Posted on 03/19/2007 5:46:55 AM PDT by 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. |
You're right. I should have prefaced it with "The modern attitude is one of..."
I apologize.
I don't think that you want to say that the regulation of birth is evil in and of itself. God created the body to naturally regulate birth in its own way. God looked upon this creation and called it good, so you wouldn't want to say regulation of birth, per se, is evil.
Dear iranger,
"Wouldnt the analogy be more appropriate if it were talking about scientifically engineered foods vs natural foods as opposed to bulemia."
Analogies are never perfect, otherwise they wouldn't be analogies.
Nonetheless, I don't think that your analogy is as apt as what I've related.
"I mean we're not necessarily talking about gorging ourselves and then purging."
Sure we are.
Most contraceptive methods are sort of physically analogous to bulimic or anorectic acts, thus, these analogies work for me. In the case of some contraceptives, it's like chewing up the food, getting as much of the flavor as possible, and then spitting it out rather than swallowing it. In others, the contraceptive act literally expels after "consumption," and thus reminds me of bulimia.
However, it's interesting to me that you propose the analogy that you do. Frankly, I view the whole recourse to diet soda, artificially fat-reduced and fat-free food products, etc., in the effort to reduce/maintain weight to be nearly fraudulent. My own travails using these sorts of products have led me to reject them generally, as they did little to provide for me long-term physical health by helping me to achieve or maintain weight loss.
It is this separation of the natural means and ends that likely underlies the current epidemic of obesity. It is a change in mindset, in how we think about food, that has caused our problems. Not so long ago, food was first and foremost about maintaining life and health. We ate so that we did not starve. We often enjoyed what we ate, but for most human beings, the experience of starvation, of famine, was not so far off that we did not appreciate our food as sustenance first.
Only in the modern era in modern societies have we become so far removed from actual starvation that we've come to regard first the pleasurable aspects of food and eating. Only in our day and time is food so abundant and so cheap that most folks can focus on the pleasurable aspect of food and eating, almost to the complete neglect of food as sustenance.
Thus, we come to treat calories as enemies rather than as necessary to our survival.
Wow! That's BIZARRE when you think about it! For the first 3,999,950 years that humans have been around, we focused on absorbing as many calories as we possibly could, to avoid dying from starvation!
Now, we purposefully eat things that have REDUCED calorie counts!
We do things to negate the caloric content of what we eat, so that we can eat as much as we want without negative consequences.
Ironically, what folks are finding is that these "scientifically engineered" food products aren't quite doing what we expected. Ask me! I know! I can't count the number of low-fat and non-fat sweets and treats I ate in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I've drunk diet soda so long that I can no longer tolerate the syrupy sugariness of regular soda (so, mostly, I don't drink soda at all, anymore).
None of that stuff really did me much good. My own view is that some of it positively harmed me.
I don't want to stretch the analogy any further than we have, but today, I focus on eating stuff that's just naturally good for me. I just try to moderate what I eat, and I try to achieve healthful levels of physical activity.
It's a struggle, but my own experiences suggest strongly that there are generally no short-cuts to good health through the use of "scientifically engineered foods."
Ultimately, these seem to generally be as helpful as anorectic or bulimic acts.
It's unsurprising to me that the Church comes to the analogous conclusion with regard to sex.
sitetest
*************
Ok, I admit I haven't gotten much sleep lately, but what am I missing here? Isn't contraception a moral issue regardless of a couple's married state?
I honestly cannot comprehend seriously considering NOT taking very sure steps to ensure she not put herself at that kind of risk. And I don't even think Catholic teaching says one must continue to be open to children when there is known medical condition that would likely cause your wife's death. I'm not Catholic, but it seems to me the motive matters, and the method.
I cannot say I disagree with Church teaching so much as I have reached a point where I cannot live up to it.
You would think all sorts of "bad" things would be happening to my marriage - but it's not.
We aren't treating each other like disrespected objects, we haven't lost our love for each other, and the marriage is fine.
Maybe men were.
"As a Catholic, it's a question with which I struggled for years and years. Frankly, I've never found an intellectual argument that is wholly satisfying. My own view is that this is because my own intellect is clouded by sin."
I'm having a hard time digesting that something that is so difficult to explain can still send millions of couples into hellfire.
That's not why contraception is considered evil. There is nothing intrinsically evil about postponing conception. What is intriscially evil about contraception is the fact that it sterilizes the act of love between a husband and wife. Spouses are called to love in the image and likeness of the Father. That is, with a life giving love, full and complete. They are called to love one another completely and totally. With a sterilized sexual act, the couple does not love each other totally. They love each other up to a point. They do not love each other with a life giving love. If a couple does use a natural means of postponing conception, then they still accept each other completely, including their fertility. And they still love one another with a life giving love, there is nothing different between the love expressed between them then, and when a child is created. That's why contraception is intrinsically evil. It's not because a baby is not conceived.
Dear Kerretarded,
"I found your analogy helpful in understanding that we do have a choice,..."
Thanks!
"The spot at which I no longer found your analogy helpful is when you began to talk about finding a balance with having children as though the baby machine can be turned on when we want and off when we want."
I agree.
But I purposefully painted the "rosy scenario" to give some idea that our own modern approach may be a little bizarre, in that it seems to me that modern men typically permit the tail of birth regulation to wag the dog of marital relations.
"Your plan and God's plan sometimes differ."
Absolutely!! Tell me about it!
"And for me, it isn't a matter of finding a balance. It is more a medical suggestion. Believe me, my wife and I would be ecstatic with every conception, although her doctors have HIGHLY recommended that she not have any more or risk death. When do you take such advice into consideration?"
Balance doesn't look the same for every couple.
Like I said, what I wrote is the rosy scenario. It didn't turn out that way for my wife and me. But I think that in our lives together and with God, we got to the balance that God had for us.
"Do I simply shrug it off until that possible conception becomes a reality and my wife and I are faced with choosing between her life and the baby's life? Or do I heed the advice and take steps to ensure that no further conception can take place for the sake of my wife and our existing family? To what extent can one exercise choice? And I know what you are going to say."
No, I'm not sure you do know what I'm going to say. Mainly because I just don't have much of an answer for you. You'll need to look to others for that.
"You can exercise this choice in intrinsically good ways only."
That is the moral rule for all of life.
"Thank you for your assistance, but I believe that this is one question that I will have to solve myself."
As does each person, himself.
It appears that your circumstances represent a difficult application of the Church's teaching.
I'm not a confessor, and thus I'm entirely incompetent to address your particular circumstances (or anyone else's, for that matter).
I can only point to what the Church teaches universally, and try to help folks understand that teaching as it actually is, rather than as it is often misperceived. My only reason for posting to you was to distinguish between means and ends. The goal of regulation of birth is not intrinsically evil. Thus, one may distinguish between moral and immoral means.
My prayers and best wishes to you.
sitetest
Dear Scotswife,
"I'm having a hard time digesting that something that is so difficult to explain can still send millions of couples into hellfire."
I didn't say it was difficult to explain, only that it's difficult for ME to understand. And that I attribute my own difficulty to my own failings.
sitetest
You seem like a reasonably intelligent person to me and have probably looked into this issue much more than the average person.
If it's difficult for you to understand (and for many reasonably intelligent folks) then I'm assuming it's also difficult to explain to many people.
And yet, we're expected to believe millions are going to hell for this mortal sin.
"If a couple does use a natural means of postponing conception, then they still accept each other completely, including their fertility. And they still love one another with a life giving love, there is nothing different between the love expressed between them then, and when a child is created. That's why contraception is intrinsically evil. It's not because a baby is not conceived"
I'm trying to apply this rule to difficult situations where "natural means" doesn't work.
In that case the couple must resort to celibacy.
This isn't accepting one another's fertility at all - it is rejecting it totally along with the unitive aspect of sex.
Common sense tells me this is more damaging to a marriage than resorting to contraception (non-abortificant of course)
In a case as you describe, I would argue that it is accepting each other's fertility completly, and not rejecting any part of them. Yes, abstience is the only moral option, and it is an enormous cross, but it isn't rejecting the unifying aspect of sex, it is respecting it to the highest degree. Rather than polute it in anyway, the couple together unites their sacrifice together.
I have only a slight idea of how hard this is, as a friend of mine has to live this way. It is a tremendous cross.
my situation is that I'm extremely fertile, NFP has failed to work, and while more pregnancies won't kill me they would not be healthy. We are also at our limit of how much we can afford -and how much time we can devote to each child.
I don't need a hysterectomy.
I know what Church the teaching is and when I contracept I know it is a mortal sin -so that fulfill the mortal sin requirements.
so, basically - I'm screwed.
Sorry, I still don't see how ABC necessitates gorging. I do agree with you on the whole diet food topic though. I'd much rather eat food that tastes like real food and excercise regularly, but note that I included fortified foods such as breakfast cerial along with diet soda in my example. There is not much natural about your morning bowl of cereal these days. People eat it for a variety of reasons (lower cholesteral, energy boosting, nutritional) and because it tastes good. Along the same lines of reason, ABC is used by people for a multitude of reasons but it does not necessitate gorging yourself on sex but rather allowing couple to engage in intercourse at a time that is desirable to them. A more appropriate analogy I think although I don't think either do the topic justice.
I'm pinging klossg to this because he(?) teaches NFP. I know that there are several different methods of determining fertility, (I had to try a couple because I am super fertile) and being a NFP teacher, he probably knows of more resources for you, including perhaps the Paul VI insitute.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.