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.

[Scotswife]

"so the question I have to answer is what to do about it?"

good question.
as another poster pointed out - the answer from the Church is "tough"..."suck it up"

[VeritatisSplendor]

Klossg, the good grief was because - some women HAVE conceived seven days after intercourse.

NFP (or in earlier days, Fertility Awareness) has been highly effective for us - no unintended pregnancies, seven intended pregnancies, five of them on the first try and the other two within a few months. Only four living children however, two lost to miscarriage and one to preeclampsia.

I am a NFP convert on moral grounds, or maybe only obedient to the Church grounds, but it frustrates me to hear proponents going on about monthly honeymoons and it bringing couples closer - I never found that to be so - the reverse rather, and even more so now that pregnancy has a high chance of being life-threatening to me and any child I conceive.

Do it without a net is fine when oops brings the the blessing of a new baby - it's no fun at all when there's death below.

Mrs VS

[VeritatisSplendor]

Don't forget "offer it up" - there's that too.

Mrs VS

[Scotswife]

"Sometimes doing what is right leads to frustration. I fail and get ticked too. Things could always be better."

and that addresses another problem of mine that has nothing to do with charting.

Another freeper pointed out to me how it is tough to consent to something so difficult when you aren't entirely convinced - and I think that's where I'm at.
Because I'm not entirely convinced - and because I'm frustrated and burned out with the whole thing - I'm less inclined to deny sex to my husband 90% of the time.

but thank you for your time and advice.
I will see what they have to say about the cyst situation.

[Scotswife]

"Don't forget "offer it up" - there's that too."

oh yeah...there's always THAT! :)
haven't been very good at that lately...I should be with lent here and all.

[klossg]

describes cervical mucous vs. glandular mucous

I am not trained to know the difference. I know Creighton Method distinguishes different types of mucus. My wife calls that a very "male" dominated system because they want you to inspect the mucus in depth. I don't follow that but hey if she thinks men are good with mucus because they spit hockers or something, maybe she is right. I don't know if I agree with her but I do know I am not trained to differentiate. CCL says: any mucus is fertile in phase II, even tacky feeling mucus. Unless you know that you have a background mucus that is nearly always present and you have learned how to distinguish the difference. The book ART of NFP talks about background mucus. I do not have the book here to check it out.

sigh ... I am sorry you have this trouble. You have every right to be frustrated and fed up. Regardless, I will pray for you and heck you know you have every right to smash NFP ... I can only comment back. Thanks for setting me straight.

[Scotswife]

yes...the Weschler book does discuss background mucous...tacky, crumbly that evaporates quickly vs. stretchy, clear "egg white" that does not evaporate quickly.
That sort of thing.

And the cyst is different too - but I'm sure it can mask cm and cause a mistake.

Again...not so much attempting to smash NFP so much as to show maybe it's not right for everyone.
And the frustrating thing is that it's our only moral option.

[mockingbyrd]

In all fairness to the Church, her answer is more of "One cannot participate in an evil in order to prevent another evil." The ends don't justify the means, and that's a long standing Church teaching. This situtation does not qualify for the principle of double effect.

It doesn't make it any easier to live with it, but it goes a lot deeper than "suck it up." It's more like "Pick up you cross and follow Him."

[VeritatisSplendor]

Yeah, but why is artificial contraception evil? Just because something falls short of its fullness, doesn't mean it's evil. I am obedient but not convinced.

Mrs VS

[klossg]

it's no fun at all when there's death below.

To say the least! I am always impressed to meet people who have to face stuff I have not had to face. It makes you more humble and less likely to step on toes later. I need that. Life and the twisty places it brings you is amazing to say the least.

God bless VeritasSplendor. (By the way I love JPII's encyclical by the same title. Gotta dig the answers to subjective reasoning he has brought to the table. I love JPII. He is hugely missed!)

[mockingbyrd]

It's evil because it perverts a gift from God. We are made in His image and likeness, and one of those ways we mirror our Creator is our life giving love. To pervert this love is to make a mockery of the gift.

We are called to love our spouse with fully and completely. You can't love him totally, if you don't have him totally. If you accept him all, expect his fertilty, then you are reject the man created by God, and accepting the man created by yourself. And vice versa. If you don't accept him for who he is, then you are using him.

It's not a matter of falling short of fullness, because it's not about preventing pregnancy in and of itself. We are created to naturally regulate pregnancy. It is the mockery of the fullness of God's love, and the complete love that we are to love with.

[sitetest]

Dear Scotswife,

"so - the stomach itself is healthy and functioning normally, but the stomach is 'mutilated' in order to address non-stomach related issues."

I understand what you're saying. However, the normal function of the stomach isn't eliminated, only reduced to provide a health benefit. The function of the stomach isn't even eliminated temporarily.

As well, I believe that stomach stapling actually returns part of the function of the stomach from an unhealthful, abnormal state, to a healthier, more normal state.

"But what does stomach stapling address?"

My understanding of this surgery is that it reduces the capacity of the stomach, to make folks feel full with less food. The folks who ordinarily have this surgery tend, before having the surgery, to eat to significant excess without the stomach signaling to them that they're full.

But part of the proper function of the stomach is to alert a person that he has eaten enough and is full.

I've heard that this sometimes happens because folks overeat for years, and actually stretch their stomach so that it will readily hold much more food than ought to be eaten at one sitting.

Thus we cam conclude that in candidates for this surgery, the stomach isn't functioning entirely properly. It isn't signaling when the person has eaten enough, but rather signaling fullness after the person has eaten far too much.

The stomach stapling merely returns the stomach's functionality to its proper order, so that the stomach will once again alert the person that he's had enough to eat, long before the person consumes too much food, thus leading to obesity and related diseases.

I've read that this surgery isn't generally successful all by itself, because there are a number of other psychophysiological alerts and triggers that are involved in eating and overeating. But clearly, for folks who are good candidates for this treatment, the surgery corrects a real physiological problem.

"Obesity is a disease. Pregnancy isn't."

I'll reiterate that I should have said:

"Obesity is a disease. Fertility isn't."

Because fertility isn't a disease, because it isn't right to define the ability to get pregnant as intrinsically unhealthy, I don't think that the analogy to stomach stapling works too well. The bottom line is that stapling actually does enhance proper function of the stomach, by returning the stomach's role in alerting the person to fullness, but artificial contraception/sterilization do not enhance or correct any actual problem inherent to one's fertility.


sitetest

[VeritatisSplendor]

I don't see how artificial contraception perverts married love, or how it makes a mockery of God's gifts. It would be one thing to deny fertility totally, and think of sex for pleasure alone.

But I do not see how use of non-abortifacient contraception for prudent reasons is perverting married love any more than NFP does.

You say it is evil because it is perverse and a mockery - that is a tautology. How is it perverse and a mockery?

I have conceived seven times with my husband - I have accepted his fertility with rejoicing. Each act seems to me to partake of other acts - our marriage exists through time and not now alone.

Let's turn it around - my fertility led to severe preeclampsia, my life endangered, my baby dead, my health impaired for the rest of my life, and a very high chance of it happening again. Is all that created by God? Or is it part of our fallen state? Should my husband embrace that as embracing the woman created by God?

Or should we prudentially decide not to chance pregnancy again? Why would it be wrong to reduce the risks still further by using NFP and a barrier method? If we decide that one aspect of sexual love - fertility - is imprudent, why must we deny ourselves what remains?

Mrs VS

[VeritatisSplendor]

Because fertility isn't a disease, because it isn't right to define the ability to get pregnant as intrinsically unhealthy,

Fertility is not a disease, but what if the ability to get pregnant is intrinsically a threat to health and life?

Why is the potential to get pregnant the only body function we are not permitted to interfere with in itself to treat threats, although we may as an indirect effect?

Mrs VS

[klossg]

Or should we prudentially decide not to chance pregnancy again? Why would it be wrong to reduce the risks still further by using NFP and a barrier method? If we decide that one aspect of sexual love - fertility - is imprudent, why must we deny ourselves what remains?

If you are using NFP alone, there is no act if you determine pregnancy may result. If you are using a barrier method alone, there is an act but your goal is still the same, no pregnancy.

In the case with NFP, there is no positive act taken to eliminate fertility. You do not act and thus respect the potential for pregnancy. Elimination of the potential for life is not personified in the sexual act because there is no act.

In the case with the barrier method alone, there is a positive act taken to eliminate fertility. You do act and thus disrespect the potential for pregnancy. Elimination of the potential for life is personified in the sexual act because there is a purposeful sexual act meant to avoid pregnancy.

I think the basic question you ask beyond this is: If one is not satisfied with the effectiveness of NFP, can one have recourse to a barrier method to support NFP?

In the case with NFP and a barrier method, there is a positive act taken to eliminate fertility. You do act and thus disrespect the potential for pregnancy. Elimination of the potential for life is personified in the sexual act because there is a purposeful sexual act meant to avoid pregnancy.

Is this trumped when life/health is in danger? Can one use contraceptives specifically to avoid known future health problems?

I am just thinking out loud. I am sure this question has been mulled over. I think I know the answer but I am not intelligent enough to make it satisfying and clear. I cannot answer it as beautifully as Christ would answer it. I am sure it would humble me. His parables always go deeper than I can imagine.

[mockingbyrd]

But I do not see how use of non-abortifacient contraception for prudent reasons is perverting married love any more than NFP does.

NFP requires temporary abstinence. Condoms, and the like, takes the marital act and sterilizes it. You reject part of your husband, while still acting as if you accept him all. You fail to love with the life giving love that the Father loves us with. That's why it is perverse and that's why it is a mockery. You mock the the Father, the creation He has made substituting it for a creation of your own and you mock His love, which is always life giving. If you practice NFP, your act is no different, whether a child is conceived or not.

Oh yeah, and by you, I don't mean you personally, but generally. :)And I understand the dangers of prececlampsia, I had to be induced early twice now (only have two babies so far) due to complications, including a swelling liver. Not fun. But I acknowledge it as part of living in a fallen world.

I can understand why you (now I am speaking personally :)) would want to prevent pregnancy again. And when your husband accepts you, he does have to accept all of you, including the consequences that pregnancy can bring. I don't see how the two can become one if they are preventing a entire embrace of each other.

Maybe I don't understand your condition, but you can use NFP to prevent pregnancy. It can be hard, and it can be frustrating, but it's real. And I guess I don't understand your first comment, about denying fertility totally. Every time contraception is used, fertility is denied totally. I mean, even if you wait ten years before cheating on your spouse, you still have committed adultery, and it is as serious as if you did it the night of the wedding. I am probably totally missing your point.

Have you read Theology of the Body? That's got to be more helpful than me :)

[Scotswife]

I don't understand how contraception equals a mocking of God.
That seems like a real exaggeration to me.

Killing a person is intrinsically evil, and yet we have the Doctrine of Just War. We are not considered to be in a state of mortal sin if we kill someone in self defense.

but if we contracept to prevent illness, death of the mother, death of the baby....mortal sin - no exceptions.

[ladyinred]

I'm having a hard time digesting that something that is so difficult to explain can still send millions of couples into hellfire.

Oh my, I didn't realize that the Catholic Church considered contraception one of the mortal sins that could send a person to hell. Is that really the case? Or did I misunderstand?

[mockingbyrd]

Actually, murder is intrinsically evil. Killing a person is not, for the reasons you laid out.

Once again, I go back to our being made in the image and likeness of God, and that a spouses are called to love one another as God loves, that is, with a life giving love. To fail to love in that manner is the mockery, it demeans the love that God loves us with. Furthermore, it prevents to two from becoming one, wherin lies the beauty and sanctity of marriage.

And yes, contraception for any reason is intrinsically evil. However, postponing or avoiding pregnancy is not intrinsically evil. It's not the end achieved, it's the means of obtaining the end.

[Scotswife]

"Oh my, I didn't realize that the Catholic Church considered contraception one of the mortal sins that could send a person to hell. Is that really the case? Or did I misunderstand?"

well...it's considered to be a mortal sin, and a mortal sin will send you to hell.