"... leaders who forbid their followers to use effective contraceptive
methods ... express a preference for "natural" methods of population
limitation, and a natural method is exactly what they are going to get.
It is called starvation." -Richard Dawkins (1)
"The difference,
both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to
the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two
irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality."
-Blessed Pope John Paul II (2)
Contraception is one of the
most common sins. Despite its violation of Church teachings on sex and
the theology of the body, many Catholics deny its immorality, denying
Church authority thereby, or make reasons to bypass the prohibition. Sex
is vulnerable to so many misuses - hence why it is such a controversial
subject in all cultures and age groups, whether kept secret (not just
for privacy), or treated as little more than another bodily function yet
vehemently flaunted and glamorized. Premarital sex has become a sort of
"rite of passage" for modern young people, especially in the West,
particularly for boys who are treated as weak, effeminate and stupid or
as religious fanatics for remaining a virgin. Sexual purity is mocked,
while sexual promiscuity is publicized and trumpeted. Why is it, we must
ask, that those who are sexually promiscuous feel the need to proclaim
it to everyone or conceal it, while marital sex is viewed as some
primitive tyranny now obscured to the shadows of popular approval?
If
sexual promiscuity is truly permissible, why should anyone need to push
it or hide it? Modern times no longer requires the 50's reputation of a
traditional family life - yet untraditional relationships are either
hidden or forced into people's faces. Something truly good needs no
validation from society - its good is independent of popular consensus.
There is also no shame in the good - even in fear of social retribution
it can be courageously upheld because of the certainty that it is truly
good. Yet, sexual promiscuity is not treated as if it is good, even by
those who say it is. Contraception is no different in this regard.
As
with all sins which contradict God's natural law, there are
consequences for sexual sins. Whether those consequences are inherently
good or bad, they necessarily force the sinner to deal with his or her
actions. Premarital sex, adultery, anal sex - all can lead to a host of
problems, from STDs to unplanned pregnancies, divorce, diseases and
relationship problems. But truly, human nature is unchanging and
universal - as long as people have sinned, they have searched for ways
to sidestep the consequences. When lying or making excuses is
insufficient, artificial or more elaborate means are used. Repentance is
avoided at all cost, mocked and shunned out of fear and desperation.
The "offense" Christians take against sins, shunning or ridiculing
sinners as if they are inferior, is a stumbling block to their
conversion and a grave sin in itself, derived just as much from fear as
the avoidance sinners practice.
Like abortion and divorce,
contraception has throughout history been one of these artificial means
of avoiding the consequences of sin. With devices like the "Plan B"
day-after contraceptive pill, these methods have even been combined. The
voice of the Church has been strong and compassionate about the use of
contraception, but the temptations of society, the flesh and Satan are
often preferred. Many reasons are used to justify contraception, even by
many married Catholics, but it remains fundamentally an escape route
from our sins, the attempt to control our future and wrest it from the
hands of God, an attempt which will always be futile. Rather than
self-discipline, abstinence and chastity, the glamour of sin is too
bright for too many. No excuse, even with good intent, can justify sin.
"Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify
recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct
sterilization or contraception)." (3)
Contraception, in a more
profound way, violates God's natural law. The issue of "natural" and
"unnatural" is very old, and as seen from the Dawkins quote above, there
is a deep-seated and widespread mindset, in development since the
Renaissance, about these concepts today. The Catholic understanding of
these concepts is based on the belief in God as Creator. Creation as God
intended it, in accordance with His will, is considered natural, and
violations of His will - sin - are considered unnatural. God discloses
His will to us through Creation itself, discernable by reason and
conscience - this is the natural law. He clarifies this law and purifies
our reason and conscience through His Revelation in the Word, contained
in Scripture and Tradition, and Incarnated as Jesus Christ. Through
these, God tells us the way that Creation should be, the way we should
live, and what should be considered contrary to His will. Every person
has a sense of the natural law, as well as what fits or contradicts it.
According to Catholicism, this sense is the derivation of our ideas of
justice and crime, peace and conflict, and all other concepts of
morality and ethics.
The philosophy of natural and unnatural
popular among many people in modern times, whether philosophers,
scientists or non-academic people, has developed over time, taking
different forms and growing with the addition of new ideas. Even many
who followed other systems, like Christianity, accepted it. However,
unlike these older forms, the current form is much more subtle and
secret, rarely revealed in its entirety but only through the lens of
other ideas. Richard Dawkins is one of the few I have seen who clearly
reveals his vision of this philosophy. This modern philosophy is the
culmination of a centuries-long attempt to understand the universe
without God, gradually removing Him more and more. The role of scholars
in this process was great, but it was also prevalent, even
subconsciously, in the popular mind. Its modern form views nature as an
indifferent, even cruel and meaningless pile of matter, randomly
organized by mathematical logic, with no reason or purpose behind it.
They also believe, however, that one law of nature, exemplified in
biological evolution, is a growth in complexity and durability over
time.
The human mind is seen, in evolution, as only another
evolved animal organ, but one faculty we possess that no animal has. As
Dawkins says, "Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to,
because we may then at least have a chance to upset their designs,
something that no other species has ever aspired to do." (4) Humans
possess the unique ability to go against our genes, to break determinism
and make our own decisions. Because of this, we have an innate
responsibility to go against nature, the starvation, cruelty, disease
and death that men like Dawkins call "natural". To this philosophy, the
only way to be good and happy is to be precisely unnatural. The best
activities of humanity, like medicine, academics, altruism and art are
thus ways of going against nature. As Dawkins says, "Let us try to teach
generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish." (5) The mere
fact that we are born selfish is presented as sufficient motivation to
be generous and altruistic. Correlating this to my above Dawkins quotes,
generosity and altruism are good because they are unnatural,
contradicting the natural state of selfishness into which we are all
born.
Despite his widespread negative reputation even among
fellow atheists, this vision of Dawkins' is not uncommon, even if, as I
said, it is often kept secret. It is the ultimate justification for
abortion, divorce, contraception, and many other practices. Many
different reasons are given to justify this philosophy, the basis of all
approval for these practices, but the philosophy is the same. Some
believe that God is cruel or indifferent, and by going against nature,
by being unnatural, they are in a way getting revenge on him. This is
seen as an allowance, getting one's "due" for a lifetime of suffering
and sin, the guilt for which is placed unequivocally on God's shoulders.
Others believe society's institutions and politics are the
justification for these practices, restricting people to the point that
they need some "release" of freedom. But true atheists, or more
accurately, true materialists like Dawkins rarely present justification
for their philosophy. They simply say that God does not exist, the
universe exists and behaves randomly, and since the human mind randomly
came about, we should use it to go against nature. No further
justification than this is given. Why humans see the cruelty and
suffering of nature as a bad thing, why we are willing to go against our
own best interests for the sake of altruism, or why we are able to go
against our genetic programming is unanswered and unasked.
While
some fall into a paradox of attempting to explain our going against
genetics with genetics, or attributing it to evolution, this reasoning
is rarely used, precisely because it is an inescapable paradox. The
ability to go against determinism cannot be given by a definitively
deterministic system like genetics. Genetics has no mind or freedom of
its own, and thus it cannot produce something with freedom. It is
deterministic, and so all of its compositions must be determined slaves
to their programming. Yet, as Dawkins admitted and as many other
scientists have echoed (6) , human beings are capable of going against
our genetic programming. This is the constitution of human free will,
despite it being denied by many philosophers ranging from Martin Luther
(The Bondage of the Will) to Sam Harris (The Moral Landscape). It is a
logical fallacy to deny the free will, but it is also irrational to
ignore its influences, from genetics to the weakness of human nature and
the temptations of sin.
I wished to explain the context of the
topic of this article, contraception, before discussing it precisely.
Its justification in the modern world cannot be understood without
knowing the philosophical context of people's beliefs about it. For
many, the choice to use contraception is more passive, viewed simply as a
way to relieve a mental and social pressure without subsequent
problems, rather than a way to go against God or nature. But as I said,
even this more simplistic attitude is unconsciously rooted in the
aforementioned philosophy. People who use contraception must believe it
is permissible, or that using something immoral is justified in some
way, even just as a form of rebellion, which represents its own take on
this philosophy. Rebellion against the rules of parents, when those
rules are correct, is little different than sinning against the will of
God for the sake of freedom, power or pleasure, and both forms of
rebellion employ similar artificial means of avoiding the consequences
of one's actions, from keeping it secret to using contraception.
In
the view of the Church, in the light of the Gospel of Christ, it is
understood that the purpose of God for sex is twofold: procreation and
love. Without the fullest expression of each, sex is not as God desires
it. When any means is used that restricts life, except the natural birth
control God built into the human body in the form of menstrual cycles
(rarely taught in sex ed class), life is taken out of sex and its
purpose in God's mind is diminished. Similarly, when sex is used in any
way that does not fully express the love of a man and a woman, with the
complete self-giving bond of marriage before God and society, it is
debased into a mere tool, lessened from the honor and beauty God gave
it. While these may seem like impossible ideals, platitudes commanded of
people who have too many problems and pressures to suffer yet another
rule, no one in good conscience and clear reason can deny their truth.
But, when God is ignored and Creation taken out of the context of His
love and purpose, sex certainly becomes a mere bodily function, a chore,
or a way to hedonistically pleasure another person out of the good
intention of love. If we want to be truly happy, truly satisfied, we
must live in the fullness of truth and the light of the ideals of God.
What may seem like the selfish ordinances of a tyrannical deity, or the
arbitrary preference of a deity who needs approval from its creations,
is only the loving will of a father, a brother and a mother who want
what is best for their children and siblings, for humanity - the
children of God. If only we will listen to His call and live within He
who is Love, we can become what we were made to be: images of God. (7)
I
pray for the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mother Mary who, by her
perpetual virginity, upheld the virtue and beauty of sex more than any
other. From her, the celibacy of monastics and priests as sacrifices
upholding the sacrament of marriage and the gift of sex is derived. May
she guide everyone into a full and true vision of our sacramental lives
as children of God and a deeper understanding of the theology of the
body.
1) Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 1976 / 1989, Oxford University Press
2) John Paul II, Familiaris consortio, 32; quoted from Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2370
3) Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2399
4) Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 1976 / 1989, Oxford University Press
5) ibid.
6) Genome:
The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters, 1999, Matt Ridley,
published by Fourth Estate. See chapter 13 "Free Will".
7) Catechism of the Catholic Church, and The Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II, in many places
No comments:
Post a Comment