Humanae Vitae : A Generation Later
By
Janet E. Smith Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Dallas
By
preserving the whole moral law of marriage, the Church knows that she is
supporting the growth of a true civilization among men.
In
teaching that contraception is intrinsically immoral, the Church is not
imposing a disciplinary law on Catholics; she is preaching only what nature and
the gospel preach.
The
amount of hostility directed at Humanae Vitae has been so great that most
people are astonished when they first learn that contraception has not been a
hotly debated issue since the very beginnings of the Church. All Christian
churches were united in their opposition to contraception until as recently as
the early decades of this century. It was not until 1930 that the Anglican
Church went on record as saying that contraception was permissible, for grave
reasons, within marriage. It was also at this time, however, that Pope Pius XI
issued the encyclical Casti Connubii, generally translated on "On
Christian Marriage," in which the Holy Father reiterated what has been the
constant teaching of the Catholic Church: contraception is intrinsically wrong.
One
might assume that there has been a continuing dispute since the 1930s, but
there has not been. Surveys of this period indicate that as many as 65% of
Catholics in the US were living in accord with the Church's teaching, as late
as the early sixties. A book entitled Contraception, written by John Noonan,
provides a comprehensive history of the Church's teaching against
contraception. It clearly documents that the Church has been "clear and
constant" in its position on contraception, throughout the whole history
of the Church.
The
first clamoring for change appeared in the late 1950s and early 1960s with the
widespread availability of the birth control pill. Some Catholic theologians
began to think that the pill might be a legitimate form of birth control for
Catholics because, unlike other kinds of birth control, it did not break the
integrity of the sexual act. This was the very first attempt within the Church
to argue that contraception might be morally permissible. Meanwhile, in the
political and social realms, there were perceptions of a population problem and
growing sentiments that it would be inhumane for the Church to continue with a
"policy" that promoted large families. Feminism had also begun to
make itself felt with its demand that women be given full and equal access to
employment and the political process. Feminists argued that having children had
been a hindrance to such opportunities in the past, and that contraception --
not having children -- would enhance access to careers and thus be a great boon
for women. These were the developing pressures on the Church to reconsider its
teaching regarding contraception.
Pope
John XXIII set up a commission of six theologians to advise him on these
issues. Pope Paul VI took over the commission when John XXIII died and began
adding new members with expertise from different fields, including married
couples. The majority of the commission voted that the Church should change its
teaching. A minority on the commission argued that the Church not only should
not but could not change its teaching regarding contraception because this was
a matter of God's law and not man's law, and there was no way that the Church
or anyone else could declare it morally permissible.
The
report of this vote and its recommendation, as well as all of the other records
of the commission were, of course, to be kept strictly confidential, intended
for the eyes of the Holy Father alone. They were meant to advise and assist him
in the writing of a formal document. The commission finished its work in 1966.
In 1967, the commission's records, including the report on its recommendation,
were leaked to both The Tablet in London and to The National Catholic Reporter
in the United States.
Interested
parties had known about the commission and had been waiting for several years
for the Church to make a decision. There had been an incredible proliferation
of articles on the subject of contraception between 1963 and 1967, most of them
favoring it. For instance, there was a book written by an Archbishop during
these years under the title Contraception and Holiness, a text consisting of
articles by married couples and others promoting the practice of contraception.
The commission reports were undoubtedly leaked to fan these fires and they did,
in fact, heighten the expectations of those desiring a change.
When
Humanae Vitae was released in July, 1968, it went off like a bomb. Though there
was much support for the encyclical, no document ever met with as much dissent,
led to a great extent by Father Charles Curran and Father Bernard Haering.
It
was a historic and pivotal moment in Church history. Dissent became the coin of
the day. This had not been true prior to Humanae Vitae. Dissenting theologians
had never before made such a public display of their opposition on any given
issue. The open dissent to Humanae Vitae is a real watershed in the history of
the Church. One can view the phenomenon as either a crystallization of
something that had been bubbling under the surface for some time, or as
catalyst for everything that was yet to come. Soon theologians and eventually
lay people were dissenting not only about contraception but also about
homosexuality, masturbation, adultery, divorce and many other issues.
In
spite of the dissent and in spite of widespread use of contraception among
Catholics, the Church continually reiterates its opposition to contraception as
a great moral wrong; Pope John Paul II has made opposition to contraception one
of the cornerstones of his pontificate and has written and spoken extensively
on the topic.
I
think the experience of the last many decades has revealed that the Church has
been very wise in its continual affirmation of this teaching for we have begun
to see that contraception leads to many vicious wrongs in society; it
facilitates the sexual revolution which leads to much unwanted pregnancy and
abortion. It has made women much more open to sexual exploitation by men. In
fact, Humanae Vitae predicted a general lowering of morality should
contraception become widely available and I think it is manifest that ours is a
period of very low morality--much of it in the sexual realm. There is little
need here to provide a full set of statistics to demonstrate the consequences
of the sexual revolution, for who is not familiar with the epidemic in teenage
pregnancies, venereal diseases, divorces, AIDS, etc.?
Western
society has undergone a rapid transformation in terms of sexual behavior and
few would argue that it is for the better. For instance, only ten years ago the
divorce rate was one out of three marriages; now one out of two marriages end
in divorce. Only ten years ago four out of ten teenagers were sexually active;
now it is six out of ten. Twenty-two percent of white babies are born out of
wedlock; sixty-seven percent of African-American babies are born out of
wedlock. The millions of abortions over the last decade and the phenomenal
spread of AIDS alone indicate that we have serious problems with sexuality. The
statistics of ten years ago were bad enough; many thought things could hardly
get worse -- as did many twenty years ago, and thirty years ago. In the last
generation the incidence of sexual activity outside of marriage and all the
attendant problems have doubled and tripled -- or worse. We have no particular
reason to believe that we have seen the peak of the growth in sexually related
problems.
Statistics
do not really capture the pervasive ills attendant upon sexual immorality.
Premature and promiscuous sexuality prevent many from establishing good
marriages and a good family life. Few deny that a healthy sexuality and a
strong family life are among the most necessary elements for human happiness
and well-being. It is well attested that strong and secure families are less
likely to have problems with alcohol, sex, and drugs; they produce individuals
more likely to be free from crippling neuroses and psychoses. Since healthy
individuals are not preoccupied with their own problems, they are able to be
strong leaders; they are prepared to tackle the problems of society. While many
single parents do a worthy and valiant job of raising their children, it remains
sadly true that children from broken homes grow up to be adults with a greater
propensity for crime, with a greater tendency to engage in alcohol and drug
abuse, with a greater susceptibility to psychological disorders.
The
Church, however, does not condemn the use of contraception because it is an act
that has bad consequences. Rather, it teaches that since contraception is an
intrinsically evil action, it is predictable that it will have bad
consequences. The Church teaches that contraception is evil because it violates
the very purpose and nature of the human sexual act, and therefore violates the
dignity of the human person. The experience of the last several decades has
simply served to reinforce the wisdom of the Church's teaching. But it is not only
on a practical level that we have a better understanding of the Church's
teaching; our theoretical understanding has also been much advanced. Often if
happens that the Church does not know very fully the reasons for what it
teaches until it is challenged. The Church's condemnation of contraception went
unchallenged for centuries. In attempting to explain its condemnation, the
Church has deepened its understanding of marriage and the meaning of the sexual
act. Again, John Paul II, with his claim that the sexual act signifies total
self-giving and his insight that contraception diminishes that self-giving, has
made an enormous contribution to our understanding of the evil of
contraception.
As
we consider the reasons why contraception is evil, let us first consult a few
Church statements that suggest the strength of its constant teaching against
contraception. Casti Connubii states:
No
reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically
against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since,
therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting
of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural
power and purpose, sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically
vicious.
It
continues:
Any
use whatsoever of matrimony, exercised in such a way that the act is
deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense
against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded
with the guilt of a grave sin.
Humanae
Vitae 11 puts it this way:
But
the Church, which interprets natural law through its unchanging doctrine,
reminds men and women that the teachings based on natural law must be obeyed,
and teaches that it is necessary that each and every conjugal act remain
ordained to the procreating of human life.
Further
on it states (HV 12):
The
doctrine which the Magisterium of the Church has often explicated in this:
There is an unbreakable connection between the unitive meaning and the
procreative meaning of the conjugal act, and both are inherent in the conjugal
act. This connection was established by God and cannot be broken by man through
his own volition.
The
Church condemns contraception since it violates both the procreative and
unitive meanings of the human sexual act. It diminishes an act that by its very
nature is full of weighty meaning, meaning that is unique to the sexual act. To
engage in an act of contracepted sexual intercourse is to engage in an act that
has the potential for creating new life and an act that has the potential for
creating tremendous emotional bonds between male and female and simultaneously
to undercut those potentials. Sex is for babies and for bonding; if people are
not ready for babies or bonding they ought not to be engaging in acts of sexual
intercourse.
Our
age is quick to express appreciation for the unitive meaning of the sexual act
but has little understanding of the goodness of the procreative meaning of the
sexual act. The modern age tends to treat babies as burdens and not as gifts.
It tends to treat fertility as some dreadful condition that we need to guard
against. We often speak of the "fear of pregnancy" -- a very curious
phrase. A fear of poverty or nuclear holocaust or tyranny is understandable but
why a fear of pregnancy? We speak about "accidental pregnancies" as
if getting pregnant were like getting hit by a car -- some terrible accident
has happened to us. But the truth is that if a pregnancy results from an act of
sexual intercourse, this means that something has gone right with an act of
sexual intercourse, not that something has gone wrong.
In
our society we have lost sight of the fundamental truth that if you are not
ready for babies, you are not ready for sexual intercourse. We have lost sight
of the fact that sexual intercourse, making love, and making babies are
inherently connected and for good reason. In our times, sexual relations are
treated casually; no great commitment is implied in having sexual intercourse
with another; babies are treated as an unwelcome intrusion on the sexual act.
The Church opposes this attitude and insists that sexual intercourse and having
children are intimately connected; that sexual intercourse implies a great
commitment, that children are an inherent part of that commitment, and that
both commitment and children are wonderful gifts.
It
is good to keep in mind that fertility is a great good: to be fertile is a
state of health for an adult person. It is those among us who are not fertile
who need to be helped and who seek treatment for infertility. Women now take a
"pill" to thwart their fertility, as if fertility were a disease
against which we need a cure. Contraception treats the woman's body as if there
were something wrong with it. The use of contraception suggests that God made a
mistake in the way that He designed the body and that we must correct His
error. In an age where we have become very wary of dumping pollutants into the
environment it is ironic that we are so willing to dump pollutants into our
bodies. The health risks of contraception to women are considerable -- take a
look at the insert pages in any package of the pill. The IUD is currently off
the market because of so many lawsuits against manufacturers. Why do women
expose themselves to such risks when natural methods of family planning are
both safe and effective?
Let
us not fail to mention that many forms of contraception are abortifacients; they work by causing an
early term abortion. Rather than inhibiting ovulation, they work by preventing
the fertilized egg, the tiny new human being, from implanting in the wall of
the uterus. The IUD works in this fashion as do most forms of the pill (on
occasion) and norplant. So those who are opposed to abortion and those
interested in protecting the well-being of women would certainly not want to be
using these forms of contraception. The other forms have aesthetic drawbacks or
are low on reliability.
Contraception,
then, enters a note of tremendous negation into the act of sexual intercourse.
But lovemaking should be a most wonderful act of affirmation, a tremendous
"yes" to another person, a way of conveying to another that he or she
is wonderful, and completely accepted; this is conveyed by making a total gift
of one's self to another. The contracepting lover says I want to give myself to
you but not to the extent of sharing my fertility with you; I want you but not
your sperm (or your egg)!
Just think of the words for contraception. Contraception means "against the beginning" -- here against the beginning of a new life. So a contracepting couple is participating in an act that is designed to bring about new life and they are acting against that new life. Or they put their barrier methods in place -- for "protection": as if they were making war, not love. Or they use a spermicide -- to kill the sperm. This is an act of love?
But
we forget what a marvelous thing it is to be able to bring forth a new human
being. God chooses to bring forth new human life through the love of spouses.
The entire world was created for us and for others like us. God wishes to share
His creation with new human souls, and brings new souls into the world through
the love of men and women for each other. God created the world as an act of love,
and the bringing forth of new human life is, quite appropriately, the product
of another kind of loving act. When a man and women have a child together, it's
an act that changes the cosmos: something has come into existence that will
never pass out of existence; each soul is immortal and is destined for immortal
life.
And
whenever a new human life comes into existence, God performs an entirely new
act of creation, for only God can create an immortal soul. In sexual
intercourse, spouses provide God with an opportunity to perform His creative
act. As the first line of Humanae Vitae states, God gives spouses the mission
(munus) of transmitting human life to spouses. Contraception says no to God; it
says those using it want to have the wonderful physical pleasure of sex but do
not want to allow God to perform His creative act.
But
contraception
is wrong not only because it violates the procreative meaning of the sexual act
but also because it violates the unitive meaning of the sexual act. Pope John Paul II has
been most energetic in explaining how couples do not achieve true spousal union
in sexual intercourse when they use contraception. He explains that the sexual
act is meant to be an act of total self-giving and that in withholding their
fertility from one another spouses are not giving totally of themselves. He has
developed an interesting line of argument where he speaks of the "language
of the body." He claims bodily actions have meanings much as words do and
that unless we intend those meanings with our actions we should not perform
them any more than we should speak words we don't mean. In both cases, lies are
being "spoken."
Sexual
union has a well-recognized meaning; it means "I find you
attractive"; "I care for you"; " I will try to work for
your happiness"; "I wish to have a deep bond with you." Some who
engage in sexual intercourse do not mean these things with their actions; they
wish simply to use another for their own sexual pleasure. They have lied with
their bodies in the same way as someone lies who says "I love you" to
another simply for the purposes of obtaining some favor from him or her.
It
is easy for us to want to have sexual intercourse with lots of people; but we
generally want to have babies with only one person. One is saying something
entirely different with one's body when one says "I want only to have
sexual pleasure with you" and when one says "I am willing to be a
parent with you." In fact, one of the most certain ways to distinguish
simple sexual attraction from love is to think about whether all you want from
another person is sexual pleasure, or whether you would like to have a baby
with him or her. We generally are truly in love with those with whom we want to
have babies; we do want our lives totally tied up with theirs. We want to
become one with them in the way in which having a baby makes us one with
another -- our whole lives are intertwined with theirs; we buy diapers with
them, and give birthday parties, and pay for college and plan weddings. A
noncontracepted act of sexual intercourse says again just what our marriage
vows say "I am yours for better or worse, in sickness and health, till
death do us part." Having babies with another is to share a lifetime
endeavor with another.
A
sexual act open to the possibility of procreation ideally represents the kind
of bond to which spouses have committed themselves. Contraceptives, however,
convey the message that while sexual intercourse is desired, there is no desire
for a permanent bond with the other person. The possibility of an everlasting
bond has been willfully removed from the very act designed to best express the
desire for such a relationship. It reduces the sexual act to a lie.
Contraception, then, is an offense against one's body, against one's God, and against one's relationship with one's spouse.
But
must spouses have as many children as is physically possible? This has never
been the teaching of the Church. Spouses are expected to be responsible about
their child-bearing, to bring forth children that they can raise well. But the
means used to limit family size must be moral. Methods of Natural Family
Planning are very effective means and moral means for planning one's family;
for helping spouses to get pregnant when they want to have a child and for
helping them to avoid having a child when it would not be responsible to have a
child. NFP allows couples to respect their bodies, obey their God, and fully
respect their spouses.
Natural
Family Planning is not the out-moded rhythm method, a method which was
based on the calendar. Rather, NFP is a highly scientific way of determining
when a woman is fertile based on observing various bodily signs. The couple who
want to avoid a pregnancy, abstain from sexual intercourse during the fertile
period. The statistics on the reliability of NFP rival the most effective forms
of the Pill. And NFP is without the health risks and it is moral.
Couples using NFP find that it has positive results for their marital relationships and their relationship with God. When couples are abstaining during the fertile period they are not thwarting the act of sexual intercourse since they are not engaging in sexual intercourse. When they are engaging in sexual intercourse during the infertile period they are not withholding their fertility since they do not have it to give at that time. They learn to live in accord with the natural rhythms of their body. In a word, use of NFP may involve non-procreative acts, but never, as with contraception, anti-procreative acts.
Many
find it odd that periodic abstinence should be beneficial rather than harmful
to a marriage. But abstinence can be another way of expressing love, as it is
between those who are not married, or between those for whom engaging in sexual
intercourse involves a significant risk. Certainly most who begin to use NFP,
especially those who were not chaste before marriage and who have used
contraception, generally find the abstinence required to be a source of some
strain and irritability. Abstinence, of course, like dieting or any form of
self-restraint, brings its hardships; but like dieting and other forms of
self-denial, it also brings its benefits. And after all, spouses abstain for
all sorts of reasons -- because one or the other is out of town or ill, for
instance.
Spouses
using NFP find that the method helps them learn to communicate better with each
other -- and abstinence gives them the opportunity to do so. As they learn to
communicate their affection in non-genital ways and as they learn to master
their sexual desires, they find a new liberation in the ability to abstain from
sexual intercourse. Many find that an element of romance reenters the
relationship during the times of abstinence and an element of excitement
accompanies the reuniting. They have gained the virtue of self-mastery since
now they can control their sexual desires rather than being in control of their
sexual desires. Women using NFP generally feel revered by their husbands since
their husbands do not make them use unhealthy and unpleasant contraceptives.
Men using NFP generally have greater self-respect since they have gained
control over their sexual desires and can now engage in sexual intercourse as
an act of love not as an act of mere sexual urgency. A proof that NFP is good
for a marriage is that whereas in the U.S. over fifty percent of marriages end
in divorce (and it is safe to assume that most of these couples are
contracepting), very, very few couples who use NFP ever divorce; they seem to
bond in a deeper way than those who are contracepting.
The
Church condemns contraception not because it wants to deny spouses sexual
pleasure but because it wants to help them find marital happiness and to help
them have happy homes for without these our well being as individuals and as a
society is greatly endangered. Section 18 of Humanae Vitae states:
.
. .it is not surprising that the Church finds herself a sign of
contradiction--just as was Christ, her Founder. But this is not reason for the
Church to abandon the duty entrusted to her of preaching the moral law firmly
and humbly, both the natural law and the law of the Gospel.
Since
the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot change them. She can
only be their guardian and interpreter; thus it would never be right for her to
declare as morally permissible that which is truly not so. For what is immoral
is by its very nature always opposed to the true good of Man.
By
preserving the whole moral law of marriage, the Church knows that she is
supporting the growth of a true civilization among men.
In
teaching that contraception is intrinsically immoral, the Church is not
imposing a disciplinary law on Catholics; she is preaching only what nature and
the gospel preach. By now we should have learned -- the hard way -- that to
defy and overindulge our sexual nature, to go against the laws of nature and
God, is to inflict terrible damage on ourselves as individuals and our society
as a whole.
Home
3366
NW Expressway - Bldg. D, Suite 630 - Oklahoma City, OK 73112
Phone:
405.942.4084 - Fax: 405.942.4022
E-mail:
nfpoutreach@worldnet.att.net
Tell
them you read it on FaithfulVoice.com
or