Birth control morality

[sdegutis]

Hello all. Recently a coworker of mine, who is a cradle Catholic and seems to know little about the faith, mentioned to me a TED talk by Melinda Gates (Bill Gates’ wife). I watched the talk, in which Mrs. Gates says that it would do a world of good to give birth control out to anyone who is in need, and that it’s not actually against Catholic morality nor should it be controversial.

As a response to my Catholic coworker, I wrote up this post. It doesn’t go into detail on the reasons why the Catholic Church opposes birth control, because I’ve always found those to require a very very solid and sound trust in the Catholic Church’s authority, which I’m not sure he has. Instead, I’ve tried to tackle the problem from a totally different angle.

I hope I did this topic justice and tried to write it faithful to the Church’s actual teachings. So I would appreciate any feedback anyone could have on whether any of my points are out of line or downright incorrect.

For convenience, I’m also posting it as the first two replies of this thread. (Some formatting is lost, such as links and italics, which can be found in the original article at the link above.)

 

[sdegutis]

Mrs. Gates gave a TED talk proposing that “men and women should be able to decide when they want to have a child” and should be able to use birth control. She suggests that this shouldn’t be a controversial topic at all.

Particularly, as a “practicing Catholic”, she claims to be adhering to the teaching she was given by Catholic nuns in her youth to “question received teachings” of the Church. One of these “received teachings” is that birth control is sinful because “if we separate sex from reproduction, we’re going to promote promiscuity.” Her counter-argument is that sexual morality is often unaffected by birth control such as when used for reasons like family planning. This would seemingly make this use of birth control morally acceptable, and without sin. But this isn’t exactly the Church’s stance on why birth control is sinful.

First of all it’s interesting to see Mrs. Gates mention her appeal to authority (Catholic nuns and scholars) when citing why it’s acceptable to question authority (“received teachings”). But even beyond this obvious contradiction, there’s a more convincing reason to believe in the received teachings she questioned.

These are called “received teachings” not because we receive them from our teachers and professors but because the Church received them from God. In fact this is one of the basic tenets of the Catholic Church, as when we say in the Nicene Creed on Sundays that we believe in the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church”. The Apostles were given these truths by God and handed them on down throughout the ages untainted, by teaching them to their successors who in turn taught their successors, all the way down to today. And we can know that these teachings are untainted because Jesus said to Peter, “I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it.” (As a little context, before this Jesus gave this man Simon the new name Peter which means “rock”.)

We also have another way to be sure that the “received teachings” we have today are the same that we received from those Apostles who in turn received it from God. It’s pretty simple: we have their documents, and the documents of their successors, and their successors, etc. And all these documents are amazingly perfectly consistent with what the Catholic Church teaches to this day. So we can always just compare and look for contradictions or changes in doctrine, which simply never happened. That’s the thing about our “received teachings” is that they are absolutely immutable; that is, they never change, because God does not change, and the condition of our human nature does not change. This article explains more in depth. But the point is that the Church’s doctrinal teachings of what is true are not arbitrary or subject to whims or customs.

Although there are other quotations from early Church Fathers showing their consistency in considering birth control sinful, I think Saint Augustine, writing in 419, makes the point really poetically: “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, 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. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).

To get very technical for a moment, the Church’s teaching on sexuality is first of all that the marital act must be performed only within marriage. Not only did God ordain this from the beginning and not only did Jesus Christ institute marriage as a Sacrament, but the entirety of human history until the early 1900s testified to the fact that sex must only be performed within marriage. Second of all the Church teaches that this act must be done both for unity and procreation; that is to say, it must unite the man and woman every time, which excludes acts that are not strictly sexual intercourse, and every individual performance must be open to the creation of life, which excludes coitus interruptus and basically any form of birth control besides abstinence. This is a firm and immutable teaching of the Catholic Church, expounded upon in this section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

But to understand the Church’s teachings about birth control, I’ve found it much more helpful to understand our purpose and duty and goal in life. Every single Catholic’s responsibility is to become like Christ — in fact that’s why we bear the name Christian — and every Sacrament of the Church exists to help us transform ourselves more and more like Christ. Only in this way of life is there a hope of entrance into Heaven, since nothing impure will enter Heaven as the Apostle Paul reminded us, and since Christ is our perfect Exemplar of sinlessness and purity. And Jesus told us that the pure in heart are blessed, for they will see God.

Specifically, the Eucharist (also known as Holy Communion) is when we literally consume, both physical and spiritual, God Himself, with the intention of receiving His graces and, with prayer and humility, applying them to ourselves to grow in every virtue and destroy all affection for sin and vice. Reconciliation (also known as Confession or Penance), is intended to rid us of the stain of sin by which we freely and willingly reject God’s love, so we can be reconciled to God and the Church and grow in sanctity and holiness. And the rest of the Sacraments have a similar purpose and function.

 

[sdegutis]

But what is the overall result of this sanctity that all Catholics are called to? If we aspire to and reach the height of virtues, we will be meek, humble, modest, loving, compassionate, gentle, forgiving, entirely trusting in God, and selfless, wanting to do God’s will on earth, not our own will. Because we know that God’s will is always better than our own, and that the true path to happiness is living and acting in conformity with His will.

When Mrs. Gates claimed that all people should be able to decide when they want to have a child, she implied that they would all the while maintain an active sex life, which is why birth control is even in question. The obvious solution is abstinence, which she derided as archaic and antiquated.

But abstinence is a very effective way of conforming our will with God’s will. Even experience proves that when we look at sex as a way to obtain pleasure, only superficially different than eating ice cream or watching a film, it will only be a matter of time until we want another fix. This acts as a distraction which pulls our hearts away from God and toward self-gratification. But the real road of Catholic life is to pick up our crosses and carry them daily, as our Lord said, and He also said that anyone who wants to save his own life must lose it, and that anyone who does not take up their cross and follow Him is not worthy of Him. Self-gratification is not a cross and only leads to to death. So abstinence is not only a perfectly fine form of birth control and family planning, but it also enables us to devote our minds and attention more wholly to God, and provides a quicker path to sanctity and so also Heaven.

Often times abstinence isn’t an option, as Mrs. Gates points out, because of abusive or controlling husbands who want children. But we Catholics should always strive to follow the examples of the Saints who went before us. For instance, the mother of that great Saint Augustine, Saint Monica, never resisted in word or deed the depraved offenses of her husband against their marriage bed. Instead, she prayed for him constantly and eventually effected his conversion, after which he never again committed such an offense. This method is not only recommended by this Saint but also by Christ himself who says that we should not resist an evil person, and that if someone should strike us on the right cheek, we should turn to them our left.

And at one point Mrs. Gates appealed to emotion by claiming that several hundred women per year die in childbirth who never even wanted to have children. Even with a thorough look through Scripture, no one will find it written that children are burdens; in fact the opposite is true, children were always viewed as wonderful blessings, and barrenness as misfortune. It’s true that sometimes having children changes the course of your life; in fact I know several Catholics who are in more poverty than they would have been because God blessed them with more children than they could afford. But this poverty is a blessing from above, for Christ indicated to the rich man that poverty was a sure way to perfection. And when God is the one providing us these crosses such as poverty, with how much more confidence should we trust in His Divine Providence that they will not be too heavy! For He also assured us that His yoke is easy and His burden is light. Plus, fear of death for a Catholic, even death in childbirth, should ideally be minimal, because we are convinced that life continues on in Heaven until the resurrection some day in the future, at which point we will get our bodies back and live in a world without pain or death or sadness or evil of any kind. So for what legitimate reason would anyone not want to have children?

One potential reason is, like Mrs. Gates claimed for herself and “most women”, is to control their own lives, especially in having a career. But the Holy Spirit through the Apostle James prudently reminded us of the danger of pitting our will agains the Sovereign Will of God, when he said “Now listen, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.’ Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, ‘If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.’” It is always better and more pleasing to God to humbly submit to His will than our own plans and desires. And when we don’t agree with this or that situation God has put us in, that says much more about our pridefulness than anything else.

So yes, it’s true that abstinence may be hard or even impossible for anyone who has their affections and hopes set on pleasures that are short-lasting and weak. But this shouldn’t be at all surprising if we remember that Christ told us that where our heart is, there our treasure will be. If we set our hopes on temporary and transitory pleasures, our hopes will often and quickly turn to disappointment. But if we set our hopes on God, we can do more than abstain, we can also give more than we realized to charity, both in time and money, and we will be surprised at how much time we have to give to those in hospitals and hospices, and how much more selfless we can be to anyone we come across in any way they need us to be.

So it’s hard to reconcile the mindset of “I want to be able to have sex whenever I want without getting pregnant” to the goal and purpose of this life according to the Catholic Church.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

It doesn’t go into detail on the reasons why the Catholic Church opposes birth control, because I’ve always found those to require a very very solid and sound trust in the Catholic Church’s authority, which I’m not sure he has

Recognizing that birth control “frustrates the natural end” does not rely on the Catholic Church’s authority. It relies on a teleological conception of the world and humanity.

Believing that frustrating the natural end is wrong relies on an Aristotelian conception of “the good.”

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Wow, I haven’t read your entire article yet but I had NO IDEA that Bill Gates’ wife is a “practicing” Catholic!! Does Bill Gates claim the same thing? I had no idea!

 

[catharina]

Wow, I haven’t read your entire article yet but I had NO IDEA that Bill Gates’ wife is a “practicing” Catholic!! Does Bill Gates claim the same thing? I had no idea!

Yes - much was said about her Catholicism when they married.

Since they, as a couple, have decided to support BC and abortion
around the world, her ‘faith’ is rarely mentioned.

Last I heard their largest target for population control has been India.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Yes - much was said about her Catholicism when they married.

Since they, as a couple, have decided to support BC and abortion
around the world, her ‘faith’ is rarely mentioned.

Last I heard their largest target for population control has been India.

Not good.

 

[Sammm]

I appreciate that you wrote a very thoughtful response and made a lot of good points with regard to Catholic belief, but, with respect, I feel your response is largely irrelevant when talking about the Gates foundation, because it is based on the modern Western notion of marriage. You admit that abstinence is not always possible but I think you underestimate how often that is the case.

I have lived in Haiti and South Africa and have read a great deal about women’s rights in these places, and about Melinda Gates’ work with women and her goals for her contraception program.

You write from the assumption that a woman taking birth control is doing so because she wants to have sex and not pay the consequences.

However, in many (perhaps even most) of the areas Melinda Gates is looking to serve, women do not get to chose when they have sex. They are not equal partners in their family planning. In many, many third world countries, the idea that a woman can chose to have sex with her husband, as opposed to just being required to have sex with her husband whenever he wants, is completely foreign. A man is legally and socially allowed to have complete control over sexual relations and the woman has no say in any of it.

For millions of women, they didn’t even chose to be married in the first place. They were put into arranged marriages. Also, there are still places of the world where “bride by capture” still exists; that is, it is acceptable for a man to simply see a woman he wants and takes her by force. In some cases this happens with the permission of the family; in some cases the family desperately tries to stop this but they lack the power, money, resources etc to fight a rival family.

You say that a woman whose husband is raping her should pray for him to stop, and he will. First off, not all of the women Melinda Gates is serving are Catholic, so telling non Catholic women to pray the rape away is not relevant. Also, asking a woman to “pray the rape away” seems insensitive to say the least. I have heard the stories of many, many women who have prayed morning, noon, and night for their husbands to stop abusing them. To no effect.

In many areas of Africa, it is sadly not uncommon for men to literally care nothing about their families. I have lost count of the number of stories of a man who impregnates his wife over and over again, but then spends all his money gambling or drinking, leaving practically nothing for his wife and children. His wife then is in constant fear of not being able to provide even the most basic necessities, like food, for her children.

You are assuming that the women seeking birth control are just women who want to have tons of sex and not have children, that they are being selfish. Yet a huge number of women who seek birth control in third world countries simply have no choice on when they have sex or not. Sex is when the husband wants it, simply as that. Also, many of the women seeking birth control are not thinking of themselves, they are thinking of their children that they already have. About the fact they are already on the brink of starvation without more mouths to feed. Also, in many third world countries, school is not free. You have to pay for it. So if women have fewer children, maybe those children can go to school and not be stuck in the vicious cycle of poverty.

Then you also have to look at countries like Haiti and South Africa, where rape is epidemic. In South Africa, over 25% of men admit to having raped a woman. Certainly this number is higher when factoring in men who don’t admit it. A woman is more likely to be raped than to learn to read. For women who can barely afford to get by as it is, and who live in a culture where there is actually a very good chance they will be raped in their lifetimes, it is understandable why women would want birth control to prevent rape pregnancies.

I appreciate the thought you put into your post, but I wish you had some more compassion for the women you are discussing, and didn’t have such an ethno-centric view on their reasons for seeking out birth control.

You seem amazed that anyone would not want to have as many children as they could. You also seem to look at poverty from a Western perspective, where poverty means not having luxury items. You’re not thinking about cases in which poverty means no medical care, no school, no clothes, and starvation.

Also, you praise the act of a woman who never tried to resist her husband’s abuse, only prayed for him. You seem to think that is admirable. I’m at a loss here…do you honestly believe that if a woman is being beaten, raped, or otherwise abused, she should not in any way try and fight back and defend herself?

You say that poverty and death is a blessing and so that women should not seek to use birth control even to avoid poverty and death. So then does that mean you don’t believe in charity or medical care, because poor people are lucky to suffer in poverty and die, and we should encourage them to do so? I just can’t see how that is in line with the huge social network the Catholic Church has built around the world to provide medical care and charity to the less fortunate.

“And when we don’t agree with this or that situation God has put us in, that says much more about our pridefulness than anything else.”

I don’t understand this statement. What about free will? I thought Catholics believed people, at the end of the day, have free agency. So if your husband choses to rape you, isn’t that just his will, not God’s? Are you honestly saying that if I get gang raped in Haiti by ten men and get shunned from my village because I was raped, and then die alone in exile of AIDS, it is because God specifically wanted this to happen to me?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Sammm,

Is it possible to right wrongs with more wrongs? Do the ends justify the means?

 

[Sammm]

Also sorry one more question, how does your flippant view of death square with the Church’s view of end of life issues? Isn’t using machines to keep people alive when they would be dead otherwise a prideful rejection of God’s will? Shouldn’t we be happy to have these people die and go to Heaven?

Why is preventing death more important than anything else when it comes to a brain dead person who will never have the ability to think another thought; but when it comes to keeping children from starving to death by giving them too many siblings, or a woman not wanting to die in childbirth, then death is no big deal at all?

Also, as far as “I don’t see why anyone wouldn’t want to have children.” Some people just don’t want kids. There’s not any deeper reasoning. They just don’t want kids the way I don’t want a kangaroo. This doesn’t mean you’re selfish. I know doctors and nurses from Haiti who chose to live in squallor to help the poor, but they don’t want kids.

 

[sdegutis]

With all due respect Sammm I wrote that with the target audience of Catholics who are more or less unsure of what their Church teaches. As you seem not to be catholic I’m not sure this specific article is the best place to begin a dialogue.

 

[kkollwitz]

Those who want to be married and make love to their spouses while precluding conception are like larvae who who think they don’t want to be butterflies. They are discounting the powerful transformational impact of becoming a parent. Funny you mention diapers. I’ve changed a few thousand I suppose, and disliked changing each one. Yet I have never sensed that I was doing God’s work more than when I was changing the grossest diapers imaginable.

 

[Sammm]

With all due respect Sammm I wrote that with the target audience of Catholics who are more or less unsure of what their Church teaches. As you seem not to be catholic I’m not sure this specific article is the best place to begin a dialogue.

Fair enough, sdegutis. I don’t want to push you into a debate/dialogue you don’t want to have.

Can you humor me though to answer some genuine questions I have regarding Catholic teachings? I promise not to comment on your responses after you post them, I’m just genuinely curious as to your beliefs and would appreciate some insight. If you don’t want to answer or consider this off topic, that’s perfectly fine, but if you would indulge my curiosity that would be greatly appreciated!

So first off, the free will thing. Do you believe that everything that happens to a person is God’s will, or that people have free agency? That’s always been hard to understand for me, to what extent you believe something is God’s will and what extent it is free agency. So again, if I was gang raped by ten men, exiled from my village as a result, and died alone, impoverished, of AIDS, are you saying that God specifically wanted that to happen to me and that I should actually be grateful?

You seemed to indicate that women should stay with abusive husbands and not even try and prevent being abused, that their only recourse should be prayer. Is that really what you meant?

Lastly, how does your views on poverty and death being a blessing and/or God’s will square with all the work Catholics do all over the world to try and raise people out of poverty through education or social justice, or provide medical care to the needy, not to mention the Church’s views on not removing life support systems even if the person is only alive because of machines?

I appreciate that you didn’t start this thread to answer a bunch of questions for a non believer, so please accept my sincere apologies if you’ve no interest in discussing this and feel this is all off topic.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Just in case these were not purely rhetorical questions you posed…

Isn’t using machines to keep people alive when they would be dead otherwise a prideful rejection of God’s will?

Not necessarily. God allows us to work to avoid harm to ourselves and others. The Church teaches that basic needs should always be met (food, water being a couple of the most basic), and it also teaches that extra-ordinary measures to prolong life here on earth are not required.

Why is preventing death more important than anything else when it comes to a brain dead person who will never have the ability to think another thought; but when it comes to keeping children from starving to death by giving them too many siblings, or a woman not wanting to die in childbirth, then death is no big deal at all?

The problem is in your assumption stated in the first part of this paragragh. It is incorrect.

Perhaps you mean that “NOT hastening a natural death is more important than anything else…”

Also, as far as “I don’t see why anyone wouldn’t want to have children.” Some people just don’t want kids. There’s not any deeper reasoning. They just don’t want kids the way I don’t want a kangaroo. This doesn’t mean you’re selfish. I know doctors and nurses from Haiti who chose to live in squallor to help the poor, but they don’t want kids.

Your logic is very similar to that of the bulimic. They want the satisfaction of eating, but they do not accept the purpose of eating. Those that don’t want kids but participate in the reproductive act anyway are using the same logic, are they not?

 

[Sammm]

Sammm,

Is it possible to right wrongs with more wrongs? Do the ends justify the means?

Well for me personally, I can’t possibly see birth control which is just preventing a fertilized egg from implanting as even remotely as “wrong” as a child starving to death or a woman dying in childbirth or a child not being able to go to school. For that matter I don’t see preventing a fertilized egg from implanting as wrong, period.

But I recognize that you folks think differently and I won’t egg you on into a debate about that, as that certainly isn’t the point of this thread.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Well for me personally, I can’t possibly see birth control which is just preventing a fertilized egg from implanting as even remotely as “wrong” as a child starving to death or a woman dying in childbirth or a child not being able to go to school. For that matter I don’t see preventing a fertilized egg from implanting as wrong, period.

But I recognize that you folks think differently and I won’t egg you on into a debate about that, as that certainly isn’t the point of this thread.

A ‘fertilized egg’ is a human life. It is at its earliest stage of development, but a human live nonetheless. Any set of principles that lead one to believe that the willful destruction of these human beings will naturally lead to justify killing other human beings.

Perhaps you disagree that a ‘fertilized egg’ is a human life? If so, then I have these two questions;

If not human, then what species?

If not alive, then how to explain the biological processes that going on inside that we have always believed makes anyone or anything alive.

 

[sdegutis]

Fair enough, sdegutis. I don’t want to push you into a debate/dialogue you don’t want to have.

I’m no stranger to debate and find them very edifying when both parties are in earnest pursuit of truth, wherever it may lie, however foreign or distasteful it may seem at first.

Can you humor me though to answer some genuine questions I have regarding Catholic teachings? I promise not to comment on your responses after you post them, I’m just genuinely curious as to your beliefs and would appreciate some insight. If you don’t want to answer or consider this off topic, that’s perfectly fine, but if you would indulge my curiosity that would be greatly appreciated!

I wouldn’t ask you not to respond to me, otherwise this would be a monologue instead of a dialogue.

However, the only answers you will find from me are (poorly-rendered) syntheses of the Catholic Church’s official teachings and doctrines, because I have put my complete trust in the teachings of this Holy Church which I love dearly. And many people much smarter than myself have already written very well on these subjects about which you’re asking me.

It may be more interesting to you for me to explain exactly why I put my trust so entirely in an institution such as this one, especially once you know that I’ve been a skeptic and a freethinker for most of my life, and even now still consider myself to be these.

I can tell you first and foremost that it all comes down to the resurrection. Before I believed in the Resurrection as a literal, historical event, my views were very similar to yours, or at least what I can derive of you based on your questions to me. After I researched the Resurrection, I found all possible alternative explanations of the data to be drastically insufficient in comparison. Only later after more conclusions based on more data, research, and logic did I end up realizing that the Catholic Church has not once been incorrect in its doctrines.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I will admit that you did not ask me, but I’ll have a go.

So first off, the free will thing. Do you believe that everything that happens to a person is God’s will, or that people have free agency?

It’s not either-or, its a combination of both. God wills some things. Other things He allows our wills to determine.

That’s always been hard to understand for me, to what extent you believe something is God’s will and what extent it is free agency. So again, if I was gang raped by ten men, exiled from my village as a result, and died alone, impoverished, of AIDS, are you saying that God specifically wanted that to happen to me and that I should actually be grateful?

Perhaps, perhaps not. What God ultimately wants is for us to know, love and serve Him. Since He made us for that purpose, our ultimate and everlasting happiness depends on it. If God knew that suffering, even suffering as great as this, was necessary to know, love and serve Him, then being granted such suffering would be a blessing, as it would the key to avoiding even worse suffering (by far) that what you described. Evil is not created by God, but when the creatures He gifted with free will decide, with their free will, to act inconsistent with God’s love, then He may allow that evil to exist. In the end, for those who earn heaven, no suffering is for nought.

You seemed to indicate that women should stay with abusive husbands and not even try and prevent being abused, that their only recourse should be prayer. Is that really what you meant?

I can’t speak for sdegutis, but that is not precisely what the Catholic Church teaches. People are allowed to use licit physical means to protect themselves from legitimate abuse. And prayer brings results, and is encouraged. Again, its not either-or.

Lastly, how does your views on poverty and death being a blessing and/or God’s will square with all the work Catholics do all over the world to try and raise people out of poverty through education or social justice, or provide medical care to the needy, not to mention the Church’s views on not removing life support systems even if the person is only alive because of machines?

Because suffering can be a blessing, the poor can benefit from the sufferings that go with being poor. Those that serve the poor benefit from serving the poor. There is no contradiction in this.

And the Church does not teach as you suggest on life support systems. The Church teaches that it is right (and required) to use whatever reasonable methods as are avaialble to save a person’s life; food, water, basic medical care. If a person is truly dying, unreasonable means do not have to be taken to prevent their death. If they are not yet dead, nothing must be done to hasten their death.