THE CONFERENCE:
Candidate Survey (11/2006)
making (1/06)
Statement (2/05)
-Capitol
Correspondent:
*********
Life Insight:
Columns-2008
*********
Throughout this website, the NCC provides links to other websites solely for the user's convenience. By providing these links, the NCC assumes no responsibility for, nor does it necessarily endorse the websites or organizations linked.
Nebraska Catholics for LIFE Volume 5, Issue 1, Jan-March 2006; Volume 5, Issue 2, August 2006
Pray
“Certain kinds of demons do not leave but by prayer and fasting.” Mt. 17:21
Priests for Life invites every Christian to say the following prayer each day. For other prayer resources go to http://www.priestsforlife.org/prayers/index.htm
Prayer to End Abortion
Lord God, I thank you today for the gift of my life, and for the lives of all my brothers and sisters.
I know there is nothing that destroys more life than abortion, Yet I rejoice that you have conquered death by the Resurrection of Your Son.
I am ready to do my part in ending abortion.
Today I commit myself never to be silent, never to be passive,
never to be forgetful of the unborn.
I commit myself to be active in the pro-life
movement, and never to stop defending life until all my brothers and sisters
are protected,
And our nation once again becomes a nation with liberty and justice not just
for some, but for all.
Through Christ our Lord. Amen!
Think
Social Science Confirms Harmful Effects of Contraception
by Culture and Cosmos January 4, 2005, Volume 2, Number 22
The predictions found in Pope Paul VI's encyclical affirming the Catholic Church's constant teaching that artificial contraception is wrong have been confirmed by the social sciences which show that ignoring the Church doctrine on sex and marriage is harmful to individuals and society. These are the findings of a Nobel Prize winning social scientist.
Writing in the current issue of Touchstone Magazine, University of Virginia professor W. Bradford Wilcox writes that when the encyclical, "Humane Vitae," was published in 1968 it was surrounded with controversy. In it Pope Paul said widespread use of contraception would lead to "conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality." The Pope said men would no longer respect women but would treat them as a "mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion."
"Humane Vitae's" publication was met with vigorous protest by many prominent American clergy who were also academics. They said the Church's continued ban on contraception proved that Church authorities were indifferent to the plight of "real people." Thirty-six years later Wilcox says that an examination of the effects of the contraceptive mentality on society shows that it is those who dissent from "Humane Vitae" that are indifferent.
Wilcox, an assistant professor of sociology at UVA, cites research by six scholars which shows contraception to be responsible for a significant rise in divorce and illegitimacy, both of which lead to other social ills like heightened rates of criminal behavior and increased high school drop out rates. Wilcox also argues that the poor are especially susceptible to the harms caused by the contraceptive culture. Wilcox notes that the
research is not partisan. "The leading scholars who have tackled these topics are not Christians, and most of them are not political or social conservatives"
Robert Michael, of the University of Chicago, believes that sudden widespread use of artificial contraception and the availability of abortion is responsible for "about half of the increase in divorce from 1965 to 1976." Wilcox cites George Akerlof, a Nobel prize-winning economist, who provides an economic explanation for why widespread use of artificial contraception resulted in an increase in illegitimacy rather than a decrease as many predicted.
According to Akerlof, traditional women who wanted to either abstain from sex or at least receive a promise from their boyfriend that he would marry her in the case of pregnancy could no longer compete with "modern" women who embraced contraception. This created an environment in which premarital sex became the norm and women "felt free or obligated to have sex." "Thus, many traditional women ended up having sex and having children out of wedlock, while many of the permissive women ended up having sex and contracepting or aborting so as to avoid childbearing. This explains in large part why the contraceptive revolution was associated with an increase in both abortion and illegitimacy."
Wilcox says contraceptives remove one of the key reasons to getting married, the moral incentive. And while many members of the middle and upper classes marry because they know it serves their economic interest, the second key incentive for marrying, the poor are much more likely to marry solely for moral reasons. The result is that in the contraceptive era the poor have even less of an incentive to marry than do other classes. For this reason the poor have been hit even harder by the negative consequences that came about through widespread use of contraceptives.
For a more complete report by Mr. Wilcox, go to: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-01-038-f
How To Defend Your Pro Life Views In 5 Minutes or Less
By Scott Klusendorf
Suppose that you have just five minutes to graciously defend your pro-life beliefs with friends or classmates. Can you do it with rational arguments? What should you say? And how can you simplify the abortion issue for those who think it’s hopelessly complex? Here’s how to succeed in three easy steps:
1) Clarify the issue. Pro-life advocates contend that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. This simplifies the abortion controversy by focusing public attention on just one question: Is the unborn a member of the human family? If so, killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong. It treats the distinct human being, with his or her own inherent moral worth, as nothing more than a disposable instrument. Conversely, if the unborn are not human, killing them for any reason requires no more justification than having a tooth pulled.
In other words, arguments based on “choice” or “privacy” miss the point entirely. Would anyone that you know support a mother killing her toddler in the name of “choice and who decides?” Clearly, if the unborn are human, like toddlers, we shouldn’t kill them in the name of choice anymore than we would a toddler. Again, this debate is about just one question: What is the unborn?
At this point, some may object that your comparisons are not fair—that killing a fetus is morally different than killing a toddler. Ah, but that’s the issue, isn’t it? Are the unborn, like toddlers, members of the human family? That is the one issue that matters.
Remind your critics that you are vigorously “pro-choice” when it comes to women choosing a number of moral goods. You support a woman’s right to choose her own doctor, to choose her own husband, to choose her own job, and to choose her own religion, to name a few. These are among the many choices that you fully support for women. But some choices are wrong, like killing innocent human beings simply because they are in the way and cannot defend themselves.[1] No, we shouldn’t be allowed to choose that.
2) Defend your pro-life position with science and philosophy. Scientifically, we know that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Leading embryology books confirm this.[2] Prior to his abortion advocacy, former Planned Parenthood President Dr. Alan Guttmacher was perplexed that anyone, much less a medical doctor, would question this. "This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn't part of the common knowledge," he wrote in his book Life in the Making.[3]
Philosophically, we can say that embryos are less developed than newborns (or, for that matter, toddlers) but this difference is not morally significant in the way abortion advocates need it to be. Consider the claim that the immediate capacity for self-awareness bestows value on human beings. Notice that this is not an argument, but an arbitrary assertion. Why is some development needed? And why is this particular degree of development decisive rather than another? These are questions that abortion advocates do not adequately address. Put simply, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today. Differences of size, development, and location are not relevant. Think of the acronym SLED as a helpful reminder of these non-essential differences:[4]
 |
SIZE: True, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more valuable than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean that they deserve more rights. Size doesn’t equal value. |
|
LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one valuable. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease. |
|
ENVIRONMENT: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-valuable tissue mass to valuable human being? If the unborn are not already human and valuable, merely changing their location can’t make them so. |
|
DEGREE OF DEPENDENCY: If viability bestows human value, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life. |
In short, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal (and valuable) because they share a common human nature. Humans have value simply because of the kind of thing they are, not because of some acquired property they may gain or lose during their lifetimes.
3) Challenge your listeners to be intellectually honest. Ask the tough questions. When critics say that birth makes the unborn human, ask, “How does a mere change of location from inside the womb to outside the womb change the essential nature of the unborn?” If they say that brain development or higher consciousness makes us valuable humans, ask if they would agree with Joseph Fletcher that those with an IQ below 20 or perhaps 40 should forfeit their right to life? If not, why not? True, some people will ignore the scientific and philosophic case you present for the pro-life view and argue for abortion based on self-interest. That is the lazy way out. Remind your critics that if we care about truth, we will courageously follow the facts wherever they lead, no matter what the cost to our own self-interests.
For more of Scott’s pro-life apologetics go to: http://prolifetraining.com/Pro-Life_Articles.htm
1 Gregory Koukl, Precious Unborn Human Persons (Lomita: STR Press, 1999) p. 11.
2 See T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Embryology, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1993) p. 3; Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Toronto: B.C. Decker, 1988) p. 2; O’Rahilly, Ronand and Muller, Pabiola, Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd ed. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996) pp. 8, 29.
3 A. Guttmacher, Life in the Making: The Story of Human Procreation (New York: Viking Press, 1933) p. 3.
4 Stephen Schwarz, The Moral Question of Abortion (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1990) p. 18.
South Dakota’s Frontal Assault on Roe
On March 6, 2006, Governor Mike Rounds signed into law a bill that bans nearly all abortions in South Dakota. Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest perpetrator and apologist of abortion, will challenge the law in court and is organizing a ballot initiative for this November to try to overturn the law by a vote of the people of South Dakota.
The process for challenging the law in court starts with the federal district court. A district court ruling can be appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Because these lower courts are generally bound to uphold U. S. Supreme Court decisions, it is likely that both courts will strike the law down as unconstitutional under Roe v Wade.
The next level of
appeal is to the Supreme Court. However, it is not certain that the Supreme
Court would automatically accept this appeal. If the High Court does take the
case, five of its nine current members aren’t likely to overturn Roe,
although it is possible that one of those five could be replaced before the
South Dakota case reaches the High Court.
This uncertainty has caused some in the pro-life movement to be concerned about whether this frontal assault to Roe at this time will be fruitful. But, as Fr.
Frank Pavone of Priests for Life said, whatever our view is, “the issue now…is to capitalize on this action and use it as an opportunity to teach our fellow citizens how un-American Roe v. Wade is.”
Double Digit Decrease in Abortions
In 2005, Nebraska experienced the largest ever one-year decline in the number of abortions. There were 3173 abortions representing an 11.5 percent decline over the 3584 abortions in 2004. Abortions in Nebraska have declined by nearly 22 percent over the last two years. Keep up the prayers!
Act!!!
If you haven’t done so yet, please renew your NCL membership for 2006. To renew, simply send your name, address, phone number, and e-mail to the address on this newsletter or e-mail it to gregschlepp@alltel.net. A contribution of $15 is suggested.
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
Enclosed are two excellent new fliers available for distribution from Greg Schleppenbach’s office (one on fetal development, one on abortion stats and law). The fliers are not enclosed for priests and pro life coordinators (who’ve received them already).
Nebraska Catholics for LIFE Volume 5, Issue 2, August 2006 ; Volume 5, Issue 1, Jan-March 2006
Pray
Certain kinds of demons do not leave but by prayer and fasting. Mt. 17:21)
Saints Anne & Joachim
Each year the Church venerates the memory of Saints Anne & Joachim (Parents of the Virgin Mary) on July 26th. An ancient story dating to the first centuries of the Church’s life recalls how Saints Anne & Joachim, like Abraham and Sarah, were scorned by their neighbors because they had no children. Years of longing did not weaken their trust in God, but grief eventually drove Saint Joachim into the wilderness to fast and pray.
Saint Anne, remaining at home, dressed in mourning clothes and wept because she had no child of her own. Seeing her mistress distressed, a servant girl reminded Anne to put her trust in God. Saint Anne washed her face, put on her bridal clothes and went to a garden to plead with God for a child. Angels appeared to Saint Anne in her garden and Saint Joachim in the desert, promising that, despite their old age, they would give birth to a child who would be known throughout the world. The new parents ran to meet one another at Jerusalem’s Golden Gate, and with a kiss rejoiced in the new life which God had promised would be theirs.
Saints Anne and Joachim are powerful intercessors for all married couples, expectant mothers and married couples who are having difficulty conceiving, as well as all who have grown old.
This novena is available on a prayer card in English or Spanish from the U.S. Bishops’ Pro-Life Office at 1-866-582-0943, Publication #0422. Cost is 25¢/copy or 15¢ for 100 or more.
|
NOVENA When life seems barren, help us to trust in God’s mercy. When we are confused, help us to find the way to God. When we are lost in the desert, lead us to those whom God has called us to love. When our marriage seems lifeless, show us the eternal youth of the Lord. When we are selfish, teach us to cling only to that which lasts. When we are afraid, help us to trust in God. When we are ashamed, remind us that we are God’s children. When we sin, lead us to do God’s will. You who know God’s will for husband and wife, help us to live chastely. You who know God’s will for the family, keep all families close to you. You who suffered without children, intercede for all infertile couples. Good parents of the Blessed Virgin Mary, grandparents of our Savior, Jesus Christ,
|
You who trusted in God’s will, help us to respect God’s gift of fertility. You who gave birth to the Blessed Mother, inspire couples to be co-creators with God. You who taught the Mother of God, teach us to nurture children in holy instruction. You whose hearts trusted in God, hear our prayers for . . . (mention your requests here) Pray with us for the ministry of Catholic family life. Pray with us for the ministry of Natural Family Planning. Pray with us for all who give their time, talent and treasure to this good work.
Hail Mary. . . Our Father. . . Glory to the Father. . . God of our fathers, you gave Saints Anne and Joachim the privilege of being the parents of Mary, the mother of your incarnate Son. May their prayers help us to attain the salvation you have promised to your people. We ask this through Christ our Lord. 1 Amen. |
Think
Natural Family Planning: Myths & Realities
Myth #1: NFP is just another name for Rhythm.
REALITY: Natural Family Planning (NFP) is an umbrella term for modern, healthy, scientifically accurate, and reliable methods of family planning which have been in use for only some 25 years. It differs from "Rhythm" (or the Calendar Method). Rhythm tried to estimate the time of ovulation by calculating previous menstrual cycles. Although this approach had sound scientific underpinnings, in practice it often proved inaccurate because of the unique nature of each woman's menstrual cycle. NFP, by contrast, has been proven scientifically sound in both theory and practice.
NFP is based on scientific research about women's cycles of fertility. Since the 19th century, doctors have known about the changes in cervical mucus and its relation to fertility. In the 1920s, temperature rules were developed. However, it wasn't until the 1950s that an educational process was developed to teach the observation and interpretation of these fertility signs.
The NFP methods are: the Basal Body Temperature (BBT) method, which monitors changes in a woman's temperature when she wakes up each morning; the Ovulation Method (OM), which monitors changes in a woman's cervical mucus; and the Sympto-Thermal Method (STM), which combines observations of temperature and cervical mucus with other indicators such as changes in the cervix and secondary fertility signs.
Myth #2: NFP can only be used by women with
regular cycles.
REALITY: The natural methods do not depend on having regular menstrual cycles; they treat each woman and each cycle as unique. NFP works with menstrual cycles of any length and any degree of irregularity. It can be used during breastfeeding, just before menopause, and in other special circumstances. NFP allows a woman to understand the physical signals her body gives her to tell her when she is most likely to become pregnant. Once she understands this information, she and her spouse can use it according to their family planning intentions.
The natural methods can be used throughout a woman's reproductive life. These methods are progressive. That is, they monitor the current, day-to-day signs of the woman's cycle. Instruction in NFP provides couples with information about their bodies that is specific and observable. When special circumstances do occur, a woman can contact an NFP instructor for additional guidance in interpreting her signs of fertility.
Myth #3: NFP is too complicated to be useful for
most people.
REALITY: Anyone who is taught by a certified teacher and motivated to use NFP can do so. The methods are so simple that they have been successfully adapted to suit the needs of cultures all around the world. According to Kambic and Gray (Human Reproduction, 1988), NFP use world wide ranges from 1-35% in developing countries. These authors state that "NFP has a role as an important method of family planning in many countries, irrespective of religion, socio-economic development, and overall level of contraceptive use" (p. 693).
Myth #4: NFP is not a reliable method of family planning.
REALITY: When couples understand the methods and are motivated to follow them, NFP is up to 99% successful in spacing or limiting births. The effectiveness of NFP depends upon spouses' following the rules of the method according to their family planning intention (i.e., achieving or limiting pregnancy). Those who are strongly motivated to avoid pregnancy and follow the method-defined rules are very effective in meeting their goal: 1-3 pregnancies per 100 couples in one year. Couples who do not follow all the rules for avoiding pregnancy all the time will experience 2-15 pregnancies per 100 couples in one year.
Myth #5: Couples who use NFP have less sex than
the average American.
REALITY: Most people most of the time are not engaged in sexual activity. Average monthly coital frequency among both married and unmarried couples in the United States is 8 or 9 for those 18 to 44 years old, 7 for those 44 to 55 years old and 5 for those 55 to 67 years old. If couples who practice NFP were to engage in intercourse on all the days when abstinence is not required for spacing births, they would be doing so at a rate almost twice the national average! If wishing to avoid pregnancy, a couple practicing NFP is usually advised to abstain from intercourse and genital contact during the wife's fertile time. NFP couples can make love no less frequently in each cycle than other couples.
Myth #6: NFP does not allow for sexual "spontaneity."
REALITY: This depends upon what one means by "spontaneity."
If by sexual spontaneity one means loving gestures, caresses, kisses, loving words, etc., then NFP does not hinder spontaneity. In fact NFP encourages couples to explore ways to express their love to one another because sexual intercourse is not always available. And the spontaneity with which a couple unites in lovemaking each cycle is something NFP couples find to be very special. If by "spontaneity" one means only being able to engage in sexual intercourse whenever the desire arises, then NFP does not measure up. But then, respect for your spouse--whose desires may not always be exactly the same as yours at any moment--is also in tension with that kind of "spontaneity." Any limitation on "spontaneity" in NFP should be judged in light of the freedom couples gain by not using chemical or barrier methods of contraception. Remember, chemical contraceptives carry heavy baggage in terms of contraindications and side effects.
Myth #7: There is no difference between NFP and artificial methods of contraception.
REALITY: NFP methods are different from and better than artificial contraception because they
ý Cooperate with, rather than suppress, a couple's fertility
ý Can be used both to achieve and avoid pregnancy
ý Call for shared responsibility and cooperation by husband and wife
ý Require spousal communication
ý Foster respect for and acceptance of the total person
ý Have no harmful side effects
ý Are virtually cost free
NFP is unique because it enables its users to work with the body rather than against it. Fertility is viewed as a reality to live, not a problem to be solved.
Myth #8: The Catholic Church wants people to have as many babies as possible.
REALITY: In fact the Church encourages people to be "responsible" stewards over their fertility. In this view of "responsible parenthood" married couples carefully weigh their responsibilities to God, each other, the children they already have, and the world in which they live when making decisions about the number and spacing of children.
Responsible parenthood is lived out within the structures which God has established in human nature. The nature of sexual intercourse, which is both life-giving (pro-creative) and love-giving (unitive), reflects a Divine plan. That is why the Church teaches that couples must not actively intervene to separate their fertility from their bodily union. To do so is to show disrespect for an important gift of the Creator.
Myth #9: Sex is a private decision between two people.
REALITY: Sexual intercourse is not only eminently personal, between a man and a woman, but also has a public and even universal dimension. Human reproduction orients sexual activity to the future of the world. The public consequences of sexual intercourse are illustrated by the miracle of birth, and also through the public devastation wrought by sexually transmitted diseases. Remember, sexual intercourse radically unites a man and a woman and is the only human act which can worthily bring another person into the world!
Myth #10: The Church does not want couples to have
sex for pleasure's sake.
REALITY: The Church wants married couples to have the best sex possible! Remember, there is a difference between simply "having sex," which includes actions directed towards the self, and "making love," which requires the giving of self to the other. Only in a lifelong, committed, loving relationship, centered in Christ, can couples hope to fully experience the sacrament of life and love, i.e., marriage. Current studies confirm what the Church has always taught: married sex is more fulfilling and enjoyable than uncommitted sex. People who "use" sex only for their own pleasure end up using other people--and they lose the real joy of sexuality. Unconditional love is what marriage is all about. That love is a real source of joy in the lives of married couples!
Produced by:
Act!!!
As our U.S. Bishops remind us in “Faithful Citizenship” and “Living the Gospel of Life”, “In the Catholic tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue; participation in the political process is a moral obligation.” “We encourage all citizens, particularly Catholics, to embrace their citizenship not merely as a duty and privilege, but as an opportunity meaningfully to participate [more fully] in building the culture of life. Every voice matters in the public forum. Every vote counts. Every act of responsible citizenship is an exercise of significant individual power.”
Get engaged in being a “faithful citizen”:
ý Make sure you are registered to vote
Registration forms are available online at http://www.sos.state.ne.us/elec/ele_forms.html or
at 1-402-471-2554.Deadline to register for the November 7 general election is October 20
ý Vote in every election
ý Urge others to register and vote
ý Read “Living the Gospel of Life”
Online at http://www.usccb.org/prolife/gospel/htm or 1-866-582-0943 to order a copy
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
|
NFP Resources on the Web: |
General Info: www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/whatisnfp.htm
Billings Ovulation Method: www.boma-usa.org or www.woomb.org
The Couple to Couple League: www.ccli.org
Creighton FertilityCare: www.popepaulvi.com or www.augustinefoundation.com
|
Print Resources: |
Promoting Humanae Vitae & NFP in the parish, (Janet Smith, 30¢/copy, www.omsoul.com, 800-307-7685)
A Preachable message: The Dynamics of Preaching NFP ($12.45/copy, www.boma-usa.com, 651-699-8139)
Called to Give Life (Jason Adams, $8.88, www.omsoul.com, 800-307-7685)
Angel in the Waters
This illustrated children’s book features an unborn child’s journey through pregnancy, including the child’s dialogue with an angel. This wonderful book can be viewed and ordered online at www.angelinthewaters.com or by calling 1-800-888-9344. Cost: $6.95; available in Spanish.
