The Evil of Contraception

Priests for Life ^ | Fr. Frank Pavone

[Polycarp IV]

The Evil of Contraception

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director, Priests for Life

Since Roe vs. Wade, there have been three versions of the "Pastoral Plan for Pro-life Activities" issued by the US Catholic Bishops. The latest came out in November, 2001. In this third version, for the first time, the connection between abortion and contraception is explicitly discussed.

There are many aspects to this connection. First of all, some contraceptives cause abortions, and hence are not contraceptives at all. It is critical, moreover, to understand - - as the Pope points out in "The Gospel of Life" -- that abortion and contraception are specifically different evils that differ in nature and gravity. Abortion takes a human life; contraception distorts the meaning of human sexuality. Both are always morally wrong.

Contraception, strictly considered as preventing fertilization, is one of many factors leading to an increase of abortion in our world. As the bishops write, "...[S]ome promote widespread use of contraception as a means to reduce abortions and even criticize the Church for not accepting this approach. It is noteworthy that as acceptance and use of contraception have increased in our society, so have acceptance and use of abortion. Couples who unintentionally conceive a child while using contraception are far more likely to resort to abortion than others."

As Fr. Paul Marx, OSB, and I often discussed, there is no culture or subculture in the world that has permitted contraception and then has not gone on to permit abortion.

The ultimate root of the evil of contraception is that it denies that God is God. The attitude behind it is, "I am the one who ultimately decides whether a human being will come into the world."

As a result of that attitude, one thinks he or she can then change the meaning of sexual intimacy by holding back its life-giving power. Obviously, the same activity by which people express the deepest physical intimacy also can give rise to a new life. Did you ever wonder why God put these two aspects together in the same action? Could he not have invented one action to express love and intimacy, and another, separate action to bring about new life? Is it an accident that both belong to the same act, or did God run out of ideas?

Neither, of course. God acted with a deliberate and wise plan in creating human sexuality. His plan says that when one human being gives him/herself totally to another, that total "yes" includes a "yes" to new life. The partners put themselves in a stance of readiness. "Lord of my life and my body, in giving my body to another, I give my fertility, and I accept my partner's fertility. I am ready to accept your gift. Now I leave it up to you, my Lord, as to whether you will actually give that gift at this time."

As Dr. Bernard Nathanson explains, it is not that contraception causes abortion; rather, both are caused by the perversion of autonomy -- taking freedom and using it to stop rather than to welcome life.

Comments on this column? Email us at mail@priestsforlife.org, Priests for Life, PO Box 141172, Staten Island, NY 10314; Tel: 888-PFL-3448, 718-980-4400; Fax: 718-980- 6515; web: www.priestsforlife.org

[Maximilian]

She does not abandon principle because she is not logical enough for you, or because she does not go back to Aquinas or Pius XI.

In that case you will have no trouble answering my question from the previous post, "Where in these articles is enunciated the essential Catholic principle that contraception is wrong because it violates the primary purpose of marriage?"

I presume this thread was posted to get people to think.

When someone is speaking about a grave topic of faith and morals, I would think that their purpose is to proclaim the truth. And certainly I assume that was CFA's purpose. One could simply "get people to think" about all sorts of topics, but it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing.

[old and tired]

Just because this one speaker in this one essay doesn't go back to Aquinas does not spell doom to me.

Neither does Fr. Pavone. But somehow his letter didn't rankle me the way hers did.

Although truth be told, I'm not sure hers would have either if I hadn't seen her on EWTN saying all these beautiful things about couples using NFP and bad bad bad things about folks using artificial contraception. It just struck me as really insincere, since if a woman really took some effort to learn her cycle, with today's technology she'd probably have a higher chance of preventing pregnancy than with the Pill and condoms combined.

There are all kinds of devices now that can predict fertility with tremendous accuracy. How do they work? Beats me. But even the dumbest married person can tell you how a condom works. It defies common sense that the "natural" one is the one our Church allows, and the one any caveman could have explained is forbidden.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not defending artificial contraception. I'm just saying that I think it's a tactical error to ascribe only dreadful things to contracepting couples and all that is good and generous to NFPers. Again, I don't know that Dr. Smith makes a habit of this, I'm really going by what I've seen of her on EWTN.

[old and tired]

Nobody ought to be judging one couple's motivations in the first place.

You are absolutely right about this. I know my daughter has had this problem exactly. She attends a Tridentine Rite Mass. One Saturday afternoon she called my wife in tears. Apparently, the priest had recognized her in the confessional and began to lecture her about the purpose of marriage. Being her mother's daughter, she listened politely, and assured him she had no sins in that area. But it really upset her and her husband who was extremely angry.

NFP and artificial contraception is one of those topics I like to talk about (in complete anonymity on FR) because I think our Church has lost so much credibility, but I have to go now. I'll try to check this thread in the morning.

[freemama]

Let this middle aged Lutheran woman give you some advice.

God gave man sex for two reasons: joining of husband and wife into one flesh and procreation. To abstain from sex for fear of a baby before you are ready is ignoring the first reason God gave us this gift. My husband and I find ourselves growing apart in spirit if we are not intimate more often than NFP would allow us to be.

Please have the contraception discussion well before your marriage. You must express your opinion to your future wife! Listen closely to her ideas too. This is not something to be worked out after you are married.

A comment on oral contraceptives: I have used them (long ago - before I was better educated on what they do). Insist that your finace not use these. They can cause hormonal imbalance to her that she may not see the fruits of for years in addition to the abortive effects on the children.

Best wishes on your marriage. Make as many of these decisions before you get married as you can!

[Polycarp IV]

But I do have to wonder what the main point of the thread is.

On the contrary, you and I both know that the main point of the thread is crystal clear.

[Polycarp IV]

My husband and I find ourselves growing apart in spirit if we are not intimate more often than NFP would allow us to be.

Most modern Christian couples have a long engagement. If they can remain chaste prior to marriage for one, two, or three years why not for 7 days during the cycle?

My wife and I taught NFP for 11 years. "More often than NFP would allow us to be" is usually not the case. If one desires to please God and avoid mortal sin, God will provide the grace necessary to do His Will.

[Polycarp IV]

a "Good Lutheran" is an LCMS Lutheran, one with whom I have common ground on scripture and morality.

[Maximilian]

On the contrary, you and I both know that the main point of the thread is crystal clear.

In that case, why didn't you answer my question in the previous post about the main point of the thread? I know that you have come around to opposing pragmatic solutions to the abortion problem. And you've also stated that you've stopped teaching NFP. Now you need to come to the realization WHY the message of the Church on contraception has failed so spectacularly for the past 35 years, during the time when it has been presented in the manner like the articles that you posted to start this thread.

[freemama]

You have a good point.

[redgolum]

We are down to the last nine months of the engagement, so the three year engagement is out! I don't think she would like that idea very much :)

Still, one thing that we have noticed is the couples that have a long engagement, usually are having sex. I have had a number of friends get married in the last few years, and they it seems the chaste couples are in a bigger hurry to get married than the unchaste ones.

Well, just got done with the wife to be's and my taxes. Going to relax with a beer and hit the sack.

[freemama]

The 'boys' in St. Louis know that they will have a tiger by the tail if they come out against oral contraception. They are political enough to know how that will play in many LCMS congregations. Some of our ocngregations are starting to veer a bit towards ELCA-land.

Find a conservative LCMS pastor and discuss this with him. This will not be new territory for him.

BTW, it's good to meet another "Good Lutheran" here on FR.

[redgolum]

I have discussed it with a friend of mine who is a pastor before he went to another call. He said he didn't like many of the pills, and that he and his wife use barrier methods. They are looking to have a child now, so I doubt he is using anything today.

The political landscape of the LCMS these days is a bit confusing. You have the conservatives, the "liberals", and the rest of us trying to figure out what type of games are being played. The whole debacle over the New York prayer service is a good case in point.

I think that a bit more discretion should of been applied, and I have a hard time calling the pastor in question wrong when he cleared the meeting with his superiors.

[freemama]

About the NYC controversy: the issue isn't about him being authorized to participate by his superiors. The issue is about personal responsibility as a pastor. He knew there would be leaders of false religions there. He knew there would be prayers by them to their gods. He also knew any prayer he led that didn't specifically declare Christ would be prayed by the followers of these false religions to their gods. As a religious leader he was responsible to declare Christ in that place. He did not. That is where his fault was. He knew better and did what he wanted anyway.

Now back to the contraception topic. Has your wife-to-be discussed this issue with her minister? Where is she on this?

[redgolum]

Yes she has. She actually told her priest that she wants to go on some sort of birth control at first. Don't know how the discussion went, as I was not present for most of it. She doesn't want to use NFP, and the priest did try to sell it on our initial visit, but backed off rather quickly.