La movilización contra el «matrimonio» gay arrastra a los líderes de la derecha en Francia: La UMP de Copé, forzada a reaccionar

In RL

No hay mal que por bien no venga: pese a la derrota legislativa, ya nada será igual en la derecha sociológica tras siete meses de intensa oposición social al proyecto de "matrimonio’ gay" una de las promesas electorales más señeras del entonces candidato -y hoy presidente de la República- François Hollande, que, en este caso, ha cumplido fielmente.

Vingt-Trois, primer aviso
Curiosamente, pese a la claridad de ideas y a la rapidez exhibida por el Gobierno socialista -tomó posesión en junio de 2012 y el mes siguiente ya anunciaba su intención de permitir el "matrimonio" entre personas del mismo sexo-, los opositores al proyecto tardaron, en un primer momento, en reaccionar: el primer toque de atención procedió del cardenal André Vingt-Trois, arzobispo de París y presidente de la Conferencia Episcopal, quien, en su homilía del 15 de agosto, invitó a los fieles a orar al tiempo que denunciaba -con palabras suaves- los peligros del proyecto.

Vingt-Trois, sin embargo, se limitó a cumplir con su deber pastoral porque era lo suficientemente inteligente para saber que el protagonismo correspondía a los laicos y tenía que traspasar los límites del mundillo católico, le “milieu catho”, como dicen allí, para congregar a gente de cualquier procedencia sinceramente comprometida a favor del verdadero matrimonio. Y así ha resultado ser.

Escada: arranca la lucha
Sin embargo, el pistoletazo correspondió al católico tradicionalista Alain Escada, de nacionalidad belga y presidente del Instituto Civitas: convocó las primeras manifestaciones y fue quien empezó a sensibilizar a los alcaldes, sobre todo los de municipios rurales.

La clave: Manif pour Tous
Durante algunas semanas, Escada predicó prácticamente en el desierto durante algunas semanas. Pero no estuvo mucho tiempo solo –acabó perdiendo visibilidad mediática- porque para mediados de octubre ya se había configurado el movimiento que se ha ido articulando en torno a La Manif pour tous [La Manifestación para todos].

Un nombre para contrarrestar al Mariage pour tous –el Matrimonio para todos-, que así llamaron a su causa los partidarios de casar a personas del mismo sexo. Era la primera señal –pero no la última- de que los oponentes estaban dispuestos a librar batalla.

En Francia, en la últimas décadas, cuando un Gobierno decide promover leyes o proyectos muy ideológicos que dividen a la opinión pública, los oponentes suelen tomar las calles, en general con éxito: en 1984, un millón de personas en las calles de París logró que el Gobierno socialista de entonces renunciase a su proyecto de “gran servicio público laico y unificado” que hubiese acabado con la enseñanza privada; diez años después, los laicos causaron un fuerte desgaste al Gobierno de centro derecha de Édouard Balladur y le obligaron a renunciar a una modificación de la ley que, según ellos, beneficiaba a los colegios privados.

Así las cosas, no es de extrañar que los promotores de la Manif pour tous optaran por la calle. Pero, ya antes, la presión surtió un –pequeño- efecto de calendario al conseguir retrasar tres semanas –desde mediados de octubre a principios de noviembre- la presentación del proyecto en el Consejo de Ministros.

La explosión
Pero lo importante ocurrió el 17 de noviembre, día de las primeras manifestaciones importantes, que tuvieron lugar en París y en distintas ciudades de provincias: más de medio millón de personas. Buen preludio para la “macromanifa” del 13 de enero, que reunió a más de personas y que culminó en el Campo de Marte; aunque según las autoridades, fueron apenas la mitad.

Más allá de las cifras, esta manifestación significó la eclosión de una nueva tendencia en Francia: la de unos ciudadanos armados de valores dispuestos a defenderlos y a no sacrificarlos en aras de las conveniencias políticas del momento.

Hasta entonces, en Francia, la defensa de la visión integral del hombre –vida, familia…- descansaba en un puñado de asociaciones –la mayor parte católicas- cuyo mérito nadie discutía pero cuya capacidad de movilización era ínfima: baste decir que durante años la tradicional Marcha por la Vida de finales de enero apenas reunía a 5.000 personas; el grueso de los políticos –con alguna que otra excepción– la ignoraba olímpicamente.

Los políticos, obligados a reaccionar
Ahora es al revés: la mayor victoria estratégica -en clave política- del movimiento opositor ha consistido en obligar a la Unión por un Movimiento Popular (UMP), la principal formación de centro derecha, a pronunciarse mayoritariamente en contra del ‘matrimonio’ gay y –por lo menos- a cuestionarlo si vuelve al poder en 2017: hasta entonces era casi inimaginable ver a su presidente Jean-François Copé, participar en manifestaciones en defensa de valores; no era lo suyo.

Las manifestaciones le han cambiado: tiempo le ha faltado para presentar un recurso de inconstitucionalidad una vez se ha aprobado la ley. ¿Quién hubiera dicho hace unos meses que la UMP iría a remolque de las asociaciones? Los mismo cabe decir en relación con la penetración de elites: ¿quién hubiera dicho hace unos meses que 82 enarcas –agrupados en el Colectivo Camabacerès- hiciesen un llamamiento solemne a Hollande para que renuncie al proyecto? ¿O que un alcalde –Philippe Brillault- haya interpuesto un segundo recurso ante el Consejo Constitucional para defender su libertad de conciencia –y la de sus colegas- para no tener que celebrar ese tipo de ‘matrimonios’?

La independencia política se mantiene...
Todo esto, no obstante, no significa que los opositores vayan a amoldarse en el sistema y vayan a convertirse en soldados de plomo de la UMP o del Frente Nacional. Antes al contrario: su presión sobre esos partidos, a partir de ahora, va a ser constante y no descartan presentar candidatos allá donde los candidatos de la derecha –de toda la derecha- sean tibios.

...y la prensa acude
Ya nada será lo mismo en la derecha francesa: este miércoles, los líderes de la Manif pour Tous ofrecieron un rueda de prensa en el Campo de Marte para presentar sus reivindicaciones de futuro. Todos los medios estaban presentes para escuchar, entre otros, a Frigide Barjot, actriz que no sólo ha sido la musa del movimiento sino que se ha convertido en una líder de opinión a lo largo y ancho de Francia; Philippe Ariño, profesor de español y homosexual confeso, que optó por la castidad hace unos años y quien, de gira permanente por todo el país, es el símbolo de la falta de complejos; o Béatrice Bourges, presidenta de la Primavera Francesa, quien sin pelos en la lengua representa la voz tradicional del asociacionismo católico galo. 

Desconfiança radical, Insegurança total - por Nuno Serras Pereira

Não há duvidar que a condição essencial da possibilidade da perfeição, ou plenitude, pessoal, familiar, social, financeira, económica e política é o Amor, a Amizade. É a Verdade daquele e desta que geram o abandono confiante da criança no colo da mãe, da introdução que esta lhe faz ao pai, aos irmãos, aos demais, ao mundo. Confiantes no chamamento e no amparo da mãe se dão os primeiros passos, se aprende a falar, se come sossegadamente os alimentos por ela providenciados; se aprendem limites, regras; se acredita que há um bem a fazer, um mal a evitar; se crê que a sua vida, a da mãe, a do pai, a dos irmãos e a de todos os demais com quem foi ensinado a socializar é sempre um bem. Deus que é Amor, Amor/Amigo, vai assim modelando-nos à Sua semelhança para que toda a nossa vida alicerçada na rocha firme do Amor/Confiança se desenvolva na doação, no acolhimento, na complementaridade recíproca. Tudo isto é essencial para a construção do Bem Comum, isto é, aquele conjunto de condições solidárias e subsidiárias, alicerçadas na igual transcendente dignidade de cada ser humano, que permitem e promovem o bem integral, material e Espiritual, de cada ser humano, coadjuvando-o na prossecução do seu último fim, na possibilidade de gozar do Sumo Bem. 

Em Portugal em virtude da cobiça de multidões, nutrida por bandos de vigaristas totalitários e mafiosos tiranos, alçados aos mais altos cargos do estado, encontramo-nos numa calamitosa situação de rigoroso inverno (ou Inferno?) demográfico, de tragédia familiar por tantos divórcios por dá cá aquela palha, pela queda vertiginosa de matrimónios, por violência doméstica inaudita, por traumatismos inomináveis de filhos que crescem sem pai, ou em ambientes de permanente guerra "familiar", crescimento dramático do desemprego e enorme alastramento da pobreza, tudo tribulações intoleráveis.

A enorme e monstruosa desconfiança incutida no âmago das mentalidades pela contracepção, pelo divórcio expresso/sem culpa e pela legalização do aborto provocado corroeu os fundamentos da confiança e rompeu os vínculos base da sociabilidade, da justiça, da política e da economia. Se esposo e esposa não podem confiar um no outro, se os pais não têm escrúpulos em abandonar seus filhos, se as mães, com ou sem o consentimento do pai da criança, recorrem à violência extrema de matar seus filhos, se o estado se organiza para proteger e promover estes destrambelhos e desconcertos quem pode confiar em quem? Introduzida a desconfiança radical nas relações básicas da pessoa humana é impossível que isso não se repercuta a todos os níveis minando os fundamentos da convivência social, económica e política. A superação desejável, mesmo imperiosa, desta suspeição universal, desta insegurança total, desta duvidança existencial, requer uma mudança urgente, uma conversão incondicional, só possível com o concurso de Deus, nas mentalidades e na acção dos partidos, dos políticos, das instituições, dos agentes da justiça, dos médicos, do estado, e, enfim, da população em geral.

Tenhamos Esperança, sem medo de diagnósticos realistas por mais impiedosos que nos pareçam, pois eles são uma condição indispensável para a cura, exigindo verdade e seriedade. Dêem-nos provas de que podemos confiar neles, de que respeitam, amam e promovem a vida, dignidade e direitos de cada ser humano, de que são verdadeiros, pois, como diz o povo, gato escaldado por água a ferver até da água fria desconfia e tem medo.

28. 01. 2013

Five Pillars of a Decent and Dynamic Society - by Robert P. George

In jp2alf

John Paul II Australian Leaders Forum

Sydney

11 August 2012

Any healthy society, any decent society, will rest upon three pillars. The first is respect for the human person—the individual human being and his dignity. Where this pillar is in place, the formal and informal institutions of society, and the beliefs and practices of the people, will be such that every member of the human family—irrespective of race, sex, or ethnicity, to be sure, but also and equally irrespective of age, size, stage of development, or condition of dependency—is treated as a person—that is, as a subject bearing profound, inherent, and equal worth and dignity.

A society that does not nurture respect the human person—beginning with the child in the womb, and including the mentally and physically impaired and the frail elderly—will sooner or later (probably sooner, rather than later) come to regard human beings as mere cogs in the larger social wheel whose dignity and well-being may legitimately be sacrificed for the sake of the collectivity. Some members of the community—those in certain development stages, for example— will come to be regarded as disposable, and others—those in certain conditions of dependency, for example, will come to be viewed as intolerably burdensome, as "useless eaters, as "better off dead," as Lebensunwerten lebens.

In its most extreme modern forms, totalitarian regimes reduce the individual to the status of an instrument to serve the ends of the fascist state or the future communist utopia. When liberal democratic regimes go awry, it is often because a utilitarian ethic reduces the human person to a means rather than an end to which other things including the systems and institutions of law, education, and the economy are means. The abortion license against which we struggle today is dressed up by its defenders in the language of individual and even natural rights—and there can be no doubt that the acceptance of abortion is partly the fruit of me-generation liberal ideology—a corruption (and burlesque) of liberal political philosophy in its classical form; but more fundamentally it is underwritten by a utilitarian ethic that, in the end, vaporizes the very idea of natural rights, treating the idea (in Jeremy Bentham's famously dismissive words) as "nonsense on stilts."

In cultures in which religious fanaticism has taken hold, the dignity of the individual is typically sacrificed for the sake of tragically misbegotten theological ideas and goals. By contrast, a liberal democratic ethos, where it is uncorrupted by utilitarianism or me-generation expressive individualism, supports the dignity of the human person by giving witness to basic human rights and liberties. Where a healthy religious life flourishes, faith in God provides a grounding for the dignity and inviolability of the human person by, for example, proposing an understanding of each and every member of the human family, even those of different faiths or professing no particular faith, as persons made in the image and likeness of the divine Author of our lives and liberties.

The second pillar of any decent society is the institution of the family. It is indispensable. The family, based on the marital commitment of husband and wife, is the original and best ministry of health, education, and welfare. Although no family is perfect, no institution matches the healthy family in its capacity to transmit to each new generation the understandings and traits of character — the values and virtues — upon which the success of every other institution of society, from law and government to educational institutions and business firms, vitally depends.

Where families fail to form, or too many break down, the effective transmission of the virtues of honesty, civility, self-restraint, concern for the welfare of others, justice, compassion, and personal responsibility is imperiled. Without these virtues, respect for the dignity of the human person, the first pillar

of a decent society, will be undermined and sooner or later lost—for even the most laudable formal institutions cannot uphold respect for human dignity where people do not have the virtues that make that respect a reality and give it vitality in actual social practices.

Respect for the dignity of the human being requires more than formally sound institutions; it requires a cultural ethos in which people act from conviction to treat each other as human beings should be treated: with respect, civility, justice, compassion. The best legal and political institutions ever devised are of little value where selfishness, contempt for others, dishonesty, injustice, and other types of immorality and irresponsibility flourish. Indeed, the effective working of governmental institutions themselves depends upon most people most of the time obeying the law out of a sense of moral obligation, and not merely out of fear of detection and punishment for law-breaking. And perhaps it goes without saying that the success of business and a market-based economic system depends on there being reasonably virtuous, trustworthy, law-abiding, promise-keeping people to serve as workers and managers, lenders, regulators, and payers of bills for goods and services.

The third pillar of any decent society is a fair and effective system of law and government. This is necessary because none of us is perfectly virtuous all the time, and some people will be deterred from wrongdoing only by the threat of punishment. More importantly, contemporary philosophers of law tell us the law coordinates human behavior for the sake of achieving common goals — thecommon good — especially in dealing with the complexities of modern life. Even if all of us were perfectly virtuous all of the time, we would still need a system of laws (considered as a scheme of authoritatively stipulated coordination norms) to accomplish many of our common ends (safely transporting ourselves on the streets, to take a simple and obvious example).

The success of business firms and the economy as a whole depends vitally on a fair and effective system and set of institutions for the administration of justice. We need judges skilled in the craft of law and free of corruption. We need to be able to rely on courts to settle disputes, including disputes between parties who are both in good faith, and to enforce contracts and other agreements and enforce them in a timely manner. Indeed, the knowledge that contracts will be enforced is usually sufficient to ensure that courts will not actually be called on to enforce them. A sociological fact of which we can be certain is this: Where there is no reliable system of the administration of justice— no confidence that the courts will hold people to their obligations under the law

— business will not flourish and everyone in the society will suffer.

A society can, in my opinion, be a decent one even if it is not a dynamic one, if the three pillars are healthy and functioning in a mutually supportive way (as they will do if each is healthy). Now, conservatives of a certain stripe believe that a truly decent society cannot be a dynamic one. Dynamism, they believe, causes instability that undermines the pillars of a decent society. So some conservatives in old Europe and even the United States opposed not onlyindustrialism but the very idea of a commercial society, fearing that commercial economies inevitably produce consumerist and acquisitive materialist attitudes that corrode the foundations of decency. And some, such as some Amish communities in the U.S., reject education for their children beyond what is necessary to master reading, writing, and arithmetic, on the ground that higher education leads to worldliness and apostasy and undermines religious faith and moral virtue.

Although a decent society need not be a dynamic one (as the Amish example shows) dynamism need not erode decency. A dynamic society need not be one in which consumerism and materialism become rife and in which moral and spiritual values disappear. Indeed, dynamism can play a positive moral role and, I would venture to say, almost certainly will play such a role where what makes it possible is sufficient to sustain it over the long term.

That is, I realize, a rather cryptic comment, so let me explain what I mean. To do that, I will have to offer some thoughts on what in fact makes social dynamism possible.

The two pillars of social dynamism are, first, institutions of research and education in which the frontiers of knowledge across in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences are pushed back, and through which knowledge is transmitted to students and disseminated to the public at large; and, second, business firms and associated institutions supporting them or managed in ways that are at least in some respects patterned on their principles, by which wealth is generated, widely distributed, and preserved.

We can think of universities and business firms, together with respect for the dignity of the human person, the institution of the family, and the system of law and government, as the five pillars of decent and dynamic societies. The university and the business firm depend in various ways for their well-being on the well-being of the others, and they can help to support the others in turn. At the same time, of course, ideologies and practices hostile to the pillars of a decent society can manifest themselves in higher education and in business and these institutions can erode the social values on which they themselves depend not only for their own integrity, but for their long-term survival.

It is all too easy to take the pillars for granted. So it is important to remember that each of them has come under attack from different angles and forces. Operating from within universities, persons and movements hostile to one or the other of these pillars, usually preaching or acting in the name of high ideals of one sort or another, have gone on the attack.

Attacks on business and the very idea of the market economy and economic freedom coming from the academic world are, of course, well known. Students are sometimes taught to hold business, and especially businessmen, in contempt as heartless exploiters driven by greed. In my own days as a student, these attacks were often made explicitly in the name of Marxism. One notices less of that after the collapse of the Soviet empire, but the attacks themselves have abated little. Needless to say, where businesses behave unethically they play into the stereotypes of the enemies of the market system and facilitate their effort to smear business and the free market for the sake of transferring greater control of the economy to government.

Similarly, attacks on the family, and particularly on the institution of marriage on which the family is built, are common in the academy. The line here is that the family, at least as traditionally constituted and understood, is a patriarchal and exploitative institution that oppresses women and imposes on people forms of sexual restraint that are psychologically damaging and inhibiting of the free expression of their personality. As has become clear in the past decade and a half, there is a profound threat to the family here, one against which we must fight with all our energy and will. It is difficult to think of any item on the domestic agenda that is more critical today than the defense of marriage as the union of husband and wife and the effort to renew and rebuild the marriage culture.

What has also become clear is that the threats to the family (and to the sanctity of human life) are at the same time and necessarily threats to religious freedom and to religion itself—at least where the religions in question stand up and speak out for conjugal marriage and the rights of the child in the womb. From the point of view of those seeking to re-define marriage and to protect and advance what they regard as the right to abortion the taming of religion, and the stigmatization and marginalization of religions that refuse to be tamed, is a moral imperative. It is therefore not surprising to see that they are increasingly open in saying that they do not see disputes about sex and marriage and abortion and euthanasia as honest disagreements among reasonable people of goodwill. They are, rather, battles between the forces of "reason" and "enlightenment," on one side, and those of "ignorance" and "bigotry," on the other. Their opponents are to be treated just as racists are treated—since they are the equivalent of racists. That doesn't necessarily mean imprisoning them or fining them for expressing unacceptable opinions—though "hate crimes" laws in certain jurisdictions raise the specter of precisely such abuses; but it does mean using antidiscrimination laws and other legal instruments to stigmatize them, marginalize them, and impose upon them and their institutions various forms of social and even civil disability—with few if any meaningful protections for religious liberty and the rights of conscience.

Some will counsel that commercial businesses and business people "have no horse in this race." They will say that these are moral, cultural, and religious disputes about which business people and people concerned with economic freedom need not concern themselves. The reality is that the ideological movements that today seek, for example, to redefine marriage and abolish its normativity for romantic relations and the rearing of children are the same movements that seek to undermine the market-based economic system and replace it with statist control of vast areas of economic life. Moreover, the rise of ideologies hostile to marriage and the family has had a measurable social impact, and its costs are counted in ruined relationships, damaged lives, and all that follows in the social sphere from these personal catastrophes. In many poorer places in the United States, and I believe this is true in many other countries, families are simply failing to form and marriage is disappearing or coming to be regarded as an optional "life-style choice"—one among various optional ways of conducting relationships and having and rearing children. Out of wedlock birthrates are very high, with the negative consequences being borne less by the affluent than by those in the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of society.

In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Harvard professor who was then working in the administration of President Lyndon Johnson, shocked Americans by reporting findings that the out-of-wedlock birth rate among African-Americans in the United States had reached nearly 25%. He warned that the phenomenon of boys and girls being raised without fathers in poorer communities would result in social pathologies that would severely harm those most in need of the supports of solid family life. His predictions were all too quickly verified. The widespread failure of family formation portended disastrous social consequences of delinquency, despair, violence, drug abuse, and crime and incarceration. A snowball effect resulted in the further growth of the out-of-wedlock birth rate. It is now over 70% among African-Americans. It is worth noting that at the time of Moynihan's report, the out-of-wedlock birth rate for the population as a whole was almost 6%. Today, that rate is over 40%.

The economic consequences of these developments are evident. Consider the need of business to have available to it a responsible and capable work force. Business cannot manufacture honest, hard working people to employ. Nor can government create them by law. Businesses and governments depend on there being many such people, but they must rely on the family, assisted by religious communities and other institutions of civil society, to produce them. So business has a stake—a massive stake—in the long-term health of the family. It should avoid doing anything to undermine the family, and it should do what it can where it can to strengthen the institution.

As an advocate of dynamic societies, I believe in the market economy and the free enterprise system. I particularly value the social mobility that economic dynamism makes possible. Indeed, I am a beneficiary of that social mobility. A bit over a hundred years ago, my immigrant grandfathers—one from southern Italy, the other from Syria—were coal miners. Neither had so much as remotely considered the possibility of attending a university—as a practical economic matter, such a thing was simply out of the question. At that time, Woodrow Wilson, the future President of the United States, was the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton. Today, just two generations forward, I, the grandson of those immigrant coal miners, am the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton. And what is truly remarkable, is that my story is completely unremarkable. Something like it is the story of millions of Americans. I daresay it is the story of many, many Australians. Perhaps it goes without saying that this kind of upward mobility is not common in corporatist or socialist economic systems; but it is very common in market-based free enterprise economies.

Having said that, I should note that I am not a supporter of the laissez-faire doctrine embraced by strict libertarians. I believe that law and government do have important and, indeed, indispensable roles to play in regulating enterprises for the sake of protecting public health, safety, and morals, preventing exploitation and abuse, and promoting fair competitive circumstances of exchange. But these roles are compatible, I would insist, with the ideal of limited government and the principle of subsidiarity according to which government must respect individual initiative to the extent reasonably possible and avoid violating the autonomy and usurping the authority of families, religious communities, and other institutions of civil society that play the primary role in building character and transmitting virtues.

But having said that, I would warn that limited government — considered as an ideal as vital to business as to the family — cannot be maintained where the marriage culture collapses and families fail to form or easily dissolve. Where these things happen, the health, education, and welfare functions of the family will have to be undertaken by someone, or some institution, and that will sooner or later be the government. To deal with pressing social problems,bureaucracies will grow, and with them the tax burden. Moreover, the growth of crime and other pathologies where family breakdown is rampant will result in the need for more extensive policing and incarceration and, again, increased taxes to pay for these government services. If we want limited government, as we should, and a level of taxation that is not unduly burdensome, we need healthy institutions of civil society, beginning with a flourishing marriage culture supporting family formation and preservation.

Advocates of the market economy, and supporters of marriage and the family, have common opponents in hard-left socialism, the entitlement mentality, and the statist ideologies that provide their intellectual underpinnings. But the marriage of advocates of limited government and economic freedom, on the one hand, and the supporters of marriage and the family, on the other, is not, and must not be regarded as, a mere marriage of convenience. The reason they have common enemies is that they have common principles: namely, respect for the human person, which grounds our commitment to individual liberty and the right to economic freedom and other essential civil liberties; belief in personal responsibility, which is a pre-condition of the possibility and moral desirability of individual liberty in any domain; recognition of subsidiarity as the basis for effective but truly limited government and for the integrity of the institutions of civil society that mediate between the individual and the centralized power of the state; respect for the rule of law; and recognition of the vital role played by the family and by religious institutions that support the character-forming functions of the family in the flourishing of any decent and dynamic society.

The point was made well by a man who will, I predict, in a few hours be one of the most famous people in the world, U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan, chairman of the budget committee in the United States House of Representatives. He recently observed that a "libertarian" who wants limited government should embrace the means to his freedom: thriving mediating institutions that create the moral preconditions for economic markets and choice. A "social issues" conservative with a zeal for righteousness should insist on a free market economy to supply the material needs for families, schools, and churches that inspire moral and spiritual life. In a nutshell, the notion of separating the social from the economic issues is a false choice. They stem from the same root . . . . They complement and complete each other. A prosperous moral community is a prerequisite for a just and ordered society and the idea that either side of this current divide can exist independently is a mirage.

The two greatest institutions ever devised for lifting people out of poverty and enabling them to live in dignity are the market economy and the institution of marriage. These institutions will, in the end, stand or fall together. Contemporary statist ideologues have contempt for both of these institutions, and they fully understand the connection between them. We who believe in the market and in the family should see the connection no less clearly.

Contraception and Public Policy - by Rob Agnelli

In H&PR

One can readily see why there is an insistence against “artificial” methods of birth control, while something like Natural Family Planning is in accord with the natural law.  It is not because they are artificial, per se, but because they are unnatural.  In other words, they violate human nature.

In what many regard as the most prophetic work of the 20^th Century, Brave New World, Aldous Huxley presents a culture in which fertility is seen as a nuisance, with women carry contraceptives with them everywhere they go on their “Maltusian Belts.”  Perhaps, the last major obstacle to making this prediction a reality is the Catholic Church.  That is why the recent HHS mandate that requires religious institutions to subsidize free contraceptives for their employees is seen by many as a shot over the bow of the Bark of Peter in the United States.  Not surprisingly, one Catholic GOP candidate for President was peppered with questions related to the mandate, and birth control in general.  He attempted to address the immorality as well as the societal consequences, but his support of public policy was inconsistent with his personal views.  This is especially true with his support of the Title X program that provides access to contraceptive services, supplies and information.  Clearly, he felt the pressure of speaking to a society that has become dependent upon the widespread availability of contraception.  It seems that the only recourse is to fall back on the safety net of:  “I am personally opposed, but I can’t impose my beliefs on others.”  But given our contraceptive culture, is there a realistic public policy that respects both the common good and the natural law?

To begin, one might simply say that the government ought to give the people what they want.  This is a foundational principle of a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.”  Those that do not want to use contraception have a right not to make use of the service, but that should not take away the rights of those who do.  Although this is the prevailing mentality, it rests upon two erroneous assumptions.

Running from the Natural Law?

The first is a misunderstanding of self-government.  This does not mean majority rules, and whatever a majority wants, they should get.  This eventually leads to the type of soft-despotism that Tocqueville thought a very real possibility in the democracy of the United States.  Instead, because the right to self-government proceeds from the natural law, the exercise of that right must be in accord with natural law.  If natural law is sufficiently valid to give this basic right to the people, then it must be valid to impose its precepts on this same right. 1  Whatever rights the people want to exercise must be in accord with natural law.  You cannot run away from this law, as any honest moral relativist quickly finds out.  To the matter at hand, the immorality of artificial contraception is not simply a religious or personal belief, but something that can be arrived at through the application of natural law.

Despite the fact that the founding fathers framed this country on a Judeo-Christian understanding of natural law, very few Americans today actually know what it is, and how to apply it.  Most assume it has something to do with what naturally occurs rather than something that is linked to man’s nature or essence.  Therefore, it is instructive to discuss precisely why contraception violates the natural law, if for no other reason than to put away the myth that it is merely a regurgitation of outdated religious dogma.

In examining human nature, one finds that man has a natural inclination to the good.  In particular, there are four intrinsic goods in which man is naturally inclined.  First, all men have an inclination to conserve their being.  From this inclination every man naturally does those things which preserve and enhance his life, avoiding those things which would be harmful to it.  Second, man possesses the natural inclination to marriage and procreation (including the raising and education of children).  Third, because man is a rational creature, he has a natural inclination to know the truth, especially about God, and how to live in society.  Whatever pertains to each of these inclinations belongs to the natural law. 2  In other words, whatever leads to true human thriving, ought to be promoted; whatever is contrary to one of these goods, is wrong and ought to be avoided.  It is also important to note that something is wrong, not simply because God said so, but because, ultimately, it is harmful to us.  That is why Aquinas insisted that we offend God only by acting contrary to our own good. 3

Notice also that in the list of intrinsic goods, marriage and procreation appear as a single good.  That is because they are intrinsically linked, so that anything that harms either of the two aspects, harms both.  Therefore, contraception is intrinsically wrong because it harms the good of marriage and procreation.

Many question how these two aspects constitute a single, inseparable good.  If we understand marriage in the traditional sense to mean the “one-flesh communion of persons in which the spouses unite on all levels of their personhood (body and soul)” and we examine the conjugal act on a biological level, we can illuminate the inseparability principle.  Professor Germain Grisez articulates this well when he carefully explains this based on the following principle:

Though a male and female are complete individuals with respect to other functions—for example, nutrition, sensation, and locomotion—with respect to reproduction, they are only potential parts of a mated pair, which is the complete organism capable of reproducing sexually. Even if the mated pair is sterile, intercourse, provided it is the reproductive behavior characteristic of the species, makes the copulating male and female one organism. 4

While it was claimed above that the laws of nature are not the same as the natural law, these laws can serve as a reliable guide in discovering the good.  Because nature is intelligible, to act in accord with nature is to act in accord with reason and, therefore, to act morally.   Conversely, we can say that which is not natural is not in accord with reason and, therefore, is immoral.  One can readily see, based on this principle, why there is an insistence against “artificial” methods of birth control, while something like Natural Family Planning is in accord with the natural law.  It is not because they are artificial, per se, but because they are unnatural.  In other words, they violate human nature.

“I Want My Rights”

A second confusion arises with respect to whether there is truly a “right” to contraception.  There is a necessary distinction to be made between what are commonly referred to as “strong” and “weak” rights.  A “strong” right is always connected to a true perfective good, which cannot be derived from a broader right.   On the other hand, “weak” rights flow from others’ duty of non-interference.  This distinction is important because many people confuse the fact that if there is a right of noninterference, then this gives them a right to a particular activity.  True rights never proceed from another’s duty not to interfere.  This, unfortunately, is a source of confusion even in our current judicial climate, especially in the relationship between Roe vs. Wade’s “right to privacy,” and Casey vs. Planned Parenthood’s declaration that a woman has a “right to abortion.”  In applying this to the question of artificial contraception, one can say that, although there may be a right to non-interference because artificial contraception violates the natural law, there is no right to it.

The Policy

 
Based upon this foundation, one might conclude that artificial contraception should be outlawed immediately.  One can hardly begin to imagine the political upheaval if such a policy was put in-place.  That is why St. Thomas Aquinas thought that not all vice ought to be outlawed.  Instead, he thought only “the more grievous vices from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others…” 5 should be outlawed.  In essence, the Angelic Doctor is saying that when a law prescribes acts that are far beyond the virtue of the average person in society, then there ought to be no laws against it.  One of the reasons for this is that the law may become a pathway to further vice.  For example, suppose you outlaw contraception but not everyone has the level of virtue to follow the law.  Now, you can create a situation where a black market arises, causing  more serious crime to occur.

This does not mean that contraception is a necessary evil, and that nothing can be done.  Classically understood, a good government is one that helps make the people morally good.  This is especially true of a democracy which depends on a “moral and religious people” to survive, as John Adams said.  While laws may not seek to outlaw all vices, they certainly should not promote them.  Therefore, governmental policies, such as Title X, that actually supply and pay for contraception, should not be in-place.  A policy such as this would also respect the fact that most people view contraception as “a private matter,” although they may not be happy once they got their wish. This step in the process may not be a hard sell, but there would be an aspect of the policy that would literally be a very difficult “pill” for many to swallow.

The Bitter Pill

 
Unfortunately, one of the best kept secrets with respect to most chemical contraceptives is that they act as abortifacients.  These would have to be made illegal immediately.  The killing of an innocent child in the womb involves the type of “grievous vice” that St. Thomas said must always be outlawed.  In fact, one could argue (although it might be difficult to prove) that more abortions occur through the use of these “medicines” and devices than the 1.2 million that are performed directly in the US each year.

Justice Harry Blackmum, in the Roe vs. Wade decision, said: “we need not resolve the difficult question as to when life begins.”  But, this is precisely the question that needs to be answered, as shown by the rather schizophrenic manner in which he later says: “(If the) suggestion of personhood {of the preborn} is established, the {abortion rights} case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the {14^th} Amendment.”  A policy such as this would force an answer to this “difficult question” because of the prevalence of chemical contraceptives.

Furthermore, this would force out into the open the myth of government neutrality.  Even though one may say that the question of personhood is “above my pay grade,” and attempt to appear neutral, this so-called neutral position makes a claim that personhood begins at birth (as distinct from “partial-birth”).

This is one of those rare cases in our society in which we drown out the voice of science.  When Congress attempted to answer the question in 1981, they found that “physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive, and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.” 6  Unfortunately, that initiative failed 30 years ago.  It is time it be reopened in order to provide a definitive answer.

Effect on the Common Good

 
In Huxley’s book, “Brave New World,” the disillusioned Bernard is banned to the Falkland Islands.  While a candidate that ran on a platform that proposed removing the government from the business of providing contraception might get elected, I fear a similar fate to Bernard’s would await any candidate that proposed outlawing all chemical contraception with abortifacient properties.  Nevertheless, the morally responsible policy would be one similar to what has already been proposed.  Still, one aspect that should be examined is the harm that readily available contraception does to the common good, especially to women.

Contraception is often presented as an important issue related to “women’s health.”  But as economist, Timothy Reichert, 7 has shown, contraception is anything but a social good for women.  It shifts wealth and power away from women by creating a “prisoner’s dilemma” game, where each woman is induced to make decisions that make her, and other women, worse off in the long run. 8

One of the social consequences of a contraceptive culture is that, what was once a single mating market—men and women paired in marriage—has now become two markets.  There is the classic “marriage market,” that represents the market for marital relationships, and a “sex market,” which represents a market for sexual relationships.  Because of ready access to contraception, both men and women frequent the “sex market” earlier in life, and then inhabit the “marriage market” later in life.  With supposedly more reliable contraception, assurance is provided that participation in the sex market will not result in pregnancy.  This separation into markets is not necessarily adverse to either sex, assuming that the amount of sex being had is the same.  It only becomes adverse to one of the sexes when there are imbalances in the “price” that is paid.  The price the women pay is much higher than the men.

The two markets are not equally populated by men and women.  At a certain age, because of their biological clocks, most women will inhabit the marriage market rather than the sex market.  Men do not enter the marriage market at the same time, or even at the same rate.  The imbalance comes in that, in the sex market, women have more bargaining power than men, since they are the scarce commodity, and can command higher “prices.” The picture is flipped over when women make the switch to the marriage market, in that there is a relative scarcity of marriageable men. Over time, however, women cut deals and settle for less of a man.  Thus, men take more and more of the “gains from trade” that marriage creates, and women take fewer and fewer.

Contraception, then, ultimately leads to divorce for two reasons.  The first reason is because of the lower relative bargaining power that women wield relative to men, as more women will simply strike bad deals.  The second reason is that it creates a demand for divorce, even before marriage occurs.  Women now need a pre-marriage exit strategy, in case things turn out badly.  They do this primarily by going into the labor market at the price of developing stronger familial relationships.

You might say that professional development is worth the price of stronger familial relationships for women, because the women are more personally satisfied.  However, this ignores the fact that about half the children who are placed in daycares are girls and, therefore, future women.

Obviously, contraception also increases the incidence of infidelity.  It opens up more opportunities for infidelity to married men than it does married women.  It is easier for an older man to enter the “sex market” than an older woman.  It also increases a demand for abortion in that women rationally plan their human capital investments around childbearing in the later phases of their lives.

Conclusion

 
As economists and social scientists know, it is nearly impossible to break out of a prisoner’s dilemma unless there are changes in laws and social mores. Thus, even from a common good standpoint, it is necessary that the access to contraception be limited greatly.  This begins, first of all, by removing the government as a provider of contraceptives.  Catholics also have a key role to play, in not only continuing to preach the message of just how harmful contraception is to women and society as a whole, but also to preach the “new feminism” proposed by Blessed John Paul II in his “Letter to Women.”

Works Cited

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Contra Gentiles. n.d.
Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. 1920.

Goldin, Claudia, and Lawrence Katz. “The Power of the Pill: Oral Contraceptives and Women’s Career and Marriage Decisions.” Journal of Political Economy, 2000: 730-768.
Grisez, Germain. “The Christian Family as Fulfilment of Sacramental Marriage.” Studies in Christian Ethics, 1996: 23-33.

Maritain, Jacques. Man and the State. Washington DC: Catholic University Press, 1989.

Reichert, Timothy. “Bitter Pill.” First Things, May 2010: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/04/bitter-pill

1. Jacques Maritain, Man and the State (Washington DC: Catholic University Press, 1989), 135. ↩
2. Summa Theologia (ST), I-II, q.94, a.2 ↩
3. Summa contra Gentiles, 3.122  ↩
4. Germain Grisez. “The Christian Family as Fulfillment of Sacramental Marriage.” Studies in Christian Ethics, 1996: 27. ↩
5. ST, I-II, q.96, a.2 ↩
6. Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981. ↩
7. Timothy Reichert, “Bitter Pill.” First Things, May 2010. ↩
8. Goldin and Katz, “The Power of the Pill: Oral Contraceptives and Women’s Career and Marriage Decisions.”  http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~jkennan/teaching/pillpaper2.pdf ↩