Defining the Truth About Contraception

This book seeks to propose a resolution of the crisis in the Catholic Church which is focussed on the doctrine of contraception. The doctrine continues to be taught authoritatively and consistently, but it is accepted neither by most Catholics nor, significantly, by most professional moral theologians. After heated debates for many years the topic is no longer discussed very much at all. People have settled into solid convictions on the matter and have no longer any interest in reading what the other side are saying. For those who have come to believe that contraception is a valid option for a Catholic the discussion is over. They are happy to be part of the universal consensus that contraception is a legitimate means of birth control and that, when it used carefully and appropriately, it is a significant force for human liberation, especially for women. On the other hand, there does continue to be discussion and sometimes even heated debate among those who accept the traditional condemnation of contraception. For no generally accepted rationale has yet been found as to why contraception is morally objectionable, and there is even disagreement as to what precisely the act of contraception entails. This discussion, however, goes on in comparatively obscure magazines which are not read by anyone who does not already accept that contraception is wrong. The matter rarely, if ever, arises now in mainstream theological or pastoral journals. So where is the crisis? It is my conviction at least, that when the Pope is insisting on this doctrine and the bishops either support his teaching or remain silent about any reservations they may have, and, at the same time, what seems like a clear majority of Catholic faithful and professional moral theologians continue to ignore it, then, however quiet things may be on the surface, there is a crisis in the Church. The crisis has to be definitively resolved one way or the other, sooner or later, and the longer it continues the higher the price that will eventually have to be paid in the division which must result. Pope John Paul II made strong and sometimes impassioned interventions in support of the teaching, but without any notable impact. The situation is just too complicated for the exercise of pure authority to bring a resolution. A coherent rationale must be found which can meet with acceptance with the broad mass of the faithful before peace can be restored. There was general recognition of the inadequacy of the rationale for the condemnation of contraception available when the challenge came. Elizabeth Anscombe, in her spirited defence of the doctrine, gave a good assessment of the situation subtending prior to the issuance of Humanae vitae. She makes no bones about the fact that the arguments in use at the time were not convincing to many people. She wrote: “The lack of clear accounts of the reason in the teaching was disturbing to many people. Especially, I believe, to many of the clergy whose job it was to give the teaching to the people.” She makes an excellent point here about the plight of the clergy. Priests simply cannot preach about a matter of which they are not themselves personally convinced. Preaching is the kind of activity which demands conviction for it to work. And the Working Paper produced by the moral theologians on the Papal Commission on Birth Control recognised the situation when they wrote: ‘If we could bring forward arguments which are clear and cogent based on reason alone, it would not be necessary for our commission to exist, nor would the present state of affairs exist in the Church as it is.’ Commenting later, John Finnis has spoken of ‘[t]he muddle and forgetfulness … [which] can be seen throughout the world-wide debate among Catholic theologians and others, the debate that flourished between 1959 and 1967.’ The insecurity of the doctrine appeared also at the highest levels in the Church. Division among the bishops was manifest at the Second Vatican Council. Bishop Reuss, who had written one of the three articles which broke the long consensus, presented a version of his argument at one of the conciliar General Congregations, and his line of thought was supported by other high-ranking and influential bishops. Pope Paul VI had to intervene personally to prevent any further discussion of the matter and had to insist that the traditional teaching was at least mentioned in the chapter on marriage in Gaudium et spes. The fact that Pope John XXIII saw the need to appoint a Papal Commission to examine the issue helped to foster the notion that the doctrine was uncertain, and Pope Paul VI’s long and anguished deliberations prior to the issuance of Humanae vitae strengthened this impression. In Humanae vitae itself, Pope Paul VI recognises that he is facing a new state of affairs giving rise to new questions (HV 3), and he even implicitly admits the weakness of his arguments when he reminds priests that ‘the pastors of the Church enjoy a special light of the Holy Spirit in teaching the truth. And this, rather than the arguments they put forward, is why you are bound to such obedience.’ (HV 28) And even those most supportive of the traditional teaching admit that the magisterial interventions have failed to resolve the difficulties people are facing. In an intervention twenty years after Humanae vitae, a group of four consistent defenders of the encyclical concluded their argument with a clear recognition that confusion still reigned, when they wrote: ‘We hope that these clarifications will help to overcome some of the confusions occasioned by certain formulations in Humanae vitae and Familiaris consortio –formulations not of their central teachings, but of their explanations both of why contraception is morally wrong and of why NFP can be morally acceptable.’ With such uncertainty and confusion reigning even at the highest levels in the Church, it makes sense that such a difficult teaching should be difficult for many Catholics to accept.