Read about my family's conversion to Catholicism here.

Read about the Restoration of the Catholic Land Movement
here.







Thursday, February 21, 2013

Catholics: The Original Quiverfull



Catholics are the original "quiverfull" families. So much so that it is a sort of cultural cliche that they have big families. When my wife and I were Protestant, as soon as our quantity of children reached 3 or 4, I began to have people ask if I was Catholic (which annoyed me at the time). And although US Catholics overall are following the secular west in rates of contraceptive use and suicidally low fertility rates (although they are still a bit better on both counts), many of us are bucking that trend and opting out of our cultural malaise on this point.
And Catholicism as a whole -through time and space- is again and again, a sign of contradiction in the midst of cultures that worship death. When Cortez' men saw the brutal human sacrifice of the Aztecs, they did not need to discuss what they were seeing. They were physically and spiritually sickened. When the earliest Christians saw the barbarous Romans throwing their babies in rivers or exposing them, they responded by adopting them and increasing their own fertility. I heard someone say that they even would wait in boats near areas where the babies were thrown in to save them.
And in the early 20th century, when the Enlightenment began its slow, beached whale-like death by introducing contraception as the new sexuality, Catholics were there to resist that as well. At first they were shoulder to shoulder with every other Christian body on the planet in opposition the contraception. But then like a crack in the dam came the Anglican acceptance of contraception in 1930. Every single Protestant sect soon followed, and sadly, even Eastern Orthodoxy gradually came to accept it. And on the abortion and homosexuality issues, the Catholic Church is rock solid in ideology and manning the trenches in full force.

When Pope Paul VI issued the final word on the subject of contraception in his encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Of human life) in 1968, nearly everyone flipped out. Not only did he reject the "majority report" of his advisers, but he made predictions about the societal destruction contraception would bring in the future. His prohibition of contraception and predictions of the damage that would result from them were laughed at and pittied by the cultural elites.

 The whole thing prompted him to say:
“It does not surprise the Church that she becomes, like her divine Founder, a ‘sign of contradiction’; yet she does not, because of this, cease to proclaim with humble firmness the entire moral law, both the natural law and the law of the Gospel."

That laughter is growing more mirthful and hoarse by the day. And many are no longer laughing. After well more than a generation, this Pope's predictions have come true. In the words of an article from the Population Research Institute:

He predicted that:


1. Contraception would lead to conjugal infidelity.

2. Contraceptive practice would lead to a “general lowering of morality.”

3. Contraception would lead men to cease respecting woman in their totality and would cause them to treat women as “mere instruments of selfish enjoyment” rather than as cherished partners.

4. And finally, widespread acceptance of contraception by couples would lead to a massive imposition of contraception by unscrupulous governments.

In other words, Pope Paul VI predicted that contraception would evolve from “a lifestyle choice” into a weapon of mass destruction. How dreadfully his prophecy has been vindicated by population control and coercive sterilization programs, fertility reduction quotas and the promotion of abortion literally everywhere in the world.

Contraception’s destruction of the integrity of the marital act—as unitive and procreative—has dire consequences for society and for our souls. Contraception, in other words, is a rejection of God’s view of reality. It is a wedge driven into the most intimate sphere of communion known to man outside of the Holy Sacrament of the Mass. It is a degrading poison that withers life and love both in marriage and in society.

By breaking the natural and divinely ordained connection between sex and procreation, women and men—but especially men—would focus on the hedonistic possibilities of sex. People would cease seeing sex as something that was intrinsically linked to new life and to the sacrament of marriage.

Does anyone doubt that this is where we find ourselves today?
Thank God for guiding his Church! While every other segment of Christianity dropped one by one like flies, there remained a line in the sand. And it is a line which the Catholic Church, and only the Catholic Church has always and will always maintain.
While the grandparents of todays "Quiverfull" Protestants were using contraception and teaching others to do  the same (based on "biblical" arguments of course), Catholics of the same period were forbidden by their Church to do so, and were being warned by their Pope of the cultural mentdown to come from contraception.

And unfortunately, the majority of Protestants still see nothing wrong with using contraception. A lack of explicit prohibition in scripture results in disagrement on the issue, and an unfortunate flowing downstream with the culture on the issue. Abortion and homosexuality both flow directly from contraception, and we are reaping what we have sown.
Seperating sex from procreation is against the natural law. Anyone that fights that universal law invites evil and destruction. When an entire culture calls evil good and denies the natural law, woe unto it. It is doomed.

So let's have big families. Let's love our kids and teach them to live their faith. Let's celebrate fecundity by having as many kids as we can handle, whether naturally, or by adoption if we are able, or by helping a Christian neighbor with a big family. And as Catholics, let's not forget that priests, monks, and nuns are needed to make this work also. By their celibate life of prayer and sacrifie, we are all made more fruitful in our vocations. So don't forget to have an extra kid or 2 to make up for them.

If we do this,

And if we teach our children to do this,

We will rise above this culture of death within a few generations.

9 comments:

  1. So I guess that infidelity and the focus on the hedonistic aspects of sex didn't exist prior to the widespread use of contraception? I have a prediction if Obama doesn't start a new space program tomorrow water will be very wet by next week.

    The whole point of the contraceptive movement was to delink sex from procreation. That's what "Planned Parenthood" means by their name, that someone decides to be a parent that parenthood is an intention in the same way going to college is an intention.

    Abortion and homosexuality both flow directly from contraception

    That I'm not sure is true. Abortion as it is defined today, from conception is far less common than in societies where contraception is unreliable or unavailable. Contraception In the early 19th century abortion was widespread "restoration of menses" which today we would consider chemical abortion. I'd assume the average 17-35 year old woman in say 1813 Americas was probably having several abortions per year. The numbers are far lower today.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi "CD-Host".
    So are you taking exception to my comments or the popes? ;-)

    Perhaps both.
    The things you are questioning here were generalizations. Without generalizations, discussion becomes impossible. And it is unfair of you force the pope's statement into an extremely small box, as when you say "So I guess that infidelity and the focus on the hedonistic aspects of sex didn't exist prior to the widespread use of contraception?"

    Of course they have always existed. Who has denied that? The point of the pope was to say that widespread acceptance and use of it would bring the predicted problems. Whatever you want to say about past contraception and abortion rates, I will stick with the universally accepted thesis by scholars on every side of history that say contraception really was only wide spread in the '60s.

    Abortion and homosexuality become accepted by society when the idea of seperating procreation and sex becoews accepted. Not that they never existed before, but they become more accepted and more destructive and aggresive (as they are in the west now).

    "I'd assume the average 17-35 year old woman in say 1813 Americas was probably having several abortions per year."

    Even if true, which I highly doubt, this still would have been taking place in a culture where sex and procreation were solidly linked in the public mind.

    Here is an example: Prostitution has always been around. But it has generally been publicly frowned upon as a destructive thing to be relegated to the shadows. It was understood that it could not be publicly accepted or society would be gravely harmed, because families would be harmed. What we have now is the equivalent of publicly accepted prostitution with the way the "hook-up" culture treats young girls like prostitutes, and with the way contraception is accepted among most women. These things make them into whores to be used like playthings by men. It is unacceptable, and it is something that has been accepted publicly on such a large scale as to be (I think) unprecedented.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But [prostitution] has generally been publicly frowned upon as a destructive thing to be relegated to the shadows. It was understood that it could not be publicly accepted or society would be gravely harmed, because families would be harmed.

      Huh? In the 19th century the army travelled with prostitutes and established brothels as part of their logistics services. Large companies frequently established brothels for their employees. 19th century cities had around 2-4% of their female population employed as prostitutes which if you consider how many customers the average prostitute has per week make it clear how widespread the practice was. That wasn't achieved without high levels of institutional support. Red light districts, social services for unattached wage earning females, hotels catering to prostitutes, pubs designed to facilitate transactions, law enforcement, lighting services....

      Prostitution wasn't considered a danger to families it was considered an important part of their stability. Men who weren't able to afford wives used prostitutes for sex and thus didn't tempt younger girls into fornication. Men who were becoming sexually bored with their wives stepped out with women who had no interest in taking the wives place and thus didn't encourage divorce.

      The move away from institutional prostitution starting in the 1920s coincided with a sharp rise in the normalization of fornication, and dating culture. Many of the people who were championing it, wanted to break up families and encourage urbanization. They wanted to encourage, early dating and early marriage so young people could move away from small towns to urban centers.

      I don't know how young you are but the level of prostitution has been dropping sharply my whole life. Compared to the 1970s and 1980s, which are nothing when compared to the 1870s, levels of prostitution are much much lower. This becomes immediately obvious in any city. 2012 is by any historic measure a period with very low levels of prostitution and low levels of support.

      I'm going to skip the stuff about "hook-ups" being the same thing since it isn't. Prostitutes are women having sex for money, girls hooking up are women have sex either for fun or because competition for mates has increased. Women being focused on seduction was very common among the upper classes prior to the Victorian period, 17th and 18th century. So it is not unprecedented either. It is what you typically see when there is a lack of high status men relative to the number of high status women. Societies create something like polygamy to deal with that problem. We have a sharp gender imbalance on all but the best colleges today. With the gender balance in today's colleges women have to compete for male attention from high status males. Men are establishing a system with a girlfriend who has an insecure role and other women vying to be girlfriends by "hooking up". Which is a form of polygamy (one wife + concubines).

      That's not unprecedented it is the norm in such situations. One of the reasons the Victorian Moralizers fought for things like trade unions was to create more high status males (relative to the women) and thus make monogamy renormalized.

      If you are going to write about sex, you need to do a little reading on sexuality in previous ages. Sexual attitudes vary greatly over time. Stuff about the 1820s is a great period where you can see the start of early Victorian sexuality, the kind you are I suspect championing, and at what came before it.

      What you are writing is normative thinking among younger conservatives. But it is a pure fantasy from people who don't remember the 1970s much less the eras before that.

      Delete
  3. Whatever you want to say about past contraception and abortion rates, I will stick with the universally accepted thesis by scholars on every side of history that say contraception really was only wide spread in the '60s.

    That's not scholars that's Catholic conservative popular culture and generally among young people. Ask your grandparents if there was contraception before the 1960s. Frequently sexually active young couples have a 28% chance of pregnancy per month. Any society that doesn't make heavy use of contraception has rapid population increase. Or to put this another way, all of the societies where women are only having a small number of children were making use of contraception (including abortion among contraception).

    Since you like papel sources: Summis desiderantes affectibus (15th century) was part of the attempt by the state/church to suppress the contraceptive movement of the 15th century.

    Even if true, which I highly doubt, this still would have been taking place in a culture where sex and procreation were solidly linked in the public mind.

    http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft967nb5z5&brand=ucpress

    Your thesis is that there prior to 2 generations ago contraception was lightly used and this led to a change in morality. If there has not been an upsurge in contraception then that disproves the thesis. It is even worse if you had high levels of contraception and no change in morality.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It seems that according to you no large change has taken place at all then? The scholars I was thinking of were secular demographers who I have been reading lately like Eric Kaufmann and Phillip Longman. These men are secular liberals who fully see a huge change as having taken place in the 60's with regard to sexuality in our culture. And they are in no way in some minority.

    "Your thesis is that there prior to 2 generations ago contraception was lightly used and this led to a change in morality. If there has not been an upsurge in contraception then that disproves the thesis..."

    There was a huge change... worldwide... in sexuality that is unprecedented in human history. Ask ANY demographer of ANY political or religious background. You seem to be quibling over the most basic facts when they are not even up for debate.

    Hey, I get that. I dont believe in evolution, so I understand how it feels to go against established science.

    The point is, call it what you will, think of it as good or bad, but a major revolution took place in the mid to late 20th century which has measurable results... the first and most obvious of which is the universal drop in fertility rate among all women of the earth except endogenous growth sects primarily of religious zealots. Demographers put the effective use of contraception near the top of the list for the cause of this. It is called the demographic transition, and it is not even speculated about by anyone (except aparently you). Although second demographic transition theory is speculated about, and there is lively debate.
    Perhaps you are right and contraception was used extensively in the 19th century. If so, it was quite inefective till the mid 20th century and did not have the power to begin the demographic transition until that time. So what? Why quibble about it.

    And why quibble about something so obvious as contraception being degrading to women? I have no time for that kind of hippy crap. Any man who has had sex with a woman knows how contraception makes her into a sexual object. Seperating sex from procreation is analogous to bulimia (eating and throwing up in order to eat more). Just as bulimia turns the purpose and beauty of food into something dark and twisted, so the modern sexual errors do with sex. Homosexuality, fornication, masturbation, porn, divorce, cohabitation, all flow from a culture which seperates sex from procreation (or sex from family to be more specific).

    The fact that these evils have always existed does not wow me. It makes me yawn. And anyone with eyes can see that these evils are coming to an acute point of pathology in our current western culture. Even the secular demographers I mentioned, who would not see these as "evil", still know that the sexual behavior that caused the demographic transition will eventually lead to the death of their culture. Their response is to shrug their shoulders.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It seems that according to you no large change has taken place at all then? The scholars I was thinking of were secular demographers who I have been reading lately like Eric Kaufmann and Phillip Longman

    I didn't say no change is taking place at all. There is a range between absolutely unprecedented nothing like this has ever existed before and no change. There has been a continuation of existing patterns. Western fertility rates started gradually falling since about 1800. There was a huge sharp drop in fertility starting around 1920 that lasted until the baby boom, where rates fell to close to modern levels. 1946/7 the highest levels of fertility achieved didn't come close to an average year in the first two decades of the century. But rates remained high until the early 1960s, where they plunged till the mid 1970s and have slightly recovered since then.

    The change cannot have been the contraception movements in the 1960s since the biggest change was prior to the 1960s. Now it is possible that the anti-contraception movement of the mid 19th century that lasted until prohibition in the United Sates might have retarded what otherwise would have been a huge contraception level change. But that's guessing.

    I've read Phillip Longman. Longman first off talks a great deal about low fertility periods in the past. So he certainly doesn't agree with you that the situation today is in any way unique. What he is most known for is not saying things about western culture that everyone has always known. What he is known for is showing how the fertility drop is going on all over the planet that 3rd world and 4th world fertility rates are dropping. He was one of the people in the late 1990s to indicate that global population was stabilizing, that the global population growth we would be experiencing (around now) is "fill" residue from previous generation's high fertility rates. 15-20 years ago people hadn't realized how rapidly 3rd and 4th world fertility rates had been falling since they had started from such a high point and we generally measure population not fertility.

    So if you want to use Longman. That's fine. But read Empty Cradle. He is not agreeing with you on many many of your theories.

    You respect Longman than read the charts in his book. He disproves your order of events.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Longman first off talks a great deal about low fertility periods in the past. So he certainly doesn't agree with you that the situation today is in any way unique."

    Well I couldnt disagree more. I think he is quite clear about the scale of the current implosion being absolutely unique and unprecedented. And I have seen his and all the charts I can find... and they all show the massive traction towards fertility implosion comes at the time of the sexual revolution and effective birth control being widely used in the mid 20th century.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David --

      p3. He talks about the 1860's anti-contracption movement
      p 34. he talks about the Roman infanticide movement to hold fertility down. Which he contends was a larger fertility drop and to a lower level than the modern one.

      Delete
  7. By the way CD-Host, I am curious who you are? Are you a Christian? Do you believe abortion is evil? Do you believe fornication is a sin?

    Just curious.

    ReplyDelete