The Differences the Pill Has Made
March 28, 2012
George Weigel
Mary Eberstadt is my friend, but I’ll risk charges of special pleading and self-plagiarism by quoting my endorsement on the dust jacket of her new book, Adam and Eve after the Pill (Ignatius Press): “Mary Eberstadt is our premier analyst of American cultural foibles and follies, with a keen eye for oddities that illuminate just how strange the country’s moral culture has become.” That strangeness is on full display in the ongoing controversy over the HHS-“contraceptive mandate”—an exercise in raw governmental coercion depicted by much of the mainstream media (and, alas, by too many Catholics on the port side of the barque of Peter) as a battle between Enlightened Sexual Liberation and The Antediluvian Catholic Church. Anyone who thinks of this battle in those terms should spend a few evenings reading Adam and Eve after the Pill.
As the talismanic year 2000 approached, and like virtually every other talking head and scribe in the world, I was asked what I thought the history-changing scientific discoveries of the 20th-century had been. And like the rest of the commentariat, I answered, “splitting the atom (which unleashed atomic energy for good or ill) and unraveling the DNA double-helix (which launched the new genetics and the new biotechnology).” Today, after a decade of pondering why the West is committing slow-motion demographic suicide through self-induced infertility, I would add a third answer: the invention of the oral contraceptive, “the Pill.”
With insight, verve and compassion, Adam and Eve after the Pill explores the results of what Mary Eberstadt bluntly describes as the “optional and intentional sterility in women” the Pill has made possible for three generations. A careful analysis of empirical studies, plus a close reading of literary sources, leads Eberstadt to conclude that the “human fallout of our post-Pill world” has been severe. How? “First, and contrary to conventional depiction, the sexual revolution [which the Pill made possible] has proved a disaster for many men and women; and second, its weight has fallen heaviest on the smallest and weakest shoulders in society—even as it has given extra strength to those already strongest and most predatory.”
Elite culture has been in comprehensive denial about this fallout, argues Eberstadt—a claim reinforced in February by the lynch mob that attacked the Susan G. Komen foundation for daring to hold Planned Parenthood to account for monies Komen had donated to PP (chief guardian of the flame of the sexual revolution) and which PP had misused. Such public quarrels, however, touch the surface of the cultural implosion that followed widespread use of the Pill. Weaving her way through the social sciences and literature with equal dexterity, Mary Eberstadt digs deeper and describes the human costs of the sexual revolution: the “pervasive themes of anger and loss that underlie much of today’s writing on romance;” the “new and problematic phase of prolonged adolescence through which many men now go”; the social and personal psychological harm caused by the availability of pornography on a historically unprecedented scale; the “assault unleashed from the 1960s onward on the taboo against sexual seduction or exploitation of the young”; and the “feral rates of date rapes, hookups and binge drinking now documented on many campuses” (the direct result of a sexual revolution that has “empowered and largely exonerated predatory men as never before”).
Adam and Eve after the Pill also explores the cultural weirdness that has followed the Pill’s inversion of classic western and Judeo-Christian values; in a particularly insightful chapter, Eberstadt analyzes the food taboos that have replaced discarded sexual taboos. The book ends with a telling, if ironic, judgment on the long-term impact of the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae: “one of the most reviled documents of modern times, the Catholic Church’s reiteration of traditional Christian moral teaching, would also turn out to be the most prophetic in its understanding of the nature of the changes that the [sexual] revolution would ring in.”
Contrary to what you read in the papers, the “birth control debate” isn’t over. It’s just beginning.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
RESOURCES
Mary Eberstadt, Adam and Eve After the Pill: Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
3.28.2012 | 8:30am
bill bannon says:
The sexual revolution and divorce come from many contributing springs. The pill should get less attention than the affluence of masses of ordinary people (it takes affluence to split up) since coitus interruptus was widespread in 19th century Europe but did not lead to couples splitting up because few were affluent. Hence I quote the French Jesuit Theologian John Gury writing in 1850: " In our days, the horrid plague of onanism has flourished everywhere". So they had widespread contraception then and it did not lead to one night stands or divorce because those things go with affluence. But affluence is not mentioned by Catholic writers because
it is de rigueur for them to praise the prophetic nature of Paul VI. How come he didn't predict the failure of reception of Humanae Vitae? In fact he predicted reasonable non Catholics would also accept its reasoning; that has happened but I'd hate to see the actual raw numbers relative to those who didn't accept it.
The Church has been complicit in the divorce rate aside from the pill because the
last time I looked, annullments require a secular divorce and the Church has given a lot of annullments since the pill but somehow Catholic writers are missing that because the mantra is: the pill only as reason so that Paul VI is prophetic.
Pius XI demanded, as do 6 New Testament scriptures, that wives obey husbands
in section 74 of Casti Connubii in 1930:
74. "The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal..."
Well, Vatican II which has many words about obeying Bishops (Lumen Gentium 22 says hearing them is hearing Christ)...that Council has zero words about wives obeying husbands even in the sections on the family despite the idea being in scripture arguably 5 more times than contraception is even mentioned if one follows Augustine on Onan. Then John Paul II came along and saw the mutual spousal submission of Ephesians overcoming the wife only submission of 5 other passages
(TOB#89 and Mulieris Dignitatem VI/24) and voila...the catechism then was silent
on the issue because the catechism writers involved knew John Paul II was askew on this but no one could tell him so that the catechism, the "sure guide to the faith" has nothing on wives obeying as neither did Vatican II....but we're to believe that the Church not backing any order of jurisdiction in marriage (that the Holy Spirit repeated 6 times in the NT) is having no effect on the divorce rate and that it's all
the pill. How convenient for Rome and its flatterers.
it is de rigueur for them to praise the prophetic nature of Paul VI. How come he didn't predict the failure of reception of Humanae Vitae? In fact he predicted reasonable non Catholics would also accept its reasoning; that has happened but I'd hate to see the actual raw numbers relative to those who didn't accept it.
The Church has been complicit in the divorce rate aside from the pill because the
last time I looked, annullments require a secular divorce and the Church has given a lot of annullments since the pill but somehow Catholic writers are missing that because the mantra is: the pill only as reason so that Paul VI is prophetic.
Pius XI demanded, as do 6 New Testament scriptures, that wives obey husbands
in section 74 of Casti Connubii in 1930:
74. "The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal..."
Well, Vatican II which has many words about obeying Bishops (Lumen Gentium 22 says hearing them is hearing Christ)...that Council has zero words about wives obeying husbands even in the sections on the family despite the idea being in scripture arguably 5 more times than contraception is even mentioned if one follows Augustine on Onan. Then John Paul II came along and saw the mutual spousal submission of Ephesians overcoming the wife only submission of 5 other passages
(TOB#89 and Mulieris Dignitatem VI/24) and voila...the catechism then was silent
on the issue because the catechism writers involved knew John Paul II was askew on this but no one could tell him so that the catechism, the "sure guide to the faith" has nothing on wives obeying as neither did Vatican II....but we're to believe that the Church not backing any order of jurisdiction in marriage (that the Holy Spirit repeated 6 times in the NT) is having no effect on the divorce rate and that it's all
the pill. How convenient for Rome and its flatterers.
3.28.2012 | 9:19am
MacGabhann says:
Well excuse me, but when it comes to actual examples of the "human cost" (is there any other type?) it all sounds rather lame.
1) The “pervasive themes of anger and loss that underlie much of today’s writing on romance." Oh yes?
2) The “new and problematic phase of prolonged adolescence through which many men now go." They do? But perhaps having to compete with newly empowered (and guess how) women in the career marketplace takes a generation or two of adjustment.
3) The "social and personal psychological harm caused by the availability of pornography on a historically unprecedented scale." What does contraception have to do with this that technology hasn't? Do proportionately more men masturbate now than use to?
4) The “assault unleashed from the 1960s onward on the taboo against sexual seduction or exploitation of the young." My goodness, a reading in the social history of working class, 19th century Britain or early 20th century Ireland would reveal a lot about the sexual exploitation of the young.
5) The “feral rates of date rapes, hookups and binge drinking now documented on many campuses." Then again, there are a lot more women on campuses now thanks to you know what. Providing the condition of possibility through means is not the same as providing cause, Mr. Weigel.
1) The “pervasive themes of anger and loss that underlie much of today’s writing on romance." Oh yes?
2) The “new and problematic phase of prolonged adolescence through which many men now go." They do? But perhaps having to compete with newly empowered (and guess how) women in the career marketplace takes a generation or two of adjustment.
3) The "social and personal psychological harm caused by the availability of pornography on a historically unprecedented scale." What does contraception have to do with this that technology hasn't? Do proportionately more men masturbate now than use to?
4) The “assault unleashed from the 1960s onward on the taboo against sexual seduction or exploitation of the young." My goodness, a reading in the social history of working class, 19th century Britain or early 20th century Ireland would reveal a lot about the sexual exploitation of the young.
5) The “feral rates of date rapes, hookups and binge drinking now documented on many campuses." Then again, there are a lot more women on campuses now thanks to you know what. Providing the condition of possibility through means is not the same as providing cause, Mr. Weigel.
3.28.2012 | 10:03am
patricksarsfield says:
Bill Bannon argues:
"The Church has been complicit in the divorce rate aside from the pill because the
last time I looked, annullments require a secular divorce and the Church has given a lot of annullments since the pill but somehow Catholic writers are missing that because the mantra is: the pill only as reason so that Paul VI is prophetic."
First, annulments require a lot more than civil divorces.
More importantly, annulments are a drop in the bucket next to the number of divorces that go on in this country. Divorces per year number in the millions.
I do not know the current level of annulments, but it is my understanding that the numbers are down since the Vatican began to question the numbers of annulments being granted, particularly in the USA. It is my understanding that the highest annual number of annulments granted before that questioning was 78,000 in the Worldwide Catholic Church. [NOTE: That 78000 figure is from memory. I no longer have access to the Divorce-Annulment statistics file I maintained in the past because I transferred my Windows XP files to my current Windows 7 computer, and it no doesn't recognize the .rtx file type]. In all events, the number of annulments was far lower albeit too high and the Church stepped in when the rate seemed too high given its prior experience. So the Church wasn't complicit even if some too lenient American canon law judges were.
"The Church has been complicit in the divorce rate aside from the pill because the
last time I looked, annullments require a secular divorce and the Church has given a lot of annullments since the pill but somehow Catholic writers are missing that because the mantra is: the pill only as reason so that Paul VI is prophetic."
First, annulments require a lot more than civil divorces.
More importantly, annulments are a drop in the bucket next to the number of divorces that go on in this country. Divorces per year number in the millions.
I do not know the current level of annulments, but it is my understanding that the numbers are down since the Vatican began to question the numbers of annulments being granted, particularly in the USA. It is my understanding that the highest annual number of annulments granted before that questioning was 78,000 in the Worldwide Catholic Church. [NOTE: That 78000 figure is from memory. I no longer have access to the Divorce-Annulment statistics file I maintained in the past because I transferred my Windows XP files to my current Windows 7 computer, and it no doesn't recognize the .rtx file type]. In all events, the number of annulments was far lower albeit too high and the Church stepped in when the rate seemed too high given its prior experience. So the Church wasn't complicit even if some too lenient American canon law judges were.
3.28.2012 | 10:26am
bill bannon says:
patricksarsfield,
Sorry, if we're going to go by your "understanding" and "memory" because your figures are gone then we don't really know if annullments have dropped at all do we?
Sorry, if we're going to go by your "understanding" and "memory" because your figures are gone then we don't really know if annullments have dropped at all do we?
3.28.2012 | 11:20am
David Nickol says:
Weigel says: ". . . . daring to hold Planned Parenthood to account for monies Komen had donated to PP (chief guardian of the flame of the sexual revolution) and which PP had misused."
The assertion that Planned Parenthood misused funds from Komen is simply not factual, and was denied by Komen spokespeople:
*****
Officials from the Komen Foundation could not be reached for comment. But in an earlier interview with the Associated Press, Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun said that the decision was based solely on the Stearns investigation and did not imply wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/01/health/la-he-planned-parenthood-komen-20120201
*****
Stearns was looking into whether Planned Parenthood used government funds to finance abortion. His investigation had nothing to do with the use of Komen Foundation funds by Planned Parenthood.
If the Komen Foundation did not want to provide money for breast cancer screening to organizations that perform abortion, they should have been honest enough to say so rather than using the Stearns investigation as a pretext for dropping their funding of Planned Parenthood.
The assertion that Planned Parenthood misused funds from Komen is simply not factual, and was denied by Komen spokespeople:
*****
Officials from the Komen Foundation could not be reached for comment. But in an earlier interview with the Associated Press, Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun said that the decision was based solely on the Stearns investigation and did not imply wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/01/health/la-he-planned-parenthood-komen-20120201
*****
Stearns was looking into whether Planned Parenthood used government funds to finance abortion. His investigation had nothing to do with the use of Komen Foundation funds by Planned Parenthood.
If the Komen Foundation did not want to provide money for breast cancer screening to organizations that perform abortion, they should have been honest enough to say so rather than using the Stearns investigation as a pretext for dropping their funding of Planned Parenthood.
3.28.2012 | 12:09pm
John Hinshaw says:
Thankfully, us readers of First Things have the comments section to help "clarify" the "mistakes" of the original writers. Thanks to the commenters today, I can happily go about my day dealing with children of divorce deeply in the hold of addictions. I can explain to my clients who do not know who their father is, that this is of no significance. After all, this has always gone on in human history, so they should stop whining. And, you know, now that I think of it, my wife's enthusiasm for children is so old school and restricting of my potential that perhaps I should take some liberating action. Nope, I see now , thanks to these commenters, there is no problem with our society.
3.28.2012 | 1:22pm
Nelson says:
The "pill" is a singular example of the misuse and abuse of science that has exploded in the past 50 years. The liberal elite culture contends that scientific advancements are being used to "better the human condition" and conservatives or evangelical Christians or Roman Catholics with traditional views are heartless and cruel and uncaring. But collectively, we aren't using science - physical or social - to improve the human condition, we are using it to improve human pursuit of selfishness. As a practicing Roman Catholic educated within the Church, albeit with relatively limited knowledge of Church philosophy, my basic understanding of the core of the Church's teaching is "turn away from yourself and turn to God." This is what separates us from all of the remainder of God's creation, and why man is His greatest creation. But turning to God means sacrifice, sacrifice for family, sacrifice for neighbors, sacrifice for people we don't know who need our help now, all starting with sacrifice for God. With every passing year, every new achievement, we turn further in on ourselves - to increasing our pleasure, increasing our "fulfillment", improving our looks, our financial position, our home, our life. The "pill" isn't the cause, just another touchstone on that journey, granted a very important one.
3.28.2012 | 1:48pm
Charles R. Williams says:
Abusus non tollit usum, as they say. Certainly contraceptives have been abused with horrific consequences. This doesn't address the question of whether contraceptives have a legitimate use in marriage. Pope Paul 6's opinions about the consequences of contraceptive availability for society are one thing and his reiteration of the traditional catholic case against any legitimate use in marriage is something else. A teaching that catholic couples have to take seriously.
For various reasons, Humanae Vitae has not been directly relevant to my own situation so I have never given it close study. I do not find the argument persuasive but it doesn't have to be persuasive to be binding on the catholic conscience.
I think many couples would say that contraception has been a blessing to their marriages. Just as the negative consequences of abuse don't make it wrong, these "blessings" don't make it right either.
For various reasons, Humanae Vitae has not been directly relevant to my own situation so I have never given it close study. I do not find the argument persuasive but it doesn't have to be persuasive to be binding on the catholic conscience.
I think many couples would say that contraception has been a blessing to their marriages. Just as the negative consequences of abuse don't make it wrong, these "blessings" don't make it right either.
3.28.2012 | 1:52pm
Thomas Murray says:
Some thoughts:
CARA Report statistics on Mass attendance by marital status offer evidence that religious commitment is lower among interfaith marriages. Only 10% of those remarried to a non-Catholic attend Mass weekly, compared with 36% remarried to a Catholic. By that measure, annulments that allow divorced Catholics to remarry in the Church could be said to have a beneficial effect in that they may help retain Catholics who otherwise might drift away from the Church. Additionally, while divorced (but un-remarried) Catholics attend Mass at nearly the same rate as married Catholics, remarried Catholics attend Mass as a rate 25% less. Again, it could be argued that annulment could be a tool to help keep a larger proportion pf this population in the Church. In a competitive religious environment such as we have in the US, annulments can keep the door open to Catholic couples that might otherwise be closed to them. Or are we so pure that we would no longer want them in our Church? I think not.
Regarding the statement "Then again, there are a lot more women on campuses now thanks to you know what. Providing the condition of possibility through means is not the same as providing cause, Mr. Weigel." I don't know what was meant by "thanks to you know what", but here is some historical perspective. The number of male-to-female undergraduates was about at parity from 1900 to 1930. The highpoint of gender imbalance in college attendance was reached in 1947, after the return of men from World War II then eligible for educational subsidies through the GI bills, when undergraduate men outnumbered women 2.3 to 1. Women's relative numbers in college have increased ever since the 1950s, with a pause when many men went to college to avoid serving in the Vietnam War. Parity was again reached around 1980, and the percentage of women has continued to rise since that time.
Regarding the "misuse" of Komen funds by PP: PP does not perform mamograms and Komen (rightly) concluded that sending funds to those who actually perform these "life-savings procedures" would be a better investment than sending them to those who only do referrals. That being said, the resulting uproar over the loss of a minor source of PP's funding speaks volumes about the hijacking of women's health issues by the abortion lobby. Given the political/cultural environment, it is not surprising that Komen did not follow the the suggestion "If the Komen Foundation did not want to provide money for breast cancer screening to organizations that perform abortion, they should have been honest enough to say so rather than using the Stearns investigation as a pretext for dropping their funding of Planned Parenthood."
CARA Report statistics on Mass attendance by marital status offer evidence that religious commitment is lower among interfaith marriages. Only 10% of those remarried to a non-Catholic attend Mass weekly, compared with 36% remarried to a Catholic. By that measure, annulments that allow divorced Catholics to remarry in the Church could be said to have a beneficial effect in that they may help retain Catholics who otherwise might drift away from the Church. Additionally, while divorced (but un-remarried) Catholics attend Mass at nearly the same rate as married Catholics, remarried Catholics attend Mass as a rate 25% less. Again, it could be argued that annulment could be a tool to help keep a larger proportion pf this population in the Church. In a competitive religious environment such as we have in the US, annulments can keep the door open to Catholic couples that might otherwise be closed to them. Or are we so pure that we would no longer want them in our Church? I think not.
Regarding the statement "Then again, there are a lot more women on campuses now thanks to you know what. Providing the condition of possibility through means is not the same as providing cause, Mr. Weigel." I don't know what was meant by "thanks to you know what", but here is some historical perspective. The number of male-to-female undergraduates was about at parity from 1900 to 1930. The highpoint of gender imbalance in college attendance was reached in 1947, after the return of men from World War II then eligible for educational subsidies through the GI bills, when undergraduate men outnumbered women 2.3 to 1. Women's relative numbers in college have increased ever since the 1950s, with a pause when many men went to college to avoid serving in the Vietnam War. Parity was again reached around 1980, and the percentage of women has continued to rise since that time.
Regarding the "misuse" of Komen funds by PP: PP does not perform mamograms and Komen (rightly) concluded that sending funds to those who actually perform these "life-savings procedures" would be a better investment than sending them to those who only do referrals. That being said, the resulting uproar over the loss of a minor source of PP's funding speaks volumes about the hijacking of women's health issues by the abortion lobby. Given the political/cultural environment, it is not surprising that Komen did not follow the the suggestion "If the Komen Foundation did not want to provide money for breast cancer screening to organizations that perform abortion, they should have been honest enough to say so rather than using the Stearns investigation as a pretext for dropping their funding of Planned Parenthood."
3.28.2012 | 1:57pm
TGWWS says:
bill bannon,
It sounds like you're saying Rome/the Catholic Church is at partially at fault for the negative social phenomena collectively referred to as "the sexual revolution" because the Church didn't criticize certain contraceptive practices early or loudly enough, has made annulments too easy, and has done away with the notion of wifely submission in marriage. Is that what you're saying, or am I misreading you?
It sounds like you're saying Rome/the Catholic Church is at partially at fault for the negative social phenomena collectively referred to as "the sexual revolution" because the Church didn't criticize certain contraceptive practices early or loudly enough, has made annulments too easy, and has done away with the notion of wifely submission in marriage. Is that what you're saying, or am I misreading you?
3.28.2012 | 2:06pm
Brian LeCompte says:
MacGabhann,
The Pill has enabled the "availability of pornography," and its more broadly accepted cousin, sex before marriage, by taking away personal responsibility for sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Perhaps Dr. Weigel didn't mean it this way, but the Pill actually enables the production of pornography for the same reason.
The Pill didn't change human nature, however, and I agree with you that it doesn't cause a single act of unchastity or fornication. It helped reduce the consequences of those actions. It provides an occassion of sin. More than one young woman striving to maintain her virginity before marriage has gone off the Pill as an incentive.
The Pill has enabled the "availability of pornography," and its more broadly accepted cousin, sex before marriage, by taking away personal responsibility for sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Perhaps Dr. Weigel didn't mean it this way, but the Pill actually enables the production of pornography for the same reason.
The Pill didn't change human nature, however, and I agree with you that it doesn't cause a single act of unchastity or fornication. It helped reduce the consequences of those actions. It provides an occassion of sin. More than one young woman striving to maintain her virginity before marriage has gone off the Pill as an incentive.
3.28.2012 | 2:06pm
Jacob says:
...Also, I forgot, I actually left a few comments on Mary Eberstadt's recent article on the WSJ; whole pack of RINOs stampedes through her comment section every time she threatens them with logic!
3.28.2012 | 2:08pm
Jacob says:
Sorry...is it a pack of RINOs or a herd of RINOs? Ohhh, yes! It's a crash of RINOs! Silly me! Obviously that's how you would describe Wall St. types!
(GOTEM!)
(GOTEM!)
3.28.2012 | 2:52pm
Mary Anne says:
While I have great respect for Dr. Weigel and his views, I have to agree with many of the comments that "the Pill" does not bear, or at least cannot be proved to bear, the entire brunt of the problems he addresses. There is a profound division in our society between those who believe in a transcendent, personal God who reveals himself and those who, even if they believe in a God of some sort, or consider themselves "spiritual", do not. If humankind is indeed the measure of everything and the only source of wisdom and knowledge, then we must do the best with what we can figure out. We can try to figure out such things as what makes more people happy than unhappy, what saves more lives than causes deaths, what seems to advance human flourishing in a majority of cases and other essentially pragmatic calculations. Sometimes, the law of unintended consequences means that our intentions do not work out perfectly; however, even there, history is made up of so many factors and influences, we can always argue that the unfortunate result was caused by something else, would have happened anyway, or isn't happening at all. On the other side of the divide, those who accept transcendence and revelation commit themselves to obedience even when the reasons seem unclear; even if the outcomes do not seem to be wholly positive in this life. Unfortunately, the desire to prove that we (I count myself in this group as a Catholic) are not only "right" on the big questions but "right" as to how human happiness is impacted by moral conclusions stemming from our belief in transcendence seems often to cause us to engage in quite futile debates. Has the Pill resulted in the infantilization of men? Or have a myriad of social factors done so? Or is it indeed any worse than it ever was before we counted, studied, and argued? No one can answer this question or any question like it without first addressing the underlying assumption: Does revelation count or doesn't it? Perhaps we should learn to address ourselves more to this great divide, and in particular, to trying to understand and respect the effect that it has on our varying interpretations of life, happiness, goodness and morality. If we did, perhaps we would not adopt the somewhat acerbic and dismissive attitudes that often pervade these debates.
3.28.2012 | 3:32pm
Mike Melendez says:
A comment on Komen's decision. They may have been prompted by the Stearn's investigation while following their own bylaws. (I guess they forget that Republican inspired investigations are not really investigations.) But they may also have been concerned that they were giving money to PP for a service not fully provided. PP would conduct a breast exam and then refer for a mammogram. Komen may have decided that it would be better to fund the mammogram providers. I've heard both. My conclusion was that they were trying hard not to be political contra the claims of PP and its supporters.
I still don't get Bill Bannon. Does he think divorce rates did not climb precipitously starting in the 1960s? Does he think the Church caused that? Does he think the current rate is a good thing? Is he not concerned with pornography being more protected by the First Amendment than religion is? Does he think pornography has no ill effects? Is he happy with the out-of-wedlock birthrate? Or does he only know that people who disagree with him are wrong?
I still don't get Bill Bannon. Does he think divorce rates did not climb precipitously starting in the 1960s? Does he think the Church caused that? Does he think the current rate is a good thing? Is he not concerned with pornography being more protected by the First Amendment than religion is? Does he think pornography has no ill effects? Is he happy with the out-of-wedlock birthrate? Or does he only know that people who disagree with him are wrong?
3.28.2012 | 4:06pm
bill bannon says:
TGWWS
My view is that professional Catholic writers are incapable of what Piaget called...decentering...seeing multiple aspects of a problem. No fault divorce and two or more TV's per house and little fasting, alms and mutual prayer: has more to do with divorce than the pill or we would have seen Catholics splitting up when coitus interruptus was widespread in 1850 as per Gury's quote. The US Church makes use of no fault divorce in many annullment cases and those divorces are lumped in with the divorce stats that were supposed to be due to the pill. It's HV sociology run amuck. And yes, the Magisterium is causing part of the divorce syndrome by abdicating a mandate that the Holy Spirit repeated 6 times in the NT: wifely obedience. If I were a paid Catholic writer and said that, I'd be broke in several years for not keeping things within the Humanae Vitae explanation. Catholic writing then becomes repetitive beyond reason. The above essay by Weigel is one of a hundred identical essays throughout blogs, comboxes, Catholic press all with the pill explanation for divorce etc. despite coitus interruptus being widespread in the 19th century and having no such effects. We're obsessed with sex and so other issues like no fault divorce, wifely obedience, affluence, mobility of the car, multiple tv's dividing people, little fasting or alms...none of these things mean a thing because the goal is to prove Humanae Vitae prophetic and the sexual act as everything in life. Oy. Paul VI should have spent another year studying the area so that he could have done an ex cathedra encyclical on it. His generation and younger at that time of HV (1968) because of the Assumption encyclical of 1950, were all taught that ex cathedra was the cat's meow of encyclicals. When he avoided that ex cathedra venue in HV to that Assumption generation audience and his HV was announced at its press conference twice by Monseignor Lambrushini as
non infallible, there was an anti climatic thud stretching from Europe to California.
You can still hear it. People puzzled over a non existential topic, the Assumption, being given more papal effort and dogmatic status than a very existential topic..sex... for the inaccurate rythmn method people of 1968 many with large families in no time by using that method.
My view is that professional Catholic writers are incapable of what Piaget called...decentering...seeing multiple aspects of a problem. No fault divorce and two or more TV's per house and little fasting, alms and mutual prayer: has more to do with divorce than the pill or we would have seen Catholics splitting up when coitus interruptus was widespread in 1850 as per Gury's quote. The US Church makes use of no fault divorce in many annullment cases and those divorces are lumped in with the divorce stats that were supposed to be due to the pill. It's HV sociology run amuck. And yes, the Magisterium is causing part of the divorce syndrome by abdicating a mandate that the Holy Spirit repeated 6 times in the NT: wifely obedience. If I were a paid Catholic writer and said that, I'd be broke in several years for not keeping things within the Humanae Vitae explanation. Catholic writing then becomes repetitive beyond reason. The above essay by Weigel is one of a hundred identical essays throughout blogs, comboxes, Catholic press all with the pill explanation for divorce etc. despite coitus interruptus being widespread in the 19th century and having no such effects. We're obsessed with sex and so other issues like no fault divorce, wifely obedience, affluence, mobility of the car, multiple tv's dividing people, little fasting or alms...none of these things mean a thing because the goal is to prove Humanae Vitae prophetic and the sexual act as everything in life. Oy. Paul VI should have spent another year studying the area so that he could have done an ex cathedra encyclical on it. His generation and younger at that time of HV (1968) because of the Assumption encyclical of 1950, were all taught that ex cathedra was the cat's meow of encyclicals. When he avoided that ex cathedra venue in HV to that Assumption generation audience and his HV was announced at its press conference twice by Monseignor Lambrushini as
non infallible, there was an anti climatic thud stretching from Europe to California.
You can still hear it. People puzzled over a non existential topic, the Assumption, being given more papal effort and dogmatic status than a very existential topic..sex... for the inaccurate rythmn method people of 1968 many with large families in no time by using that method.
3.28.2012 | 4:58pm
bill bannon says:
Thomas Murray,
I should have been clearer. Annulment in principle is a real and necessary good.
It's misuse is bad but either way, it raises divorce stats which then lump into those divorces allegedly due to the pill when in fact they may be due to e.g. a psychosis that only surfaces after marriage but was always there.
Pope Benedict found in Australia that some marriages were annulled because the male was too attached to his mother. But there are real and very heartbreaking cases that must go through.
Aquinas: virtue does the act that is due. And at times, annulment is due.
I should have been clearer. Annulment in principle is a real and necessary good.
It's misuse is bad but either way, it raises divorce stats which then lump into those divorces allegedly due to the pill when in fact they may be due to e.g. a psychosis that only surfaces after marriage but was always there.
Pope Benedict found in Australia that some marriages were annulled because the male was too attached to his mother. But there are real and very heartbreaking cases that must go through.
Aquinas: virtue does the act that is due. And at times, annulment is due.
3.28.2012 | 5:24pm
TGWWS says:
@ bill bannon,
OK, color me dubious then with regard to your complaint. I do see what you see: that many Catholic writers are focusing on the Pill as the Problem. I don't think most Catholic writers are incapable of seeing other aspects of the problem; they just happen to hold that the Pill is MORE significant than the subsidiary issues (and I generally agree with their perspective in this regard). I also can't for the life of me see what ideas of wifely obedience pre- versus post-Vatican II have to do with the our societal problems today, or how affluence makes morals worse. (Seen Charles Murray's new book on Belmont and Fishtown?)
@ Mary Ann,
I was with you until this:
"Has the Pill resulted in the infantilization of men? Or have a myriad of social factors done so? Or is it indeed any worse than it ever was before we counted, studied, and argued? No one can answer this question or any question like it without first addressing the underlying assumption: Does revelation count or doesn't it?"
Absolutely, we should ask that last question, "Does revelation count or doesn't it?" But IF in fact revelation counts--matters--is TRUE--then we should expect that revealed moral values have real world consequences--in other words, that science and sociology will, to a large extent, back up the moral claims of Christianity. To insist otherwise would be to come dangerously close to insisting that "religious truth" is inherently different from "real truth".
OK, color me dubious then with regard to your complaint. I do see what you see: that many Catholic writers are focusing on the Pill as the Problem. I don't think most Catholic writers are incapable of seeing other aspects of the problem; they just happen to hold that the Pill is MORE significant than the subsidiary issues (and I generally agree with their perspective in this regard). I also can't for the life of me see what ideas of wifely obedience pre- versus post-Vatican II have to do with the our societal problems today, or how affluence makes morals worse. (Seen Charles Murray's new book on Belmont and Fishtown?)
@ Mary Ann,
I was with you until this:
"Has the Pill resulted in the infantilization of men? Or have a myriad of social factors done so? Or is it indeed any worse than it ever was before we counted, studied, and argued? No one can answer this question or any question like it without first addressing the underlying assumption: Does revelation count or doesn't it?"
Absolutely, we should ask that last question, "Does revelation count or doesn't it?" But IF in fact revelation counts--matters--is TRUE--then we should expect that revealed moral values have real world consequences--in other words, that science and sociology will, to a large extent, back up the moral claims of Christianity. To insist otherwise would be to come dangerously close to insisting that "religious truth" is inherently different from "real truth".
3.28.2012 | 6:21pm
David Nickol says:
Mike Melendez,
You say: "They may have been prompted by the Stearn's investigation while following their own bylaws. (I guess they forget that Republican inspired investigations are not really investigations.)"
I think we know with reasonable certainty that Komen didn't attempt to withdraw funding because of its bylaws and the Stearns investigation. Rather, they wrote new bylaws so they could use the Stearns investigation as an excuse to stop funding Planned Parenthood.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/02/top-susan-g-komen-official-resigned-over-planned-parenthood-cave-in/252405/
People used to claim that honesty was the best policy, and if that was right, then the Komen Foundation should have announced they no longer wanted to provide funds to organizations that performed abortions, or they found Planned Parenthood offensive to potential donors, or whatever the actual reason was.
You say: "They may have been prompted by the Stearn's investigation while following their own bylaws. (I guess they forget that Republican inspired investigations are not really investigations.)"
I think we know with reasonable certainty that Komen didn't attempt to withdraw funding because of its bylaws and the Stearns investigation. Rather, they wrote new bylaws so they could use the Stearns investigation as an excuse to stop funding Planned Parenthood.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/02/top-susan-g-komen-official-resigned-over-planned-parenthood-cave-in/252405/
People used to claim that honesty was the best policy, and if that was right, then the Komen Foundation should have announced they no longer wanted to provide funds to organizations that performed abortions, or they found Planned Parenthood offensive to potential donors, or whatever the actual reason was.
3.28.2012 | 6:28pm
David Nickol says:
I would like to point out once again that George Weigel referred to "the lynch mob that attacked the Susan G. Komen foundation for daring to hold Planned Parenthood to account for monies Komen had donated to PP (chief guardian of the flame of the sexual revolution) and which PP had misused."
George Weigel has made an allegation here that, as best I can determine, has appeared nowhere else—that is, that Planned Parenthood misused funds from the Komen Foundation. If there is evidence of this, it ought to be produced. If there is no evidence, the allegation should be retracted. The animosity those in the pro-life movement feel for Planned Parenthood is perfectly understandable. However, that does not mean that any allegation against Planned Parenthood is automatically true, or that unsubstantiated allegations should not be challenged.
George Weigel has made an allegation here that, as best I can determine, has appeared nowhere else—that is, that Planned Parenthood misused funds from the Komen Foundation. If there is evidence of this, it ought to be produced. If there is no evidence, the allegation should be retracted. The animosity those in the pro-life movement feel for Planned Parenthood is perfectly understandable. However, that does not mean that any allegation against Planned Parenthood is automatically true, or that unsubstantiated allegations should not be challenged.
3.28.2012 | 7:31pm
Mike Melendez says:
Mr. Bannon,
If George Wiegel is so wrong, what makes your essay better? At least, if one is going to do satire, one should make the effort at subtlety. What you provide instead is heavy sarcasm. I note numerous misunderstandings of the Church's position in your writing. But I do not notice any desire to learn. If we have nothing to teach here, however limited, why do you come?
If George Wiegel is so wrong, what makes your essay better? At least, if one is going to do satire, one should make the effort at subtlety. What you provide instead is heavy sarcasm. I note numerous misunderstandings of the Church's position in your writing. But I do not notice any desire to learn. If we have nothing to teach here, however limited, why do you come?
3.28.2012 | 9:48pm
bill bannon says:
Mike,
You seem to think First Things is a Catholic only school: " If we have nothing to teach here, however limited, why do you come?"
Now read the Masthead of First Things: "First Things is published by The Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society."
Interreligious means you'd better accept that there are non Catholics here and they might disagree with you. Catholics might disagree with you in non infallible matters.
You seem to think First Things is a Catholic only school: " If we have nothing to teach here, however limited, why do you come?"
Now read the Masthead of First Things: "First Things is published by The Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society."
Interreligious means you'd better accept that there are non Catholics here and they might disagree with you. Catholics might disagree with you in non infallible matters.
3.29.2012 | 1:48am
Rick says:
The phrase, "slow-motion demographic suicide" is very well turned, indeed. The collapse of fertility rates globally hasn't just defused the old-time Population Bomb of the sixties, it is threatening the future viability of many societies, and not only in the West.
Nevertheless, I will have to join some of the voices above in doubting that the Pill has transformed modern males into "empowered" and "exonerated" sexual predators. I have had the advantage of living for years in some very traditional societies way back in the twentieth century, and those experiences have given me a different perspective on our own society.
For example, Peace Corps women of the 1960s were discreetly told before departing America that in South Pacific island nations like Fiji they could probably expect to be raped by the local men a couple of times during their two-year stay. (Many of the woman bailed out of the project at that point.) And no, the islanders in those days had no access to the Pill.
My personal experiences were in the Middle East and Africa. I lived in some profoundly traditional and religious societies where modern birth control devices were restricted to the Westernized elites in the capital, but the women in our groups had persistant trouble being stalked, oggled, and propositioned by men in the streets. And these were societies where an athiest would be considered as bizarre as a person with one eye in the center of their forehead.
It is these experiences that make me very doubtful that men's irresponsible and aggressive sexual nature can be blamed on the Pill.
Nevertheless, I will have to join some of the voices above in doubting that the Pill has transformed modern males into "empowered" and "exonerated" sexual predators. I have had the advantage of living for years in some very traditional societies way back in the twentieth century, and those experiences have given me a different perspective on our own society.
For example, Peace Corps women of the 1960s were discreetly told before departing America that in South Pacific island nations like Fiji they could probably expect to be raped by the local men a couple of times during their two-year stay. (Many of the woman bailed out of the project at that point.) And no, the islanders in those days had no access to the Pill.
My personal experiences were in the Middle East and Africa. I lived in some profoundly traditional and religious societies where modern birth control devices were restricted to the Westernized elites in the capital, but the women in our groups had persistant trouble being stalked, oggled, and propositioned by men in the streets. And these were societies where an athiest would be considered as bizarre as a person with one eye in the center of their forehead.
It is these experiences that make me very doubtful that men's irresponsible and aggressive sexual nature can be blamed on the Pill.
3.29.2012 | 10:58am
peg says:
"My personal experiences were in the Middle East and Africa. I lived in some profoundly traditional and religious societies where modern birth control devices were restricted to the Westernized elites in the capital, but the women in our groups had persistant trouble being stalked, oggled, and propositioned by men in the streets. And these were societies where an athiest would be considered as bizarre as a person with one eye in the center of their forehead. "
I also lived in West Africa and the Middle and had these unpleasant experiences. In some cases (Egypt, Saudi Arabia) they were not merely frequent---they occurred just about any time women went out and about. Local women (and some of the men) explained that Western women were all assumed to be promiscuous. There was also prejudice involved---when Western women or children were molested, the frequent conclusion was that it was probably too bad, but then, the victims were "only Christians", so no real harm done. They said the same about people killed in car accidents.
It occurred to me that by their standards most Western women ARE promiscuous. I would say that artificial birth control has a lot to do with that fact.
I also lived in West Africa and the Middle and had these unpleasant experiences. In some cases (Egypt, Saudi Arabia) they were not merely frequent---they occurred just about any time women went out and about. Local women (and some of the men) explained that Western women were all assumed to be promiscuous. There was also prejudice involved---when Western women or children were molested, the frequent conclusion was that it was probably too bad, but then, the victims were "only Christians", so no real harm done. They said the same about people killed in car accidents.
It occurred to me that by their standards most Western women ARE promiscuous. I would say that artificial birth control has a lot to do with that fact.
3.29.2012 | 11:45am
Mike Melendez says:
Mr Bannon, You are unable to read my mind, though I wonder if you are saying only the Catholics here have nothing to teach.
3.29.2012 | 1:43pm
Artaban7 says:
"George Weigel has made an allegation here that, as best I can determine, has appeared nowhere else—that is, that Planned Parenthood misused funds from the Komen Foundation. If there is evidence of this, it ought to be produced." David Nickol
If Planned Parenthood uses most of its funds to kill innocent children, defend such killing, and to provide contraception that also, in many cases harms others, then it logically follows that the mere existence of Planned Parenthood is a "misuse of funds".
As for your demand, David, "If there is evidence of this, it ought to be produced,"
I would urge you to go check the medical "waste" bins at any Planned Parenthood. You can find therein the tiny bodies that prove what you erroneously refer to as "Mr. Weigel's...allegations".
If Planned Parenthood uses most of its funds to kill innocent children, defend such killing, and to provide contraception that also, in many cases harms others, then it logically follows that the mere existence of Planned Parenthood is a "misuse of funds".
As for your demand, David, "If there is evidence of this, it ought to be produced,"
I would urge you to go check the medical "waste" bins at any Planned Parenthood. You can find therein the tiny bodies that prove what you erroneously refer to as "Mr. Weigel's...allegations".
3.29.2012 | 5:28pm
Thomas Murray says:
Bill Bannon, I think we agree. I was pointing out the possibility of a silver lining to the increase in annulments. And laying the blame of increased divorce rates solely on the Pill is to overstate things. As Pope Paul VI stated, the Pill separates the union of a man and a woman from the procreative act. It also reduced the sonsequences of sex out of wedlock, perhaps making it more frequent an occurence, but it was only one link in the chain leading us to our current situation vis a vis marriage, divorce, and sexual "mores". Certainly an important link, with both causative and reinforcing effects, but not the smoking gun that some would have it.
3.29.2012 | 10:09pm
David Nickol says:
Artaban7,
You can make (and basically you have made) an argument that *any* money given to Planned Parenthood is automatically misused. But that is clearly not the case Weigel was making. It is simply not credible to claim that what George Weigel was referring to about a misuse of funds was that Planned Parenthood provides abortions. The Komen foundation has known for all the years that it has funded Planned Parenthood that the latter was the largest abortion provider in the country.
As much as those in the pro-life movement may hate Planned Parenthood, there is still an obligation to stick to the truth. Maybe there are facts that I am not aware of, but I have searched and read numerous accounts of the goings on between the Komen Foundation and Planned Parenthood, and I have found not a hint of the "Susan G. Komen foundation . . . daring to hold Planned Parenthood to account for monies Komen had donated to PP . . . and which PP had misused." The entire brouhaha was thoroughly covered by the press. If there was any claim by Komen that Planned Parenthood misused funds I would be most happy if someone would call it to attention with a link. But I don't think such a claim was made, and if it wasn't, then George Weigel's piece here contains misinformation.
You can make (and basically you have made) an argument that *any* money given to Planned Parenthood is automatically misused. But that is clearly not the case Weigel was making. It is simply not credible to claim that what George Weigel was referring to about a misuse of funds was that Planned Parenthood provides abortions. The Komen foundation has known for all the years that it has funded Planned Parenthood that the latter was the largest abortion provider in the country.
As much as those in the pro-life movement may hate Planned Parenthood, there is still an obligation to stick to the truth. Maybe there are facts that I am not aware of, but I have searched and read numerous accounts of the goings on between the Komen Foundation and Planned Parenthood, and I have found not a hint of the "Susan G. Komen foundation . . . daring to hold Planned Parenthood to account for monies Komen had donated to PP . . . and which PP had misused." The entire brouhaha was thoroughly covered by the press. If there was any claim by Komen that Planned Parenthood misused funds I would be most happy if someone would call it to attention with a link. But I don't think such a claim was made, and if it wasn't, then George Weigel's piece here contains misinformation.
4.11.2012 | 10:58am
Maria says:
Conservatives of a mummified 60's ideology are in total denial. Their response has been to invent a reason to tax every energetic activity in society 'carbon[sic] tax' and give the proceeds to their political clients. They also need to fund recruitment of children into their sexual ideology - those they don't conceive or choose to abort. Their beliefs simply do not work in the world and they madly indebt future generation, effectively steal to keep their morbid theme park running.
Obama's attempt to require that this "peyote" be paid for by employers is the clearest sign of the descent of our nation into paganism one could ask for after the pornography that pervades our prime-time TV and gorcery store checkout aisles.
†