Bristol Palin: Abstinence is ‘not Realistic at All’

While we believe abstinence is possible and even advisable for most teenagers, we actually agree with Ms. Palin that abstinence for all teenagers is a realistic, achievable goal.

In the recent presidential campaign Alaska governor Sarah Palin was very popular among many Christian conservatives. This made it all the more surprising then when Palin’s oldest daughter Bristol, an unwed teenage mother, said in a recent TV interview that abstinence “is not realistic at all.” This was fodder for pro-sex types because Bristol’s own mother promoted abstinence-only education as a matter of policy in Alaska. But apart from the political discomfort for Gov. Palin, a bigger problem for all Christians is that of having a pretty, high-profile teenager give witness that she and her boyfriend just couldn’t wait and that it’s not realistic to abstain. The difficulty of course for Christian ministers and parents is that her words will likely influence other young people more than anything Church-going adults say.

However, our purpose is not to attack Bristol Palin, but actually to defend her somewhat. Of course, we cannot defend her fornication. Unfortunately for her, the Epistle to the Hebrews states that God will judge fornicators. Even worse is that Paul includes fornication in a litany of acts that prohibit people from inheriting the kingdom. Moreover, she should be warned not to use her God-given good looks and her exalted position as a governor’s daughter to make other fornicators feel their sins are excusable. But we believe that to solve problems like the ones Bristol poses we have to face the kernel of truth in what girls like her are saying by their words and deeds. This truth, we submit, is that expecting abstinence of the entire population of minors asks something from young people that Scripture actually suggests is not possible.

Now many would think that the Apostolate of St. Jerome with our emphasis on celibacy and virginity would be big proponents of abstinence-only education. But in point of fact we are not because we believe abstinence-only is only half right. As an organization that works to lend credibility to Catholic teachings on chastity, which seem to modern times to be divorced from reality, we want to make sure that what Christians teach is truly realistic. Bristol Palin is dismissing these teachings, and there are surely others like her. So we feel duty-bound to either (a) set her straight or (b) show that the teachings she believes are “not realistic” are not really the true Christian teachings. We believe that here option (b) is called for. While we believe abstinence is possible and even advisable for most teenagers, we do not believe that abstinence for all teenagers is a realistic, achievable goal.

Our argument for this position begins with the words of Christ (and Paul, too) that not all can accept celibacy. Some will need recourse to marriage. The interesting question to us then is at what age does this need for recourse to marriage manifest itself? Given the fact that physical maturation begins in different people at different ages and proceeds at different rates, ASJ has long been concerned about teenagers who reach sexual readiness at an age well before society deems that marriage is appropriate. If not all adults can accept celibacy, then certainly not all these teens who mature early will be able to abstain, will they?

This problem is especially pronounced in women. Studies show that 50% of women reach full physical maturity by age 13. Now certainly this doesn’t mean they are ready for the commitment of childrearing and marriage at this young age, but it’s also hard to think they will need another five or ten years. If women in the ancient world married in the early teens, and American women even in the last century routinely married as teenagers, then why, when nutrition is accelerating the onset of physical development, is society (with a good deal of approbation from Christians we might add) continually increasing the acceptable age for marriage?

In a Jewish work from the first centuries after Christ, Rabbi Samuel the Younger writes that a man is fit “at 15 for the Talmud,” and “at 18 for the bride-chamber.” Now one would have to think that if men are ready for marriage at 18, women would be ready even sooner due to their accelerated development. So it is hard to tell teenagers that the Judeo-Christian tradition has maintained that women should only have kids at age 27.

Now, given the revealed fact that a certain fraction of the population cannot live celibacy, a fraction that ASJ believes we can deduce to be 20%, and if half of young women reach physical adulthood well before legal adulthood, then Christians should expect at least 10% of teenage girls to need marriage much younger than is customary. Ms. Palin may well be one of these girls who was being asked to do what Christ says she cannot accept.

Now certainly young Ms. Palin should learn to measure her words and not use objective terminology where subjective phrasings are called for. So rather than the blanket statement that abstinence is unrealistic, she should say only that “Abstinence is unrealistic for me.” Only in this more limited sense can her statement have any truth. But Bristol is merely a youth, and hopefully with time she will learn to speak more intelligently. But however poorly stated her objection we think has legitimacy that needs dealing with. Our point is, we have to make sure we accommodate young Christians who have not been granted the gift of celibacy, and we must make provision for these teenagers who need marriage for the sake of their salvation. This way, Christians make sure to teach the fullness of our chastity message—abstinence is best, but those who cannot abstain must marry. Fornication is simply not an option.

Now, while it may be unrealistic to expect that all 17-year olds can live abstinence, it is certainly realistic to expect that they can all marry. In this regard, Bristol Palin has no defense. But Catholics and other Christians should make sure that young people in Ms. Palin’s position understand that they have another option under which they can exercise incontinence in a way permitted by God. To the extent we fail to do this, we act unfairly to those teenagers who cannot live celibacy. For we can’t in good conscience bring a feeling of damning guilt upon 17 year-olds by teaching as gospel an extended abstinence they simply cannot accomplish.

But if, on the other hand, we preach a dual message of abstinence and marriage, and we put the social and cultural mechanisms in place for teenagers to marry, then we can rightly claim fidelity to the New Testament. Early marriages have always been common where Christianity is taken most seriously. This is because good Christians know they must reject the fornicating lifestyle that dominates secular culture now as in the time of Christ. As ASJ has written before, Christians should be outraged that it’s legal for teens to fornicate in all fifty states, but it is often illegal for them to marry! If they want to obey Christ they may need their parents’ permission, but if they want to reject Christ and sin, they receive the protection of the Constitution.

Another contradiction arises from this logic of thinking all teens can live abstinence, i.e., this assumes teenagers have a greater degree of self-control than adults. But if we say of adults, “Not all can accept it,” yet expect that all teenagers can accept celibacy, then why are youth events always tightly chaperoned?

So let no one say that the pro-celibacy sentiment expressed by ASJ means that we are anti-marriage. Rather, Christians who promote an abstinence-only ethic often insult marriage by rendering it less preferable than fornication. In the case of the Palin family abstinence-only led to fornication where there should be marriage. So whereas God’s order of preference is abstain, marry, fornicate, our society, with ample help from Christians, reverses the last two, creating a culture where teenage fornication is more accepted than teenage marriage.

In the spirit of full disclosure, we should mention our strategic interest in a culture where early marriage is more common. That is, teenage marriage may be necessary and salvific, but it usually isn’t very glamorous. Other teens, seeing what their married peers are going through, will be more inclined to look positively at celibacy by comparison. If they do not ultimately renounce marriage for good, at least they might put it off long enough to get more education, or put their freedom and youthful vigor to the service of the Church’s mission. Many young people will see their classmates with the anxieties of spouse and child and thus will see the limitations that marriage imposes on the hopes and dreams of a young soul. This, we claim, is not to see marriage in a bad light, but merely to see it for what it truly is—something less than celibacy and virginity.

 This article appeared in the March 4, 2009 issue of The Loyal Lion.