Dear Reader:

A pro-life leadership convocation, "In God's Image: Called to Build a Culture of Life," was held March 3-5 at The Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law. It was convened by Cardinals John O'Connor and Bernard Law in collaboration with the Pontifical Council for the Family, the NCCB Committee for Pro-Life Activities and the law school.

Internationally-recognized experts discussed the latest developments in science, technology, medicine, culture, and population studies to help equip pro-life leadership to meet the challenges of the next millennium. Cardinals John O'Connor, Bernard Law, and Francis George each delivered insightful and uplifting talks. Audiotapes of the sessions will be available for a limited time from A.V.E.R. Associates, 6974 Ducketts Lane, Elkridge, MD 21075; (410) 796-8940.

One of the many highlights of the convocation occurred at the outset, with the reading of a special message from Pope John Paul II to Cardinal Keeler and participants of the convocation. Excerpts from his letter follow:

As you gather in Washington with so many individuals and groups dedicated to the defense of human life, I send greetings in the Lord, with the assurance of my prayers for the success of this important meeting....

At last year's Special Assembly for America of the Synod of Bishops, the Bishops of the continent were unequivocal in their insistence upon the Christian duty to defend and promote human life from the moment of conception to that of natural death, and they abundantly praised those who have generously and courageously undertaken that duty (cf. Ecclesia in America, 63). More recently, the United States Bishops have issued the Statement Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics, which splendidly echoes the voice of the Synod and the teaching of my own Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae. Your meeting is another sign that in ... America the Gospel of Life has found fertile ground in which to grow and bear fruit, precisely because it sheds light on a matter of critical importance for society, a matter so essential that no one can remain indifferent.

At the end of the twentieth century we are witnessing a strange paradox: the sanctity of human life is being denied by an appeal to freedom, democracy, pluralism, even reason and compassion. As the Bishops' Statement points out, words have become unmoored from their meaning (cf. Living the Gospel of Life, 11), and we are left with a rhetoric in which the language of life is used to promote the culture of death.

Freedom is sundered from truth, and democracy from the moral values required for its survival; a faulty notion of pluralism loses sight of the common good; reason often refuses to engage the truths which transcend empiric experience; and a false sense of compassion is incapable of facing the limits and demands of our nature as created and dependent beings. The language of human rights is constantly invoked while the most basic of them—the right to life—is repeatedly disregarded. The Bishops have identified the source of this contradiction in the moral confusion which comes inevitably with "the gradual restructuring of American culture according to ideals of utility, productivity and cost-effectiveness" (Living the Gospel of Life, 3). So great is the confusion at times that for many people the difference between good and evil is determined by the opinion of the majority, and even the time-honored havens of human life—the family, the law and medicine— are sometimes made to serve the culture of death.

At such a time, Christians must act. This is a funda-mental demand not only of discipleship but also of demo-cracy,which flourishes when "people of conviction strug-gle vigorously to advance their beliefs by every ethical and legal means at their disposal" (Living the Gospel of Life, 24). This is not easy in a situation where there is at times deliberate falsification of the Church's teaching and scorn for those who promote it. Yet none of this can be allowed to blur your vision or diminish your energies.

Your action needs to be both educational and political. There must be a thorough catechesis on the Gospel of Life at all levels of the Catholic community. Catholics imbibe much of their surrounding culture, and therefore this catechesis needs to challenge the prevailing culture at those points where human dignity and rights are threatened. Such a catechesis has as its goal that shift of perception and change of heart which accompany true conversion (cf. Eph 4:23). The call to conversion must ring out in your homes, in your parishes and in your schools, with complete confidence that the Church's teaching about the inviolability of life is deeply in tune with both right reason and the deepest longings of the human heart. This educational effort will increasingly open the way for Catholics to exercise a positive public influence as citizens of their country, without false appeals to the separation of Church and State in a way that consigns the Christian vision of human dignity to the realm of private belief.

The choice in favor of life is not a private option but a basic demand of a just and moral society. The pro-life concern must be present in every aspect of the Church's pastoral activity.

It is my fervent hope that your meeting will signal the commitment of the whole Catholic community to imple-menting the teaching of Living the Gospel of Life, that it will help to coordinate better the activities of the various groups involved, and that it will strengthen the resolve of many people to continue their generous and tireless efforts. Commending all gathered at the Washington meeting to the loving protection of Mary, Mother of the Redeemer who is the Way and the Truth and the Life (cf. Jn 14:6), I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing.

From the Vatican, February 20, 1999

Joannes Paulus II

Exploding the Safe Sex Myths

Nine groups in Colorado received federal grants to teach abstinence-only sex education. Eight programs are flourishing, but one group recently gave up. It's president explained, "Abstinence-only does not work in our community that well. ... It did not teach students responsible sexual behavior." Teens were not responding to the "stern message" (Denver Post, March 13).

Those few words speak volumes about why that group's efforts failed. Abstinence is not a "stern message." It's positive, self-affirming, self-empowering: You can control yourself. You are worth waiting for. You don't have to live in fear of pregnancy, STDs, dying from AIDS.

And what exactly is "responsible sexual behavior" for students? No sex after 10 P.M. on school nights?

A local Planned Parenthood official added her opinion on the program's demise: "The abstinence message is not a responsible one nor is it reasonable or realistic." This statement, unfortunately, sums up the thinking of those in the business of promoting "safe" sex education. The ideology that holds abstinence unworkable and credits "sex ed plus" (plus contraception) with the declines in teen pregnancy, abortion and births is so prevalent in the public health community that these views have achieved the status of conventional wisdom.

Recently this bit of conventional wisdom was exposed as a fraud in a ground breaking report entitled "The Declines in Adolescent Pregnancy, Birth and Abortion Rates in the 1990s: What Factors Are Responsible?" Commissioned by the Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils, representing thousands of practicing doctors, the report confirms that abstinence, not increased contraceptive use, is the "primary reason for the decline in teen pregnancy and birth rates throughout the 1990s."

Here's a look at some of the myths the research debunked.

Myth Teens are using more and better contraceptives. "Increased contraceptive use— especially condoms—was a major factor in the decline of unintended pregnancies" (National Adolescent Reproductive Health Partnership, Winter 1998 Update).

Reality: Although condom use increased 33% among teens during the period that teen pregnancy rates were dropping, the rise in condom use did not help reduce teen pregnancy rates. Increased condom use was outweighed by a striking 45% decline from 1988 to 1995 in the use of the oral contraceptives (OCs) among females age 15-19. The net decrease in use of either method is 14.5%. Worse, from the standpoint of "pregnancy prevention," condoms are far less effective in preventing pregnancy than OCs. And the current usage rate for injectable or implantable "contraceptives" among teens (7%) offsets only partially the reduced pregnancy protection resulting from the widespread abandonment of OCs. So sexually experienced teenage girls are far less protected from pregnancy today than they were in 1988.

Yet, teen pregnancy rates have decreased more than 9% from 1992 to 1995 alone (to fewer than 91 pregnancies/1,000 girls from almost 100 pregnancies/1,000. Teen birthrates (age 15-19) also have dropped almost 12% between 1991 and 1996 (to under 55 births/1,000 from 62 births/1,000).

Could the decline in birthrate be due to a greater rate of abortions among teens? No. The abortion rate among females age 10-19 has dropped over 28% between 1990 and 1995, to 13.5 abortions per 1,000 from almost 19 abortions per 1,000 teens. How can all these rates be dropping if sexually experienced teenage girls are less well protected today from pregnancy?

Myth: Pregnancy and birth rates for teens are declining so the "safe sex" message must be working.

Reality: Pregnancy and birth rates are not declining among "sexually experienced" (ever had sex) and "sexually active" (sex in past 3 months) teens. In fact, they are rising sharply.

The government calculates the birthrate among adolescents by dividing the total number of births to teen mothers by all female teens. This is highly misleading because abstinent females do not become pregnant. Their rates of pregnancy/birth remain steady at zero/1,000.

Subtracting abstinent girls from the formula (and 5.7% more females age 15-19 were abstinent as of 1995 than in 1988), the nonmarital birthrate among experienced teens rose almost thirty percent, to almost 90 births per 1,000 girls from about 69/1,000 in the same period. This represents an increase of almost 30%.

The birthrate among sexually active females age 15-19 is still worse: The percentage of sexually active girls dropped to about 40% from almost 43% between 1988 and 1995, but the birthrate during this period jumped over 31% to almost 112/1,000 from 85/1,000.

If condoms and other contraceptives are not protecting sexually active or experienced girls, what could be causing the declining rates of pregnancy and birth?

Myth: Abstinence is unworkable and unrealistic. Teens are going to have sex anyway so we need to teach them "safe" sex.

Reality: Not so. The CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Surveys show an almost 20% drop in the percentage of high school boys age 15-19 who have ever had sex, to a low of under 49% in 1997 from almost 61% in 1990.

High school-aged boys have also become less sexually active, with only 1 in 3 reporting intercourse in the past 3 months (a 21% decline between 1990 and 1997) and less promiscuous, with a 34% decline in those having had four or more partners between the 1990 figure of almost 27% and the 1997 figure of almost 18%.

Using data from the National Survey of Family Growth, between 1988 and 1995, a decrease of 5.7% occurred in the percentage of all females (not just those in high school) age 15-19 who have had sex (52.6% vs. 49.6%). But those remaining sexually active have become more promiscuous. Almost 20% more high school girls 15-19 have had four or more partners in 1997 compared to 1990.

The Consortium's report points to a combination of factors as contributing to greater abstinence among teens: the AIDS epidemic, generational changes in attitudes (including greater "religiosity" and parental disapproval of premarital sex and contraceptive use), increased cultural acceptance of abstinence and the growth of abstinence-only education programs. To obtain a copy of this important report call (877) 236-5772.

There are about 4 million new cases of STDs among teens each year—striking one in four sexually experienced teens (and zero abstinent teens). A recent survey of 15-17 year olds, conducted by Kaiser Family Foundation, MTV and Teen People, found that kids are ignorant of their risk of acquiring an STD. Three-fourths of teens underestimated their risk of acquiring an STD. Also alarming, only four percent of the sexually experienced teens reported having had an STD, despite the probable incidence of 25% in this population. Some may have concealed this history, but it is likely that many others were unaware of their infection. Many STDs are asymptomatic for a period of months or years, even while they are damaging the reproductive tract and being spread to other partners.

Although 80% of the teens surveyed said they learned about STDs in sex ed or health class in school, too many are also being given the false assurance that condoms will protect them. They need to be told the truth that condoms offer little or no protection against some of the most common STDs. And they need to be told the many benefits of remaining abstinent until marriage.