #17).

    Haven't we, in fact, seen both men and women viewed solely as objects of sexual gratification, rather than respected and beloved companions? "Let it be considered also that a dangerous weapon would thus be placed in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies" (IBID).

    Haven't we heard the rhetoric from various 'enlightened' groups, acting under the auspices of governmental agencies, that abortion and artificial birth control need to be imposed on various nations? While the Church speaks about the value of all people, and how we should help them improve themselves, we instead hear the rhetoric of over-population and the need to 'control' the growth of Third World nations. Yet recently, we've heard that our own population decline will force us to import workers in order to sustain our current economic level. And we're not alone: "There are now 79 countries-representing fully 40% of the world's population - with fertility rates below the level necessary to stave off long-tern population decline. The developed nations are in the worst straits. Already 15 of them, including Russia, Germany and Italy, each year fill more coffins than cradles. Virtually all the others will soon follow suit. Efforts by anxious governments to arrest this looming demographic disaster have proved largely futile. In Germany and Japan, for example, despite hefty financial rewards to women willing to welcome more children into the world, the maternity wards remain empty" (Too Many People? Not by a Long Shot; Wall Street Journal, Monday, February 10, 1997).

    In short, we've embraced a 'lifestyle' that assures our doom, rather than making a better world for us. Where the Church teaches "Sexuality, in which man's belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman" (CCC# 2337) we see others say that sexuality means engaging in whatever form of sexual endeavour they desire. In this way, they again claim that the Church is against sexuality, instead of being, in truth, it's greatest supporter. It isn't sexuality that the Church is opposed to, but the abuse of our sexuality.

    In this same vein, we see another distortion. Where the Church teaches that "They [homosexuals] must be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. [And that] Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoide" (CCC #2358) we see them say; "In the year 2000, year of the jubilee, hundreds of thousands of Roman Catholics from all around the world will converge to Rome. The Pope, together with the reactionary right, will use this situation to condemn homosexuality and the capacity of women to self determine, trying to evoke an antiquate vision of family that could determine a return to sexism and homophobia" (Worldpride 2000 web site).

    In each of these cases what we see isn't an agenda or act that's meant to improve all people, but to cover the real issue. The desire to silence anyone or anything which points out their error. Their's is the rhetoric of hate, not love. It's a stance of intolerance, not tolerance. Like O'Hair, they're actions stem from a hatred, and anger against anything that would teach them their real worth and value.

    This shouldn't give us anger, but sadness. The Church, like Christ, stands with open arms, longing for her sons and daughters to return to her for healing, compassion and love. Like loving parents, Christ and His Bride, the Church, only wish to realize our worth and try to guide us so we can be emotionally, physically, and emotionally healthy. But the Church is hampered, blocked and ridiculed at every turn by such groups as the ACLU, NOW, Planned Parenthood, et al. They even go so far as calling Catholic teaching un-American and crimes against humanity. "This means, under the new order, we can't teach what works best. All we can teach is what works second and third best, such as condoms, which are notoriously ineffective in preventing pregnancy, much less AIDS . . . We rule out the best remedy as unconstitutional. We settle for runner-up remedies, not on account of their effectiveness but rather to facilitate worship of ideological propriety." I even hear otherwise intelligent people argue: 'Well, kids are going to do what they're going to do, so at least we should give them some protection.' And with that well-meaning "proverb" they buy into the 'quick fix.' Stop fighting the real problem. Give up on any hope of goodness and decency and common sense. Give up--let's face what we're really doing--give up on the antiquated notion that there's anything wrong with such normal good clean fun as sex outside of marriage, recreational sex, 'inevitable' sex. 'Everybody's doing it, so let's make it safe.' It's that kind of 'safety,' not Catholic teaching on sex and marriage, on purity and virtue, on Heaven and hell that kills. I have been scorned in some quarters before for saying it, but I'll say it again and again: 'Bad morality is bad medicine.' I have only heard that ridiculed, not disproved….. Good God! What are we doing to the young? They are crying for bread, and we're giving them stones. Who is killing them, not only physically, but morally and spiritually?" (WHAT ARE WE DOING TO THE YOUNG? John Cardinal O'Connor).

Pax Christi,

June 26-27, 2000
volume 11, no. 113
Pat Ludwa's VIEW FROM THE PEW

Return to Front Page of Current Issue