Contraception: 

Theological Thinking and The Teaching Church

By Mr. Krevs

The following essay will attempt to show how the Church’s teaching against contraception is based on divine revelation and to compare this teaching to contemporary theological understandings.  Theological reasoning should clarify and confirm what is known to be true from the sacred sources of Scripture and Tradition.  The understandings generated from such reasoning, as it pertains to contraception should also be communicated in such a way that it is able to take root in the mind, heart and will of contemporary man.  As John Paul II has himself stated that

…it is not sufficient that it [the teaching against

contraception] be faithfully and fully proposed,

but it is also necessary to devote oneself to

demonstrating its deepest reasons.[1]

Some contemporary theologians have formulated understandings, on the issue of contraception, that have resulted in an opposition to the constant normative teaching of the Catholic Church, even after that norm was re-examined and reaffirmed by the encyclical “Humanae Vitae”.  These erroneous understandings will be contrasted with arguments that ultimately support the Church’s normative teaching as it pertains to the proper methods of birth regulation.

            In the Apostolic Exhortation, “Familiaris Consortio”, John Paul II invites theologians to reflect ever more deeply on the traditional teachings on birth regulation, reaffirmed by Pope Paul VI in the Encyclical Letter “Humanae Vitae”.  Accepting this invitation, theologians are to

                        …unite their efforts in order to collaborate with the hierarchical

Magisterium and commit themselves to the task of illustrating

ever more clearly the biblical foundations, the ethical grounds

and the personalistic reasons behind this doctrine. [2]

Any sound moral theology, especially in the area of birth regulation should ultimately ground its understanding in God’s revelation.  God’s revelation is the data of faith, which includes Sacred Scripture, Tradition, presented and clarified by Christ’s teaching church.  As the Second Vatican Council points out in the document “Dei Verbum”’

...sacred tradition, sacred Scripture and the teaching authority

of the Church [Magisterium] in accord with God’s most wise

design are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand

without the others and that all together and each in its own way

under the action of the one Holy Spirit, contribute effectively to

the salvation of souls. [3]

Sacred tradtion has remained firm and has consistenly taught that contraception  or any form or artificial birth control is an unacceptable Christian response.  In this century alone, eight Church documents have been published, which attest to the constancy of this teaching.  These are:  Encylical Letter, “Casti Cannubi”  no54 (December 31, 1930- (Pope Pius XI),  “Allocutions to Midwives” (October 29, 1951 – Pope Pius XII), Ecumenical Council of Vatican II,  “Gaudium et Spes”, no. 51 (December 7, 1965),  Apostolic Exhortation, “Familiaris Consortio” no 32 (November 22, 1981 – Pope John Paul II), Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith, “Donum Vitae” (February 22, 1987), Ecclesiastical Document Cathechism Of The Catholic Church no. 2368 and no. 2370 (October 11, 1992 – On the request of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops to John Paul II, January 25, 1985), Encyclical Letter “Veritatis Splendor” no. 80 and 81 (August 6, 1993 – Pope John Paul II) and finally the Encyclical Letter “Evangelium Vitae” no. 13 (March 25, 1995 – Pope John Paul II ).    This last and most current document again reaffirms that the Catholic Church

                        … continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. [4]

“Hunanae Vitae”  no. 14 defines contraception as

                        Every act that intends to impede procreation … whether

                        it is done in anticipation of martial intercourse or during it,

                        or while it is having  its natural consequences. [5]

Sexual intercourse can be considered contraceptive because of the use of mechanical devices (intrauterine devices, condoms and diaphragms), spermicides, anovulent pills, morning-after pills or surgical sterilization..

            In his book Contraception:  A History Of Its Treatment By The Catholic Theologians And Canonists, John Noonan points out that the Church’s condemnation of artificial methods of birth control has indeed been the solemn and formal teaching of the Catholic Church, since the first century.  Rules on contraception were already adopted in New Testament times.

                        The shape the teaching took depended not only on the

                        texts of  Scripture and the doctrines current in

                        intellectual circles of the first  century which

                        Christians found congenial; it depended also on

                        those forces which the Christians identified

                        as alien and enemy.[6]

         In his article “Considerations on Humanae Vitae”, Louis Janssens, a Catholic moral theologian uses his understanding of personalism and the historical conditioning of concrete moral norms to propose a respectful dissent from the clear teachings of Pope Paul VI’s Encyclical “Humanae Vitae”.  In his personalist argument he sites two fundamental values of marriage;  responsible parenthood and the education of children.  These two values, according to Janssen, must be of primary importance and any method of birth regulation, including artificial contraception, should be subordinate to these two fundamental personalistic values.  Therefore,

                     If there is no question of selfish attitudes, but rather a case

                     where continence offers no solution or proves dangerous

                     to fidelity, then it seems possible indeed that the

                     practice of contraception  “would respect the full

                     sense of mutual self-giving in the context of true love.” [7]

The statement that the practice of contraception “would respect the full sense of mutual self-giving in the  of true love”, is a selectively arranged misstatement of true papal teaching.  In its document “Gaudium et Spes” no.51, the Second Vatican Council teaches that

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with

the responsible transmission of life, it is not enough to take

only the good intention and the evaluation of motives into

account;  the objective criteria must be used, criteria drawn

from the nature of the human person and human action,

criteria which respect the total meaning of mutual

self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love… [8]

Janssens omits “and procreation” in stating his understanding of “Gaudium et Spes" (no. 51) and its applicability to the correct moral understanding of contraception.  Together with Vatican II  (Gaudium et Spes” No. 51), “Humanae Vitae” (no.12) continues to teach the illicitness of contraception, established by objective standards (nature of the human person and his acts) and reaffirms the unbreakable connection between the unitive and procreative significances of each and every conjugal act.  The encyclical expands this understanding somewhat by stating the consequences that result from preserving both significances simultaneously.  Each conjugal act, which retains the unification of love (unitive) and life (procreative), will foster true mutual love between the spouses and will continue to be ordained to the highest mission of the spouses which is parenthood.  The two-fold significances of the conjugal act can likewise be severed or impaired when true mutual love is separated from the conjugal act, even while preserving its procreative meaning.  This can be accomplished when

…a conjugal act [is] imposed on a spouse, with no

consideration given to the condition of the spouse or

to the legitimate desires  of the spouse… [9]

            In the book Human Sexuality:  New Directions in American Catholic Thought, Anthony Kosnick et. al. depart from the traditional terminology adopted in the Magisterial documents of Vatican II and “Humanae Vitae”. 

We think it appropriate therefore to broaden the traditional

formulation of the purpose of sexuality from procreative and

unitive to creative and integrative. [10]

This switch in terminology from procreative to creative and unitive to integrative is not helpful at all.  The switch in terminology really makes it possible for the couple to decide on subjective grounds (not objective criteria), the moral licitness or illicitness of contraception.  What may be integrative and creative contraception for one couple may be alienating and destructive for another.  What has been consistently taught and held by the Church as being objectively immoral and intrinsically wrong (Humanae Vitae no. 14) becomes an option for the creative evaluation of each person.   This reinforces

                        …the idea of creative conscience of the moral norm…

[ What is quickly forgotten is that] Conscience in fact

is the place  where man is illuminated by a light

[Divine Revelation]  which does not come to him from

his created and always  fallible reason. [11]

Kosnick continues his argument by pointing out that

The method chosen to carry out responsible family

limitation must respect the total nature of the human

person and his acts. [12]

The “total nature of the human person and his acts” now becomes the principle or criterion of human action, in the area of responsible family planning.  Contraceptive practices could be permitted on these grounds were it to contribute to the total well being of the couple.  Kenneth Overberg, in his article “Birth Control and the Conscientious Catholic”  persues a similar line of reasoning.

…following Vatican II [Gaudium et Spes. No. 51] McCormick

(along with many other contemporary theologians) insisted that

the basic criterion for the meaning of human actions is the total

person and not just some aspect (i.e. the biological dimension)

of the person. [13]

The assertions of both Kosnick and Overberg are false.  Vatican II nowhere taught the ‘total person’ as a basic criterion of human action.  The Council’s teaching regarding contraception, as already quoted in “Gaudium et Spes” and emphasized three times in “Humanae Vitae” (no. 8,9,12) insisted on the criteria of objective standards.  These objective standards are deduced from the nature of the human person and his acts and preserve both mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.

            There is also a second way in which the term ‘totality’ can be utilized.  Joseph Selling in his article “Moral Teaching:  Traditional Teaching and Humanae Vitae”, contends that the basic orientation of the encyclical “Humanae Vitae” is an act-centered (conjugal sexual behaviour or the married act)

…point of view, in which each act is considered in itself instead

of in its relation to the whole of the relationship.[14]

Overberg also agrees with Selling on this expanded version of totality.

So, in determining the morality of contraception, the totality

of the marriage – the relationship between husband and wife

and with their children… must be considered and not just the

biological process. [15]

The above arguments of Selling and Overberg, emphasizing the whole or totality of the marriage rather than individual conjugal acts, was really the argument proposed by the Birth Control Commission.  “Humanae Vitae” rejected this notion of totality.

Thus it is a serious error to think that a conjugal act deprived

deliberately [ex industria] of its fertility and which consequently

is intrinsically wrong [intrinsece in honestum] can be justified by

being grouped together with the fertile acts of the whole of the marriage. [16]

According to Selling and Overberg, the moral specificity of individual acts are not as important as the moral specificity of the entire marriage.  This reasoning presents serious problems.  On such a principle of totality one could justify individual acts of adultery as long as the sum of these acts was not greater than the sum of the total conjugal acts of the married state.  This really amounts to comparison morality and is misleading, since a series of acts will always be greater than any individual act.  This is a morally irrelevant comparison.  A morally relevant comparison would be to compare an act of adultery with a conjugal act of the married state.

            Selling, together with Overberg, also implies that the argument against contraception, as proposed by “Humanae Vitae” greatly emphasized the biological and physiological structures of the conjugal act.  Richard P. McBrien, in his two volume series entitled Catholicism also agrees with Selling and Overberg.

The encyclical therefore rests its argument on the physiological

structure of the [contraceptive] act….  Theologians who accept

the inseparable connection between the procreative and unive

elements of sexuality regard the explanation given in the

encyclical  as too strongly biological. [17]

Selling, Overberg and McBrien view the traditional arguments against contraception as interfering only with the physical structure of sexual intercourse (condoms, IUD’s ) or with the biological processes of the human body (birth control pills).    Sexual intercourse is naturally designed for procreation and it is therefore wrong to frustrate this design, since man is interfering with his natural functions, both physical and biological.  While it is true that the physical and biological processes are impeded, the criticisms these authors raise fail to go beyond the biological function and completely ignore the spiritual significance.  When the church teaches that inseparable connection between the procreative and unitive aspect of each conjugal act, it is not emphasizing the biological or physical significance over the spiritual, but is clearly stating that destroying the procreative meaning (whether fertility is biologically present or not) necessarily destroys its unitive and true personalist significance.   Therefore safeguarding both its unitive and procreative meanings

the conjugal act preserves its capacity for [fostering]

true mutual love and its ordination to the highest mission

[munus] of parenthood. [18]

In “Familiaris Consortio”, John Paul II explains how this meaning is changed by each contraceptive act.

Thus the innate language that expresses the total

reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid

through contraception by an objectively contradictory

language, namely that of not giving oneself totally to the

 other.  This leads not only to a positive refusal  to be

open to life, but also to a falsification of the inner truth of

conjugal love which is called upon to give itself in

personal totality.[19]

All five authors – Janssens, Kosnik, Selling, Overberg and McBrien propose through their reasonings and understandings the possibility of married couples legitimately choosing contraception as a viable moral option for responsible family planning.  Janssen does so through misstated Papal teaching (error of omission).  Kosnick broadens the terms unitive and procreative to integrative and creative.  Selling, Overberg and McBrien utilize a meaning of totality (total person and total marriage) rather than objective standards as determining human actions.  These reasonings and understandings lead to criteria of human action which departs from

…the firm and constant teaching of the Magisterium

on what is moral within marriage. [20]

How then is one correctly to interpret and understand such terms as responsible parenthood, totality, objective standards, unitive and procreative, in order to obtain the deepest reasons for  a  true appreciation of the normative teaching against contraception?

            John Paul II has published numerous works which give a detailed anthropological understanding, both biblically and philosophically based, on the normative teachings found in “Humanae Vitae”.  His works entitled Love and Responsibility (1960) and Reflections on Humanae Vitae (1984) demonstrate the truth of the inseparable connection which exists between the unitive and procreative meanings of the conjugal act.  John Paul II begins his argument against contraception by stating the foundational personalistic principle.  Persons are not to be treated as mere objects of use and therefore as a means to an end.  The only proper and adequate attitude of one person to another is an attitude of love.  Therefore each person should give and receive love.  This foundational principle of the attitude of persons toward one another also has a scriptural basis.  God is love (Jn15:9-12) and we are to become like God (1Jn3).  As the Second Vatican Council teaches in its document “Gaudium et Spes”,

…man is the only creature on earth that God has wanted

for its own sake [love], man can fully discover his true self

only in a sincere giving of himself [love].[21]

The expression of love through self-donation is also found in Genesis 2:24 and is the same expression of self-donation revealed in the conjugal act through the “language of the body” when both man and women become one flesh.  True love in this instance should reserve nothing to self and this includes ones own fertility.  This “language of the body” expressed through the conjugal act

Signifies not only love, but also potential fecundity

and therefore cannot be deprived of its full and adequate

significance by artificial means.[22]

The “language of the body” should totally express its inherent meaning.  In contraception, even though there is a real physical bodily union, the “language of the body” speaks of a reservation of the total self-giving by the intentional withholding of potential fecundity.  As such, it ceases to be an act of love.  In consequence of the intentional withholding of potential fecundity, the interior truth of total self-giving is compromised.  As “Humanae Vitae” points out.

                        …one is activated together with the other.[23]

            For John Paul II, responsible parenthood is linked to self-mastery.  Self-mastery is a fundamental requirement of self-giving and is a basis of personhood.

Man is precisely a person because he is a master of

himself and has self-control.  Indeed insofar as he is

master of himself he can “give himself” to the other. [24]

Responsible parenthood, therefore, involves first an exercise of self-mastery over ones innate sexual impulses and passions.  Man is a rational animal and all such inclinations are to be ruled by reason.  When human reason participates in the eternal or divine law, it knows and comes to understand that good is to be done and evil is to be avoided.  Responsible parenthood is therefore also rooted in the objective moral order and only a correctly formed individual conscience can appropriately interpret that order.  A conscience which is said to be correctly informed and formed is a conscience which relies on the sacred sources of scripture and tradition, listens to and obeys these sources as they are clarified by the teaching church.  The teaching church promotes the true good found in man, since it is in tune with the objective values engraved in each person by God.  Fidelity is therefore not to the teaching church in and of itself.  It is fidelity to God’s design and in the conjugal act this fidelity is demonstrated by not actively separating the unitive and procreative meanings of the conjugal act.