Humanae
Vitae: A Generation Later
Janet Smith
The
amount of hostility directed at Humanae Vitae has been so great
that most people are astonished when they first learn that
contraception has not been a hotly debated issue since the very
beginnings of the Church. All Christian churches were united in
their opposition to contraception until as recently as the early
decades of this century. It was not until 1930 that the Anglican
Church went on record as saying that contraception was
permissible, for grave reasons, within marriage. It was also at
this time, however, that Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical
Casti Connubii, generally translated as "On Christian Marriage,"
in which he reiterated what has been the constant teaching of
the Catholic Church: contraception is intrinsically wrong.
One
might assume that there has been a continuing dispute since the
1930s, but there has not been. Surveys of this period indicate
that as many as 65% of Catholics in the US were living in accord
with the Church's teaching, as late as the early sixties. A book
entitled Contraception, written by John Noonan, provides a
comprehensive history of the Church's teaching against
contraception. It clearly documents that the Church has been
"clear and constant" in its position on contraception,
throughout the whole history of the Church.
The
first clamoring for change appeared in the late 1950s and early
1960s with the widespread availability of the birth control
pill. Some Catholic theologians began to think that the pill
might be a legitimate form of birth control for Catholics
because, unlike other kinds of birth control, it did not break
the integrity of the sexual act. This was the very first attempt
within the Church to argue that contraception might be morally
permissible. Meanwhile, in the political and social realms,
there were perceptions of a population problem and growing
sentiments that it would be inhumane for the Church to continue
with a "policy" that promoted large families. Feminism had also
begun to make itself felt with its demand that women be given
full and equal access to employment and the political process.
Feminists argued that having children had been a hindrance to
such opportunities in the past, and that contraception — not
having children — would enhance access to careers and thus be a
great boon for women. These were the developing pressures on the
Church to reconsider its teaching regarding contraception.
Pope
John XXIII set up a commission of six theologians to advise him
on these issues. Pope Paul VI took over the commission when John
XXIII died and began adding new members with expertise from
different fields, including married couples. The majority of the
commission voted that the Church should change its teaching. A
minority on the commission argued that the Church not only
should not but could not change its teaching regarding
contraception because this was a matter of God's law and not
man's law, and there was no way that the Church or anyone else
could declare it morally permissible.
The
report of this vote and its recommendation, as well as all of
the other records of the commission were, of course, to be kept
strictly confidential, intended for the eyes of Pope Paul VI
alone. They were meant to advise and assist him in the writing
of a formal document. The commission finished its work in 1966.
In 1967, the commission's records, including the report on its
recommendation, were leaked to both The Tablet in London and to
The National Catholic Reporter in the United States.
Interested parties had known about the commission and had been
waiting for several years for the Church to make a decision.
There had been an incredible proliferation of articles on the
subject of contraception between 1963 and 1967, most of them
favoring it. For instance, there was a book written by an
Archbishop during these years under the title Contraception and
Holiness, a text consisting of articles by married couples and
others promoting the practice of contraception. The commission
reports were undoubtedly leaked to fan these fires and they did,
in fact, heighten the expectations of those desiring a change.
When
Humanae Vitae was released in July, 1968, it went off like a
bomb. Though there was much support for the encyclical, no
document ever met with as much dissent, led to a great extent by
Fr. Charles Curran and Fr. Bernard Haering.
It
was a historic and pivotal moment in Church history. Dissent
became the coin of the day. This had not been true prior to
Humanae Vitae. Dissenting theologians had never before made such
a public display of their opposition on any given issue. The
open dissent to Humanae Vitae is a real watershed in the history
of the Church. One can view the phenomenon as either a
crystallization of something that had been bubbling under the
surface for some time, or as catalyst for everything that was
yet to come. Soon theologians and eventually lay people were
dissenting not only about contraception but also about
homosexuality, masturbation, adultery, divorce and many other
issues.
In
spite of the dissent and in spite of widespread use of
contraception among Catholics, the Church continually reiterates
its opposition to contraception as a great moral wrong; Pope
John Paul II has made opposition to contraception one of the
cornerstones of his pontificate and has written and spoken
extensively on the topic.
I
think the experience of the last many decades has revealed that
the Church has been very wise in its continual affirmation of
this teaching for we have begun to see that contraception leads
to many vicious wrongs in society; it facilitates the sexual
revolution which leads to much unwanted pregnancy and abortion.
It has made women much more open to sexual exploitation by men.
In fact, Humanae Vitae predicted a general lowering of morality
should contraception become widely available and I think it is
manifest that ours is a period of very low morality—much of it
in the sexual realm. There is little need here to provide a full
set of statistics to demonstrate the consequences of the sexual
revolution, for who is not familiar with the epidemic in teenage
pregnancies, venereal diseases, divorces, AIDS, etc.?
Western society has undergone a rapid transformation in terms of
sexual behavior and few would argue that it is for the better.
For instance, only ten years ago the divorce rate was one out of
three marriages; now one out of two marriages end in divorce.
Only ten years ago four out of ten teenagers were sexually
active; now it is six out of ten. Twenty-two percent of white
babies are born out of wedlock; sixty-seven percent of
African-American babies are born out of wedlock. The millions of
abortions over the last decade and the phenomenal spread of AIDS
alone indicate that we have serious problems with sexuality. The
statistics of ten years ago were bad enough; many thought things
could hardly get worse — as did many twenty years ago, and
thirty years ago. In the last generation the incidence of sexual
activity outside of marriage and all the attendant problems have
doubled and tripled — or worse. We have no particular reason to
believe that we have seen the peak of the growth in sexually
related problems.
Statistics do not really capture the pervasive ills attendant
upon sexual immorality. Premature and promiscuous sexuality
prevent many from establishing good marriages and a good family
life. Few deny that a healthy sexuality and a strong family life
are among the most necessary elements for human happiness and
well-being. It is well attested that strong and secure families
are less likely to have problems with alcohol, sex, and drugs;
they produce individuals more likely to be free from crippling
neuroses and psychoses. Since healthy individuals are not
preoccupied with their own problems, they are able to be strong
leaders; they are prepared to tackle the problems of society.
While many single parents do a worthy and valiant job of raising
their children, it remains sadly true that children from broken
homes grow up to be adults with a greater propensity for crime,
with a greater tendency to engage in alcohol and drug abuse,
with a greater susceptibility to psychological disorders.
The
Church, however, does not condemn the use of contraception
because it is an act that has bad consequences. Rather, it
teaches that since contraception is an intrinsically evil
action, it is predictable that it will have bad consequences.
The Church teaches that contraception is evil because it
violates the very purpose and nature of the human sexual act,
and therefore violates the dignity of the human person. The
experience of the last several decades has simply served to
reinforce the wisdom of the Church's teaching. But it is not
only on a practical level that we have a better understanding of
the Church's teaching; our theoretical understanding has also
been much advanced. Often if happens that the Church does not
know very fully the reasons for what it teaches until it is
challenged. The Church's condemnation of contraception went
unchallenged for centuries. In attempting to explain its
condemnation, the Church has deepened its understanding of
marriage and the meaning of the sexual act.
Again, John Paul II, with his claim that the sexual act
signifies total self-giving and his insight that contraception
diminishes that self-giving, has made an enormous contribution
to our understanding of the evil of contraception.
As
we consider the reasons why contraception is evil, let us first
consult a few Church statements that suggest the strength of its
constant teaching against contraception. Casti Connubii states:
No reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything
intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature
and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined
primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in
exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and
purpose, sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful
and intrinsically vicious.
It
continues: 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.
Humanae Vitae puts it this way:
But the Church, which interprets natural law through its
unchanging doctrine, reminds men and women that the teachings
based on natural law must be obeyed, and teaches that it is
necessary that each and every conjugal act remain ordained to
the procreating of human life.
Further on it states (¶ 12):
The
doctrine which the Magisterium of the Church has often
explicated in this: There is an unbreakable connection between
the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning of the conjugal
act, and both are inherent in the conjugal act. This connection
was established by God and cannot be broken by man through his
own volition.
The
Church condemns contraception since it violates both the
procreative and unitive meanings of the human sexual act. It
diminishes an act that by its very nature is full of weighty
meaning, meaning that is unique to the sexual act. To engage in
an act of contracepted sexual intercourse is to engage in an act
that has the potential for creating new life and an act that has
the potential for creating tremendous emotional bonds between
male and female and simultaneously to undercut those potentials.
Sex is for babies and for bonding; if people are not ready for
babies or bonding they ought not to be engaging in acts of
sexual intercourse.
Our
age is quick to express appreciation for the unitive meaning of
the sexual act but has little understanding of the goodness of
the procreative meaning of the sexual act. The modern age tends
to treat babies as burdens and not as gifts. It tends to treat
fertility as some dreadful condition that we need to guard
against. We often speak of the "fear of pregnancy" — a very
curious phrase. A fear of poverty or nuclear holocaust or
tyranny is understandable but why a fear of pregnancy? We speak
about "accidental pregnancies" as if getting pregnant were like
getting hit by a car — some terrible accident has happened to
us. But the truth is that if a pregnancy results from an act of
sexual intercourse, this means that something has gone right
with an act of sexual intercourse, not that something has gone
wrong.
In
our society we have lost sight of the fundamental truth that if
you are not ready for babies, you are not ready for sexual
intercourse. We have lost sight of the fact that sexual
intercourse, making love, and making babies are inherently
connected and for good reason. In our times, sexual relations
are treated casually; no great commitment is implied in having
sexual intercourse with another; babies are treated as an
unwelcome intrusion on the sexual act. The Church opposes this
attitude and insists that sexual intercourse and having children
are intimately connected; that sexual intercourse implies a
great commitment, that children are an inherent part of that
commitment, and that both commitment and children are wonderful
gifts.
It
is good to keep in mind that fertility is a great good: to be
fertile is a state of health for an adult person. It is those
among us who are not fertile who need to be helped and who seek
treatment for infertility. Women now take a "pill" to thwart
their fertility, as if fertility were a disease against which we
need a cure. Contraception treats the woman's body as if there
were something wrong with it. The use of contraception suggests
that God made a mistake in the way that He designed the body and
that we must correct His error. In an age where we have become
very wary of dumping pollutants into the environment it is
ironic that we are so willing to dump pollutants into our
bodies. The health risks of contraception to women are
considerable — take a look at the insert pages in any package of
the pill. The IUD is currently off the market because of so many
lawsuits against manufacturers. Why do women expose themselves
to such risks when natural methods of family planning are both
safe and effective?
Let
us not fail to mention that many forms of contraception are
abortifacients; they work by causing an early term abortion.
Rather than inhibiting ovulation, they work by preventing the
fertilized egg, the tiny new human being, from implanting in the
wall of the uterus. The IUD works in this fashion as do most
forms of the pill (on occasion) and Norplant. So those who are
opposed to abortion and those interested in protecting the
well-being of women would certainly not want to be using these
forms of contraception. The other forms have aesthetic drawbacks
or are low on reliability.
Contraception, then, enters a note of tremendous negation into
the act of sexual intercourse. But lovemaking should be a most
wonderful act of affirmation, a tremendous "yes" to another
person, a way of conveying to another that he or she is
wonderful, and completely accepted; this is conveyed by making a
total gift of one's self to another. The contracepting lover
says I want to give myself to you but not to the extent of
sharing my fertility with you; I want you but not your sperm (or
your egg)!
Just
think of the words for contraception. Contraception means
"against the beginning" — here against the beginning of a new
life. So a contracepting couple is participating in an act that
is designed to bring about new life and they are acting against
that new life. Or they put their barrier methods in place — for
"protection": as if they were making war, not love. Or they use
a spermicide — to kill the sperm. This is an act of love?
But
we forget what a marvelous thing it is to be able to bring forth
a new human being. God chooses to bring forth new human life
through the love of spouses. The entire world was created for us
and for others like us. God wishes to share His creation with
new human souls, and brings new souls into the world through the
love of men and women for each other. God created the world as
an act of love, and the bringing forth of new human life is,
quite appropriately, the product of another kind of loving act.
When a man and women have a child together, it's an act that
changes the cosmos: something has come into existence that will
never pass out of existence; each soul is immortal and is
destined for immortal life.
And
whenever a new human life comes into existence, God performs an
entirely new act of creation, for only God can create an
immortal soul. In sexual intercourse, spouses provide God with
an opportunity to perform His creative act. As the first line of
Humanae Vitae states, God gives spouses the mission (munus) of
transmitting human life to spouses. Contraception says no to
God; it says those using it want to have the wonderful physical
pleasure of sex but do not want to allow God to perform His
creative act.
But
contraception is wrong not only because it violates the
procreative meaning of the sexual act but also because it
violates the unitive meaning of the sexual act. Pope John Paul
II has been most energetic in explaining how couples do not
achieve true spousal union in sexual intercourse when they use
contraception. He explains that the sexual act is meant to be an
act of total self-giving and that in withholding their fertility
from one another spouses are not giving totally of themselves.
He has developed an interesting line of argument where he speaks
of the "language of the body." He claims bodily actions have
meanings much as words do and that unless we intend those
meanings with our actions we should not perform them any more
than we should speak words we don't mean. In both cases, lies
are being "spoken."
Sexual union has a well-recognized meaning; it means "I find you
attractive"; "I care for you"; " I will try to work for your
happiness"; "I wish to have a deep bond with you." Some who
engage in sexual intercourse do not mean these things with their
actions; they wish simply to use another for their own sexual
pleasure. They have lied with their bodies in the same way as
someone lies who says "I love you" to another simply for the
purposes of obtaining some favor from him or her.
It
is easy for us to want to have sexual intercourse with lots of
people; but we generally want to have babies with only one
person. One is saying something entirely different with one's
body when one says "I want only to have sexual pleasure with
you" and when one says "I am willing to be a parent with you."
In fact, one of the most certain ways to distinguish simple
sexual attraction from love is to think about whether all you
want from another person is sexual pleasure, or whether you
would like to have a baby with him or her. We generally are
truly in love with those with whom we want to have babies; we do
want our lives totally tied up with theirs. We want to become
one with them in the way in which having a baby makes us one
with another — our whole lives are intertwined with theirs; we
buy diapers with them, and give birthday parties, and pay for
college and plan weddings. A noncontracepted act of sexual
intercourse says again just what our marriage vows say "I am
yours for better or worse, in sickness and health, till death do
us part." Having babies with another is to share a lifetime
endeavor with another.
A
sexual act open to the possibility of procreation ideally
represents the kind of bond to which spouses have committed
themselves. Contraceptives, however, convey the message that
while sexual intercourse is desired, there is no desire for a
permanent bond with the other person. The possibility of an
everlasting bond has been willfully removed from the very act
designed to best express the desire for such a relationship. It
reduces the sexual act to a lie.
Contraception, then, is an offense against one's body, against
one's God, and against one's relationship with one's spouse. But
must spouses have as many children as is physically possible?
This has never been the teaching of the Church. Spouses are
expected to be responsible about their child-bearing, to bring
forth children that they can raise well. But the means used to
limit family size must be moral. Methods of Natural Family
Planning are very effective means and moral means for planning
one's family; for helping spouses to get pregnant when they want
to have a child and for helping them to avoid having a child
when it would not be responsible to have a child. NFP allows
couples to respect their bodies, obey their God, and fully
respect their spouses.
Natural Family Planning is not the outmoded rhythm method, a
method which was based on the calendar. Rather, NFP is a highly
scientific way of determining when a woman is fertile based on
observing various bodily signs. The couple who want to avoid a
pregnancy, abstain from sexual intercourse during the fertile
period. The statistics on the reliability of NFP rival the most
effective forms of the Pill. And NFP is without the health risks
and it is moral.
Couples using NFP find that it has positive results for their
marital relationships and their relationship with God. When
couples are abstaining during the fertile period they are not
thwarting the act of sexual intercourse since they are not
engaging in sexual intercourse. When they are engaging in sexual
intercourse during the infertile period they are not withholding
their fertility since they do not have it to give at that time.
They learn to live in accord with the natural rhythms of their
body. In a word, use of NFP may involve non-procreative acts,
but never, as with contraception, antiprocreative acts.
Many
find it odd that periodic abstinence should be beneficial rather
than harmful to a marriage. But abstinence can be another way of
expressing love, as it is between those who are not married, or
between those for whom engaging in sexual intercourse involves a
significant risk. Certainly most who begin to use NFP,
especially those who were not chaste before marriage and who
have used contraception, generally find the abstinence required
to be a source of some strain and irritability. Abstinence, of
course, like dieting or any form of self-restraint, brings its
hardships; but like dieting and other forms of self-denial, it
also brings its benefits. And after all, spouses abstain for all
sorts of reasons — because one or the other is out of town or
ill, for instance.
Spouses using NFP find that the method helps them learn to
communicate better with each other — and abstinence gives them
the opportunity to do so. As they learn to communicate their
affection in non-genital ways and as they learn to master their
sexual desires, they find a new liberation in the ability to
abstain from sexual intercourse. Many find that an element of
romance reenters the relationship during the times of abstinence
and an element of excitement accompanies the reuniting. They
have gained the virtue of self-mastery since now they can
control their sexual desires rather than being in control of
their sexual desires. Women using NFP generally feel revered by
their husbands since their husbands do not make them use
unhealthy and unpleasant contraceptives. Men using NFP generally
have greater self-respect since they have gained control over
their sexual desires and can now engage in sexual intercourse as
an act of love not as an act of mere sexual urgency. A proof
that NFP is good for a marriage is that whereas in the U.S. over
fifty percent of marriages end in divorce (and it is safe to
assume that most of these couples are contracepting), very, very
few couples who use NFP ever divorce; they seem to bond in a
deeper way than those who are contracepting.
The
Church condemns contraception not because it wants to deny
spouses sexual pleasure but because it wants to help them find
marital happiness and to help them have happy homes for without
these our well being as individuals and as a society is greatly
endangered. Section 18 of Humanae Vitae states: [I]t is not
surprising that the Church finds herself a sign of
contradiction—just as was Christ, her Founder. But this is not
reason for the Church to abandon the duty entrusted to her of
preaching the moral law firmly and humbly, both the natural law
and the law of the Gospel.
Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot
change them. She can only be their guardian and interpreter;
thus it would never be right for her to declare as morally
permissible that which is truly not so. For what is immoral is
by its very nature always opposed to the true good of Man.
By
preserving the whole moral law of marriage, the Church knows
that she is supporting the growth of a true civilization among
men.
In teaching that contraception is intrinsically immoral, the
Church is not imposing a disciplinary law on Catholics; she is
preaching only what nature and the gospel preach. By now we
should have learned — the hard way — that to defy and
overindulge our sexual nature, to go against the laws of nature
and God, is to inflict terrible damage on ourselves as
individuals and our society as a whole.
—
Janet Smith is Associate Professor of
Philosophy at the University of Dallas.
This page is the work of the Servants of the Pierced Hearts of Jesus and
Mary
Copyright © 2006 SCTJM
