Contraception: Why It's Wrong

Catholic Culture ^ | 3/15/2007 | Dr. Jeff Mirus

[markomalley]

The recent debate over contraception between Fr. Thomas Euteneuer of Human Life International and nationally syndicated talk-show host Sean Hannity has brought to center stage an issue which most Americans—and most Catholics—simply do not understand. Let’s review what’s wrong with contraception.

The intrinsic moral issue of artificial contraception is a marriage issue. Contraception has little or no intrinsic moral relevance outside of marriage. This contributes to the difficulty our culture has in understanding the problem, because our culture doesn’t understand marriage either. After all, only about half of all couples are formally married. For this reason, it is perhaps best to start with what we might call the extrinsic moral issues associated with contraception, which apply to all sexual relations.

The Consequences of Contraception

I am using the word “extrinsic” to apply to the consequences of contraception as opposed to its own essential moral character. Catholics are not consequentialists, and we don’t determine the morality of an act by attempting to foresee all its consequences. But we do determine the prudence of an act by assessing its potential consequences. For this reason, it is highly instructive to examine the extrinsic moral issues associated with contraception.

Even morally neutral acts can have good or bad consequences and should be selected or avoided accordingly. It is a morally neutral act, for example, to dam a river, but one wants to be pretty sure of the consequences before one builds the dam. So too, many moralists have argued (I believe correctly) that contraception is morally neutral in itself when considered outside of marriage. But contraception suppresses the natural outcome of sexual intercourse, and in so doing it has two immediate and devastating consequences.

First, it engenders a casual attitude toward sexual relations. An action which, because of the possibility of conceiving a child, makes demands on the stability of the couple is stripped by contraception of its long-term meaning. The mutual commitment of a couple implied by the very nature of this intimate self-giving is now overshadowed by the fact that the most obvious (though not necessarily the most important) reason for that commitment has been eliminated. This clearly contributes to the rise of casual sex, and the rise of casual sex has enormous implications for psychological and emotional well-being, personal and public health, and social cohesion.

Second, it shifts the emphasis in sexual relations from fruitfulness to pleasure. Naturally-speaking, the sexual act finds its full meaning in both emotional intimacy and the promise of offspring. For human persons, sex is clearly oriented toward love and the creation of new life. By eliminating the possibility of new life and the permanent bonding it demands, contraception reduces the meaning of human sexuality to pleasure and, at best, a truncated or wounded sort of commitment. Moreover, if the meaning of human sexuality is primarily a meaning of pleasure, then any sexual act which brings pleasure is of equal value. It is no surprise that pornography and homosexuality have mushroomed, while marriage has declined, since the rise of the “contraceptive mentality”. Abortion too has skyrocketed as a backup procedure based on the expectation that contracepton should render sex child-free. All of this, too, is psychologically, emotionally and physically damaging, as well as destructive of the social order.

The Intrinsic Evil of Contraception

Now all of these evil consequences apply both inside and outside of marriage. Within marriage, however, there is an intrinsic moral problem with contraception quite apart from its horrendous consequences. Outside of marriage, sexual relations are already disordered. They have no proper ends and so the frustration of these ends through contraception is intrinsically morally irrelevant. Outside of marriage, contraception is to be avoided for its consequences (consequences surely made worse by the difficulty of psychologically separating contraception from its marital meaning). But within marriage, the context changes and the act of contraception itself becomes intrinsically disordered.

Within the context of marriage, the purposes of sexual intercourse are unitive and procreative (as Pope Paul VI taught in his brilliant and prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae). It is worth remembering that there is no proper context for sexual intercourse apart from marriage; this is why it is impossible for human persons to psychologically separate contraception from the marital context. But the point here is that marriage has certain ends (the procreation of children, the stability of society, the mutual happiness of the couple, and their mutual sanctification) and so does sex within marriage. The purposes of the marital act are the procreation of children and the progressive unification of the spouses. These two purposes are intimately related, for it is through marriage that a man and a woman become “two in one flesh”, both through sexual relations and, literally, in their offspring.

It is intrinsically immoral to frustrate either of these purposes. Let me repeat this statement. It is immoral to choose deliberately to frustrate either the unitive or the procreative ends of marital intercourse. It is immoral to make of your spouse an object of your pleasure, to coerce your spouse, or to engage in sexual relations in a manner or under conditions which communicate callousness or contempt. These things frustrate the unitive purpose. It is also immoral to take deliberate steps to prevent an otherwise potentially fruitful coupling from bearing fruit. This frustrates the procreative purpose.

Related Issues

Because it causes so much confusion, it is necessary to state that it is not intrinsically immoral to choose to engage in sexual relations with your spouse at times when these relations are not likely to be fruitful. The moral considerations which govern this decision revolve around the obligation married couples have to be genuinely open to children insofar as they can provide for their material well-being and proper formation. There is nothing in this question of timing that frustrates the purposes of a particular marriage act.

Statistically, couples who avoid contraception find that their marriages are strengthened, their happiness increased, and their health improved. Some of these considerations are topics for another day. But Fr. Euteneuer is clearly correct and Sean Hannity is clearly wrong. Contraception is a grave evil within marriage and has grave consequences not only within marriage but outside of marriage as well. Both individual couples and society as a whole will mature into deeper happiness by freeing themselves from the false promises of contraception, and from its moral lies.

[TradicalRC]

If you are to condemn one form of regulation, all must be condemned if you are knowingly trying NOT to conceive.

The converse being that if you condone one form of sexual pleasure, then you must condone all forms. I always hated Plato...

[AnalogReigns]

As an evangelical Presbyterian, although I would have preferred to hear a case built on the bible first, rather than simply logic, however, I cannot find fault in Dr. Miris's clear and cogent reasoning. The more I see the fruits of easy sex (I hate to call it the "sexual revolution")--which historically directly follows the availability of contraception, with the culture of death from abortion also quickly following, the more I'm considering that the Roman position on contraception may well indeed be the most godly one.

Still I would think the issue for American Roman Catholic curia would be to find a way to make their case more compelling to average American Roman Catholics (like Sean Hannity) who, I believe, seem to approve of and use contraception as much as those of other faiths. That disconnect, of official Roman teaching, verses, typical lay practice, is one serious issue that evangelicals like I have with Roman Catholicism.

[Scotswife]

"There are ways to do this while still preserving the respect for the sexual act that the Church requires."

Really?
You learn something new everyday!
Dare I ask how this is done? Or will it make me squirm thinking of the pain?

"If you are talking about as foreplay, then absolutely. If you are talking about a sexual act in and of itself, then no"

I remember a thread where the question was a "session" that involved a sequence of acts.
I think the point being made was they thought they were not "contracepting" because by the end of the session intercourse had occurred, but after other acts - including os had occurred as well.
So...the man "completed" both ways.

If I remember right, they were told this was a no-no.

[Scotswife]

Mrs VS

you seem to articulate some of my problems better than I can.

this statement stood out to me...


" The arguments against it are mystical, which does not invalidate them. "

when I read the arguments against it the language is lofty and theoretical but I find myself thinking..."most people don't talk to each other like this or think in this manner"

Which - like you say - doesn't invalidate the argument, and maybe it would be nice if more people did talk and think like this - but it just seem out of reach - out of touch.

Maybe my husband and I should get to a place where we say to each other "let us give our whole selves to each other in mutual total self giving accepting each others' fertility"
But that isn't happening right now.

Sort of like the difference between learning theoretical principles in textbooks, versus going out in the real world and living it.

"The arguments for its possible morality when considering the total relationship have weight for me."

yes - the relationship as a whole.
When I consider what is more harmful - contracepting? celibacy?

I imagine celibacy would be very harmful.

[Scotswife]

This is what happens to women when they tell their man there won't be any sex....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1804745/posts


(just kidding)

[mockingbyrd]

Dare I ask how this is done? Or will it make me squirm thinking of the pain?

From what I have heard from friends who are going through some very trying fertility issues, there's no pain involved. A sample is gathered after love making. My impression was that something like a condom was used, but that it allowed some semen escape while retaining some.

But I have to admit, I didn't ask any clarifying questions. ;)

As to the other issue, hubby and I have asked about that as well, and I was left with the impression that it's a no-no as well.

[Scotswife]

"A sample is gathered after love making"

ohhh! ok. that's much better than what I was thinking.
I was imagining some awful procedure involving a long needle sticking in places where no one wants a needle.

"As to the other issue, hubby and I have asked about that as well, and I was left with the impression that it's a no-no as well."

it isn't like people who do this are trying to contracept - they're probably even conceiving during such activities.
Sometimes I think people get too technical with this teaching.
But then again - my opinion doesn't really matter! :)

[VeritatisSplendor]

There is no question that contraception has led to some bad things - fornication by those who would formerly have been deterred by the risks; the notion that using contraception is the same as having a right not to be pregnant, hence abortion; birth rates that are too low in some parts of the world; the idea of procreation as an optional part of marriage, etc.

You could also name good things - women not worn down by childbearing and childrearing, families not having more children than they can provide for, women being able to enter other spheres than motherhood - couples being able to have this and the closeness, pleasure, release of intercourse.

Guns facilitate plenty of bad things. Horrible, immoral, unChristian things. Not many people here would say, ban guns.

You are right that there is a vast disconnect between the teaching of the Church and the ordinary Catholic. I am not sure how it can be bridged.

Mrs VS

[klossg]

The arguments for its possible morality when considering the total relationship have weight for me.

What are the issues/parts of the total relationship that Contraception provides that NFP does not provide?

[klossg]

That disconnect, of official Roman teaching, verses, typical lay practice, is one serious issue that evangelicals like I have with Roman Catholicism.

I see the disconnect. But I do not see how truth and human beings failing to follow truth makes truth any less true or less compelling.

Most human beings have a disconnect from what Christ teaches: i.e. love thy neighbor as thyself, love God with all thy heart ... blessed are the meek ... give thy possessions to the poor and follow me ... love thy enemy ... pray for those who persecute thee ...

If we all followed Christ's teachings more closely there would be little discussion on such matters and more unity. If you wait for more Catholics, or anyone else for that matter, to follow this teaching, you will simply be a follower of Catholics and not of the truth.

Heck we both know that only grace can allow anyone to follow Christ, regardless of his denomination. I'd rather be with you in truth, than against you in almost truth. Christ has provided the grace sufficient for all of us to follow the truth. We simply must accept it.

although I would have preferred to hear a case built on the bible first, rather than simply logic

Do yourself a favor and get an audio tape by Christopher West on John Paul II's "Theology of the Body". The Theology of the Body is based on the bible from Genesis to the Gospels.

[Princip. Conservative]

I'm not Catholic and I really don't have a problem with contraception, providing that it's not something that could be destructive to an embryo. By that, I mean that condoms used in marriage seems perfectly okay to me.

[VeritatisSplendor]

Multiple measures provide more certainty - 1-2% chance of pregnancy with NFP X 2% chance with barrier methods = 0.04% chance of pregnancy - same principle holds true with any set of independent safeguards for anything. Sterilization would provide even more certainty - and I am not sure why when pregnancy itself is a threat to health and life, it may not be surgically prevented - when licit treatments for other conditions, e.g. fibroids, do sterilize. Fibroids are rarely life-threatening.

John Paul says in Love and Responsibility that abstaining during the fertile time is difficult for the woman - her desire is strongest then. He is right. It is even possible that the woman will experience NO desire when she isn't fertile. Using NFP to not conceive means that the woman can not offer her husband the gift of her strongest desire - or sometimes any desire at all. In these circumstances, her pleasure and fulfillment are likely much diminished.

Some couples experience difficulty and resentment when they have to wait two weeks plus. A very devout nurse, of about forty, told me that she and her husband were now doing NFP but they could not have managed when they were younger.

Saint Paul said it is better to marry than to burn. Sometimes we are called to be married and to burn - as when spouses are apart from each other. To do so when they are together - some might call that perverse.

Mrs VS

[old and tired]

Mrs. VS, I think you have done a tremendous job on this thread outlining why the average couple in the pew is not convinced by NFP is ok, but contraception is not. You've stated the only credible, really convincible argument: The traditions of the Church do have weight with me - rationally speaking, the Church is more likely to be right than I am.

[Scotswife]

"Using NFP to not conceive means that the woman can not offer her husband the gift of her strongest desire - or sometimes any desire at all. In these circumstances, her pleasure and fulfillment are likely much diminished."

absolutely correct. And after time the man can get the impression his wife no longer finds him desireable and she becomes resentful the only period of time sex is enjoyable to her - is no longer available.

"A very devout nurse, of about forty, told me that she and her husband were now doing NFP but they could not have managed when they were younger."

even when we were doing our very best to abide by the NFP rules - there were still many many trips to the confessional with the exact same problem.

"Saint Paul said it is better to marry than to burn. Sometimes we are called to be married and to burn - as when spouses are apart from each other. To do so when they are together - some might call that perverse."

I've often pondered the meaning of that verse.

[klossg]

Multiple measures provide more certainty





John Paul says in Love and Responsibility that abstaining during the fertile time is difficult for the woman

Great point! This is a difference between NFP and Contraception. And just so we are clear ... the woman isn't the only one it is difficult for. John Paul also indicates it is difficult for the man, and not just during the fertile period. And I can attest to that personally. It takes two to make a good thing right. (Isn't that a song from the late 80s?)

It is even possible that the woman will experience NO desire when she isn't fertile.

My wife can attest to this. This condition makes a husband have to work harder and longer, which isn't a terrible thing. A husband who knows NFP knows this and should do his best to compensate for this. It helps him understand more about his wife and her identity/composition. It is where she is at. And anyway, men like challenges. If the same couple were to use contraception, the woman would have no desire during the infertile time and the husband would not know it and might take it personal that she doesn't want to have sex.

I repeat what you wrote for clarity: It is even possible that the woman will experience NO desire when she isn't fertile.

Your point is directed toward contraception being better for marriage and sex than NFP, yet it also makes a point against hormonal contraceptives in marriage. The pill makes a woman non fertile via hormone manipulation. The irony of it is, as you say "It is even possible that the woman will experience NO desire when she isn't fertile", meaning, when on the pill it is all the time!

Saint Paul said it is better to marry than to burn. ... Sometimes we are called to be married and to burn - as when spouses are apart from each other. To do so when they are together - some might call that perverse.

Some might say it is perverse but not Saint Paul ... in the same letter (1 Cor), same chapter Paul says "I tell you, brothers, the time is running out. From now on, let those having wives act as not having them, those weeping as not weeping, those rejoicing as not rejoicing, those buying as not owning, those using the world as not using it fully. For the world in its present form is passing away." In the context of the letter itself, St. Paul would not call NFP perverse at all. In fact he would probably call it virtuous in comparison to contraception.

Again in the same letter, same chapter, Paul writes again, ... possibly foreshadowing NFP ... "The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband. (As we both indicate and the Church indicates when it talks of the "unitive" aspect of marriage) A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife. Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control."

I love St. Paul. He accomplished so much for so many.

[VeritatisSplendor]

Ha! I like the outfits!

Hormonal contraception could not be licit because it is potentially abortifacient. But yes, there were some recent studies confirming what some women on the Pill had noticed - some do lose their desire, and that this can persist even after stopping the Pill.

As you say, men have to restrain themselves even when their desire is high - but they get to indulge when desire is high also - that carries over into the waiting time. If a woman never gets to indulge when desire is high, that carries over into the rest of her life.

In a state of NO desire (a state I have experienced after childbirth for a few months - it's hormonal, and what a strange way of looking at the world it is) desire is literally a foreign concept, intercourse a laughable custom, and arousal impossible. You don't miss it. Attempts to arouse would be unpleasant or annoying - the wife would rather have her husband just get it over with. A sensible and sensitive husband will wait it out. Now imagine this lasting not for months - but for years.

With low desire, no matter how attentive, loving, patient, and skilled the husband is, he may not be able to fully compensate for his wife's hormonal state, just as a wife might not overcome her husband's impotence if there were a physical cause. And in both cases, they would miss what they lack.

Telling couples who are having trouble with NFP for whatever reason, "If you do this and that, your problems will be over. It's worked for me and a lot of people I know," would be like me telling a couple who is having trouble conceiving even though they know NFP, "If you do this when the signs are that way, you'll get pregnant. It's always worked for me."

Paul says "Do not deprive each other, except...to be free for prayer." You could use that against the NFP only argument.

Paul writes as if the end of days is near. It's strange - for the sake of heaven, we must live as if the world would end tomorrow, and for the sake of creation and those entrusted to us, we must live as though the world will endure for eons.

Mrs VS

[Scotswife]

I remember reading advice a priest was giving a man who was "gay' in that he was only attracted to men but was trying to live by Church teaching.

The priest explained how the inclination itself was not sinful but acting on it sexually was.

The man was not only concerned about his sexuality but also about companionship - being able to share his life with someone even if he were not committing sexual acts.

The response from the priest was that it would not be sinful to cohabitate with another man as long as they lived as brothers, but he strongly did not recommend that arrangement because it most likely required super human resolve to resist temptation if they both possessed healthy levels of desire.
He thought it invited too much "occasion for sin" for a person to handle.

I think of that article often as it relates to married couples practicing NFP especially now that it appears my husband and I are supposed to avoid sex 90% of the time.

After 2 decades of being together we are supposed to switch gears and become celibate? And we're supposed to continue living together under these conditions -as any other arrangement would be detrimental to the family as a whole.

No priest is going to advise us "maybe you too should live apart as the temptation will be too great for you to handle."

So the idea that we are expected to have superhuman resolve and never again enjoy our "peak" time - but still be expected to live together for the sake of the kids...this does seem twisted and perverse.

I read the arguments - and they sound lovely - but they don't address the reality of my situation.

I truly think that celibacy would harm the marriage, and I'm not going to do that.

[mockingbyrd]

I don't know what to say to you, but that your post makes me very sad, for you. It is a heavy cross, and I am so sorry that you have to carry it.

You are in my prayers, and I am sure the prayers of numerous other FReepers. You are not carrying this alone, we will take some small share of the burden, with our prayers. That's what the communion of saints is all about in my mind.

I don't have any other advice, being fairly new at this whole married thing, and well, got my own issues to resolve. Just know I am praying for you, and that God is merciful. And knows you heart better than you do yourself.

[Scotswife]

thank you dear.
you're very kind and I hope I don't scare the newly married.
I just figured I can't be the only who had had this experience with NFP and find oneself to be between a rock and a hard place.

I have tried to abide by the rules and never wanted to wind up a "cafeteria catholic"
So it seems a bit of a surprise to me to wind up where I am.

thank you for the prayers and God Bless your new marriage.
despite my struggles with this issue I consider my marriage to be the greatest blessing in my life.

[klossg]

Telling couples who are having trouble with NFP for whatever reason, "If you do this and that, your problems will be over. It's worked for me and a lot of people I know," would be like me telling a couple who is having trouble conceiving even though they know NFP, "If you do this when the signs are that way, you'll get pregnant. It's always worked for me."

You are right. This is the earth. Many times the glass is at least half empty.

It is amazing that God would come to earth and die horribly on a cross for love when He could have chosen "the Last Temptation." Smashing death and sin via its own strength. Suffering accepted has brought about ultimate joy for sinners! The Lamb of God, the first born male, unblemished lives the passover for our sins. And then we consume that Lamb and drink His blood. God is so glorious.

In the end, in some individual cases, a marriage is based on acceptance of you say "no matter how attentive, loving, patient, and skilled the husband is, he may not be able to fully compensate for his wife's hormonal state."

It is good that you have shown me that it is just NFP and not a sacrament. NFP is just NFP. It is birth control and not Contraception and it cannot make all things new. Only Christ can do so.

You lost me with "Paul says "Do not deprive each other, except...to be free for prayer." You could use that against the NFP only argument.

NFP allows for prayer during the time of abstinence, what do you mean? I do not understand. Do you imply that only prayer such as the Mass is allowed when a couple abstains? Do you think St. Paul meant that? If so, how?

With NFP, a couple has the choice of actually offering up one's desire for sexual intercourse. This is an opportunity for prayer. When one offers up his or her desires for the sake of other(s), one prays. No? In NFP, both the husband and the wife can offer up their "highest" desires for their love or for the other ... Instead of engaging in contraceptive sexual intercourse during the fertile time, the couple can mutually agree to pray with NFP and abstinence. Thus the same end is achieved ... no pregnancy. With NFP the fertile time is, as you (and St. Paul) have pointed out, a time to pray. With contraception the fertile time is a time to engage in forced-broken sexual intercourse. (Is that prayer?) The means are different but the end is the same.