The poor have free will, too.

I notice that the group Catholics for Choice, along with some others, have placed an ad in an Italian newspaper encouraging Pope Benedict to reconsider the Church’s stand on artificial birth control. So it goes; there will always be dissidents. Provided they are civil in their discourse, let them say what they please.

Yet one thing strikes me whenever the issue of sexual morality comes into the fore, something which is rarely considered yet I believe pertinent to the discussion. We hardly ever hear the stark truth that sexual activity is entirely voluntary. You do not need sex in the same way as you need food, clothing, or shelter. Indeed you don’t have to have it at all in order to be a healthy human being. As such, it seems reasonable that we should find restrictions upon sexual behavior within the natural moral law. I can think of no voluntary activity in which we do not have to meet certain standards in order to participate in it; why, then, should there not be standards to strive for within the context of sex?

Or is the Left saying that we have no choice but to have sex? That would seem to toss free will and moral obligation out the window. I do not doubt that certain people in certain situations may be less disciplined and prone towards behavior they should not engage in. But remember that every Christian his cross must bear: being a good moral person isn’t necessarily easy for any of us. Still, it is dangerous to suggest, indeed downright insulting, that no one can affect control over their own actions. Do let’s not patronize the poor (for that group is, essentially, being considered most strongly in the thoughts of Catholics for Choice) by suggesting that they have no possible control over themselves. For if that is the essence of the dissidents’ position, who, then, is truly standing up for the dignity of the poor?