When devout secularists and devout Catholics agree...

…then it's time for everyone else to pay attention, because a point of great clarity has likely been reached.

A few examples of what I mean:

Embryonic Stem Cell Research and In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)

Years ago, I was listening to Ron Reagan, Jr. (avowed leftist and atheist) advocate on television for embryonic stem cell research. Young Ron was strongly in support of using "excess" human embryos from IVF labs for research material. He caught my full attention when he dismissed pro-lifers' objections to embryo research by noting with a smug chuckle: "Look, if pro-life Christians were really interested in the protection of human embryos, if they really thought those embryos were babies, they'd be against IVF as well. But they're not!"

That "gotcha" statement had me yelling speaking calmly to Ron through the TV: "Why, yes! You are right, Ron, that one cannot logically oppose the use of embryos for research and support IVF at the same time. The Catholic Church teaches that both embryonic stem cell research and IVF are immoral. Both violate the dignity of the smallest humans, and ultimately lead to their mass destruction. The Catholic Church is utterly consistent when it comes to the life issues." (Okay, I didn't use those exact words, but that's what I meant.)

Ron thought he was making a clever point. He was; he just didn't realize that the Church had been making that point for years. 

Contraception and Homosexual "Marriage"

In July 1997, Philip Lawler wrote an excellent article about homosexuality in The Catholic World Report, which I've saved to this day. In it, Lawler quotes homosexual activist Andrew Sullivan* from his book, Virtually Normal: 

The heterosexuality of marriage is intrinsic only if it is understood to be intrinsically procreative; but [with the acceptance of contraception] that definition has long ago been abandoned by Western society.

The response from Lawler, a faithful Catholic:

If Sullivan's premise is correct, then his logic is inexorable. If [sex] is robbed of its distinctive quality -- its fecundity -- then there is no rational explanation for a public policy that restricts that franchise to heterosexuals.

They are right. If a culture accepts the marriage act stripped of its essence and purpose, with willfully sterilized sex now the norm within marriage, then that culture will be hard pressed to find a philosophical leg to stand on when traditional marriage needs defending. Pro-contraception Christians are in a particularly hard spot.

The redefining of marriage began with society's acceptance of contraception, and both gay activists and the Catholic Church know it.

(Update April 2013: More secularists make the connection, here.)

Contraception and Abortion

Those who approve of contraception but are uncomfortable with abortion will deny the link between contraception and abortion all day long. But how then to explain the similarity of reasoning between the liberal, pro-abortion Supreme Court justices and the pro-life Pope in Rome? Though diametrically opposed on this issue, both sides "get it": There is a symbiotic relationship between contraception and abortion that cannot logically be denied.

Liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 1992 (emphases mine):

...for two decades of economic and social developments, [people] have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives...  

...In some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception.

Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (emphases mine):

But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree. It is true that in many cases contraception and even abortion are practised under the pressure of real-life difficulties, which nonetheless can never exonerate from striving to observe God's law fully. Still, in very many other instances such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfilment. The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception.

If opposing sides understand the connection, why is it hard for the "middle" to see?

Abortion and Infanticide

Atheist Peter Singer (a utilitarian and celebrated Princeton bioethicist) believes that most people are missing something important in the debates about human life and death. His logical mind agrees with the Catholic Church that "viability" and "birth" are utterly arbitrary designations when discussing the morality of abortion and infanticide:

[I]n discussing abortion, we saw that birth does not mark a morally significant dividing line. I cannot see how one could defend the view that fetuses may be 'replaced' before birth, but newborn infants may not be. Nor is there any other point, such as viability, that does a better job of dividing the fetus from the infant. Self-consciousness, which could provide a basis for holding that it is wrong to kill one being and replace it with another, is not to be found in either the fetus or the newborn infant. -- "Taking Life: Humans", from Practical Ethics, 1993.

Singer understands that abortion and infanticide are not morally different. "Viability" and birth itself are illusory lines drawn by abortion proponents to make themselves feel a moral distinction where there is none.

Of course, while Singer horrifically uses this truth to make the case for infanticide, the Church uses this same truth to call for the protection of all innocent human life, beginning at conception.

Pope John Paul II called the battle we face The Culture of Life vs. The Culture of Death, with lines clearly drawn. But those who deny the very existence of a culture war insist that the "truth" lies somewhere in the gray and shadowy middle, and that we can safely dismiss the two "extremes". I am grateful, therefore, for the refreshing clarity of Peter Singer when he spoke about his philosophical, spiritual, and cultural nemesis, Pope John Paul II:

"I sometimes think that he and I at least share the virtue of seeing clearly what is at stake."

May the rest of us have the grace to see it clearly, too.





*Sullivan identifies as Catholic, but he takes the position of the secular left when it comes to gay "marriage" and social issues. He has described himself as a "religious secularist" and a "dogged defender of…secularism."


.

The logical case for infanticide

So, by now I hope you have done your "homework" and have read the section of the article I directed you to. If not, go ahead and do that now. We will wait.  :)

Some sick stuff, isn't it? What Professor Peter Singer proposes should shock the consciences of decent people everywhere. After all, he advocates the right of parents to kill their children after birth:

Infants lack [characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness]. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. {Singer is referring to animals, which he believes to have more rights than infants.}

and

[K]illing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.

So here's the part that may surprise you (although a lot of you picked up on this, too): My overriding thought was that Singer’s argument is logical! Check it out:

[I]n discussing abortion, we saw that birth does not mark a morally significant dividing line. I cannot see how one could defend the view that fetuses may be 'replaced' before birth, but newborn infants may not be. Nor is there any other point, such as viability, that does a better job of dividing the fetus from the infant. Self-consciousness, which could provide a basis for holding that it is wrong to kill one being and replace it with another, is not to be found in either the fetus or the newborn infant. 

In other words, he is saying that if abortion is okay, then so is infanticide. It’s the only logical stance, and he’s right. He is showing us where moral relativism leads.

Singer is a consistent, honest liberal who understands the implications of his beliefs, even calling out other liberals who try to insist that infanticide is fundamentally different from abortion. Instead, he rightly argues that infanticide and abortion are not different in the least, and that birth is an arbitrary line drawn by abortion proponents to make themselves feel a distinction where there is none. 

It goes without saying that I do not agree with Singer's premise, and his beliefs repulse me. But his utilitarian, atheistic worldview is clearly stated. Remember how I’ve said that I prefer clarity to agreement? Well, Singer has -- with clarity -- shown us the worldview which stands in opposition to the Christian worldview. 

Liberals talk a lot about compassion and tolerance and love and acceptance, but when their philosophy is played out to its logical conclusion, it doesn’t look so pretty anymore. 

Despite his shocking views (or perhaps because of them), Singer is a darling of the academic left and has received heaps of accolades. However, your average American liberal (i.e. the nice guy next door, or the girl who does your hair) doesn’t have a clue where liberal thought ultimately leads. That is why I am grateful that Professor Singer lays it out and tells the truth.

And that is why I am honestly grateful to Gwen for doing the same. 

It’s so important to keep having the dialogue so people can make an educated choice about which worldview they will adopt. As Pope John Paul II said repeatedly, it is a battle between the Culture of Life and the Culture of Death. And we really do have to pick a side. Even Singer himself acknowledged this when he said of Pope John Paul II: "I sometimes think that he and I at least share the virtue of seeing clearly what is at stake."

Singer sees it, John Paul II saw it, and we need to see it, too. 

Do me a favor...

Click here. Don't worry, you don't have to read the whole thing. Scroll down to the section entitled "Life and Death Decisions for Disabled Infants" -- you'll find it right under the heading of Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia. Read the whole section. Take it in. It's important.


I want you to read it because soon I will be doing a commentary post on this man's thoughts, and I think a lot of things will come clear to you, as they did to me. You might actually be very surprised at what I am going to say. So consider this some "homework" if you will. It's important that we know this, that we teach ourselves, our husbands, our children, our nieces and nephews, our friends and even our clergy.


By the way, the man who wrote it, Peter Singer, is one of the "architects" of the Culture of Death. He is not some ranting, crazy freak that all reasonable people rightly shun. In fact, it's quite the opposite: Singer is a highly respected and sought-after academic, and even holds a bioethics chair at Princeton University, among other high distinctions.


Hat tip to Monica for the link to the article. I had always known Singer held unconscionable views, but to actually read his own words is a shock to the system.