As you likely know, the Catholic Church prohibits the use of artificial contraceptives (see CCC 2366-2372). The reason for this is that, according to the Catholic Church, the sex act must always remain open to its natural end, which is biological reproduction. To artificially close off that reproductive end is, according to the Church, "intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370).
Now, what is the theological logic behind these prohibitions?
Much of it comes from the Catholic use of what is called "natural law." That is to say, human reason can reflect upon nature--God's good creation--and extract from that reflection moral precepts. When it comes to human reproduction, the argument continues, reason apprehends the biological complementarity in the sex act and its role in human procreation. Sex is naturally ordered toward reproduction. Children are the telos of sex. From these reflections on nature moral prohibitions are extracted. To block the natural telos of sex with artificial contraception is to violate God's creative intents and, therefore, sinful. As set forth in Humanae Vitae, the Catholic church urges couples to observe "the precepts of the natural law" which, as interpreted by the church, "teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." This openness to reproduction mortifies eros, forming it into a well-ordered love. As Humanae Vitae puts it: "To experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator."
Protestants have been traditionally less likely to appeal to natural law. Given their dimmer view of nature, Protestants are more likely to rely upon special revelation (the Bible) than natural revelation. Consequently, while many Protestants will join forces with Catholics on Pro-Life issues, they tend not to share Catholic views regarding the use of artificial contraception. For example, Protestants object to abortion simply on the grounds of killing. Catholics, by contrast, also object to abortion because abortion is another, very drastic, version of interrupting the natural telos of human sexuality. This additional aspect of Catholic thought is largely missing in Protestant Pro-Life discourse.
I will have more to share about sex and natural law in the next post. To show my cards, in this series I'll share why I disagree with the Catholic position on artificial contraception. But before I do that, I do want to express in this post what I appreciate about the Catholic view. I think the theological discourse about contraception in Protestant spaces has been pretty thin and impoverished. If Protestants want to disagree with Catholics about contraception they should have good theological reasons for that disagreement. This series will share my attempt to share those reasons, from my perspective at least.
To start, though, here's what I appreciate about the Catholic position.
One aspect of the Catholic view concerns how eros requires mortification and purification. Sex, when it becomes an end in itself, will become disordered. Eros, therefore, has to be a means toward an end. And that end, as is the end of all our loves, is agape. Seeking the good of another rather than myself.
From the Catholic perspective, the natural telos of sex--reproduction--provides an intrinsic, natural mortification of eros. When reproduction is "open" in the sex act, eros is deflected away from becoming an end in itself and is, rather, serving as a means (at least potentially) for another end--the gift of a child. And that end, the child, is not myself.
When reproduction is "open" eros is prevented from becoming an end in itself. Sexual pleasure cannot become the sole or only telos of sex. I am decentered from the sex act. Selfishness is mortified. Sexual and erotic pleasure becomes a means toward a greater, self-giving love. In this way, the natural telos of reproductive biology mortifies eros and functions as a crucible of spiritual formation for human sexuality.
To be clear, what I've shared here is not the whole of the Catholic view. But in this part of the Catholic vision, if I have it correctly, I find much to admire. The cultural impact of artificial contraception, what we call "the Sexual Revolution," tells some of the story. This was one of the concerns raised in Humanae Vitae. With the advent and widespread use of artificial contraception, for the first time in human history, eros--sexual pleasure--became the sole goal and telos of sex. Sex for the sake of orgasm. This has led to the disordering of eros. Sex has become selfish, greedy, and consumptive. We now use the bodies of others for our own erotic pleasure. Sex has drifted away from its natural telos and has become deformed and twisted.
In prohibiting the use of contraceptives, eros would also be disciplined through larger families. It is hard to be selfish if you have a large family. Very nostalgic and traditionalist Catholic thinkers frequently lament the loss of the sociological pressures large families once placed upon American culture. For example, imagine a world where artificial contraception vanished. There would be a whole lot more children, sex would become more discriminating, and family size would explode. Now, would all this have a significant impact upon American society? Would, for example, we come to reprioritize stable marriages and families? Would our sexual license and rampant individualism become chastened? I believe so, or can at least imagine effects likes these. So you can see how nostalgic and traditionalist Catholic thinkers look at contraception not just as a moral issue but as a tool of social engineering. Reconnecting eros to biology, creating more children and bigger families, would discipline and shape our society. For a lot of traditionalist Catholics, along with sympathetic Protestants, this reshaping of society is what is at sake in debates about reproductive science. Obeying God's laws, sure, that's a win, but also social transformation.
Now, of course, the problem here concerns the reproductive asymmetry between men and women. The sexual revolution created opportunities for female flourishing. No longer tethered to the home by reproductive biology, women entered the workforce and experienced the freedom of choosing their own lives, futures, and happiness. The telos of biology that kept women "barefoot and pregnant" was no more.
This is why, of course, debates about reproductive health create clashes between patriarchal and feminist perspectives within Christian spaces. Given the reproductive asymmetries between men and women, any conversation about birth control affects women more than men. For example, I might advocate for Pro-Life policies and have good moral reasons do so do. And yet, those policies will, due to biological asymmetries, create asymmetrical burdens upon women. The same goes for the Catholic position concerning the use of artificial contraceptives. People will therefore look upon the asymmetrical burdens being carried by women and demand that they be given serious recognition and grave consideration in our moral and political calculations.
For my part, I weigh the biological burden upon women very heavily, which is one of the reasons I don't subscribe to the Catholic position on the use of artificial contraception. Jana and I used artificial contraception in our own family planning. Like, I expect, many of you did. Even Catholics!
And yet, I don't want this very Protestant position that I hold to be thin and unthoughtful. Because I do deeply resonate with the Catholic view that eros needs mortification, and that when eros becomes the telos of sex it becomes disordered. Eros needs to be purified in a crucible of spiritual formation into agape. I think our society has been adversely affected when sexual pleasure became disconnected from concern for the other.
The question becomes, however, whether nature is the best and/or only route for this mortification. Of course it can be, as the Catholics point out, but I don't think has to be. In the posts to follow I'll share why.
