FOOD FOR THOUGHT	QUESTIONS ON CONTRACEPTION
	     Fr Francis Marsden 15 Nov 1987
	
Qu:	Why does the Church ban artificial contraception?

A.	Because just as life is sacred, so the processes of generating human life are sacred. A couple cooperates with God, who gives new life. Sexual union must remain open to God in this way. No couple has the right to interfere with the marital act, manipulating it to cut out fertility, to have sex on their own terms in defiance of God’s design.

Qu:	But why does the Church insist that each and every marriage act must be open to human life. After all, only a tiny proportion actually leads to conception? Isn’t it enough for the marriage as a whole to be open to children, not every single act?

A:	The problem is — Do we have the right to separate the unitive aspect (joining the couple in love) from the procreative aspect (openness to receiving new life)? The Church says we do not. What God has joined, let no man put asunder. Once this link is broken, sex is devalued and degraded because it loses its purpose of procreation.

If you say that it is moral to have sex and artificially exclude the possibility of conception, logically you have to go on to justify mutual masturbation, anal sex etc. Because you have admitted that sex is not necessarily for new life, but for pleasure and so-called ‘love.’ It becomes licit then to use the sexual organs in ways that have no connection with procreation. We can see how this has happened in society at large, since the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930 permitted contraception.

Qu:	What right have a load of celibate clergy to interfere in what my wife and I do in our bedroom?

A:	The Church is not interfering. It is merely stating God’s laws to those who are prepared to listen. It is stating basic truths about human life and procreation which apply to every married couple. God gave us our bodies, and He has commissioned the Church to teach in His name how He wishes us to respect our bodies. Moreover, the experience of many married couples and lay theologians is taken into account, as the Church formulates her teaching.

Qu:	Isn’t this opposition to contraception just a Catholic hang-up?

A:	No. All the Christian churches up to 1930 were unanimous in forbidding artificial contraception. Luther and Calvin both regarded it as sinful. The 1920 Lambeth Conference declared: “We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception.” They changed their minds in 1930, for reasons which are unclear.
Other Protestant churches then followed suit, but the Catholic Church stood firm and held to the tradition of 19 centuries, as did the Orthodox. Many Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and orthodox Jews also strongly disapprove of artificial contraception. Gandhi said: “artificial methods are like putting a premium on vice . . . Nature is relentless and will have full revenge for any such violations of her laws. Moral results can only be produced by moral restraints.”

Qu:	You advocate natural family planning. Surely the motive behind that is the same as artificial contraception, so why is one OK and the other immoral?

A:	It is not only motives, but also means and circumstances which make an act moral or immoral. Now if a couple is not being selfish, and circumstances genuinely make another birth at present undesirable, they must choose moral means.

NFP respects the Creator’s design. It encourages chastity and mutual respect and fidelity. It works in harmony with nature. Artificial contraception allows a man to disregard a woman’s physical and emotional equilibrium, and reduce her to a mere instrument for satisfying his own desires. NFP builds true love. Artificial contraception corrodes. it. It. is an immoral means, though the motive might be justifiable.

Qu:	I thought NFP was very inefficient and only suitable for women with regular cycles.

A:	No, you are thinking of the old calendar ‘rhythm’ method. The new Billings sympto-thermal method is extremely effective, costs nothing, and can be used by any couple, however irregular the woman’s cycle.

Qu:     How sinful then is artificial contraception?

A:	Well, I must not hide the fact. The Church definitely says that it is ’grave matter’ i.e. that with full knowledge and full consent, it constitutes mortal sin. However, let us distinguish further.

Most serious would be permanent sterilization (vasectomy or tubal ligation), or long-term chemical sterilisation — the Pill and the IUD coil. In fact, the last two are anti-nidatives, that is, they stop the fertilized egg implanting in the womb. They cause early abortions.

The ordinary Pill, and more so the mini-Pill, work only partly by suppressing egg formation in the ovaries. They also harden the womb-lining (endometrium) so it will not accept an embryo. This makes them grossly immoral. Anyone who uses the Pill is in fact saying yes to abortion.

Barrier methods are short-term contraceptives, and non-abortifacient. Although immoral, they would be less sinful.

Let us take a difficult case. A woman has a heart condition and has been warned by doctors not to have any more children. She wants to follow the Church’s teaching, but her husband is uncooperative and will not practise periodic abstinence. He demands his marital rights.  She uses a cap or diaphragm. Is she in grievous sin?

A:	  I would say not. There is not full consent. She should frequent the Sacraments of    Confession and the Eucharist, and pray for her husband. The sin is largely his, for his lack of consideration.

Qu:	A couple has no children and the wife is on the pill. They do not intend to have children for a few years. They regard the Church’s teaching as’ old-fashioned nonsense.

A:	Here I suspect they may well be in mortal sin, and I doubt whether, in that frame of mind, they should receive the Eucharist. Apart from the abortifacient action of the pill, they manifest a dismissive and obstinate attitude towards a clear Church teaching. They are contradicting the essence of Christian marriage.

Qu:	A couple has three children at present. They try to abstain but occasionally use barrier methods or coitus interruptus.

A:      Provided they accept the Church’s teaching and are genuinely trying to move towards it and grow in chastity, they should confess their failures and keep trying. Do they know about NEP? Perhaps in the future they may feel they ought to have more children too. So let them frequent Confession and Communion, but they would be wrong to water down the law just to make things easier for themselves.