This question concerns probably one of, if not the most controversial moral teachings of Catholicism. This topic is definitely the one that prompts headlines and excites some people to say, “I disagree with the Church” or “The Church is wrong.” I have even had Catholics report to me that when they have visited a Protestant Church, they have heard sermons denounce the Catholic Church’s teaching on this subject. In marriage preparation programs, the topic sometimes ignites heated debate between couples and the presenters upholding the Church’s teaching. Sadly, many Catholics simply do not understand the Church’s teaching on this issue. Moreover, many priests have failed to address this subject from the pulpit– whether in a positive, rational way or at all. So we need to put aside our prejudices and our misconceptions, open our minds and hearts, and approach this issue.
Marriage in the Eyes of God and the Church
Before addressing the issue of contraception per se, one must first understand the Church’s moral teaching concerning marriage. The Church does not simply deliver a moral teaching in isolation; rather, the moral teaching is undergirded by a moral framework of how life ought to be lived in the eyes of God. In this case, the moral framework is what God has revealed concerning marriage.
In the creation account of Genesis, we find the beautiful truth, “God made man in His image; in the divine image He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). In this one verse, we find an intrinsic goodness and dignity to each human being. We also recognize a goodness to our human sexuality– both man and woman are made in God’s image and likeness, and both masculinity and femininity are equally good. Yes, man and woman are different– anatomically, physiologically, and even psychologically (as admitted by many psychologists, even “feminist” ones). These differences do not indicate inequality, instead complementarity.
With this truth, we must also view our human life not just by the confines of this world, but also with a view to a supernatural and eternal destiny. God has made us for Himself, and we hope one day to find this life fulfilled in the Kingdom of Heaven.
In the next verse of Genesis (1:28), we read, “God blessed them, saying, ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.'” Here is marriage, a God-given, God-designed institution. If we could think of the best way to realize that “image and likeness of God,” it would then be in marriage. In this sacred union, man and woman– each made in God’s image and likeness with their similarities and their uniqueness– come together as one.
The second creation account of Genesis reinforces this idea: Here, God takes the rib from the man to create “a suitable partner,” whom the man recognizes as “‘This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called ‘woman’ for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken.’ That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body” (2:23-24). Pope John Paul II reflected that in marriage “man” in the moment of communion truly becomes the image of God, “an image of an inscrutable divine communion of Persons.”
Our Lord, Jesus Christ, in the gospel affirmed the teaching of Genesis. When asked by the Pharisees about divorce, Jesus replied, “Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and declared, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall become as one’? Thus, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, let no man separate what God has joined” (Matthew 19:3ff).
Given this basis in Sacred Scripture, we hold marriage as a sacrament in our Catholic belief. Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World (#47-52) spoke beautifully about marriage: Marriage is a partnership of life and love designed by God and endowed by Him with its own proper laws, with various benefits, and with various ends in view. Both husband and wife “surrender themselves to each other” and give their “irrevocable personal consent.” Marriage involves a mutual giving of two persons, which entails total fidelity and permanence.
Moreover, the love of husband and wife which binds them together as one overflows, and they may participate in creation, giving birth to children. Through the sacrament they live and the bountiful graces offered by our Lord, couples are fortified to fulfill their duties to each other and their family. As such, marriage is clearly the foundation of the family and the whole human race.
Therefore, we speak of marriage not as a contract but as a covenant. Just as God made a covenant of life and love with His people of the Old Testament through Abraham and Moses, just as Christ made the perfect, everlasting, and life-giving covenant through the blood of His cross, so marriage is a covenant, a permanent bonding of life and love. (For this reason, St. Paul frequently used the image of Christ and His Church in explaining the love of husband and wife (e.g. Ephesians 5:22ff).) Therefore, when a couple exchanges vows, they are promising a love of fidelity, permanence, exclusivity, and perpetuity to each other and God. Man and woman enter into a life-giving covenant with God as husband and wife.
Marital Love
Given our understanding of marriage and marital love, we can readily see that the most beautiful expression of love in marriage is marital love, or physical love, or sexual intercourse, or conjugal love– whatever term one prefers. Granted, love in marriage encompasses much more than the act of conjugal love. Nevertheless, this action radiates an unique and special symbolism of the sacrament of marriage– the covenant shared between the two who have become one flesh.
Interestingly, conjugal love plays an important role in understanding the sacrament of marriage. In our sacramental theology, we hold that a sacrament has two parts: the form, or prayer part of the sacrament; and the matter, the physical and action part of the sacrament. For instance, in performing a baptism, the matter of the sacrament is the priest pouring water over the head of the person or immersing the person in water three times; at the same time, the priest prays the form of the sacrament, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” In marriage, the couple are the ministers of the sacrament; the priest is the official witness of the Church who also imparts God’s blessing. The form of the Sacrament of Marriage is the exchange of vows; the matter of the sacrament is the consummation of the marriage, when the two people enact those vows in that physical expression of love. Therefore the Church teaches, “The acts of marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude” (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #49).
Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae (#9) offered a beautiful reflection on this conjugal love of marriage. The Holy Father said that marital love is a genuinely human love, because it embraces the good of the whole person and is rooted in a free willed, giving of one spouse to the other. This love endures through joy and pain, success and failure, happiness and sorrow, uniting the couple in both body and soul. This love is also total– free of restriction, hesitation, or condition. This love is faithful and exclusive to both partners. In all, this love must be a mutually respectful action, a genuine expression of love. Unlike what is so often portrayed by the various media today, marital love is not some erotic action, rooted in selfishness, fleeting pleasure, or dominance. No, marital love is a sacred action which unites a couple with each other and God. The spirit of this teaching reflects what Jesus said at the Last Supper, “There is no greater love than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13).
Moreover, the act of marital love also participates in God’s creative love. The couple who has become a new creation by becoming husband and wife, one flesh, may also bring about the creation of new life in accord with God’s will. Vatican II asserted, “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory” (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #48, cf. #50). The Council acknowledged that while not diminishing the importance of sacramental union symbolized in marital love, “it must be said that true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it is directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich His family from day to day” (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #50).
Most recently, our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical The Gospel of Life, reflected that God’s own image and likeness is transmitted through the creation of an immortal soul directly by Him. Moreover, a child is really the personification of the love of husband and wife in union with the Creator. Therefore, “it is precisely in their role as co-workers with God who transmits His image to the new creature that we see the greatness of couples who are ready ‘to cooperate with the love of the Creator and the Savior, who through them will enlarge and enrich His own family day by day'” (The Gospel of Life, #43, quoting also Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #50).
Throughout sacred Scripture, we find the birth of children as a blessing from God and a sign of the living covenant between God and husband and wife. For example, Moses delivered the law of the covenant, declaring: “As your reward for heeding these decrees and observing them carefully, the Lord, your God, will keep with you the merciful covenant which He promised on oath to your fathers. He will love and bless and multiply you; He will bless the fruit of your womb and the produce of your soil, your grain and wine and oil, the issue of your herds and young of your flocks, in the land which He swore to your fathers He would give you. You will be blessed above all peoples; no man or woman among you shall be childless nor shall your livestock be barren” (Deuteronomy 7:12-14). Clearly life, fruitfulness, and fertility were cherished as goods granted by God.
Because of this decree and the understanding that the procreative aspect of marital love is a sacred gift, “barrenness” or infertility was a true cross to bear for a couple. For example, in the Old Testament, in the story of Hannah, wife of Elkanah, we read of how she grieved at not being able to have a child although she had a beautiful loving marriage. Sacred Scripture reads, “Hannah rose…, and presented herself before the Lord; at the time, Eli, the priest was sitting on a chair near the doorpost of the Lord’s temple. In her bitterness, she prayed to the Lord, weeping copiously, and she made a vow, promising, ‘Oh Lord of hosts, if you look with pity on the misery of your handmaid, if you remember me and do not forget me, if you give your handmaid a male child, I will give him to the Lord for as long as he lives; neither wine nor liquor shall he drink, and no razor shall ever touch his head” (I Sam 1:9-11). The Lord heard the plea of Hannah, and she conceived and bore a son, Samuel.
In the New Testament, we read the story of Elizabeth and Zechariah, who were “just in the eyes of God” and “upheld the commandments of the Lord.” However, in their old age, they remained childless. By God’s will, they conceived a child, John the Baptist. Elizabeth said, “In these days the Lord is acting on my behalf; He has seen fit to remove my reproach among men.” (Cf. Luke 1:5-25.) Following this line of thought, Vatican II asserted, “Indeed children are the supreme gift of marriage and greatly contribute to the good of the parents themselves” (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #50).
Therefore, we must not separate the unitive dimension of marital love from the procreative. Both dimensions are intrinsically good. Both dimensions are inherent in the act of marriage. Even if a couple is infertile, the act of marriage still retains the character of being a communion of life and love. We must constantly keep in focus the covenant of life and love a couple shares with each other in union with God.
The Church’s Teaching on Contraception
Given this understanding about the sacrament of marriage, Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae stated, “Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life (#11). The Holy Father continued, “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage pact” (Humanae Vitae, #12).
With the introduction of a contraceptive means (artificial or not) to the marital act, the procreative dimension is purposefully suppressed and ignored. The unitive dimension, therefore, is separated from the procreative. Just as a forced act of physical love by one spouse upon the other violates the unitive dimension of marital love, the impairment of the capacity to transmit human life violates the procreative dimension. Here note that contraception involves an impairment or a suppression of one inherent dimension of an action as God has designed it. Essentially, God has designed marital love to be both unitive and procreative; to suppress or to violate either one contradicts the design of God.
Nevertheless, we have witnessed the proliferation of the use of artificial birth control in particular. As Pope John Paul II, as well as Pope Paul VI, have repeatedly warned, what has consequently evolved in society is a contraceptive mentality, the removal of conjugal love from the Sacrament of Marriage, and in many cases– especially outside the context of marriage– the reduction of conjugal love to simply a sex act without genuine love. In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II lamented about the effects of contraception: “Sexuality too is depersonalized and exploited: from being the sign, place, and language of love, that is, of the gift of self and acceptance of another, in all the other’s richness as a person, it increasingly becomes the occasion and instrument for self-assertion and the selfish satisfaction of personal desires and instincts. Thus, the original import of human sexuality is distorted and falsified, and the two meanings, unitive and procreative, inherent in the very nature of the conjugal act, are artificially separated: in this way, the marriage union is betrayed and its fruitfulness is subjected to the caprice of the couple. Procreation then becomes the ‘enemy’ to be avoided in sexual activity: if it is welcomed this is only because it expresses a desire, or indeed the intention, to have a child ‘at all costs,’ and not because it signifies the complete acceptance of the other and therefore an openness to the richness of life which the child represents” (#23).
Here we must pause to examine another dimension of the problem with some forms of artificial birth control. Most artificial birth control pills today are such that they have a “double-barrel” effect. On one hand, they serve as a contraceptive in suppressing ovulation; on the other hand, if ovulation occurs and conception takes place “by accident,” they also make the lining of the uterus hostile to implantation, thereby expelling the conceived life. Remember that once conception occurs, an unique, precious individual has been created who has the right to life. Consequently, these pills are really abortifacients, having the same effect as the IUD (intrauterine device). Actually, this “double barrel” effect is the sad selling point for the drug RU486, commonly called “the morning after pill.”
Moreover, we must also consider the possible side effects of these pills to the health of the woman. In examining the Physician’s Desk Reference for various oral contraceptives available, the small-print list of possible health complications include, to name a few, myocardial infarction, thrombosis, cerebrovascular disorders, birth defects, and various forms of cancer (breast, cervical, ovarian, and uterine). Tragically, many doctors do not inform the woman of these health risks when prescribing these drugs. Actually, Planned Parenthood of America stated that more women die each year from complications arising from the taking contraceptive pills than from complications in pregnancy and childbirth. Since each individual has an obligation for maintaining his health, any drug which consistently changes the normal functioning of the body and which carries these risks would be morally objectionable.
So what is a couple who has serious issues facing their marriage, such as a medical problem or economic constrictions, to do? The Church has always taught that a couple must act as responsible parents: “The couple must fulfill their role as cooperators of God’s creative love with responsibility: they must respect the divine providence of God, consider their own good and the good of their children, born and yet to be born, weigh their own situation and needs on the spiritual and material levels, and look to the good of family, society, and Church” (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #50). A husband and wife, with a vision of being responsible parents, must decide if now is the time to have a child. There may be serious reasons for postponing a pregnancy– even indefinitely– because of health, financial burdens, or other serious reason.
However, one must be careful not to distort what is a “serious” reason. Pope John Paul II stated, “The decision about the number of children and the sacrifices to be made for them must not be taken only with a view to adding comfort and preserving a peaceful existence. Reflecting upon this matter before God, with the graces drawn from the Sacrament, and guided by the teaching of the Church, parents will remind themselves that it is certainly less serious to deny their children certain comforts or material advantages than to deprive them of the presence of brothers and sisters who could help them to grow in humanity and to realize the beauty of life at all ages and in all its variety” (1979).
Natural Family Planning
If a couple thinks serious reasons do indeed exist for postponing a pregnancy, the Church teaches that a couple may take advantage of “the natural cycles of the reproductive system” Humanae Vitae, #16). We know that a woman can only conceive a child during the period of ovulation. Therefore, a couple may resort to expressing their love only when they are in the infertile phases of their cycle. This method of regulating birth is called Natural Family Planning, a safe and effective means which is morally acceptable and which preserves the covenant love of marriage.
Actually one of the earliest forms of natural family planning is breast feeding. If a woman breast feeds her baby consistently, she probably would not conceive for 18-24 months. Actually, many tribal people naturally regulate births this way.
In the 1930s, Calendar Rhythm was developed. This method was effective if the woman had regular cycles and if she was properly instructed. Actually, rhythm is about as effective as condoms or other barrier methods of birth control. Nevertheless, Calendar Rhythm was unreliable for many couples. Perhaps this unreliability is why many joked, “What do you call a couple who uses rhythm? Answer: Parents.”
However, modern Natural Family Planning is technically called the Sympto-Thermal Method. This method relies on three signs of fertility in the woman: basal temperature pattern, cervical mucus pattern, and physical changes in the position of the cervix. These three signs inform a couple when the wife is in ovulation and possibly could conceive a child if the couple engages in marital love. Ironically, while many doctors prescribe artificial means to prevent a pregnancy, they prescribe the techniques of Natural Family Planning to help a couple who is having trouble conceiving a child identify the period of ovulation and thereby know when the possibility of conception is the greatest. Moreover, if one is worried about effectiveness, the Sympto-Thermal Method is proven to be as effective as the Pill and more effective than barrier methods if used properly.
Immediately, some people may honestly ask, “What is the difference between Natural Family Planning and other forms of contraception? Both seem to do the same thing.” While both means may have the same intent– postponing pregnancy– the difference lies in the means themselves. With Natural Family Planning, couples keep their covenant of life and love intact. They use only the means given to them by God, which are intrinsic to who they are. In expressing their marital love, they are mindful that this action not only unites them as husband and wife, but also may participate in God’s creative love. Rather than suppress and ignore one dimension, they respect both dimensions. Therefore, if they decide for a serious reason to postpone a pregnancy, then both husband and wife make the decision and both share in the sacrifice of not expressing their marital love during the period of ovulation. Natural Family Planning is also safe, and the burden is shared by both husband and wife. Moreover, the couple is open to the providence of God’s will: if a child should come who “was not planned,” so be it– that is God’s will and God’s gift; whereas with contraceptives, where the couple has everything nicely planned and is in control, the surprise pregnancy oftentimes spells disaster. Remember that one of the arguments for legalized abortion is to correct “unplanned pregnancies.”
Pope John Paul II addressed the anthropological and moral differences between contraception and Natural Family Planning in his encyclical, The Christian Family in the Modern World: “The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of the person, that is the woman, and thereby accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and self-control. To accept the cycle and to enter into dialogue means to recognize both the spiritual and corporal character of conjugal communion, and to live personal love with its requirement of fidelity. In this context the couple comes to experience how conjugal communion is enriched with those values of tenderness and affection which constitute the inner soul of human sexuality, in its physical dimension also. In this way sexuality is respected and promoted in its truly and fully human dimension, and is never ‘used’ as an ‘object’ that, by breaking the personal unity of soul and body, strikes at God’s creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person” (#32).
Actually, Natural Family Planning has had great successes. For example, in 1960, the government of Mauritius, a small island country in the Indian Ocean east of Madagascar, wanted to commence a major contraceptive campaign to control the population. The bishop published a pastoral letter denouncing these plans. After discussing the issue with government officials, in 1963, an education program was started for Natural Family Planning. Doctors educated training couples who in turn taught the method to other couples. Today they train 2,000 couples each year. Each parish has a special program for educating couples in preparation for marriage, and 85% of couples married in the Church complete that training. In all, 20% of women of child-bearing age use Natural Family Planning, of whom Hindus and Moslems account for 62%. Moreover, artificial methods are on the decline. The effectiveness of Natural Family Planning has been a convincing argument against legalizing abortion in the country. What Bishop Margeot fears today is the coalition of governments– America, Japan, and Northern Europe– and foundations– Rockefeller and Packard– who are striving to impose artificial birth control throughout Africa, which in each case has eventually led to abortion.
While this column cannot give a full explanation of Natural Family Planning, I would suggest that any couple who is interested take the course. Rather than just brush aside the Church’s teaching, investigate the teaching and inquire about Natural Family Planning. Ask the couples what the difference between the two methods actually is. Moreover, if used properly, Natural Family Planning is almost 100% effective with a .004 pregnancy rate (U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1978)) versus “the pill,” which is 97% effective, or the condom, which is 79-88% effective (Contraceptive Technology). Courses for Natural Family Planning are offered throughout the Diocese of Arlington.
Nevertheless, this whole issue concerns that covenant love between husband and wife, and God. It deals with the creation of life in union with God. Therefore, concerning the regulation of births, Vatican II stated, “It is the married couple themselves who must in the last analysis arrive at these judgments before God” (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #50). However, any faithful Catholic must first take into account the teaching of the Magisterium. As has been emphasized, marriage is serious, marital love is serious, the creation of life is serious. The means of are intrinsically evil (Catechism, #2370). Thereby the violation of marital love through the use of contraceptive practices is objectively a serious, mortal sin. Granted, grave circumstances may exist which in turn may reduce the culpability of a couple in this matter. If a couple is struggling with this issue, I advise them to see a priest or talk with one of the couples who teaches Natural Family Planning. Oftentimes, the teaching couple has used the artificial means and can best explain to another couple the differences between the methods and guide them through this issue.
Nevertheless, no one cannot cavalierly dismiss the consistent teaching of the Church on this issue. We cannot simply consider good intentions or motives. Moreover, we cannot just go to the “Yellow Pages” to find the priest or theologian who will give us the answer we want to hear. We have to be honest and wrestle with the truth and by the grace of God conform to it. As Pope John Paul II asserted, “As Teacher, [the Church] never tires of proclaiming the moral norm that must guide the responsible transmission of life. The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm. In obedience to the truth which is Christ, whose image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person, the Church interprets the moral norm and proposes it to all people of good will, without concealing its demands of radicalness and perfection” (The Christian Family in the Modern World, #33).
The Church’s Teaching in Light of Sacred Scripture and Tradition
In explaining the Church’s teaching about contraception, many people mistakenly think that this teaching is relatively new, something which occurred with Humanae Vitae in 1968. Other people, from a more fundamentalist bent, want to know if there is any basis in Sacred Scripture for these teachings. In reviewing both Sacred Scripture as well as the history of our Church’s teaching in this area, one finds a very positive and solid foundation, as has been presented to date.
Concerning “What does the Bible have to say?” the very positive presentation concerning creation, marital love, and covenant emerges from the texts of Sacred Scripture. However, we also discover references to any violation of the unitive-procreative dimensions of marital love and to the divine consequences which followed. In Genesis, we find the story of Onan, the second son of Judah, who married Tamar, the widow of his older brother Er. (The Levirate law of Judaism prescribed that if the oldest brother died, the next oldest, single brother would marry his widow to preserve the family line.) The Bible reads, “Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took his life.” (Cf. Genesis 38:1ff). Here is a basic form of contraception– withdrawal, and clearly a sin in the eyes of God.
Interestingly, the Protestant tradition cited this story as a basis for condemning any form of contraception. Luther commented, “Onan…spilled his seed. That was a sin greater than adultery or incest, and it provoked God to such fierce wrath that He destroyed him immediately” (Commentary on Genesis). In another work, he wrote, “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” (Works).
Calvin also commented on the story of Onan: “The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born an hoped-for offspring” (Commentary on Genesis). Interestingly, two of the leaders of the Protestant movement both condemned a practice which suppressed the procreative dimension of marital love.
History further illuminates the Church’s position on this subject. Anthropological studies show that means of artificial birth control existed in antiquity. Medical papyri described various contraceptive methods used in China in the year 2700 BC and in Egypt in the year 1850 BC. Soranos (AD 98-139), a Greek physician from Ephesus, described seventeen medically approved methods of contraception. Also at this time, abortion and infanticide were not uncommon practices in the Roman Empire.
The early Christian community upheld the sanctity of marriage, marital love, and human life. In the New Testament, the word pharmakeia appears, which some scholars link to the birth control issue. Pharmakeia denotes the mixing of potions for secretive purposes, and from Soranos and others, evidence exists of artificial birth control potions. Interestingly, pharmakeia is oftentimes translated as “sorcery” in English. In the three passages in which pharmakeia appears, other sexual sins are also condemned: lewd conduct, impurity, licentiousness, orgies, “and the like.” (E.g. Galatians 5:19-21.) This evidence highlights that the early Church condemned anything which violated the integrity of marital love.
Further evidence is found in the Didache, also called the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, written about the year AD 80. This book was the Church’s first manual of morals, liturgical norms, and doctrine. In the first section, two ways are proposed– the way of life and the way of death. In following the way of life, the Didache exhorts, “You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure abortion, nor destroy a new-born child. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods….” Again scholars link such phrases as “practice magic” and “use potions” with artificial birth control.
In all, the Catholic Church as well as other Christian denominations condemned the use of contraceptive means until the twentieth century. The first Christian denomination to approve contraception was the Church of England or Episcopalian Church. At the August 14, 1930 Lambeth Conference of Bishops of the Anglican Church, a resolution was passed which allowed the use of methods to limit the size of families “where there is a clearly-felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood.” The “primary and obvious method” was considered “complete abstinence from intercourse…in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit”; however, other methods could also be used, namely artificial means. Bishop Brent gave an impassioned plea stating that if the resolution passed, soon contraception would be allowed for any reason and the decision would give way to selfish rationalization. Interestingly, Following the Lambeth Conference decision, T. S. Eliot commented, “The world is trying the experiment of attempting to form a civilized, but non-Christian mentality. The experiment will fail, but we must be very patient in waiting its collapse” (Thoughts after Lambeth).
In response to the Church of England’s approval of contraception, Pope Pius XI issued his encyclical Casti Connubii on December 31, 1930, stating: “Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
The Church faced increasing pressure regarding the use of contraceptive means with the marketing of the anovulant pill. In response, Vatican Council II stated in the Pastoral Constitution in the Modern World, “In questions of birth regulation, the sons and daughters of the Church, faithful to these principles, are forbidden to use methods disapproved of by the teaching authority of the Church in its interpretation of the divine law (#51). However, Pope Paul VI had transferred the investigation of new questions concerning this matter to a special commission (originally established by Pope John XXIII in March, 1963) for the study of population, the family, and births. The Holy Father would then review their findings and render judgment. The commission included married couples and those of various competencies in this field. Select bishops were also asked for their views; other bishops voluntarily submitted them.
On July 25, 1968, Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae which upheld the consistent teaching of the Church based on natural law as well as divine revelation: “Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life” (#11).
Our Holy Father has continually repeated the Church’s teaching. In The Christian Family in the Modern World, he lamented the signs of a “disturbing degradation of some fundamental values” evident in “the growing number of divorces, the scourge of abortion, the ever more frequent recourse to sterilization, the appearance of a truly contraceptive mentality” (#6).
Interestingly, in 1968 Pope Paul VI prophesied grave consequences from contraception: increased marital infidelity and a lowering of moral standards; increased lack of respect for women, including seeing a woman as a sex object and as an instrument to satisfy sexual pleasures rather than seeing her as a partner in marriage; and the danger of empowering public authorities to regulate the lives of others. Thirty years later, these warnings have become realities: Statistics show the rapid increase of divorce, from a rate of 25% in 1965 to 50% in 1975 during the first five years of marriage. By the year 2000, 50% of American teenagers will have lived a significant part of their lives without a father figure. Moreover, Dr. Robert Michaels of Standord University found a direct, positive correlation between the growing rate of divorce and the rate of contraception. (Interestingly, couples who use Natural Family Planning have a much lower divorce rate: 0.6% according to the Couple to Couple League, and 2-5% according to research conducted by California State University.)
Any person can attest to the deterioration of the moral quality of television and movies during this time. Pornography has become increasingly prevalent, with 630 million pornographic video rentals reported each year in the United States. The availability of pornography and sexual contacts through the internet is alarming.
Crimes of rape continue to rise each year. The news is replete with cases alleging sexual harassment. This year alone, we have been appalled by several cases where unmarried teenage parents killed their newborn child.
Finally, the intrusion of government into family planning has become more prevalent. Some municipal or state governments, such as Maryland and Kansas, have attempted to begin programs which pay women to use Norplant (the five-year contraceptive implanted in a woman’s arm) to control the pregnancies of teenagers and welfare recipients; foreign countries like Peru have introduced sterilization programs and have compelled poor citizens to be sterilized. International policy set by the affluent Western nations to help developing Third World countries oftentimes include mandatory population control provisions, including artificial birth control and abortion. Little wonder, Pope John Paul II declared Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae a “truly prophetic proclamation” (Familiaris Consortio, #29).
Interestingly, Dr. William May in 1968 signed a statement with numerous other theologians dissenting from Humane Vitae. He has long since recanted. In 1988, on the 20th anniversary of the encyclical, he said, “I was beginning to see that if contraception is justifiable, then perhaps artificial insemination, test-tube reproduction, and similar modes of generating life outside the marital embrace are morally justifiable too…. I began to realize that the moral theology invented to justify contraception could be used to justify any kind of deed. I saw that it was a consequentialist, utilitarian kind of argument, that it was a theory which repudiated the notion of intrinsically evil acts. I began to realize how truly prophetic the Pope had been, and how providential it was that he had been given the strength to resist the tremendous pressures brought to bear upon him” (Columbia, June 1988). Now ten years later, articles concerning in vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, and cloning appear regularly in the news media. One has to ask, “Where are we headed as a society?”
Conclusion
Pope Paul VI concluded Humanae Vitae with the statement that the Church is to be “a sign of contradiction.” So indeed she is in upholding the sanctity of marriage and the error of contraception. Yes, the Church is going against the popular culture of the age. Nevertheless, St. Paul’s words originally addressed to the Romans should resound in our own ears: “Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, so that you may judge what is God’s will, what is good, pleasing and perfect” (Romans 12:2).