or pariishioners to stay away, complainnto the press that this is no way tonportray Christ, but thank heaven thatn(as Clint Eastwood told some reporters)nit’) a free country, and that MartinnScorsese is free to make a bad andnboring movie.nBe aware, too, that The Last Temptationnwould have died in release ifncertain Christians had not made such anfuss atiout it—which is not to say theynshould have remained silent. Whethernor not this is Scorsese’s “way of worshipinjj,”nto most Christians it willncertainly seem blasphemous. But tonme what is most blasphemous aboutnThe Last Temptation is not Jesus’nmuch-ballyhooed fantasy of conjugalnlife with Mary Magdalene, but thenintimation that if Jesus had somehownbeen saved from the cross, Saul ofnTarsus, later Paul, would have foundedna religion on him anyway. In the dreamnsequence Paul tells Jesus that peoplenneed the happiness their belief innChrist brings them, so much so that itnis of no importance whether or notnChrist actually died and was resurrected.n^^”hat is lust compared to that?n(KD)nMillions of fathers now face toughernenforcement of child-support laws.nProddi^d by a 1984 federal law whichnthreatened states with partial loss ofnfederail public-assistance funding ifnthey did not do a better job of collectingnchild support, state officials havenstarted to press delinquent fathers morenrigorously. Arrests for nonpayment—nsometimes with handcuffs — arenclimbing. Such efforts are paying off:nstate officials now collect more than $3nbillion nationwide in child supportneach year.nEven stiffer measures are in thenworks. This past June Senator DanielnPatrick: Moynihan won overwhelmingnSenate approval (93 to 3) for a welfarenreform bill that mandates more aggressivenstrategies for establishing paternity,nfor locating absent fathers, and forncollecting child support. These provisionsnare intended to apply to nevermarriednas well as divorced fathers.n”Paying child support must be thennorm,” believes Senator Moynihan.nFor their advocates, such measuresnrepresent justice, pure and simple. Yetna closer look raises serious doubts,nespecially in light of the legal doctrinesnnow governing abortion. In a famousn1976 case {Planned Parenthood ofnMissouri v. Danforth), the US SupremenCourt ruled that a father has nonright to prevent his wife from receivingnan elective abortion, regardless of then”possibly deleterious” effect of such anunilateral decision on “the future ofnany marriage.” In a spate of cases innIndiana, New York, and Utah, threenfathers (two married, one not) just thisnyear tried to win judicial recognition ofna paternal right to prevent electivenabortions. In one case, the womanninvolved sought an abortion becausenshe wanted “to look nice in a bathingnsuit.”nThe paternal passions in all of thesencases are expressed in the words ofnDavid Ostreicher, a New York orthodontistnwho bitteriy resents his wife’sncomplete freedom to obtain an abortion:n”It’s a case of an outrageous actnthat a wife did against a husband.nWithout my knowledge, without mynconsent, she took our baby and rippednit out of her.” Although two of thencases are still in the courts, all of thenwomen involved received abortions.nSuch cases strike at the very assumptionsninvoked to justify the collection ofnpaternal child support. Traditional legalncommentators have explicitly affirmednthat a father’s obligation to support hisnchildren stems from his decision tonbring them into the world. As recentlynas 1968, the Supreme Court of Wisconsinntraced a father’s duty to supportnhis child to “the voluntary status ofnparenthood which the father assumed.”nA shadow of uncertainty falls onnthese legal arguments once the fathernbecomes responsible only for pregnancy,nwhile the decision to bear the childnis strictly a woman’s choice. In theirnrediscovery of the economic obligationsnof paternity, government leadersnhave generally sidestepped the abortionnissue. But the right to abortion isncentral to the legislative logic of thennew measures. Karen DeCrow, a leadernof the National Organization fornWomen, acknowledges that “right nownthe law is definitely unequal; men havenno stake in the say of what’s going tonhappen.” Although she opposes givingna father veto power over abortion, shenadmits “you can’t have a unilateralndecision in the hands of the womannnnand then say he’s got to pay [childnsupport].” As e.e. cummings put it:n”You pays your money and you doesn’tntake your choice. Ain’t freedomngrand?” —Bryce J. Christensen andnGeorge S. SwannHumanae Vitae, the papal encyclicalnon what are now known as “life issues,”nwas issued by Pope Paul VI inn1968. To commemorate the 20th anniversarynof the controversial statement,nthe Roman Academic Center Foundation,nin conjunction with the RomannCatholic chaplaincy at Princeton, heldna symposium this past August. Overn100 scholars, philosophers, activists,nand journalists gathered to discuss thenprophetic significance of the liberalnpontiffs surprise move to affirm thensanctity of life. The papers were wideranging,nfrom theology to the techniquesnof artificial procreation.nIn addition to noted scholars likenBruce Hafen, Jacqueline Kasun, andnAllan Carison, a number of distinguishednclergymen, including CardinalnCagnon, Bishop Myers of Peoria, andnBishop Vaughan of New York, madenstirring presentations that remindednthe audience of the good old daysnwhen the Catholic clergy were a powerfulnvoice in the American conscience.nPaul VI’s warnings against thennew technologies of procreation werennothing short of prophetic. We nownlive in a society in which it is routinelynacceptable to induce dozens of pregnancies,nby various bizarre techniques,nwith the expectation that only one willnbe allowed to result in a live birth.nAbortionists are protected by law and,nwhat is far worse, are tolerated inndecent society. Indeed, the one jarringnnote at the Princeton symposium wasnthe presence of former abortionist BernardnNathanson. In all other respects,nthe symposium was a rousing successnand augurs well for the future of thenright-to-life coalition. (TF)nFor Immediate ServicenChroniclesnNEW SUBSCRIBERSnTOLL FREE NUMBERn1-800-435-0715nILLINOIS RESIDENTSn1-800-892-0753nDECEMBER 19881 5n