It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the "contraceptive mentality" — which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act — are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro-abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion arespecifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment "You shall not kill".
But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree. It is true that in many cases contraception and even abortion are practised under the pressure of real- life difficulties, which nonetheless can never exonerate from striving to observe God's law fully. Still, in very many other instances such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfilment. The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception.
The close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious. It is being demonstrated in an alarming way by the development of chemical products, intrauterine devices and vaccines which, distributed with the same ease as contraceptives, really act as abortifacients in the very early stages of the development of the life of the new human being.
In the context of a culture which seriously distorts or entirely misinterprets the true meaning of human sexuality, because it separates it from its essential reference to the person, the Church more urgently feels how irreplaceable is her mission of presenting sexuality as a value and task of the whole person, created male and female in the image of God.
In this perspective the Second Vatican Council clearly affirmed that "when there is a question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspect of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his or her acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced."
It is precisely by moving from "an integral vision of man and of his vocation, not only his natural and earthly, but also his supernatural and eternal vocation," that Paul VI affirmed that the teaching of the Church "is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning." And he concluded by re-emphasizing that there must be excluded as intrinsically immoral "every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible."
When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as "arbiters" of the divine plan and they "manipulate" and degrade human sexuality — and with it themselves and their married partner — by altering its value of "total" self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.
When, instead, by means of recourse to periods of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as "ministers" of God's plan and they "benefit from" their sexuality according to the original dynamism of "total" selfgiving, without manipulation or alteration.
In the light of the experience of many couples and of the data provided by the different human sciences, theological reflection is able to perceive and is called to study further the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle: it is a difference which is much wider and deeper than is usually thought, one which involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of the person, that is the woman, and thereby accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and self-control. To accept the cycle and to enter into dialogue means to recognize both the spiritual and corporal character of conjugal communion and to live personal love with its requirement of fidelity. In this context the couple comes to experience how conjugal communion is enriched with those values of tenderness and affection which constitute the inner soul of human sexuality, in its physical dimension also. In this way sexuality is respected and promoted in its truly and fully human dimension, and is never "used" as an "object" that, by breaking the personal unity of soul and body, strikes at God's creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person.
exerpted from Familiaris Consortio, written by Pope John Paul II (emphases mine)
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil.
CCC 2370 (emphasis mine)
AIDS is an evil that should be stopped. So is careless promiscuity. That doesn't mean the Church should abandon orthodoxy to stop those evils. I'd prefer to see people use condoms than carelessly spread infections, but the Church should not officially embrace artificial contraception. Suppose we eventually eradicate STDs with the help of condoms. How will the Church tell people to not use them after that? Condom use only aleviates a symptom – disease transmission. It does not cure the disease – lack of chastity and respect for the role of human sexuality in God's economy of salvation. Moreover, approval of condom use could be construed as implicit approval of extra-marital sexual relations. Rather than telling people to reserve sexual congress for marriage, we are telling them to wear condoms. Thus, the illicit relations they seek must, in their eyes, seem licit.
Update: There seems to have been a great deal of fishy reporting involved in the original story. Curt Jester reports on it. This issue will come up again, though, as "progressive" (i.e. heretical) forces within the Church attempt to change Her teachings to suit modern self-centered pleasure-seeking.
“I’ll probably kick myself later for responding to flamebait, but I strongly suspect that you are alone in this misconception (no pun intended).”
-you were right in the first place; with such prescience, you might have been better of just kicking yourself and skipping any attempt at a coherent response.
Phil,
Eric has beliefs, and he’s entitled to them, whether or not you agree — there shouldn’t be anything scandalous in a person expressing beliefs consistent with his Church’s teachings. Like it or not, there are still a few Catholics who follow Catholic teaching — where’s the need to persecute him for it?
*kicks self*
*kicks self*
Perhaps “plonk” would have been a more effective and even more appropriate response to Mr. Shropshire’s original comment. But I do think the response you did make was quite good, as was the initial blog post.
But what if the positions of your church are kinda crazy? Like banning contraception? Just asking out here…I just hope he’s applying more rigor to his science than to his positions on faith…
Do you want people to just agree with you all the time? “Man, that papacy is great. Thank God women are subservient in the Catholic religion. That’s just so cooool…”
I’m more curious as to how you interact with professional women. I checked out the Pitt website. You even list this website in your profile (Word of advice: Bad idea.)…are your female teachers and co workers all right with your brave ideas regarding contraception, let alone abortion and embryo research…Jeebus as they say…How do those conversations go…? Isn’t one of them a medical doctor? But she’s okay with the “men” in the Catholic Church telling her what she can and can’t do with her body…? Please, share with us…
Dude! Chill.
I notice that you didn’t name anyone specifically. Frankly, if that’s their choice, I’m fine with it. I’m just concerned about the people who want to eliminate their choices. The same people who want Specter off of the judiciary, control both federal houses and the courts…I’m more concerned about that.
I’ll probably kick myself later for responding to flamebait, but I strongly suspect that you are [not] alone in this misconception (no pun intended).
If you read the encyclicals that I exerpt from, you’ll find ample evidence that the Church has a great deal of respect for women. In fact, at least one of the documents specifically mentions the sinfulness of treating women as objects, whether for pleasure or for breeding.
Another good place to look for understanding Catholic sexual ethics is “Theology of the Body” by JPII. I suspect, though, that the fundamental premises of that book would, in your mind, negate the arguments made. For a more philosophical treatment, I suggest “Love and Responsibility” by Karol Wojtyla (now JPII). It that, the foundation is laid for a “personalistic norm” which sets up subjectivity, i.e. “You are a person who acts and feels and who has worth.”, in opposition to objectivity, i.e. “You are an object that I may use .”
Edited By Siteowner
Is that what she says? I don’t blame her…
Phil –
You should know that Catholics aren’t alone in opposing artifical contraception. Many women ground their opposition to the Pill in ideologies other than religion. Women who are vegetarian or into organic farming tend not to want to chemically sterilized. Women who abhor big corporations tend not to want to rely on the Drug Industry for birth control. Women who think of fertility as a earth-mothery gift tend not to want to take drugs that treat fertility as a disease to be cured. And women who don’t want to be treated, in your words, as “reproductive cattle” tend to like a method of birth control that requires men to sacrifice, at least a few nights a month.
Take it from me: If you have a 3yo screaming in the store for mommy to buy her Lunchables, what do you do? If you say “Buy the Lunchables so she’ll shut up”, [buzzer] Wrong! You specifically don’t buy the Lunchables, so next time Jr.-ette won’t have a screaming tantrum. For those who have ears to hear…
Cheers!
The real problem of people turning away from God and treating sexuality as mainly mutually-pleasing exercise will not be stopped by mandating only a certain form of birth-control.
No doubt there is a need for discipline, even among married couples, and it needs to be communicated that sexual intercourse is(so I’ve been told) a spiritual connection that should ideally not be engaged in apart from God’s intended manner.
But basing arguments on what is natural doesn’t hold mustard. It shields from honest debate that which should be open to such debate.
dlw
You’re against contraception? Good Lord. Women are just more than reproductive cattle that men control…right?