The Evil of Contraception

Priests for Life ^ | Fr. Frank Pavone

[Polycarp IV]

The Evil of Contraception

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director, Priests for Life

Since Roe vs. Wade, there have been three versions of the "Pastoral Plan for Pro-life Activities" issued by the US Catholic Bishops. The latest came out in November, 2001. In this third version, for the first time, the connection between abortion and contraception is explicitly discussed.

There are many aspects to this connection. First of all, some contraceptives cause abortions, and hence are not contraceptives at all. It is critical, moreover, to understand - - as the Pope points out in "The Gospel of Life" -- that abortion and contraception are specifically different evils that differ in nature and gravity. Abortion takes a human life; contraception distorts the meaning of human sexuality. Both are always morally wrong.

Contraception, strictly considered as preventing fertilization, is one of many factors leading to an increase of abortion in our world. As the bishops write, "...[S]ome promote widespread use of contraception as a means to reduce abortions and even criticize the Church for not accepting this approach. It is noteworthy that as acceptance and use of contraception have increased in our society, so have acceptance and use of abortion. Couples who unintentionally conceive a child while using contraception are far more likely to resort to abortion than others."

As Fr. Paul Marx, OSB, and I often discussed, there is no culture or subculture in the world that has permitted contraception and then has not gone on to permit abortion.

The ultimate root of the evil of contraception is that it denies that God is God. The attitude behind it is, "I am the one who ultimately decides whether a human being will come into the world."

As a result of that attitude, one thinks he or she can then change the meaning of sexual intimacy by holding back its life-giving power. Obviously, the same activity by which people express the deepest physical intimacy also can give rise to a new life. Did you ever wonder why God put these two aspects together in the same action? Could he not have invented one action to express love and intimacy, and another, separate action to bring about new life? Is it an accident that both belong to the same act, or did God run out of ideas?

Neither, of course. God acted with a deliberate and wise plan in creating human sexuality. His plan says that when one human being gives him/herself totally to another, that total "yes" includes a "yes" to new life. The partners put themselves in a stance of readiness. "Lord of my life and my body, in giving my body to another, I give my fertility, and I accept my partner's fertility. I am ready to accept your gift. Now I leave it up to you, my Lord, as to whether you will actually give that gift at this time."

As Dr. Bernard Nathanson explains, it is not that contraception causes abortion; rather, both are caused by the perversion of autonomy -- taking freedom and using it to stop rather than to welcome life.

Comments on this column? Email us at mail@priestsforlife.org, Priests for Life, PO Box 141172, Staten Island, NY 10314; Tel: 888-PFL-3448, 718-980-4400; Fax: 718-980- 6515; web: www.priestsforlife.org

[Polycarp IV]

Oh well, the talk I attended was at a Catholic Medical Association conference. It was excellent. I hope she wasn't talking down to the crowd at the talk you attended, afraid to overwhelm them with philosophical jargon.

[sitetest]

Dear Maximilian,

"I find the same problem with all these articles: there is no reference to any Church teaching prior to Humanae Vitae. Was the Catholic Church invented in 1968? Where is St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, great moral theologians like St. Alphons Ligouri, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, even (shudder) Vatican II? It seems that they've all be relegated to the memory hole."

I agree.

What ultimately persuaded me of the Church's position was not Humanae Vitae in isolation, nor even of any particular teaching. But by learning about ALL the teachings condemning artificial contraception, I eventually had to ask the question, "How can I deny that this is the constant, consistent teaching of the authoritative Magisterium of the Catholic Church, stretching all the way back nearly to the Apostles?"

Which raised another question, "How can this not be a binding teaching? How is this not virtually the model of binding teaching of the ordinary Magisterium?"


sitetest

[old and tired]

However, its a bit disengenuous to demand same from an article aimed at an entirely different audience.

Who is her audience? Is it college students she is trying to prevent from committing the sin of fornication, or is it married or engaged couples? I'm having a tough time discerning just who this talk was aimed at.

[Polycarp IV]

The talk I attended was for physicians. The article I posted here was published for general Joe-six-pack in the pews Catholics, who are not well grounded in the systematic philosophical terminology she used in the talk I attended.

I do not know where or when or what type of forum in which Max heard her speak, but I doubt it was one generally well enough catechised in the Faith and basic philosophical terminology to provide the type of talk Max is demanding here.

[Maximilian]

I hope she wasn't talking down to the crowd at the talk you attended, afraid to overwhelm them with philosophical jargon.

We peons probably were not given the benefit of the same philosophical jargon delivered to podiatrists. Not, by the way, that jargon would make one's ideas any more systematic.

[Polycarp IV]

Is it college students

She is a professor of philosophy, and teaches both college and graduate level philosophy. I'm sure she tailors her talks for each audience, and thus it might be a mistake to mischaracterize her talks in general based on those only intended for laity who are simply searching for guidelines, not a philosophy course.

[old and tired]

I could see that not only were her ideas muddled, but she was not presenting an authentic alternative to contraception. Instead she was mostly shilling for NFP.

This is really my problem with the NFPer's. It all really just seems like Catholic Birth Control. I think that that mentality contributes to our overly planned, everything has to be my way culture of death that pervades our existence.

I think if everyone remembered that any sexual act, whether contracepted or not, could result in a child, there'd be a lot less promiscuity and abortions out there.

[Polycarp IV]

The conference I attended was for MDs. I'm fairly certain I was the only foot doc in attendance, but thanks for pointing that out.

[Maximilian]

The article I posted here was published for general Joe-six-pack in the pews Catholics, who are not well grounded in the systematic philosophical terminology she used in the talk I attended.

This hypothesis seems highly unlikely. I notice that your post contains a copyright from Homiletic and Pastoral Review. If there is any audience in the US that could be considered "well grounded in the systematic philosophical terminology" it would be the readers of HPR. Much more so than doctors.

Nor does "terminology" make one's ideas systematic. Either you are able to think clearly or you are not. Adding "philosophical jargon" to a muddled talk only makes it more unintelligible.

[Polycarp IV]

This is really my problem with the NFPer's. It all really just seems like Catholic Birth Control.

I hate to admit it, but more and more this seems to be the case in the NFP movement.

Which is one of the reasons, among others, my wife and I decided to no longer teach NFP.

[Polycarp IV]

The article I posted here was published for general Joe-six-pack in the pews Catholics, who are not well grounded in the systematic philosophical terminology she used in the talk I attended.

This hypothesis seems highly unlikely. I notice that your post contains a copyright from Homiletic and Pastoral Review. If there is any audience in the US that could be considered "well grounded in the systematic philosophical terminology" it would be the readers of HPR. Much more so than doctors.

Good point. I stand corrected. Thank you.

[Maximilian]

I'm sure she tailors her talks for each audience, and thus it might be a mistake to mischaracterize her talks in general based on those only intended for laity who are simply searching for guidelines, not a philosophy course.

But if this were true, wouldn't it make sense to be sure that your talk for ordinary laity would more logical and orderly, not less? For a less sophisticated audience, shouldn't your presentation adhere more closely to a logical outline if you want them to grasp the concepts?

In comparison, I attended the 13-week lecture series by Dr. Tom Drolesky called "Living in the Shadow of the Cross." Every minute of those 39 hours was so logically and precisely presented that the outline just wrote itself on my paper. Formerly ambiguous concepts became clear. Seemingly unrelated concepts were now seen in relation to each other.

The biggest advantage of a logical presentation is that it is much easier to remember. In contrast, it is virtually impossible to remember a talk that meanders. If one can go over the outline of a talk in one's mind, it is easy to recall the various sub-points and details that supported each item. But if the presentation jumps back and forth and frequently changes topics, there is no mnemonic device to aid recall.

[Polycarp IV]

Certainly. Now we must flog Dr. Smith and burn her efforts because she uses post-conciliar texts and documents. And I always liked her, too, darn it.

[Maximilian]

Whew. Good thing you got that taken care of, or I might have missed the main point of the thread. :)

Thanks for the chuckle. But I do have to wonder what the main point of the thread is. I suppose that for some people it is that "contraception is evil." But for me, it's that arguments such as the ones posted above that are not based on the ordinary magisterium which means what has been taught always and everywhere are doomed to continue the same failure that we have witnessed since 1968.

I'm very glad to see that at least sitetest and old&tired agree with me on this point since in the past I've usually had that position all to myself on these threads.

[Maximilian]

Now we must flog Dr. Smith and burn her efforts because she uses post-conciliar texts and documents.

Flogging and burning might be a tad excessive. But we might ask that she do a better job representing Thomistic philosophers by:
1. Knowing and using traditional sources.
2. Thinking logically.
3. Presenting the truth of Catholic doctrine and not something designed to appeal to her audiences.
4. Offering a truly Catholic alternative to the prevailing contraceptive mentality.

Let me add in her defense that on point 4 she made a lot of progress in the talk I heard. She greatly de-emphasized NFP and strongly encouraged large families.

[Maximilian]

If this thread gets even one lurker to re-think his ideas on contraception, then it will have done some good.

That is precisely the pragmatic kind of thinking that has prevailed in the Church since Humanae Vitae, and in the pro-life movement since Roe vs. Wade. How many times have you heard, "If we can save just one life..."?

But evil may never be done that good can come of it. We may never abandon our principles, not even to save a life. We can act to save one life by doing something inherently good and charitable, but never by admitting that it's okay to kill some other babies. Presenting muddled justifications for the Church's ban on contraception may not rise to the level of "evil," but like the pragmatic approaches to the pro-life movement, it represents an abandonment of principle.

The most authoritative document on marriage ever issued by the Catholic Church is the encyclical "Casti Connubii" by Pope Pius XI. He taught definitively that the reason why contraception is wrong is because it violates the primary purpose of marriage which is the procreation and education of children. Where do you see that principle enunciated in any of the several articles that were posted to start this thread? Nowhere.

So the reality is that essential Catholic principles have been abandoned. This can never lead to good, only to evil.

[old and tired]

Now we must flog Dr. Smith and burn her efforts because she uses post-conciliar texts and documents

I don't really think that's fair.

I seriously wonder if saying things like (contraceptors) resent the unborn child for intruding itself upon their lives, and they turn to the solution of abortion makes her lose all credibility.

Think about how many couples you know who were surprised by a new life. Are their children really loved less?

I know there are many who disagree, but I think if NFP is to be discussed at all, it should only be in a religious context. There is no point to giving non-religious reasons why NFP is better than condoms, because nobody can go inside a marriage and deem one couple's motivations pure and another's selfish without first defining God's wishes for the couple.

[redgolum]

We definatly want to have kids. Both of us love children, and do to some of the details of Luthern theology (single predestination, which is another thread), I believe children to be an awesome responsibility and gift. My wife to be (raised Catholic by the way) and I have talked about it, and she wants to wait a year or so before starting to have kids. Mostly for us to get to know each other. We look forward to the chance to raise up some little ones to love Jesus.

The question becomes on how to delay the births. As a man, birth control has not been something I have had to think about. Since I am not married, it wasn't on the radar screen. The LCMS is studying the various pills out there, and most of what I have heard is that the boys in St. Louis are trying to decide how much they should say on it. The one with an abortionfact action are verbotin, but some do (in my limited understanding) do not. We still have a ways to go before the wedding, and this will be something we discuss.

I do agree about getting married with the intent of not having children. Kind of defeats the purpose in a way, though I know many Godly Christian couples that do not have any children.

By the way CathFam, is a "Good Lutheran" like the proverbial "good German"? (Joke)