my reply

“It is not only among us, who are marked with the name of Christ, that the dignity of faith is great; all the business of the world, even of those outside the Church, is accomplished by faith. By faith, marriage laws join in union persons who were strangers to one another. By faith, agriculture is sustained; for a man does not endure the toil involved unless he believes he will reap a harvest. By faith, seafaring men, entrusting themselves to a tiny wooden craft, exchange the solid element of the land for the unstable motion of the waves. Not only among us does this hold true but also, as I have said, among those outside the fold. For though they do not accept the Scriptures but advance certain doctrines of their own, yet even these they receive on faith.”

-St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis V.

Stating something to be true is never without controversy. Below, I have addressed the central dissents launched against my view on contraception.

"You are being arrogant in your position. Don't present your opinions as facts."

Many commenters felt that my position regarding contraception was fine for me and those in my “belief bubble,” but that I had no right to be suggesting it to the general public. Presumably relativists, these readers felt that I was being, in the words of Francis J. Beckwith, “judgmental, exclusivist, and partisan.” Beckwith explains:

“The relativist would like you to think his viewpoint is nonjudgmentalist, inclusivist, and neutral when it comes to moral beliefs. But consider the following.

First, the relativist says that if you believe in objective moral truth, you are wrong. Hence, relativism is judgmental. Second, it follows from this that relativism is excluding your beliefs from the realm of legitimate options. Thus, relativism is exclusive. And third, because relativism is exclusivist, all nonrelativists are automatically not members of the “correct thinking” party. So, relativism is partisan.

Tolerance only makes sense within the framework of a moral order, for it is within such a framework that one can morally justify tolerating some things while not tolerating others. For tolerance without a moral framework, or absolute tolerance, leads to a dogmatic relativism, and thus to an intolerance of any viewpoint that does not embrace relativism. It is no wonder that in such a climate of “tolerance” any person who maintains that there is an objective moral order to which society ought to subscribe is greeted with contempt"[1].

In short, relativism is flawed, self-refuting, and hypocritical, failing on numerous accounts (see previous post); given this failure, it seems reasonable to accept an objective view of morality. Thus, as my good friend Mr. Tawney put it, “…[C]ontraception either is or is not immoral; it either does or does not serve the fulfillment of the human condition.” Which one is it?

“Who are you to decide?”

I imagine at this point some of you are probably thinking, “Okay, I will grant you that objective morality exists. Murder and rape are wrong. But who are you to say what I can and cannot do?”

Good question. I am not the one to say anything. The positions I maintain are simply those which are in line with natural law. Why natural law? Our world is filled with many religions, cultures, and belief systems, but the one “group” that we all belong to is the human family. And since we share this common humanity, it makes sense to examine it for what it can tell us about how we ought to live.

So what is natural law all about? Precepts of the natural law are knowable by human reason; thus we all have an obligation to follow them. Think of them as “self-evident truths” based on first principles such as “Treat others the way you want to be treated,” “Seek good and avoid evil,” or even an assertion as simple as “The whole is greater than its parts;” statements that cannot be deduced, but only discovered. Natural law, built upon this kind of knowledge, "is exhibited in our intrinsic directedness toward the various goods that the natural law enjoins us to pursue…”[2]. Philosophers throughout history, from Plato to Aristotle to Socrates to Aquinas, understood that these tenets of the natural law are woven into the fabric of our humanity— imprinted on our very human makeup—to the extent that they are binding for all of us [2]. For this reason, even native peoples, for instance, with no moral, philosophical, or religious teaching, have been capable of creating just and civilized societies by using reason to discover what is naturally good.

“Well, my reason tells me differently than yours. I think contraception is not only okay, but good.”

In our culture, which is saturated with casual sex and contraception, many people— indeed, most people— feel this way. But we have to remember that natural law is the morality indicated in the natural order of things. Since sex naturally results in children, this should suggest to us that using contraceptives to purposefully disrupt that result goes against natural law.

“It may be true that natural law doesn’t support contraception, but I also know the Catholic Church doesn’t. I have some major issues with the Church’s view of sexuality.”

Much of my family, including myself, converted to Catholicism, so I can say from personal experience that from the “outside,” it is a faith that is commonly misconstrued. In the words of Fulton J. Sheen, “There are not one hundred people in the world who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they mistakenly believe the Catholic Church to be.” I think addressing this kind of misunderstanding is central to our continued discussion about sex, contraception, and abortion; at the heart of many dissenting comments were the notions that the Catholic Church:

A) condones only procreative sex. B) is paternalistic (reference to "white celibate males"), “severely restrict[ing] female sexuality.” C) is turning a blind eye to the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

I will address these points one by one.

A) As a commenter reasonably surmised, I am going to guess that few, if any, readers who claimed that the Church condones only procreative sex have read the Catholic teaching on the matter. Paragraph 2332 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.” Indeed, far from a narrow “sex-solely-for-procreation model,” the Catholic Church maintains a view of sex which is actually far broader than most competing views, encompassing all elements (emotional, physical, and spiritual) of the act and of the persons involved.

B) The claim that the Catholic Church’s teachings on sex and contraception are created by “white celibate males who will never encounter personal experiences of sexual relationships or family planning" is over-generalized and, ultimately, irrelevant. In the same way that a doctor who has never personally suffered from his patient’s disease is still competent in prescribing proper treatment, Church leaders who frame the Church’s views on sex and family planning, though celibate themselves, still possess adequate understanding to make reasonable claims about these issues. Furthermore, I think it is far more important to focus on the “what” and “why” of a particular teaching rather than the “who.” If the Church indeed has good reasons to instruct as it does regarding sexuality, then it seems quite unfair to reject those teachings merely due to the marital status of their authors.

As for the allegation that the Church “severely restricts female sexuality,” this could not be farther from the truth. The Church does not “assume that women have no sex drive” or believe they ought to relinquish control of their bodies. In fact, Catholic teaching is emphatic that we are thoroughly sexual beings who have control over our bodies[3]; it is only when we possess this personal mastery that we are able to make a gift of ourselves to another. Further, holding this self-gift of sex in high regard (not to the exclusion of opposers who may highly regard it, too) does not make a woman an “incubator with legs” or a “walking uterus” (descriptions that might be offensive were they not so emotionally charged). While it is fantastic that women have the capability to bring forth new life, the Church has never suggested that child-bearing is the “only aspect of femininity that women possess.” Not every woman can or should have a child, and, certainly, women without children are no less respected, valued, or loved by the Catholic Church. But don’t take my word for it; Mother Teresa had straightforward words to say on the matter when she encouraged women, saying: “Let us pray that we women realize the reason for our existence: to love and be loved and through this love become instruments of peace in the world.” Indeed, quite the opposite of a paternalistic institution, the Church vociferously upholds the equal dignity of men and women, stating, “In creating men 'male and female,' God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity. Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God"[4].

C) Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, along with his research fellow Allison Herling Ruark, have responded to the erroneous assumption that the Church’s teaching on condom use is inimical to the fight against AIDS:

“Responses to the global HIV/AIDS epidemic are often driven not by evidence but by ideology, stereotypes, and false assumptions… Consider this fact: In every African country in which HIV infections have declined, this decline has been associated with a decrease in the proportion of men and women reporting more than one sex partner over the course of a year—which is exactly what fidelity programs promote. The same association with HIV decline cannot be said for condom use, coverage of HIV testing, treatment for curable sexually transmitted infections, provision of antiretroviral drugs, or any other intervention or behavior. The other behavior that has often been associated with a decline in HIV prevalence is a decrease in premarital sex among young people… If AIDS prevention is to be based on evidence rather than ideology or bias, then fidelity and abstinence programs need to be at the center of programs for general populations”[5].

To read more of Green and Herling’s research, click here.

“I still don’t see what’s wrong with contraception. Just because something isn’t natural doesn’t mean it’s bad.”

It is true that a thing is not destructive just because it is unnatural. Medicine, for instance, is generally unnatural, and is usually constructive. The difference between medicine and artificial birth control, however, is that medicine works toward allowing the body to properly function, whereas contraception causes the body to, in a sense, malfunction. Artificial birth control treats human fertility like a disease that needs to be cured with a pill. This is largely why I find it diametrically opposed to upholding the dignity of the human person— especially the dignity of women. The (wonderful) truth is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the way a woman’s body is made. As Jason Evert says in so many words, her body is perfectly designed, and it does not need to be subjugated to drugs or screened with a piece of a rubber in order to function properly; it just needs to be understood. Having sex without artificial elements invites both men and women to regard their bodies with awe rather than disdain. “This is true sexual liberation”[6].

If you’re still not with me, consider what one woman wrote to Dear Abby: “I am a twenty-three-year-old liberated woman who has been on the Pill for two years. It’s getting pretty expensive and I think my boyfriend should share half the cost, but I don’t know him well enough to discuss money with him”[7]. Is this the kind of “liberation” we yearn for?

Finally, as I previously noted, contraception is harmful because it often leads to infidelity. Social scientist and economist Robert Michael noticed that the divorce rate doubled between 1965 and 1975 with the advent of contraception in the United States, and that never in recorded history had it spiked in such a profound way over a ten-year period. He concluded that “as the contraceptive pill became more and more available, divorce became more and more popular.” Michael even went so far as to attribute “45 percent of this increase [in divorce] to increased use of contraceptives”[8]. Of course, both men and women can more easily be unfaithful due to the onslaught of contraceptives, but a staggering “60%-70% of adultery victims are women”[9], which is why I highlighted their mistreatment in my previous post. While correlation does not assure causation, it is highly plausible that contraception encourages sexual infidelity.

“But I think contraception is the safe and responsible approach to sexual relationships. Without it, how do you suggest we prevent STIs and unwanted pregnancy?”

As previously stated, Planned Parenthood claims that, “Virtually all women (98%) aged 15-44 who have ever had intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method”[10]. But according to this same source, “More than 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old”[11]. If both of these statistics are true, and we pair them with Planned Parenthood’s other previously noted fact that "54% of women who have an abortion had used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant"[12], then the only rational conclusion is that contraceptives fail a lot. The fact that over half of all women walking into an abortion clinic are doing so as a “back up” for faulty contraception speaks volumes.

The truth is, no contraceptive is completely effective in preventing pregnancy or protecting against STIs. There is no such thing as “safe sex.” Now, is a person less likely to get pregnant or contract an STI while using contraception? Generally speaking, yes. But it hardly seems that “less likely” is going to cut it when the likelihoods we are considering are human lives and potentially fatal diseases.

Abstinence is the only 100% effective means of protecting against STIs and preventing pregnancy. Is it challenging? Sure. But is it possible? Certainly[13]. I have found that when we expect much from young people, they are more than capable of rising to the challenge.

The alternative, of course, is more contraceptives, more failed contraceptives, and more abortions. Again, we cannot deny the contraception- abortion link. When a contraceptive fails, an abortion becomes the standard “solution.” (Although, I was puzzled when I read an anonymous comment explaining, “[A child is] something that, as a 21-year-old, I'm not at all ready for, and I would never even think of having an abortion, so I've made the informed decision to protect myself and my partner that I love.” With all due respect to this young woman, what is she planning to do if her contraception fails? Apparently, she will be having a child that she is “not at all ready for.” Of course, that is far preferable to an abortion—children are better off alive than dead— but this situation is far from ideal for any party involved, and it is exactly the kind that can result from contraceptive use.)

“So… basically you’re saying women have to have thirteen children.”

Not at all. Couples can responsibly space out their children for good reasons (financial, emotional, physical, etc.) using Natural Family Planning (NFP). NFP allows a couple to achieve or avoid pregnancy by understanding the woman’s fertility and working with the natural processes of her body. Since conception is possible on only a few days out of each menstrual cycle, the couple can be sure to have sex on those days (to achieve pregnancy) or refrain from sex on those days (to avoid pregnancy). And it works. The British Medical Journal reported that “[A] study of 19,843 poor women in India [practicing NFP to delay pregnancy] had a pregnancy rate approaching zero"[14]. While other sources give slightly varying percentages in effectiveness, when used correctly, NFP is known to be anywhere from 90%[15] to above 99%[6] effective. To learn more about NFP, click here.

“But our sexuality should be liberated, not limited.”

Men and women ought to experience sexual liberation. But real freedom only comes through self-control. Consider the alcoholic who cannot put down his bottle. Is he really free? Quite the opposite, he is in chains— enslaved to his addiction. NFP offers true sexual freedom because, unlike contraception, it requires self-discipline and moderation. Gandhi, as noted by a commenter, recognized the value of such virtues, saying, "I suggest that it is cowardly to refuse to face the consequences of one's acts. Persons who use contraceptives will never learn the value of self-restraint. They will not need it. Self-indulgence with contraceptives may prevent the coming of children but will sap the vitality of both men and women, perhaps more of men than of women.”

Closing Remarks

When we look back over history, we find that “[e]very culture that has used contraceptives… has devalued children, and with them all humanity”[16]. In our quest for truth, may we always uphold those ideals which serve the fulfillment of the natural law, and thus the dignity of the human person.

Vita Pro Omni!

[1] Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, 13-14.

[2] Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A Natural Law Tradition in Ethics. 23 September 2002, 11 March 2008. Copyright by Mark Murphy.

[3] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2339.

[4] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2334 (emphasis mine).

[5] Edward C. Green and Allison Herling Ruark, First Things, “AIDS and the Churches: Getting the Story Right,” April 2008.

[6] Jason Evert, Chastity.com

[7] Abigail Van Buren, The Best of Dear Abby (New York: Andrews and McMeel, 1981), 242. As quoted in Donald DeMarco, New Perspectives on Contraception (Dayton, Ohio: One More Soul, 1999), 42.

[8] Matt Abbott, Rush Limbaugh, Divorce, and Contraception.16 June, 2004.

[9] Adultery: Statistics on Cheating Spouses by Eagle’s Nest Publications.

[10] Mosher WD et al., Use of contraception and use of family planning services in the United States: 1982-2002, Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, No. 350. 2004.

[11] PlannedParenthood.org

[12] Jones RK, Darroch JE and Henshaw SK, Contraceptive use among U.S. women having abortions in 2000-2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002, 34(6): 294-303.

[13] For the latest research suggesting the effectiveness of abstinence-only education, click here.

[14] Ryder, " 'Natural Family Planning' Effective Birth Control Supported by the Catholic Church," British Medical Journal 307 (September 18, 1993), 723-725; P. Frank-Herrmann, et al., “The Effectiveness of a Fertility Awareness Based Method to Avoid Pregnancy in Relation to a Couple’s Sexual Behaviour During the Fertile Time: A Prospective Longitudinal Study,” Human Reproduction (February 2007):1–10.

[15] Familydoctor.org: Health Information for the Whole Family.

[16] Howell, Kenneth J. Step by Step: What’s Wrong With Contraception Anyway?