On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down every state law regulating abortion. Most people never saw it coming, despite the relaxation of abortion laws already in a number of jurisdictions. Many people believed that Americans would never accept abortion on demand and anticipated a groundswell of support for a constitutional amendment restoring the right to life.
1973
But the supporters of abortion had done their homework, convincing sufficient numbers of their fellow citizens that illegal abortion caused terrible suffering and the deaths of thousands of women every year (the actual number was under 100) and that abortion was a woman's right. Political action failed.
It has been 30 years and finally the tide is beginning to turn. New polls show that the support for abortion on demand is shrinking, in part because those who support the right to life came to understand that they had to do more than mount political campaigns or appeal to the courts. First, they had to address the practical needs of women with problem pregnancies. There are now more organizations dedicated to helping pregnant women have their babies than there are abortion clinics. Second, as the number of abortions soared, the number of women suffering emotional consequences increased. The pro-life community came together to provide help for the second victim of abortion — the woman.
Third, the scientific evidence of the humanity of the unborn baby is now widely disseminated. Today, couples routinely see live action ultrasound of their unborn baby. The partial birth abortion debate exposed the public to the horrific nature of the abortion procedure. And finally, the evidence of health risks associated with abortion is undeniable, including an increased incidence of breast cancer and miscarriage of subsequent pregnancies.
The tragedy is that it took decades for the pro-life movement to develop a comprehensive approach to the problem and there is still a long way to go.
It is important to understand that those pushing abortion on demand didn't think abortion was a good thing. Their real goal was absolute sexual liberation and the liberation of women from family responsibility. Abortion on demand was simply a means to that end.
2003
Today those who support the family and marriage face a similar challenge. There is a massive, well-organized movement to change the definition of marriage and allow same-sex couples to contract legal marriages. Most people think it will never happen, but several countries have already accepted some form of “same-sex marriage”. Challenges to current laws are before the courts in several American states and the courts have been sympathetic. The laws protecting marriage hang by a thread.
The advocates of this radical change argue that accepting “same-sex marriage” is only fair and just. They insist that restricting marriage to male/female couples is form of unjust discrimination and harms the children being raised by same-sex couples. These arguments are being forwarded by the same coalition of activists who pushed for abortion on demand — and for the same reason: to forward the sexual revolution. Their ultimate goal is not that same-sex couples adopt traditional family values, but that society is totally liberated from all restrictions on sexual expression.
It is important to understand that, for the advocates of radical change, “same-sex marriage” is only a means to an end. Their ultimate goal is to create a social climate in which everyone who does not unconditionally accept homosexual acts — within or outside a committed relationship — as absolutely normal would labeled “homophobic” or a “bigot” and homophobic bigotry would be considered the equal of racism.
Today, since racists are not considered qualified for public office and may be discriminated against in hiring, faithful Catholics would become second class citizens. One has only to consider the massive campaign presently being waged against the Boy Scouts to understand what the advocates for radical change have in mind. They look forward to the day when anyone who said anything that might make a person with same-sex attraction feel uncomfortable would risk serious social or even legal sanctions. Publicly reading the scriptural prohibitions against homosexual acts or the relevant sections Catechism could be considered hate speech.
Response
It is not enough to fight against radical change in the courts or legislatures. The advocates for marriage and the family need a comprehensive and compassionate plan to answer the advocates for radical change.
• Prevention: There is ample evidence that same-sex attraction is not genetically predetermined, but a developmental disorder originating in early childhood. In many cases the symptoms are noticeable and early intervention can be successful. Unfortunately, help is not always available and many concerned parents are told there is nothing to worry about or worse that they should accept that their child is unchangeably homosexual. Persons with same-sex attraction are more likely to have been sexually abused as children and therefore the prevention and treatment of sexual child abuse should be a priority.
• Help: Same-sex attraction is not an unchangeable condition. Treatment is not easy and there is no guarantee of success, but for many change is possible. If a person with same-sex attraction wants to explore that option, therapists and support groups should be available in every diocese. For Catholics with same-sex attraction the most important thing is that they are able to live chastity according to their state in life. This isn't easy and those struggling with this problem should feel that they will be supported by the Church.
• Truth: Just as in the abortion debate, the advocates of radical change insist that science is on their side, yet in actuality, none of their claims can be supported by scientific studies. There is no evidence that same-sex attraction is genetically determined. There is ample evidence that change is possible. Persons with same-sex attraction are more likely to suffer from serious psychological problems and relationship failures.
• Compassion: Persons with same sex attraction need love and truth. They need to hear the good news that, no matter how many sins we may have committed or temptations we may experience, God loves us and stands ready to forgive. Those speaking about same-sex attraction and the behaviors associated with it must be careful not to treat people who suffer from this problem as a separate class of human beings — either not covered under the moral law that applies to others or beyond redemption. St. Paul lists sexual sins including homosexual behaviors along with greed and slander among the sins committed by the Christians of Corinth in the past. He warns them not to fall back into those behaviors because, “That is what some of you used to be, but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (I Cor. 6:11).
The Catholic Medical Association has prepared Homosexuality and Hope, a carefully documented statement based on reviewing the research on same-sex attraction. It is available on their website (www.cathmed.org), but this is only a first step. Much needs to be done and done quickly, if people of faith are going to answer the challenge of 2003.
Mrs. Dale O'Leary is an internationally known speaker and freelance writer, editor of Heartbeat News, author of The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality and The Art of Raphael: Coloring Book. Her conversion story appears in Spiritual Journeys. She is currently working on a book on forgiveness.
(This article was originally prepared for the Catholic Medical Association and is adapted by permission.)
