February 26, 2012

In several columns and articles the authors have seen the recent directive concerning contraception as a political loss for President Obama. It’s true enough that announcing a policy and then modifying it in response to criticism was clumsy, and it reenforced Obama’s reputation for backing down. However, on the merits, the new policy, as modified, may work to his political advantage, as well as being right. A principle, that all women should have access to birth control, has been established. It offends Catholic Bishops,⁷ who have opposed it ⁸ and have asked the Senate to intervene, ⁹ but it has wide support among the public, including a majority of Catholics.¹⁰ Republicans have assailed the policy, but they will attack anything Obama does, so no matter.

This is in part a religious issue, internal to the Catholic faith, but the Bishops have intervened in a debate on a government program, in effect making doctrine an adjunct to public policy, so examination and criticism of that doctrine is fair.
The principal source is the Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae (1968),¹¹ which prohibits any non-natural form of birth control. It is tempting to conclude that the Church, ruled by a celibate male clergy, simply is unaware of the real-world implications of its policy. However, Humanae Vitae recited many of the practical considerations:

In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships. . . . There is also the fact that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family.

Also noteworthy is a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society . . . .

Given those considerations, the Encyclical asked, reasonably, "would it not be right to review the moral norms in force till now, especially when it is felt that these can be observed only with the gravest difficulty, sometimes only by heroic effort?" As a further inquiry, it posed this question:

Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.

The answer, unfortunately, was negative: doctrine excludes "any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means." The Encyclical did not expressly recognize that the burden of pregnancy is on the woman but, given the doctrinaire solution, any greater awareness likely wouldn’t have changed the outcome.

The web site Catholic Answers ¹² implies that the Church always has opposed birth control, and cites several comments by early church fathers. However, it cites no Papal Encyclical earlier than Humanae Vitae of 1968. According to an article ¹³ in The Washington Post, the Church did not have an official doctrine opposing birth control until Casti Connubii, an Encyclical issued in 1930. The author also states that Humanae Vitae was opposed by a majority of the Church leaders on the commission Pope Paul appointed to advise him on the subject.

In any case, the 1968 Encyclical’s rationale for its contraception doctrine seems weak as a matter of theology. It is based on a vague concept of natural law. It cites no Biblical source on the point. (Catholic Answers cites two, Genesis 38:8-10 and Deuteronomy 25:7-10, the force and applicability of which are dubious, to say the least). The distinction drawn between natural and artificial birth control is declared rather than supported, and allowing the former seems inconsistent with the Church’s position on the purpose of sex: "each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life."

As a matter of doctrine, or of morality, the Bishops’ opposition to contraception is self-defeating. The Church opposes abortion, a position which certainly can be defended on non-doctrinaire grounds. One way — realistically the most effective way — to reduce the number of abortions is to make contraception readily available, but the Church’s edict on birth control stands in the way.

As the quotes make clear, the Church’s teaching about the function of sex is limited to the marital state. The Encyclical barely notes the possibility of any activity outside that relationship, and disapproves; contraception will lead to

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.

This is similar to the conservative attitude toward sex education and the availability of birth control to teenagers: it will encourage immorality. Unfortunately, withholding contraception is as likely to result in pregnancy and abortion as in chastity.

As the laity disagree with the Bishops’ stand on the policy, and a large number of them likely decline to follow the church’s teaching on birth control, the Bishops’ stance has little effect other than to introduce Catholic doctrine into a question of health care and to give aid and comfort to the political right wing. They are, in other words, playing politics, intentionally or not. ¹⁴

Religious belief obviously must be respected, and its free exercise protected, but allowing it a veto over secular policy is another matter.

 
__________________________


7.See the web site of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, http://usccbmedia.blogspot.com/ , postings of 2/6, 2/9 and 2/13.
8. http://usccb.org/news/2012/12-026.cfm
9. http://usccb.org/news/2012/12-029.cfm
10.http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/poll-americans-overwhelmingly-favor-contraception-coverage-mandate----including-catholics.php
11.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968 _humanae-vitae_en.html
12. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control
13. "How the Catholic Church almost came to accept birth control," by Elaine Tyler May, 2/24.
14. The Bishops deny this; see item six of their supplemental statement: http://usccbmedia.blogspot.com/  (2/13/12)