It’s not that I haven’t thought about it. I’ve put a lot of thought into it, actually. But it still comes off like the bubble gum analogy above. I cannot, after years of study and reflection and even just flat-out attempting to force myself to think a different way, concede that contraception is wrong in any way.
The Anglican tradition posits its sources as scripture, tradition, and reason. With the Catholic Church, we share the first two, but with the last we diverge on this issue. We hold that if it is in Scripture, it is to be held as true. (The modern ECUSA might disagree on this.) However, if it is not in scripture, we must use reason to determine what the proper course of action is. Reason does not go along with the concept that because a higher church authority has said it or declared it to be so, it automatically becomes truth. Reason holds that a consensus can be reached by the faith community through careful consideration of the issue and its implications, and using exegesis and yes, reason to come to a conclusion that abides by all three principles. As far as reasoning is concerned:
- There is no condemnation in the Bible of contraception. (The story of Onan is often given as proof, but even the NAB in its notes admits that the issue is not that Onan spilled his seed, but rather that he refused to fulfill Hebrew law by begetting sons for his dead brother’s sake.) This is the biggest reason.
- The use of contraception has aided countless families and individuals across the world, just as the development of vaccines and other medical miracles. It is a “good thing” on the same level as those achievements.
- Banning contraception not only has no Biblical basis, but brings about several negative consequences - not simply the outright refusal of the laity to conform and thus bring them into conflict with the church for the reasons listed above, but also the spread of venereal disease, unwanted children (which in less developed countries are often sold, worked to death, or simply abandoned), potential dangers of childbearing on certain women due to medical conditions, and conflict and struggle in the marital home due to refusal of sex. (The Anglican point of view does not hold that such struggle is a positive “cross to bear”.)
That’s the Anglican position. It is not held out of an express desire to be allowed total freedom to act with irresponsibility. I am familiar with the Catholic position, but cannot accept its validity any more than I can accept a Muslim’s conviction that a dish out of which a dog has eaten must be washed seven times, four of them with sand and water, in order for it to be used by humans.
How has the CC failed to use reason? Their reasoning is solid… and they back it up with scripture and our knowledge of humanity and the human person.
“God Himself is an eternal exchange of love, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and He has destined us to share in that exchange.” - Catechism of the Catholic Church.
When fully open to this love, it brings forth life. Mary was so open to God’s love that the Word became Flesh. Religious bring forth life in a different way… the bring us to God’s love through their vocations, and thus, bring us to Life in Christ.
The marital union, when open to life, can bring forth another human. To sterilize this act by contraception, we are saying, “No, we don’t want to share in this exchange of love.” The man holds a part of himself back… he does not hand over his body to his wife. In return, the wife, by contracepting, is not willing to receive, fully, her husband. The ability to take part in the Divine Mystery has been broken through this contraceptive act.
If you are trying to say that the Church isn’t being reasonable in this, please, tell me why you think that. External circumstances, however difficult they may seem, do not justify contraception. …
Mary could have been stoned to death for being pregnant and appearing to be adulterous. She knew this very well, but that did not deter her from saying, “Yes.” She was 15 and dirt poor. She did not let her financial circumstances deter her either.
In circumstances of AIDS and other medical consequences, right now, I am not clear cut on the understanding, which is part of the reason I began this post, because I would like to learn more. I am sympathetic to both sides, and can understand the “reasoning” from both sides, but no matter how painful the Truth may be, we must follow the Truth. If the CC, at the moment, is saying it is morally wrong, then I have to follow their teaching, even if my understanding isn’t complete. Why?
There is something to be said about obedience, especially in the lack of understanding. That is what “Faith” is. We don’t understand, but we believe and we trust, and through this faith, we grow in love.
Small kids don’t understand why they have to eat their vegetables and not just have candy and ice cream at every mean. A parent cannot explain this to a two year old, because it is beyond the capacity for a two year old to understand nutrition and health.
The child first learns to obey. Understanding comes later.
But there is a growing number of “cafeteria Catholics” who say, “I will only obey when I understand or agree.” Who else do we know that said this, but Satan? Satan can imitate a lot of things… he can even imitate humility. But the one thing he cannot do is obey.
That said, children are allowed to disobey their parents if the parent is asking them to do something that is sinful and harmful. But, where is the sin in teaching that a couple must abstain from contraception in these circumstances? Where is the harm in saying a couple must exercise self-control and abstain entirely if indeed, conceiving a child would prove dangerous for the mother? In fact, the intention seems quite clear. To tell the couple they must abstain from a potentially fatal union for both their soul and physical body is wanting the good for that couple. Will it be hard? Of course. Is it fair? No. But no suffering is “fair.”
