Q: I recently outlined a chapter from our Morality book, but it only briefly mentions methods of artificial contraception and doesn't go into any detail on why the Church thinks they are so wrong. If you could provide any insight, or at least point us in the right direction that would be such a great help!
A: Excellent question! It's a deep one that we have to unpack. The Catholic Church is definitely not into sound bite theology... All of the other questions also apply to this question.
First, let's focus on the early history of contraception and Biblical basis. Contraception has been around in one form or another since the events recorded in Genesis. Some manuscripts from as far back as 1900 B.C. talk about using contraceptive materials. It's always been considered evil. What is new is that many Christians have changed their minds about it.
In this section I'm really paraphrasing a lot of Birth Control and Christian Discipleship by John Kippley - it's a 45-page $4.00 book. Get it and read it!
Just about every Protestant reformer and every mainline Christian denomination was completely against contraception. And even non-Christians were opposed - Mahatma Gandhi was against it, even.
You see, it's very clear in the Bible that children are to be considered gifts from God and that contraception is contrary to God's plan.
Read Genesis 38:6-11
6 Now Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was evil in the sight of the LORD, so the LORD took his life. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. 10 But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also. 11
Let's unpack this passage (summarizing Kippley 23-26).
This passage is partially about a custom known as the Law of the Levirate. "According to this custom, if a married man died before he had children, his brother was obliged to marry the widow; their children would be considered as the deceased brother's children." Onan used a form of unnatural birth control to avoid conception with his brother's widow. This deed was so horrible that God immediately struck him dead! Pretty serious, huh?
For centuries it was agreed by all Christians that Onan lost his life because of the contraceptive act. In fact, the general term for any unnatural act of birth control was Onanism. With that in mind, read these quotes from the founders of mainline Protestant denominations.
(I'm not sure this source page will be up for long, so here are a few quotes - more on the site).
MARTIN LUTHER
(SIXTEENTH-CENTURY FOUNDER OF LUTHERANISM)
"[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her—that is, he lies with her and copulates—and, when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him" (Commentary on Genesis).
JOHN CALVIN
(SIXTEENTH-CENTURY FOUNDER OF CALVINISM)
"The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring" (Commentary on Genesis).
JOHN WESLEY
(EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FOUNDER OF METHODISM)
"Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married, and the memory of the brother that was gone, refused to raise of seed to his brother. Those sins that dishonor the body and defile it are very displeasing to God and evidences of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord and destroy their own souls" (Commentary on Genesis).
So Catholics and Protestants agreed on this.
Then in 1930 an Anglican conference said that married couples could, when deemed absolutely necessary, use artificial mans of contraception (Kippley 4). I have to directly quote a Washington Post editorial response when the American Federal Council of Churches said something similar in 1931.
"Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee's report, if carried into effect, would sound the death-knoll of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be 'careful and restrained' is preposterous." (Kippley 5).
In 1961, the National Council of Churches said:
"Most of the Protestant churches hold contraception and periodic abstinence to be morally right when the motives are right... The general Protestant conviction is that motives, rather than methods, form the primary moral issue provided the methods are limited to the prevention of conception. Protestant Christians are agreed in condemning abortion or any method which destroys human life except when the health or life of the mother is at stake."
The majority report of a Papal Birth Control Commission in 1967 agreed... but the Pope saw through what was going on! He wrote Humanae Vitae and reaffirmed Church teaching that contraception is not acceptable. I'm going to get into that further in the Q&A - but the whole encyclical is well worth reading.
So...suddenly the account of Onan became a problem. So people started saying that God struck down Onan because he didn't give his brother's widow a son, NOT because he committed a contraceptive act. Read Kippley's book for more depth on this, but here are the problems with that interpretation:
- Going back to the Hebrew - it's obvious by the words used that the problem was in the "perverse act" itself, not in the result or goal
- Onan is only one of three people to violate the Levirate law - but he is the ONLY one to receive a death sentence
- Punishment for violating the Levirate law is outlined in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 - and it's not death
- This fits with the rest of Biblical teaching on love and sexual behavior
- This is something the Church has consistently maintained as part of moral law and not just a law about uncleanliness
New Testament:
A Greek word "pharmakeia" was a secretive potion - in the 1st century usually for birth control. These word was translated into a generic "sorcery" in most translations, but appears in three passages in context condemning sexual immorality (Galatians 5:19-26; Revelation 9:21, 21:8).
This really rings true to me... when Christ was carrying the cross, this is what He said:
27 And following Him was a large crowd of the people, and of women who were mourning and lamenting Him. 28 But Jesus turning to them said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.’ ” (Luke 28: 27-29)
Really - Christ is on the way to Calvary and He uses those precious moments to warn of a time when those who cannot have children will be considered blessed? He goes on to say basically - "if this is what happens when times are good, you can't imagine what will happen when times are bad." Note - he says WEEP FOR YOUR CHILDREN! This inability to have children is not a good thing!
Alright - that's a little bit on the history and Biblical background of why the Church teaches that contraception is wrong. When we get into issues about social ramifications, violation of the convent and purpose of marriage and sex, ties to abortion, and issues with human dignity (especially of women and children), I think you'll understand why the Church teaches what she does. Or, you can fast forward by reading Humane Vitae!
No comments:
Post a Comment