All this talk of contraception forced me to actually go and read what the Vatican really thinks about the subject. I knew that the Catholic Church teaches that birth control is immoral, but I had never bothered to check their precise reasoning. It appears that the most important document on the subject is an Encyclical Letter that was delivered by Pope Paul VI on July 25, 1968. It was the culmination of a process that had begun five years earlier during the papacy of John XXIII, who had created a commission to study the issue.
This commission included married couples as well as many experts in the various fields pertinent to these questions. Its task was to examine views and opinions concerning married life, and especially on the correct regulation of births; and it was also to provide the teaching authority of the Church with such evidence as would enable it to give an apt reply in this matter, which not only the faithful but also the rest of the world were waiting for.
When the evidence of the experts had been received, as well as the opinions and advice of a considerable number of Our brethren in the episcopate—some of whom sent their views spontaneously, while others were requested by Us to do so—We were in a position to weigh with more precision all the aspects of this complex subject. Hence We are deeply grateful to all those concerned.
Essentially, the sudden widespread availability of the birth control pill starting in roughly 1960, forced the Catholic Church to take a fresh look at their position. And they did listen to all sides. They acknowledged that people were beginning to worry about global population growth and ecological sustainability. They noted that economic realities and social changes were making it harder to sustain large families. They even picked up a hint of the feminist movement:
Also noteworthy is a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love.
In other words, people realized that women would prefer to marry for love rather than to increase the influence of their fathers.
Most interestingly, the Vatican took “reason” seriously:
But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man’s stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life…
…A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.
They thought about this. But they totally rejected it. And they rejected it for a nobler reason than simply scolding us for being lustful, sinful creatures. It comes down to their peculiar view of marriage. The key is that marriage is a sacrament. It’s a sacred union. For the Church, no sexual activity outside of this sacred union is valid or permissible. But within the sacred union, sexual acts are necessary to help the couple remain close and grow together and maintain their fidelity to each other. The importance of sex for maintaining the strength of marriage is important enough that the Church doesn’t mind if married couples have sex even when they know they are not fertile. Yet, it’s not allowable to intentionally undermine your fertility because that robs God of his role in the sacred union.
Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source.
Here the Church has explicitly linked the act of raping your wife to using contraception, which is basically seen as raping God. It is raping God by denying him dominion of your body.
I admit that this is a more graceful line of reasoning than, “don’t do that, you harlot!” It has a lot to do with their concern for marital health, for example. And there’s something beautiful about the way they idealize conjugal love and it’s natural consequence, children.
However, the problem is that they have rejected reason, science, medicine, women’s dignity, and our dominion over our bodies in favor of a highly idealized view of marriage and a totally unrealistic interpretation of human sexuality and happiness.
It’s a strain to the modern American mind to try to think about all sexual activity as occurring only in a marital context. How many people do you know who married as virgins? For all the people who are currently in sexual relationships outside of marriage, the Catholic teaching doesn’t really have any meaning.
I think that’s why so few Catholics follow the Church’s teaching on contraception. It’s too anachronistic and foreign to make sense to most people.
Regardless, the Church is free to have their doctrines, and their doctrines should be respected. But their doctrines cannot replace medical science and best practices. I think Obama’s compromise struck the right balance. No women will be unwillingly denied needed medical care, but the Church can keep a step removed from actions they find morally reprehensible.
