THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT: A SPIRITUAL PERSPECTIVE
Charles E. Rice
Common Faith Tract No. 2
{c) Christendom Educational Corporation 1983
Christendom Publications, Route 3, Box 87, Front Royal, Virginia
22630
------------------------------------------------------------------
1.Foreword
2.Introduction
3.Three Evils
�Secularism
�Relativism and Positivism
�The Contraceptive Ethic
4.Demographic Pressures
5.A New Pro-Life Movement
6.Public Prayer
7.Afterword
FOREWORD
What makes politics both fascinating and infuriating is its
changeability. Political trends have a nasty habit of slowing
down, speeding up, zigging and zagging, or even reversing
themselves, in the most unexpected ways and at the most
inopportune moments. Achieving a political goal, therefore, is
rather like trying to tackle a broken- field runner--one can
rarely have more than a general idea of the direction one ought to
take in order to grasp the elusive prize.
At the present time, pro-lifers have every justification for
feeling like a blitzing defense which, having apparently trapped
the enemy ballcarrier for a major loss, saw him slip away for a
long gain. The Reagan victory in the 1980 elections seemed to
portend political prosperity for the pro-life movement, and to be
a major setback for the anti-lifers. However, things have not in
fact turned out so happily, as every pro-lifer knows only too
well.
There are many theories floating about purporting to explain this
surprising reversal of pro-life political fortunes, and probably
most, if not all, of these theories possess some portion of the
truth. While a detailed discussion of these theories might well be
highly useful it also poses the danger of so immersing us in the
minutiae of political tactics that we lose sight of our larger
purposes and goals. To continue the analogy, one can get so
involved in each play of the game as to forget about the game
plan.
It is precisely on this "game plan" level of larger purposes and
goals that Dr. Charles Rice has written this current Common Faith
tract on the pro-life movement. Dr. Rice's major objective here is
not to analyze in detail the past history of the human life issue,
although he does offer some review in order to set necessary
background. Rather, the author is herein confronting the pregnant
question which must deeply concern every pro-lifer: where do we go
from here?
In his tract, Dr. Rice, like many a good football coach, desires
to redirect our attention back towards what we might call "the
fundamentals." The first of the "fundamentals" is that the
abortion issue must not be considered in vacuo. Abortion is both
an aspect and a symptom of a larger crime, rebellion against God,
which our secularistic society has been perpetrating openly for
nearly 200 years, and which men in general have been committing
constantly since the Fall. Far from being a discrete issue, in Dr.
Rice's view, abortion is rather the current cause celebre, or
focal point, for the concentrated efforts of those with a
horrifyingly broad agenda for destroying the natural order as God
created it, and replacing it with some secular humanist construct
of their own. While finite men cannot ever succeed in replacing
God as Creator, there are a few things such misbegotten efforts
never fail to produce--misery, more slaughter, chaos, etc. Dr.
Rice provides us with ample proof that abortion, like artificial
contraception, pornography, euthanasia, and all the other
concomitant aspects of the "contraceptive mentality," have borne
precisely such bitter fruit and promise even larger, more terrible
harvests in the future.
This brings us to the second fundamental, viz., that the abortion
issue, whether analyzed by itself or as part of the larger evil,
is primarily a religious issue, not a political one. Dr. Rice
explicitly points out that he does not intend to disparage
political action. However, he is adamant and persuasive in arguing
that to treat abortion as primarily a constitutional, secular
problem is to play the enemy's game, in effect, and on his home
field to boot. Under these conditions, Dr. Rice contends, "the
pro-life movement ... is absolutely, utterly hopeless."
From this very basic re-assessment of our situation Dr. Rice
derives a revamped game plan for the pro-life movement, dependent
primarily on spiritual means, most particularly the Rosary. It is
his hope that we will cease reacting to the shiftiness of the
opposition, and keep our own true goals clearly fixed in mind.
Overall, this is an essay which can be read by all pro-lifers with
profit. It may or may not inspire agreement on all points, but, at
the very least, it will surely provoke serious reflection.
Thomas P. Mangieri
THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT: A Spiritual Perspective
This Common Faith tract is intended to evaluate the status and
prospects of the pro-life movement. But what can be said that is
different from the standard--and ultimately boring--format of such
analyses? The usual pattern is to decry Roe v. Wade and the number
of abortions performed under its license, to warn of the danger of
euthanasia, to describe and evaluate the proposed constitutional
amendments and statutes, to stress the need for electing more pro-
life Congressmen and, finally, to emphasize that tireless
educational and political work will build a broad coalition which
one day will tip the political scales and bring us victory. This
approach is familiar and I do not mean to disparage it, for it is
good as far as it goes. But it only addresses part of the problem.
For abortion itself is not the ultimate problem; instead, it is
merely the symptom of a deeper rebellion against God and against
reason.
As will be discussed below, abortion is merely one inevitable
result of the denial of God, of the capacity of the mind to know
truth and of the intrinsic relation between sex and life. Pro-life
rhetoric, which treats abortion in secular, constitutional terms--
which treats it as a political rather than a religious problem--
will get us nowhere. Indeed, the pro-life movement, in secular
political terms, is absolutely, utterly hopeless. The basis for
this statement is more than statistical, although the numbers are
sobering.
Every year at least 1.5 million American babies are "legally"
killed by abortion. Every five hours and fifteen minutes we kill
by abortion as many as the 900 who died in the mass suicides and
murders at Jonestown. Every eight days the abortionists kill more
Americans than were killed in battle (33,629) in the Korean War.
Every ten weeks, they kill as many as we lost (291,557) in World
War II. In all the wars this nation has fought, from Lexington and
Concord in 1775 through Vietnam, including both sides in the Civil
War, American battle deaths totaled approximately 669,000.3[1] The
body count of unborn babies reaches that figure about every six
months.
Every year abortion wipes out the equivalent of the combined
populations of Kansas City, Minneapolis and Miami. Statistically,
each child who enters the womb has one chance in four of being
killed by his mother before he leaves it. There are more abortions
than live births in New York City and Washington, D.C. Abortions
are disproportionately high among blacks, although two-thirds of
the women who have abortions are white; and two-thirds are between
the ages of 15 and 24.[2] Abortion is now the single most common
surgical procedure in the United States, more common than biopsies
and three times as frequent as tonsillectomies.[3]
It is nothing short of silly to treat a catastrophe of this
magnitude as a result merely of constitutional misinterpretation,
although one would hardly want to be accused in this matter of
saying a good word for the Justices of the Supreme Court who voted
and continue to vote to legalize the murder of the unborn. Justice
Harry Blackmun recently said that he has received more than 45,000
letters about Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion ruling in which he
wrote the opinion for the court. "Think of any name," Blackmun
said, "I've been called it in these letters: Butcher of Dachau,
murderer, Pontius Pilate, Adolph Hitler."[4] The analogies, as
with all analogies, are inexact. But it is true that the basic
principle of Roe v. Wade is precisely the principle that underlay
the Nazi extermination of the Jews, that an innocent human being
can be declared to be a non-person and subjected to death at the
discretion of those who regard him as unfit or unwanted. And
Pontius Pilate, as an operational positivist who executed the
innocent for reasons of state and of his own convenience, would
have found little to quarrel with in the philosophy of the Roe
opinion. It is fair to say that our Justices who triggered the
abortion avalanche by their own wilful decision, are even more
reprehensible than the Nazi judges who acquiesced in the crimes of
the regime and the functionaries who administered its decrees at
Dachau, Auschwitz and similar places. Although Justice Blackmun
noted in the same interview that "once a decision has been made, I
don't lose any sleep over it," he does acknowledge that he will
probably be remembered for his Roe v. Wade ruling alone: "I
suppose I'll carry Roe to my grave." This is not entirely
inappropriate since ten million of the youngest Americans have
already carried Roe to their "graves" in garbage dumps and
incinerators around the country.
THREE EVILS:
1. Secularism
It is a temptation to divert this essay into an extended
discussion of the manifold reasons why the Justices of the Supreme
Court who favor legalized abortion have earned the scorn of those
who value the right to live. But the Supreme Court did not cause
the basic problem; abortion, and Roe v. Wade, are merely symptoms
of deeper evils, the prevalence of which justifies the conclusion
that, in merely human terms, the pro-life effort is hopeless.
Those evils are secularism, positivism and the contraceptive
ethic. The Supreme Court in Roe was merely reflecting a consensus
which is tolerant of those evils.
Secularism can be briefly treated.[5] In legal terms, the Supreme
Court has misinterpreted the First Amendment to require government
at all levels to maintain neutrality between theistic and non-
theistic religions. That is why it is theoretically
unconstitutional for a public official, whether President Reagan
or a public school teacher, to state as a fact that the
Declaration of Independence is true when it affirms the existence
of God. The teacher, for example, may note for his students the
historical circumstance that the Founding Fathers, lacking the
insight of our ruling Justices, actually believed in God and
prayed to Him in the course of their public activities. But the
teacher today must maintain neutrality on God; he must suspend
judgment; in his official capacity, he can neither affirm nor deny
that God exists. And, of course, he cannot pray in his
governmental capacity. But this suspension of judgment involves an
implied preference of the agnostic belief that the existence of
God is unknown or unknowable. The result is the implicit
establishment of agnostic, secular humanism as the official
national creed.
The interesting point here, however, is that, despite the
consistent support of 75-80 percent of Americans for the
restoration of prayers to public schools--a desirable but cosmetic
remedy--the Court has gotten away with it. The secularizing
rulings have endured for two decades at least in part because they
reflect something in the American consensus, a pietistic strain
that tends to reserve religion for the closet and that is
uncomfortable with any breach in the mythical "wall of separation
between Church and State." Every state, however, has to have a
god, an ultimate authority or criterion. Thus jurisprudence is
rightly called the study of "ultimatology."[6] If the god
recognized by a legal system is not the real God, it will be
another. In the contemporary American constitutional scheme, it is
the god of established secularism. One result of this development
is the treatment by the courts of the abortion issue in secular,
amoral and merely pragmatic terms. No appeal can any longer be
made on the ground that the law of God guarantees the right to
life of all innocent human beings. In 1772, George Mason, in
arguing the case of Robin v. Hardaway, declared:
Now all acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right
and justice, are, in our laws, and must be in the nature of
things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of
God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A
legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from Whose
punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which
contradict his laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such
have been the adjudications of our courts of justice.[7]
Mason was arguing that a Virginia statute of 1682 which enslaved
Indians was "originally void, because contrary to natural right
and justice." He won his case on the separate ground that the 1682
statute had been repealed by a 1705 statute. Mason's argument,
however, would clearly be out of bounds in the Supreme Court today
even when the issue involves the execution of the innocent as in
abortion. In such a secular game, the unseen child in the womb
does not have a fighting chance.
2. Relativism and Positivism
In addition to secularism, relativism is the second underlying
evil. And it is a national disease. You can verify this by asking
any high school or college student two questions: 1. Apart from
sense impressions can you really know anything with absolute
certainty? (He will answer No; and he will be certain about it.)
2. Is it always wrong to have an abortion? (Professor Dan Wikler,
a University of Wisconsin expert on polls, says a typical response
is "I wouldn't have an abortion, but I wouldn't tell someone else
not to.")[8] A 1981 Yanklevich survey showed that 70 percent of
women agree that "a pregnant woman should have the right to decide
whether she wants to terminate a pregnancy." The average student
believes that the morality of an act is determined by how one
feels about it. Ethical relativism leads to legal positivism,
which is the concept that, since no one can know what is just, the
resolution of such questions will be left to the political
process, including the judgments of the Supreme Court. If that
process turns out an Auschwitz or a Roe v. Wade, the decision
cannot be criticized as unjust because no one can know what is
just. Gustav Radbruch, a leading German legal philosopher,
renounced positivism during the Nazi regime and described the
process by which the German legal profession was subverted by the
positivistic idea that might makes right:
For the soldier an order is an order; for the jurist, the law is
the law. But the soldier's duty to obey an order is at an end if
he knows that the order will result in a crime. But the jurist,
since the last natural law men in his profession died off a
hundred years or so ago, has known no such exception and no such
excuse for the citizen's not submitting to the law. The law is
valid simply because it is the law; and it is law if it has the
power to assert itself under ordinary conditions. Such an attitude
towards the law and its validity [i.e., positivism] rendered both
lawyers and people impotent in the face of even the most
capricious, criminal, or cruel of laws. Ultimately, this view that
only where there is power is there law is nothing but an
affirmation that might makes right. [Actually] law is the quest
for justice ... if certain laws deliberately deny this quest for
justice (for example, by arbitrarily granting or denying men their
human rights) they are null and void; the people are not to obey
them, and jurists must find the courage to brand them unlawful.[9]
Positivism, it is fair to say, is the dominant American
jurisprudence. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who is a patron
saint of modern American jurisprudence, was of the opinion that
"truth was the majority vote of the nation that could lick all
others."[9] And Holmes declared, "I see no reason for attributing
to man a significance different in kind from that which belongs to
a baboon or to a grain of sand."[11] Roe v. Wade, itself, is an
exercise in legal positivism. In Roe, the Supreme Court held that,
whether or not the unborn child is a human being, he is a non-
person and therefore has no constitutionally protected right to
life. The decision thus is the same in effect as a flat holding
that acknowledged human beings are non-persons. In this respect
the ruling broke what had been assumed, since the adoption of the
Fourteenth Amendment, to be an inseparable correspondence between
humanity and personhood. The legal concept of personhood is
broader than merely all human beings; thus a corporation is a
person for purposes of the Constitution. But, because the
Fourteenth Amendment was intended to overrule the 1857 Dred Scott
case in which the Supreme Court had declared that slaves were
property rather than persons, it was properly and generally
assumed that the Fourteenth Amendment ensured that all human
beings would thenceforth be regarded as persons. This is so
despite the fact that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment gave
no apparent consideration to its effect on unborn human beings.
Senator Allen A. Thurman, in commenting on the scope of the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, stated that:
[It] covers every human being within the jurisdiction of a state.
It was intended to shield the foreigner, to shield the wayfarer,
to shield the Indian, the Chinaman, every human being within the
jurisdiction of a State from any deprivation of an equal
protection of the laws.[12]
This legal treatment of all human beings as persons is consistent
with the philosophical definition of a person as an individual
substance of rational nature, that is, an individual with
intellect and will. When the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, broke
this necessary correspondence between humanity and legal
personhood, it opened the door to unrestricted speculation as to
the meaning of legal personhood. If human beings are not
necessarily legal persons, well, then, who are? The Court,
incidentally, was reflecting the growing dominance in American
jurisprudence of legal positivism, the notion that since the mind
is incapable of knowing the essences of things and since, in the
words of Hans Kelsen, the leading legal positivist of this
century, "justice" is merely an "irrational ideal,"[13] there is
no inherent limit to what the law can do. Therefore, whatever
decrees are handed down pursuant to prescribed legal forms by the
ruling authorities must be accepted as valid law regardless of
their content. As Kelsen put it, "any content whatsoever can be
legal; there is no human behavior which could not function as the
content of a legal norm."[14]
Modern positivistic jurisprudence is well on the way to
establishing the intellectual base for the depersonalization and
extermination of various classes of innocent human beings.
Consider, for example, the theories of Peter Singer, of Monash
University in Australia. His book "Practical Ethics"[15]
establishes the principles through which the legalized
extermination of inconvenient human beings can be rationalized.
Singer, incidentally, begins by stating, as one of his basic
premises, "I shall treat ethics as entirely independent of
religion."[16] In his earlier book, "Animal Liberation", which
argued for vegetarianism, Singer denounced the evil of
"speciesism," which he regards as an unfounded prejudice in favor
of persons belonging to our own species, i.e., homo sapiens. In
"Practical Ethics" he expands his treatment of the subject. Just
as we are properly opposed to racism, Singer believes, we should
be opposed to speciesism. Singer states that, "having accepted the
principle of equality as a sound moral basis for relations with
others of our own species, we are also committed to accepting it
as a sound moral basis for relations with those outside our own
species--the nonhuman animals."[17] He quotes favorably Jeremy
Bentham's prediction that "The day may come when the rest of the
animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have
been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny." In Bentham's
view, "a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more
rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of
a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose it were
otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they
reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"[18]
Singer regards a person as "a rational and self-conscious
being."[19] "There are many beings," he notes, "who are conscious
and capable of experiencing pleasure and pain, but are not
rational and self-conscious and so not persons. Many nonhuman
animals almost certainly fall into this category; so must newborn
infants and some mental defectives.[20] But chimpanzees, whales
and dolphins, for example, can be persons. As far as killing is
concerned Singer believes:
we should reject the doctrine that places the lives of members of
our species above the lives of members of other species. Some
members of other species are persons: some members of our own
species are not. No objective assessment can give greater value to
the lives of members of our species who are not persons than to
the lives of members of other species who are. On the contrary, as
we have seen there are strong arguments for placing the lives of
persons above the lives of nonpersons. So it seems that killing,
say, a chimpanzee is worse than the killing of a gravely defective
human who is not a person.[21]
"This strong case against killing," he concludes, "can be invoked
against the slaughter of apes, whales and dolphins. It might also
apply to monkeys, dogs and cats, pigs, seals and bears."[22] He
refers to "the questionable assumption that chickens are not self-
conscious"[23], thus raising the possibility that the greatest
mass murderer in all history is neither Josef Stalin nor Adolf
Hitler, but Colonel Sanders. Even if we make the "shaky assumption
that ducks are not self-conscious," "the shooting of a duck does
not lead to its replacement by another." So, generally "the
killing of a duck ends a pleasant life without starting another"
and is therefore wrong.[24] Only if we add to the sum total of
pleasure by replacing a happy chicken or duck by another happy
chicken or duck, could the killing of such a happy chicken or duck
be justified--and then apparently only on the "questionable
assumption" that chickens and ducks are not persons.
Please remember that this is mainstream positivist jurisprudence.
"Practical Ethics" was very seriously and favorably reviewed, with
some detailed reservations, by H.L.A. Hart, the leading figure of
contemporary positivist jurisprudence.[25] Singer offers a window
on the near future: "The belief that mere membership of our
species, irrespective of other characteristics, makes a great
difference to the wrongness of killing a being is a legacy of
religious doctrines which even those opposed to abortion hesitate
to bring into the debate."[26] The right-to-life movement, he
believes, "is misnamed. Far from having concern for all life, or a
scale of concern impartially based on the nature of the life in
question, those who protest against abortion but dine regularly on
the bodies of chickens, pigs and calves, show only a biased
concern for the lives of the members of our own species."[27]
While he believes that "the life of a newborn baby is of less
value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee,"[28] he
believes that "where rights are at risk, we should err on the side
of safety. If there were to be legislation on this matter, it
probably should deny a full legal right to life to babies only for
a short period after birth--perhaps a month."[29]
With respect to euthanasia, Singer supports "nonvoluntary
euthanasia" at least for those who were "never capable of choosing
to live or die." Nonvoluntary euthanasia, on the other hand, of
those who were once rational and self-conscious but who now have
become non- persons, he would justify only if some precaution were
taken to allay the apprehensions of persons who might suffer
"insecurity and fear" at the prospect that they too might be
involuntarily killed if they lose rationality and self-
consciousness.[30] Singer, of course, supports voluntary
euthanasia for those who choose it for themselves and prefers
"swift and painless" active euthanasia to "passive euthanasia"
which "often results in a drawn-out death."[31]
Singer rejects the argument that euthanasia would be "the first
step on a slippery slope."[32] "The Nazis," he admits, "committed
horrendous crimes; but this does not mean that EVERYTHING the
Nazis did was horrendous."[33] The Nazis' offense, in his view,
was not euthanasia but the racism practiced in the selection of
those to be killed. To avoid the slippery slope, Singer suggests
that we rely upon the doctors. "If acts of euthanasia could only
be carried out by a member of the medical profession, with the
concurrence of a second doctor, it is not likely that the
propensity to kill would spread unchecked throughout the
community."[34]
This criticism of Singer does not in any way imply approval of
mistreatment of animals. We have a strong moral obligation to
treat animals with appropriate kindness but this duty proceeds
from our obligation to God rather than from any supposed status of
animals as themselves persons. Moreover, it would be a mistake to
regard Peter Singer as an insignificant character in an out-take
from Saturday Night Live. On the contrary, this is serious
business. It was in the 1950's that the academics and lawyers
began articulating the theories of rights and interests which
culminated in Roe v. Wade. We will soon hear increasingly how some
human beings never become, or cease to be, "persons in the whole
sense" (or some similar euphemism). Once the principle that all
human beings are persons is abandoned, there really is no stopping
short of regarding Washoe the Chimp as more deserving of
protection than your newborn child.
Right to Life 1973-1983
This extended discussion on personhood leads to the conclusion
that the solution to legalized abortion, in constitutional terms,
is the restoration to our basic law of the principle that all
human beings are persons. This was the key focus of the right-to-
life movement from 1973 through 1980, which made headway because
it was united in the conviction that, whatever differences might
exist over wording of amendments, exceptions, etc., the essential
remedy is the restoration of personhood. People can be inspired by
that insistence on personhood because they can understand that if
the unborn child in the womb can be defined as a non-person and
deprived of his right-to- life, so can his elder brother or his
grandmother.
Seen in this context, the decision of the Catholic Bishops in
January, 1981, not to support the Helms-Hyde Human Life Bill
(which would have affirmed the personhood of all human beings from
conception) and to support instead the Hatch Amendment was, in my
opinion, an act of folly which aggravated a growing split in the
pro- life movement. Although this is not the place for an extended
discussion of the Hatch Amendment controversy,[35] it must be
noted that the "legislative powers" approach to abortion proposed
by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and the simplified states' rights
version proposed by Senator Thomas Eagleton (D-Mo.) fail to
introduce the fundamental notion of the personhood of the unborn.
But the positivistic denial of personhood is the error of the
abortion decisions that must be corrected. In this light,
therefore, these approaches are gravely deficient.
3. The Contraceptive Ethic
In addition to secularism and relativism (which underlies legal
positivism), the contraceptive ethic is a major cause, not only of
abortion but of a broad range of evils. It was not until 1930,
with the Anglican Lambeth Conference, that any Christian
denomination ever said that contraception could ever be
objectively right. Yet in just a half-century the legitimacy of
contraception has become an implicit assumption not only of
virtually all discourse on the subject but of government policy as
well.
In "Humanae Vitae", which most Catholic students know only through
professorial caricatures of it, Pope Paul VI stressed that the law
of God prohibits "every action which, either in anticipation of
the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development
of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or a
means, to render procreation impossible." This teaching "is
founded upon the inseparable connection--which is willed by God
and which man cannot lawfully break on his own initiative--between
the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the
procreative meaning."[36] Contraception is wrong because, as Pope
John Paul II said in his 1981 Apostolic Exhortation, "Familiaris
consortio",
When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate
these two meanings that God the Creator has inscribed in the being
of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion
they act as "arbiters" of the divine plan and they "manipulate"
and degrade human sexuality and with it themselves and their
married partner by altering its value of "total" self-giving.[37]
It is a question, therefore, of dominion: who is in charge, man or
God? (In "Humanae vitae", incidentally, Pope Paul also explained
the legitimacy of abstinence from sexual relations during the
woman's fertile period, provided that such abstinence is practiced
for "serious motives." And in "Familiaris consortio", Pope John
Paul II called on "all--doctors, experts, marriage counselors,
teachers and married couples--who can actually help married people
to live their love with respect for the structure and finalities
of the conjugal act which expresses that love. This implies a
broader, more decisive and more systematic effort to make the
natural methods of regulating fertility known, respected and
applied.")[38]
Beyond their apparent failure to grasp the essential reason why
contraception is wrong, most Catholics show little awareness of
the role of contraception as a root cause of other evils. The
general acceptance of the morality of the act of contraception is
a major factor in the following developments:
ABORTION. Contraception is the prevention of life while abortion
is the taking of life. But both come from a common root: the
willful separation of the unitive and procreative aspects of sex.
Widespread contraception tends to require abortion as a backstop.
And the contraceptive mentality of unwanted babies tends to reduce
objections to abortion to the emotional or aesthetic. There is a
technological link, too, in that many so-called contraceptives,
such as the IUD, are abortifacient.
PORNOGRAPHY. Like contraception, which reduces sexual relations to
an exercise in mutual masturbation, pornography is the separation
of sex from life and the reduction of sex to an exercise in self-
gratification. In the process, woman becomes an object rather than
a person. One characteristic of contraception is its tendency to
depersonalize the woman. Pope Paul in "Humanae vitae", warned that
contraception would cause women to be viewed as sex objects, that
"man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices,
may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for
her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point
of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and
no longer as his respected and beloved companion."[39]
HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY. If sex has no inherent relation to
procreation, why not let Freddy marry George? The legitimization
of homosexual activity is predictable in a contraceptive society,
which cannot say that homosexual relations are objectively wrong
without condemning itself. Instead, homosexual living must be
regarded as an "alternate" life style--which is what it is, if sex
has no inherent relation to reproduction. On the contrary, a
society in which it makes no difference whether boys marry girls
or other boys is not only on the road to extinction; it is
clinically insane.
IN VITRO FERTILIZATION. Contraception is the taking of the unitive
without the procreative. In vitro fertilization is the reverse.
The teaching Church has warned against this as a perversion. The
process involves the fertilization of several eggs; only the best
ones are implanted in the womb and the rest are flushed down the
drain. Dr. Patrick Steptoe, one of the originators of the
technique, recently denied that he was destroying human lives
because, in his opinion, only "a potential life has been started
when an egg is fertilized. The mortal part of life has been joined
with the immortal part: by that I mean the genetic material. We
are all merely transient carriers of our genes, I'm afraid; it is
our genes that are immortal, definitely."[40] We are already
seeing further refinements of the in vitro technique, including
serious proposals that spare embryos be frozen and then defrosted
and given, or sold, to prospective "mothers," that the embryos be
used for experiments or that they be used for spare parts for
persons in need of new organs.
TEEN-AGE PROMISCUITY. In addition to the inducements offered by
imprudent sex education, the media and the availability of
contraception and abortion, one explanation for teenage
promiscuity is parental example. According to the natural moral
law and the Commandments, sex is reserved for marriage; this is so
because sex inherently has something to do with babies and the
natural way to raise children is in a monogamous, lifetime
marriage. But if children see their parents, in their practice of
contraception, behave as if sex had no inherent relation to
reproduction, it should not be surprising if those children draw
the conclusion that sex does not have to be reserved for marriage.
DIVORCE AND CHILD ABUSE. The divorce rate soared during the years
in which contraception became practically universal and
sterilization became the most popular method. This is not merely a
"post hoc ergo proper hoc" deduction. In the natural order of
things, marriage is permanent because sex is intrinsically related
to reproduction and it is according to nature that children be
raised in a stable home with parents permanently united in
marriage. If sex and marriage are not intrinsically related to
life, then marriage loses its reason for permanence. It tends to
become an alliance for individual self- fulfillment--what Pope
Paul called "the juxtaposition of two solitudes." The refusal to
accept responsibility for others and to endure frustration is
characteristic of the contraceptive mind. According to Dr. Edward
Leonski, director of pediatric emergency services at Los Angeles
County Hospital, 90 percent of the battered children in a six-year
study "were planned pregnancies." Since the introduction of the
pill, child beating has increased threefold.
EUTHANASIA. The contraceptive ethic, because it denies that life
is always good, prepared the ground for permissive abortion. Once
abortion had accustomed people to the idea that burdensome lives
are not worth living, the way was clear for euthanasia as a "cure"
for the aged and the "useless."
These effects of the prevalence of the contraceptive ethic are
fairly obvious. It would be a mistake, however, to say that a
"contraceptive mentality" is undesirable but that individual acts
of contraception can be justified and even meritorious in some
cases. This erroneous distinction was flatly rejected by Pope Paul
VI and Pope John Paul II. The root error is the acceptance of the
idea that the deliberate separation of the unitive and procreative
aspects of sex can ever be right. Moreover, the contraceptive mind
tends to be hostile to new or burdensome life. It is this factor
which gives added impetus to the euthanasia movement which is a
product not only of spiritual ills but of demographics as well.
Demographic Pressures
According to the United States Census Bureau, there are now 5.4
Americans under 65 for every American over that age; by the year
2050, the number will be 2.6.[41] Which raises the question: who
is going to support all those old folks? The United States
fertility rate is at its lowest level in a century. According to
the study, "Fertility of American Women: June 1979," by Martin
O'Connell and Carolyn C. Rogers, if the current low rates
continue, the proportion of women completing their childbearing
years without having a baby could go as high as 25 to 30 percent,
well over the 1979 figure of 14.9 percent and exceeding the record
22 percent of the women born in the 1880's who went childless.[42]
A recent study by the National Center for Health Statistics
documents the marked increase of younger couples who are medically
unable to have children. Among women between the ages 15 and 29
with one child or no children, the percentage who are medically
infertile rose from 6 percent to 9 percent between 1965 and 1976.
The increase was "especially marked" among black women, going from
6 percent in 1965 to 14 percent in 1976. The report said one cause
for the general increase may be the tripling of reported cases of
gonorrhea during that period and the 600 percent increase in those
years of women using intra-uterine birth control devices which
increase the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease which in turn can
cause infertility.[43]
The demographic reality of an aging population is alone enough to
make the pro-life movement hopeless in secular political terms.
Moreover, the institutionalization of euthanasia is already far
advanced in this country and within a fairly short time it will be
practiced on a massive scale. Theoretically, of course, if you can
kill the innocent unborn child in the womb because he is unfit or
otherwise unwanted, why can you not do the same thing to his elder
brother and his grandmother? It is a common practice in hospital
nurseries to give the parents of a retarded newborn a choice as to
whether the child will be kept alive or not.[44] The legal issues
concern the distinction between ordinary treatment, which must be
provided, and extraordinary treatment, which need not be given.
But this distinction is illusory in light of the tendency to
regard even the provision of water and food as optional where the
death of the patient is desired because of his illness or other
deficiency.
On April 9, 1982, a boy was born in Bloomington Hospital, Indiana.
The only name he ever had was Baby Boy Doe. And he had three
problems. First, he had esophagal atresia--his esophagus was not
connected to his stomach--a condition which could have been
corrected by surgery; this condition prevented him from taking
nourishment orally. Second, he had Down's Syndrome. Third, his
parents refused to consent to the surgery to correct his esophagus
and they refused to allow him to be fed intravenously while his
fate was being determined by the courts. Bloomington Hospital
officials complied with his parents' decision, and three Indiana
courts, including the State Supreme Court, declined to interfere
with that decision. Baby Boy Doe was placed in an isolation room
where he died without treatment or nourishment on April 16, 1982,
seven days after his birth.
The death of Baby Doe was described by Congressman Henry Hyde as
an "act of eugenic infanticide." "The freedom to choose to kill
inconvenient life is being extended," observed columnist George F.
Will, "precisely as predicted, beyond fetal life to categories of
inconvenient infants, such as Down's Syndrome babies."
Recently, a Los Angeles County prosecutor sought homicide
indictments against two doctors who disconnected a comatose, 55-
year- old man, Clarence Herbert, from his respirator, at his
family's request; then, when he unexpectedly survived, they
withdrew two days later, the intravenous tube which provided him
with food and water. One week later the patient died from
dehydration.[45] The similarity of the court-room arguments
justifying this to the philosophy that underlay the Nazi
extermination program was evident.[46]
A New Pro-Life Movement
From all the foregoing, it can be seen that abortion is not itself
the ultimate problem. It is rather a symptom of a total disorder,
a total rebellion against God's law. In the face of that disorder,
a partial, compromising response is inappropriate. Rather, the
response must be total as the disorder is total. And it must be
essentially religious because the disorder is religious. The
purpose of this tract is to suggest that a new pro-life movement
is needed, that it is now developing and that it offers the only
realistic prospect for success. The outlines of this new pro-life
movement can be described as follows:
1. It will be primarily religious, appealing to all persons of all
religions, who recognize that the abortion problem is a
manifestation of the simple issue: Who is God, the real God or the
state?
2. It will be uncompromising in its educational efforts,
emphasizing that we are in trouble because of secularism,
relativism and contraception. The last named is especially
important. Although abortion differs from contraception in that
abortion is the taking of life while contraception prevents a life
from coming into being, they are related, as discussed above.
3. Its political activity will be similarly uncompromising. As I
have said elsewhere, the movement will work for the adoption of a
legislative agenda and for the election of pro-life candidates at
every level. But there will be no compromise. Prolifers must be
single-issue voters in the sense that abortion is an absolutely
disqualifying issue: any candidate who believes that the law
should define some innocent human beings as nonpersons so as to
deprive them of the right to life is unworthy to hold any public
office, whether President of the United States or trustee of a
mosquito abatement district. What is needed is "punishment
politics," to use the term coined by prolife Sen. John Martyr, the
Jesse Helms of Australia. Those who are wrong on abortion must be
voted out of office regardless of their stands on other issues: if
necessary, prolifers will run as independent candidates where no
pro-life alternative is offered by a major party. Of course, there
is no chance of adopting a Human Life Amendment in the near
future, but the movement will maintain that as a goal. It will
work, in the meantime, for a Human Life Bill and for the enactment
of sound and useful restrictions on abortion at the state and
federal levels, including especially the elimination of taxpayer
support for Planned Parenthood and other anti-life agencies. This
will be a form of guerrilla warfare directed at legislative
targets of opportunity. And the movement will recognize throughout
that there can be no compromise on abortion.[47]
4. The primary emphasis of the movement, however, will be on
prayer, especially the recitation of the Rosary, combined with
sidewalk counseling, at abortion clinics.
47. Rice, "The New Pro-Life Movement," The Wanderer, January 6,
1983, p. 1, col. 1.
Public Prayer
On the last point, it should be emphasized that I am talking
neither about mere picketing nor about disruption of abortion
facilities in violation of the law. Since pro-life activity at the
abortion clinics is, in my judgment, the most important work of
the new pro-life movement, it will be useful to outline here some
of the basic considerations that govern that work.
If you saw a woman strangling her three-year-old child on a street
corner, would you not interfere? And even if she were committing
the murder in her own house but in plain view from the street,
would you not break down the door to stop her? The law would
surely recognize your right to do so. Why, then, do we not charge
into abortion clinics to stop the killings that take place behind
their doors? The common law privilege of necessity would justify
one in entering somebody's house to prevent the latter from
knifing a person to death. But according to the Supreme Court the
unborn child is a non-person whose life is practically as much at
the disposal of his mother as would be the life of a goldfish.
There is evidently, therefore, no legal right for any third party
to interfere to prevent an abortion.
In moral terms, however, there may be a right to interfere in a
situation where there is a reasonable prospect that such
interference would be more than a mere gesture and would actually
save lives. The laws which protect abortion clinics against those
who would prevent abortion provide a legal sanctuary for murder.
Those laws, therefore, are unjust and morally void, as are the
Supreme Court's abortion rulings themselves. Whether demonstration
and obstruction should be used against abortion facilities is
therefore a question of prudence and tactics.
The objective is not to confront abortion with the mere strength
of numbers or with physical force. With the power of the state
arrayed on the side of death, there is practically nothing one can
do to save the life of the child whose mother is resolved upon his
death. Breaking up the furniture and sitting in clinic doorways
will be of virtually no use in this respect. Our reliance here
must be on the Rosary rather than the sledge hammer (and on other
prayers as well, especially in ecumenical gatherings). The most
effective technique would be to confront every abortion facility
in the country with a continuous, peaceful Rosary vigil lawfully
conducted on the public sidewalk, including the offering of pro-
life literature and counseling to persons entering and leaving the
premises. This would not involve any obstruction or interference
with anybody. But it would dramatize the opposition of abortion to
the law of God. And only through the grace of God will we succeed
in removing this scourge from our land.
One objection to a prayer vigil outside of abortion facilities is
that it would put an extra burden of guilt on some women who have
abortions without really knowing what they are doing. It is not
our function to try to make anyone feel guilty. And the subjective
culpability of any person is ours neither to know nor to judge.
However, in the objective moral order abortion is murder. It is
proper for us to call it that and to do so in the literature
distributed to willing takers at the scene of the crime. If this
incidentally causes some participants in baby killing to feel
guilty, this is understandable. For they do have something to feel
guilty about.
Another objection to prayer at abortion facilities is that prayer
is effective wherever it is offered. We can do as much good, it is
said, praying in church or in the privacy of our homes as we can
on the public sidewalk. Part of our national problem, however, is
due to the tendency to restrict religion to a strictly private
preserve, to keep it in the closet and thereby to deny its
relevance to the public life of the nation. There is a needed
element of witness in praying at an abortion factory. It is hardly
too much to suggest that, in the face of the legalized slaughter
of millions of babies, we ought to pray in public for deliverance.
In 1964, when Brazil was sliding toward a Communist takeover, that
country was saved by women who organized public demonstrations
featuring the Rosary. In one demonstration in Sao Paulo,
"clutching prayerbooks and rosaries, a vast army more than 600,000
strong marched in solemn rhythm under anti-Communist banners. And
as they marched, newshawks on the sidelines sold newspapers
containing a 1300-word proclamation the women had prepared:
"This nation which God has given us, immense and marvelous as it
is, is in extreme danger. We have allowed men of limitless
ambition, without Christian faith or scruples, to bring our people
misery, destroying our economy, disturbing our social peace, to
create hate and despair. They have infiltrated our nation, our
government administration, our armed forces and even our churches
with servants of totalitarianism, foreign to us and all-
consuming.... Mother of God, preserve us from the fate and
suffering of the martyred women of Cuba, Poland, Hungary, and
other enslaved nations."[48]
One organization which is most effective on this point is
Catholics United for Life. CUL recently wrote to the pastor of
every Catholic parish in the United States asking them to
cooperate in a Rosary Crusade to End All Abortion. As Mark Drogin
of CUL put it:
Our Church has always militantly protected the rights of the
defenseless using the weapons of prayer and penance-- especially
the Rosary. "Holy Mother Church, guided by the Holy Ghost, has
always advocated public prayer in times of public tragedy and
suffering." (St. Louis de Montfort) The first goal of this Rosary
Crusade is to establish a regular time in every parish when the
Rosary (or Holy Hour) is recited publicly in a group for the
intention of ending all abortion. Hopefully parishioners will be
reminded regularly to also offer private prayers and penances for
this specific intention. Many parishes and dioceses already have
such programs and we ask your help in spreading this practice more
widely. Please keep us informed of your activities.
We hope that this public prayer in the parishes will be a strong
foundation for those who are able to be more active. We believe
that the most effective response to the public tragedy of abortion
is for us to pray the Rosary in front of the abortion chambers
where the innocent babies are being slaughtered. We call this
prayer and counseling at the abortuaries "Sidewalk Counseling"; we
have been doing it for years and we have saved a great number of
babies who were scheduled for abortion.
Abortion is wrong because it violates the law of God. Our choice
of weapons should reflect the nature of the struggle. With the
power of the state arrayed on the side of the baby killers, the
use of force against them will be self-defeating. On the other
hand we have spiritual weapons which are irresistible. The Rosary,
especially, is a wonder weapon. It stopped the Turkish fleet at
Lepanto, it saved Brazil in the 1960's, and it is our most
effective weapon against the murder of the unborn. If every
abortion clinic were the scene of a continuous Rosary vigil, with
information and counseling at every hour of its operation, we
would win this fight in short order. As Father Patrick Peyton
said, "Mary is omnipotent when she prays."
At the beginning of this tract I offered the opinion that "the
pro-life movement, in secular and political terms, is absolutely,
utterly hopeless." And we have no reason to presume that God will
spare this nation the punishment we have deserved for our
slaughter of the innocent. This is not to say, however, that the
cause itself is hopeless. In human terms it clearly is, for the
reasons outlined herein. But we need not fight in merely human
terms. Recalling the words of the Angel Gabriel, "nothing shall be
impossible with God" (Luke 1:37), we have every reason for
confidence if, in addition to our work, we repent, trust God and
call on Him for guidance and help, particularly through the
intercession of Mary, His mother.
ENDNOTES
1. See U.S. News and World Report, November 13, 1972, p. 28.
2. U.S. News and World Report, January 24, 1983, 47.
3. Chicago Tribune, March 11, 1981, p. 8, col. 1.
4. Jenkins, "A Candid Talk with Justice Blackmun," New York Times
Magazine, Feb. 20, 1983, 20.
5. For further treatment of secularism, see James Hitchcock, "What
is Secular Humanism?" (Ann Arbor: Servant Publications, 1982);
Charles E. Rice, "Beyond Abortion: The Theory and Practice of the
Secular State" (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1979); and Henry
V. Sattler, C.Ss.R., "Secular Humanism?" (Stafford, VA: American
Life Education and Research Trust, 1982).
6. Edward Barrett, "A Lawyer Looks at Natural Law Jurisprudence,"
23 Am. J. Jurisprudence 1 (1978).
7. 1 Jefferson's Va. Rep. 109, 114 (1772).
8. U.S. News and World Report, Jan. 24, 1983, 47.
9. Quoted in Ernst von Hippel, "The Role of Natural Law in the
Legal Decisions of the German Federal Republic," 4, Natural Law
Forum (1959) 106, 110.
10. Holmes, "The Natural Law, Collected Legal Papers" (1920), 310.
11. Holmes-Pollock Letters (1942), vol. 2, p. 252.
12. 3 Cong. Rec. 1794 (1875). See generally A. Avins, "The
Reconstruction Amendment Debates" 12, 29, 36, 220-21, 274, 460,
556, 558, 622, 631, 708, 733, 737-38, 740-42 (1967).
13. Hans Kelsen, "The Pure Theory of Law," Part I, SO Law
Quarterly Review (1935), 474.
14. Hans Kelsen, "The Pure Theory of Law," Part II, 51; Law
Quarterly Review (1935), 517, 518-519.
15. Cambridge University Press, 1979.
16. Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics" (1979), 5.
17. "Practical Ethics", p. 48.
18. "Practical Ethics", pp. 49-50.
19. "Practical Ethics", p. 76.
20. "Practical Ethics", p. 84.
21. "Practical Ethics", p. 97.
22. "Practical Ethics", p. 103.
23. "Practical Ethics", p. 104.
24. "Practical Ethics", p. 105.
25. New York Review of Books (May 15, 1980).
26. "Practical Ethics", p. 117.
27. "Practical Ethics", p. 118.
28. "Practical Ethics", p. 123.
29. "Practical Ethics", p. 125.
30. "Practical Ethics", p. 139.
31. "Practical Ethics", p. 153.
32. "Practical Ethics", p. 154.
33. "Practical Ethics", p. 154.
34. "Practical Ethics", p. 156.
35. Prof. Rice would be pleased to send articles he has written on
the subject to any readers of this tract who desire them.
36. Nos. 14 and 12.
37. No. 32.
38. H.V., No. 16; F.C., No. 35.
39. No. 17.
40. Irish Times, Jan. 11, 1983, p. 10, col. 1.
41. New York Times, Nov. 9, 1982, p. 11, col. 6.
42. Chicago Tribune, Feb. 8, 1981, Sec. 1, p. 14, col. 1.
43. New York Times, Feb. 10, 1983.
44. See Hall and Cameron, "Our Failing Reverence for Life,"
Psychology Today, April, 1976, 104.
45. Los Angeles Times, January 19, 1983, Part 1, p. 3.
46. This comment is based upon press reports, esp. Los Angeles
Times, January 26, 1983, Part II, p. 1. Accurate transcripts of
the remarks of various witnesses could not be obtained in time for
the printing of this Tract.
48. Hall, "The Country that Saved Itself," Reader's Digest,
November, 1964, p. 11.
Afterword
Pro-abortionists often complain that we are being unfair,
uncharitable, even slanderous, when we refer to them as "anti-
lifers." Yet, can any of us read this tract of Dr. Rice's and fail
to see the justice of the "anti-life" epithet? Clearly, men are in
fact on a "slippery slope," pace Prof. Singer; when they deny the
humanity of even the least of their brother, for whatever reason
and within whatever "limits", if that is even a meaningful word in
this context. Indeed, Prof. Singer is himself a prime example of
the inevitable slide into monstrosity, being as he is the apostle
of indiscriminate murder over "speciesism," and the champion of
the chimpanzee over the unborn infant human being.
More to the point, we may argue that our society, even if it
allows one to be personally opposed to abortion, is increasingly,
overtly anti-God. It is at least difficult to deny the existence,
or even the authority of the Creator and still accept the validity
of His Creation, to oppose the Author of Life and not then oppose
life itself.
Therefore, whatever one may choose to dispute in the details of
Dr. Rice's "game plan," his central proposition cannot be denied.
The pro-life movement is not merely inextricably bound up with
religious concern, or "prejudices" as the opposition would say,
but is actually part of one of those relatively sure battles
wherein the lines between good and evil are drawn with crystal
clarity. This is no "prejudiced" view, since its empirical basis
is all too ready to hand.
Thus, we may all agree that there is more involved here than just
political maneuver or constitutional debates. Yet, prudence is
also a virtue, and among its many counsels which we cannot afford
to ignore is that we need to be organized, to have leadership and
programs of action. Dr. Rice recommends that any would-be players
still languishing on the bench, or activists wishing to expand
their participation, contact any or all of the following groups:
Ad Hoc Committee in Defense of Life (Box 2950, Washington, D.C.
20013): publishers of "Lifeletter," the Committee promotes
awareness of and support for pro-life strategies which have
current chance of success.
Alternatives to Abortion International (toll free number: 1-800-
356- 5671): AAI provides counseling and services to assist
troubled pregnant women in bringing their children to birth.
The American Life Lobby (6-B Library Ct., S.E., Washington, D.C.
20003): this group is clearly centered around religious principles
in its lobbying and fund-raising activities for pro-life action in
the federal government.
Birthright, Inc. (761 Coxwell Ave., Toronto, Ontario M4C 3C5
Canada); Birthright provides support to pregnant women who might
otherwise have abortions, so that they can bring their children to
term.
Catholics United for Life (New Hope, KY 40052): a Third Order
Dominican community of penance, Catholics United for Life is a
leader in demonstrations and counseling at abortion clinics, and
has available a leaflet, "The Best Way to Save Babies," which
explains in detail how to organize and conduct a Sidewalk
Counseling Program.
The Couple to Couple League (P.O. Box 11084, Cincinnati, OH
45211): this organization provides literature and training in
natural family planning, using the best techniques in a sound
Catholic perspective.
Human Life Foundation (Room 840, 150 E. 35th St., NY, NY 10016):
publishers of "The Human Life Review," a quarterly pro-life
journal.
Human Life International (7845-E Airpark Rd., Gaithersburg, MD
20879): headed by Fr. Paul Marx, HLI reports on pro-life
situations worldwide.
The March for Life (605 14th Street, N.W., Suite 302, Washington,
D.C. 20005): this organization is responsible for the massive pro-
life demonstration in Washington, D.C. each year on the
anniversary of the January 22 Supreme Court decision legalizing
abortion.
National Right to Life Committee (Suite 402, 419 7th St., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20004): the Committee published the "National
Right to Life News" and serves as an umbrella organization for
coordination at the national level of grass roots pro-life groups
in the various states. In order to find out what local pro-life
groups are active in your area, contact the NRLC.
Shield of Roses (Anthony J. MacTutis, Atty. at Law, 718 Myrtle
Avenue, El Paso, TX 79901; Joseph Wall, 207 Unruh Avenue,
Philadelphia, PA 19111): The Shield of Roses has sponsored Rosary
vigils outside of abortion clinics for years.
U.S. Coalition for Life (Box 315, Export, Pa. 15632): the
Coalition does research on Federal involvement in anti-life
activities.
Some decades ago, social scientist Max Weber, himself a secular
humanist, expressed his fear that modern civilization would only
succeed in producing "specialists without vision, and voluptuaries
without heart." The source notwithstanding, this is a dead
accurate description of men without God. It is an especially apt
characterization of those we call "anti-lifers."
Thomas P. Mangieri
Charles E. Rice is a Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School and
one of the leading pro-life legal minds in the United States
today. An editor of the Common Faith Tracts, Prof. Rice earned his
D.J.S. degree from New York University School of Law. He is the
author of several books, including "The Supreme Court and Public
Prayer," "The Vanishing Right to Live," and "Beyond Abortion: The
Theory and Practice of the Secular State." The Foreword and
Afterword to this tract are by CF Tract associate editor Thomas P.
Mangieri, Director of the Politics Program at Christendom College.
Common Faith Tracts (ISSN: 0273-7620) are published six times per
year (roughly bimonthly) for three related reasons: to defend the
Catholic faith, to apply Catholic thought to contemporary
problems, and to promote Catholic spirituality for the salvation
of souls. Prices (in U.S. funds) are as follows: Subscription:
$10/year Single copy: $1.95 plus 60 cents postage 2-9 copies:
$1.60 each plus $1.00 postage 10-49 copies: $1.30 each plus $2.00
postage 50 or more: $1.00 each plus $3.00 postage (C) Christendom
Educational Corporation 1983 Christendom Publications, Route 3,
Box 87, Front Royal, Virginia 22630 Used with permission.
Editor: Jeffrey A. Mirus Associate Editors: Thomas P. Mangieri,
William H. Marshner, Charles E. Rice, Robert C. Rice Spiritual
Advisor: Rev. Robert J. Fox Production Manager: Kathleen M.
Collins Cover Artist: Patrick Diemer
Digital copy copyright Catholic Information Network (CIN) -
http://www.cin.org
-------------------------------------------------------
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
Web:
http://www.ewtn.com
FTP: ewtn.com
Telnet: ewtn.com
Email address: sysop@ ewtn.com
EWTN provides a Catholic online
information and service system.
-------------------------------------------------------
