Rod Dreher

A Church That Can Survive Shipwreck

Catholic Boys Write In Parish Newsletter

By Rod Dreher • January 27, 2013, 9:39 AM

Father Neuhaus used to refer, sarcastically, to the NYT as “our parish newsletter.” Here’s the lede from today’s column by Frank Bruni, the housebroken Catholic on the Times op-ed page:

“I have nothing against priests,” writes Garry Wills in his provocative new book, “Why Priests? A Failed Tradition,” and I’d like at the outset to say the same. During a career that has included no small number of formal interviews and informal conversations with them, I’ve met many I admire, men of genuine compassion and remarkable altruism, more dedicated to humanity than to any dogma or selective tradition.

Why, some of his best friends are priests, I bet.

A Catholic friend e-mails this link with the subject line, “I have nothing against rabbis.” Heh.

By the way, do please read today’s dynamite column about abortion, feminism, and culture by the NYT’s un-housebroken Catholic, Ross Douthat, who actually believes what the Church teaches and brings it to his analysis in a way that suggests he will win the Pulitzer Prize someday, though, alas, he will not be invited to the great parties his coreligionist colleague will be.

Posted in Abortion, Christianity, Media. Tagged abortion, Catholicism, Frank Bruni, Garry Wills, New York Times, priests, Ross Douthat.

66 Responses to Catholic Boys Write In Parish Newsletter

← Older Comments

Jay says:

January 28, 2013 at 3:18 am

That said, you can count me as a pro-lifer who would be happy (at least as a first step) if NARAL would stop blocking the sort of radical anti-abortion legislation you see in, say, Britain or Germany.

This statement is precisely why such a compromise is impossible. The majority of pro-choice people would be perfectly happy to compromise along the lines of the United Kingdom. That is, abortion easily accessible before 20 weeks but very difficult to obtain afterward. (Yes, yes, I’m sure you’ll find extremists on this side that would disagree. Spare me — for every one of them I am sure I can raise you two Akins.)

The trouble is that you betray yourself with “at least as a first step.” Everyone, on my side, on your side, on no side, knows that such a compromise would not be made in good faith on your part, but instead as a prelude for greater restrictions on abortion. That’s why no ground must be given, because the pro-life side won’t bargain honestly. For the most part I detest slippery slope arguments, but there are times when they are perfectly appropriate.
JonF says:

January 28, 2013 at 5:32 am

Re: Would married men and women associate casually?

Huh? Does he want women stuffed into a terem or gynaikon, forbidden to see men they are not related to? Sounds like someone would be happier living in Saudi Arabia.
Hector says:

January 28, 2013 at 9:11 am

JonF,

Yea, I think that is what he wants. fortunately, there aren’t very many people who agree with him.

The pro life movement needs to focus on making the case that the fetus is a baby , period. tying their fortunes to people who want to roll back the sexual revolution wholesale, is just going to doom them to much deserved irrelevance.
Connie says:

January 28, 2013 at 10:04 am

Lee, that column from Esolen was awesome, particularly its use of the word “fornicatory.” Thanks for linking it.
EliteCommInc. says:

January 28, 2013 at 10:34 am

I was quite interested in the referenced column by Mr Ross Douthat,

what is with the whining and name calling about the Akin comment. Never mind that his comments in no manner damaged women, protected rapists — and by the way is a reference to a not so secret, if moderate theory, that when a women is forced to engage in sexual relations (rape for example) her body may in fact, engage in a similar self defense and may explain why women who have goten pregnant when raped are more likely to have miscarriages. Now, I have no doubt that liberals and feminists would be all besides themselves at a relatively harmless comment that this might be true, for women who experience ‘real rape’ (actual rape — as in by force as opposed to the after the fact call, via some persuasion in which reluctance gives way). While the wording is inopportune — the overreaction by the conservatives missed the mark and cost them a seat. It was afoolish response by conservative — which only fed and fueled the enemies complaints. The problem with the idea is that it does explain why some rape victims get pregnant. But it is afterall just a theory and one that should be researched.

So when comments are made about conservatives with courage — for me Todd Akins, comments are a test case of both critical thinking, rhetorical skills and backbone. now I know I am as dumb as a 2×4, but the lack of actual critical thinking displayed by those who educated in elite schools, raised in neighborhoods who income and support makes mine exist in the Australian or african outback — is just astonishing. All for the politically expedient, jumping on the bandwagon to slay a member of the most important team in the country — protecting human life from conception.

No doubt the response will be but he did it to himself — yada yada — No, those comments would not have turned his strong conservative base — but the damage from his own team were devestating. My house mate watches a lot of morning news and I was mildly bemused when she came dashing into the living room about an interview with some medical professional that said, Todd Akin was not wrong. —-

The battle lies in making the case that human beings should be protected from the moment of conception to whenever.
EliteCommInc. says:

January 28, 2013 at 10:42 am

The NYT newsletter is funny. Surprised he doesn’t refer to it as a rather bulky comic strip.
Helen says:

January 28, 2013 at 10:55 am

Does anyone know of reputable opinion surveys of attitudes towards contraception vs abortion? Anecdotally, I know many, many people who oppose abortion in all cases and at all times, but who see no moral problem with contraception (and who use it, enthusiastically, themselves). This includes people who see sex as appropriate only within marriage.

Seems to me the current status of women in the US (i.e., in general, women are free to pursue education and paid work, and can have a life, paid or unpaid, in the public sphere) depends mostly on contraception, not abortion.
Siarlys Jenkins says:

January 28, 2013 at 12:17 pm

Its true that the pro-life side won’t bargain honestly. That is because they sincerely believe, not only that the fetus is a baby, as Hector said, but the zygote is a baby. How anyone bargain in good conscience? From their point of view, that’s like bargaining about how many Jews should remain in Auschwitz and how many should be released to whatever countries will accept them. But I’m not particularly worried about the pro-life sides diplomatic mendacity.

If the law sets a clear line that is sensible and satisfies the majority of the population, it will hold no matter how determined the pro-life camp is to use “salami tactics” (historical reference intentional) to get their way. Most voters neither want to see babies aborted a week before delivery because mommy got cold feet after going through almost nine months of pregnancy, nor see the state second guessing the decisions of women early in pregnancy about whether to carry it to term. In short, Roe v. Wade survives not only because it is a sound, conservative application of well-established law to a specific set of facts, but because most of the population is comfortable with it.
Heather says:

January 28, 2013 at 4:41 pm

Helen says:
Does anyone know of reputable opinion surveys of attitudes towards contraception vs abortion?
=============
You aren’t asking about studies showing the reason why women have aborted, are you? the ones I have seen – not that many actually – all have contraception as the top reason for abortion. The one I remember most, it was: married women, somewhat young (30s?), wide middle class, using abortion as contraception. You can find it on the Net.
JB says:

January 28, 2013 at 5:32 pm

Excellent point, Helen! My wife and I are pro-life, because abortion is the non-defensive killing of an innocent genetically-human being. (Fewer than one percent of abortions in the US are done to save the life of the mother, so more than 99% of abortions here are properly considered not to be self-defense.)

By contrast, contraception does not kill a human being, so we view it as very, very different from abortion. We would be afraid of, and disgusted by, any statist bully who would use the power of government to criminalize or restrict the right of adults to buy and use contraceptives.

Any pro-life person does the movement a disservice by failing to make clear that our movement is NOT about banning contraception. As a pro-lifer, I urge other pro-lifers to say — loudly, clearly, and repeatedly — “we respect the legal right of all adults to use contraception if they choose to do so. We want the government to stay out of contraception decisions. What we want from government is only to stop the killing of a human being who has already been conceived.”

And what if the person does NOT respect other adults’ right to choose contraception? We want nothing to do with them in our pro-life movement or in the Republican Party.
EliteCommInc. says:

January 28, 2013 at 5:43 pm

Siarlys Jenkins,

“Salami tactics”? The primary means of contention for thsoe who see children as children from conception is via the thousands saved every year. Straight up protest, petitioning Congress, TV ads, word of mouth, hands on availability and counseling.

Graphic images while as legitimate as the images used by the opposition of failed abortion attempts, remains a viable potent, but small portion in the past or present.
stef says:

January 28, 2013 at 10:00 pm

As far as Ross Douthat’s view goes, the reason the pro-life movement has kept traction is, paradoxically, because abortion has become so less common than in the 1970s post-Roe. Far fewer women know someone who’s had an abortion – especially well-educated women who have what Douthat sneeringly refers to as “facility with contraception.” Why? Because contraception actually works when it’s used properly – when women have money and access to it.

@JB: It is disingenous to claim that those in the pro-life movement don’t object to contraception. Problem is, many consider just about every effective long-term form of birth control as “abortifacient” – including the birth control pill, patches and implants, and IUDs.

Someone upthread (can’t remember who) wrote: “Until people really start understanding what love is, and what people are for, they will continue to have the pathetic standard of “consequence-free sexual availability”, that they expect others to subsidize.”

This is a complete red herring; this argument that contraception makes women “sexually available to men.” First off, contraception does not remove the element of choice in sex. Just because a woman has an IUD or has had her tubes tied does not mean that she wants to (or will) have sex with “you” (i.e. any generic man.) She doesn’t have to have sex with her husband, even, if she doesn’t want to. Nobody owes anybody sex, period.

The point is that she can have sex without fear of pregnancy when she wants to. (The same argument can be made for a man who’s had a vasectomy.)

@Charles Cosimano: Catholic views on contraception include the belief that as part of the “natural law,” they apply cross the board to non-Catholics as well. Who in general are either not amused or not interested.
Hector_St_Clare says:

January 28, 2013 at 10:53 pm

I’d agree with everything JB says above. I’d probably draw the medical exceptions more broadly than he does, and I’m not sure that only 1% are medically indicated, but other than that, he’s quite right that abortion opponents would be able to make their case much better if they accepted contraception. The less contraception is available, the more abortions there are going to be.
Siarlys Jenkins says:

January 28, 2013 at 11:46 pm

EliteCommInc: I’m afraid you are becoming so incoherent that I cannot respond, because your point is entirely unclear.

In case it clarifies anything about “salami tactics,” I was responding to Jay, who observed “compromise would not be made in good faith on your part [i.e. on the part of the pro-life movement], but instead as a prelude for greater restrictions on abortion. That’s why no ground must be given, because the pro-life side won’t bargain honestly.”

The tactical and strategic approach Jay delineates qualifies as salami tactics. I acknowledged the moral assumptions which underlie the salami tactics, the reasons a pro-life person might approve of salami tactics, might consider any compromise as only temporary, and odious.

I simply don’t see it as necessary, ethical, or viable to say that “no ground must be given” by the pro-choice side of the argument. People who are really all wrapped up in either “side” are minorities. As long as there is a reasonable balance that the remaining majority can accept, the minorities can squabble off in the wastelands to their heart’s content.

Brief note to JB: your position is a principled one, but surely you must be aware that you do not speak for the pro-life movement, as a whole, and certainly not for the Republican Party. The GOP continually shoots itself in the foot precisely because it cannot even accommodate the position you enunciate, but runs brazen idiots like Akin, Mourdock, Angle, O’Donnell, in elections it could easily have expected to win.
Helen says:

January 29, 2013 at 10:01 am

Heather — No, I was not asking why women have abortions. I was asking about opinion polls. I believe, based on my experience with friends, that many, many people believe abortion is morally wrong always, but those same people ALSO believe that contraception is not morally wrong, especially for married people. I was wondering if opinion polls back up my speculation.
PJ says:

January 29, 2013 at 10:59 am

“Why Priests? A Failed Tradition”

Uh, Garry, we’ve already had this debate. It was called the Protestant Reformation.