The Churchs View on Contraception - Essay Example

? The Church’s View on Contraception Based on section 14 of Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae in 1968, contraception isdefined as “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Brom). The act of contraception is by itself not condemned by the Church as long as it is a natural method. This means that artificial methods such as condoms, sterilization, spermicides, the Pill and coitus interruptus or withdrawal method. The opposition of the Church against contraception is proclaimed and explained by the Scriptures, sacred tradition, the teachings of the magisterium and human reason. Based on the Scriptures, particularly in the Book of Genesis 38:8-10, the act of Onan spilling his seed – which is an equivalent of coitus interruptus – was condemned by God and the Jewish law. Based on the ancient Jewish law of fathering children, it was a duty of the brother to perform to his sister-in-law the role of husband if his brother dies. However, Onan changed his mind about fathering a child which was supposed to be his brother’s and thus “spilled the semen on the ground…And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also” (Brom; Gen. 38:9-10). In Deuteronomy 25:7-10, it is stated that the man who does not give children to his sister-in-law in case his brother dies would naturally get punished with public humiliation. However, since God slew Onan, then the spilling of one’s semen – or more loosely, the concept of contraception – is obviously a more serious moral offense that simply not giving one’s brother’s widow a child. Other books of the Bible also condemn contraception. In the New Testament, Paul’s Epistle to the Romans states, “God has given them over to shameful passions. Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. In the same way, the men give up natural sexual relations with women….” (Rom. 1:26-27). In the aforementioned statements, the same unnaturalness in sexual acts is condemned by the Church. In fact, it is not only the Scriptures that condemn contraception but also the writings of the Church Fathers. These writings were after all based on the principles of the Bible and the natural law. Onanism, or the act of Onan spilling his semen, was echoed by several church fathers during the early years of the Church. One of the most prominent Church Fathers who condemned contraception in this way was Clement of Alexandria, who, in 195 AD, wrote in The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (Brom). Although the aforementioned statement of Clement of Alexandria somehow includes even acts like masturbation, it is still clear that the Church condemns contraception in whatever form that it can be carried out. The Protestant Reformer Martin Luther also expressed condemnation against onanism and referred to it as “the exceedingly foul deed of Onan” and that Onan “deserved to be killed by God” (Brom). Luther, therefore, emphasizes, through Onan’s example, that the sinner deserves God’s punishment. John Calvin of the Calvinist Church echoed Luther’s condemnation by saying that the intentional spilling of semen is “a monstrous thing” (Brom). Moreover, John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church, stated that onanism was “very displeasing to God” and was tantamount to the destruction of the soul (Brom). Contraceptives and methods to tighten the reproductive system have also long been condemned by the ancient Christian Church. Another Church Father in the name of Hippolytus of Rome indicated in his Refutation of All Heresies 9:12, in 255 AD, that “the so-called faithful [should not] use drugs of sterility or bid themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered” (Brom). The preceding statement of Hippolytus was stated specifically and may actually imply the condemnation of contraceptive pills as well as any form of “tightening” method such as tubal ligation. One thing that is, however, implied by Hippolytus is that the fetus is the state of the unborn that is considered living and whose destruction is considered morally wrong. This is unlike the statement of the Scriptures or of Clement of Alexandria, whose teachings condemn even just the spilling of the semen. Perhaps, the Scriptures and Clement of Alexandria both imply that the mere spilling of the semen already translates into a lack of desire to procreate. Contraception with poverty as its basis was also condemned. Another Church Father, Lactantius, wrote in his Divine Institutes in 307 that “if anyone on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife” (Brom). This was to prevent a possible act of contraception, which would most likely be the consequence if the couple were poor. Nevertheless, according to Lactantius, a lot of people would complain about poverty and of scant resources in order to financially and physically support a child and would then use this as a convenient excuse for resorting to contraception. Lactantius disagreed with this stance and reasoned that “God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich” and that bringing up of one’s children was actually “in [one’s] power” (Brom). This means that perhaps the excuse of not being able to nurture a child financially is actually nothing more than just an excuse. Moreover, Lactantius may be implying that it is also within one’s power to abstain from sexual intercourse if one believes he cannot financially support a child. Castration has also been condemned by the Church by virtue of sacred tradition. In the year 325, the First Council of Nicaea, which was the Church’s first ecumenical council, declared that “if anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that…no such person should be promoted” (Brom). Based on the aforementioned statement, even if the castrator belonged to the clergy, it would still be morally wrong for them to commit an act related to contraception although they would not be expected to perform acts of conception either. This provision in the Council of Nicaea actually attests to the universal moral condemnation of contraception. Contraception was also emphasized as something that would oppose the sanctity of marriage. After the Council of Nicaea, a Church Father and philosopher in the name of Augustine wrote in his Marriage and Concupiscence in 419 that anyone who takes “poisons of sterility” or oral contraceptives, “although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame” (Brom). Therefore, for Augustine, contraception somehow dissolves the bond united by marriage for marriage has one purpose which is procreation. The Magisterium, which refers to the Church’s teachings and interpretations of the sacred Scriptures and tradition, also condemns contraception and regards contraceptive acts as “gave violations of the law of God” (Ford & Grisez 259). However, the teachings of the magisterium are somehow opposed on account of the fact that these have only been formulated by mere bishops, who, unlike the Pope, are not infallible. The magisterium remains infallible nevertheless, because “although the bishops individually do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim the teaching of Christ infallibly” (263). This means that anything that is taught or proclaimed by the bishops, as long as these bishops abide by the laws of the Church, must be infallible teachings and must therefore be followed. Anything that is against these teachings therefore deserves a corresponding punishment. According to the 16th section of the Humanae Vitae, which was authored by Pope Paul VI, “The Church teaches that it is morally permissible to take into account the natural rhythms of human fertility and to have coitus only during the infertile times in order to regulate conception” (“What Does the Church,” EWTN). It is clear from the Humanae Vitae that only the natural methods of birth control are allowed by the Church. Nevertheless, some people may ask what the big differences between the natural and artificial methods are since both of these methods have the same effects anyhow. To this question, Pope Paul VI has an answer, from section 14 of his Humanae Vitae: “It is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom” (“What Does the Church,” EWTN). In short, the position of the Church on the issue of contraception is based on the principle that the ends do not justify the means. The Church, therefore, is not willing to sacrifice good actions for good results. Lastly, as human reason is governed by logic, then it is also governed by the natural law. The natural law declares that the purpose of sex is procreation and not contraception. The pleasure that accompanies the act of sexual intercourse is by itself simply an “additional blessing” from God and has the purpose of “strengthening the bond of intimacy” between husband and wife (Brom). This intimate and loving environment is actually considered a good setting in nurturing children. However, if this pleasure experienced during the sexual act is considered more important than the procreation of children, which is the main purpose of sex, then this is condemned by God and the Church (Brom). The reason for a sexual act is procreation and therefore any sexual act which does not seek to procreate is, therefore, by itself unreasonable. Top of Form Bottom of Form Works Cited Brom, Robert H. “Birth Control.” Catholic Answers. 2012. Catholic.com. 17 Apr 2012. < http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control> Deuteronomy. New International Version. Epistle of Paul to the Romans. New International Version. Ford, John C. & Germaine, Grisez. “Contraception and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.” Theological Studies. 2012. Marquette University. 17 Apr 2012. Genesis. New International Version. “What Does the Church Teach about Birth Control?” Marriage. 1981. Eternal Word Television Network. 16 Apr 2012. Read More