Catholics Caitlin Heaney, right, and her sister, Elizabeth, show their support during a rally for religious freedom in downtown Minneapolis June 8. (CNS photo/Dave Hrbacek, The Catholic Spirit)
The American bishops have declared a
“Fortnight
for Freedom,” running the 14 days from June 21 (the Vigil of the Feast
of Saints John Fisher and Thomas More) to July 4, Independence Day. “Culminating
on Independence Day,” the bishops explain, “this special period of prayer,
study, catechesis, and public action would emphasize both our Christian and
American heritage of liberty. Dioceses and parishes around the country could
choose a date in that period for special events that would constitute a great
national campaign of teaching and witness for religious liberty.”
Well said. In that same spirit, here is a
little history lesson to help prepare us for a Fortnight for Freedom.
First, current history. The Fortnight for
Freedom was declared because President Obama is trying to force Catholic
institutions, through a Health and Human Services mandate, to provide
contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization through their insurance
coverage.
And now for a little ancient history to put
current events into the widest possible context. To truly see what’s at stake
with Obama’s HHS mandate, you must go all the way back to ancient Rome, to the
pagan empire into which Christianity was born.
We might think of contraception as something
new, a modern thing, just as we think abortion was rare before Roe v. Wade. But that is historically as inaccurate as one
could possibly get. The truth is this: contraception, abortion, and infanticide
were widely practiced and entirely acceptable in all ancient cultures,
including Rome. The acceptability was the result of attitudes toward sexuality.
“In antiquity,” historian John Riddle notes, “the evidence suggests, sexual
restraint was largely ignored; pagan religion normally did not attempt to
regulate sexual activity. Free males could do almost anything sexually, even if
they had to resort to slaves, with no moral or societal consequences to themselves.”
Elevating the goal of sexual satisfaction
meant that babies were often considered unwanted side effects. Most ancient
pagans saw nothing wrong with stopping babies from happening, and used a
variety of contraceptive and abortifacient concoctions, ingested or applied, to
accomplish thiseverything from pomegranate peels, giant fennel, acacia gum,
crushed juniper berries, cabbage flowers, date palm, rue, and myrrh, to
crocodile dung. If all that failed, they had back-up plans to induce something
like a modern-day abortion (hot baths, vigorous exercise, horseback riding,
carrying heavy loads, bleeding, punching the stomach, more poisons). The final
back-up was infanticide, usually by exposure.
The earliest Christians rejected the whole
spectrum, from contraception to infanticideand this is obviously an essential
point for understanding the historical importance of the current standoff
between Obama’s HHS and the Catholic bishops. We find their explicit rejection in the Didache, the first-century AD catechetical manual used in
the house churches and directed at converts coming, not through Judaism, but
from among the pagans.
Pagan converts were confronted with a list of
commands in the Didache, including, “You will not
have illicit sex” (ou porneuseis) and,
“You will not murder offspring by means of abortion [and] you will not kill one
having been born [i.e., infanticide].” The list also includes, “You will not
make potions” (ou pharmakeuseis), a prohibition
against the wide-scale use among pagans of potions intended as contraceptives
and abortifacients.
St. Paul’s list of sins of the flesh in
Galatians 5:19-20 is very interesting in this regard. The list begins with
fornication or illicit sex (porneia),
impurity, sensuality or lewdness, and idolatry, and then lists what is often
translated as sorcery (pharmakeia).
Sorcery and potion-making went together in the ancient world, and we cannot
exclude the possibility that St. Paul (given the duplication of pharmakeia in the Didache) was intending to include makers of contraceptives and
abortifacients.
Such prohibitions would have been more
familiar to Jews than Roman pagans, but even the Jews, it seems, were not
dead-set against the use of contraception. According to John Riddle, “While
there is no mention of intentional abortion [via abortifacients] or
contraception in the Old Testament, both practices are in the Talmud, Tosefta,
and Mishnah.” More accurately, “rabbinic opinion was divided,” and even those
that affirmed the use of contraception and abortifacients did so only under
restricted conditions.
As with the command against adultery, the
Christians intensified the Jewish prohibitions, and condemned all use of
contraceptives and abortifacients, thereby setting themselves at the most
complete odds with the accepted Roman pagan sexual practices. That is a very
important point to make in regard to the HHS mandate: it means that
Christianity alone is the historical cause of the moral prohibition against
contraceptives and abortifacients.
But history attests not just this single,
early prohibition. Following the lead of the Didache, we find contraception and abortion condemned by a string of
eminent early churchmen: Athenagoras (c. 133-190), Clement (c. 150-215), Marcus
Minucius Felix (c. 150-270), Jerome (c. 347-420), and John Chrysostom
(347-407).
This condemnation continued as pagan Rome
crumbled and Christendom emerged from its ruins. Bishop Caesarius of Arles
condemned contraception and abortifacients in the early sixth century AD, and
Abbot Regino, writing from Lorraine about 830 AD, asserted that if someone does
something to stop childbearing, such as ingesting some potion so that no
generation or conception can take place, “let it be held as homicide.” Ivo,
bishop of Chartres from 1090 to 1115, brought these prohibitions against
contraception, abortifacients, and abortion together, and his account was taken
up by Peter Lombard in his Sentences (c.
1096-1164), which in turn was incorporated by Gratian in the 12th century into
the Church’s canon law. Canon law formed the Church’s unified, authoritative
approach to these issues, and this allowed church moral doctrine to influence
and define the civil law of the West.
There is no other historical source for the
laws against abortion that were struck down with a single blow by Roe v. Wade in 1972, and no other source for the laws
against contraception that were struck down with Griswold v.
Connecticut in 1965. And finally, there is no other source of the
current antagonism created by the HHS mandate, demanding that that the Church
violate its two-millennium-old condemnation of contraceptives and
abortifacients.
When we put the HHS mandate into the larger
historical framework, we realize something quite ominous about what’s really at
stake. The HHS mandate is just one more momentous battle in the long struggle
between Christians and pagans. For we in the West have been, for some time,
undergoing what could quite accurately be called “repaganization.”
Repaganization? Yes. Over the last two
centuries, our culture has become increasingly secularized. The Christian-based
understanding of sexual purity that for so long had formed Western society has
been largely abandoned by a kind of secular hedonism, with quite predictable
effects. The release of sexual desire from Christian-based moral restrictions
in the 19th and 20th century led immediately to the desire for contraception, abortion,
and, as we’re seeing more and more, infanticide. As a result, Christians now
find themselves in much the same situation as they were in ancient, pagan Rome:
surrounded by an antagonistic, sexually-saturated pagan culture, demanding
contraceptives, abortifacients, direct abortion, and infanticide to remove the
unwanted “side-effects” of sexual libertinism. Our secularism looks
suspiciously like ancient paganism.
The HHS mandate is a throwing down of the
gauntlet by the new pagans. At issue is whether the enormous moral influence of
Christianity, and Christianity itself, will be erased from historythat is,
whether the seamless spectrum of “reproductive rights” cherished in ancient,
pagan Rome will be re-imposed by the secular state.
The HHS mandate is not like Roe v Wade, which used raw judicial power to demand full
access to the abortion-infanticide aspect of the pagan spectrum for those who
desire it. It is not like Griswold, which
used just as raw judicial power to remove the Christian hold on law, so that
contraception would be freely available for those who desired it. It is the imperial state demanding that the Catholic Church must pick
up the dagger and turn it against itself, and act against its own moral law,
just as the ancient, pagan emperors demanded that, in order to save their
lives, Christians must curse Christ, throw the Scriptures in the fire, and
offer ritual sacrifice to the divinized emperor and the Roman gods.
With
the HHS mandate, the secular state is moving from, “Christians, do what you
like among yourselves, but don’t impose your moral views on us,” to,
“Christians, you must now do what
we likeor
else.”