What exactly is it about contraception that is considered immoral?
The fact that it desecrates marriage by turning it into an act of lust.
The sexual union, which is bound to only take place in wedlock, is meant primarily for procreation, and secondarily to unite the spouses in mutual love and joy (which is why God blessed it with beautiful feelings). If you remove the former, the spouses become one the pleasure tool of the other - we may not acknowledge this right away, but that’s the way it is.
Abstinence is always an option. However, Natural Family Planning, by studying the way the human body naturally works, allows the spouses who do not want to deprive themselves of one another for too extensive periods of time (as St. Paul wisely advises) to be able to be more responsible in planning for the development of their family. It is fully centered on life.
Contraception is fully centered on taking life away. The very word,
against conception, clearly shows the exact goal of this means.
But the story does not end there.
We are not just talking about being selfish here. We are also talking about what this does to society as a whole: by disrupting the family (along with the other two evils that come along with it, namely abortion and divorce) they inexorably destroy society if nobody does anything to oppose it/them.
This is what Pope Paul VI wrote in
Humanae Vitae back in 1968, that’s 44 years ago. Was he right? Emphases are mine.
Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.
Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere **instrument **for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
Last but not least, what does the availability of contraception do to young people? Gives them the idea that anyone can have sex at any time. The very idea of marriage is totally deprived of meaning. Divorce becomes unnecessary: people simply choose not to marry at all, and to have even multiple partners at the same time. We see this all the time in society. At best, marriage becomes a utilitarian act, an act of convenience, that can be interrupted at any time. Welcome to the jungle.
