Fearing God Regardless of Religion
As Catholics consider the consequences of more Anglicans entering into full communion with the Church, Cathy Kaveny raises some interesting questions below with regard to how well the strictures on contraception will sit with these newly minted Anglo-Catholics. These questions are made even more timely by the USCCB’s consideration of a new pastoral letter on marriage and family, which reiterates that contraception is “intrinsically evil.” NCR has a copy of the proposed draft here.
Interestingly, there is also a story on the NYTimes website about a bill currently making its way through the Filipino Congress that would provide reproductive healthcare for the 70% of the population that is too poor to afford such services not currently included in the state’s government run healthcare program. The bill, which would provide contraception (among other services) is being opposed by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines.
For those of us who appreciate at least the ideal of the separation of church and state in America, I found the following quote from Rev. Melvin Castro, the spokesman for the Bishops, to be a pretty good summary of what’s wrong with the pro-life movement:
“The Constitution is very clear that the state should protect life from conception up to its natural end,” Father Castro said. “Regardless of their religion, Filipinos are God-fearing and family-loving. This bill will change that culture.”
So, no matter what religion, all people of faith are God-fearing? What about Buddhists? Secondly, how does providing birth control to those who are unable to provide for the children they already have lead directly to a non-family-loving culture? Presumably, some parents don’t want more children because they love the ones they already have too much to deny them basic material needs. One couple who have been victims of scarce family planning resources are “barely able to buy vitamins for their youngest child, let alone send more than two of their older children to school.” I wonder what Father Castro would say about contraception if he had 8 children to support on a fraction of his salary.
Eric –
The bishops seem blind to the fact that the resources of the Earth are limited, and this limitation implies that couples will be obligated to have only two children, if that. I say if that because the changes in weather there is not enough rain for the agricultural system to support populations of the size we have even now. For instance, in the U.S. The whole southern half is now in a process of becoming a desert. (See recent weather reports for Atlanta and huge areas of Texas.)
For the bishops to encourage large families is, I think, intrinscally immoral.
Ann: I agree.
Given that the quote you use, which refers to the moral status of human persons from conception until natural death (incidentally, is his implicit criticism of the death penalty here part of what the pro-life movement ‘doesn’t get’?), it is curious why you think he is talking about contraception rather than abortion. And when you read the article, one discovers that he wasn’t: “One organization, the Catholic Alumni United for Life, said in a position paper that the legislation would promote abortion by financing abortion-inducing drugs, and therefore “violates explicit Catholic teaching.”" Strange that you missed this given that I’m sure you were giving a pro-lifer the benefit of the doubt.
But as long as we are on the topic of contraceptives and population, while there are certainly times where use of contraceptives are legitimate, I’m can’t imagine that we’d want to export the disaster that is the West’s contraceptive (and abortive) culture to places like the Philippines who, thank God, are right to react with some skepticism. In light of these numbers, the only thing that would be ‘immoral’ would be to try to even suggest that we should artificially be limiting births:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline#By_specific_countries
Although, let’s be honest, how fun would THIS be if we keep on supported the utterly mistaken notion that more abortion and contraception is the answer:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jJg-yccasRYKax_iCrkJ-M2h3cdA
I visited graveyards in the Philippines and noted the brief life-spans. The Church there has criminally promoted irresponsibility, with its obstruction to health services that help with contraception, not to mention the condom-burning parades. The Anglicans got it right 90 years ago and a string of proud and fearful popes dug into a bunker, closing their ears to fact and reason, so that the entire Church is now in a posture of ridiculous hypocrisy.
it is curious why you think he is talking about contraception rather than abortion. And when you read the article, one discovers that he wasn’t
Charles,
It seems to me that many in the Church who thunder against contraception blur the distinction between birth control and abortion. Perhaps it’s a deliberate tactic, or perhaps, as celibate men, they don’t even see a difference. Contraception and abortion are both just ways to avoid having babies.
According to Time Magazine:
There is something frankly sick about the way many in the Catholic Church think about reproductive issues up to and including abortion. Another quote from Time Magazine:
Maybe it’s not true, but it sure looks like many Catholic bishops care more about the unborn — and sometimes even the unconceived! — than they do about living, breathing, suffering people.
Well, David, I think you’re probably right that many who ‘thunder’ against contraception (and given the ‘depopulation of the West/de facto abandonment of the old’ maybe this isn’t totally wrongheaded…though surely they often do a terrible job of making the point) often blur the distinction between this and the much more morally serious situation of actually killing a fellow member of the human family. But I think those who blur the distinction are much more often those who have and support abortion and abortion rights. For abortion has become virtually nothing more than the cashing in on contraception’s false promise of child-free sex. ‘Sex’ is one thing and ‘having a baby’ is another…and the contraceptive mentality teaches our culture that we may have A without ever worrying about B. Unfortunately, biology kicks in every once in awhile to disabuse us of this silly notion, and it is at this point we tell ourselves the biologically false bedtime story that abortion is just another kind of ‘reproductive choice.’ This is even a worse example of ‘blurring the lines’ than anything the people you rightly criticize are doing.
Also, what if Sobrinho had said “Infanticide is much more serious than killing an adult. An adult may or may not be innocent, but an infant child is most definitely innocent. Taking that life cannot be ignored,”? Would the proper response be: “It sure LOOKS like many Catholic Bishops care more about the neonatal than about living, thinking, rational people,”?
Charles,
If the Catholic doctrine that life (personhood) begins at conception, then it is reasonable in many ways to claim that the life of a fetus or a newborn is equal to the life of an adult. It is not at all reasonable to claim that the life of a fetus or a newborn infant is worth more than the life of an adult. Do you feel that your own life was most precious when you were a fetus, decreased in value when you were born, and is worth even less now that you are an adult? Not only was Sobrinho’s statement cruelly insensitive and utterly ridiculous — I would argue that it twists authentic Catholic thought beyond recognition.
Okay, I know I sound like a broken record. . . in traditional Catholic moral theology, contraception has always been an “intrinsic evil”–wrong by reason of its object not by reason of its circumstance (the defect is internal to the act so to speak.) Intrinsic evil does not mean grave evil–although the manualists tend to up the value of every sin pertaining to sex.
So the bishops are not wrong for saying that. contraception is intrinsically evil but they may well be misinterpreted because of the way people–including some of them–have used the term in the recent past to be the equivalent of “horrible-nasty-unthinkable-awful evil” (that ‘s not a technical term).
The Philippines has the single highest rate of exporting workers (as a percentage of its population) to the rest of the world (read: the Middle East) of any country on Earth. It is already incapable of providing anything remotely approaching a decent minimal material existence for its population. The bishops live there. They are fully aware of the number of people who, literally, pick through garbage as a means of survival. They don’t care. They. Don’t. Care. If they cared they would at least pay lip service to some alternative, but they can’t even be bothered to do that. The level of political hypocrisy is astounding. The current president, after using birth control to limit her own family size so that she could become educated and practice as a physician, decided after becoming president, and well after her peak childbearing years, that her “conscience” required her to limit birth control options available to other women at public expense. Conscience, yeah, I am sick to death of people whose conscience is directed mostly at what OTHER people can do.
Charles –
First, I agree wiith you that Western culture, including many in the Church, quite irrationally tend to disconnect the causal relation between sexual intercourse and pregnancy. But that is not the issue here.
Check out the United Nation’s figures on population at the Wikipedia site on overpulation.
The only reason headway is being made agsinst overpopulation is because contraception has been introduced in many countries and because China has a one-child policy, a policy enforced by abortion I do not for an instant condone that policy, but it is another biological fact that abortion is an effective means of population control.
Further, overpopulation is not being controlled in all countries, and the U. S is one of them. The de facto desertification of the lower half of this country can only add to severe problems such as water scarcity that are already starting to emerge.
Focusing on depopulation in this context puts one’s head in the sand. Ignoring an issue of this magnitude is, I submit, itself immoral. War, pestilence, starvation and death are bound to follow. The Horsemen are already riding in the Sudan.
You question Eric, is valid enough; “ Secondly, how does providing birth control to those who are unable to provide for the children they already have lead directly to a non-family-loving culture?”
As for the answer, Pope Paul VI gave it in detail, in Humanae Vitae. As for limiting family size without compromising the value of married love and openness to God (i.e., open to life), Natural Family Planning is a good method.
I realize many did not/do not agree with him on this, but the fact of the matter is the Church is correct:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Also, in discussing “population control”, it is important to keep in mind that the ends do not justify the means, and that we humans are not God.
Charles,
I find your reading of the article and the Reverend’s comments confusing. The article seems to primarily focus on contraception and even points out that the 92% of unwanted pregnancies resulting from a lack of available contraception has “contributed to an estimated half-million abortions that year, despite a ban on the procedure.” I think it is a tragedy that abortion is being used as an alternative to contraception, and the article, far from advocating legal abortion, seems to be pointing out that making contraception affordable and available would decrease the number of (illegal) abortions. Yet, you quote the Bishops’ position that the bill would make available “abortion-inducing drugs,” which I assume includes birth control pills, and you talk about a “contraceptive and abortive culture” in the same breath. So, I agree with David Nickol that you are blurring the line between contraception and abortion in a way that is actually leading to more frequent and increasingly dangerous abortions.
I should have been clear that I am against abortion. But, I do not follow your argument about child-free sex. How many couples practicing NFP do you think have sweated it out praying that they are not pregnant because they just couldn’t afford another mouth to feed right now? I know a few. It seems to me that the whole point of NFP is to have child-free sex. So, maintaining the *necessary* connection between sex and children does not seem to be the central argument against birth control. The issue of “biology kicking in” seems to be about accepting the will of God when it makes itself known, which certainly should be embraced with enthusiasm, but I think you assume to much when you suggest that couples who use contraception will abort the fetus if the contraception fails. It seems just as theoretically likely that couples who use NFP might turn to abortion if the NFP fails. So, unless you are willing to bite the bullet and say that couples should only have sex when they are ready to have a baby and abstain at all other times, then I don’t know that you have much of an argument to mount against contraception…yet.
David, thank you for noting the absurdity of the AB’s strong suggestion (assertion?) that an unborn life is more valuable than an adult’s life.
Charles, thank you for your reminder that once in awhile, “biology kicks in” and a faithful user of contraception finds herself pregnant and thinks nothing of aborting her unborn offspring as a means of not having to carry a pregnancy to term.
Ann, thank you for reminding us of weather-related matters that seriously affect levels of agricultural production.
Barbara, thank you for noting the outrageous hypocrisy of the Philippines’ president.
Cathleen, thank you once again for reminding us that “intrinsically evil” does not refer to the moral gravity of an act (I found your post a few months ago quite informative).
Eric, thank you for noting the potential/actual hypocrisy of NFP users. I see no basic difference between the real purpose(s) of NFP and artificial contraception. Couples can use either approach to space their children, limit the number of children, or avoid having children.
Cathy,
Thank you for your clarification on ‘intrinsically evil.” I was actually hoping you would repeat the distinction you often make. But, I think you will agree that from a pastoral perspective, the language is *very* misleading. I think for most people, evil is evil whether grave or intrinsic. The noun seems to overshadow any adjective you put in front of it.
I am still a little confused, though, by your explanation. If the act is evil regardless of circumstance, I take that to mean that it is not an evil that is context dependent or systemic, but rather evil in all times and all places due to the fact that it goes against one’s very nature. I suppose evil “in its object” could mean that the “thing” (as opposed to the action) is evil in itself. For example a gun could be “intrinsically evil” and using it to kill someone gravely evil, but it seems to me that the whole issue about contraception is in the using. Furthermore, the Bishops explain that this kind of evil actually erodes the very foundation of a marriage because it undoes the very ontological union that is constitutive of the sacrament. This seems like the gravest kind of evil – one that is against the very nature of what it is to be human. To put it simply, if it even makes sense to talk about an intrinsically evil action, does one have to confess such an act? Does it bar one from receiving communion? Is it a mortal sin? And if not, then what responsibility does one bear for using birth control, if its not a Hell-kind-of-sin? More time in purgatory? Thanks so much for clarifying this (or pointing me in the right direction)…
Hi Eric. I’m sorry if I confused you. No, I think you have the angle of the ARTICLE correct…it certainly wants to take the ‘how silly…yet another backward attempt of the Church to limit the most holy of practices: contraception’ angle. But that doesn’t appear to be where the opposition is coming from…and this, I take it, was the topic of your blog entry. But notice even when the article first starts discussing the opposition, it is abortion that appears to be driving it, “The main opposition in this overwhelmingly Roman Catholic country has come from the church and affiliated lay organizations, which say the proposed law would legalize abortion.” Also, I’m no apologist for how the Church is currently articulating the necessary connection between procreation and sex in marriage. I think NFP, though perhaps a better choice for many couples for a host of unrelated reasons (http://www.doublex.com/section/health-science/your-grandmother%E2%80%99s-birth-control-might-actually-work), does allow for what it seems to me HV wanted to eliminate: a sex act that is not open to procreation. My issues are broader than individual sex acts within marriages that are clearly already open to procreation. Rather, I’m interested in public policy and movements which perpetuate a major mistake underlying our depopulpation and abortion problems: that ‘sex’ and ‘having babies’ are somehow concepts unrelated to each other.
Ann, as the technological revolution hits the broader world…and (in a related story) as millions and millions more continue to come out of poverty…we will see what we have seen in the West when we became saturated with money and technology: declining population rates. Even Peter Singer, notorious for advocating abortion and even infanticide to control population, in his new book on combating global poverty defends himself against the charge that helping the poor just produces more poor people who we can’t support by admitting that we have more than enough resources to help and sustain the current poor and that once they come out of absolute poverty they will be sensible enough to stop having children like virtually every other society that has done so.
David: agreed. I didn’t buy the way he worded it. I just wanted to see how far you were willing to push what appeared to be the reverse charge you were making: not only are fetuses not worth more than adults, but they are worth LESS. Wasn’t that what you were saying?
Joseph, the difference between artificial contraception and NFP is the means.
The ends do not justify the means.
With artificial birth control, a couple does not modify their thinking or behavior to meet the circumstances. With NFP, the couple recognizes when circumstances indicate it might be best if they wait awhile before having a child, and so they change their behavior to match the circumstances.
One could even say the ends are not the same. True, both prevent conception, but artificial birth control places a man-made barrier (either chemical or mechanical) between man and woman, and tends – especially in the case of men – to allow our more selfish or self-gratifyng insticts to dominate. NFP on the other hand, requires some restraint and engenders respect for the woman and for the marital relationship, and helps both husband and wife understand they are in a sort of partnership with God.
One is a thoughtful approach in line with God’s will; the other is not.
Ken,
According the the article Cathy Kaveny published in America a while back (http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11166), the whole point of calling contraception “intrinsically evil” is to recognize that “the proximate end of the deliberate decision” to use it is wrong. So, it is not about the means. It is about the assumed goal of the action. So, if artificial contraception is wrong because it “places a man-made barrier (either chemical or mechanical) between man and woman, and tends – especially in the case of men – to allow our more selfish or self-gratifyng insticts to dominate,” then one must assume that this is the intended *goal* of such contraception for one to continue to hold that it is intrinsically evil. It does not seem to me that the goal of using contraception, particularly in the context of marriage, is to place a barrier between husband and wife and to allow the husband selfish access to his wife as a sex object. Rather, I assume the goal is the responsible control of family size (or, less generously, sex without kids), like NFP. So, if artificial contraception is intrinsically evil, so is NFP – they share the same proximate end.
Cathy,
In your America article, you say that to determine the proximate end of an intrinsically evil action, “one has to put oneself in the shoes of the one acting, and to describe the action from her perspective.” Later you say that the Church teaches that contraception is “intrinsically evil” because it “closes the sexual act to the gift of life.” But, this does not seem to be the proximate end of contraception from the perspective of the one acting. Rather, it describes the result of contraception from a third-person perspective.
Sorry to be thinking out loud here, but as I read Cathy’s article, I can see that the description of the proximate end of contraception as “closing the sexual act to the gift of life” is meant to be a literal or objective description of the act. This is to say that to “close the sexual act to the gift of life” is like “burning down a building” an expression of the “fact of the matter” regarding what is done in an act. But, talking about the “gift of life” seems to go beyond a “just the facts” description. There are many ways that sex could be considered life-giving beyond simply having a child, and there are ways that having a child could deaden the life of a marriage. (I know that sounds crass, but it happens). As always, it seems like describing “proximate ends” is in the eye of the beholder. If you ask 10 people what contraception does, I imagine most will say prevent pregnancy. If you then tell them it actually denies the “gift of life,” I imagine they will look at you quizzically, and some may say “well, when you put it that way…” But, the Church doesn’t intend the expression as merely a “way of putting it,” but it is meant to be a representation of the facts. Is it?
To complicate this, the Church actually goes beyond this description to say that “life” does not just mean a child, but the very substance of what it is to be married. Take, for instance, the following from the proposed pastoral letter linked above:
“We are alarmed that a couples responsibility to serve life by being open to children is being denied and abandoned more frequently today. Reflecting losses in the understanding of the purposes of marriage and belief in their value, couples more readily treat as separate choices the decision to get married and the decision to have children. This indicates a mentality in which children are not seen as integral to a marriage but are seen as an afterthought. When children are viewed in this way, there can be damaging consequences not only for them but also for the marriage itself.”
There are a number of conceptual leaps in a statement like this, but most troubling is the assumption of motive from a supposedly objective description of the facts. It is clear that, in the eyes of the Church (i.e. the Bishops), couples who use contraception are not simply mistaken in preventing the conception of children, but they are wickedly undermining their marriage and commodifying their future children. This sounds like more than the simple, technical use of “intrinsically evil” that Cathy articulated. I know that part of her point is that the Bishops are misusing the term, but if a term is misused enough, it begins to take on a new meaning. So, according to the USCCB, it sounds like contraception is at least an indication of the presence of a “grave evil.”
I’m intrigued by the drafter(s)’ apparent assumption that couples of yore regarded their children “as integral to a marriage” — as if children were not a “commodity.”
It seems to me that married couples, depending on context and circumstances, might see children as gift, as burden, as workers.
Perhaps the bishops have been working with some kind of unrealistic, utopian beliefs?
But notice even when the article first starts discussing the opposition, it is abortion that appears to be driving it, “The main opposition in this overwhelmingly Roman Catholic country has come from the church and affiliated lay organizations, which say the proposed law would legalize abortion.”
Charles,
Doing Google searches for information about what’s going on in the Philippines, I can find nothing that indicates the law attempting to make contraceptives more available has anything at all in it about permitting abortion. Here, from the Times article, is where the abortion angle seems to come from:
Now, there would be no argument if the bill actually supported abortion-inducing drugs like mifepristone (RU-486) or other authentically abortifacient drugs. But I can only imagine that these groups consider oral contraceptives to be abortifacient drugs. That is at best a very controversial position to the point where equating oral contraceptives with abortion strikes me as dishonest.
It is about the means Eric. The end (or the goal) cannot be used to justify the means.
Simply put, artificial contraception gives a couple the false impression that they can act without regard to consequences. In other words, it encourages them to incorrectly think they need not trim their sails to match reality of their particular circumstance. The upshot is they accept the incorrect notion that regardless of their individual situation, they need not restrain themselves or their desires, and that there will be no consequence whatever to their actions. Obviously via artificial contraception the couple avoids having a child, but there are consequences nonetheless. The distance it places between man and woman are one example, but there are medical consequences to for example, taking birth control pills for long periods of time.
NFP means not introducing artificial barriers between man and woman, and as the many popes have tried to tell us, is in line with God’s will that we remain open to life. Using NFP simply means recognizing and accepting the reality that we are human, that God is God, and that we live in an imperfect world where our individual circumstances might indicate that we should delay having a child.
When a couple uses NPF, the man recognizes the woman’s cycle and the couple utilizes that natural system. It means recognizing (for example) the need to space children, but also recognizing the responsibility we have as married people, the respect we should have for women, and the need to adjust our behaviour as per our individual circumstances.
They don’t care. They. Don’t. Care.
I think Barbara is right. I don’t think they care.
Do any bishops live in poverty? Surely there must be some who say, “How can I live in luxury when my people are starving?” Do any bishops live as their people live? Do any bishops embrace poverty? I see that John Paul II exhorted them to. Did any of them take him up on it?
The object of the act is the proximate end of the act. So it’s what the agent “does.” That doing, however, is not described from a perspective external to the agent, focused entirely on physical attributes of the action. So although they look alike from the outside, the physical cut of a serial killer and the cut of a surgeon are not the same “acts” from a moral perspective–they don’t have the same object.
Immediate purpose shapes the description of the object; more remote purposes are motives or further ends. Human action has a teleological structure.
So you can’t engage in an act with the object of separating the unitive and procreative good (contraception) even for a good purpose or a good motive.
Means and ends are linked in a chain. we do an act, which is a means to an end, which is in turn means to a further end. What are you doing? Blogging. Why are you blogging? To clarify a point. Why are you clarifying a point. To contribute to my vocation as a teacher and a scholar. . . .
David, I’m hesitant to draw conclusion based on what a google search reveals…and given that even in the United States abortion is somehow seen as a ‘reproductive service’ to make it seem more palatable, I can’t imagine that anyone pushing this initiative in such a Catholic country is going to be blatant about it being part of the deal to the point where it would show up in the google search.
Also, with all due respect, the sweeping judgments that you and Barbara are making against a whole group of people seem pretty reckless. Do you really make such a claim based on whether they are impoverished or not? Does the fact that you do not choose to live like the impoverished in your society mean you do not care about them? Here’s a good way to think about it: suppose there was a huge eugenics program designed to limit the number of blacks born in New York City. Suppose that in speaking out against such a program, Dolan was criticized for ‘not caring’ about the problems of black poverty and homelessness. The obvious response would be of course he cares–but Roman Catholics are going to want to deal with the problem via the consistent ethic of life. For crying out loud, the bishops are in the middle of a huge global campaign against poverty right now. I’m trying to understand how anyone with a fair mind can make this kind of sweeping judgment…but I’m drawing a blank. What am I missing here?
Cathy,
Thank you for the clarification. I guess I simply don’t see why it is wrong in itself to separate the unitive and procreative goods of sexuality. It seems wrong, as the Bishops suggest, only as an indication of a deeper evil motive or potential evil consequence. Secondly, I’m not convinced that “procreation” needs to be defined narrowly as always entailing the conception of children. Thirdly, as Ken points out, the teaching on contraception seems to be not only about the separation itself, but the *means* of separation (a physical or chemical barrier versus the exploitation of the natural fertility cycle). This seems to be rooted in an kind of theological naturalism that is somewhat troubling.
Yes. Those are separate points. You might want to read the Majority Report of the Birth Control Commission–the ultimate recommendation of which Pope Paul VI rejected in HV. And John Noonan’s book on Contraception. I think you’d find them congenial.
I always find it interesting that modern NFP methods are touted as being as effective or more effective than the pill. If that’s true, it is difficult for me to see how NFP is any kind of a guard against the very “contraceptive mentality” that pro-NFP folks warn that the pill reflects, and that NFP does not. NFP is merely a different route to the same end, the near-absolute prevention of pregnancy. The nature of the block to conception doesn’t matter as much as one’s intention in using it, just as it doesn’t matter whether I kill someone “artificially” (e.g., with a gun) or “naturally” (by using my hands.) Telling a lie “artificially” (e.g. by texting,) is still as much of a lie as speaking the words into someone’s ear. Promoting NFP does nothing to address the stated moral evil, that of failing to be open to life. Similarly, many of the other evils claimed to be linked to the pill are indeed evils (seeing one’s spouse as a means to one’s own selfish pleasure, etc.) but are not linked in any logical way to “artificial” contraception as such. One can do that just as much with NFP, just not all the time.
And while one may never intend an intrinsic evil, recall that the way contraception became “intrinsically evil” was by a definition of sex as ordered by God to procreation and union in each act. (HV 12) While this intrinsic procreative end for sex acts may be true for many species, for humans tihs may be a misreading of nature. Nature has gone to great lengths to hide human ovulation, while the females of most species shout to the rooftops, one way or another, that they’re ovulating. NFP, it could be argued, “artificially” discloses what nature carefully hides. (In fact, were it not for women’s sexual interest throughout the menstrual cycle, “NFP” would reduce to “have sex only when you want kids.” Fine for Augustine, but a bad reading of human sexuality.) Is the fact of women’s hidden ovulation not, perhaps, intended by God just as much as sex’s procreative potential?
Simply put, artificial contraception gives a couple the false impression that they can act without regard to consequences.
Ken,
Well, it seems to me, then, that all you need do is educate them that in using contraception, they can’t act without regard to consequences — that there are always consequences of any act.
Surely you are not suggesting that your argument explains the basis on which the Church condemns artificial contraception. It would seem to imply to me that there was some fundamental difference between the marriages of fertile couples and infertile couples, or that marriage changed in some fundamental way after a woman was past her childbearing years.
It is difficult for the average person, without multiple degrees in moral theology, to understand why the reaction to NFP shouldn’t be, “It’s not nice to cheat mother nature!” It is also bewildering to me why the same requirements for the mechanics of sexual activity should apply to the fertile and infertile alike — why intercourse must be open to the transmission of life when life cannot be transmitted.
Nature has gone to great lengths to hide human ovulation, while the females of most species shout to the rooftops, one way or another, that they’re ovulating. NFP, it could be argued, “artificially” discloses what nature carefully hides.
Fascinating observation. Not only does NFP artificially disclose what was hidden, but it requires acting on that knowledge and thwarting nature’s arrangement to have females always receptive and males always interested.
Using contraception is an acknowledgement of potential consequences — and therefore, quite the opposite of what Ken says, a recognition that actions DO have consequences. Quite literally, it is an effort to recognize and avoid certain consequences, and on that score, I, along with others, don’t see how “artificial” contraception is worse than or different from NFP. Moreover, I don’t think that contraceptive failure is more or less likely to generate anxiety than NFP failure, or than the complete abandonment of any preventive measures.
Excellent post, Lisa.
My main problem with the Church’s premise that procreation is always and in every case the primary end of sex, so therefore contraceptin is immoral. The Vatican offers no convincng argument in support of that premise. Also, consider that our hands have many possible important functions, but that does not imply that at all times one of them is their primary function. According to what moral principle does the Church reach a different conclusion regarding the functions of sex?
Oops. — should be: My main problem IS with . . .
Lisa said: Nature has gone to great lengths to hide human ovulation, while the females of most species shout to the rooftops, one way or another, that they’re ovulating. NFP, it could be argued, “artificially” discloses what nature carefully hides. (In fact, were it not for women’s sexual interest throughout the menstrual cycle, “NFP” would reduce to “have sex only when you want kids.” Fine for Augustine, but a bad reading of human sexuality.) Is the fact of women’s hidden ovulation not, perhaps, intended by God just as much as sex’s procreative potential?
But I had read that women did experience increased interest in sex around the time of ovulation?
Here’s a website that says the same: http://womens-sexual-health.suite101.com/article.cfm/increased_libido_during_ovulation
Sure, many women have increased interest in sex at ovulation, (also just before menstruation, which makes zero reproductive sense,) but still we have nothing like the clarity of other animals announcing ovulation. Consider the vivid red buttocks of baboons, e.g. As a veterinarian I would not infrequently be called on emergency by people whose young female cats had “gone crazy” or were “in some kind of serious distress.” And good farmers know exactly when their cows are ovulating–but they may not be able to tell when their wives (or they themselves!) are. Other animals don’t “waste time” having sex when it’s not likely to be reproductive. People have sex all the time, and, gosh, it doesn’t seem like wasting time… :-)
I can’t take credit for the argument on hidden ovulation. See Robert P. Heaney, MD, “Sex, Natural Law and Bread Crumbs.” in America Feb 26, 1994.
You’re a vet!? and a theologian. Cool!
I’ll be sure to look up this intriguing article. However, I still think there is quite a bit of biological fact going the other way too. Don’t women tend to have decreased libido after menopause too?
Still, I take your point that humans are different from all the other species in this regard. But, hasn’t the church taken account for this specialness of humankind, by (fairly recently) noting the unitive aspects of sex, along with the procreative?
“Surely you are not suggesting that your argument explains the basis on which the Church condemns artificial contraception. It would seem to imply to me that there was some fundamental difference between the marriages of fertile couples and infertile couples, or that marriage changed in some fundamental way after a woman was past her childbearing years.”
Oh please David, spare us that tired old red herring; it is simplistic to say the least.
As for fooling mother nature and theology degrees – please pardon me for using such generic technical terms – but one does not need a theology degree to understand that there is a difference between operating within the known routines of a system, and short circuiting the routine via artificially-imposed means. Regarding nature, we take advatage of, or exploit natural cycles all the time. A very basic example of this is how most of us exploit the daily light & dark cycle by working during the day and sleep at night.
And Cathleen, rather than referring to the report which Pope Paul VI rejected, I think it is better to refer his final report on the matter, his encyclical “Humanae Vitae”:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Oh please David, spare us that tired old red herring; it is simplistic to say the least.
Ken,
I wasn’t asking the question, “If marriage is about procreation, why does the Church let infertile couples marry?” In saying, “Simply put, artificial contraception gives a couple the false impression that they can act without regard to consequences,” you seemed to be making a kind of psychological argument as to why artificial contraception is wrong. And that psychological argument wouldn’t apply to couples who were infertile for whatever reason, because by reason of biological facts, they can have sex any time they please, without regard to consequences. And, of course, if NFP is effective as proponents claim, they can also have the false impression that they can act without regard to consequences. I am not focusing on the fact that one couple is fertile and another is not. I am focusing on the fact that your psychological argument about expectations applies differently to different couples, because different couples would have different expectations. Infertile couples would not have the opportunity (as you seem to see it) to learn about the consequences of their actions by means of their sexual relationship.
It seems to me your whole argument falls apart, in any case, because — as I understand the Catholic position — it is equally wrong for a fertile couple to use a condom during sexual intercourse as for a couple in which the woman is past childbearing age and the man has always been sterile. False impressions are in no way involved. It would also be just as wrong for a sterile couple to have oral sex to completion as it would be for a fertile couple. The infertile couple is not thwarting anything, because they do not have the capability of reproducing, and yet they are forbidden to have sexual experiences that are not “open to the transmission of life.”
A very basic example of this is how most of us exploit the daily light & dark cycle by working during the day and sleep at night.
And yet the Catholic Church condemns using the birth control pill but not using the electric light or working the night shift! :P
The Catholic Church, as far as I know, doesn’t condemn diet sodas because they give a false impression that we can drink sweetened beverages without consequences. It doesn’t condemn the weight-loss drug Alli, which artificially prevents you from absorbing some of the fat you eat, thus escaping the consequences of overeating (while thousands starve every day). It doesn’t condemn, as far as I know, the military for giving pilots amphetamines for long missions where they must get around the normal wake/sleep-day/night cycles. There is no objection to using artificial, chemical fertilizers to make plants grow. There must be thousands of ways in which we thwart the “intentions” of nature in artificial ways.
“Regarding nature, we take advatage of, or exploit natural cycles all the time. A very basic example of this is how most of us exploit the daily light & dark cycle by working during the day and sleep at night.”
And as for those poor people who have to work by night, how dare they!
It always amazes me how some Catholics, apparently honestly, think they should have some sort of veto power over the Pope, or that they should be in the business of second guessing him.
Most of these second-guessers have no intention of even being ordained a priest, but they seem to thrive on carping about the preisthood and Rome all the time. A Catholic chattering class of sorts. I have heard that while we have a shortage of priests, there is no shortage of popes : )
Seriously though, on something this important, with pope and pope over the many decades having affirmed time and again, Church teaching regarding artificial contraception, it is stunning to see some folks like Cathleen still harking back to some report put out by the pro-birth control folks back in the 1960′s, a report which Pope Paul VI rejected.
How many times must the Vatican spell this out for us before all understand? The matter seems straightforward enough.
Typo Alert – I meant to type:
Seriously though, on something this important, with pope after pope over the many decades having affirmed time and again, Church teaching regarding artificial contraception . . .
Ken,
When the Church says something is morally wrong, shouldn’t people be able to understand why it is morally wrong? You made an effort earlier to explain. Now you are making an argument based on the authority of the Church. Also, while some Church teachings on sex and reproductive matters are very old, the pill is very new, and the Church teaching on NFP is very new. There is no ancient tradition to appeal to regarding Church about why NFP is permissible when the pill is not.
it is stunning to see some folks like Cathleen still harking back to some report put out by the pro-birth control folks back in the 1960’s, a report which Pope Paul VI rejected.
This was not “some report put out by the pro-birth control folks.” It was the report of The Pontifical Commission on Birth Control, consisting of “72 members from five continents (including 16 theologians, 13 physicians and five women without medical credentials, with an executive committee of 16 bishops, including seven cardinals)” hand-picked by Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI. Do you honestly think those two popes loaded the Commission with “pro-birth control folks”?
Hi Ken,
For me, I’d say because we are a tradition that, at least since Thomas Aquinas battled with Bonaventure at the U. of Paris, believes that there is a deep consonance between human reason and the requisites of faithful living. With rather astonishing boldness, we claim that human reason, while fallible, is akin to God’s reason, and we can figure things out for ourselves, within limits. Thomas began his Summa Theologiae by asking “hey, we’ve got philosophy [reason], why do we need revelation at all?” He answered “there are some things that you can only know by revelation,” (I infer–resurrection, Incarnation, basically the things to which we say “I believe” rather than “I know rationally.”) Also, “it takes even smart people a long time to figure stuff out, and even they make a lot of mistakes.” The truths amenable to reason are not, cannot be, inimical to the faith, and the faith does not ask us to set aside reason, even while we recognize its fallibility and the continual need for study. In Catholic tradition “because the Pope said so,” is very important, but not determinative if the argument behind it is wanting. (Cf. the tradition of probabilism.) Infallible teachings are a different question. The teaching on contraception is not infallible.
In the US, Catholics largely ignore the Church on the question of contraception, not even regarding “artificial” contraception as a matter to confess any more. While it is possible that, say, 94-96% of sexually active Catholics are in a more or less continual state of mortal sin, perhaps it might be the case that the teaching is flawed. As were the continual, centuries-old, papally-approved teachings against religious freedom and for slavery. With other sins, while Catholics commit them, at least a substantial proportion of us recognize THAT they’re sins, yes? Not so with contraception. Imposing flawed teaching (and the behavior of the 94-96% shows at least that this teaching does not touch the consciences of Catholics,) erodes respect for Church leadership, which is an important moral issue. And no, the theological debate didn’t cause the faithful to disregard the teaching–it was their own reflection in consicence. Theological debate only reveals that some reasonable people raise questions about the teaching, while others argue for its validity. That’s one of the things theologians do–try to be reasonable in the service of the faith.
In developing countries, the Church has an influence on public policy as well as individuals–this teaching can affect the availability of contraception who do not follow Catholic doctrine. Many married couples who try to obey the teaching find their marriages strained by it, and comparatively few report their marriages improved. In regions where male domination is the rule in marriage, it is the woman who bears the brunt of bearing more children than her body can handle and the couple can feed. It also affects (though it shouldn’t,) the availability and usage of condoms in HIV-endemic areas, and is therefore implicated in helping to spread the disease. No, it’s not the only factor. But it is a factor. So a theoretical and three pastoral reasons why the teaching on contraception is still worth discussing.
While Charles had a point to make, I think he (and others) undermine it by:
-overkill: “the holy practice: contraception”
-It’s really abortion driving it.
I’d like to say that he issues of abortion and ntraception are not inevitably linked though the Guttmacher study seemst o suggest broad use of contraception reduces abortions. At any rate, I thinmk this thread is about contraception.
–charging “too many sweeping geeralizations” -a sweping generalization itself.
I think Charles is too committed to his view tgo se the impact in the world of non-academe. But that’s my generalization.
Also, with all due respect, the sweeping judgments that you and Barbara are making against a whole group of people seem pretty reckless. Do you really make such a claim based on whether they are impoverished or not? Does the fact that you do not choose to live like the impoverished in your society mean you do not care about them?
Charles,
I believe I am using what Prof. Kaveny describes as “prophetic rhetoric.” But surely there must be at least a few (or one) bishop in the world who has declared that they are living to affluent a lifestyle and have moved into humble quarters. Sarah Palin did it, after all!
Thank you Lisa, for your thoughtful and kind reply.
However I must question several points you made in closing:
“Many married couples who try to obey the teaching find their marriages strained by it, and comparatively few report their marriages improved. In regions where male domination is the rule in marriage, it is the woman who bears the brunt of bearing more children than her body can handle and the couple can feed. It also affects (though it shouldn’t,) the availability and usage of condoms in HIV-endemic areas, and is therefore implicated in helping to spread the disease.”
First of all, per a recent study (link and excerpt below) NFP in fact is good for marital relations:
——————————
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/193/36/
——————————
Last year a scientific survey was conducted under the direction of independent statistician, Dr. Robert Lerner, a Sociologist from the University of Chicago with a degree in Economics. The protocol stipulated that he would not only evaluate the findings, but also compare them to two of the largest U.S. government funded surveys that asked similar questions of the respondents.
Summary Of Findings
The results presented from the three surveys analyzed revealed that compared to other women in general and to Catholic women of similar age, NFP users:
• have a dramatically low (0.2%) divorce rate;
• experience happier marriages;
• are happier and more satisfied in their everyday lives;
• have considerably more marital relations;
• share a deeper intimacy with spouse than those who contracept;
• realize a deeper level of communication with spouse;
• have relatively large families with many children;
• are appreciably more religious and attend church more often;
• incorporate prayer more in their daily lives;
• rely strongly on the teachings of the Church, the Bible and Almighty God;
• are personally happier;
• have strong traditional, social, and moral views;
• preserve the family unit more responsibly than the other groups;.
• are unlikely to have ever had an abortion;
• are unlikely to have ever cohabitated;
• are unlikely to work full time;
•
• are unlikely to be supportive of and to engage in sex outside of marriage
The Natural Family Planning group studied consists of the typical middle class families of the United States of America, primarily Catholic, with small minority of Protestant and Evangelical. From this first study, however, (others need to be conducted to confirm our findings), we can ascertain that Natural Family Planning may become the major vindicator of respecting the natural laws. It promises to be the best safeguard for the family against divorce.
The report confirms the practice of a natural method of conception regulation (Natural Family Planning). This study presents results from a survey of 505 couples that have been practicing Natural Family Planning, primarily the Ovulation Method, through the teachers of Family of the Americas Foundation. They are based on the first-ever survey of its kind. It examined the types of persons and the impact learning Natural Family Planning has made in their family life, as well as sexual and moral attitudes.”
———————————-
This study also ties in to your next statement about women in male-dominated or patriarchial societies. Because NFP encourages respect for women, it in fact helps alleviate the very thing you cite.
Finally, I do not see you point (and it seems like you really don’t either) about NFP making condoms scarce or unavailable. In any case, linking NFP with spreading HIV is irresponsible to say the least.
Ken:
it is great that there are beginning to be scientific studies. However from your comment it seems that NFP is correlated with all sorts of laudable things, but we have no reason to think that it is a cause. To prove that it is a cause, you need to proceed differently.It could be that if a couple makes more room for prayer in their daily lives, then the things that you listed are all consequences. For example, maybe they choose NFP *because* they rely more strongly on teachings of the Church, not the other way round.
If you want to study the impact of NFP on sexual and moral attitudes, you need to take two couples with similar sexual and moral attitudes, get one to practice NFP and the other to practice contraception, and check the resulting evolution of their sexual and moral attitudes after it has had enough time to make an impact.
That’s why it is so hard to establish causality (as opposed to correlation) in studies of human behavior.
As a side note, a biased reader could take their larger number of children as proof of the unreliability of NFP compared to contraception. (But that reasoning would be flawed for the same reason: NFP is correlated with more pregnancies but does not necessarily cause more pregnancies…)
Ken,
What kind of sociological study says certain people “rely strongly on the teachings of the Church, the Bible and Almighty God”? What are the teachings of “Almighty” God? And was the “Almighty” necessary to distinguish Almighty God from some other less powerful God?
The people surveyed obviously had deep and specific religious commitments. Why would most of the findings reported be attributed to NFP? When the women pass childbearing age, do you think all the positives will disappear because the couple isn’t using NFP any more? Clearly these people were using NFP because of the kind of people they are as opposed (as this study seems to claim) to these people being the kind of people they are because they use NFP.
Claire is correct in her suggestion for a meaningful study. Also, one might study one group that uses NFP for religious reasons and another group (if enough people can be found) who use NFP for other reasons (e.g., because it is more “green”).
Ken,
Yes, perhaps I was unclear. It isn’t the practice of NFP that contributes to the spread of AIDS. However, in regions where HIV is endemic or epidemic and Catholic bishops are influential in making public policy, a number of bishops continue to strongly oppose any government support for making condoms widely available. Sometimes they do this by making outrageous and incorrect statements about condom use and AIDS. When they do this because they believe condom use is unacceptable because it is contraceptive, they are making a moral theological error that costs lives. Again, condoms are not the whole solution to the AIDS situation. But they are a part of it. Indeed, too much focus on condoms (on both sides,) distracts from root causes like poverty, oppression of women, governmental corruption, poor education, lack of public health infrastructure, etc.
Lisa, – I have read where abstinence and monogamy are the best defenses against the spread of AIDS, and that where it has been encouraged – in Uganda for example – the results are notably better than in other regions.
Lisa and David, thank you for reminding Ken and the rest of us that correlation should not be confused with causality.
Abstinence and monogamy are fine things, but less effective than A-B-C. Better still to address the underlying issues–low status of women, poverty, poor publich health infrastructure overall. In addition, monogamy and abstinence do not protect sex workers, while a strong public message in favor of condom use can help.
By the way–lots and lots of monogamous women get AIDS from their straying husbands. It’s a tragic sub-theme in the epidemic in parts of Africa and in some sub-populations in the US. At least a strong push for condom use by serodiscordant couples could save those women’s lives. And no, in situations where male infidelity is tolerated, generally women have less say overall in their sex lives, so they cannot simply end their sex lives with their husbands. Condoms are not a panacea. But clearly they do save lives.
I wish the solution to AIDS in Africa was as simple as distributing condaoms, but as you point out Lisa, it is not.
Also, the evidence seems not to agree with the pro-condom use against AIDS claims;
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/42242.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/07/catholic-church-condoms-africa
http://asad123.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/harvard-researcher-agrees-with-pope-on-condoms-in-africa/
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0803/opinions-jihad-africa-hiv-ideas-opinions.html
Ken,
The distortion of Dr. Edward C. Green’s position by the Catholic News Service (and others) amounts — in my opinion — to lying.
Read his own words in the Washington Post.
For example,
And also . . .
The approach he advocates to dealing with AIDS in Africa is the ABC approach (Abstain, Be faithful, correctly and consistently use Condoms).
His position is to do what works, and clearly promoting condom use alone, or even as the primary means of preventing HIV transmission is not the answer in all situations. But it is the answer in some situations, and condoms have their place in AIDS prevention even in African nations where focusing on abstinence and fidelity has been the primary successful approach.
Green is in favor of using condoms where they work. The pope is opposed to condom under any and all circumstances, even when it would be an effective means of preventing the spread of HIV.