Thursday, November 15, 2012

Catechism of the Catholic Church


Catechism of the Catholic Church

IN BRIEF (Anticipating)

 44 Man is by nature and vocation a religious being. Coming from God, going toward God, man lives a fully human life only if he freely lives by his bond with God.
45 Man is made to live in communion with God in whom he finds happiness: When I am completely united to you, there will be no more sorrow or trials; entirely full of you, my life will be complete (St. Augustine, Conf. 10, 28, 39: PL 32, 795}.
46 When he listens to the message of creation and to the voice of conscience, man can arrive at certainty about the existence of God, the cause and the end of everything.
47 The Church teaches that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty from his works, by the natural light of human reason (cf. Vatican Council I, can. 2 # 1: DS 3026),
48 We really can name God, starting from the manifold perfections of his creatures, which are likenesses of the infinitely perfect God, even if our limited language cannot exhaust the mystery.
49 Without the Creator, the creature vanishes (GS 36). This is the reason why believers know that the love of Christ urges them to bring the light of the living God to those who do not know him or who reject him.



The Profession of Faith

#27. The Desire for God: written in the human heart built into the structure of man. But man can revolt against this tendency: forget, overlook, explicitly reject.
Causes: - revolt against evil in the world.
Religious ignorance or indifference
Cares and riches of the world
Scandal of bad example
Bad doctrine on religion
Attitude of sin making him hide and flee the call.
#30. Rejoice in praising God for that is how you are: Augustine : “You have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.”
#31. Ways of coming to know God
            Proofs for the the existence God as “converging and convincing arguments” – to achieve certainty:
From creation –
physical world: movement, becoming, contingency, degrees of perfection, order and beauty
the human person: openness to truth, sense of moral goodness, freedom and the voice of conscience, longing for the infinite, happiness.
These are signs of the spiritual soul – that is irreducible to the merely material. The unique “I” is irreducible to categories of thought about the sensible world. 
I not being the first cause nor last end of itself – but rather participating in Being itself.
#35. The proofs of God’s existence predispose one to faipth – i.e. to the revelation of this supreme Being Itself.
#36. Knowledge of God according to the Church. The Church holds and teaches that God, first principle and last end can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of reason, that is, we can know that He is.
#37. But in the historical condition of sin, man has difficulty knowing God by the light of reason alone.
#38. Therefore man stands in need of revelation not only about the strictly supernatural, but also about religious and moral truths not beyond the grasp of human reason. That is, with revelation, these truths are knowable with ease, certainty and no error.

IV.

 #39 – 40: We name God from our knowledge of creation. All knowledge begins with sensible experience of the material world. God is completely “other” than creation (since if the world were not, He would still be[1])
#41. Since we perceive all things to be, and that God is, we can speak analogically of created things and God. God is but in a different way than anything else is. God is Being. Everything else has it.
#42. Therefore, we have to purify language of limitation
#43. Nevertheless, we can speak truly of God from our sensible and conceptual knowledge drawn from sensible things, but the IV Lateran Council [Denzinger 806] says: “between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying as even greater dissimilitude;” and that “concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him.”
IN BRIEF (recapitulating)
 44 Man is by nature and vocation a religious being. Coming from God, going toward God, man lives a fully human life only if he freely lives by his bond with God.
45 Man is made to live in communion with God in whom he finds happiness: When I am completely united to you, there will be no more sorrow or trials; entirely full of you, my life will be complete (St. Augustine, Conf. 10, 28, 39: PL 32, 795}.
46 When he listens to the message of creation and to the voice of conscience, man can arrive at certainty about the existence of God, the cause and the end of everything.
47 The Church teaches that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty from his works, by the natural light of human reason (cf. Vatican Council I, can. 2 # 1: DS 3026),
48 We really can name God, starting from the manifold perfections of his creatures, which are likenesses of the infinitely perfect God, even if our limited language cannot exhaust the mystery.
49 Without the Creator, the creature vanishes (GS 36). This is the reason why believers know that the love of Christ urges them to bring the light of the living God to those who do not know him or who reject him.
* * * * * * *
IN BRIEF (anticipating)
68 By love, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. He has thus provided the definitive, superabundant answer to the questions that man asks himself about the meaning and purpose of his life.
69 God has revealed himself to man by gradually communicating his own mystery in deeds and in words.
70 Beyond the witness to himself that God gives in created things, he manifested himself to our first parents, spoke to them and, after the fall, promised them salvation (cf ⇒ Gen 3:15) and offered them his covenant.
71 God made an everlasting covenant with Noah and with all living beings (cf ⇒ Gen 9:16). It will remain in force as long as the world lasts.
72 God chose Abraham and made a covenant with him and his descendants. By the covenant God formed his people and revealed his law to them through Moses. Through the prophets, he prepared them to accept the salvation destined for all humanity.
73 God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he has established his covenant for ever. the Son is his Father's definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him.

                                    Article II: God Meets Man

The Revelation of God:

#51. Dei Verbum 2: “It pleased God, in his goodness and wisdom, to reveal himself and to make known the mystery of his will. His will was that men should have access to the Father, through Christ, the Word made flesh, in the Holy Spirit, and thus become sharers in the divine nature.”
            Man can know about God naturally by a work of ascension. But God has freely come to man by descending.

Ratzinger: Great religious figures in the world have ascended to mystical heights. But in Judeo-Christianity, “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob really are not ‘great religious personalities’… God seeks out man in the midst of his worldly and earthly connections and relationships; God, whom no one, not even the purest of men, can discover for himself, comes to man of his own volition and enters into relationship with him. We could say that biblical ‘mysticism’ is not mysticism of images but of words and that its revelation is not as contemplation by man but the word and the act of God. It is not primarily the discovery of some truth; rather, it is the activity of God himself making history. Its meaning is, not the divine reality becomes visible to man, but that it makes the person who receives the revelation  into an actor in divine history. For here, in contrast to mysticism, God is the one who acts, and it is he who brings salvation to man….
“Those who are saved are the inward-looking souls, whatever the religion they profess. For Christianity, they are the believers, whatever level of inwardness they may have achieved. A little child, an overworked workman, if they believe, stand at a higher level than the greatest ascetics. ‘We are not great religious personalities,’ Guardini once said; ‘we are servants of the Word.’ Christ himself had said that Saint John the Baptist might well be ‘the greatest among the children of men,’ but that ‘the least among the sons of the kingdom is greater than he’ (see Lk. 7, 28). It is possible for there to be great religious personalities in the world even outside of Christianity; it is indeed very possible for the greatest religious personalities to be found outside Christianity; but that means nothing; what counts is obedience to the Word of Christ.”[2]
#52. “By revealing himself God wishes to make them capable of responding to him, and of knowing him, and of loving him far beyond their own natural capacity.”
So, God has freely come to man by descending to reveal himself: something we long for as images (#27), but have no strict right to demand. Wojtyla adds: “God allows man to learn  His supernatural ends, but the decision to strive towards an end, the choice, of course, is left to man’s free will. God does not redeem man against his will.”[3] This point is huge: God reveals to us not only what we could know by natural reason, but He reveals Who He is as the very goal and purpose of our being. This gives us “autonomy,” i.e. the power to master ourselves and “own” ourselves such that we are able to direct ourselves – now “freely” – to give ourselves over to Him Who is the goal of our being.
            Keep in mind  Ephesians 1, 4 that reads: “Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish in his sight in love. He predestined us to be adopted through Jesus Christ as his sons, according to the purpose of his will, unto the praise of the glory of his grace, with which he has favored us in his beloved Son.”  This means that Jesus Christ is the prototype of man before the creation of man. This is revealed to us, but it is up to our free self-determination to obey this Word.
            Jesus Christ is the revelation of God’s inner Life. He is the one divine Person with two natures: Perfect God, Perfect man. “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. For in him were created all things in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible… All things have been created through and unto him, and he is before all creatures, and in him all things hold together” (Col. 1, 15-18). This is the grounding of the eschatology that Christ is present not only 2,000 years ago and will be back at the end and in the meantime is in heaven, but that Christ is present now in the world. And further, that He would have become man even if there had been no sin. John Paul II wrote: “From the ‘beginning,’ man, male  and female, shared in this supernatural gift. This endowment was given tin view of him, who from eternity was ‘beloved’ as Son, although – according to the dimensions of time and history  - it preceded the Incarnation of this ‘beloved Son’ and also the ‘redemption’ we have in him ‘through his blood’ (Eph. 1, 7).
            “Redemption was to become the source of man’s supernatural endowment after sin and, in a certain sense, despite sin. This supernatural endowment which took place before original sin, that is, the grace of original justice and  innocence – an endowment that was the fruit of man’s election in Christ before the ages  - was brought about precisely out of regard for him, that one and only Beloved, while chronologically anticipating his  coming in the body.”[4]
#53. God gradually reveals Himself by deeds and words culminating in the Person of Christ.
John Henry Newman: Catholic Fullness in Catholicism: “Christ and the Common Destiny of Man” Ignatius (1988) 431.

“Now, the phenomenon, admitted on all hands, is this: that great portion of what is generally received as Christian truth is in its rudiments or in its separate parts to be found in heathen philosophies and religions. For instance, the doctrine of a Trinity is found both in the East and in the West; so is the ceremony of washing; so is the rite of sacrifice. The doctrine of the Divine Word is Platonic; the doctrine of the Incarnation is Indian; of a divine kingdom is Judaic; of Angels and demons is Magian; the connection of sin with the body is Gnostic; celibacy is known to Bonze and Talapoin; a sacerdotal order is Egyptian; the idea of a new birth is Chinese and Eleusinian; belief in sacramental virtue is Pythagorean; and honors to the dead are a polytheism. Such is the general nature of the fact before us; Mr. Milman argues from it – ‘These things are in heathenism, therefore they are not Christian:” we, on the contrary, prefer to say, “These things are in Christianity, therefore they are not heathen.” That is, we prefer to say, and we think that Scripture bears us out in saying, that from the beginning the Moral Governor of the world has scattered the seeds of truth  [spermatikoi] (my underline and parenthesis) far and wide over its extent; That these have variously taken root, and grown up as in the wilderness, wild plants indeed but living; and hence that, as the inferior animals have tokens of an immaterial principle in them, yet have not souls, so the philosophies and religions of men have their life in certain true ideas, though they are not directly divine. What man is amid the brute creation, such is the Church among the schools of the world; and as Adam gave names to the animals about him, so has the Church from the first looked round upon the earth, noting and visiting the doctrines she found there. She began in Chaldea, and then sojourned among the Canaanites, and went down into Egypt, and thence passed into Arabia, till she rested in her own land. Next she encountered the merchants of Tyre, and the wisdom of the East county, and the luxury of Sheba. Then she was carried away to Babylon, and wandered to the schools of Greece. And wherever she went, in trouble or in triumph, still she was a living spirit, the mind and voice of the Most High; “sitting in midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking them questions;” claiming to herself what they said rightly, correcting their errors, supplying their defects, completing their beginnings, expanding their surmises, and thus gradually by means of them enlarging the range and refining the sense of her own teaching. So far then from her creed being of doubtful credit because it resembles foreign theologies, we even hold that one special way in which Providence has imparted divine knowledge to us has been by enabling her to draw and collect it together out of the world, and, in this sense, as in others, to “such the mild of the Gentiles and to such the breast of kings.”

            How far in fact this process has gone is a question of history; and we believe it has before now been grossly exaggerated and misrepresented by those who, like Mr. Milman, have thought that it existence told against Catholic doctrine; but so little antecedent difficulty have we in the matter, that we could readily grant, unless it were a question of fact not of theory, that Balaam was an Eastern Mahol, or Moses was a scholar of the Egyptian hierophants. We are not distressed to be told that the doctrine of the angelic host came nor that the vision of a Mediator is in Philo, if in very deed he died for us on Calvary. Nor are we afraid to allow, that, even after his coming, the Church has been a treasure-house, giving forth things old and new, casting the gold of fresh tributaries into her refiner’s  fire, or stamping upon her own, as time required it, a a deeper impress of her Master’s image.

            The distinction between these two theories is broad and obvious. The advocates of the one imply that Revelation was a single, entire, solitary act, or nearly so, introducing a certain message; whereas we, who maintain the other, consider that Divine teaching has been in fact, what the analogy of nature would lead us to expect, “at sundry times and in divers manners,” various, complex, progressive, and supplemental of itself. We consider the Christian doctrine, when analyzed, to appear, like the human frame, “fearfully and wonderfully made;” but they think it some one tenet or certain principles given out at one time in their fullness, without gradual accretion before Christ’s coming or elucidation afterward. They cast off all that they also find in Pharisee or heathen; we conceive that the Church, like Aaron’s rod, devours the serpents of the magicians. They are ever hunting for a fabulous primitive simplicity; we repose in Catholic fullness.”[5]

#54. Stages of Revelation: - The evidence of God in things.

-         God revealed Himself to Adam and Eve – walked with them in the garden
-         After sin, revelation continues: “Again and again you offered a covenant to man” (Eucharistic prayer IV)
-          
-         The Covenant with Noah:
-          
-         #56. After sin: men were grouped “in their lands, each with [its] own language, by their families, in their nations” (Gen. 10, 5; 9, 9-10…). #57. “The state of division into many nations, each entrusted by divine providence to the guardianship of angels, is at once cosmic, social, and religious. It is intended to limit  the pride of fallen humanity, united only in its perverse ambition  to forge its own unity as at Babel. But because of sin, both polytheism and the idolatry of the nation and of its rulers constantly threaten this provisional economy with the perversion of paganism.”
#58. “The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, untilthe universal proclamation of the Gospel. The Bible  venerates several great figures amoang the Gentiles: Abel the just, the king-priest Melchizedek – a figure of Christ – and the upright ‘Noah, Daniel, and Job.’ Scripture thus expresses the heights of sanctity that can be reached by those who live according to the covenant of Noah, waiting for Christ to ‘gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad’(Jn. 11, 52).”

#59. Abraham: In order to gather humanity together, God calls Abram to become Abraham: ‘the father of a multitude of nations.’(“In you all the nations of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 17, 5): Those descended from Abraham would be the trustees of the promise made to the patriarchs, the chosen people – The Jews.

#62. God forms his people: the Law [the Revelation of Himself]. The people of God are priestly: mediating between God and global humanity. He sends the prophets to proclaim a radical redemption, purification from all infidelities, and for all peoples.

III. Christ Jesus – “Mediator and Fullness of All Revelation”

#65. “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.” Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect, and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one.

St. John of the Cross: “In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other) he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word – and he has no more to say… because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has not spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not  fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.”[6]
#66. There will be no further Revelation. “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.”[7] Keep in mind that the revelation of the Word is complete, but not completely explicit. The experience of the believing Church through the centuries is a growing conceptual hermeneutic of an unchanging continuity (St. Vincent Lerins).

            #67. All so-called “private revelation” do not belong to the deposit of faith. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic all of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Read the “In Brief” (#68-73).
IN BRIEF (recapitulating)
68 By love, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. He has thus provided the definitive, superabundant answer to the questions that man asks himself about the meaning and purpose of his life.
69 God has revealed himself to man by gradually communicating his own mystery in deeds and in words.
70 Beyond the witness to himself that God gives in created things, he manifested himself to our first parents, spoke to them and, after the fall, promised them salvation (cf ⇒ Gen 3:15) and offered them his covenant.
71 God made an everlasting covenant with Noah and with all living beings (cf ⇒ Gen 9:16). It will remain in force as long as the world lasts.
72 God chose Abraham and made a covenant with him and his descendants. By the covenant God formed his people and revealed his law to them through Moses. Through the prophets, he prepared them to accept the salvation destined for all humanity.
73 God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he has established his covenant for ever. the Son is his Father's definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him.
IN BRIEF: (anticipating)
96 What Christ entrusted to the apostles, they in turn handed on by their preaching and writing, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to all generations, until Christ returns in glory.
97 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God" (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.
98 "The Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes" (DV 8 # 1).
99 Thanks to its supernatural sense of faith, the People of God as a whole never ceases to welcome, to penetrate more deeply and to live more fully from the gift of divine Revelation.
100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

Article 2 – The Transmission of Divine Revelation

            #74. God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth: (1 Tim. 2, 4). That Truth is Jesus Christ in His Persona. #75. The Person of Christ sums up the entire previous revelation and transcends it in Himself. He commands the apostles to preach the Gospel, promised by the prophets and fulfilled in Himself and spoken by Him.

Remember: Jn. 17, 3: “Eternal life is to know you, the only true God and Him whom you have sent.” Also: When speaking about Purgatory, Benedict XVI commented: “What actually saves us is the full assent of faith”[8] And faith is lived in the small deeds of ordinary historical and material existence. Dei Verbum #7: “The Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline.” Since like is known by like, if the divine Son – the Person of Christ – is pure prayer to the Father, then if we pray and turn work into prayer we will be believing and hence saved.

#76. The Gospel is handed on In the apostolic preaching  a) orally and b) in writing which is the inspired Scripture; continued in apostolic succession: “In order that the full an living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them ‘their own position of teaching authority.’”[9] This living succession is called “Tradition.”

II

  Relation Between Tradition and Scripture: DV #8: Both Tradition and Sacred Scripture are the Word of God written down as well as entrusted to the apostles as teaching and example. Note that nothing was written for the first Christians. [10]
III

#84. Interpretation: done by the whole Church because the whole Church is the Subject believing, i.e. receiving the Word (Person of Christ).
Magisterium: “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has  been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone [Pope and bishops in union with the pope]. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ” [DV #10].
Supremacy and absolute realism of the Word of God: #86. “Yet the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”
Extraordinary and Ordinary: LG#25 25. “Among the more important duties of bishops that of preaching the Gospel has pride of place.[39] For the bishops are heralds of the faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people assigned to them, the faith which is destined to inform their thinking and direct their conduct; and under the light of the Holy Spirit they make that faith shine forth, drawing from the storehouse of revelation new things and old (cf. Mt. 13:52); they make it bear fruit and with watchfulness they ward off whatever errors threaten their flock (cf. 2 Tim. 4-14).Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff,even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.
Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.[40] This is still more clearly the case when, assembled in an ecumenical council, they are, for the universal Church, teachers of and judges in matters of faith and morals, whose decisions must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith.[41]
This infallibility, however, with which the divine redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining doctrine pertaining to faith and morals, is co-extensive with the deposit of revelation, which must be religiously guarded and loyally and courageously expounded. The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful--who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk. 22:32)--he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.[42] For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, is as much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal. For in such a case the Roman Pontiff does not utter a pronouncement as a private person, but rather does he expound and defend the teaching of the Catholic faith as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the Church's charism of infallibility is present in a singular way.[43] The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme teaching office. Now, the assent of the Church can never be lacking to such definitions on account of the same Holy Spirit's influence, through which Christ's whole flock is maintained in the unity of the faith and makes progress in it.[44]
Furthermore, when the Roman Pontiff, or the body of bishops together with him, define a doctrine, they make the definition in conformity with revelation itself, to which all are bound to adhere and to which they are obliged to submit; and this revelation is transmitted integrally either in written form or in oral tradition through the legitimate succession of bishops and above all through the watchful concern of the Roman Pontiff himself- and through the light of the Spirit of truth it is scrupulously preserved in the Church and unerringly explained.[45] The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, by reason of their office and the seriousness of the matter, apply themselves with zeal to the work of inquiring by every suitable means into this revelation and of giving apt expression to its contents;[46] they do not, however, admit any new public revelation as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.[47]”
#88. Dogmas: truths (concepts) defined by the pope ex cathedra and bishops in union with him.
#92. The whole Church cannot err  in matters of belief when there is universal consent  (from bishops to the last faithful) on faith and morals.
#94.  Growth in understanding the faith: There is growth in the experience of the Person of Christ by prayer, faith experience in deeds; in contemplation and study and from preacing (hearing the Word).
IN BRIEF (recapitulating)
96 What Christ entrusted to the apostles, they in turn handed on by their preaching and writing, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to all generations, until Christ returns in glory.
97 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God" (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.
98 "The Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes" (DV 8 # 1).
99 Thanks to its supernatural sense of faith, the People of God as a whole never ceases to welcome, to penetrate more deeply and to live more fully from the gift of divine Revelation.
100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.


IN BRIEF (anticipating)
134 "All Sacred Scripture is but one book, and that one book is Christ, because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ" (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2, 8: PL 176, 642).
135 "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God" (DV 24).
136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf DV 11).
137 Interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God wants to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation. What comes from the Spirit is not fully "understood except by the Spirit's action' (cf. Origen, Hom. in Ex. 4, 5: PG 12, 320).
138 The Church accepts and venerates as inspired the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New.
139 The four Gospels occupy a central place because Christ Jesus is their centre.
140 The unity of the two Testaments proceeds from the unity of God's plan and his Revelation. the Old Testament prepares for the New and the New Testament fulfills the Old; the two shed light on each other; both are true Word of God.
141 "The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures as she venerated the Body of the Lord" (DV 21): both nourish and govern the whole Christian life. "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" (⇒ Ps 119:105; cf. ⇒ Is 50:4).

Sacred Scripture:

#101. “Christ – The Unique Word of Sacred Scripture”

DV #13: “…The words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness became like men.”

More: He became man; i.e. a divine Person lived a human life. So also a divine Word was expressed in a human word. As there is only one divine “I,” so also there is also only one divine Word. Keep in mind: Actiones sunt suppositorum  =  Actions are not performed by the nature but by the Person through the nature. Therefore, everything Jesus Christ did is the action of a divine Person, not the action of a “nature.” The nature is the way He did it.

#103. Therefore we venerate Sacred Scripture as we venerate the Body of Christ. That’s why the Mass is the presence of Christ in the Word and in the Bread. Sacred Scripture is a divine Word, not human word. It is key to keep in mind that the divine and the human are not natures that are in parallel but both are joined in the one Person. Only the divine Person acts but through the medium of the humanity: “We are reminded firmly that there exists a specific will of the man Jesus that is not absorbed into the divine will. But this human will follows the divine will and thus becomes a single will with it, not however, in a forced way but by way of freedom. The metaphysical duplicity of a human will and a divine will is not eliminated, but in the personal sphere, the area of freedom, there is accomplished a fusion of the two, so that this becomes not one single natural will but one personal will. This free unioin – a mode of union created by love  - is a union higher and more intimate than a purely natural union. It corresponds to the highest union which can exist, the union of the Trinity.”[11]

Inspiration:

#105. God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

Canonical (inspired) texts, whole and entire with all their parts have been chosen within the faith of the Apostolic age.

# 107. “Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore ‘all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind’ (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).”

#108. “Still, the Christian faith is not a ‘religion of the book.’ Christianity is the religion of the ‘Word’ of God, ‘not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living.’ If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ the eternal Word of the living God [the “I” of the divine Son], must, through the Holy Spirit, ‘open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.’”
III
#109-110. The reader must be attentive to what the human authors wanted to say and therefore what God wanted to say through them. Therefore, the sacred author’s intention demands taking into account: the conditions of their time and culture; literary genres of the time; modes of feeling, speaking and narrating.
#111. The text must be interpreted in light of the same Spirit by whom it was written. How?
1)      Be attentive to the whole of Sacred Scripture; i.e. read the Old Testament through the eyes of the New Testament (Christ). Christ is the interpretation of all the prophecies and He is the new Moses (Cf. Deut. 18, 18).
2)      Read within “the living Tradition of the whole Church.” Scripture has been written “in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture.”
3)      Be attentive to the “analogy of faith” = the coherence of all the truths of faith (one truth of faith will not contradict another).
Senses of Scripture
#115. Literal- all senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.
Spiritual: - allegorical: events in the VT as presaging Christ: crossing the Red Sea = Christ’s victory and Christian Baptism; moral: events recorded instruct us how to act.; anagogical: to see reality and events recorded in terms of eternal significance.
#118. The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith; The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.
#120. The Canon of Scripture: It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.90
This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament and 27 for the New.91
The Old Testament
#121. The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.
122 Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately SO oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men."93 "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional,94 The books of the OldTestament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God's saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."95
123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. the Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).
The New Testament
124 "The Word of God, which is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, is set forth and displays its power in a most wonderful way in the writings of the New Testament"96 which hand on the ultimate truth of God's Revelation. Their central object is Jesus Christ, God's incarnate Son: his acts, teachings, Passion and glorification, and his Church's beginnings under the Spirit's guidance.97
125 The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures "because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Saviour".98
126 We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels: 

1. the life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, "whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their 
eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up."99
2. the oral tradition. "For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed."
100
3. the written Gospels. "The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus."
101
127 The fourfold Gospel holds a unique place in the Church, as is evident both in the veneration which the liturgy accords it and in the surpassing attraction it has exercised on the saints at all times:
The unity of the Old and New Testaments
128 The Church, as early as apostolic times,104 and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God's works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son.
129 Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself.105 Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament.106 As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.107
130 Typology indicates the dynamic movement toward the fulfilment of the divine plan when "God [will] be everything to everyone."108 Nor do the calling of the patriarchs and the exodus from Egypt, for example, lose their own value in God's plan, from the mere fact that they were intermediate stages.
* * * * * *
IN BRIEF (Concluding)
134 "All Sacred Scripture is but one book, and that one book is Christ, because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ" (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2, 8: PL 176, 642).
135 "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God" (DV 24).
136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf DV 11).
137 Interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God wants to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation. What comes from the Spirit is not fully "understood except by the Spirit's action' (cf. Origen, Hom. in Ex. 4, 5: PG 12, 320).
138 The Church accepts and venerates as inspired the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New.
139 The four Gospels occupy a central place because Christ Jesus is their centre.
140 The unity of the two Testaments proceeds from the unity of God's plan and his Revelation. The Old Testament prepares for the New and the New Testament fulfills the Old; the two shed light on each other; both are true Word of God.
141 "The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures as she venerated the Body of the Lord" (DV 21): both nourish and govern the whole Christian life. "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" (⇒ Ps 119:105; cf. ⇒ Is 50:4). 
* * * * * * *
IN BRIEF (anticipating)
176 Faith is a personal adherence of the whole man to God who reveals himself. It involves an assent of the intellect and will to the self-revelation God has made through his deeds and words.
177 "To believe" has thus a twofold reference: to the person, and to the truth: to the truth, by trust in the person who bears witness to it.
178 We must believe in no one but God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
179 Faith is a supernatural gift from God. In order to believe, man needs the interior helps of the Holy Spirit.
180 "Believing" is a human act, conscious and free, corresponding to the dignity of the human person.
181 "Believing" is an ecclesial act. the Church's faith precedes, engenders, supports and nourishes our faith. the Church is the mother of all believers. "No one can have God as Father who does not have the Church as Mother" (St. Cyprian, De unit. 6: PL 4, 519).
182 We believe all "that which is contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church proposes for belief as divinely revealed" (Paul VI, CPG # 20).
183 Faith is necessary for salvation. the Lord himself affirms: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (⇒ Mk 16:16).
184 "Faith is a foretaste of the knowledge that will make us blessed in the life to come" (St. Thomas Aquinas. Comp. theol. 1, 2).

#142. Revelation: the very Person of the Son of God. Faith: (#143) By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God. With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, "the obedience of faith". See points #176-#177. DV #5 is a development from the previous Magisterium in that it speaks about the response of the whole self to God. Since Revelation is the total gift of the Person of the Son to us on the Cross, then  the response is the total gift of ourselves to Him. DV #5: “ ‘The obedience of faith (Rom 16, 26; cf. Rom 1, 5; 2 Cor 10, 5-6) must be given to God as he reveals himself. By faith man freely commits his entire self to God, making ‘the full submission of his intellect and will to God who reveals.’”

#144. Notice that faith is an act of “obedience.” Obedience is from ob-audire. To hear (not to see: hence the grave epistemological twisting of the computer culture insists on seeing as the principal medium and the reduction of reality to the cyber. Reality (that is the Word of God) is disguised in the visual image.[12]

#145, Abraham –  Abraham thus fulfills the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1: "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen": "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Because he was "strong in his faith", Abraham became the "father of all who believe."  

Mary - "Blessed is she who believed"

#148. The Virgin Mary most perfectly embodies the obedience of faith. By faith Mary welcomes the tidings and promise brought by the angel Gabriel, believing that "with God nothing will be impossible" and so giving her assent: "Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word.” Elizabeth greeted her: "Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord." It is for this faith that all generations have called Mary blessed.
#149. Throughout her life and until her last ordeal when Jesus her son died on the cross, Mary's faith never wavered. She never ceased to believe in the fulfillment of God's word, and so the Church venerates in Mary the purest realization of faith. John Paul II recognized her as even greater than Abraham: “At the foot of the Cross Mary shares through faith in the shocking mystery of this self-emptying. This is perhaps the deepest ‘kenosis’ of faith in human history.”[13]

II. "I Know Whom I Have Believed"16

To believe in God alone. To believe in = to trust a person. It is a handing over of the self. To believe = to know something by the use of the faculties of intelligence and will.[14]
150 Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed. As personal adherence to God and assent to his truth, Christian faith differs from our faith in any human person. It is right and just to entrust oneself wholly to God and to believe absolutely what he says. It would be futile and false to place such faith in a creature.17

To believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God

151 II. "I Know Whom I Have Believed"16
To believe in God alone
150 Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed. As personal adherence to God and assent to his truth, Christian faith differs from our faith in any human person. It is right and just to entrust oneself wholly to God and to believe absolutely what he says. It would be futile and false to place such faith in a creature.17
To believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God

#151. For a Christian, believing in God cannot be separated from believing in the One he sent, his "beloved Son", in whom the Father is "well pleased"; God tells us to listen to him. The Lord himself said to his disciples: "Believe in God, believe also in me." We can believe in Jesus Christ because he is himself God, the Word made flesh: "No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known. Because he "has seen the Father"[15], Jesus Christ is the only one who knows him and can reveal him.

#152. The Holy Spirit: “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12, 3). Consider again: Mt. 11, 27: “No one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and him to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” Therefore, in truth, only God knows God completely

#153. Faith is grace: “When St. Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus declared to him that this revelation did not come ‘from flesh and blood,’ but from ‘my Father who is in heaven’ (Mt. 16, 17). The deep reason why the act of faith demands to motion of the Holy Spirit as “grace,” is the metaphysical constitution of the human person as image and likeness of the divine Person Who is pure relation from and to the Father. Constitutive relationality demands that the human person be engendered/affirmed/loved by another in order to be at all and have identity. Only in this way can the human person proceed to a free autonomous act. The psychological ramifications of this are immense. There is no such thing as a person alone.[16] The psychic dystopia of society here and now is well documented and explained in the recent book “Alone Together”[17] by the ethnographer Sherry Turkle.

 #154. Faith is a human act: Trusting in God and accepting His Truth is not contrary to reason nor freedom. To the contrary, it leads to the supreme achievement of both. In fact, without faith as an act of self-transcendence, reason cannot be fully reasonable since it is not exposed to transcendent being. “What is essential is that reason shut in on itself does not remain reasonable or rational….”[18] Consider the Regensburg Address in 2006. An objective assessment of this is given by St. Thomas: “Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace.”[19]

#156. Motives of credibility are helpful here: miracles of Christ and the saints;  prophecies; the Church’s growth and holiness; her fruitfulness and stability
.
#157. Faith is certain: “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.”[20]

#158. “Faith seeks understanding:” Faith, as the going out of self to receive the Person of Christ within, transfigures the ontological self by achieving actuality in the image of the divine Person of the Son. The believing person radiates light which is perceived by reason which sees everything in this new light and finds “meaning” of everything else in it.

#159. Faith and science: There can be no discrepancy or contradiction since it is the same God who reveals who is the creator of all things. Today, Joseph Ratzinger suggests the congruence of the theological epistemology of the Trinity and the Quantum success of the “New Physics,” as well as the inclusion of evolution in the larger view of the faith where all things have conspired to develop the human person for the confrontation with the Word of God and his free assent or denial.
#160. The Freedom of Faith: Since faith is a gift of the whole self to the revealing God, it can only be a free act or it is nothing.
 
IN BRIEF (concluding)
176 Faith is a personal adherence of the whole man to God who reveals himself. It involves an assent of the intellect and will to the self-revelation God has made through his deeds and words.
177 "To believe" has thus a twofold reference: to the person, and to the truth: to the truth, by trust in the person who bears witness to it.
178 We must believe in no one but God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
179 Faith is a supernatural gift from God. In order to believe, man needs the interior helps of the Holy Spirit.
180 "Believing" is a human act, conscious and free, corresponding to the dignity of the human person.
181 "Believing" is an ecclesial act. the Church's faith precedes, engenders, supports and nourishes our faith. the Church is the mother of all believers. "No one can have God as Father who does not have the Church as Mother" (St. Cyprian, De unit. 6: PL 4, 519).
182 We believe all "that which is contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church proposes for belief as divinely revealed" (Paul VI, CPG # 20).
183 Faith is necessary for salvation. the Lord himself affirms: "He who believes and is baptized  will e saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (⇒ Mk 16:16).
184 "Faith is a foretaste of the knowledge that will make us blessed in the life to come" (St. Thomas Aquinas. Comp. theol. 1, 2).

The Credo

The Apostles Creed: “I believe”
I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the 
Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary
Under 
Pontius Pilate He was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.
The Nicene Creed: “We believe”
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered died and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.
Amen.




[1] This is known as the “Christian Distinction.” The mythical gods of pagan religion are never conceived as capable of being without the world. The Judeo-Christian Creator is such that if the world were not created, God would not be less; and now that it is, He is not more. See R. Sokolowski’s “The God of Faith and Reason” UNDP (1982) 12-20.



[2] J. Ratzinger “Truth and Tolerance” Ignatius (2004) 42-43.
[3] K. Wojtyla, “Love and Responsibility,” Ignatius (1990) 27.
[4] John Paul II, “A Theology of the Body,” Pauline Books andMedia (2006) 505.
[5] John Henry Newman, “Essays Critical and Historical,” XI: Milman’s View of Christianity (1871), vol. 2, 232-233.
[6] “The Ascent of Mount Carmel, 2, 22, 3-5.
[7] Dei Verbum #4.
[8] J. Ratzinger, “Eschatology,”CUA (1988) 231.
[9] Dei Verbum #7.
[10] Henri de Lubac “The Christian Faith,” Ignatius (1986) 23: Document [perhaps of St. Ambrose] written in 380-390: “I want you to be well aware of this: the Creed must not be written down…. Why not? Because we have received it in a way that was not meant to be written. What then must you do? Remember it. But, you will say, how can we remember it if we do not write it down? You will remember it all the better… When you write something down, in fact, certain that you can reread it, you do not take the trouble to go over it every day, meditation on it. But, when you do not write something down, on the contrary, fearing to forget it, you do take the trouble to go over it every day…. Go over the Creed in your mind; I insist, in your mind. Why? So that you may not fall into the habit, by repeating it aloud to yourself, of starting to repeat it among the catechumens or the heretics.”

[11] J. Ratzinger, “Journey to Easter” Ignatius (1987) 101.

[12] “(T)he Word of God is the foundation of everything, it is the true reality. And to be realistic, we must rely upon this reality. We must change our idea that matter, solid things, things we can touch, are the more solid, the more certain reality. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount the Lord speaks to us about the two possible foundations for building the house of one's life: sand and rock. The one who builds on sand builds only on visible and tangible things, on success, on career, on money. Apparently these are the true realities. But all this one day will pass away. We can see this now with the fall of large banks: this money disappears, it is nothing. And thus all things, which seem to be the true realities we can count on, are only realities of a secondary order. The one who builds his life on these realities, on matter, on success, on appearances, builds upon sand. Only the Word of God is the foundation of all reality, it is as stable as the heavens and more than the heavens, it is reality. Therefore, we must change our concept of realism. The realist is the one who recognizes the Word of God, in this apparently weak reality, as the foundation of all things. Realist is the one who builds his life on this foundation, which is permanent. Thus the first verses of the Psalm invite us to discover what reality is and how to find the foundation of our life, how to build life;” Benedict XVI, October 6, 2008.

[13] John Paul II, “Mother of the Redeemer,”#18.
[14] Cf. Joseph Pieper, “Faith, Hope, Love,” Ignatius (1997) 19-85.
[15] Mt. 11, 27.
[16] J. Ratzinger, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” Ignatius (1987) 79-81.
[17] Sherry Turkle, “Alone Together,” Basic Books (2011).
[18] J. Ratzinger, “A Christian Orientation in a Pluralistic Democracy?” in Church, Ecumenism and Politics Crossroad (1988) 218.
[19] St. Thomas, STh. II-II, 2, 9.
[20] John Henry Newman, “Apologia pro vita sua” (Longman, 1878) 239. 

It's the Epistemology, Please!


Abortion: A Failure to Communicate

Paul Swope

For twenty-five years the pro-life movement has stood up to defend perhaps the most crucial principle in any civilized society, namely, the sanctity and value of every human life. However, neither the profundity and scale of the cause, nor the integrity of those who work to support it, necessarily translates into effective action. Recent research on the psychology of pro-choice women offers insight into why the pro-life movement has not been as effective as it might have been in persuading women to choose life; it also offers opportunities to improve dramatically the scope and influence of the pro-life message, particularly among women of childbearing age.

This research suggests that modern American women of childbearing age do not view the abortion issue within the same moral framework as those of us who are pro-life activists. Our message is not being well-received by this audience because we have made the error of assuming that women, especially those facing the trauma of an unplanned pregnancy, will respond to principles we see as self-evident within our own moral framework, and we have presented our arguments accordingly. This is a miscalculation that has fatally handicapped the pro-life cause. While we may not agree with how women currently evaluate this issue, the importance of our mission and the imperative to be effective demand that we listen, that we understand, and that we respond to the actual concerns of women who are most likely to choose abortion.

The importance of a new approach became clear from the results of sophisticated research pioneered by the Caring Foundation, a group that presents the pro-life message to the public via television. This group has been able to tap into some of the most advanced psychological research available today, so-called “right brain” research. (The distinction between “right brain” and “left brain” activity may be physiologically oversimplified or even wrong, but it remains useful as a shorthand description of different ways of thinking.)

The right side of the brain is thought to control the emotional, intuitive, creative aspect of the person. Whereas most research involves analytic, rational questions and thus draws responses primarily from the left side of the brain, “right brain” research aims to uncover the underlying emotional reasons why we make particular decisions or hold certain beliefs. Such an approach has obvious
applications to an issue such as abortion, as a woman in the grips of acrisis pregnancy certainly does not resolve this issue in a cold, logical, “left-brain” manner.

These studies were carried out by a national leader in this type of research, one that has worked with companies such as General Motors, Ford, Coca-Cola, Toyota, Whirlpool, ABC Television, Federal Express, GTE, Saturn Corporation, Maybelline, and the Department of Defense. The technique used is a series of in-depth, one-on-one interviews that utilize visualization, repetition, and relaxation to evoke deep-seated emotional responses to a given topic. The results of these studies, which were conducted in 1994 and 1997, can be accepted at a better than 95 percent confidence level.

One objective of the research was to answer a question that has baffled pro-life activists for some time. How can women, and the public in general, be comfortable with being against abortion personally but in favor of keeping it legal? Because pro-lifers find it morally obvious that one cannot simultaneously hold that “abortion is killing” and “abortion should be legal,” they have tended to assume that people need only to be shown more clearly that the fetus is a baby. They assume that if the humanity of the unborn is understood, the consequent moral imperative, “killing a baby is wrong,” will naturally follow, and women will choose life for their unborn children. This orientation has framed much of the argument by pro-lifers for over two decades, with frustratingly little impact.

The new research shows why the traditional approach has had so little effect, and what can be done to change things.

The summary report of the study bears the intriguing title “Abortion: The Least Of Three Evils-Understanding the Psychological Dynamics of How Women Feel About Abortion.” The report suggests that women do not see any “good” resulting from an unplanned pregnancy. Instead they must weigh what they perceive as three “evils,” namely, motherhood, adoption, and abortion.

Unplanned motherhood, according to the study, represents a threat so great to modern women that it is perceived as equivalent to a “death of self.” While the woman may rationally understand this is not her own literal death, her emotional, subconscious reaction to carrying the child to term is that her life will be “over.” This is because many young women of today have developed a self-identity that simply does not include being a mother. It may include going through college, getting a degree, obtaining a good job, even getting married someday; but the sudden intrusion of motherhood is perceived as a complete loss of control over their present and future selves. It shatters their sense of who they are and will become, and thereby paralyzes their ability to think more rationally or realistically.

When these women evaluate the abortion decision, therefore, they do not, as a pro-lifer might, formulate the problem with the radically distinct options of either “I must endure an embarrassing pregnancy” or “I must destroy the life of an innocent child.” Instead, their perception of the choice is either “my life is over” or “the life of this new child is over.” Given this perspective, the choice of abortion becomes one of self-preservation, a much more defensible position, both to the woman deciding to abort and to those supporting her decision.

Even those women who are likely to choose life rather than abortion do so not because they better understand fetology or have a greater love for children, but because they have a broader and less fragile sense of self, and they can better incorporate motherhood into their self-identity.

Adoption, unfortunately, is seen as the most “evil” of the three options, as it is perceived as a kind of double death. First, the death of self, as the woman would have to accept motherhood by carrying the baby to term. Further, not only would the woman be a mother, but she would perceive herself as a bad mother, one who gave her own child away to strangers. The second death is the death of the child “through abandonment.” A woman worries about the chance of her child being abused. She is further haunted by the uncertainty of the child's future, and about the possibility of the child returning to intrude on her own life many years later. Basically, a woman desperately wants a sense of resolution to her crisis, and in her mind, adoption leaves the situation the most unresolved, with uncertainty and guilt as far as she can see for both herself and her child. As much as we might like to see the slogan “Adoption, Not Abortion” embraced by women, this study suggests that in pitting adoption against abortion, adoption will be the hands-down loser.

The attitude of these women toward abortion is quite surprising. First, all of the scores of women involved in the study (none of whom were pro-life activists and all of whom called themselves “pro-choice”) agreed that abortion is killing. While this is something that is no doubt “written on the human heart,” credit for driving home the reality of abortion is also due to the persevering educational work of the pro-life movement. Second, the women believe that abortion is wrong, an evil, and that God will punish a woman who makes that choice. Third, however, these women feel that God will ultimately forgive the woman, because He is a forgiving God, because the woman did not intend to get pregnant, and finally, because a woman in such crisis has no real choice, the perception is that the woman's whole life is at stake.

In fact, while abortion itself is seen as something evil, the woman who has to make that choice is perceived as being courageous, because she has made a difficult, costly, but necessary decision in order to get on with her life. Basically, abortion is considered the least of three evils because it is perceived as offering the greatest hope for a woman to preserve her own sense of self, her own life. This is why women feel protective towards the abortive woman and her “right to choose,” and deeply resentful towards the pro-life movement, which they perceive as uncaring and judgmental.

Note that the primary concerns in any of the three options revolve around the woman, and not the unborn child. This helps to explain the appeal of the rhetoric of “choice.” It offers the sense that women in crisis still have some control over their future, and it allows women who may dislike abortion themselves to still seem compassionate towards other women in crisis.

These insights also shed light on another fundamental source of frustration and failure in the pro-life movement. A quarter century of polling has shown over and over that most Americans oppose most abortions, and that women are slightly more pro-life than men. Yet Americans are increasingly comfortable with the pro-choice rather than the pro-life label, and pro-life activists are still viewed as dangerous extremists. Is this due entirely to media bias? Why is it that the pro-life movement has not been able to build on the innate pro-life sentiment of the average person, and may even be losing ground in the arena of public opinion?

Results from this study suggest that the difficulty in gaining public support is not due entirely to unfair treatment by the media, although such treatment has no doubt played a significant role. The pro-life movement's own self-chosen slogans and educational presentations have tended to exacerbate the problem, as they focus almost exclusively on the unborn child, not the mother. This tends to build resentment, not sympathy, particularly among women of child-bearing age.

It is not surprising that the first people in the pro-life community to notice the need for a different approach were those who actually work with women in crisis. When crisis pregnancy centers first sprang up across the country, for example, they chose names such as “Home for the Little Ones” or “New Life Ministries.” Today you will see names such as “A Woman's Concern” or “Lighthouse for Women.”

In contrast, consider a common pro-life slogan: “Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.” While this may be an effective phrase among pro-lifers, the effect upon a young woman in crisis would probably be to: 1) provoke anger at the messenger (pro-lifers), 2) confirm her sense that pro-lifers ignore her life and situation, and 3) drive her further into denial and despair. If the pro-life goal is to lower the abortion rate and not just to state an objective fact, we have to ask whether such a message may well be counterproductive.

When a woman faces an unplanned pregnancy, her main question is not “Is this a baby?”-with the assumed consequence that if she knows it to be so she will choose life. Women know, though often at the subconscious level, that the fetus is human, and that it will be killed by abortion. But that is the price a woman in that situation is willing to pay in her desperate struggle for what she believes to be her very survival. Emphasis on babies, whether dismembered fetuses or happy newborns, will tend to deepen the woman's sense of denial, isolation, and despair, the very emotions that will lead her to choose abortion.

Her central, perhaps subconscious, question is rather, “How can I preserve my own life?” The pro-life movement must address her side of the equation, and do so in a compassionate manner that affirms her own inner convictions. Without stigmatizing or condemning, pro-lifers must help a woman to reevaluate what she perceives as the three “evils” before her.

As an example of how this is put into practice, the
Caring Foundation will run two contrasting ads in a given television market. One offers a role model of a women who can identify with the concerns of the target audience but who has chosen life and presents it in a positive light; the other, again framed from the woman's own perspective, presents abortion as a negative resolution to her crisis.

One of the pro-motherhood ads runs as follows:


[A woman is in front of a nice house, raking leaves. She says good-bye to her daughter, then turns to the viewer.] “I was sixteen when I found out that I was pregnant with Carrie. I wasn't married and I was really scared. You know, some people today say that I should have had an abortion, but it never occurred to me that I had that choice, just because it wasn't convenient for me. Hey, I'm no martyr, but I really can't believe I had a choice after
I was pregnant. Think about it.”


While this ad is not always popular among pro-life activists, polls showed it is extremely effective with young women. This is because it presents a role model who is approachable and believable, and the subliminal message in the ad-the nice house, the good relationship with the daughter, the image of control as the woman stands holding the rake as she takes care of her own yard-all reinforce the message that this woman is, in fact, a kind of martyr, because she has made a difficult decision but “gotten on with her life.” The ad subtly offers the very kind of resolution a woman facing a crisis pregnancy desperately seeks and which she is too often deceived into thinking abortion will provide.

An ad that more directly discourages abortion runs as follows:


[A woman rises from her bed, the clock showing 3:00 a.m. She goes to the window, staring into the black, rainy night. She stands silently, as a female voice speaks.] “They said you wouldn't be bothered by a voice calling for you in the night. . . . There would be no trail of cereal through the house, no spills or stray toys. The clock ticks. All is calm. And you realize, there is still a voice. If you've faced the pain of an abortion, call 1-800. . . .”


In both cases the focus is on the woman, on someone who has been through the experience of an unwanted pregnancy. The ads do not make an explicit judgment; they only convey lived experiences, with very different resolutions and different consequences.

Here is another very effective ad:


[A young woman sits by a fireplace, facing the camera.] “You know, I used to be pro-choice, and then something happened to me-I had a baby of my own. When I was pregnant I finally realized that all this little kid was trying to do was make it, just make it, just like all of us. So I haven't figured it all out yet, but why, when I wanted the baby, itwas
a baby, and when I didn't, it was something else
? Think about it.”


Again, this woman does not pretend to have all the answers or to fit neatly into the pro-life camp. She simply shares her own experience and asks a question that effectively undermines pro-choice rhetoric.

How effective have such ads been? The work of the Caring Foundation originated in Missouri, where ads have been airing for a number of years, and that state has had the fastest dropping abortion rate in the United States-almost six times the national average. From 1988 to 1992 the abortion rate dropped just 5 percent nationally, but 29 percent in Missouri.

In addition to the falling abortion rate, recent polls of teens in the Kansas City, Missouri, area also suggest a pro-life sentiment that is dramatically different from the midwest average. Whereas a Gallup poll showed teens in the midwest mirroring the national average of 29 percent of youths who are strongly pro-life, a 1996 poll of over seven thousand students from thirty-three schools in central Missouri showed over 60 percent of the teens to be strongly pro-life.

Two other states have also been airing ads for a number of years, and both have seen a drop in abortions of just under 40 percent. In Michigan, the number of abortions has dropped from 49,098 in 1987 to 31,091 in 1995. In Wisconsin, abortions have declined from a high of 20,819 abortions in 1981 to 12,782 abortions in 1995. A much more careful and tightly controlled study needs to be done to determine to what extent the use of television ads may have contributed to these numbers, though it is doubtful if enough variables could be controlled to reach a solid conclusion.

Because the Caring Foundation hires independent, professional polling firms to conduct pre-and post-polling, it can be stated without doubt that the ads do shift public opinion and do affect young women's decision to abort or keep their children. Many crisis pregnancy centers have reported that women have come to them who were planning to choose abortion until they saw the pro-life ads on television.

In 1997, a thirteen-week television campaign was conducted in the greater Boston market, covering an audience of 4,400,000 adults. Baselice & Associates of Houston, Texas, conducted the polling. Five hundred interviews were completed in both pre-and post-polls, with a margin of error of 4.9 percent at the 95 percent confidence level.

The post-poll showed a shift of 7 percent among the entire population of the region, translating into a total of 308,000 adults who switched to the pro-life position. Was this shift perhaps due to other factors, such as the partial-birth abortion debate? This question was answered by studying the cross-tabulations, which showed that the pro-life shift was entirely among those who remembered seeing the ads on television. There was no movement in the pro-life direction among those who did not recall any such ads.

In fact, the pro-life sentiment among those who recall the ads almost doubled (from 20 percent in the pre-poll to 36 percent in the post-poll), while the pro-choice position dropped significantly (from 33 percent in the pre-poll to 25 percent in the post-poll.)

The most recent poll was 
completed in December 1997 for the Indianapolis, Indiana, market, with data that closely mirrored the Boston results. Pro-life sentiment among the entire population increased from 36 percent to 45 percent. Among the target audience of women under age forty-five, the pro-life response increased from 33 percent to 44 percent.

In addition to the Massachusetts and Indiana polls, similar surveys have now been completed in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, Missouri, and Michigan. Movement in the pro-life direction has been seen in every poll and on virtually every question (eight different questions relate to the abortion issue). The total market reach of the various campaigns underway in the last few years totals over forty-six million adults.

Because these ads have proven to be so effective in reaching women, they now include an 800 number to help women reach crisis pregnancy centers. Over five thousand calls have been received via these numbers, providing women with the counseling and healing needed after the trauma of abortion. This is a dramatic advance for pro-life unity, as direct-service agencies receive enormous exposure and an increase in clients (all without any charge to them), and the educational message is simultaneously reaching millions in the general population.

The direct testimony of women who have been affected by these ads is particularly intense and supports the evidence from the polling data.


I found myself so depressed that I could hardly get out of bed. I couldn't go to work. I just curled myself into a ball and cried and cried over the abortion I had undergone about one year earlier. I felt so guilty and so alone. Then this TV ad came on with an 800 number and I knew God was reaching out to me. I called the number and the people at Daybreak were there to help. . . . Now my entire life has changed. . . . I have a chaste relationship with my new boyfriend. . . . I am attending a weekly Bible study. My job is going great. . . .”


A new wave of ads is now being developed based on another “right brain” research study conducted in 1997. Whereas the first study focused on young women who were conflicted on the issue, the second study included only women who had already made the choice to abort or to keep the child. While the full analysis of this report lies outside the scope of this article, a key finding was what was termed the “locus of control” or “character maintenance” within each woman.

A new ad is now being tested that is based on this latest research:


[A young woman is jogging through city streets. It is raining. As she runs, her inner thoughts are made audible.] “Everyone's telling me how I should feel. . . . It's not like I planned to get pregnant. Not now. [Referring to angry boyfriend, shown in brief flashback.] Telling me how to feel, what to do, then not sticking around when it really counts. So now it's all up to me. But abortion? Not me. I have to live with myself. [Pause. She runs into distance, skies clearing.] We'll make it. Yeah, we'll make it just fine.”


The ad's three objectives are to engender admiration for carrying a pregnancy to term, to present a woman who serves as a role model, and, in a nonconfrontational way, to put abortion in the negative.

It is significant to compare these objectives with the comments made by women in focus groups who were asked for their response:


“That's just like me back then. Cold, rainy. It says a lot. She's very determined. It gives me a good feeling. Within herself she's strong.”



“Hits home. True to life. . . . I feel her strength. It is okay to keep the baby.”



“You can feel the stress she's having. You know it's not the happy wonderful thing, but she's standing up. She's doing what's best. She's strong-being a strong woman jogging instead of sitting down, ‘poor little me.'“


These responses suggest that a campaign of carefully produced ads could encourage a “culture of life” ethic. Using language and imagery that will attract rather than alienate, the pro-life movement must show that abortion is actually not in a woman's own self-interest, and that the choice of life offers hope and a positive, expanded sense of self.

It should be noted that descriptions of fetal development and even graphic abortion pictures can still be used to great effect with certain audiences, particularly among people already disposed to the pro-life message and as a means to activate pro-lifers. Further, the means shown here for developing an effective strategy to reach women are not necessarily transferable to strategies intending to effect political and legislative change. However, in the use of mass media to reach the general public, it is vitally important that the pro-life movement reframe the issue in terms that will be better received by women.

The terrible miscalculation of young women is that abortion can make them “un-pregnant,” that it will restore them to who they were before their crisis. But a woman is never the same once she is pregnant, whether the child is kept, adopted, or killed. Abortion may be a kind of resolution, but it is not the one the woman most deeply longs for, nor will it even preserve her sense of self. If those of us in the pro-life movement can help women see this for themselves, we will have done much to disengage our culture from the abortion mentality.

If pro-lifers are willing to reframe the debate in a way that affected women can better understand and appreciate, the movement can regain the moral high ground in the mind of the American public, and begin to reach successfully the very women who most need the pro-life message.



Paul Swope is Northeast Project Director of the Caring Foundation and President of LifeNet Services, Inc.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

The Real Petraeus Scandal

  • Arthur Herman
Even Brad Thor couldn’t come up with a juicier storyline. FBI agents discover secret e-mails proving that the CIA director, a revered war hero and possible future presidential candidate, is having an affair with his biographer-turned- femme fatale. He then resigns just days before he’s supposed to give public testimony on a growing scandal that reaches all the way to the White House.
Only this is fact, not fiction. Gen. David Petraeus’ resignation last Friday stunned Washington and shattered his reputation, probably for good. Unanswered questions swirl around this case. The initial claim that the FBI stumbled on the affair back in May while investigating complaints about cyberbullying is already unraveling, as is the claim that the president was never told about it until last week.
But one thing is clear: Not since the dismissal of Douglas MacArthur has an American military hero risen so high only to fall so far. What happened reveals a lot about a corrupt Washington culture — and a man whose military genius is not matched by mature judgment.
In late 2003, David Petraeus was commander of the 101st Airborne in Iraq, where we were losing the fight against terrorism. Chaos was spreading in Iraq, as was disillusionment with the war at home. Our strategy of focusing on hunting down bad guys wasn’t working: A rising tide of Sunni-Shia conflict was creating terrorists faster than we could kill them.
From his base around Mosul, Gen. Petraeus tried a different approach, winning the hearts and minds of the locals and concentrating on providing security, as well as roads, schools and hospitals. The strategy of “clear and hold” worked; Mosul became an oasis of calm in a country on the verge of civil war.
After leaving the 101st to train Iraqi soldiers, Petraeus pulled together a team of thinkers to draw up a strategy based on successful anti-guerrilla campaigns of the past and what Marines were doing to pacify Iraq’s Anbar province — dubbed counterinsurgency.
Petraeus boldly approached President Bush in late 2006 and convinced him that, with some extra troops, the strategy would save the war in Iraq.Bush overruled his closest advisers and gave Petraeus overall command.
The rest is history — or was, until President Obama came to office.
Petraeus had to fight not only the terrorists but also many skeptics in his own ranks, as well as in Congress, where arm-chair strategists like Sens. Harry Reid and Hillary Rodham Clinton all but accused Petraeus of lying when he reported his counterinsurgency “surge” strategy was working.
Yet, in less than two years, Petraeus had turned the war around, and in January 2009, Iraqis held their provincial elections for the first time in virtual peace. By then Petraeus had been promoted to command of all American forces in the Middle East.
Petraeus left at a crucial time. As head of the multinational forces there, he could have used his prestige with Iraqis, who admiringly called him King David, and his unparalleled knowledge of conditions on the ground to shape what might have been a stronger, more stable peace for the country — as well as a lasting American military presence to deter Iran.
Petraeus did what he could from his new post, including working to get Afghan and Pakistani authorities to cooperate against the Taliban, but Obama had other plans for a man whose skill and prestige he needed but whom he also saw as a possible political rival.
When Obama clashed with the general then in charge of Afghanistan in 2010, he persuaded Petraeus to take over. Once again, Petraeus turned the situation around — until Obama suddenly announced that Petraeus was leaving Afghanistan to head the CIA.
The move was inexplicable — like removing Dwight Eisenhower shortly after D-Day to head the OSS instead — except as a ploy to keep Petraeus from getting credit for a victory in Afghanistan as well as Iraq.Now, a year later, we’re getting neither: Iraq is once again degenerating into an al Qaeda haven, and Obama will, in effect, abandon the Afghans to the Taliban by 2014.
Meanwhile, David Petraeus was sidelined to a job he was neither trained nor suited for, as his indiscretions with his biographer-turned-mistress have shown.
Now he’s almost certainly going to be made the scapegoat for the intelligence failures in Benghazi, as well — while we’re left with two lost wars, a major scandal and a broken hero whose talents were squandered and achievements tarnished.
Arthur Herman is the author of “Freedom’s Forge: How America Produced Victory in World War II.”

After This Election, Let's Move From an Epistemology of "Certitudes and Order" to An Epistemology of Friendship, Dialogue and Ultimately Understanding


After this election and after many years, let’s go back to Paul Swope’s need for relational dialogue with the to-be-mother, and see that the mistake that we are all making is to work in the epistemological horizon of “Certitudes and Order,” rather than in the horizon of “ordinary life” of dialogue and understanding.


Abortion: A Failure to Communicate
Paul Swope
For twenty-five years the pro-life movement has stood up to defend perhaps the most crucial principle in any civilized society, namely, the sanctity and value of every human life. However, neither the profundity and scale of the cause, nor the integrity of those who work to support it, necessarily translates into effective action. Recent research on the psychology of pro-choice women offers insight into why the pro-life movement has not been as effective as it might have been in persuading women to choose life; it also offers opportunities to improve dramatically the scope and influence of the pro-life message, particularly among women of childbearing age.

This research suggests that modern American women of childbearing age do not view the abortion issue within the same moral framework as those of us who are pro-life activists. Our message is not being well-received by this audience because we have made the error of assuming that women, especially those facing the trauma of an unplanned pregnancy, will respond to principles we see as self-evident within our own moral framework, and we have presented our arguments accordingly. This is a miscalculation that has fatally handicapped the pro-life cause. While we may not agree with how women currently evaluate this issue, the importance of our mission and the imperative to be effective demand that we listen, that we understand, and that we respond to the actual concerns of women who are most likely to choose abortion.

The importance of a new approach became clear from the results of sophisticated research pioneered by the Caring Foundation, a group that presents the pro-life message to the public via television. This group has been able to tap into some of the most advanced psychological research available today, so-called “right brain” research. (The distinction between “right brain” and “left brain” activity may be physiologically oversimplified or even wrong, but it remains useful as a shorthand description of different ways of thinking.)

The right side of the brain is thought to control the emotional, intuitive, creative aspect of the person. Whereas most research involves analytic, rational questions and thus draws responses primarily from the left side of the brain, “right brain” research aims to uncover the underlying emotional reasons why we make particular decisions or hold certain beliefs. Such an approach has obviousapplications to an issue such as abortion, as a woman in the grips of acrisis pregnancy certainly does not resolve this issue in a cold, logical, “left-brain” manner.

These studies were carried out by a national leader in this type of research, one that has worked with companies such as General Motors, Ford, Coca-Cola, Toyota, Whirlpool, ABC Television, Federal Express, GTE, Saturn Corporation, Maybelline, and the Department of Defense. The technique used is a series of in-depth, one-on-one interviews that utilize visualization, repetition, and relaxation to evoke deep-seated emotional responses to a given topic. The results of these studies, which were conducted in 1994 and 1997, can be accepted at a better than 95 percent confidence level.

One objective of the research was to answer a question that has baffled pro-life activists for some time. How can women, and the public in general, be comfortable with being against abortion personally but in favor of keeping it legal? Because pro-lifers find it morally obvious that one cannot simultaneously hold that “abortion is killing” and “abortion should be legal,” they have tended to assume that people need only to be shown more clearly that the fetus is a baby. They assume that if the humanity of the unborn is understood, the consequent moral imperative, “killing a baby is wrong,” will naturally follow, and women will choose life for their unborn children. This orientation has framed much of the argument by pro-lifers for over two decades, with frustratingly little impact.

The new research shows why the traditional approach has had so little effect, and what can be done to change things.

The summary report of the study bears the intriguing title “Abortion: The Least Of Three Evils-Understanding the Psychological Dynamics of How Women Feel About Abortion.” The report suggests that women do not see any “good” resulting from an unplanned pregnancy. Instead they must weigh what they perceive as three “evils,” namely, motherhood, adoption, and abortion.

Unplanned motherhood, according to the study, represents a threat so great to modern women that it is perceived as equivalent to a “death of self.” While the woman may rationally understand this is not her own literal death, her emotional, subconscious reaction to carrying the child to term is that her life will be “over.” This is because many young women of today have developed a self-identity that simply does not include being a mother. It may include going through college, getting a degree, obtaining a good job, even getting married someday; but the sudden intrusion of motherhood is perceived as a complete loss of control over their present and future selves. It shatters their sense of who they are and will become, and thereby paralyzes their ability to think more rationally or realistically.

When these women evaluate the abortion decision, therefore, they do not, as a pro-lifer might, formulate the problem with the radically distinct options of either “I must endure an embarrassing pregnancy” or “I must destroy the life of an innocent child.” Instead, their perception of the choice is either “my life is over” or “the life of this new child is over.” Given this perspective, the choice of abortion becomes one of self-preservation, a much more defensible position, both to the woman deciding to abort and to those supporting her decision.

Even those women who are likely to choose life rather than abortion do so not because they better understand fetology or have a greater love for children, but because they have a broader and less fragile sense of self, and they can better incorporate motherhood into their self-identity.

Adoption, unfortunately, is seen as the most “evil” of the three options, as it is perceived as a kind of double death. First, the death of self, as the woman would have to accept motherhood by carrying the baby to term. Further, not only would the woman be a mother, but she would perceive herself as a bad mother, one who gave her own child away to strangers. The second death is the death of the child “through abandonment.” A woman worries about the chance of her child being abused. She is further haunted by the uncertainty of the child's future, and about the possibility of the child returning to intrude on her own life many years later. Basically, a woman desperately wants a sense of resolution to her crisis, and in her mind, adoption leaves the situation the most unresolved, with uncertainty and guilt as far as she can see for both herself and her child. As much as we might like to see the slogan “Adoption, Not Abortion” embraced by women, this study suggests that in pitting adoption against abortion, adoption will be the hands-down loser.

The attitude of these women toward abortion is quite surprising. First, all of the scores of women involved in the study (none of whom were pro-life activists and all of whom called themselves “pro-choice”) agreed that abortion is killing. While this is something that is no doubt “written on the human heart,” credit for driving home the reality of abortion is also due to the persevering educational work of the pro-life movement. Second, the women believe that abortion is wrong, an evil, and that God will punish a woman who makes that choice. Third, however, these women feel that God will ultimately forgive the woman, because He is a forgiving God, because the woman did not intend to get pregnant, and finally, because a woman in such crisis has no real choice, the perception is that the woman's whole life is at stake.

In fact, while abortion itself is seen as something evil, the woman who has to make that choice is perceived as being courageous, because she has made a difficult, costly, but necessary decision in order to get on with her life. Basically, abortion is considered the least of three evils because it is perceived as offering the greatest hope for a woman to preserve her own sense of self, her own life. This is why women feel protective towards the abortive woman and her “right to choose,” and deeply resentful towards the pro-life movement, which they perceive as uncaring and judgmental.

Note that the primary concerns in any of the three options revolve around the woman, and not the unborn child. This helps to explain the appeal of the rhetoric of “choice.” It offers the sense that women in crisis still have some control over their future, and it allows women who may dislike abortion themselves to still seem compassionate towards other women in crisis.

These insights also shed light on another fundamental source of frustration and failure in the pro-life movement. A quarter century of polling has shown over and over that most Americans oppose most abortions, and that women are slightly more pro-life than men. Yet Americans are increasingly comfortable with the pro-choice rather than the pro-life label, and pro-life activists are still viewed as dangerous extremists. Is this due entirely to media bias? Why is it that the pro-life movement has not been able to build on the innate pro-life sentiment of the average person, and may even be losing ground in the arena of public opinion?

Results from this study suggest that the difficulty in gaining public support is not due entirely to unfair treatment by the media, although such treatment has no doubt played a significant role. The pro-life movement's own self-chosen slogans and educational presentations have tended to exacerbate the problem, as they focus almost exclusively on the unborn child, not the mother. This tends to build resentment, not sympathy, particularly among women of child-bearing age.

It is not surprising that the first people in the pro-life community to notice the need for a different approach were those who actually work with women in crisis. When crisis pregnancy centers first sprang up across the country, for example, they chose names such as “Home for the Little Ones” or “New Life Ministries.” Today you will see names such as “A Woman's Concern” or “Lighthouse for Women.”

In contrast, consider a common pro-life slogan: “Abortion Stops a Beating Heart.” While this may be an effective phrase among pro-lifers, the effect upon a young woman in crisis would probably be to: 1) provoke anger at the messenger (pro-lifers), 2) confirm her sense that pro-lifers ignore her life and situation, and 3) drive her further into denial and despair. If the pro-life goal is to lower the abortion rate and not just to state an objective fact, we have to ask whether such a message may well be counterproductive.

When a woman faces an unplanned pregnancy, her main question is not “Is this a baby?”-with the assumed consequence that if she knows it to be so she will choose life. Women know, though often at the subconscious level, that the fetus is human, and that it will be killed by abortion. But that is the price a woman in that situation is willing to pay in her desperate struggle for what she believes to be her very survival. Emphasis on babies, whether dismembered fetuses or happy newborns, will tend to deepen the woman's sense of denial, isolation, and despair, the very emotions that will lead her to choose abortion.

Her central, perhaps subconscious, question is rather, “How can I preserve my own life?” The pro-life movement must address her side of the equation, and do so in a compassionate manner that affirms her own inner convictions. Without stigmatizing or condemning, pro-lifers must help a woman to reevaluate what she perceives as the three “evils” before her.

As an example of how this is put into practice, the
Caring Foundation will run two contrasting ads in a given television market. One offers a role model of a women who can identify with the concerns of the target audience but who has chosen life and presents it in a positive light; the other, again framed from the woman's own perspective, presents abortion as a negative resolution to her crisis.

One of the pro-motherhood ads runs as follows:


[A woman is in front of a nice house, raking leaves. She says good-bye to her daughter, then turns to the viewer.] “I was sixteen when I found out that I was pregnant with Carrie. I wasn't married and I was really scared. You know, some people today say that I should have had an abortion, but it never occurred to me that I had that choice, just because it wasn't convenient for me. Hey, I'm no martyr, but I really can't believe I had a choice after
I was pregnant. Think about it.”


While this ad is not always popular among pro-life activists, polls showed it is extremely effective with young women. This is because it presents a role model who is approachable and believable, and the subliminal message in the ad-the nice house, the good relationship with the daughter, the image of control as the woman stands holding the rake as she takes care of her own yard-all reinforce the message that this woman is, in fact, a kind of martyr, because she has made a difficult decision but “gotten on with her life.” The ad subtly offers the very kind of resolution a woman facing a crisis pregnancy desperately seeks and which she is too often deceived into thinking abortion will provide.

An ad that more directly discourages abortion runs as follows:


[A woman rises from her bed, the clock showing 3:00 a.m. She goes to the window, staring into the black, rainy night. She stands silently, as a female voice speaks.] “They said you wouldn't be bothered by a voice calling for you in the night. . . . There would be no trail of cereal through the house, no spills or stray toys. The clock ticks. All is calm. And you realize, there is still a voice. If you've faced the pain of an abortion, call 1-800. . . .”


In both cases the focus is on the woman, on someone who has been through the experience of an unwanted pregnancy. The ads do not make an explicit judgment; they only convey lived experiences, with very different resolutions and different consequences.

Here is another very effective ad:


[A young woman sits by a fireplace, facing the camera.] “You know, I used to be pro-choice, and then something happened to me-I had a baby of my own. When I was pregnant I finally realized that all this little kid was trying to do was make it, just make it, just like all of us. So I haven't figured it all out yet, but why, when I wanted the baby, itwas
a baby, and when I didn't, it was something else
? Think about it.”


Again, this woman does not pretend to have all the answers or to fit neatly into the pro-life camp. She simply shares her own experience and asks a question that effectively undermines pro-choice rhetoric.

How effective have such ads been? The work of the Caring Foundation originated in Missouri, where ads have been airing for a number of years, and that state has had the fastest dropping abortion rate in the United States-almost six times the national average. From 1988 to 1992 the abortion rate dropped just 5 percent nationally, but 29 percent in Missouri.

In addition to the falling abortion rate, recent polls of teens in the Kansas City, Missouri, area also suggest a pro-life sentiment that is dramatically different from the midwest average. Whereas a Gallup poll showed teens in the midwest mirroring the national average of 29 percent of youths who are strongly pro-life, a 1996 poll of over seven thousand students from thirty-three schools in central Missouri showed over 60 percent of the teens to be strongly pro-life.

Two other states have also been airing ads for a number of years, and both have seen a drop in abortions of just under 40 percent. In Michigan, the number of abortions has dropped from 49,098 in 1987 to 31,091 in 1995. In Wisconsin, abortions have declined from a high of 20,819 abortions in 1981 to 12,782 abortions in 1995. A much more careful and tightly controlled study needs to be done to determine to what extent the use of television ads may have contributed to these numbers, though it is doubtful if enough variables could be controlled to reach a solid conclusion.

Because the Caring Foundation hires independent, professional polling firms to conduct pre-and post-polling, it can be stated without doubt that the ads do shift public opinion and do affect young women's decision to abort or keep their children. Many crisis pregnancy centers have reported that women have come to them who were planning to choose abortion until they saw the pro-life ads on television.

In 1997, a thirteen-week television campaign was conducted in the greater Boston market, covering an audience of 4,400,000 adults. Baselice & Associates of Houston, Texas, conducted the polling. Five hundred interviews were completed in both pre-and post-polls, with a margin of error of 4.9 percent at the 95 percent confidence level.

The post-poll showed a shift of 7 percent among the entire population of the region, translating into a total of 308,000 adults who switched to the pro-life position. Was this shift perhaps due to other factors, such as the partial-birth abortion debate? This question was answered by studying the cross-tabulations, which showed that the pro-life shift was entirely among those who remembered seeing the ads on television. There was no movement in the pro-life direction among those who did not recall any such ads.

In fact, the pro-life sentiment among those who recall the ads almost doubled (from 20 percent in the pre-poll to 36 percent in the post-poll), while the pro-choice position dropped significantly (from 33 percent in the pre-poll to 25 percent in the post-poll.)

The most recent poll was completed in December 1997 for the Indianapolis, Indiana, market, with data that closely mirrored the Boston results. Pro-life sentiment among the entire population increased from 36 percent to 45 percent. Among the target audience of women under age forty-five, the pro-life response increased from 33 percent to 44 percent.

In addition to the Massachusetts and Indiana polls, similar surveys have now been completed in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, Missouri, and Michigan. Movement in the pro-life direction has been seen in every poll and on virtually every question (eight different questions relate to the abortion issue). The total market reach of the various campaigns underway in the last few years totals over forty-six million adults.

Because these ads have proven to be so effective in reaching women, they now include an 800 number to help women reach crisis pregnancy centers. Over five thousand calls have been received via these numbers, providing women with the counseling and healing needed after the trauma of abortion. This is a dramatic advance for pro-life unity, as direct-service agencies receive enormous exposure and an increase in clients (all without any charge to them), and the educational message is simultaneously reaching millions in the general population.

The direct testimony of women who have been affected by these ads is particularly intense and supports the evidence from the polling data.


I found myself so depressed that I could hardly get out of bed. I couldn't go to work. I just curled myself into a ball and cried and cried over the abortion I had undergone about one year earlier. I felt so guilty and so alone. Then this TV ad came on with an 800 number and I knew God was reaching out to me. I called the number and the people at Daybreak were there to help. . . . Now my entire life has changed. . . . I have a chaste relationship with my new boyfriend. . . . I am attending a weekly Bible study. My job is going great. . . .”


A new wave of ads is now being developed based on another “right brain” research study conducted in 1997. Whereas the first study focused on young women who were conflicted on the issue, the second study included only women who had already made the choice to abort or to keep the child. While the full analysis of this report lies outside the scope of this article, a key finding was what was termed the “locus of control” or “character maintenance” within each woman.

A new ad is now being tested that is based on this latest research:


[A young woman is jogging through city streets. It is raining. As she runs, her inner thoughts are made audible.] “Everyone's telling me how I should feel. . . . It's not like I planned to get pregnant. Not now. [Referring to angry boyfriend, shown in brief flashback.] Telling me how to feel, what to do, then not sticking around when it really counts. So now it's all up to me. But abortion? Not me. I have to live with myself. [Pause. She runs into distance, skies clearing.] We'll make it. Yeah, we'll make it just fine.”


The ad's three objectives are to engender admiration for carrying a pregnancy to term, to present a woman who serves as a role model, and, in a nonconfrontational way, to put abortion in the negative.

It is significant to compare these objectives with the comments made by women in focus groups who were asked for their response:


“That's just like me back then. Cold, rainy. It says a lot. She's very determined. It gives me a good feeling. Within herself she's strong.”



“Hits home. True to life. . . . I feel her strength. It is okay to keep the baby.”



“You can feel the stress she's having. You know it's not the happy wonderful thing, but she's standing up. She's doing what's best. She's strong-being a strong woman jogging instead of sitting down, ‘poor little me.'“


These responses suggest that a campaign of carefully produced ads could encourage a “culture of life” ethic. Using language and imagery that will attract rather than alienate, the pro-life movement must show that abortion is actually not in a woman's own self-interest, and that the choice of life offers hope and a positive, expanded sense of self.

It should be noted that descriptions of fetal development and even graphic abortion pictures can still be used to great effect with certain audiences, particularly among people already disposed to the pro-life message and as a means to activate pro-lifers. Further, the means shown here for developing an effective strategy to reach women are not necessarily transferable to strategies intending to effect political and legislative change. However, in the use of mass media to reach the general public, it is vitally important that the pro-life movement reframe the issue in terms that will be better received by women.

The terrible miscalculation of young women is that abortion can make them “un-pregnant,” that it will restore them to who they were before their crisis. But a woman is never the same once she is pregnant, whether the child is kept, adopted, or killed. Abortion may be a kind of resolution, but it is not the one the woman most deeply longs for, nor will it even preserve her sense of self. If those of us in the pro-life movement can help women see this for themselves, we will have done much to disengage our culture from the abortion mentality.

If pro-lifers are willing to reframe the debate in a way that affected women can better understand and appreciate, the movement can regain the moral high ground in the mind of the American public, and begin to reach successfully the very women who most need the pro-life message.



Paul Swope is Northeast Project Director of the Caring Foundation and President of LifeNet Services, Inc.
http://www.firstthings.com/images/printsendshare/pss_print_btn.gif