Catholic teaching on contraception is at the heart of the controversy over the Health and Human Services mandate. Catholic hospitals and universities are unwilling to purchase insurance plans that provide contraceptive coverage. To critics, this unwillingness borders on the irrational; accordingly, they see little value in protecting the freedom of Catholic hospitals and universities to act in accordance with their beliefs.
Catholic teaching about contraception is, however, not irrational; nor is it founded, as some have claimed, on irrelevant distinctions such as that between what is natural and what is “artificial.” Rather, two lines of argument are to be found throughout the tradition of Catholic, and more generally, Christian, thought on this issue that together show the teaching to be plausible and, in the view of many, true.
Advertisement
The first argument against contraception turns on the way in which the conjugal act unites the married couple organically as one flesh, so as to realize at the physical level of their existence their marital commitment to become one — to make a complete and mutual gift of each to each. Together, spouses are able to perform a biological act that they would be incapable of performing alone: an act of a reproductive kind. As is well known, this act will often not come to its natural biological fulfillment, the conception of a new human being.
Yet when the act does come to fruition, that fruition is itself — or rather, him- or herself — the further realization of the couple’s commitment, the commitment that was initially realized in the conjugal act. For a couple to prevent their act from achieving its fullest realization is thus also for them to choose to block the fullest possible realization of their commitment at the bodily level — and this is precisely at odds with the commitment itself. It is for this reason that Pope John Paul II frequently characterized the use of contraception as a kind of dishonesty: The making of the commitment to a complete sharing of lives says one thing; the deliberate blocking of that commitment from its fullest realization takes back what was initially communicated.
The way in which the act of intercourse can be prevented from realizing the marital commitment is clearest in the use of barrier methods such as the condom, which rather obviously prevent the one-flesh union from even being possible. But hormonal contraceptives, while not preventing physically an act of a reproductive type, nevertheless, when used with a contraceptive intention, involve a willed refusal to allow the biological function, in virtue of which couples become physically one, to come fully to its fruition; thus, their use involves a refusal to countenance the fullness of physical union possible to the couple on that occasion.
Pope Paul VI captured the sense of this set of claims in a well-known discussion in Humanae Vitae, in which he asserted that there is an “inseparable connection . . . between the unitive and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” To deliberately seek to remove the procreative significance of the marital act does not, in fact, leave a unitive act that has no procreative significance; it removes as well the unitive significance of the act.
Defenders of traditional sexual ethics such as Elizabeth Anscombe have argued that the embrace of contraception is a turning point for sexual ethics more generally. If it is permissible to seek less than the fullness of the real union possible on some occasion in one’s sex acts, then why stop with contracepted sex? Why not seek the less-than-full union available in sex outside of marriage, or in some non-marital form of sexual activity? No good answer seems forthcoming.
In consequence, contraception is understood by the Church both as a violation of the marital commitment — as preventing its fullest available realization — and as a gateway choice to other abuses against the good of marriage.
Contraception’s gateway character is in fact twofold, for in addition to this important strand of argument against contraception rooted in its anti-marital nature, there is also an argument rooted in its anti-life nature: To contracept is to choose to prevent a possible child from coming into existence (a choice that is not made, incidentally, when the couple abstains from the marital act — which is what happens in Catholic family planning). But human life, like marriage, is a great good; and to choose directly against that good seems wrong, and structurally similar to the wrong of homicide, and, specifically, the wrong of abortion. They are not the same wrongs, for there is no actual child in the case of contraception, as there is in abortion; but a culture shaped by collective willing of the non-existence of many possible children should be expected to extend that denial to the right to life of unborn human beings as well.
This dynamic is seen in the HHS mandate, which includes in its list of covered pharmaceuticals drugs such as Ella and Plan B, which are plausibly thought to work on occasion by preventing implantation of an embryo, i.e., by abortion. This willingness to lump in abortifacient drugs with contraceptives is a sign, but only one of many, of the Church’s wisdom in its teaching on contraception.
— Christopher Tollefsen is a visiting fellow of the James Madison Program at Princeton University.
I've had enough of this pious gobbledygook to last a lifetime. Keep this nonsense out of my life. Even among cathilics, only the most extreme of the extreme buy this junk, something like 90% use contraception.
There's no going back to the dark ages, I'm afraid to break it to you.
"Keep this nonsense out of my life." Over two thousand years of history and you call it nonsense. Catholics would love to keep the Liberal nonsense out of their lives, but the Liberals seem to have a really bad habit as of late to stick they're pointy noses in the Catholics lives.
The Catholics are not bothering anyone, we're perfectly happy being left alone, but that big eared jug head in the White House cannot seem to get it through his head to leave us the frigging alone.
But thanks to blind zombies like you, feeling such great indignation that the Catholics are fighting back for their faith. I've met hundreds of hypocrites like yourself, but one thing that I have found out. Once you have one foot in deaths door they all of sudden regain their faith and ask for forgiveness, blubbering all over the place.
If you just can't stand the Catholics sticking up for their faith or anyone else who does the same, then you have the freedom to leave. There are plenty of other places that believe as you do. It used to be called The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Communist China, they hate this gobbledygook as bad as you and are not exactly shy about suppressing it either.
You know that at some point Stalin banned contraception and abortions, right? I guess you don't but anytime you talk to liberals you immediately think of USSR. Might wanna look into that.
"pious gobbledygook" is apparently libertine-speak for "careful reasoning on sexual matters"; "buy[ing] this junk" is apparently libertine-speak for "having and exercising self control."
Huh? Fine, keep it out of your life. No one is saying that the Catholic Church wants to eliminate the availability if contraception. Just pay for your own. Sure, many catholics may have used such against the teachings of the church, but so what. If all Catholics were perfect, then there wouldnt be much need for the church. That doesn't change the teachings of the church. They teach what they teach not because it is popular, but bcs they believe it to be right.
Feel free to join whatever church is suited to you best, or none at all. But don't complain when that choice is taken away. Only then will you realize this is about freedom and not contraception.
Are you really saying this is not open to debate because you deem it goobledygook? Why do you not address the issue head on if you are willing to comment on it? For example, the Catholic Church in 1968 predicted in it's encyclical that wide spread use of contraception would lead to :
General lowering of moral standards
A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy
The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.
Government coercion in reproductive matters.
Do you think there is no intellectual argument to be had here? Whatever you want to believe is your business. No one is going to take away contraception from anyone. But don't act as if it is no big deal to overnight the free contraception some sort of human right especially at the expense of the constitution and its protection of religious freedom.
Saw that I botched the last sentence. Here it is revised:
But don't act as if it is no big deal for the administration to overnight claim that free contraception is some sort of human right, especially at the expense of the constitution and its protection of religious freedom.
Actually, the embrace of the contraceptive culture (and the resulting clamor for Abortion when that doesn't work out) is one of the fastest paths back to the dark ages.
Take a look around at the US culture and tell me if you see the heights of enlightenment.
You may not want to go back to the dark ages but a dumbed down culture that uses sex for recreation, that leads to death (abortion) and fatherless homes, that leads to children growing up feeling alienation and depression, that leads to acts of aggression and self destruction, that leads to violence, simple pleasure seeking and acting on base impulses JUST BEGS for the Strong Man to set things right and repress the Animal HORD.
Sin makes you stupid whether you want to admit it or not (as extreme as that sounds).
Good luck keeping the coming dark ages "out of your life".
We saw this very same thing in the animated film Pinocchio. Pinocchio chose all the wrong things that turned he and all comrades into animals (donkeys) as they didn't listen to their conscience (inner Jiminy Cricket) to do what is right and responsible.
Are you really saying this is not open to debate because you deem it goobledygook? Why do you not address the issue head on if you are willing to comment on it? For example, the Catholic Church in 1968 predicted in it's encyclical that wide spread use of contraception would lead to :
General lowering of moral standards
A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy
The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.
Government coercion in reproductive matters.
Do you think there is no intellectual argument to be had here? Whatever you want to believe is your business. No one is going to take away contraception from anyone. But don't act as if it is no big deal to overnight the free contraception some sort of human right especially at the expense of the constitution and its protection of religious freedom.
What the Catholic Church didn't predict is that access to contraception would lead tens of millions of people in what was the 'third world' out of poverty. Nothing affects the economic success of a people more than access to contraception and for its women to not be thrust into a life-long cycle of perpetual childbirthing.
That far outweighs any 'moral' issues that may or may not arise.
The artificially-induced sterility brought about by contraception cannot lead to economic success any more than high rates of taxation can lead to economic success. What it can lead to, and has led to throughout the countries formerly-Christian West, is an aging population and a massive level of public debt. Anyone who does not see the link between the culture of contraception and the demographic decline of the West is blind. Contraception is killing us, demographically and economically.
It's very simple. A culture that does not reproduce itself is a culture that is committing suicide. Who do you expect to sustain the economy during your retirement? Do you even care?
No, contraception has not elevated millions out of poverty. Economic development has. And economic development always depends upon people. Contraception has wrecked the cultures and economies of the West. The Greeks have been sterilizing themselves with contraceptives for decades. They have one of the lowest rates of childbirth in the world. The wisdom of that policy is currently manifesting itself in the streets of Athens.
Wrong again. You equate large populations with poverty. Strong economies, historically speaking, have arisen where there is a combination of natural resources, large populations, and proper government that allows an economy to grow.
Europe is a great example of population reduction problems. Do you not see that their population is so out of kilter that they do not have enough producers in the economy. Do you not see that the populations of India and China have not hampered their growth. Rather, they have a lot of producers.
The morality I speak of is the natural law, not just the Church. There are things that are fairly certain, such as that water will wet you and fire will burn you. This is not much different. I too wish fire would not burn me, but I've seen it happen.
This is the type of comment that strives to be smart while it is simply BS.
First of all third world countries develop independently from contraception; secondly contraception is often imposed, more often than not by the state - China and India may be examples - in the cheap terms of mass sterilization, frequently forced. Thirdly: contraception is NOT linked to economic development also because the most popular mean to stifle birth is abortion, not contraception. Fourthly in the two most populous nations on earth, India and China again, the result of these policies is selective abortion, to the detriment of the female unborn. The terrible effects that this imbalance between the sexes is producing is already visible: the female population of the two countries is already missing more than 50 million members.
You can call this progress as much as you want, you will convince nobody who can minimally reason.
You should take your own advice and relax! You chose to read an article that explained a position and you are free to agree or not. No one is asking you to buy it, it was written to inform. Thinking people appreciate that, regardless of their position or beliefs. Since your ability to comprehend seems limited, your reaction is understandable. No one is advocating restricting access to contraceptives. The argument is about the abridgement of the rights accorded by the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
One cannot go back to an age; ages, dark or enlightened, arrive from the future. Given our unsupportable national debt, Roman teachings are perhaps the least likely path to a future Dark Age.
Boy relaxok, have the Catholic leaders hoisted you on their backs while you sit like a bump on the log thinking the government will never harm you. Today it's contraception and abortion, tomorrow it will be the government telling the nursing home where you've been for three years that's it's time to cut the Medicare umbilical cord and send you to the gravestone pasture. Why? Cause you didn't care what the government did to those Catholics in 2012, and now with them gone, it's going to happen to you. Ask the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese, the Cubans...give your government an inch and they'll eventually take everything away from you.
Well, Obama and the gang put this "nonsense" out there. The Pope and bishops have a moral obligation to protect, defend the teaching which Jesus gave us. We are indeed going into "dark ages" when the defenseless unborn can't enjoy the same God-given rights as those who have life. It's very convenient to call protecting life "junk" when you're among the living!
