This is largely a response to a good friend's comments to a previoius blog entry, where he said, " a very interesting discussion! i have to say, the catholic church's position on birth control is one where i have a bit of a struggle. from my understanding, birth control is accepted in the catholic church, as long as it's a 'natural' rhythm method, and not artificial. is that correct? if so, the church objects only to the means of contraception, not to contraception itself... "
My assumption upon writing this, is that Christians accept that there is right and wrong, that there is truth, and that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.
When Jesus was speaking to the disciples in John 14 he said, "If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever - the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you...All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you (John 14:15-18, 25-26).
Later Jesus said, " But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth (John 16:13). "
Jesus promised to send the Spirit of truth, The Holy Spirit, because He knew that people will come along, claiming to speak the truth, when, in fact, they are speaking lies. Jesus promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. There are several warnings to Christians about false teachers and prophets in the Bible. One such warning is found in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 7 verses 15-23.
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' - Mt. 7:15-23
I am a Catholic convert and therefore, believe that the Catholic Church's teaching on artificial contraception is truth. I believe this about all of the Catholic Church's teachings even though many of the members of the Church have strayed far from the actual teachings, have forgotten the actual teachings, and/or have inappropriately applied such teachings. Catholics and Protestants have MANY misunderstandings and cling to MANY misconceptions about each other. Having been a Protestant all my life until this past year, I believe that Protestant churches, to varying degrees, also have the truth, that they are a blessing to the people of this world in need of a Savior, and that they also have much to offer to Catholic Christians. But I believe the Catholic doesn'th does not merely have truth, it has the fullness of truth. I believe the Catholic Church still believes and teaches what the early Church believed and taught. I believe the Catholic Church is the only church that has not caved in to pressures from within and without to conform to the ways of this world. The Catholic Church holds fast to what the Church has always taught throughout history in matters of faith and morality. The Catholic Church is never going to willingly ordain gay clergy. The Catholic Church is never going to willingly approve of, and support abortion. The Catholic Church is never going to willingly approve of, and support sexual intimacy outside of a marriage between one man and one woman. And, unlike the rest of Christianity (which I believe is in error on this matter), the Catholic Church is never going to willingly change its mind due to public pressure, and suddenly start teaching that contraception is acceptable. If something is morally wrong one day, why would it cease to be morally wrong the next day? Since the beginning of the Church, and notably, since 1930, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception.
All Protestant denominations were in agreement with the Catholic Church's teaching that artificial contraception is sinful until August 14, 1930. In 1930, at the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Church, under increasing public pressure, changed its teaching, and allowed contraception for married couples in certain circumstances. Not long after this, the Anglican Church caved in completely, and allowed contraception for married couples for any circumstances! Since 1930, all Protestant denominations changed their teachings on the issue of birth control.
Very strong words were used in an editorial to the Washington Post (March 22, 1931) regarding the actions of churches which changed their teachings on artificial contraception and indicate the general understanding that contraception is evil. "The departures from Christian teachings are astounding in many cases, leaving the beholder aghast at the willingness of some churches to discard the ancient injunction to teach 'Christ and Him crucified.' . . . Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee's report, if carried into effect, would sound the deathknell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be 'careful and restrained' is preposterous."
In the late nineteen century American anti-contraceptive laws were passed by largely Protestant legislatures for a largely Protestant United States. In 1873 a Protestant reformer, Anthony Comstock, persuaded Congress to outlaw the sale and distribution of contraceptive devices in federal territories, and many states followed suit. The body of legislation was called the Comstock Laws and remained in effect in some states until 1965 (Charles Provan, in The Bible and Birth Control). "
Artificial contraception is in conflict with God's laws. The following is the teaching of the Catholic Church on artificial contraception (bold font) as spelled out in the encyclical, Humanae Vitae, along with my commentary (not bold font).
8. Conjugal love reveals its true nature and nobility when it is considered in its supreme origin, God, who is love, "the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named."
Marriage is not, then, the effect of chance or the product of evolution of unconscious natural forces; it is the wise institution of the Creator to realize in mankind His design of love. By means of the reciprocal personal gift of self, proper and exclusive to them, husband and wife tend towards the communion of their beings in view of mutual personal perfection, to collaborate with God in the generation and education of new lives.
This love is first of all fully human, that is to say, of the senses and of the spirit at the same time. It is not, then, a simple transport of instinct and sentiment, but also, and principally, an act of the free will, intended to endure and to grow by means of the joys and sorrows of daily life, in such a way that husband and wife become one only heart and one only soul, and together attain their human perfection.
...this love is total, that is to say, it is a very special form of personal friendship, in which husband and wife generously share everything, without undue reservations or selfish calculations. Whoever truly loves his marriage partner loves not only for what he receives, but for the partner's self, rejoicing that he can enrich his partner with the gift of himself.
this love is fecund for it is not exhausted by the communion between husband and wife, but is destined to continue, raising up new lives. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents."
Marriage is an institution, and a sacrament, given to us by God. It is because of God' s love that we have marriage. Marriage is a total giving of one' s self to another, in which everything is to be shared without selfishness. This total love brings a bond of unity between a married couple (between a man and a woman) unlike any other. Additionally, marriage is also about procreation since " children are the supreme gift of marriage. "
10. Hence conjugal love requires in husband and wife an awareness of their mission of "responsible parenthood," which today is rightly much insisted upon, and which also must be exactly understood. Consequently it is to be considered under different aspects which are legitimate and connected with one another.
In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.
Responsible parenthood also and above all implies a more profound relationship to the objective moral order established by God, of which a right conscience is the faithful interpreter. The responsible exercise of parenthood implies, therefore, that husband and wife recognize fully their own duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society, in a correct hierarchy of values.
In the task of transmitting life, therefore, they are not free to proceed completely at will, as if they could determine in a wholly autonomous way the honest path to follow; but they must conform their activity to the creative intention of God, expressed in the very nature of marriage and of its acts, and manifested by the constant teaching of the Church.
Responsible parenthood is to embrace the gift of sexual union (in marriage) in its fullness. God wants us to " be fruitful and multiply. " It is part of the purpose of our sexuality. Again, it is natural law. God wants married couples to have children. Sometimes responsible parents decide, for what the church describes as " grave motives and with due respect for the moral law " to avoid having children. " Grave motives " do not include materialistic considerations (we will not be able to afford a yacht if we have another child) or personal preferences (I do not really want anymore children). " Grave motives " means that there must be serious reasons not to have more children. One couple elected to have only one child because the doctors discovered that their baby had so many birth defects. Their doctors and many friends and family counseled the couple to abort the baby. The couple chose to go ahead and have the baby and take care of it even though it would need constant care and attention. Their son required so much attention and care that they could not possibly care for another child.
So there are times when it is acceptable to avoid having children, but only in such a way that is in conformity with God's will and with the natural order in which He created us.
11. These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy, and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the Council recalled, "noble and worthy,"[11] and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained towards expressing and consolidating their union. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.
12. That teaching, often set forth by the magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man's most high calling to parenthood.
13. It is in fact justly observed that a conjugal act imposed upon one's partner without regard for his or her condition and lawful desires is not a true act of love, and therefore denies an exigency of right moral order in the relationships between husband and wife. Likewise, if they consider the matter, they must admit that an act of mutual love, which is detrimental to the faculty of propagating life, which God the Creator of all, has implanted in it according to special laws, is in contradiction to both the divine plan, according to whose norm matrimony has been instituted, and the will of the Author of human life. To use this divine gift destroying, even if only partially, its meaning and its purpose is to contradict the nature both of man and of woman and of their most intimate relationship, and therefore it is to contradict also the plan of God and His will. On the other hand, to make use of the gift of conjugal love while respecting the laws of the generative process means to acknowledge oneself not to be the arbiter of the sources of human life, but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. In fact, just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, with particular reason, he has no such dominion over his generative faculties as such, because of their intrinsic ordination towards raising up life, of which God is the principle. "Human life is sacred," Pope John XXIII recalled; "from its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.
God, in his wisdom, designed natural laws in such a way that there are natural rhythms of the potential reproductive capacity of a person. Sexual union amongst a married couple will not always result in the conception of a new person. This is fully acceptable to God since this is the way He designed us. But we are to always be mindful of natural law and of the Church' s teachings, that " each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life. "
The two purposes of sex, then, are 1) an expression of love, intimacy and union between a married man and woman, and 2) procreation. This is not just arbitrary observations; these are part of natural law. This is the fullness of the gift of sexuality that God has given to us. God, in his wisdom, chose to give us the gift of sexuality as it is. Why would we only take half the gift? To take half of it is to abuse the giver of the gift, and also to abuse the gift itself. The way God made our bodies, and the way in which God instituted marriage as a covenant that should last a lifetime, and the way in which God intends the marriage union to be a union of total love - " by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. " We do not just choose one or the other of the essential aspects the sexual act between a husband and a wife. It comes as a total package, and is an offense to God to " tear apart " the gift that God, himself, gave to us, keeping only the part that we find convenient, useful, or wanted. " The conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination toward man' s most high calling to parenthood. "
A conjugal act imposed upon one' s partner is not an act of love, and is both contrary to the right moral order established by God, and is also an abuse of the gift of sexual union within a marriage in a way that it harms the relationship between a husband and wife. It is an abuse of one of the two purposes of sex. It is a perversion of the gift of sexual union. In the same way, an act of sexual union which is not open to the " faculty of propagating life " is in contradiction to both the divine plan, according to whose norm matrimony has been instituted, and the will of the Author of human life. " To use this divine gift destroying, even if only partially, its meaning and its purpose is to contradict the nature both of man and of woman and of their most intimate relationship, and therefore it is to contradict also the plan of God and His will. "
14. In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth
Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.
16. To this teaching of the Church on conjugal morals, the objection is made today, as we observed earlier (no. 3), that it is the prerogative of the human intellect to dominate the energies offered by irrational nature and to orientate them towards an end conformable to the good of man. Now, some may ask: in the present case, is it not reasonable in many circumstances to have recourse to artificial birth control if, thereby, we secure the harmony and peace of the family, and better conditions for the education of the children already born? To this question it is necessary to reply with clarity: the Church is the first to praise and recommend the intervention of intelligence in a function which so closely associates the rational creature with his Creator; but she affirms that this must be done with respect for the order established by God.
If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier.
Here the teaching that it is not acceptable to use artificial birth control is re-stated. Furthermore, it does explain the proper means of preventing birth when, after a " grave motive " has been found, it is deemed that it is best to delay the birth of a new child. If done naturally, according to natural law, chastely, and with self-control, it is acceptable to abstain from sexual union during the times when the probability of conception is least. One may ask, well if a couple is allowed to do this, then what' s the big deal about using artificial means? The Church has always maintained, and still maintains, that artificial birth control is not acceptable. " There are essential differences between the two cases; in the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes. It is true that, in the one and the other case, the married couple are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive; but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love. "
CHURCH TEACHING THROUGH THE CENTURIES
Contraception is barely mentioned in scripture. Abortion, euthanasia, and cloning are not mentioned either. Birth control has been around for a long, long time. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating as far back as 1900 B.C. describe ancient methods of birth control that were also practiced later in the Roman empire. They mentioned wools that absorb sperm, poisons that were used in the uterus, potions, and other methods used to prevent conception. Even condoms (made of animal skin rather than latex) were used.
The only reference of contraception that I am aware of in Scripture is when Onan, to avoid fulfilling his duty according to ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one ' s dead brother, knew that the offspring would not be his so when he went into his brother' s wife he spilled the seed on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. " And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also (Gen 38:8-10) "
The prescribed penalty for not giving your brother' s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut 25:7-10). Onan was killed for more than avoiding his duty as a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he broke natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. Just as the Bible need not detail every form of stealing and murder to show that stealing and murder of every kind, is wrong, it need not go into every form of birth control to show that they are wrong too. Contraception was so far outside the Jewish and Christian mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Once a moral issue is established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned.
The early church fathers knew it was wrong and taught from the beginning of Church history that artificial birth control is a grave sin. The Fathers of the Church recognized the biblical and natural law principles that are the foundation of the Church' s condemnation of artificial birth control.
In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).
The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ' s divinity, declared in 325, "If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1).
Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).
"This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion" (The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 [A.D. 388]). - Augustine
The early church' s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him."
John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."
John Wesley warned, "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception' s evils.)
Pope Paul VI warned, "Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificially limiting the increase of children. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men - especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point - have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion" (HV 17).
No one can deny the fulfillment of these prophetic words. It is a painfully clear description of the loose sexual morality of this country. Pornography is becoming mainstream. Abortion is now used as a form of birth control for any reason whatsoever. Sex is no longer viewed as a sacred gift from God to a married man and woman. Homosexuals are now getting married in " Christian " churches. They are even getting ordained as clergy. Young children are increasingly the victims of sexual predators (often their own relatives, family members, teachers, and clergy!). Divorce no longer alarms Christians. It is considered a normal part of life! Numerous surveys report that a majority of married men, and an alarmingly high percentage of women have had adulterous affairs. Teens are engaging in fornication or other sexual behaviors in alarming numbers. We have lost our grasp of what sex truly is, and we have lost all self-control and chastity. These are among the fruits of artificial contraception.
When the Anglican Church, in 1930, caved in to public demand for artificial contraception, the Pope warned that it was not of God. It takes its place within the culture of death which includes artificial contraception, abortion, fornication, pornography, masturbation, homosexuality, violence, rape, adultery, pedophilia, war, social isolation, moral relativism, idolatry, and disrespect for other human beings, and many others. Artificial contraception, in no way, can impart the dignity and worth of the human being upon us. Even for good intentions, the means do not justify the end. To do something evil to bring about that which is good, is not acceptable to God.
THE FRUIT OF PRACTICING HONEST REGULATION OF BIRTH
Humanae Vitae, Paragraph 21, spells out the fruit of honest practices of regulation of birth. As it says in Mt. 7:15-23, false prophets come in sheep' s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious. By their fruit you will recognize them. There are many Protestants and Catholics who use artificial birth control, and haven' t turned into adulterers, rapists, homosexuals, abortion-seekers, pornography addicts, etc. But they are settling for less than what God has for them. They are outside of the will of God. They are short-changing their spouses and children. They are exchanging the truth of God for a lie and are lifting themselves up rather than the Creator. It doesn' t make them bad people. It doesn' t make them " the scum of the earth. " There are many who don' t even know that it is outside the will of God to use artificial birth control. Is that their fault? No, not usually. God is merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love. This is a difficult teaching for people to embrace. Pray for the grace to accept God' s will and to live by it.
21. The honest practice of regulation of birth demands first of all that husband and wife acquire and possess solid convictions concerning the true values of life and of the family, and that they tend towards securing perfect self-mastery. To dominate instinct by means of one's reason and free will undoubtedly requires ascetical practices, so that the affective manifestations of conjugal life may observe the correct order, in particular with regard to the observance of periodic continence. Yet this discipline which is proper to the purity of married couples, far from harming conjugal love, rather confers on it a higher human value. It demands continual effort yet, thanks to its beneficent influence, husband and wife fully develop their personalities, being enriched with spiritual values. Such discipline bestows upon family life fruits of serenity and peace, and facilitates the solution of other problems; it favors attention for one's partner, helps both parties to drive out selfishness, the enemy of true love; and deepens their sense of responsibility. By its means, parents acquire the capacity of having a deeper and more efficacious influence in the education of their offspring; little children and youths grow up with a just appraisal of human values, and in the serene and harmonious development of their spiritual and sensitive faculties.
Next Post: The Use of Condoms in AIDS Prevention.
No comments:
Post a Comment