It really doesn’t boil down to why a group or an individual would schism, about pride of a justification of sin… what are you talking about? The question of contraception is one that is still being tossed around and debated amongst Catholic theologians, even. The teachings on contraception are not infallible, nor do they go back 2,000 years. The first systematic study of contraception and abortion dates back to 500 years ago. There were and are also two understandings of when life is created: first, immediate animation (life at conception), and second, delayed animation (life at first movement). The Catholic Church does not provide a specific, determinate stance on when the soul is present in a human embryo; read the entirety of Evangelium Vitae. What the Church actually teaches is that the possibility of life ought to be defended in order to prevent the possible killing of that life,* in the event* that the soul is there at conception, since we don’t know. Another interpretation of Catholic teaching on this is that because there is a potential for a soul to be there later, it should also be defended. This question of when the soul is present leads to the question of whether it is right to baptize a miscarriage. Anyways, I know that this does not deal with contraception, but contraception and abortion are connected, so I thought I’d talk about it a little bit because it is really, really interesting philosophy.
It’s also an example of something that everyone assumes the Catholic church has a definite teaching on that is actually still being discussed and developed. Not everything is black and white; reason is still at work, guided by the Holy Spirit, struggling to decipher what is loving and what is not according to the model of True Love that is God.
On to contraception, I recently read Christopher West’s book “Good News About Sex and Marriage.” In it, I discovered that he offers a very honest (although some Catholics who follow a more ‘black and white’ moral code disagree with his interpretation) exploration of Catholic teachings regarding sex, marriage, family, and contraception. However, I also discovered how incredibly simple it is to disagree with the Catholic church’s teachings on these issues, and raise legitimate and defendable opposing arguments. Even West agrees sex within marriage is actually not ‘about’ having children; rather, it is about the marriage bond established in the sacrament. Being open to children is a part of that, and is agreed upon in the vows and preparation beforehand. However, why does sex have to be open to children, when clearly there are means to prevent it while still being loving and free in the act? Is using contraception truly withholding any part of the self, one’s fertility, from the partner, especially if both wish for it to be that way? Is it selfish and thus sinful to not have children? ‘As the church has always taught,’ abstinence is the method proven to not be sinful yet still have the effect of not having children. However, with today’s contraceptive technology, it is possible to have sexual intercourse and not have children. My apologies- there is still a 1% chance of failure for the patch, or something around that, and if the male uses contraception as well the chances for failure are reduced exponentially.
What it “boils down to” is whether or not the sexual act within marriage is still completely free and loving when contraception is being used. Those who support contraception say yes it is, while those who oppose contraception say no it is not. Now, are contraceptives inherently evil? If one believes that the sexual act is still completely free and loving even when using them, obviously they still are. At the same time, we recently saw Pope Benedict pointing out how contraceptives could be used as a first step towards the assumption of responsibility. If they can be used as tools from which to learn an inherent good, then how can they be inherently evil? Interesting question, no?
I don’t want to launch an assault on Catholic teachings on contraception; I’m just pointing out some opposing points of view and where the issue truly “boils down.”
