The Church's teaching on contraception

[Stunster]

This came up on one of the general discussion threads, which focused on the latest call by the Pope to combat AIDS through sexual abstinence and sexual fidelity, rather than through the promotion of condoms. I've combined two posts expressing my thoughts on the Church's teaching on contraception and on the condom/AIDS prevention issue into one post, which I share below now. I'd be interested in anyone else's take....

I think there's no strictly theological basis for banning contraception. The argument is rather to do with a particular understanding of morality.

Morality enjoins that we should aim for morally good states of affairs.

Among morally good states of affairs, one of the best is being open to loving and being loved as much as possible.

For some people, but not for all people, their potential for loving and being loved will best be fulfilled, in part, through procreating and parenting children---that is, for some people, but not for all, they become more fully loving and beloved in the process of begetting and parenting children.

For some people, this potential for loving and being loved through procreation and parenting will be maximized if they have one child. For others, it will be two, or three, or four, or five, or six, or maybe some higher number of children. For each person whose potential for loving ought to be realized through parenting, there will be an ideal number of children that that person can responsibly procreate, and lovingly parent. Hence, that's the number of children they ought to procreate and lovingly parent.

To selfishly place undue limits on one's potential for loving and being loved by having fewer children (so that, for example, one can have two houses, or two cars, or more expensive vacations) is wrong, because it involves deliberately aiming for a less morally good state of affairs than one responsibly can aim for.

So contraception may be wrong if it's practised for selfish reasons.

But what if one already has procreated and is lovingly parenting the ideal number of children that realizes your particular potential for loving and being loved inherent in parenting? Why would contraception be wrong thereafter, or why it would be wrong to use it to responsibly space the number of births up to that point?

I think the argument gets very murky at this point. Insofar as there is an argument, it's that making love is meant to be a gift of the whole person in openness to one's potential for loving and being loved by one's spouse, and to the potential loving, procreative fruits of one's sexual union with one's spouse. And so even if you both think that you've both reached the ideal number of kids, or that you need to wait longer before having another kid, you should be open to that possibility happening in the present act of lovemaking, otherwise that act is not fully loving. Full lovingness in lovemaking has to be open to the full potential consequences of the act, otherwise it is implicitly restrictive of one's procreative and parental self-gift.

And so the Church advises that the responsible spacing and limiting of births should not be practised by deliberately restricting the potential in any given act of lovemaking for generating further loving consequences (via procreation and parenting), but rather through spacing the acts of lovemaking themselves (to coincide with the natural cycle of infertility).

The criticism of this teaching is that it focuses on the love inherent in parenting and procreating at the expense of the love inherent in the sexual union and intimacy of the spouses. Many couples don't mind not practising contraception, and being open to the loving potential inherent in procreating and parenting in a reasonable responsible way----but they don't see why all other times of lovemaking should have this as the primary focus. Sex is not meant just for having babies. It's also meant to foster the intimacy of the couple, and surely that can and does and ought to happen far more frequently in any marriage than just on those occasions when the couple wishes to realize their procreative and parental intent.

Does following the natural cycle of infertility in order to balance the loving potential inherent in procreating and parenting with the loving potential inherent in spousal sexual intimacy grant enough scope to the latter potential? The lived experience of many married couples tends to suggest that it doesn't always do. Though some couples use Natural Family Planning with great joy and success in realizing the balance, it appears that many couples find it not joyful or successful, but a source of tension, unhappiness, and unanticipated pregnancy.

I think the Vatican stance on the issue proceeds from a highly idealized and highly idealistic concept of how to balance the love involved in sexual intimacy with the love involved in procreation and parenting, and because contraception can lend itself to a selfish rejection of the latter kind of love, it throws the baby, not out, but rather in with the bathwater.

But whether one uses Natural Family Planning or contraceptives, there is a reasonable moral case to be made for those who are called to love through parenting not to reject that call or unduly limit it for self-centred reasons.

On promoting condom use to reduce the incidence of AIDS:

Millenia of evidence concerning human behavior shows that people are very frequently selfish and greedy and irresponsible.

Suppose the Pope had said this:

"When are Democrats going to wake up to reality and stop calling upon people not to be selfish and greedy? We should be promoting Me-first capitalism, mindless consumerism and, to hell with these stupid rules."

Bad argument?

Yes, it is.

So why use it against the Pope? Or does selfish, greedy, irresponsible sexual behavior not count?

I think one concern the Pope has is that simply promoting condom use is liable to result in more selfish, greedy, irresponsible sexual behavior. And since not all condoms are reliable, and since people are liable not to use condoms consistently or correctly 100% of the time, then such behavior, encouraged by condom promotion, will actually result in less steady progress against AIDS in the long run. Such promotion sends a message that casual sex is ok and not liable to harm you. So people will engage in it more readily, and this will more readily result in risky sexual encounters.

The pope is not saying don't have sex. Sex within committed relationships of love is a good thing. But sex which merely uses another person's body for one's own casual gratification is a form of selfishness and greed. I don't think it's unreasonable for the Pope to distinguish between loving forms and unloving forms of sexual behavior.

Should we have laws that say, "Drive at safe speeds. But if you're going to exceed those speeds, then drive a sturdier car"? People who die or are severely injured because they insisted on speeding can't reasonably plead "Society should have provided me with a sturdier vehicle."

[Hans Delbrook]

1. OK, let's start at the top

The Church holds, and you seem to agree w/ it, that not having children or enough children can only be motivated by selfishness. Some of us, no matter how hard we thought about it, or prayed, or meditated, could find it in ourselves to want children. And maybe, just maybe, we think it's really wrong to have children we don't want. And we believe that there are other ways to give back. But leaving that argument aside (I'm so used to being called selfish it doesn't bother me anymore)let's proceed w/ the rest.

Let's talk about why NFP is OK and artificial birth control isn't. I've heard that "open to conception" argument so many times I could do the whole spiel from heart. Stripped down to it's essentials it means that contraception is OK as long as it's not fool-proof or is rather risky. Then, using that logic, would it be OK to use a condom if I poked a hole in it?

And for the last part, all valid, well controlled studies that I've seen (in scientific peer-reviewed journals) show that condom use does reduce the spread of AIDS. You can argue about long-term effects etc. but speaking as someone whose been fighting this g**-damned disease for 15 years now only to see a lot of the progress we've made eroded by human stupidity and superstition, I'll take what I can get.

[Stunster]

2. First off

I'm astounded that you could write:

Some of us, no matter how hard we thought about it, or prayed, or meditated, could find it in ourselves to want children. And maybe, just maybe, we think it's really wrong to have children we don't want.

I mean, I just assume that you couldn't have read my post carefully enough.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

4. Well, I was thinking the same thing...

You said that for some people, realizing the full potential of loving and being loved is fufilled by having children. However if these people decide to not have any more children because of selfish reasons, then that is wrong. But what are selfish reasons? What if you want to provide a better life for your one child than you could for 10 kids? Most people are on limited income...most people simply cannot afford to give 10 kids a good life...that is, a life where they don't have to worry about where their next meal comes from. And even if both parents work hard, this leaves the children in the position of being taken care of babysitters by necessity. Would this count as a selfish reason? Who decides what is selfish?

I do not want children. Is this for selfish reasons? Sure. I don't want to be tied down with the responsibilty (both financial and otherwise) of having a child. Call that selfish if you will, but I think of it as applying for and accepting a job that you know you will not be able to do just for the short term benefits.

Trying to stick with the rhythm method is pushing people out of the Church. It's ridiculous to expect people to place their LIVES on the line. Yes, God does help has and He does give us what we need. However we shouldn't bait him. I trust God to protect me, but I don't jump off cliffs without a parachute. There is a reason God gave us our intelligence.

It's such a silly point to stick on. Jesus didn't mention it once in His teachings. So why focus on it? This isn't IMHO what the Church is about. It's about helping others and it is about service. Those are the things that Jesus taught and those are the things I feel we should be stressing instead of getting hung up on what people are doing in their bedrooms.

[Stunster]

5. Otra vez mas

Here's why I'm surprised (emphases added):

For some people, but not for all people, their potential for loving and being loved will best be fulfilled, in part, through procreating and parenting children---that is, for some people, but not for all, they become more fully loving and beloved in the process of begetting and parenting children.

For some people, this potential for loving and being loved through procreation and parenting will be maximized if they have one child. For others, it will be two, or three, or four, or five, or six, or maybe some higher number of children. For each person whose potential for loving ought to be realized through parenting, there will be an ideal number of children that that person can responsibly procreate, and lovingly parent. Hence, that's the number of children they ought to procreate and lovingly parent.

To selfishly place undue limits on one's potential for loving and being loved by having fewer children (so that, for example, one can have two houses, or two cars, or more expensive vacations) is wrong, because it involves deliberately aiming for a less morally good state of affairs than one responsibly can aim for.

So contraception may be wrong if it's practised for selfish reasons.

But what if one already has procreated and is lovingly parenting the ideal number of children that realizes your particular potential for loving and being loved inherent in parenting?

Ok, let me add explicitly that for some people, not having any children may be best for them to realize their loving potential. In other words, some folks are just not called to the vocation of procreating and parenting. Hence, it's not automatically selfish to choose not to have children--it depends upon what one is called to be in life. But I think it would be wrong for a person who is aware that that is his or her vocation, deliberately to refuse to respond to it appropriately for selfish reasons.

Having said that, I agree with you about the relative unimportance of the teaching on contraception in the hierarchy of doctrinal and moral truths, and indeed on the need for the official Vatican sexual ethic to be reformed. See my post here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x5856#6576

[Hans Delbrook]

10. Thanks for the clarification

I apologize if I jumped to conclusions. It's a touchy subject for some of us, like me.

I can no longer receive communion since I've been denied absolution for being married in the Church and abstaining from having children. And my Mother cannot leave the subject alone and is convinced I'm going to hell. And even "friends" have called me selfish - or wanted to know what psychological trauma caused me to not want children, etc...:-(

[Maeve]

11. I think they were wiser in the days when confessors were told

Not to burden the hearts of the faithful with such discussion. Your decision should be between you, your spouse and God--it's no one else's business to judge.

There are some who have children for very selfish reasons (and they live thru the poor tykes)--let them attack those folk.

[Hans Delbrook]

12. I agree

I've often thought that but I never articulated it so well.

[Beer Snob-50]

13. Please excuse me for intruding into your personal life for a moment

but this is fascinating to me. How did all of this come about? I would not be offended if you tell me to mind my own business but I am interested

[Hans Delbrook]

14. I don't mind but I'm not sure what you're asking

How we decided to live child-free or why I was denied absolution or why my Mom's so upset or what "friends" have said to me? Let me know what you're interested in and I'll fill in the details.

[Beer Snob-50]

15. i guess i am interested in why you were denied absolution?nt

[Hans Delbrook]

17. OK - long story short

Well when you get married in the Catholic Church you promise to accept children from God. I though about that promise a long time since I knew I probably didn't want children. We finally decided that if I got pregnant, we would keep and raise the child to the best of our abilities so we could say yes. However, it was weighing heavy on my mind so I went to talk to our pastor (not the church I got married in) not long after we got married. He was horrified that I didn't want children. Basically he said if I didn't keep that promise, I couldn't be considered married in the Church therefore I as living in sin and he couldn't offer me absolution. Well, I couldn't have a child I didn't want, a few years later we made it a final decision, and I haven't been back to confession or communion since. Though I do attend Mass etc.

[Maeve]

18. Your pastor was an ass; ears, tail and bray

Find someone who lives in this century, talk to him and come back to the Sacraments.
If the Church were to "de-marry" folks like that, they'd have to do away with all post-menepausal weddings. (And mine,too, I suppose--after 4 kids, Hubby saw the doctor)

[Hans Delbrook]

22. Yeah, but you did have those four

It lets you off the hook, a little ;-) As for post-menopausal weddings, I've often wondered if they forgo that one question.

Thanks for the advice. I would like to come back to the Sacraments. I miss them.

[Beer Snob-50]

20. I really feel you should see another priest

you may be surprised at the answer you get.

[Hans Delbrook]

21. I've considered talking to another priest for a long time

I guess I've been afraid that if I hear the same thing again, it would just crush me. But I have been feeling "called back to communion" for some time now.

But I'm in a really conservative parish right now (not the same one as before.) I mean, I just got "in trouble" about the election, I don't need these priests to realize that I'm willfully childless as well as stubbornly Democratic. ;)

If I find a priest I trust, I think I'll do it.

[saracat]

23. As a lapsed Catholic, with no intention of returning,I was just lurking

and thought that I would suggest you talk to a Jesuit. They would NEVER tell you that! My widower father remarried a divorcee , a Catholic nurse with nine children, who had been married to a Catholic doctor, and they gave her an annulment because she said he didn't want children! These rules aren't written in concrete.
When I was growing up in a conservative Irish parish we always drove to the next town for confession to the Italian priest who didn't speak English and gave everyone five Our Fathers and Five Hail Mary's! But do talk to a Jesuit. Their general philosophy is nothing is a sin unless you willfully do something thinking it is in order to hurt God. I probably explained that badly but you get the grist I am sure. But If you live near Georgetown, Fordham or Notre Dame, or even a Jesuit prep school. I am sure they could help you.

[Hans Delbrook]

24. Good idea

I'm in Philly but there must be a Jesuit around here somewhere. If he won't "forgive" me I can always ask for an exorcism :D

[DemBones DemBones]

16. Maybe you just need to find a different confessor. Also,

unless you can really predict that you'll never, ever, ever change your mind and have a child, aren't you just practicing contraception, like most other American Catholics? I understand that you feel determined not to have kids but why are you being denied absolution for predicting you'll continue to hold to that belief? If people can get themselves sterilized and get absolution, why can't you get absolution? I'd definitely try another confessor -- or ask him what I just said! You're supposed to be forgiven any sin.

Why don't you tell your mom that it's possible you may change your mind some day and have a child but NOT NOW? Even if you think you never will, it might get her off your back to hold out a bit of hope for a grandchild. And anything is POSSIBLE, right?
People do change. Tell your friends the same thing, for the same reason. I wouldn't make an announcement, I'd just wait until they started in on the topic and say, "Look, it's possible I'll change my mind in the future, but I know I don't want a child now so let's not talk about it, OK?" Maybe you can even shut them up permanently by saying something like "But I'll never change my mind if you keep bugging me about it!"

[Hans Delbrook]

25. But I can predict it

Surgical steps have been taken. And I guess the reason I can't get absolution is that I'm not sorry, in fact what appalled my old pastor is that I really don't even think I've committed a sin.

I refuse to give my Mom false hope. That would be beyond cruel. And I won't pretend to anyone else either. Child-free people will continue to be maligned and misunderstood if we "stay in the closet." I am what I am. Like it or lump it.

[DemBones DemBones]

3. So glad you started discussion on this topic here, Stunster.

In all my posting the past couple of days about abortion and contraception, it's been in the back of my mind that we Catholics should be discussing these issues among ourselves, too I'm weary of having to start from zero to explain the Catholic teaching, you know? ;-) I've just skimmed over the posts here but I'll be back after a good night's sleep and some working hours to share my thoughts and ask my questions.

One question to start: haven't you always heard the story of Onan as the proof that God hates contraception (though coitus interruptus hardly seems to be artificial contraception, in my view) and/ or masturbation?

Another question comes from that: Have you ever heard another Biblical justification for the ban on contraception? There's "Be fruitful and multiply," but does that qualify?

[AngryOldDem]

6. Onan story interpreted differently

Hi, DemBones.

Like you, I'll need to go back and read this thread more closely, but as far as Onan goes, I think it had more to do with the rules about family lineage and inheritance than contraception, per se. If I recall the story correctly, Onan's sister-in-law was widowed and did not have sons, therefore it was more or less up to Onan to fulfill that obligation. Onan did not.

But keep in mind, I'm not a Bible scholar, nor do I play one on TV. But I think the contraception argument that is tied to Onan came later on in the interpretation of it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

7. Yes, that is what I read as well.

[DemBones DemBones]

8. And the big question is why did God kill Onan?

Was it because he practiced coitus interruptus?

Or was it because he disobeyed a direct order from God?

The latter makes more sense to me.

So why is contraception wrong? Are there good theological or moral reasons for the Church's opposition?


No doubt there was a social need for the ban on contraception at one time, probably because of high death rates and a need to build up populations, to have plenty of "hands" on the farm. We all realize that children were once a couple's old age insurance, too. But times have changed and today it's difficult for most couples to afford a large family.

[pelagius]

9. Onan did not fulfil his family and tribal obligation...

...by providing a his dead brother with a male heir by impregnating his sister-in-law. That was his sin under the ancient law.

That he "spilled his seed on the ground" indicates nothing except coitus interruptus was a well-known form of birth control in the Bronze Age.

[SOteric]

27. Biblical, no. But I've certainly heard other justification.

Namely that it is only God that can create a life and spark an immortal soul. Which leaves it the worst sort of vanity to presume to interfere with His intentions, whether that be contraception, abortion, murder or euthanasia.

[meow2u3]

19. And for some secular benefits of Natural Family Planning

It's cheaper to use than contraceptive methods that introduce foreign matter (drugs, devices, etc.) in the persons' bodies and/or reproductive organs. Many people teach poor couples natural family planning.

Another benefit: it teaches men they too need to discipline themselves sexually for NFP to work effectively. The burden is equal for men and women, a single standard.

Yet another benefit: Couples acquire knowledge about when is the best time of the month for them to conceive. This knowledge is escpecially valuable if they want to have a baby but have trouble conceiving.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

26. But it is also far less reliable.

Very few women have regular cycles that are required to make natural family planning effective. All it takes is one weird cycle and that's it. So much for the best laid plans.

One thing people don't understand is that you can get pregnant days after you've had sex. Up to four days after. And you'd be amazed how many adults just don't understand you can get pregnant ANY day of the month, even during a period.

Further, I don't think it's fair to expect the poor to deal with Natural Family Planning. The poor would be the least likely to be able to have children. A condom is less than a dollar. A child is over 100,000 dollars, EASILY.