Alternatives to Condoms: The Catholic Church and Contraceptives

The Cornell Daily Sun ^ | April 1, 2009 - 12:00am | Dan DiLeo

[annalex]

Alternatives to Condoms: The Catholic Church and Contraceptives

By Dan DiLeo

Created Apr 1 2009 - 12:00am

Recently, Pope Benedict XVI made headlines by saying that condoms are an inappropriate and counter-productive solution to HIV/AIDS. Some have expanded on the implications of the Pope’s comments and have considered Church teaching on contraception in light of overpopulation. However, many understand what the Catholic Church says regarding contraception, but few understand why it says it. As such, I now offer this information, assuming that overpopulation is a problem. It is my hope that, whatever moral view you ultimately take, you at least understand the Catholic position, and do not come to a decision without considering all of the ideas here presented.

For the Catholic Church, the general standard for sexual morality is that, just as Jesus’ love for us is always total, selfless, receptive, live-giving and of His own free-will, a moral sexual act is a freely chosen and uninhibited offering of all parts of oneself to another in a relationship which is bound by wedded love, which is completely open to the other, and through which conception is always possible. By this logic, the Church concludes that contraception is immoral since it allows couples to deliberately withhold fertility from one another, and in so doing, compromise the moral requisites of a total self-offering, complete openness to the other and the possibility of conception. In addition, the Church recognizes that contraception can lead to the misuse of sex for pleasure alone, wherein individuals are dehumanized and immorally objectified, to be used as a means to physical ends alone.

This moral position against contraception, though, is not in conflict with a sustainable world population (or HIV/AIDS prevention). However, these ends cannot morally be met by means which are deemed inherently immoral. As such, since the Church views contraception as immoral, it teaches that contraception cannot ever be a moral solution, no matter a problem’s gravity.

However, while the Catholic Church invites people to “responsible love,” it also invites them to “responsible parenthood” which can include not having more children (as Christopher West has written in Theology of the Body for Beginners). So how does the Church propose individuals live out both responsible love and responsible parenthood? The answer is through Natural Family Planning. Using NFP, couples observe and track the physical signals which indicate a woman’s fertile and infertile phases (by body temperature). Based on this information, couples who do not wish to have more children then make the choice to abstain from sex during the periods of fertility. Overall, couples employing NFP sacrifice the times at which they have sex, but ultimately have just as much sex as couples who use contraception. However, since they don’t actively sterilize their relationships, NFP-couples don’t compromise the aforementioned criteria, and so do nothing immoral.

In addition to morality, NFP is also a more practical response to overpopulation than contraception. If overpopulation is the result of too many births, which result from sex during fertile times, then one of the causes of overpopulation is liberal sex during periods of fertility. Yet contraception doesn’t address this underlying cause, but instead tries to put a condom over the effects. NFP, however, works at the level of a married couple’s core beliefs which inspire choices and actions. As well, since contraception costs money and must be continually supplied, it is thus impractical for people living in poverty. Conversely, NFP requires only inexpensive and reusable instruments (e.g. thermometer), and has been shown to be equally, if not more, effective as contraception when practiced correctly.

Consequently, given both the standpoint of the Catholic Church and conditions which exist in the world, the Church teaches that contraception is an immoral and unworkable approach to overpopulation. In fact, when thoughtfully considered, it can be seen that contraception is not simply an attempt to prevent pregnancy, though some try and frame it as such. Rather, contraception was invented, and continues to be employed, because many of us are not willing to make the sacrifice of refraining from sex when pregnancy is most possible. We want to satisfy the flesh whenever we desire, and are unwilling to follow the steps of successful pregnancy prevention which already exists because it conflicts with the worldview of instant gratification and uninhibited self-seeking pleasure.

This paradigm, however, runs counter to the Catholic standards of sexual morality presented above. Thus, while the particular social issues and problems may change, the fundamental Catholic belief has not. As such, since the Church sees contraception as compromising the conditions which constitute a truly loving, respectful, moral sexual relationship, it continues to teach that contraception is immoral, regardless of the circumstances.

[annalex]

Ping

[MEGoody]

I find it interesting that the same people who think we need to spread contraception around to stop over-population are the same ones who use the failure of contraception as an excuse for abortion.

Okay, that's probably not particularly relevant to this thread, but it popped into my head when I was reading this article.

[annalex]

Contraception and abortion are different sins; the latter is also a crime, since it is a sin against another. However, they mutually reinforce each other’s evil work: users of contraception come to regard abortion as backup contraception, and advocates of abortion “rights” consider contraception a benign alternative to abortion.

It is not unlike one sin begets another in general: thieves are also often murderers, drunkards are often gluttons, adulterers are also liars, etc.

[Tax-chick]

in light of overpopulation

"Just enough of me, way too much of you!" as dear old P.J. put it.

Maybe there's something worthwhile in the rest of the article, but he lost me right there.

[annalex]

The author does not himself say that overpopulation is a problem, but he makes that assumption in order to show that the Catholic teaching is correct even if that had been the case.

[Tax-chick]

In my opinion, accepting a false premise is a bad way to start, if one wishes to persuade the reader to some correct contention.

[annalex]

I like the article because it presents the Catholic teaching very clearly and is short. I don’t know if the author himself believes in overpopulation, but if he does, it does not take away from the article.

Let’s say I propose to build a certain building in North Carolina, but the future owner of the building objects to the design because he thinks the building will collapse in an earthquake.

It would be counterproductive to argue that earthquakes are not a likely scenario in North Carolina. If I were to argue that way, I would be making a tacit admission that my building is indeed less than perfect for all occasions. Much better it would be to accept the critic’s premise and simply point out that the building is not going to collapse in an earthquake.

[Tax-chick]

Good points.

However, architectural suitability is morally neutral, while “overpopulation” is not. It conveys the moral judgment that more than a certain number of people, or of certain kinds of people (poor, nonwhite) is a Bad Thing, and so those “excess” people *should not exist*. This is contrary to the Catholic Faith.

[annalex]

If a farm can feed 10 people but not 20 people, that is a morally neutral statement.

[Tax-chick]

Not exactly, and it’s not necessarily accurate, either. Increases in agricultural productivity have left statements like that in the dust. Consequently, the contention that the limit is a fixed one implies the moral judgment that it’s not worthwhile to make improvements in productivity.

[annalex]

What you are saying is that the statement needs an elaboration, to point out the technological limitations that exist, as well as technological possibilities. Still, a statement can be made that acknowledges a limited resource without being morally flawed.

Regardless of what you think of global overpopulation (I, myself, think it is a false fear), families face local population crises all the time and everywhere. An extra child can mean tough budgetary choices for the family or increased medical risks. There are valid reasons some couples practice NFP with the full blessing of the Church in order to avoid a pregnancy. It is possible that in poor countries choices are tougher. So it is not necessarily an elitist exercise to examine the Church moral teaching in the context of widespread poverty; it is, in fact, an acid test of Catholicism.

[Tax-chick]

That is not the point I was making. The situations you describe are not “overpopulation.” They are poverty, or illness, or unemployment, or some other circumstance. Each suggests the need to alleviate the condition, while “overpopulation” suggests eliminating the *people* who suffer from the conditions.

[annalex]

I don’t think the article is written from the perspective that some people need to be eliminated. It simply explains what responsible parenthood means.

[Tax-chick]

I’m sure you’re right. I was discussing the words, rather than the writer’s intent in using them. Sometimes it just feels worthwhile to point out the way we’re all blithely using the Enemy’s vocabulary. For example, everyone who uses the term “pro-choice” isn’t necessarily in favor of the choice to kill babies, but they legitimate it by using the term uncritically.

If you’ve found this whole discussion irritating, I’m sorry about that. I’m just having one of those days.

[annalex]

I’ve been having one of those days for nearly a year. Grr, grr.

[Tax-chick]

Mine will end when the baby is born, and I’ll spend the next year giggling, when I’m not asleep.

[annalex]

Aren’t you worried about overpopulation?

[Tax-chick]

No, Anoreth’s joining the Coast Guard this summer, so we’ll suddenly have much more room! For a small girl (5’1”, 100 lbs.) she takes up an astonishing amount of physical *and* psychological space :-).

[annalex]

You have an answer to everything.