How the Catholic Church Became Cool Overnight

Or, to be precise, how all the balling was duly recognized.

Having tested the waters of agnosticism, the general culture, and a whole host of personal heresies, sins and stupidities, I have come to Walker Percy’s conclusion:

Q: What kind of Catholic are you?

A. Bad.

Q: Are you a dogmatic Catholic or an open-minded Catholic?

A: I don’t know what that means . . . . Do you mean do I believe the dogma that the Catholic Church proposes for belief?

Q: Yes.

A: Yes.

Q: How is such a belief possible in this day and age?

A: What else is there?

Q: What do you mean, what else is there? There is humanism, atheism, agnosticism, Marxism, behaviorism, materialism, Buddhism, Muhammadanism, Sufism, astrology, occultism, theosophy.

A: That’s what I mean.

Q: I don’t understand. Would you exclude, for example, scientific humanism as a rational and honorable alternative?

A: Yes.

Q: Why?

A: It’s not good enough.

Q: Why not?

A: This life is too much trouble, far too strange, to arrive at the end of it and then to be asked what you make of it and have to answer “Scientific humanism.” That won’t do. A poor show. Life is a mystery, love is a delight. Therefore I take it as axiomatic that one should settle for nothing less than the infinite mystery and the infinite delight, i.e., God. In fact I demand it. I refuse to settle for anything less.

So get at me.

As far as I’m concerned — though I’m certainly open to scientific humanism making a big, total-fulfillment-of-the-human-person comeback — Catholicism is the addict’s fix, the starving child’s Chipotle burrito, and the UVA student’s pastel shorts and button-downs, etcetera, etcetera, ad infinitum et in saecula saeculorum, amen. What I didn’t realize – how could I? — is that the world would catch up to my particularly brilliant brilliance.

That’s right folks. I woke up this morning and the Church was the shizz. This is first and foremost because we have been rudely placed in the position of rebellion, and of the advocation of civil disobedience. To those who understand the teachings of the Church, this rebellion is nothing new, it has just been suddenly and fantastically stuck in the public eye. (Thank you, Department of Health and Human Services.) The Church already rebels against the twin monsters Socialism and Capitalism in her teachings, and strives instead after the principles of subsidiarity, in which the human person is neither an economic tool nor a cog in the machine. The Church already calls us to rebel against the culture of death, against abortion — of course — but with equal fervor against euthanasia, unjust war, the unjust use of the death penalty, suicide, terrorism, and any attacks on life. But now everyone gets to know that these guys:

Are all about this:

But nicely, like this:

And, with rapidity, this everyone has been expressing their support. Let’s take NPR, one of the more leftist media outlets. They had the daring to post a piece from the secular The Weekly Standard, which said, amongst other gems:

It’s unclear whether Obama anticipated the blowback which resulted from this announcement, or perhaps even welcomed the fight. The liberal Catholic establishment nearly exploded. Sister Keehan was so horrified she threw her lot in with the more conservative Dolan in full-throated opposition to Obama. Cardinal Roger Mahony, the spectacularly liberal archbishop emeritus of Los Angeles, wrote, “I cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience… This decision must be fought against with all the energies the Catholic community can muster.” Michael Sean Winters, the National Catholic Reporter‘s leftist lion, penned a 1,800-word cri de coeur titled “J’accuse!” in which he declared that, as God was his witness, he would never again vote for Obama. The editors of the Jesuit magazine America denounced a “wrong decision,” while the Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne called the policy “unconscionable.” When you’ve lost even E.J. and the Jesuits, you’ve lost the church.

Indeed, and such on NPR. This particularly great write-up came with The Atlantic, Laura Ingraham, Hot Air — noting with Rasmussen that the majority of Americans are against the attack on religious liberty — and a whole host of others. But here’s the thing about the Church. Once you begin the radical task of defending Her right to practice what She preaches, you can’t help but notice how excellent that preaching is. Thus the issue of why — precisely — the Church is against the use of artificial contraception is similarly irritating the public eye, and as it turns, ’tis a beautiful irritant. The Business Insider, an entirely secular journal, found it alarming enough to publish Time To Admit It: The Church Has Always Been Right On Birth Control. From the article:

The Church teaches that love, marriage, sex, and procreation are all things that belong together. That’s it. But it’s pretty important. And though the Church has been teaching this for 2,000 years, it’s probably never been as salient as today.

Today’s injunctions against birth control were re-affirmed in a 1968 document by Pope Paul VI called Humanae Vitae. He warned of four results if the widespread use of contraceptives was accepted:

General lowering of moral standards
A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy
The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.
Government coercion in reproductive matters.

Does that sound familiar?

Because it sure sounds like what’s been happening for the past 40 years.

So what happened overnight? Why is the Church’s most controversial teaching something that — suddenly — can be affirmed in the secular, public sphere without fear? The teachings didn’t change — they’ve always been awesome. Our culture didn’t change — it continues to suck. No, we owe this shift in disposition to the remarkable act of placing our hands on the desk, pushing firmly down upon it while pushing firmly up with the toes, and straightening the kneecaps until the body is aligned vertically between heaven and earth.

We stood up. The net result of the Bishops’ hardass response, the preaching directed against the mandate in parishes across the country, and the blogosphere’s immature and shrill cry of outrage was this: We are winning, and not just the battle, but hearts along with it. The fact that something as obviously wrong as the HHS mandate happened should be no surprise. In fairness to the Administration, from a brief look of the Catholic Church in America, one may not have known She is still in opposition to the use of artificial contraception. I do not simply speak of the massive level of dissent over the Church’s teaching, I speak of the general lack of confrontation the issue gets from the pulpit, whether the Bishop’s or the parish priest’s. I know it’s easier said than done, and perhaps I speak out of place, but please, priests: When 83% of your flock are in sin, it is your duty to address the issue. Will parishioners walk out on you? Without a shadow of doubt, for the Gospel is a piercing sword at times. But as the net result of standing against the HHS mandate has — thus far — been an outpouring of support and good, so will be the result of an organized stand against the stupidity of artificial contraception. We have learned the power of saying firmly what we believe, and not giving a damn what the world thinks of it. Let us now use it to confront the heart of the modern world — our miserable view of the human body, our utter boredom with the act of sex, and our hostility towards new life.

After the drama of our last post, I believe I owe all of you studly individuals an explanation. Of course, in the particular situation of the HHS Mandate, I don’t think it matters one whit whether you agree with the Church’s teaching on contraception: It is an affront to all religious liberty, and should be opposed as such. But the 800 lbs. Papal Bull in the room remains: Well, why is the Church opposed to contraception? I will attempt to answer that question. There may be some pictures. Do not fear, they are neither for your sake, nor the depth of my argument, only for the gratification of my ADHD.

See?

(Disclaimer: I understand that there are legitimate medical uses for hormonal contraceptives. As Humanae Vitae states “The Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.” This article is written with the assumption that contraception is being used to solely and directly to prevent pregnancy.)

The Case From Natural Law

Natural Law is very simple. It claims two axioms: That all things should achieve their natural end, and that situations and actions can be decided as contrary to an organism’s natural end based on their effects upon that organism. For example, putting a rosebush in a closet leads to the withering of the rosebush. To wither is not the natural end of the rosebush. In fact, inherent in the rosebush’s biology is its natural goal of growth and reproduction. Therefore, rosebushes should not be placed in closets.

If you subscribe to some sort of nihilistic-hipster-philosophy that claims something like, “Yeah but couldn’t the withering of the rosebush be just as good as its flourishing?” then go outside, take a knee, and punch yourself in the face. If, however, you are of the sound, existential view that humans and rosebushes were both meant to flourish, read on:

The natural end of sex is both unity and procreation. Love and life. Shocking, but true. If this is denied, and it is claimed that sex is solely about making babies, then you’re a jerk in the vein of Henry VIII, and a Puritan besides. If, on the other hand, it is claimed that sex is solely about pleasure, one must contend with the shocking fact of what — precisely — leaves a man and enters a woman.

To argue otherwise is to look at a farmer casting seeds upon fertile ground and claim that he is casting the seed for the pure joy of seed-casting. This is not to say there is no joy, even a wild joy, to be found in planting a field. It is simply to note that it would be an insane man who would plant his field by the logic that throwing seeds is fun, and then become shocked and annoyed when his field bore grain in due season. Every part of the action of sex speaks to the creation of new life. Yet regard the reaction of modern man, who plants his seed on fertile ground, and the modern woman, who receives that seed…okay, wait, gimme a sec…

…and then — upon being confronted with new life — cry “How did this happen?” or “I can’t believe this happened to me!” and in fear kill the new life they have created. In the midst of a world of insane farmers, I hold this truth to be self-evident: The natural end of sex is both unity (pleasure) and procreation (babies) and these things are inseparably intertwined.

To contracept is to remove the possibility of procreation from the equation. Thus sex does not achieve its natural end. This is hardly contested. What is contested is whether or not this is a bad thing.

If an act does not achieve its natural end, that act is detrimental to the organism. If the act of eating does not achieve its natural end of filling, the organism will starve. Think about bulimia. We reject bulimia as disordered because it seeks to have only half of eating’s natural end — the pleasure of eating — while rejecting the other — being full. When the act of eating is not allowed to achieve its natural end, the act is detrimental to the organism. The bulimic suffers.

Or think about foreplay (but not too specifically.) If the act of foreplay is not allowed to achieve its natural end — sex — the organism suffers. Particularly the male organism — who must curl into a ball and whimper as the blood built up in his testicles slowly and painfully departs — but also the general psychological disappointment in frustration involved. We would reject the man who wants the excitement of foreplay without the release of orgasm in the same way we would mock a band who counts off in a fury and then walks off stage. Again: When an act is not allowed to reach its natural end, the organism suffers. If the act of sleep fails to achieve its natural end, the organism is tired. When bathing is not allowed to reach its natural end, the organism remains dirty.

It is also worth pointing out that in each case, were an act that does not reach its natural end to be accepted as normal and popular, society as a whole — or the humans species, if you will — would suffer. If we were all bulimic, we wouldn’t last long.

So we arrive at contraception. To summarize my argument: Sex is by its nature both unitive and procreative. To deny an essential part of its nature is to prevent sex from achieving its natural end. When acts do not achieve their natural end, the acting organism suffers. When those acts become widespread, society suffers. Now I grant that a human being is a fantastically complex organism, but if what I say is true — that the act of contraception prevents sex from achieving its natural end — the human being must suffer as a result of contraception.

And as it turns out, they do. If it is a hormonal form of contraception that interrupts a woman’s actual biology — and thus the natural ends of a her biological acts — then its harm is clear: Hormonal contraceptives increase the risk of breast cancer in women, and it is now argued that they increase the risk of prostate cancer in men. Their list of side-effects is tremendously long — stroke, heart-attack, and blood-clots being among my least favorites.

(Here it may be argued, yes, but hormonal contraceptives reduce the risk of ovarian cancer as well, and there is thus a “canceling” effect that needs taking into account. But low-dose birth control pills, the most commonly prescribed hormonal contraceptives, have been proven to reduce a woman’s risk of ovarian cancer by less than 1% per year of use. This is not to say that such a reduction is not beneficial at all, but it must be pointed out that hormonal contraception reduces the risk of ovarian cancer only insofar as it imitates the natural end of sex — pregnancy. Pregnancy leads to a 40% “decrease in the risk for epithelial ovarian cancer with the first live birth,” a risk that is further decreased by subsequent breast-feeding. It would take forty years of being on the Pill to achieve the benefits that having one baby provides. Please do not quote the widely circulated statistic that the Pill reduces the risk of ovarian cancer by 40-80%. This statistic is the result of an average, taken from a study that included women who used high-dose birth control pills, had been on the Pill for up to 20 years, and had already had one or more children. Incidentally, the risk-reduction for high-dose birth control pills is 7% per year, but these are the market’s least prescribed pills, as women reject them for their extreme side-effects.)

I would also argue that the use of some physical barriers — i.e. the condom, the female condom — by seeking to avoid the physical contact that allows the possibility of procreation, actual reduce the physical pleasure of unity. But I don’t have a lot of expertise in that area. But a human being doesn’t just suffer from contraception on a physical level. There is an emotional, psychological toll.

Think of the statement contraception makes: We tell our sexual partners, in the act of sex, I want all of you, totally, completely, except your fertility. You keep that to yourself. Or if we’re guys, keeping our girls on the Pill, we’re effectively saying, “This part of you I must control. I love you, and I’ll sleep with you, but on the condition that you take a hormone preventing your natural, bodily state.” This may be part of the reason NFP users have an average divorce rate of 0.2%, and experience over all “happier marriages.” Not because they are better, but simply because, like a rosebush in the sun, they are flourishing.

And society too pays a toll for contraception. Besides that if you take the contraception attitude to its logical conclusion, you arrive at the end of our species, there is John C. Wright’s argument — a fantastic philosophical construction, by the way – that “widespread socially accepted use of contraception in a society makes the illusion of consequence-free sexual vice possible, and that illusion is not possible otherwise.” The plethora of problems we face today — from abortion to S.T.D’s to broken family structures — are the result of a mentality that sex does not have consequences, a mentality caused — by and large — by contraception.

So the Church isn’t simply saying “don’t use contraception or God will smite you.” Far, far from it. The Church is saying that our very bodies, our very beings reject the act of contraception as a violation of natural law. It is a sin, yes, but more in the sense that bulimia is a sin. It is a rejection of a good, natural selves, and the fullness of our own potential. Contraception doesn’t allow sex to achieve its natural end, and thus, like putting a rosebush in a closet, it leads to a withering, whether that be physically, emotionally, psychologically or socially. And human beings were not meant to wither, but to have life to its fullest.

Thanks for reading! I imagine this won’t go down well, but please keep an open mind in the comment box. If you are blatantly trolling in excessive bout of injured pride, I will replace your comments with my favorite sections from the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae.

The use of artificial contraception is clearly prohibited in Scripture. Of course, if you view Scripture in the same manner I view Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion — with a deep sense of skepticism and a distaste for prosaic, old men on ego-trips — then perhaps the fact that contraception violates the natural law is an argument better suited to your tastes. If, however, you are of the radical belief that Sacred Scripture is sacred, do read on:

I begin with a rather obvious point, that if one were to approach an ancient Jew and give him any variation upon the theme of “I prefer my women infertile,” he would be mocked. Our contraception-uber-alles culture would be utterly incomprehensible to the ancients, simply because the Israelites were forever recovering from, involved in, or avoiding near annihilation.

And when you’re a race constantly enslaved, warred upon, kicked around the Mesopotamian Basin, and generally given a hard time, the last thing on your mind is, “Dang, how to reduce our numbers?” It’s more like, “Dear Jesus, I hope I survive long enough to procreate.” Without the Jesus part.

So there exists no commandment specifying “Thou shall not place snakeskin wraps around thy genitals, nor put poison nor wool in thy wife’s birth canal” (as Egyptian civilizations were wont to do), because it was a given. Duh Lord, we want kids. Who else is going to slit the throats of our enemies when we’re old and crippled? Who else will take care of us? Who else but our children will continue to be your chosen people?

Thus it is made clear throughout Scripture that having children was considered a blessing: “Behold, children are a gift of the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children on one’s youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; they shall not be ashamed, when they speak with their enemies in the gate” (Psalm 127:3-5).

But there still exists a clear rejection of contraception in the Bible:

“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” (Gen. 38:8–10).

So there you have it. The practice of coitus interruptus was prohibited. Now it may be argued that Onan was not punished for his contraceptive act, but for his refusal to raise offspring for his brother’s widow. But the biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). Public humiliation as in “his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face.” (Which we should bring back.)(Dammit woman, give me back my sandal!)(Admit it, having a singular sandal sounds mightily emasculating.)))

But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. So the Bible-believing Christian is left with two choices. Either God inexplicably broke his own law and and killed a man –and thus God is a tyrant — or Onan was being punished for more than just a failure to fulfill his duty to his brother’s wife. I hold that God was punishing him for his act of contraception, for having all the pleasure and none of the procreation — For distorting the natural end of sex. To which there may be the following complaints.

A) But Jesus changed all that!

Really, where in the Bible does he take back this particular divine action? The Early Church certainly couldn’t tell:

“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” (A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

“…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 slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered” (A.D 255, Hippolytus of Rome, Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).

B) But the Early Church was all corrupted by Catholicism, Martin Luther reformed all that!

Actually, Martin Luther was much meaner about the whole contraception issue than any one I’ve read so far.

“[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.” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 5, p.332)

C) But John Calvin–

Nope. “Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is doubly horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family…” (John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis.)

D) But John Wesley–

Stop 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.”

E) But some one –

No. Not one, single Protestant denomination before the 1930′s held that the use of artificial contraception was anything but sinful. May I ask, what on earth has changed, besides the fact that we now live in a culture that really, really wants birth control?

D) But I —

Precisely.

(For a more in depth explanation of why this punishment must be seen as a direct result of Onan’s contraceptive act, go here.)