|
Posted November 5, 2005
An essential part of healing is to understand
what happened. This is especially so for men and
women who lose children by abortion. Only through
understanding comes acceptance of what happened,
putting the abortion in its proper place, and
ultimately, regaining control of one’s own
life again. So, a very important question that
must be asked, I believe, for one to fully heal
and to understand and hence accept, is to pose
the question — “How Could This Happen?”
— and to posit a new question for how we
are to live the rest of our lives — “How
shall I, we, make things different?” Because
after all, abortion, folks is a very radical thing
and it deeply touches and changes lives. How could
it be that my son or daughter was horribly destroyed
and how could it be that I lost my wife, girlfriend,
boyfriend, or husband? And all of this necessarily
begs an important question that many people don’t
articulate — How is it that I have these
feelings of shame, of guilt, of failure, of being
lesser than others, of feeling bad, when I acted
in accordance with the mores of American society?
These are important questions,
and they have to be answered if one is to heal,
truly heal. So, it takes looking at the relationship,
the man, the woman, as well as the time and the
place in which it all happened. We have to understand
the kind of people we were then and why. And some
things help us to understand who we were and why
we acted the way we did—upbringings, our
pasts, and the time and place in which we lived.
Abortion does not exist in
a vacuum and decisions to abort are made in certain
settings. Abortion decisions, while they are indicative
of deep personal or communication issues or problems
that may exist in individuals or relationships,
they are also come about as a natural consequence
of certain values held by people.
We learn values from others.
We are all temporal creatures as well as having
a soul, but the people we associate with, the
things we see and hear all affect us in that they
teach us what is acceptable behavior or attitudes
or speech. By acceptable, I mean consistent with
what others may think, with what is accepted by
others, and to speak or act without informal approbation.
All of us reading this are,
or were, young, everyday people trying to make
our way dealing with the issues that the young
always deal with. For us baby-boomers, in particular,
we did so in a time and a place that taught us
through the books, movies, television, music,
and more, that all that mattered was to feel good
as long as no one is hurt. This same society taught
us sex was okay outside of marriage. That the
here and now is all that mattered. That each of
us was the center of the universe. That women
and men were at war. The ideals we internalized
were materialism such that only the here and now
mattered and individuality to the point of isolation.
In our youth, baby boomers
generally lived lives separate and apart from
family, church, history and ultimately, each other.
We, like tens of millions more did and still do,
defined ourselves by, and our identity became,
our appetites and desires—this included
sex outside of marriage (for fun, or to show our
love; please note that sex can also be used as
a means to exert or show power, and sex can be
a weapon), getting ahead, doing well, owning the
latest and greatest and coolest things. The deep
emotions, the love that a man may feel for a woman
and a woman for a man, for many of us could have
grown into a strong, lasting marriage, but the
culture that surrounded us (and surrounds us still)
also isolated us from each other as well as from
the truth thereby foreclosing the possibility
of a lasting happiness in the arms of our mates.
Abortion ultimately destroys relationships and
wrecks the hope of a future together.
How did
all of this come about?
First, let’s look at
the Supreme Court’s decisions. In Roe
v. Wade the majority wrote, among other things:
“This right of privacy, whether it be founded
in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of
personal liberty…or…in the Ninth Amendment’s
reservation of rights to the people, is broad
enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether
or not to terminate her pregnancy…Maternity,
or additional offspring, may force upon the woman
a distressful life and future….”
This should be very troubling
to anyone who reads it because the United States
Government is legitimizing the notion that children
are a pain—children are not a good. Justice
White, in the dissent, announced the obvious—that
abortion is in the hands of women for any reason—when
he wrote “for any one of such reasons, or
for no reason at all, and without asserting or
claiming any threat to life or health, any woman
is entitled to an abortion at her request….”
Remember, the sexual revolution
was still ongoing in 1973 (though the principles
of that revolution are enshrined in American society
now.) We need to remember that in the now defunct
Soviet Union abortions were optional, but the
pressures of living made many occur.
And American society has its
own unique pressures different from the Soviet
Union, but still arising largely from an out of
control materialism. The result is that men and
women no longer cooperate in forming families
since women now have the power to unilaterally
destroy the fruit of their union. Instead of cooperation,
there can only be negotiation, coercion, or subordination
in the most intimate and important of relationships.
In Casey v. Planned Parenthood,
the Court continued to expand on a radical vision
of men and women—competitors in the economic
and social realm. The idea of equality in things
material. Not complementary, but equal, and that
means, the same. This further translates into
keeping this equality and that can only happen
with power. So, it all becomes about power. Men
versus women. Women versus men. And the unborn
children are caught in the cross fire. Sex, always
seen as a way to just have fun, also becomes,
a tool, a weapon, a means to an end. And this
viewpoint of the procreative is institutionalized
in America.
The great American lawgiver,
the Supreme Court, has consistently articulated
a position, a world view, which is radically and
fundamentally inconsistent with the teachings
of the Roman Catholic Faith. Indeed, the Supreme
Court has articulated a position or world view
that is fundamentally, and irreconcilably at odds
with, contrary to, destructive of human nature.
This is becoming increasing clear to many people.
But what is not so clear is that many of us have
inculcated or internalized, without being aware,
the very same principles that flow from such a
radical world view. As a result, we unknowingly
act in support of, or at least in non-opposition
to, the very system that has caused, and continues
to cause, so much of our misery.
Women’s rights. Reproductive
freedom. It doesn’t matter who says it—whether
it is Hillary Clinton or GW Bush, or Laura Bush,
it means the same thing. They are all really in
favor of the same outlook on life. Every time
there is a book, article, discussion, movie that
talks about women’s rights the radical world
view is driven home—women versus men, materialism
and consumerism (he who dies with the most power,
goods, fun, reputation, wins!). Case in point,
here is a bulletin announcement that just appeared
in the Sunday bulletin at Sacred Heart, Notre
Dame—“all women are invited
to the `Wellsprings of Wisdom: Women and power
Conference’ which brings hundred to develop,
support, inspire and celebrate our leadership….more
than 40 workshops led by international, national
and local presenters explore ways to overcome
external barriers and internal fears, see difference
as strength, and use our spirituality as a source
of strength and creativity.”
Another example. The President
of St. Mary’s College, Notre Dame spoke
in May of this year and said that women are neuro-biologically
different from men. Was she shouted down by the
crowd as was the president of Harvard? No. Because
she claimed these differences were a reason to
justify all women colleges. Women, she argued,
who were in women only schools could compete better
against men after graduation.
This outlook on life exists
hand in hand with the idea of abortion. With this
social and cultural context, is it any wonder
that so many children are aborted, and so many
men and women are hurt?
On October 28, 2003, the President
of the United States said that the American culture
is not ready for change to allow an end to abortion.
And he is right about that. The culture isn’t
ready.
What is culture? Webster’s
defines it as the values and ways of living held
by one group of people and passed on from generation
to generation. It entails things as values, believes,
how one views the purpose of life, dress, norms
of acceptable behavior towards others and self,
attitudes toward sex and the sexes, and identity.
Culture also includes more such as language, law
(formal and informal), diet, entertainment, customs,
celebrations. Abortion exists in a context—a
cultural context. Children are aborted in this
cultural context. It is inevitable that children
will be aborted in the American culture.
So, to borrow from a popular
campaign slogan in 1992, may I say “It’s
the culture, stupid.”
The culture in America is national
and uniform. It is created from the top—from
the most powerful social and economic individuals
and groups in the society. For example, Dr. Charles
Socarides, author of the book, Homosexuality:
A Freedom Too Far”, wrote
an article entitled “How America Went
Gay”. He describes how the leadership
of the American Psychiatric Association was co-opted
in 1972-73 to remove homosexual/lesbian sex as
a disorder, how academia then fell in line, and
how Hollywood published to the masses what he
calls, “the re-invented human nature.”
Dr. Socarides cites to publications that show
it was the intent of activists to turn America
“gay” and that the psychological methods
of shaming, desensitizing and conversion used
so effectively in Communist China, were adopted
and used by homosexual activists in the USA.
Of course, a similar approach
was taken towards contraception and abortion more
than fifty years earlier. We are familiar with
how Margaret Sanger first garnered the support
of the wealthy for her ideas of birth control
and abortion, and that she then went to convince
the legal, academic, and social leaders of the
need to accept these ideas. Robert Marshall and
Charles Donovan in their work, Blessed
Are the Barren, write that birth
control and abortion “has become a way of
life with institutional support in every major
aspect of modern American society” and that
abortion and birth control has became “an
indispensable social given of the American ethos.”
While courts make certain pronouncements,
generally those who create and shape American
culture are those in the media/entertainment industry.
But behind them are a handful—the socioeconomic
elites who have money, contacts and influence.
If you don’t believe that, just look at
all of the foundations that given tens of millions
of dollars to Planned Parenthood or support “women’s
rights” or “women’s health”
in one form or another. Entertainment and the
news are big business, which has the ability to
change the popular, the day to day, the common
folk, culture.
At no other time in the history
of American society have these changes been more
rapid and drastic than in the last forty to fifty
years. The changes in entertainment within 10
to 12 years in the 1960s and early 1970s were
perhaps the most radical.
In television, we are told that
the best show went from The Phil Silvers
Show to Rowan and Martin’s
Laugh-In. In the movies, the best
show we are told went from Ben Hur
to Midnight Cowboy.
Music, the change in the best went from Perry
Como and Frank Sinatra to Blood Sweat and Tears
and rock 'n' roll.
The culture shift did not stop
in 1971, nor in 1972. It continues. Nowadays,
there is a “gay” channel, sexual innuendo
is the regular fare, music is by Eminem and JayZ
as they talk about violence and sex, leaving little
to the imagination. And this mainlined right into
the homes, ears, and psyches of children.
There is study after study
from the Parents Television Council that shows
what TV, movies, and music do to those who watch
them or listen to them. It is confirmation of
what Pope Pius XI said in 1936 that entertainment
is the best teacher of values. And if that is
so, then it follows that the unscrupulous, the
evil, will use entertainment as a means of social
and political control.
We are told that the smutty
music and shows are made for profit, but that
is not so. People tend to dismiss things if something
is done for profit – we are all good capitalists
and capitalism is good, right? (so goes the argument).
Therefore, immoral entertainment is somehow okay
because it is about making a living. Two fairly
recent events effectively destroy this premise.
The first dealt with the profitability
of G-rated versus R-rated ventures in the movies
and showed the G rated movies did better financially
than the R rated movies. Reuters reported on June
7 of this year that a study done by the Dove Foundation
found that while “the movie industry produced
nearly 12 times more R-rated films than G-rated
films from 1989 to 2003, the average G-rated film
produced 11 times greater profit that its R-rated
counter-part.”
The second dealt with a UPI
story from September, 2002 that said: “A
former Israeli prime minister Thursday called
upon the US to effect regime change in both Iraq
and Iran, prescribing a military invasion to topple
the government in Baghdad and the transmission
of ribald television programming via satellite
into Persia, where he said the influx of pop culture
would prove subversive to the conservative Islamic
regime. Citing the hundreds of satellite television
dishes in Iran, Benjamin Netanyahu told the House
Government Reform Committee that the US could
incite a revolution against the conservative Iranian
clergy through the use of such Fox Broadcasting
staples as Melrose Place and Beverly Hills 90210—both
of which feature beautiful young people in varying
states of undress, living glamorous, materialistic
lives and engaging in promiscuous sex. This is
pretty subversive stuff, Netanyahu told the committee.
The kids of Iran would want the nice clothes they
see on those shows. They would want the swimming
pools and fancy lifestyles.”
These statements are a modern
version of Scottsman Andrew Fletcher’s statement
from the early 1700s that “You write the
laws, Ill write the music and I’ll rule
your country.” All of this gives credence
to the thesis of Dr. E. Michael Jones contained
in his book Libido Dominandi—Sexual
Liberation as Political Control.
Dr. Jones posits that passions are manipulated
and so control is given to the elites. The City
of God is replaced by the City of Man. Dr. Jones
details how the WASP elites waged a cultural war
against their opponents, the Roman Catholics and
others who were viewed as dangerous by virtue
of their faith and exploding numbers after World
War II. The cultural war consisted in promoting
and advancing sexual liberation as the primary
means of political control. Sex for pleasure.
Sex without children. Sex for sex’s sake.
Sex for power.
What are we to do? Many leaders
in the “conservative” or “family
values” or “traditional” movements
in the United States, and around the world for
that matter, say that we must elect pro-life government
officials. We all agree because we all recognize
that only with power can societal change be effected.
But while electing Representatives,
Senators and Presidents that are pro-culture of
life is important, these people will have no real
and lasting power, and will ultimately fail, unless
we create and assert real power—cultural
power.
Already we have discussed how
Webster’s defines
culture — the values and ways of living
held by one group of people and passed on from
generation to generation. We exert cultural power
by resisting this toxic Hollywood-American worldview
held by men and women who are very different from
us, from Roman Catholics. Along with this resistance,
we must create the social structures that support
good and right behavior. To that end, there are
several things we have to do.
First, we have to realize the
tenets of a new way of life that protects body
and soul. We have to, as found by Gandhi, that
we must first break from ourselves and the views
we have come to hold. The purpose of life has
to be remembered—to know, love, serve God
in this life and to be with Him in the next. Life
is not about amassing the most goods nor is it
about fame, fortune or power, unless these things
are used to do His will.
We have to realize that there
is a connection between beliefs, values, action,
and consequences. Lives are damaged and loss,
and souls are lost, too, by the materialism that
is the popular culture in America.
We must know the true nature
of human beings—to seek the truth, to be
one with God, and to live our lives with others
in a society (unlike the ranting of the so-called
“Age of Reason” and “Enlightenment”
philosophers). We have to know that men and women
are not competitors, but cooperators. Not diametrically
opposed but complementary.
We have to care for our own
by building the necessary material structures
for encouraging good and right actions. We can
produce our own culture—starting at the
local level. Music, entertainment, material help
and social companionship. Block out the dominant,
hedonistic material culture of Hollywood—throw
out your television, don’t go to the movies,
don’t buy their music.
And as we grow in strength,
let’s keep in mind those at the top. Always
pray for their conversion, and as the opportunities
present themselves, convert them to the Faith.
It’s the best thing for
everybody. It’s the only way, too.
|
