CONTRACEPTION AND CATHOLICISM
William E. May
Common Faith Tract No. 5
{c) Christendom Educational Corporation 1983
Christendom Publications, Route 3, Box 87, Front Royal, Virginia
22630
------------------------------------------------------------------
1.Foreword
2.Contraception and Catholicism
3.I. The Defense of Contraception
�Mankind's Dominion Over Nature as a Basis for Contraception
�The Nature of Human Sexuality as a Basis for Contraception
�The Totality or Wholeness of Marriage and Contraception
�Demographic Considerations and the Justification of Contraception
4.II. Critical Analysis of Arguments for Contraception
�Human Person, Human Sexuality and Human Action
�Human Persons and Human Sexuality
�Consequentialism
�The Whole of Marriage and Particular Marital Acts
�The Demographic Problem and Human Freedom
5.Conclusion: The Teaching of the Church
6.Afterword
------------------------------------------------------------------
FOREWORD
"Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn recently said this about the Bolshevik
Revolution and subsequent calamities. The statement however, is
not less applicable to the general adoption of the contraceptive
ethic, the consequent disintegration of the family and the
acceptance of abortion and euthanasia. The relaxation of the
Christian position on contraception has resulted from the erosion
of belief through secularism and relativism. The secularist
attempts to organize life as if God did not exist; His law is
therefore irrelevant. Through relativism we deny that there is a
knowable, objective order of morality. The result is a
situational, consequentialist ethic which can justify every vice,
including contraception. Relativism also leads to legal
positivism, the theory that since no one can really know what is
just, the decisions on disputed questions must be left to the
political process. And the result of that process cannot be
criticized as unjust, for who can say what is just? Auschwitz was
a working out of these secularist and relativist tendencies. And
so was Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's 1973 edict mandating
abortion on request.
The acceptance of contraception can be seen to follow from the
adoption of secularism and relativism. But contraception itself is
a major cause of other contemporary evils. Contraception is wrong,
Humanae vitae tells us, because it breaks the "inseparable
connection" between "the unitive and procreative meanings" of the
conjugal act. But abortion also involves the separation of the
unitive and procreative aspects of sex. And a contraceptive
society requires abortion as a "fail safe." For these reasons, a
coherent pro-life policy cannot be neutral on contraception. The
separation of the unitive and the procreative, the separation of
sex from life, is evident, too, in pornography, homosexual
activity and "in vitro" fertilization. The rise in divorce also
may be traced to the practice of contraception, since, in the
natural order of things, the main reason why marriage is permanent
is because it is ordained to the begetting of children. If,
through contraception, we affirm that sex has no inherent relation
to reproduction, why should marriage be permanent? Similarly,
teenage promiscuity may be explainable in part by parental
example. If children see their contracepting parents behave as
though sex had no inherent connection with reproduction, it should
be no surprise that they conclude that there is no reason why it
should be reserved for marriage. And so on. The theologians who
reject Humanae vitae offer nothing but an avenue to the
dissolution of the entire moral teaching of the Faith.
Although much of the effort to provide an intellectual
justification for contraception is evidently a sham--similar to
the result-oriented Supreme Court's opinions which marshal
theories to support preordained conclusions-- nevertheless the
theoretical arguments for contraception must be answered. A Church
teaching, such as that on contraception, does not depend for its
authority on the reasoning advanced in its support. But in the
case of contraception an exposition of the reasons for the
teaching is especially useful because the contraceptive ethic is
the source of other evils. A refutation of the case for
contraception can help to dissuade people from contraception
itself as well as from its extensions. In this excellent tract,
Professor May has admirably provided that refutation as well as a
convincing exposition of the reasons for the Church's teaching on
the subject. His work will be especially useful for students at
universities which call themselves Catholic, where the apparently
dominant orthodoxy is that of a parallel magisterium which rejects
Humanae vitae and which tends to reject the major elements of
Catholic teaching on sexual morality.
Of special importance in this tract is Professor May's explication
of the distinction between contraception and the natural family
planning which the Church approves when it is used, in the words
of Humanae vitae, for "serious," "just" and "grave motives." His
analysis will help to forestall the tendency to treat natural
family planning as merely an alternate form of birth control.
Professor May cogently refutes the basic arguments advanced for
contraception, but the point of his tract is not that a mechanical
means of contraception should be replaced by a "natural" method
employed with a contraceptive attitude. Rather what is needed is a
reorientation toward trust in God, toward respect for oneself and
one's spouse as persons and away from the dehumanizing and anti-
personalist materialism which masquerades as a "new personalism."
The ultimate issue is: who is in charge? In Familiaris consortio,
Pope John Paul II said contracepting couples "act as 'arbiters' of
the divine plan and they 'manipulate' and degrade human sexuality
and with it themselves and their married partner by altering its
value of 'total' self-giving."
We need to recognize the dominion of God. And, indispensably, we
have to pray for His grace, especially through the intercession of
Mary, His Mother.
Charles E. Rice, October 25, 1983
CONTRACEPTION AND CATHOLICISM
Today most people in Western societies approve of contraception.
They believe that its use by married couples as a way of planning
their families is certainly warranted and indeed commendable.
Contraception by the unmarried, particularly by teenagers, is
considered "prudent" and "responsible," even by those who may
think that unmarried individuals ought to refrain from sexual
activity. Using contraceptives has become, for a vast number of
people today, as "natural" as brushing one's teeth, taking aspirin
to get rid of a headache, or wearing glasses to correct vision.
These people--and among them are many Catholics, lay, priests, and
religious--regard the teaching of the Church on the immorality of
contraception as almost incomprehensible. It is considered
dehumanizing and oppressive, a remnant of a bygone age. It is
frequently said that the Church "bans" contraceptives, as it once
"banned" eating meat on Fridays. It is time, so these people
think, for the Church to enter the modern world, to "catch up" in
its official teachings with the mind of its own people, and to
life this arbitrary and oppressive "ban."
The primary purpose of this tract is to show that the teaching of
the Church on this question, far from being dehumanizing and
oppressive, is just the opposite, humanizing and liberating. It is
so, it will be argued, because it is based on a true understanding
of human persons, of human sexuality, and of the meaning of human
choices and actions. The teaching is thus not an arbitrary, man-
made rule, but the much needed affirmation of a God-given truth
about human existence.
But this primary purpose cannot be adequately accomplished without
first examining, fairly and comprehensively, the arguments in
support of contraception. Thus the first part of this paper will
set forth the principal arguments that have been advanced, in
particular by Catholic writers, to defend contraception and to
discredit the Church's teaching. Part Two will offer a critical
assessment of these arguments in such a way as to make known the
framework within which the Church's own teaching is cast. The
conclusion will summarize the teaching of the Church and show why
it is true and liberating.
I. The Defense of Contraception
Many reasons are advanced to support contraception and to show the
alleged untenability of the Church's teaching. The arguments,
although varied, can be put under distinct headings, depending on
their focal ideas: (1) mankind's dominion over nature, with the
associated claim that the Church's teaching is physicalist; (2)
the nature of human sexuality; (3) the nature of marriage and its
wholeness or totality; and (4) the demographic problem.
Mankind's Dominion Over Nature as a Basis for Contraception
A key idea in the defense of contraception is that human dominion
over physical nature, willed by God, justifies the use of
contraceptives, particularly by married couples, to prevent
unwanted pregnancies. The authors of the celebrated "Majority
Report" of the Papal Commission on the Regulation of Natality used
this line of argumentation.|1\ They noted that, "in the matter at
hand," namely contraception, there is a certain change in the mind
of contemporary man. He feels that he is more conformed to his
rational nature, created by God with liberty and responsibility,
when he uses his skill to intervene in the biological processes of
nature so that he can achieve the ends of the institution of
matrimony in the conditions of actual life, than if he would
abandon himself to chance.|2\
According to this idea, the biological fertility of human persons
is a physical process given by nature, something that we share
with other animals. Like other biological givens it needs to be
"assumed into the human sphere,"|3\ that is, brought under the
control of reason, which sets us apart from other animals and
makes us to be persons.
The person, according to this idea, is not to be enslaved by his
biology, to have his choices determined by the rules and
conditions set in physiology. Quite to the contrary, the
biological givens confronting the person are to be controlled and
regulated by the person's intelligence and freedom. It is
intelligent and reasonable for married persons to use their
biological fertility to generate children when they want these
children and are willing and able to care for them when they are
born. It is likewise reasonable for married persons to choose to
express their love for one another in the marital act at times
when a pregnancy would be irresponsible. At such times they act
reasonably and responsibly by using contraceptives to suppress the
biological processes of fertility and thereby avoid an undesirable
pregnancy.
The argument that contraception is justified by man's dominion
over nature is associated closely with the charge that the
position of the Church is dehumanizing and oppressive because it
identifies moral norms with physical processes and biological
laws. The Church's teaching, in other words, is physicalist or
biologistic. This objection, voiced by many, is illustrated in the
following statement by Daniel C. Maguire:
Birth control [i.e., contraception] was, for a very long time,
impeded by the physicalist ethic that left moral man at the mercy
of his biology. He had no choice but to conform to the rhythms of
his physical nature and to accept its determinations obediently.
Only gradually did technological man discover that he was morally
free to intervene creatively and to achieve birth control by
choice.|4\
This claim, moreover, is closely linked to the charge that the
Church is inconsistent in permitting the regulation of birth by
periodic abstinence or "rhythm" while condemning the use of
artificial contraceptives. One Catholic theologian put the matter
this way:
Of all these methods [of regulating conception] I should be
tempted to think of rhythm as the most unnatural of all, since it
inhibits not only conception but the expression of affection. It
is ... a base theology that would want intercourse to harmonize
with the involuntary endocrine rhythm of ovulation and
menstruation, while forsaking the greater spiritual and emotional
ebbs and flows which should also govern sexual union.|5\
The implication here is that there is no moral difference between
the use of artificial contraceptives and the "natural"
contraception of rhythm, which, as one critic noted, places a
"temporal barrier" between sperm and ovum.|6\
Here a passage from the Majority Report is illuminating. It reads:
The true opposition is not to be sought between some material
conformity to the physiological processes of nature and some
artificial intervention. For it is natural to man to use his skill
in order to put under human control what is given by physical
nature. The opposition is to be sought really between one way of
acting which is contraceptive and opposed to a prudent and
generous fruitfulness, and another way which is in an ordered
relationship to responsible fruitfulness and which has a concern
for education and all the essential human and Christian values.|7\
This passage is instructive because it distinguishes between the
use of contraceptives to regulate nature and what it calls "a way
of acting that is contraceptive." Obviously, the term
"contraceptive" is here being used not in a descriptive but in a
morally pejorative sense. It is being used to refer to what the
authors of this Report had earlier called a "contraceptive
mentality," that is, a mentality that selfishly excludes children
from a marriage.|8\ What the authors are here claiming is that
married couples can responsibly and rightly use contraceptives in
a non-contraceptive, i.e., unselfish, way, by ordering their use
to "a prudent and generous fruitfulness." Thus both "artificial"
and "natural" contraception are morally good if they serve a
prudent and generous fecundity; and both are morally bad if they
are opposed to such fecundity and manifest a "contraceptive"
mentality.|9\ The Church inconsistently permits the former while
condemning the latter.
We have now reviewed one major basis used to justify
contraception. Yet before taking up the next major line of
argument it is worth noting that many Catholic writers, in
developing the guiding idea of the supremacy of the person over
the physical and biological, also stressed the lived experience of
the faithful. They noted that many faithful Catholics sought
valiantly to limit their families by practicing rhythm. Yet many
of these Catholics found this unreliable and frustrating. It not
only resulted in "surprise" or "unplanned" pregnancies, it
inhibited the spontaneous expression of marital affection and
created tremendous tension within the marriage. In their
experience--and in that of many sincere and good-hearted non-
Catholics as well--the use of artificial contraceptives within a
marriage responsibly to limit progeny ultimately came to be seen
as the more "natural" choice.
This lived experience of married people could not, it was argued,
be ignored. In fact, as Robert Hoyt put it, "the single most
important kind of testimony influencing the papal commission's
eventual recommendation for change in the Church's teaching was
that dealing with the existential realities of sexual togetherness
in marriage."|10\ This experience, it was urged, pointed to a new
sensus fidelium, one respectful of the primacy of persons over
physiological processes and of the human and Christian values
involved in marriage and the generation of human life.|11\
The Nature of Human Sexuality as a Basis for Contraception
A closely related point in the defense of contraception is the
idea that human sexuality, as distinct from animal sexuality, is
above all relational, amative, or unitive in character. Its
essence, as human sexuality, is to join persons, to enable them to
break out from their shell of loneliness and enter into a deeply
intimate fellowship with other persons.
There is, to be sure, a procreative or reproductive aspect of
human sexuality. But--and here we see how this line of
argumentation is linked to that previously considered--the
procreative aspect is common to us and other animals. It is, as
such, biological, not personal. The relational/amative/ unitive
aspect of sexuality, on the other hand, is what is distinctively
human and personal. It thus follows that it is morally justifiable
to inhibit or impede or damage the biological aspect of human
sexuality by using contraceptives in order to promote the
flourishing of its personal aspect.
This basic idea is developed somewhat differently by humanist and
Catholic supporters of contraception. Humanist authors, for
instance Ashley Montagu and Alex Comfort, focus on this
understanding of the nature of human sexuality in order to develop
a new sexual ethic, one that justifies not only contraception but
also nonmarital sex and homosexual activity under certain
conditions. None of these authors advocates callous, cruel, or
exploitative sex, for such activity would be counter to the
interpersonal fellowship that sexual union is meant to express.
They propose the norm of relational responsibility in sexual
choices: sexual activity should manifest care and concern for the
other; it should be sensitive to the needs of the other, tender
and affectionate. In this view, contraception becomes morally
mandatory, responsible behavior unless those choosing sexual union
expressly desire to have a child and have the ability and
willingness to care for it.|12\
Originally Catholic authors employing this idea of human sexuality
sought to limit its applicability to contraceptive activity by
married couples. Thus the authors of the Majority Report began by
emphasizing the fundamental values of marriage and of human
sexuality, both the fostering of love between spouses (the
unitive, amative aspect) and the generation of human life (the
procreative aspect). And they stressed, as has been seen, the
obligation of spouses to avoid a "contraceptive mentality."|13\
But in urging that the Church change its teaching on the
immorality of contraception they advanced as a major reason the
"changed estimation of the value and meaning of human sexuality,"
one that led to a "better, deeper, and more correct understanding
of conjugal life and of the conjugal act."|14\ By this they meant,
as the Louvain theologian Louis Janssens correctly noted, that
"the most profound meaning of human sexuality is that it is a
relational reality, having a special significance for the person
in his relationships."|15\
The authors of the Majority Report then coupled this notion of
human sexuality with the dominion human persons have over the
biological fertility of sexuality and with the wholeness of
married life (a consideration to be taken up later) in order to
defend contraception by married couples. Spouses, they argued,
would respect the procreative meaning of sexuality and marriage by
welcoming children into their married lives when considered as a
totality, and they would serve both the good of children and the
good of fostering marital love by using contraceptives in
individual acts of marriage. Such acts would be ordered directly
to the deepening of love and of the relational/unitive aspect of
sexuality and indirectly to the procreative good itself.|16\
Although the authors of the Majority Report thus sought to limit
their justification of contraception to married couples, it soon
became apparent to other Catholic supporters of marital
contraception that the reasoning employed could be used to justify
other forms of sexual activity, including contraception by the
unmarried, nonmarital sex, and homosexual activity. This fact has
been frankly acknowledged by Charles E. Curran, himself a
supporter of this development.|17\
The reason for this is that, according to these same thinkers, one
can rightly intend what has been variously called "nonmoral,"
"premoral," or "ontic" evil in order to secure a proportionately
greater "non-moral," "premoral," or "ontic" good.|18\ These
Catholics recognized that some kind of evil is involved in
contraception (and also in nonmarital and homosexual activity)--
after all, contraception does involve damaging or impeding human
fertility, which is surely in some sense a good. But they reasoned
that in general one can willingly do evil in its "premoral" sense
so long as some greater good is served. In contraception the
greater good served is the relational/amative/unitive meaning of
human sexuality, its most profound significance.|19\
The Totality or Wholeness of Marriage and Contraception
Efforts to justify contraception by married persons alone have
been developed by some on the basis of the nature of marriage in
its totality. The authors of the Majority Report make use of this
argument, which they fuse, however, with the arguments from
mankind's dominion over nature and the notion that human sexuality
is, in its most profound sense, relational and unitive.
What they do is to distinguish between individual acts of marriage
and the marriage as a whole. They insist that procreation is one
of the goods of marriage and that this good must be respected. But
they argue that it is properly respected even when individual acts
of marriage are deliberately made infertile, so long as those acts
are ordered to a generous fecundity within the marriage as a whole
and to the expression of marital love. They put the matter this
way:
When man interferes with the procreative purpose of individual
acts by contracepting he does this with the intention of
regulating and not excluding fertility. Then he unites the
material finality toward fecundity which exists in intercourse
with the formal finality of the person and renders the entire
process human.... Conjugal acts which by intention are infertile
or which are rendered infertile are ordered to the expression of
the union of love; that love, however, reaches its culmination in
fertility responsibly accepted. For that reason other acts of
union are in a certain sense incomplete and they receive their
full moral quality with ordination toward the fertile act....
Infertile conjugal acts constitute a totality with fertile acts
and have a single moral specification namely, the fostering of
love responsibly toward generous fertility.|20\
A similar argument is used by the Methodist moral theologian, Paul
Ramsey.|21\ Despite the fact that Ramsey argues that "human
parenthood is not the same as that of the animals God gave Adam
complete dominion over"|22\ (a point we shall return to in Part
Two), he holds that contraceptive intercourse by spouses is
morally permissible so long as husband and wife "do not tear their
own one-flesh unity completely away from all positive response and
obedience to the mystery of procreation--a power by which at a
later time their own union originates the one flesh of a
child."|23\
Demographic Considerations and the Justification of Contraception
A fourth principal consideration to justify contraception is that
of population control. It is noted, time and time again, that it
took the human race from the beginning of time to A.D. 1600 to
reach the first 500 million inhabitants. It then took only 230
years to add the next half billion. By 1950, only 120 years later,
world population had climbed to 3 billion, and only 30 years
later, by 1980, it was over 4 billion! Predictions are that
population will reach 6 billion by the end of this century, and
possibly more if population control measures are not
successful.|24\
It is, moreover, necessary and morally imperative to prevent the
population bomb from going off. After all, the resources of this
planet are finite. Unless population is effectively controlled,
masses of human beings, particularly in the developing nations,
will never be able to rise from the terrible and oppressive
poverty that is their lot. While it is true that runaway
population growth has been--thanks in large measure to the
widespread use of effective contraceptives--curtailed in the
developed nations of the West (even to the point where some
Western nations now find it necessary to import foreign
workers|25\), it is still much too high in the developing nations.
Not only is it morally imperative to check runaway population
growth, it is morally imperative to use the most effective means
to do so. "Rhythm," or "Vatican roulette" as it is sometimes
called, is notoriously ineffective as a measure for regulating
births, particularly for the largely illiterate and uneducated
masses of the Third World.|27\ In fact, it is argued, the Roman
Catholic Church's ban on contraceptives not only contributes to
rampant population growth, it also contributes to the rise in
abortions as a means for preventing the birth of children who
cannot be properly taken care of. Thus the most humane and
Christian way of meeting the challenge of controlling human
population, particularly in developing nations, is the responsible
use of artificial contraceptives.|28\
24. See, for instance, Arthur McCormick, "Demographic Aspects of
the Population Problem," in The Population Report, ed. Joseph
Moerman and Michael Ingram (London: Search Press, 1975), p. 9.
II. Critical Analysis of Arguments for Contraception
It is now necessary to analyze critically the principal arguments
said to justify contraception and, in particular, to assess their
underlying ideas about human persons, human sexuality, human
choice and action.
Human Person, Human Sexuality and Human Action
In his magnificent Apostolic Exhortation on the role of the
Christian family in the modern world, Familiaris Consortio, Pope
John Paul II at one key point made a very perceptive observation
quite pertinent for our consideration of the first two major ideas
underlying the justification of contraception, namely mankind's
dominion over nature and the meaning of human sexuality. His
Holiness noted that the difference, both anthropological and
moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the
cycle ... is a difference which is much wider and deeper than is
usually thought, one which involves in the final analysis two
irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human
sexuality.|29\
In view of this we can begin our critique by showing why there is
a significant moral difference between the regulating of
conception by periodic abstinence and by using contraceptives.
Here it is necessary to say, first of all, that it is possible for
couples to act immorally and with a contraceptive and indeed anti-
baby intent by preventing conception through the misuse or abuse
of natural family planning methods (which are, as everyone now
knows, or ought to know, much more developed than the rhythm
method). Their precise intent and choice can be to make the act
they choose, sexual union, to be the sort of act closed or opposed
to the transmisson of life. If they do so, they are acting in a
contraceptive way, and they may indeed be erecting a "temporal"
barrier between sperm and ovum.|30\ But if they act in this way
they are not doing something that the Church approves. Rather they
are doing what the Church condemns in its condemnation of
contraception. For the Church teaches that "every action which ...
in anticipation of the conjugal act ... proposes to render
procreation impossible" is "excluded."|31\
But this is not the extent or proposal of all (in fact, it needs
to be said, of the vast majority of) married couples, Catholic and
non-Catholic, who choose to regulate conception by periodic
abstinence rather than contraception. Both may well agree in their
purpose or further intention, for both may be seeking, for
legitimate reasons, to avoid a pregnancy here and now. But the
human acts they freely choose to do to realize this purpose or
further intention are, as Elizabeth Anscombe and others have
noted,|32\ quite different, and different too are their present
intentions. Those who contracept, whether for selfish or unselfish
motives or purposes, are after all contracepting. They are
choosing both to have sexual relations here and now, i.e., to
engage in the sort of act they know to be open to the transmission
of human life, and to make this act to be closed to the
transmission of human life. This is their present intent, the
proposal they freely adopt by choice. And their act is contra-
ceptive or anti-procreative precisely because of this present
intention.
Those, on the other hand, who seek to meet parental obligations by
practicing periodic abstinence choose to do different sorts of
acts, and their present intentions are different. First of all,
they choose to abstain from the marital act when to engage in it
might lead irresponsibly to conception or would require them, by
using contraceptives, to set aside its procreative meaning. And
they refuse to make the marital act opposed to the transmission of
human life by contracepting. In short, their present intent here
is to abstain, and not to contracept. They then choose the marital
act when the wife is not fertile because they intend or propose to
participate in the unitive good of genital sexuality and of
marriage; they intend presently to express marital love by the
marital act. This present intent is not contraceptive. Such a
married couple is being non-procreative in their behavior, but
they are not being anti- or contra-procreative. (Moreover, it is
worth noting that married couples can use natural family planning
in order to become pregnant; true contraceptives are never so
used.)
To put it briefly, the moral difference between contraception,
whether "natural" or "artificial," and the practice of periodic
abstinence as means of exercising responsible parenthood consists
in the reality that different sorts of human acts are being done,
different present intents are operative, and different proposals
are being freely adopted by choice.|33\
What this shows us, too, is that the teaching of the Church, far
from being physicalistic, is concerned with the nature of human
choices and actions and their moral determinants. The Church does
not condemn contraception because of the "physical structure" of
the action but because of the intentions that are required on the
part of those who contracept, namely, the intentions to set aside,
get rid of, damage, or impede the procreative meaning of the
marital act. Nor does the Church, as Maguire contends, leave
"moral man at the mercy of his biology." Conception does not occur
without the human choice to engage in coition.|34\ And coition is
not a matter of biological or physical necessity, as are the
elimination of wastes, blinking one's eyes, the swallowing reflex.
It is a matter of free human choice, and human persons can choose
to avoid pregnancies by foregoing actions that they know lead to
conception. Moreover, married persons can choose to express their
love for one another in an infinite variety of ways. The marital
act is a unique, fitting way to express this love, and one that is
proper and specific to marriage. But it is not the only way to
express this love, nor is it necessarily the best.
There is then, a clear moral difference between contracepting and
practicing periodic continence as ways of regulating conception.
But how do these two ways involve irreconcilable concepts of the
human person and of human sexuality? In answering this question we
shall see even more clearly the moral difference between
contraception and periodic abstinence.
Human Persons and Human Sexuality
We have seen that advocates of contraception regard biological
fertility as part of the physical world over which humans have
dominion; they likewise regard the relational/amative/unitive
aspect of sexuality as its personal and human aspect. In short, as
Paul Ramsey has noted, they sunder in principle the two goods of
human sexuality and of marriage, the unitive and the procreative,
"regarding procreation as an aspect of biological nature ... while
saying that the unitive purpose is the free, human, and personal
end of the matter."|35\
This understanding of human sexuality, with its concomitant claim
that procreation is of itself biological in nature and part of the
world over which man has been given dominion, is what can be
called a "separatist" understanding. Here the procreative aspect
of human sexuality is not a good of the person which participates
in the goodness of the person but is rather a good for the person,
something to be used as the person chooses. It is regarded, in
other words, as a useful or functional good, not a personal good.
Thus human fertility becomes a personal good only when it is
freely assumed into consciousness.|36\
Moreover, many who articulate this vision understand the human
person as a free and conscious "subject" or "subjectivity" that is
embodied in either a male body-structure or a female body-
structure.|37\ The personhood of human beings, for these advocates
of contraception, consists in their ability to relate to other
persons or selves, and it is for this precise reason that for them
the most profound meaning of human sexuality lies in the ability
it gives these conscious subjects to reach out and to touch others
in an intimacy of shared affection.
But this understanding of person is a dualism in the pejorative
sense of that term, insofar as it places the body and the
biological processes of human life beneath the person, regarding
them as a material substrate distinct from and subordinate to the
person. (Although this matter cannot be pursued adequately here,
it is instructive to note that most of the Catholic authors who
hold these views refrain from using the term person to describe
the living, unborn human child. Indeed, several of these writers,
for example Daniel Callahan and Daniel Maguire|38\ explicitly deny
that the unborn child, whom they acknowledge to be a living member
of the human species, is a person but is rather "on the way" to
personhood.)
In the mind of the Church and of those who recognize as true the
Church's teaching on contraception, we find much different
conceptions of human sexuality and of the human person. First of
all, the procreative aspect of human sexuality is regarded, along
with its unitive aspect, as a personal good, not an instrumental
good, for in the mind of the Church the human body is not an
instrument of the person. Rather the body is an expression of the
person; and a living human body, no matter how tiny or handicapped
or senile or functionally unable to relate to others, is a
person.|39\
Thus the proponents of contraception propose a dualistic
understanding of the human person and a separatist understanding
of human sexuality. The Church, on the contrary, proposes a
holistic understanding of the human person as a unity of body and
soul and an integralist understanding of human sexuality. While
the entirety of a human person's being is not exhausted by the
body, the body is nonetheless integral to the human person and is
personally, not instrumentally, good.|40\
Consequentialism
In this context, it will now be pertinent to contrast the
different understandings of human choice and action proposed by
the advocates of contraception and by the Church. It was noted
that contraceptionists claim that one can rightly intend
(premoral, nonmoral, ontic) evil for the sake of a greater
(premoral, nonmoral, ontic) good. In short, they propose that we
can do evil for the sake of good to come. In contraception, one
intends the evil of damaging, impeding, or destroying the
procreative aspect of coition so that one can participate in the
allegedly higher or greater good of its relational/amative/unitive
aspect.
This theory of human choice and action fits in well with the
concepts of the human person and of human sexuality at the heart
of their defense of contraception. For it holds that one has the
right, indeed, the obligation, to act for the "higher" good even
if this means that one must deliberately, of set intent, choose an
act whose immediate intent is the destruction of a "lower" good.
And for these thinkers the bodily goods of human life, insofar as
of themselves they are not dependent upon consciousness and
intersubjective relationships, are always of a lower order than
the "personalistic" goods of human life, i.e., goods in which we
can participate only as conscious subjects.
But this theory is a general moral theory and it goes well beyond
contraception. On this theory it is morally right and good to
intend any evil for the sake of an allegedly greater good. Thus
one can rightly choose to kill an innocent person if this is
demanded by some "higher" good.|41\
This moral theory is called consequentialism or proportionalism,
and it proposes that the end, i.e., the higher good in question,
can justify the means.|42\ It is a specious moral theory that
seeks to rationalize our actions by redescribing them in terms of
their intended results. Thus the contraceptionists holds that
contraception by married persons is a "marriage- saving" or
"marriage-stabilizing" act.|43\
This theory is specious because, as many authors have pointed
out,|44\ it assumes that the various goods of human existence are
commensurable and capable of being "weighed" and "measured" in an
unambiguous way so that one can determine, prior to choice, which
is indeed "greater" or "higher." But this is impossible, because
the various goods of the human person are incomparable and
incommensurable. To "compare," for instance, the good of human
life itself with the good of knowledge or friendship is like
trying to "compare" the number 786 with the length of a rainbow.
It is impossible, unless the goods in question can be reduced to
some common denominator, and this simply cannot be done. In fact,
what these authors seek to do is to rationalize choices they have
already made in terms of their own preferences among the goods of
human existence.|45\
The understanding of human choice and action at the heart of the
Church's teaching is quite different. With St. Paul (cf. Romans
3:8), the Church holds that we are not to do evil so that good may
come. We ought not to choose evil, to intend that evil be, even
for the sake of some alleged higher good.|46\ This moral theory is
rooted in Scripture and in the entire Catholic tradition. The
goods of the human person, goods such as life and our great sexual
powers of giving life and giving love, are really good. They are
gifts from a loving God, participated modes of His goodness; they
are dimensions of the being of the precious and irreplaceable
sexual persons who are His living images, His created words. We
may have to suffer their loss or at times permit them to be
destroyed through acts that are also effective of good that alone
is intended,|47\ but we ought not to be willing to close our
hearts, our person, to any of these goods. We ought not, in short,
deliberately and of set purpose intend to set them aside. To do so
would be to erect an alternative chosen good, itself a created
good, into the Summum Bonum or Absolute Good. We would be, in
effect, prostrating ourselves before a created good which we
prefer. This is idolatry; this is sin.
In a word, the proponents of contraception have developed a moral
theory that seeks to justify the doing of evil, a theory that
rationalizes the deliberate intent to set aside something really
good by redescribing the act chosen in terms of intended
consequences. This moral theory is completely irreconcilable with
the teaching of the Church (and the discoveries of human
intelligence). For in truth we are to do good and avoid evil. In
making good choices we are to be open to all that is really good
and to be unwilling to damage, impede, or destroy something really
good because its flourishing inhibits our participation in some
other good.|48\
The Whole of Marriage and Particular Marital Acts
In Part One we encountered the claim that marriage as a whole
should be procreative but that individual acts within the marriage
could be contraceptive. This argument has been quite influential,
and contains a grain of truth. Surely a married couple, who have
generously given life to children and are devoted to caring for
and educating these children, have a love for children and the
procreative good in a significant way. Their attitudes sharply
contrast with the attitudes of those who abuse natural family
planning methods and avoid parental responsibilities by selfishly
refusing to have children, even though they seek to prevent them
by "natural" contraception rather than by "artificial"
contraception.
Yet this argument does not take into account the whole truth, nor
does it, particularly as set forward by the authors of the
Majority Report, properly understand contraception. Actually, as
we have seen, they redefine contraception exclusively as the
selfish exclusion of children from a marriage. It is indeed wrong
selfishly to exclude children from a marriage, but selfishness is
not the only way of acting wrongly.
The fallacy of this argument is that it fails to take into account
the relationship between our actions and our being. Contraceptive
acts may or may not express a selfish mentality, because in and
through the free choice to engage in contraceptive intercourse a
person makes himself to be a contraceptor. Moreover, for
contraception to be effective in a marriage, more than isolated,
particular acts are in question. What is required is a policy,
deliberately adopted, to contracept for very long periods of time.
Such acts of contraception may not express a selfish mentality,
but they definitely express a contraceptive mentality.
The argument is actually a begging of the question. Its underlying
assumption is that contraception is morally neutral and becomes
morally wrong if chosen for the wrong motives and becomes morally
good if chosen for the right motives.
But this assumption relies on a fallacious understanding of the
marital act. According to this argument the marital act is
intended to foster love between spouses, to unite them. The act is
not, as such, intended to be open to the transmission of life;
rather the marriage as a whole in which particular marital acts
occur is intended to be open to the transmission of life. To the
contrary, the Church and right reason affirm that the marital act
is by its nature open both to the expression of marital love and
to the transmission of human life. Both these goods come into
focus when one considers the marital act, the act that is meant to
participate in the marital covenant.
Proponents of contraception would agree that spouses ought not, in
choosing to unite genitally, freely intend to set aside its
unitive aspect. Why, then, do they hold that spouses can freely
intend, in choosing to unite genitally, to set aside its
procreative aspect? They can do so only if they look on this
aspect as a merely biological fact or a "lesser" good than the
unitive aspect.|52\ But we have already seen the dualism that this
entails.
The Demographic Problem and Human Freedom
The final major idea supporting contraception was that based on
demographic considerations. The validity of this argument already
faulty on consequentialist grounds, depends upon the validity of
the assumptions it makes. These are: (1) population is growing at
a disastrous rate, particularly in the developing countries; and
(2) contraceptives are the most effective means of controlling
population.
Both of these assumptions must be challenged. Reputable
authorities (for instance, Colin Clark) have argued that the
growth of populations in developed countries is now so low that
their future well-being is in jeopardy and that the growth of
population even in the developing nations is not the cause of the
poverty and difficulties the masses of human beings in these
countries suffer. Rather the cause for their suffering is the
worldwide economic system and the distribution of resources
available to us.|53\
But even if it be granted that there is a moral obligation to
control population growth, prescinding from the Cassandra-like
predictions of doom by those who allege that the population bomb
is about to go off, does it follow that contraceptives are the
most effective means for regulating conception?
It does not so follow. First of all, many of the "contraceptives"
vigorously pushed by the affluent on the peoples of the developing
nations are IUDs and pills which not only pose serious health
hazards (vaginal infections, perforated uteruses, and death
through cancer or blood clots), but also cause abortions. Second,
the various types of (healthy) natural family planning now
available are just as efficient in helping married couples to
avoid pregnancies; they do not cost vast sums of money; and they
can be learned easily by all, even the unlettered.|54\ These
natural family planning methods, moreover, respect the physical
integrity of married persons and the significance of the marital
act. They likewise enable husband and wife to cooperate intimately
in living their marriage and planning for their children.
One would think here that the massive efforts of the Indian
government to check its population by the widespread distribution
of contraceptives would be sufficiently instructive to show the
shallowness of the demographic argument. Condoms by the millions
were provided; pills and IUDs by the millions were given to poor
women who were told little of their health hazards and nothing of
their abortifacient character. But to no avail. The government
then sought to solve its problem by initiating a massive
sterilization campaign, treating its poor like barnyard animals.
But still the "population" problem remained. This is a case study
which contradicts the basic assumptions of the demographic
argument.
Finally, the claim that the Church's teaching leads to the use of
abortion to solve the problem of the "unwanted" child needs to be
considered. According to this claim, abortion would not be
necessary if people, particularly unmarried teenagers, made use of
effective contraceptives. But this argument is quite fallacious.
Evidence shows that the more widespread the use of contraceptives,
the more sexually active unmarried teenagers become. And the more
sexually active they become, the more "unwanted" pregnancies
result, despite the availability of contraceptives. Evidence
likewise shows that in every society where contraception becomes
widely practiced abortions increase rather than decrease.|55\
The problems that the world faces, in short, will not be solved by
spending vast sums of money, distributing unsafe products,
misinforming individuals, and ignoring their personhood. It is
time to try good choices, intelligently made.
Conclusion: The Teaching of the Church
Since we have already seen, in Part Two, that the Church proposes
a holistic understanding of the human person as a unity of body
and soul and an integralist understanding of human sexuality as
inherently unitive and procreative, the basic framework within
which its teaching on contraception is articulated should be
clear. It remains now to summarize this teaching and to show why
it is true and liberating.
Pope Paul VI clearly summarized the Church's teaching (one that
has been consistent from the very first time the subject was
raised until today|56\) when he said that "each and every marriage
act must remain open to the transmission of human life."|57\ Since
he knew that not every marital act can in fact result in
conception and since he also taught that there is no moral
obligation for spouses to have a positive intention to procreate
whenever they express their love in the marital act, it should be
obvious that when he said this he was not trying to provide a
description of the physical structure of the act. His meaning is
clear, for he continued by saying that what is wrong is the anti-
procreative intent necessary in contraception: "excluded is every
action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in
its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural
consequences, aims, whether as end or means, at making procreation
impossible."|58\
Paul VI then states that this teaching of the Church is founded
"upon the inseparable connection--which is willed by God and which
man cannot lawfully break on his own initiative--between the two
meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive and the procreative
meanings."|59\ What he is here saying is that the procreative and
unitive meanings of human sexuality and of the marital act are
both inherently good and, moreover, inherently and inseparably
joined by God. They are meant to go together. And in truth they
do, for the marital act is precisely the sort of act that is
naturally apt both for expressing marital love and for giving life
to new human persons.
Not that the Pope's concern is not with the physical structure of
the act (as Catholic contraceptionists allege) but with its human
meaning and with the human response to this meaning. He makes this
clear in a passage that is frequently overlooked:
indeed, it is justly considered 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 it goes against
the requirements which the right moral order calls for in the
relationship between husband and wife. By the same token, it must
also be acknowledged that an act of mutual love, which jeopardizes
the possibility of transmitting life ... goes against both the
divine design of marriage and the will of the First Author of
human life.|60\
Here Pope Paul is teaching--and Pope John Paul II has firmly and
incisively reaffirmed this teaching of the Church|61\--that what
is wrong or immoral, contrary to right reason, are marital acts in
which either the unitive or the procreative meanings of the act
are deliberately, by human intention, repudiated.
The teaching is clear, and the basic framework for understanding
it is also clear. Contraception is morally wrong because it is a
human act in which a person deliberately intends to set aside the
procreative aspect of human sexuality and of genital coition,
which is something truly a good of persons (and which, in turn,
need be marital if it is to respect the persons choosing it|62\).
Therefore, since a person must respect and love what is really
good and be unwilling deliberately and with direct intent to set
aside what is really good, a morally upright person will not
freely choose to do anything which so sets aside the good. Yet
contraception is such a deed. Therefore, freely choosing to
contracept is to do evil.
This teaching is grounded on the truth that human persons make or
break their lives by their free choices, giving to themselves
their moral identity, their being as moral persons. To become the
beings they are meant to be they must choose to be open to
everything that is humanly good and to the Absolute Good, God,
from whom human goods come. Human choices are morally good when
they "harmonize with the authentic interest [or true goods] of the
human race, in accordance with God's will and design, and enable
men as individuals and as members of society to fulfill their
total vocation."|63\ That is, they are morally good when they are
open to integral human fulfillment. They are morally bad when they
shut persons off from integral human fulfillment and set aside,
damage, or impede what is truly good.
This teaching, moreover, is grounded in the truth that human
persons are bodily beings, and that the human body, with its
fertility and its procreative and unitive powers of sexuality, is
personally good, and not a mere instrumental good distinct from
the person.
Finally, this teaching is liberating because it is personalistic
in the most authentic and deepest sense. It differs profoundly
from the shallow, superficial personalism of those who advocate
contraception. That shallow personalism, which equates the
personal with what is consciously experienced, denies personhood
to the unborn, the severely retarded, the senile and comatose,
regarding them as "vegetables." That personalism identifies love
with feelings, so that a marriage "dies" when love is no longer
felt.|64\
In contrast to the superficial personalism of those who advocate
contraception as a way of coping with the problem of human
existence, the integral personalism at the heart of the Church's
teaching on contraception truly reverences human life in its
plenitude. It is thus a liberating truth, for it summons human
persons to be fully themselves, to be responsive to the authentic
goods of existence and faithful to their commitments.
The slogan of the contraceptionists is that no unwanted baby ought
ever to be born. The deeply personal and liberating truth at the
heart of the Church's teaching is that no human person ought to be
unwanted.|65\ But human persons will be wanted as they ought to be
wanted only when human beings freely choose to shape their actions
inwardly by an attitude of loving openness to the goods of human
persons. Procreation, clearly, must be numbered among these goods;
contraception, among the evils which destroy such goods.
ENDNOTES
1. There were actually three documents in the "Majority Report."
Of these, the two most central to our purpose are those called in
English "The Question is Not Closed" and "On Responsible
Parenthood." Both are found in The Birth Control Debate, ed.
Robert Hoyt (Kansas City, Mo.: Nat. Cath. Reporter, 1969).
2. "The Question is Not Closed," p. 69 in Hoyt.
3. Ibid., p. 71.
4. Daniel C. Maguire, "The Freedom to Die," in New Theology #10,
ed. Martin Marty and Dean Peerman (New York: Macmillan, 1973), p.
188.
5. James Burtchaell, "Human Life and Human Love," in Moral Issues
and Christian Response, ed. Paul Jersild and Dale Johnson (New
York: Harper and Row, 1971), pp. 139-140.
6. Louis Janssens, "Morale conjugale et progeterones," Ephem.
Theol. Lovanienses 39 (Oct.-Dec. 1963), 820-823.
7. "On Responsible Parenthood," pp. 90-97 in Hoyt.
8. Ibid., p. 88.
9. Bernard Hearing, The Ethics of Manipulation (New York: Seabury,
1975), pp. 92-96; Anthony Kosnik et al., Human Sexuality: New
Directions in American Catholic Thought (New York: Paulist Press,
1977), pp. 292-296.
10. Hoyt, in his Introduction to The Birth Control Debate, p. 9.
11. See, e.g., Charles E. Curran, Ongoing Revision (South Bend,
In.: Fides, 1975), pp. 75-79.
12. Ashley Montagu, Sex, Man, and Society (New York: Putnams,
1969), ch. 1; Alex Comfort, "Sexuality in a Zero Growth Society,"
in The Future of Sexual Relations, ed. Robert and Anna Francoeur
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice- Hall, 1974).
13. See note 8.
14. "On Responsible Parenthood," p. 89 in Hoyt.
15. Louis Janssens, "Considerations on Humanae Vitae," Louvain
Studies 1 (1969), 249.
16. "On Responsible Parenthood," pp. 91-95 in Hoyt.
17. Curran, Ongoing Revision, pp. 77-78.
18. Richard A. McCormick, S.J., himself a proponent of this moral
theory, traces its history in his Notes on Moral Theology from
1965 through 1980 (Washington, D.C.: University of Press America,
1980). See entries under "moral norms" in index.
19. Philip S. Keane, S.S., Sexual Morality: A Catholic Perspective
(New York: Paulist Press, 1977), pp. 123-125.
20. "The Question is Not Closed," p. 72 in Hoyt.
21. Paul Ramsey, Fabricated Man (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1970), pp. 33-35.
22. Ibid., p. 33.
23. Ibid., pp. 33-34.
25. Ibid., p. 11.
26. Ibid., pp. 11-12.
27. John A. O'Brien, "Responsible Parenthood," in Family Planning
in an Exploding Population, ed. John A. O'Brien (New York:
Hawthorn, 1968), pp. 45- 53. See also the other essays here.
28. Ibid.
29. Pope John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, n. 32.
30. See note 6.
31. Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, n. 14.
32. Elisabeth Anscombe, Contraception and Chastity (London:
Catholic Truth Society, 1977), pp. 17-18.
33. On this see also my Sex, Marriage, and Chastity: Reflections
of a Catholic Layman, Spouse, and Parent (Chicago: Franciscan
Herald Press, 1981), pp. 116-119.
34. If a woman is raped, of course, she does not choose coition,
and she is terribly wronged. To seek to prevent her from becoming
pregnant as a result of the rape is not to contracept.
35. Ramsey, Fabricated Man, p. 33.
36. See "The Question is Not Closed," pp. 70-71 in Hoyt.
37. Kosnik et al., Human Sexuality, p. 84.
38. Daniel Callahan, Abortion: Law, Choice, and Morality (New
York: Macmillan, 1970), p. 398 f; Maguire, Death By Choice (New
York: Macmillan, 1973), p. 204.
39. This is at the heart of the teaching of John Paul II. See
Richard Hogan's brilliant summary of his thought in "A Theology of
the Body," Fidelity 1.1 (Dec. 1981), 10-15.
40. It is for this reason that we believe in the resurrection of
the body. God wills us to be fully human and personal in His
kingdom.
41. See Timothy E. O'Connell, Principles for a Catholic Morality
(New York: Seabury, 1978), p. 168.
42. Ibid., p. 172.
43. Richard A. McCormick, How Brave a New World?: Dilemmas in
Bioethics (New York: Doubleday, 1980), pp. 426-428.
44. Germain G. Grisez, "Against Consequentialism," American
Journal of Jurisprudence 23 (1978), 21-72; John M. Finnis, Natural
Law and Natural Rights (Oxford: Ox. U. Pr., 1980), pp. 118-124.
45. In fact, McCormick, one of the leading advocates of this
proportionalistic/consequentialistic approach, now admits that it
is impossible to "commensurate" the goods. But he then says that
"we adopt a hierarchy." By this he means that we choose
arbitrarily among them. He thus admits that this theory, which was
intended to offer judgments before choice, simply does not do so.
See his "Commentary on the Commentaries," in Doing Evil to Achieve
Good, ed. Richard A. McCormick, and Paul Ramsey (Chicago: Loyola
University Press, 1978), pp. 227.
46. See, for instance, Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, n. 66; Pope
Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, n. 14. Both refer to Paul's teaching in
Romans 3:8.
47. Here I am referring to the principle of double effect. On this
see my article on it in Encyclopedia of Bioethics, ed. Warren T.
Reich (N.Y.: Macmillan/Free Press, 1978), 1.168-175.
48. For a good development of this, see German G. Grisez and
Russell Shaw, Beyond the New Morality (Notre Dame, In.: University
of NOtre Dame Press, rev. ed. 1980), ch. 9.
52. Note that Ramsey, who explicitly repudiates this notion, is in
my judgment inconsistent in accepting contraception.
53. Colin Clark, "World Power and Population," In Politics and
Environment, ed. W. Anderson (Pacific Palisades, Ca.: Goodyear,
1970), pp. 725-733.
54. The work of Mother Teresa of Calcutta and her sisters in
teaching the poorest of the poor how to appreciate their
biological fertility is testimony enough.
55. On the link between contraception, teenage sexual activity and
pregnancy see James H. Ford, M.D. and Michael Schwartz, "Birth
Control for Teenagers: Diagram for Disaster," Linacre Quarterly 46
(Feb. 1979), 71-81. On the general link between contraception and
abortion see Paul Marx, "Contraception, the Gateway,"
International Review of Natural Family Planning 1 (1977), 276-279.
56. See John T. Noonan, Contraception (Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard
University Press, 1965), p. 6.
57. Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, n. 11.
58. Ibid., n. 14.
59. Ibid., n. 12.
60. Ibid., n. 13.
61. Pope John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, n. 32.
62. Ibid., n. 11.
63. Gaudium et Spes, n. 35.
64. See the comments of Joseph Ratzinger relative to the views of
Bernard Haering in "Zur Frage nach der Unaufloeslichkeit der Ehe,"
in Ehe und Ehescheidung, ed. F. Heinrich and E. Eid (Munich,
1972), pp. 49-50.
65. Powerful historical, cultural, philosophical and statistical
arguments can be adduced to prove that contraception is the
gateway to abortion, which in turn leads to infanticide and
euthanasia.
Afterword
It is time for Catholics to come out of the bomb shelters on the
contraception issue. Unfortunately, the "right-to-life" movement
wasted the past decade and more by pretending that abortion has
nothing to do with contraception. The issues are, indeed, distinct
but they are related as indicated in the Foreword to this tract.
We need to educate others as to the reality that a contraceptive
society must be an anti-life society in every respect from womb to
tomb. To follow up on the excellent analysis provided by Professor
May, the following steps should be taken:
1. Read Humanae Vitae and Familiaris Consortio and distribute them
to others. They may be obtained from The Wanderer, 201 Ohio
Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55107.
2. Keep informed on the teachings of the Pope. The most convenient
way to do this in the United States is to subscribe to The
Wanderer, 201 Ohio Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55107; The Pope
Speaks, 200 Noll Plaza, Huntington, Indiana 46750; and Talks of
Pope John Paul II, c/o Pro Ecclesia, 663 Fifth Avenue, New York,
New York 10022.
3. If you desire to make an extensive study of this subject, books
about it and other Catholic issues may be obtained from:
Christendom Publications, Route 3, Box 87, Front Royal, Virginia
22630; Tan Publishers, Box 424, Rockford, Illinois 61105; Cashel
Institute, Box 375, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556; Stella Maris Books,
2016 Wilshire Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76110.
4. Read and distribute tracts and pamphlets which present the
teachings of the Church in these matters. You should obtain the
entire series of Common Faith Tracts, of which this is one. Write
to Christendom Publications, Route 3, Box 87, Front Royal, VA
22630. Keep the Faith, Box 254, Montvale, New Jersey 07645, is a
good source of tapes on this subject. Another item I strongly
recommend is The Dissenting Church by James Hitchcock, published
by the National Committee of Catholic Laymen, 150 East 35th
Street, New York, New York 10016. This is a sober, but mind-
boggling bill of particulars in support of the conclusion that
"dissent" is now the established orthodoxy in the American Church.
5. Subscribe to a weekly Catholic newspaper that will give you in-
depth coverage of current developments in the "American Church."
The Wanderer, 201 Ohio Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55107, is
absolutely indispensable here. The National Catholic Register, Box
25986, Los Angeles, California 90025, is also very useful.
6. Learn about Natural Family Planning as it is approved by the
teaching Church. Write to The Couple to Couple League, Box 11084,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45211; and Thomas Hilgers, M.D., School of
Medicine, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska 68178.
7. Join an action organization devoted to the advancement of the
position of the Church on these matters. For example: Catholics
United for Life, Box 390, Coarsegold, CA 93614; Fidelity Forum,
Box 5664, San Antonio, Texas 78201; American Life Lobby, Box 490,
Stafford, VA 22554.
8. Most important: Pray, especially through the intercession of
Mary, the Mother of God.
William E. May holds his Ph.D. in philosophy from Marquette
University and is professor of moral theology at the Catholic
University of America. The father of seven children, Dr. May is
the author of several books on Catholic moral teaching, including
Becoming Human: An Invitation to Christian Ethics, studies in
bioethics, and an analysis of the Catholic understanding of
sexuality forthcoming from Christendom Publications. The Foreword
and Afterward to this tract are by CF associate editor Charles E.
Rice, D.J.S., Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School.
You may download this tract for your personal use only. Reprinted
with permission.
{c) Christendom Educational Corporation 1983 Christendom
Publications, Route 3, Box 87, Front Royal, Virginia 22630
Editor: Jeffrey A. Mirus Associate Editors: Thomas P. Mangieri,
William H. Marshner, Charles E. Rice, Robert C. Rice Spiritual
Advisor: Rev. Robert J. Fox Production Manager: Kathleen M.
Satterwhite
Digital copy (c) by Catholic Information Network (CIN) -
http://www.cin.org
-------------------------------------------------------
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
Web:
http://www.ewtn.com
FTP: ewtn.com
Telnet: ewtn.com
Email address: sysop@ ewtn.com
EWTN provides a Catholic online
information and service system.
-------------------------------------------------------
