The Fruits Of Contraception by Gary L. Morella

Nothing has so polarized Catholics as the Church’s teaching on birth control, specifically, the admonition against using any means of artificial contraception. From this single teaching has arisen gross distortions of many Church teachings on sin, in particular, arising from misused proportionalist arguments that confuse legitimate concepts of moral theology such as the "principle of double effect" with a skewed application whereby contraception is equated with allowing an evil for a greater proportional good. The example usually given is one of a pregnant woman with cancer, who must be treated at the risk of her baby. The proportionalists tell us that it is perfectly all right to kill the baby in order to save the life of the mother. Nothing could be further from the truth in terms of Catholic moral theology, which clearly teaches that you can never do an evil for a greater good. The end does not justify the means.

Father William G. Most addressed the proportionalist claims in a short treatise entitled "Richard McCormick vs. the Pope." In it, Father Most observes that the Pope has missed the point per Fr. McCormick in "Veritatis Splendor and Moral Theology", in America, Oct 30, 1993, pp. 8-11. He says the Pope accuses the Proportionalists of saying what they do not really say.

Here is how it comes about. All, even Proportionalists, agree that there are three things that determine the morality of an action: object, end, and circumstances. The object is the nature of the thing just in itself, i.e., adultery is wrong, and we say that without reference to who does it. The end is the purpose of the one who does it. Circumstances vary widely.

McCormick insists that there is a problem of defining what is the object in specific cases, and thinks the Pope is inconsistent in the way in which he does that: "Just as not every killing is murder, not every falsehood is a lie, so not every artificial intervention preventing or promoting conception in marriage is necessarily an unchaste act."

His idea is that it is not always easy to define just which elements belong to the object. So in the case of killing, the object includes, he says, not just the mere physical act, but also the reason, e.g., killing in a just war is permissible. And in the case of lying, we may conceal the truth in diplomacy, for example, from those who have no right to it. Similarly, reasons McCormick, we should include enough in our definition of the object in speaking of contraception, or in speaking of gathering a sperm sample by self-stimulation for the sake of fertility testing.

So we need to look at each one of the proposed cases separately. We begin with killing. R. Friday in "Adults Making Responsible Moral Decisions" (National Conference of Directors of Diocesan Religious Education, 1979, 1986, 1992) says that killing is always objectively wrong - whether we kill a mosquito, or a turkey, or a human. The critical thing is our reason. If there is greater good to be had we call the act moral. Killing in itself is not immoral, just premoral.

Father Most points out that what these two theologians have not noticed is the reason why murder is wrong. It is not the physical act of taking a life that is wrong, no, it is the violation of the rights of God, the Supreme Lord of life. In killing a human without God's permission, we violate His rights. He does not object if we do it in capital punishment (cf. St. Paul in Romans 13:4) or in a just war. But otherwise we are violating God's rights if we kill a human. But there is no violation of God's rights if we kill a mosquito or a turkey. Why? God in Genesis made man the master of all lower creation. This, the best exegetes think, is what it means to say He created man in His own image and likeness. Just as God is the Lord of all, so God has made man Lord of lower creation.

Father Most turns to lying. Here McCormick's problem is an inadequate definition of lying, which has led to unfortunate solutions by talking of broad and strict mental reservations - not convincing to all. But here is a better definition: A lie is any statement, which, when properly interpreted, is known by the speaker to be false. In reading or speaking or hearing we do pay attention to the context. For the meaning of a sentence is not just the total of the dictionary meanings of the words used, but includes also the whole setting or context. So if mother sends a child to tell the salesman she is not home, it really means - and the salesman knows how people speak too - "Maybe she is here, maybe not, but if she is here, she does not want to see you."

Or to have intercontinental missiles in place amounts to saying: If you do this, I will do that. Yet John Paul II in a message to United Nations said this can be permitted when nothing better can be done. How? The context is war and relations between nations. No man in his right mind expects a nation to give away its military and strategic secrets. So the proper interpretation of a statement made in that context is: Zero. Everyone should know that.

But artificial means of preventing God from giving new life in intercourse according to His plan are something else. There the evil is in violating the rights of God, who has set up this system to produce life, and wants it to operate thus. To frustrate His plan is evil. It is not evil to cooperate with the means He Himself has built into the nature of things to space births.

Father Most concludes: the Pope is not guilty; Fr. McCormick is a bit

confused.

Let us return to the proportionalist argument of killing the child to save the life of the mother. The Rev. E. M. Robinson, O.P. in "Exception: To Save The Life Of The Mother", All About Issues, June-July 1991, specifically addresses the problem from the standpoint of Catholic moral theology. He states:

We now turn to the evidence against contraception from the "Dei Verbum" (Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church) to include comments from the early fathers and prominent Protestants.

Contraception

In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae that reemphasized the Church's constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use artificial birth control or contraception for the purpose of preventing new life.

Artificial birth control is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], 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" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal), the Pill, and all other methods of artificial contraception.

The Historic Christian teaching

Most people don't realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church's teaching and officially condemned contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Church capitulated to growing social pressure and announced that henceforth contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. That small crack quickly widened until the Anglican Church completely caved in on this issue, allowing contraception across the board. Since that time, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit, abandoning the historic Christian teaching against contraception and giving in to the permissive mores of secular society.

Today the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception. Fortunately, though, an increasing number of Protestants are realizing that contraception is contrary to the gospel and totally opposed to constant Christian teaching, and they are embracing the Catholic position). Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God's laws comes from a variety of sources:

Source #1: Nature

Contraception is wrong because it's a deliberate violation of the natural design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. This does not mean that God intends that married couples should not enjoy sexual intercourse. From the very beginning, starting with the early Church Fathers, Christians have recognized that the pleasure of sexual intercourse is an added blessing from God-one which has an important purpose: not only does it sometimes bring new life into the world, it strengthens the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. This strengthening of the spousal bond results in a stable and loving environment-the perfect setting in which children should be raised.

But sexual pleasure within marriage, as wonderful as this blessing is, becomes unnatural and even harmful to the spouses when it is used in a way that intentionally excludes the basic purpose of sex: procreation.

God wants married couples to enjoy sexual pleasure and intimacy (after all, that's why he designed the sexual act the way he did), but he does not want these blessings to be misused. It's serious abuse of God's gift of sexual intercourse to frustrate deliberately its basic purpose of procreation.

Source #2: Scripture

It's often thought that contraception is a modern invention and, therefore, a problem, which the writers of the Bible did not face. This is false. Birth control is nothing new; it's been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating back to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control practiced in the Roman Empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, amulets, potions, and many other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries even condoms were used (though made out of other natural materials, not latex).

The Bible mentions two forms of contraception specifically and condemns both of them. One, coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish custom of fathering children for one's dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, 'Go in to your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.' But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Genesis 38:8).

The Biblical penalty for not giving your brother's widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deuteronomy 25:7). But Onan suffered death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He was executed because of his violation of natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, artificial contraception has historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (Genesis 19).

Deuteronomy 23:1 condemns birth control by sterilization: "He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord." These were the methods of male sterilization that were available in those days.

Although the Bible rarely deals with contraception, Scripture condemns it where it mentions it at all, it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there's no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it's mentioned in the Bible (for "by the mouth of two or three witnesses a thing is confirmed," cf. Deuteronomy 19:15, 2 Corinthians

13:1), every particular form of birth control does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.

Source #3: Apostolic Tradition

The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation.

In 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slave or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).

St. Augustine wrote in 419: "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives] . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning, they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).

The strength of the apostolic tradition against contraception is so great that it was even carried on by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all of the key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther declared: "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him."

John Calvin said: "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."

John Wesley warned that, "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord--And it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls."

A BIRTH CONTROL QUIZ

1. What Church Synod issued a Bible commentary, which stated that contraception was the same as abortion?

2. What theologian declared in the 1500's that birth control was the murder of future persons?

3. What priest in the 1700's declared that taking "preventative measures" was unnatural and would destroy the souls of those who practiced it?

4. Who declared that birth control was sodomy?

5. What church group ruled in the 1600's that a church official found guilty of birth control was no longer allowed to hold his position?

6. What well-known theologian said, "We do not believe in what is termed 'birth control'"?

If you think that Roman Catholics made the above statements, then your quiz score is ZERO, repeat ZERO.

The answers are:

1. The Synod of Dort

2. John Calvin

3. John Wesley

4. Martin Luther

5. The Pilgrims

6. Arthur W. Pink

If you are shocked, that really is not too surprising, because Protestant opposition to birth control has largely been forgotten in our decadent Twentieth Century. If you want to know about Biblical principles which oppose contraception, or wish to know what the Reformers and their heirs thought about this important subject, you need to read

by Charles D. Provan

Zimmer Printing, 1989

Monongahela, PA 15063

[Ref. Provan]

"Nine Reasons Why the Bible Prohibits Birth Control"

1. "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:27-28)

2. "Children are a blessing from God: the more the better!"

(Psalm 127:3-5, 1 Chron. 25:4-5 & 26:4-5)

3. "Childlessness is an unfortunate thing."

(Hosea 9:10-178, Exod. 23:25-26)

4. "The Onan Incident"

(Gen 38:8-10, Deu. 25:5-10)

5. "Death penalties for sexual offenses"

(Lev. 20:13,15,16,18, Gen. 38:8-10)

6. "Castration as a blemish"

(Lev. 24:19-20, 21:17-20,22:20-22,24-25)

7. "Seed as semen or children"

(Heb. 7:9-10, Job 10:8-11)

8. "The Natural function of women"

(Rom. 1:25-27)

9. "Childbirth and salvation for women"

(1 Tim 2:11-15)

Source #4: The Magisterium

THE definitive position of the Church on birth control is given in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism tells it like it is. Anything other than natural means for regulating birth is a grave sin. Why is everyone afraid to tell the truth? Artificial contraception is a MORTAL SIN putting one in danger of perdition for eternity. There are no excuses. Ignorance cannot be claimed. The Catholic has full knowledge that the teaching of his Church forbids it; he consents to it and performs the forbidden act anyway. That is MORTAL SIN folks! There is no such thing as following one's conscience without it being informed via the teaching Magisterium of the Church on all matters of Faith and morals.

How ironic it is that Catholics get motivated when it comes to questions of abortion as they rightfully should but totally ignore the catalyst behind abortion - the fact that contraception varies directly with abortion everywhere it is tried. And why not, abortion is nothing more than failed contraception. We cannot even get seven "C"atholic senators to override a presidential veto so horrible it is beyond comprehension. Why is that? The answer is easy. Man has become God and it starts with contraception.

To suggest that patience is called for here in the name of some pseudo-idea of pastoral care totally ignores the fact that death comes like a thief in the night. Where is the ultimate responsibility for our clergy and those who teach in our schools? Is it directed to the natural, i.e., "we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings," or to the supernatural - the Last Things, the only reason for our creation. What ever happened to Matthew 18:6?

As Dr. Janet Smith has pointed out Pope Paul VI made four rather general "prophecies" about what would happen if the Church's teaching on contraception were ignored.

The Pope first noted that the widespread use of contraception would "lead to conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality." That there has been a widespread decline in morality, especially sexual morality, in the last 30 years, is very difficult to deny. The increase in the number of divorces, abortion, our-of-wedlock pregnancies, and venereal diseases should convince any skeptic that sexual morality is not the strong suit of our age.

There is no question that contraception is behind much of this trouble. Contraception has made sexual activity a much more popular option that it was when the fear of pregnancy deterred a great number of young men and women from engaging in premarital sexual intercourse. The availability of contraception has led them to believe that they can engage in premarital sexual activity "responsibly." But teenagers are about as responsible in their use of contraception as they are in all other phases of their lives- such as making their beds, cleaning their rooms and getting their homework done on time.

Paul VI also argued that "the man" will lose respect for "the woman" and "no longer (care) for her physical and psychological equilibrium" and will come to "the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment and no longer as his respected and beloved companion." This concern reflects what has come to be known as a "personalist" understanding of morality. The personalist understanding of wrongdoing is based upon respect for the dignity of the human person. The Pope realized that the Church's teaching on contraception is designed to protect the good of conjugal love. When spouses violate this good, they do not act in accord with their innate dignity and thus they endanger their own happiness. Treating their bodies as mechanical instruments to be manipulated for their own purposes, they risk treating each other as objects of pleasure.

Paul VI also observed that the widespread acceptance of contraception would place a "dangerous weapon... in the hands of those public authorities that take no heed of moral exigencies." The history of the family-planning programs in the Third World is a sobering testimony to this reality. In Third World countries many people undergo sterilization unaware of what they are doing. The forced abortion program in China shows the stark extreme toward which governments will take population programs. Moreover, few people are willing to recognize the

growing evidence that many parts of the world face not overpopulation, but underpopulation. It will take years to reverse the "anti-child" mentality now entrenched in many societies.

Pope Paul's final warning was that contraception would lead man to think that he had unlimited dominion over his own body. Sterilization is now the most widely used form of contraception in the U.S.; individuals are so convinced of their rights to control their own bodies that they do not hesitate to alter even their own physical make-up.

The desire for unlimited dominion over one's own body extends beyond contraception. The production of "test-tube babies" is another indication of the refusal to accept the body's limitations; so too are euthanasia and the use of organs transplanted from those who are "nearly" dead. We seek to adjust the body to our desires and timetables, rather than adjusting ourselves to its needs.

When man becomes the arbiter of when life begins it soon follows that man will

become the arbiter of when life ends - all in the name of a "limitless freedom" which doesn't exist except in the minds of the secularists. This is the inevitable legacy of a contraceptive society, which has embraced a "culture of death". Authentic freedom is doing what you ought in the light of perfect, absolute truth, not doing what you want. The former was recognized when slavery was abolished. The latter is called "license", something the Supreme Court overlooked in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey (1992) which redefined liberty to mean only what is chosen by the autonomous, unencumbered self.

Just what do you appeal to when another individual's liberty conflicts with your person or property? Casey raises the serious question as to whether any law can be enacted in pursuit of the common good as individual choice always takes precedence. In the matter of artificial birth control, we insignificant specks who would vanish from the scene if God forgot us for a nanosecond, have the unmitigated gall to tell God "we won't allow you the opportunity to create another human being with the chance to spend eternity with you in Heaven."

I would not want to explain that to an almighty, immutable God upon drawing my last breath. A God whose infinite Mercy has no meaning without equally His infinite justice.

Let us briefly examine the problems with Consequentialism and Proportionalism given that many arguments for contraception are centered on these concepts as "perfectly Catholic".

Consequentialism is inconsistent with Catholic teaching for two reasons: (1) At its very core it embraces a falsehood -- that things are right or wrong based on their measurable consequences; and, (2) Even supposing that God, who sees everything truly, can see a correlation between intrinsic moral rightness and overall good consequences (and vice versa), human beings aren't perceptive enough to assess all the consequences of anything, so it would be impossible to use consequentialism as a basis of moral decision-making.

Proportionalism is incompatible with Catholic moral teaching because it attempts to weigh incommensurable goods in arriving at a moral choice. For example, in the case of an elderly and very sick person whose death would open the way for a rich inheritance and tremendous opportunities for a younger person, a proportionalist would attempt to weigh the proportion of evil in the death of the one person against the proportion of good in the benefits of that death to the other person. But how much personal happiness or personal achievement or community service equals one life? The goods are incommensurable.

The origins of these two ethical systems, obviously grow out of modern man's effort to find a satisfying moral alternative to absolute right and wrong. The Pope treats these ideas extensively in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor.

Ultimately, both of these systems of moral reasoning fail because they refuse to recognize the reality that some things are intrinsically evil. This is what places them in opposition to Catholic teaching. For example, recognizing that abortion is nothing more than pre-natal euthanasia, euthanasia becomes very acceptable as post-natal abortion from a proportionalist standpoint. Sorry Grandpa, your time has come and gone, and now you must go on to the great nothing because you are taking up space for younger people whose time has come. The remainder of their lives is much longer in proportion to what you have left on this earth. So why don’t you just die, or better yet, we will make you see the need for your death so as not to be a burden on your family and society. And, if you do not see our line of reasoning on this matter, we will somehow just have to take care of you for "our" own good.