The Catholic Doctrine and Reproductive Health
WHY THE CHURCH CAN’T CHANGE
by Stephen D. Mumford
The following article is from Free
Inquiry magazine, Volume 21, Number 1.
The anti-abortion movement in the United States was created
in response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade in 1973, which
legalized abortion. However, it really owes its origin to a group of men in Rome
103 years earlier. This was 1870, the year of Vatican Council I, a conclave of
great importance in recent church history. Why is this so?
Hans Küng, the renowned Swiss Catholic theologian, best
summed up the problem accounting for its creation when he said, “It is not
possible to solve the problem of contraception until we solve the problem of
infallibility.”l In his book, How the Pope Became
Infallible, Catholic historian Bernhard Hasler describes in great detail what Küng
meant: For more than a millennium, the Vatican had possessed temporal power that
ensured its survival. With the loss of the Papal States in 1870, it appeared all
but certain that a strong papacy would simply disappear. The Vatican urgently
needed a new source of power.
A group of conservative and influential leaders, including
Pope Pius IX, came up with a brilliant idea for a new source: an infallible
pope. What is infallibility? According to Catholic dogma, when the pope
formulates a doctrine, he is simply transmitting this dogma on God’s behalf.
Therefore, the teaching cannot possibly be in error.
Roman Catholics could be certain that the teachings of the
pope and of God were one and the same, and, if strictly followed, one’s
entrance into heaven was guaranteed. Communicants found this concept very
attractive and were eager to behave in any manner required of them. Such an
arrangement placed enormous control over individuals into the hands of the
Vatican, extending across national borders and even to the other side of the
world. It could no longer control the laity by means of its governance, as it
had in the Papal States which would later become Italy. But the Holy See could
exercise control directly by adopting a policy of psychological coercion founded
on a new doctrine—that of papal infallibility.
Protection at all Costs
Papal infallibility was a brilliant concept—and it worked
for a century. But at its introduction in 1870, the Catholic intelligentsia
recognized that, at some point in the future, this principle would lead to the
self-destruction of the institution. Times were certain to change and in
unpredictable ways, but the Church would be locked on an inexorable
course—teachings that could not be changed without destroying the principle of
infallibility itself. These distinguished scholars foresaw that one day,
encumbered by its unchangeable teachings, the Church would find itself down a
blind alley from which there would be no escape and faced with inevitable
self-destruction as a result of a grave loss of credibility. The blind alley
turned out to be the issue of birth control—contraception and abortion.
Since the 1968 adoption of the papal encyclical, Humanae
Vitae, there has been a hemorrhage in the Church’s credibility. Humanae Vitae
ruled out any change of the Church’s position on birth control for all time.
The proponents of papal infallibility could not imagine the
population explosion of the last half of this century. Just as critics had
predicted, institutional self-destruction is now well underway. But, as it
stands now, the Church cannot change its position on birth control without
undermining all of its dogma.
The following are only three among scores of findings to
indicate how the Vatican is destroying itself:
1. In 1965 there were 42,000 young men in American
seminaries studying for the priesthood. Today there are fewer than 6,000, even
though the number of Catholics in this country has nearly doubled.
2. The average age of nuns in the United States is 65
years. Only 3% are under age 40, while 35% are older than 70.
3. One-half of all American priests quit the priesthood
before reaching retirement age.
Self-destruction as a result of loss of credibility is
underway but progressing slowly. The pope remains hopeful that he can turn this
around. He is convinced that, if he changes the Church’s position on birth
control and destroys the principle of infallibility, self-destruction will be
very swift. We know that this matter was the focus of his attention for several
years in the 1960s.
The Threats of Legalized Birth Control and Abortion
In 1964, Pope Paul VI created the Papal Commission on
Population and Birth Control. It was a two-part commission and met from 1964 to
1966. One part consisted of 64 lay persons, the other, of 15 clerics, including
the future Pope John Paul II, then a Polish cardinal. Pope Paul gave the
Commission only one mission—to determine how the Church could change its
position on birth control without undermining papal authority. After two years
of study, the Commission concluded that it was not possible to make this change
without undermining papal authority, but that the Church should make the change
anyway because it was the right thing to do! The lay members voted 60 to 4 for
change, and the clerics, 9 to 6 for change.2 Pope
Paul did not act immediately. A minority report was prepared, co-authored by the
man who is now Pope John Paul II. In this report he stated:
If it should be declared that contraception is not evil
in itself, then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had
been on the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 (when the encyclical Casti
Connubii was promulgated), in 1951 (Pius XlI’s address to the midwives), and
in 1958 (the address delivered before the Society of Hematologists in the year
the pope died). It should likewise have to be admitted that for a half century
the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII, and a large part of the
Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error.
This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with
extreme imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding,
under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be sanctioned. The
fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same acts would now be
declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by the Protestants, which
popes and bishops have either condemned or at least not approved.3
In this and other texts, the pope took the position that a
change on the birth control issue would destroy the principle of papal
infallibility, and that infallibility was the fundamental principle of the
Church upon which all else rests. A change on birth control would immediately
raise questions about other possible errors popes have made in matters of
divorce, homosexuality, confession, parochial schooling, etc. that are
fundamental to Roman Catholicism.
The security and survival of the papacy itself is on the
line. The Church insists on being the sole arbiter of what is moral. Civil law
legalizes contraception and abortion. Governments are thereby challenging the
prerogative of the pope to be the ultimate authority on matters of morality.
Most Americans look to democratic process to determine morality. In the simplest
analysis, the Church cannot coexist with such an arrangement, which in its view,
threatens its very survival as a world political power.
For this reason, the Vatican was forced to interfere in the
democratic process in the United States by lobbying for the passage of numerous
anti-abortion laws designed to protect its interests. There is a plethora of
documentation to support these findings, relating mainly to Vatican and U.S.
National Conference of Catholic Bishops’ sources, some of which I will discuss
Only legal abortion and legal family planning threaten the
Church. It has shown very little interest in illegal abortion. For example, in
Latin America, where abortion is illegal, abortion rates are two or three times
as high as those seen in the United States. However, abortion is essentially
ignored by the bishops there.
Even before the work of the Papal Commission on Population
and Birth Control was completed in 1966, it was widely recognized in the Vatican
that the Church faced a grave problem regarding birth control, including
abortion. Vatican Council II, which ended in 1966, set the stage for the bishops
to address this problem. One of the outcomes of this Council was the Pastoral
Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. Part two of the Constitution was
titled, “Some Problems of Special Urgency.” In his book, Catholic Bishops in
American Politics, published by the Princeton University Press in 1991, T.A.
Byrnes observes, “This list of problems to which the Church was to turn its
attention reads like a blueprint of the American hierarchy’s political agenda
in the 1970s and 1980s.”4 The first was abortion:
God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the
surpassing ministry of safeguarding life—a ministry which must be fulfilled
in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore, from the moment of conception
life must be guarded with the greatest of care, while abortion and infanticide
are unspeakable crimes.5
The Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church,
another Vatican Council II document, created the National Conference of Catholic
Bishops (NCCB), which was organized according to universal church law. It was
created to serve as a political instrument of the Vatican.6
During a meeting of the American hierarchy in November 1966, the bishops
formally established the NCCB as their official collective body and established
the United States Catholic Conference (USCC) as their administrative arm and
From the very beginning, there has been a common and
correct perception that the Catholic hierarchy was primarily an anti-abortion
political lobby. Byrnes summarizes his study of the history of Catholic bishops
in American politics by saying:
Before I end, I want to address one final matter, namely
the unique position that abortion occupies on the Catholic hierarchy’s
public policy agenda. Abortion is not simply one issue among many for the
bishops. It is rather the bedrock, non-negotiable starting point from which
the rest of their agenda has developed. The bishops’ positions on other
issues have led to political action and political controversy but abortion,
throughout the period I have examined, has been a consistently central feature
of the Catholic hierarchy’s participation in American politics.8
On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized
abortion for Americans. According to Bishop James McHugh, “within twenty-four
hours” of the court’s action, the bishops knew they would need to mount a
political campaign in favor of a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion.9
The Vatican wasted no time in responding. In 1974, the
stage was further set to create a political machine to end legal abortion in the
United States when Rome issued a document titled, Vatican Declaration on
Abortion, which states:
A Christian can never conform to a law which is in itself
immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the
licitness of abortion. Nor can a Christian take part in a propaganda campaign
in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in
This statement is an unequivocal rejection of the
legitimacy of our democratically elected government to pass laws legalizing
abortion. The papacy had placed its authority on the line, pitting itself
against the U.S. government. If the Vatican were to avoid the looming
destruction of papal authority, it must minimize the number of abortions legally
performed and ultimately succeed in reversing the effects of Roe v. Wade. The
1974 Vatican Declaration on Abortion follows the instructions set forth by Pope
Leo XIII in his encyclical on the Chief Duties of Christian Citizens:
If the laws of the state are manifestly at variance with
the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church or conveying
injunctions adverse to the duty imposed by religion, or if they violate in the
person of the Supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then truly, to
resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime.11
The current abortion law in the United States is
unquestionably “hurtful to the Church.” Minimizing the number of abortions
done in the United States is obviously helpful to the Church.
The Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro-life Activities
On November 20, 1975, at its annual meeting, the American
Catholic bishops issued the Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities, a frank and
superbly detailed blueprint of the bishops’ strategy for infiltrating and
manipulating the American democratic process at national, state and local
levels. It maps out the creation of a national political machine controlled by
the Vatican through the bishops. The plan is directed toward creating a highly
sophisticated, meticulously organized, and well-financed local, state, and
national political machine. The plan candidly states that the Church will
undertake activities to elect officials from local to national levels who will
adhere to Vatican-ordained positions; that it will seek to influence policy in
ways that will eliminate the threat to the Church; and that it will encourage
the Executive Branch to deal “administratively” with matters that are
unfavorable to the Church.
The Plan, in
The abortion decisions of the United States Supreme Court
(January 22, 1973) violate the moral order, and have disrupted the legal
process which previously attempted to safeguard the rights of unborn children.
A comprehensive pro-life legislative program must therefore include the
a) Passage of a constitutional amendment providing
protection for the unborn child to the maximum degree possible.
b) Passage of federal and state laws and adoption of
administrative policies that will restrict the practice of abortion as much as
According to the Pastoral Plan, there is to be in each
state a State Coordinating Committee, functioning under the State Conference or
its equivalent, which will include bishops’ representatives from each diocese
in the state and will function to monitor political trends in the state.
Diocesan Pro-Life Committees are to coordinate groups and activities within the
diocese, particularly efforts to effect passage of a constitutional amendment to
protect the unborn child. The diocesan committee is to rely for the information
and direction on the Bishops’ Pro-Life Office and on the National Committee
for a Human Life Amendment.
Noting that well-planned and coordinated political action
at national, state, and local levels would be required, the pamphlet states that
the activity is not simply the responsibility of Catholics and should not be
limited to Catholic groups or agencies. This instruction was a clarion call by
the bishops for the creation of the New Right movement.
Indeed, during the period 1976–1980, all of the
organizations that became known as the “New Right Movement” were created,
with one exception: The Christian Coalition was created later to replace the
Moral Majority, which had fallen into public disrepute. Catholics were key
players in the creation of all these organizations and influential in their
leadership. This assessment of the creation of this movement and the influence
in it of the bishops is well documented.12,13,14
In 1980, Federal Judge John Dooling ruled on McRae v. HEW,
a challenge to the Hyde Amendment, which prevented Medicaid payment for
abortion. The judge had spent a year studying the anti-abortion movement in
great detail, including the bishops’ Pastoral Plan. His findings showed that
the anti-abortion movement was essentially Roman Catholic with a little
non-Catholic window dressing.15
In a 328-page ruling, Dooling, a practicing Catholic, makes
short work of the anti-abortionists’ pretensions to be a spontaneous
grass-roots movement that owes its political victories to sheer moral appeal. He
confirms that the right-to-life’s main source of energy, organization, and
direction has been the Catholic Church, and he describes in detail how the
movement works to achieve its goals.
The Protestant face carefully put on the movement, first by
the Moral Majority and then by the Christian Coalition, was called for in the
Pastoral Plan. Richard A. Viguerie, a Catholic, is the man most responsible for
the development and success of the New Right. He was also involved in the
original discussions that led to the creation of the Moral Majority and, as its
fundraiser, can be credited with its financial success. Paul Weyrich, a
Catholic, claims credit for originating the idea for the group and the name
itself. In their search for an attractive front man for the organization, they
chose Jerry Falwell.16
Much effort went into avoiding public disclosure of the
role of the Catholic Church in the creation of the Moral Majority. Maxine Negri,
in “A Well-Planned Conspiracy,” exposed involvement of the Catholic
hierarchy in the Moral Majority.17
The Christian Coalition replaced the Moral Majority with
the bishops still in full control. The evidence supporting this statement is
compelling.18 For example, Maureen Roselli,
executive director of the Catholic Alliance, a branch of the Christian
Coalition, claims that the Coalition has 250,000 Catholic members.19
Catholic Georgetown University political science professor Mary Bendyna told the
Religious News Service that she was surprised to find, even before the creation
of the Catholic Alliance, that all five staffers in the Christian Coalition’s
Washington, D.C., office were Catholic.20
Claims of autonomy by the Moral Majority and the Christian
Coalition should not be taken seriously. What is described here is exactly the
organization contemplated in the Pastoral Plan.
What are some of the bishops’ successes on the three
branches of our federal government? The February 24, 1992, issue of Time
magazine showed that, with the election of anti-abortion Ronald Reagan in 1980,
the views of the Vatican gained substantial influence within the administrative
branch of the U.S. government in the area of population and family planning
policy.21 Presidents Reagan and later Bush were
arguably the most pro-Vatican presidents in American history.
This article was written by Pulitzer prize-winning
journalist Carl Bernstein. He described what he referred to as the “Catholic
The key Administration players were all devout Roman
Catholics—CIA chief William Casey, [Richard] Allen [Reagan’s first
National Security Advisor], [William] Clark [Reagan’s second National
Security Advisor], [Alexander] Haig [Secretary of State], [Vernon] Walters
[Ambassador at Large] and William Wilson, Reagan’s first ambassador to the
Vatican. They regarded the U.S.-Vatican relationship as a holy alliance: the
moral force of the Pope and the teachings of their church combined with . . .
their notion of American Democracy.
In a section of his article headed “The U.S. and the
Vatican on Birth Control,” Bernstein includes two more revealing paragraphs:
In response to concerns of the Vatican, the Reagan
Administration agreed to alter its foreign aid program to comply with the
church’s teachings on birth control. According to William Wilson, the
President’s first ambassador to the Vatican, the State Department
reluctantly agreed to an outright ban on the use of any U.S. aid funds by
either countries or international health organizations for the promotion of .
. . abortions. As a result of this position, announced at the World Conference
on Population in Mexico City in 1984, the U.S. withdrew funding from, among
others, two of the world’s largest family planning organizations: the
International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations Fund for
“American policy was changed as a result of the
Vatican’s not agreeing with our policy,” Wilson writes. “American aid
programs around the world did not meet the criteria the Vatican had for family
planning. AID [the Agency for International Development] sent various people
from the Department of State to Rome, and I’d accompany them to meet the
president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, and in long discussions
they finally got the message. . . .”
However, the bishops may have had even greater success in
targeting the judicial branch. In the 12 years of the Reagan and Bush
administrations, these two presidents appointed five Supreme Court Justices and
70% of all sitting judges in the federal court system. All were anti-abortion,
another goal of the Plan.
The legislative branch has been more difficult for the
bishops, although they did achieve sufficient influence in Congress to the
extent that pro-choice Congressmen could not override a presidential veto of
family planning bills. As long as the anti-family planning interests controlled
the White House, as they did during the Reagan and Bush years, this was
sufficient for the bishops’ purposes.
One of the more profound accomplishments of this Plan is
the capture of the Republican Party by the Vatican. This accomplishment was
vital to the bishops’ legislative agenda described in the Plan. In a July 28,
1994, Los Angeles Times wire service story, Jack Nelson describes the maneuvers
of the Religious Right so that this takeover is all but an accomplished fact.
On September 11, 1995, Bill Moyers gives his assessment of
the influence of the Religious Right in remarks titled Echoes of the Crusades:
The Radical Religious Right’s Holy War on American Freedom: “They control
the Republican party, the House of Representatives and the Senate. . . .”22
Outgoing Republican National Committee Chairman Richard
Bond told the members of that committee on January 29, 1993, that it was time
for the Republican Party to abandon the papal position on abortion. Bond said
that the party should not be governed by “zealotry masquerading as
But who is the Religious Right? The Spring 1994 issue of
Conscience, the journal of Catholics for a Free Choice, exploded the myth that
the Religious Right is a Protestant movement. It was designed, created, and
controlled by Catholics in response to the Pastoral Plan. These Catholics
recruited opportunistic Protestants to give the appearance that Protestants were
the instigators. The leadership is Catholic but the followers are often
Protestant. The National Catholic Reporter predicted that the Bishops’
Pastoral Plan would lead to the creation of a new political party, an American
Catholic Party.24 But instead, the Vatican simply
chose to seize control of the Republican Party.
The outcomes of the Plan have been truly remarkable. And
they have implications for all Americans.
The Vatican’s Bold Behavior
In April 1992, in a rare public admission of this threat,
Cardinal John O’Connor of New York acknowledged:
The fact is that attacks on the Catholic Church’s
stance on abortion—unless they are rebutted—effectively erode Church
authority on all matters, indeed on the authority of God himself.25
The Vatican claims the right to protect itself against
“harmful laws”—even when democratically legislated. The central difficulty
here, of course, is that what the Vatican considers “harmful” to itself and
its authority often is exactly what patriotic American lay Catholic and
non-Catholic men and women thoughtfully consider beneficial to themselves and
their families. In a letter to American bishops from the Sacred Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith—the most powerful Vatican office—Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger reminded the bishops that “The Church has the responsibility to
protect herself from the application of harmful laws.”26
Obviously, if an institution has the “responsibility,” it also claims the
“right.” The Vatican exercises its “right” to protect itself from the
application of harmful laws in the autocratic way it defines harmful.
In 1995, Pope John Paul II issued his encyclical Evangelium
Vitae (Gospel of Life). It frankly attacks the principles of liberal democracy
and questions the legitimacy of the American government. He instructs Catholics
to defy civil laws he deems illegitimate, and to impose papal teachings on all
Americans through political commitment, even if it means that they must
sacrifice their lives to do so. Evangelium Vitae is quite lengthy and contains
105 sections. The following passages, referenced by their section numbers,
illustrate the pope’s message:
Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia
are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but
also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic
juridical validity [#72].
Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human
law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such
laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by
conscientious objection [#73].
It is precisely from obedience to God—to whom alone is
due that for which is acknowledgment of His absolute sovereignty—that the
strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the
strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the
sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for the endurance and faith of
the saints [#73].
Christians . . . are called upon under grave obligation
to conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted
by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral
standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. . . . This
cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom
of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it
To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not
only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right [#74].
Democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a
substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality. Fundamentally, democracy
is a “system” and as such is a means and not an end. Its “moral” value
is not automatic but depends on conformity to the moral law [#70].
In her National Catholic Reporter article, “Defending
Life Even Unto Death,” Professor Janine Langan, of the University of Toronto
assesses Evangelium Vitae: “John Paul leaves no room for ghetto Catholicism.
Excusing our silence about matters of truth because ‘we should not push on
other people our Christian God,’ as one of my students put it last year, is
not acceptable.” Professor Langan does not acknowledge that this encyclical is
extremist in nature but she describes it forthrightly: “In a situation as
grave as the present one, Christians are bound to come into conflict. . . .
Evangelium Vitae is thus a challenge to defend life even at the cost of
martyrdom.” Langan quotes the pope, “Life finds its center, its meaning and
its fulfillment when it is given up [#51].” In her view, and the pope’s,
martyrdom is admirable: “Martyrdom is the one witness to the truth about man
which every one can hear. No society, however dark, can stifle it.”27
This chilling view of martyrdom held by the pope and
Professor Langan is not shared by most Americans. When fanatical Muslim
extremists resort to it, martyrdom is almost universally condemned as religious
extremism. Why should it be admirable behavior when exercised by Catholics?
Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, president of the
Pontifical Council for the Family, who spoke on October 3, 1995, on “Culture
of Life, Culture of Death in the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae,” makes it clear
that the Church is at war with democratic America with its civil laws:
The Pope invites us with courage to the boycott of unjust
laws which suppress the imperative of natural law carved into consciences by
the Creator. And legislators, politicians, physicians, and scientists have the
duty of conscience to be the defenders of life in the war against this culture
This is an aggressive call to Catholics to impose papal law
on all Americans through legislation.
On December 21, 1998, the American Catholic bishops brought
this all even closer when they issued their statement, Living the Gospel of
Life: A Challenge to American Catholics. As to the role of the Church in the
political process, the bishops state: “. . . at all times and in all places,
the Church should have the true freedom to teach the faith, to proclaim its
teaching about society, to carry out its task among men without hindrance, and
to pass moral judgment even in matters relating to politics . . .”[#18]. In
other words, no one should offer resistance as the Church goes about passing
laws demanded by the pope, such as parental consent laws.
The bishops have concluded that it is their job to pass
civil laws that will protect the Catholic faithful from abortions that they
would otherwise procure.
Vatican assertions, proclamations, declarations, and
decrees serve, above all, to exemplify its intense desperation on the matter of
legal abortion and family planning. Its very survival depends on halting all
legal family planning and abortion which are causing a hemorrhage in the
credibility of this religious institution. In my opinion, this remarkable
dilemma is entirely responsible for the Vatican’s behavior. The Church, faced
with disaster, is behaving like a wounded animal.
Americans do not benefit from any law now being used to
restrict abortion. On the other hand, as others have documented, because of
innovations such as parental notification laws, young women are irreparably
harmed. Some will die. Some will commit suicide rather than tell their parents.
Many will suffer adverse consequences from which they will never recover. The
question is: should this human sacrifice of young American women who are not
even Catholic be permitted so that men in Rome will be able to “infuse
democracy with the right values” in order to try to save a Church which finds
itself down a blind alley just as predicted by the Church intelligentsia in
The political machine created by the Pastoral Plan has had
far-reaching consequences for all Americans. The impeachment of President
Clinton, the most pro-choice president in history, would not have been possible
without the successful implementation of this plan in the House of
Representatives. He has defied the pope, strongly supporting access to abortion.
All 13 House prosecutors were anti-abortion Republicans and were led by the most
rabid abortion foe in the House, Roman Catholic Henry Hyde. According to the
October 1, 1998, issue of the New York Times, Hyde and the lawyer he chose to
lead the Republican impeachment team, David Schippers, another Catholic and
father of 10, were both knighted by the pope three years ago for their
outstanding service to the Catholic Church.29 Each
of these 13 men most certainly benefitted from the existence of the political
machine created by the Pastoral Plan. There are many other such examples and
they are negatively affecting us all.
1. AB. Hasler, How the Pope Became
Infallible (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981), p. 25.
2. A. Jones. Vatican, “International
Agencies Hone Family, Population Positions.” National Catholic Reporter
(reprinted in Conscience, May/June 1984. p. 7).
3. Hasler, op. cit., p. 270.
4. T. A. Byrnes, Catholic Bishops in
American Politics (Lawrenceville, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1991, p.
5. Ibid., p. 41.
6. Ibid., p. 48
7. Ibid., p. 49.
8. Ibid., p. 143.
9. Ibid., p. 57.
10. Ibid., p. 144.
11. Ibid., p. 50, (Quoted from Leo
XIII’s encyclical, Chief Duties of Christian Citizens).
12. S.D. Mumford, American Democracy &
The Vatican: Population Growth & National Security. (Amherst, N.Y.: Humanist
13. S.D. Mumford, The Pope and the New
Apocalypse: The Holy War Against Family Planning (Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina: Center for Research on Population and Security, 1986).
14. S.D. Mumford, The Life and Death of
NSSM 200: How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a U.S. Population Policy
(Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: Center for Research on Population and
15. D.J. Dooling, Decision in McRae v.
HEW, New York: U.S. District Court, 1980.
16. P.D. Young, “Richard A. Viguerie:
The New Right’s Secret Power Broker.” Penthouse (December 1982) p. 146.
17. M. Negri, “A Well-Planned
Conspiracy.” The Humanist (May/June 1982), 42(3):40.
18. Mumford, op. cit., 1996 (see pages
19. A 1996 Catholic Alliance fund raising
letter signed by Maureen Roselli.
20. J. Conn, “Papal Blessing?” Church
& State (November 1995), p.4.
21. C. Bernstein, “The Holy Alliance.”
Time, February 24, 1992.
22. B. Moyers, “Echoes of the
Crusades.” Church & State, December 1995. p. 16.
23. T. Droleskey, “Zealotry Masquerading
as Principle?” The Wanderer, February 18, 1993. p. 10.
24. “U.S. Bishops Spark New Abortion
Debate.” INTERCOM (1976) 4(1):13.
25. H.V. King, “Cardinal O’Connor
Declares That Church Teaching on Abortion Underpins All Else.” The Wanderer,
April 23, 1992. p. 1.
26. P. Likoudis, “Vatican Letter calls
on Bishops to Oppose Homosexual Rights Laws.” The Wanderer, July 30, 1992.
27. J. Langan, “Defending Life Even Unto
Death.” National Catholic Register, September 17, 1996. p. 1.
28. “Be Defenders of Life, Says Cardinal
Lopez Trujillo.” The Wanderer, October 12, 1995. p. 7.
29. New York Times, October 1, 1998, p. 1.
Dr. Stephen D. Mumford is president of the Center for
Research on Population and Security and author of The
Pope and the New Apocalypse: The Holy War Against Family Planning.