.jpg)
Contraception in Today's Christian Landscape
"Life begins at conception."When the contraceptive debates began in the 1960's in the Church, it was a time of great social and scientific upheval. Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical on contraception (Humanae Viate) outlined the teaching of the Roman Church, which was that all sexual activity had to have no human-imposed barrier to concieving children, and that to reduce sexuality to only one of its components (sexual gratification) weakened the marital bond, and resulted in a growing trend towards lack of faithfulness in marriage, and the growing number of divorces he was witnessing in his own back yard at the time.
The problem is, Paul VI based his appeal to avoid contraception on the wrong premise. Instead of going on about the teritary effects of chemical contraceptives (i.e., the abortifacent effect), he chose to take the theological tack. Noble, from an ecclesial perspective, but very, very lousy from a public relations (and, ultimately, from the faithful's) perspective. I believe that if Paul VI had done two things, he could have nipped Roman Catholic usage of chemical birth control and IUD's in the bud before they got anywhere near what they are today:
1) Accept barrier birth control methods that do not result in the possibility of an abortifacent effect on a concieved child. (Edit: I am not saying hand them out or encourage their use, as NFP should remain the norm. See my follow-up disclaimer for more on this...)
2) Explain the objection to the Pill and the IUD based on the abortifacent effect, without trying to solely appeal to the masses on the basis of flawed Augustinian logic and theology.
Unfortunately, Paul VI chose what is, in my opinion, the wrong tack... and Roman Catholics now are on par with their non-Catholic neighbors in usage of the Pill and the IUD... and most of them aren't aware of the abortifacent objection that should really be far more of a concern.
Don't get me wrong, Natural Family Planning is great, and my wife and I took it before we got married. But even there, in our very Roman NFP class (all we could find in our area), they never mentioned the distinction between barrier contraceptive and chemical contraceptives. I felt they did a disservice to the engaged couples there, most of whom one could hear walking out the door laughing about the class and how they were only there to get their 'card punched' so they could have a church wedding.
The Roman Catholic Church (and other Churches and clergy who, like me, object to abortifacent birth control) need to start explaining their objection in this fashion, and should consider some level of tolerance for those who make their own concientious determination to emply non-abortifacent methods of birth control; allowing them to use their God-given wisdom to decide on family size.
FOLLOW-UP DISCLAIMER: Lest anyone get the idea that I am calling for an opening of the floodgates when it comes to barrier contraceptives, let me note that I believe that NFP is the best route to go if a couple is choosing to delay pregnancy. That being said, I know that NFP can lead to other issues in the sexual lives of couples, especially if one or the other party is less than convinced about NFP. Couples who marry must be open to life, or else it is not a valid Sacramental marriage. Couples who are incapable of having children biologically should be moved by pastors to consider adoption or other involvement with children (foster parenting, teaching, etc.) to display that openness to life. The use of any form of birth control should, however, always be a last resort, and should only be undertaken by Christians after serious consultation with their pastor.
