home > archive > 2009 > this article

There is reason, and then there is Truth

By Alisa Craddock
web posted March 23, 2009

A few years ago I was taking a trip with a bunch of Christian students, some Catholic, some Protestant, to a monastery for an extended weekend retreat.  I ended up riding with the Lutheran campus minister (a feminist), and the Protestant youth, in their van.  During the drive, the conversation eventually got around to abortion, which this minister favored.  She talked about compassion for young women who were faced with pregnancy and having their lives ruined, or the poverty they would be subject to, the dreadful situation for the children who would grow up unloved and unwanted—the usual tired arguments of the Left.  I finally said, "Last time I looked, fornication was still a sin."

Silence….(end of conversation).

You see, everyone clucks their tongues and shakes their heads that 40% of this nation's children are now born out of wedlock, but when it comes to the solution to this problem, no one seems willing to discuss the real issue—irresponsible sexual behavior.  Fornication.   It is much easier to say, "Well, they need more sex education.  They need to start teaching it earlier. We need to teach them about the use of condoms and birth control pills, and IUDs (or IUC's I think they're called now).  They need to learn how to protect themselves from pregnancy, these 3rd graders, so they can explore their sexuality in the security of knowing they won't have to bear the consequences.  They shouldn't be taught abstinence only because, well, they're just going to do it anyway, and if we don't arm them with the proper knowledge, it will just make the problem worse.

Would it ever occur to these characters that their sex education is what created the problem in the first place?  Actually, it would, at least to some of them.  There are those who genuinely, naively believe that sex education is the answer.  But among their leadership, and among those who actually examine the evidence, a more truthful picture emerges—on the one side, promoting a disturbing agenda, on the other, exposing it for the evil that it is.

To an uncritical mind, the Left's position is sound, it is logical.  Without instruction in contraception, more pregnancies would result, and more unwed births would occur, or more abortions would occur.  We need the sex education and the encouragement in the use of contraceptives, or so the argument goes, to prevent a worse situation than what we already have.

But is that a realistic assessment of the problem?  You see, when contraception is encouraged, fornication follows automatically because sexual opportunity is increased, and the number of "accidents" is increased.  When there is no longer any stigma attached to irresponsible sexual behavior and its consequences, and the conscience has been sufficiently dulled, there is no reason not to do it, since you have "eliminated" the "negative" consequences, ie pregnancy.  Hence, the silence when I mentioned that fornication is still a sin.  People still want to have their cake (salvation) and eat it too (sex). 

The problem with the proliferation of unwed pregnancies and the problem with the spread of AIDS are linked, and the arguments against encouraging condom use in the latter are illustrative of the arguments against encouraging contraceptive use in the other.  Last week, Pope Benedict on his way to AIDS-ravaged Africa, was asked (not surprisingly) about the Catholic Church's position on fighting AIDS.  He said, "One cannot overcome the problem with the distribution of condoms.  On the contrary, they increase the problem."

Of course, I suspect these people only ask so they can act out their feigned outrage over the backward, unprogressive, and inhumane attitude of the Catholic male hierarchy.  As one editorial in the Washington Post says, "In a perfect world, people would abstain from having sex until they were married or would be monogamous in committed relationships. But the world isn't perfect -- and neither is Pope Benedict's pronouncement on the effectiveness of condoms in the battle against HIV/AIDS."

But, as Edward C. Green, who is the Director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies wrote, and the Catholic League reiterated last week:

"In every African country in which HIV infections declined, this decline has been associated with a decrease in the proportion of men and women reporting more than one sex partner over the course of a year—which is exactly what fidelity programs promote."

 As for condom use, Green said:

"Many countries that have not seen declines in HIV have seen increases in condom use, but in every country worldwide in which HIV has declined there have been increases in levels of faithfulness and usually abstinence as well."

Mr. Green also pointed out that in New York City, where tens of millions of condoms have been given away at the behest of the Bloomberg administration, the HIV rate has climbed to three times the national average.  In addition, the homosexual community make up 70% of the HIV cases in this country, despite the fact that millions of dollars have been spent by that community promoting "safe sex" and a free-flowing supply of condoms.  

The obvious implication is that the false sense of security that condoms provide increases the behavior (sexual opportunity) that leads to the increase in AIDS infection.   If that is true of AIDS, it is also true of pregnancy.   The fallacy in the pro-contraceptive position is the assertion (implied or otherwise) that it is not possible to persuade (heterosexual) people to abstain from irresponsible sexual activity.  The case of Uganda and other African nations, which saw a sharp decline in AIDS infection after instituting campaigns to promote marital fidelity and pre-marital abstinence, proves that the pro-condom argument is based on a false premise.  The numbers don't lie.  It is reasonable to apply that same argument against promoting contraception instead of abstinence to prevent pregnancy.

Now, that may seem like a backdoor argument to these people, but they have their own backdoor argument to defend, and their numbers don't lie, either.  All efforts of the UN and its organs to promote condoms and contraception, and abortion are, of course, part of their population control agenda.  It has been amply demonstrated that population reduction is the ultimate goal of these organizations.  So, if they promote condom use to combat AIDS, and the numbers clearly show that promotion and availability of condoms does not stop the spread of AIDS, indeed, appears to indirectly or directly cause its increase, could it not be construed that the real agenda is death—death for millions of those "useless eaters" who contribute nothing to the world's infrastructure or economy, but consume vast amounts of resources?   Let them fornicate themselves into an early grave! AIDS will solve the population problem for us.  If this were not the agenda, would they not give food freely to those in need, rather than placing upon the starving, the condition that in order to receive food and medicine, they must accept "reproductive health services"?  (That means abortion and contraception, if you're not familiar with the lingo.) 

Until we again recognize the necessity of intact, healthy, loving families to the wellbeing of civilization, and the dignity and worth of each human being, created in the image and likeness of God, until we stop thumbing our noses at the God who made us, and His perfect law, nothing will change for us.  We will continue sliding toward our own destruction.  I no longer wish to make practical arguments to persuade those who do not believe Christ has a place in the governments of men.  In the absence of God, anything grotesque can be made to seem reasonable.  But the consequences of such "reason" are unfolding before us in the hardening and corruption of our collective soul.  Can we not see the similarity in the case of the secular arguments for contraception, falling before the spiritual proofs of their failure, in the whole argument of secular culture versus a culture built upon spiritual truth?  The consequences of "sin" will happen.  It is inevitable, and there are no social engineering programs, no manmade social solutions that will fix the consequences of defying the law of God.  Our civilization will not survive unless it is built upon the solid foundation of divine Truth, which is Faith, Life and Love, not death, despair and dominance.  For, as the Psalm says, "The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul." (Psalm 19:7).   

All the evil in the world comes from disobedience to God, to Christ.  I have never been able to conceive of any evil (including those evils perpetrated by members of my own Church) that cannot be traced to violation of some command of God.  All the problems of this world could be solved by repenting of this conceit that we can create a utopia apart from Him, and conforming ourselves to His law.  For indeed, His law is perfect, refreshing the soul.  May this world find its way Home before it is too late. ESR

Alisa Craddock is a columnist and activist in the culture war, a convert to Catholicism, and describes herself as a Christian Libertarian.  She may be contacted at alisa.craddock@hushmail.com.


Send a link to this page!





Site Map

E-mail ESR


? 1996-2023, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.