How to Preach Against Contraception
This hard-hitting “tell-it-like it is” article appeared in the July 2003 national Catholic publication “Homiletic & Pastoral Review.” The author, Dr. Fredrick W. Marks, is a research historian and essayist on religion with degrees from Holy Cross College and the University of Michigan. The author of “A Catholic Handbook for England and Newly Married Couples” (2001) he has taught courses on the fundamentals of the Catholic faith at the university level, as well as in various parishes.
Christians as dissimilar in theological stripe as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Knox have shared the Catholic position on birth control
“How to preach against contraception”
by: Fredrick W. Marks
Catholic morale in the United States has been severely shaken in recent months by allegations of clerical sex abuse. But there is another agent at work in the Church that has been sapping the strength of the faithful for decades. I refer to the yawning gap between teaching and practice in the area of artificial birth control. How can any religious organization expect to prosper when most of its members live in open defiance of one of its major tenets, when, furthermore, it claims to teach the tenet infallibly, and when disregard of such teaching is viewed as a mortal sin?
In 1999, the Pontifical Council for the Family urged priests hearing confession to proclaim the “hard truth” that contraception is a “grave sin.” Today, there is a pressing need to go beyond this. Since the confessional is not a place where very many of today’s Catholics congregate, pastors are called upon to explain the benefit of frequent reception of the sacrament even as they mount an attack on contraception that leaves no one in doubt as to the rationale of the Church.
It takes courage to awaken a society so deeply sunk in the slumber of secularism. Yet priests and the laity alike can do no less if they are to share in the triumph of the Cross. Unless we partake in the shame and humiliation of Calvary, we will not partake of the fruits of redemption. If Jesus is “a sign destined for contradiction,” then we, too, must be signed. Ours may not be the red martyrdom reserved the ten of Christ’s Apostles. But we must be prepared to risk our popularity. Was it not St. Paul, the greatest of all evangelists, who said, “If I were still trying to please men, I should not be a servant of Christ”? And did he not make a point of teaching the whole truth as opposed to a mere portion of it?
The question before us may be simply stated: how do we proceed? Some will insert a pro-life petition in the Prayers of the Faithful and implore the Lord daily for “an end to abortion, fornication, contraception, and euthanasia, along with embryonic stem cell research and human cloning.” Others will run off flyers that outline the case against contraception and keep the congregation abreast of weekly developments in the Church’s campaign for life. The average parishioner is woefully misinformed by the media. he encounters silence or worse in the schools, including a fair number of so-called Catholic schools. As a result, many positively yearn to hear the truth preached from the pulpit with ardor and conviction. Are they to be denied what is rightfully theirs?
Proper choice of a day to address this most sensitive of subjects will come after gathering information and laying a solid ground-work of prayer, and when it does, there will be plenty of firepower at hand, beginning with the notion that Church teaching makes people happy in this world (as well in the next). How much imagination is required to see that contraception acts as a facilitator for fornication, cohabitation (glorified fornication), and adultery? Further, that such behavior i linked with two of the greatest threats to human happiness: abortion and divorce. Fornication in any form is likely to leave life-long psychological scars. But cohabitation is particularly deadly. Statistics indicate that only 40% of cohabiters ever march down the aisle, and of those who do, the divorce rate is 50% above average. Equally telling is the fact that only 3% of couples who reject contraception wind up in the divorce courts. (*6)
To this must be added the cost of contraception and abortion in terms of physical and mental health. Baldness, irritability, and increased of cancer are but a few of the symptoms experienced by large numbers of women who resort to chemical means of contraception, while nightmares, hallucination, and loss of sexual desire are the lot of many who undergo abortion. (*7) Contraception also leads logically to the acceptance of other evils such as sodomy, one of the leading causes of AIDS. In short, one does not have to be religious to see that grave consequences ensue whenever there is a deliberate severing of the link between sexual gratification and procreation.
The next step is to show that contraception is not only stupid but morally wrong for believers, and this is not difficult, either, since St. Paul rules out any unnatural use of the woman by the man (Romans 1:26-27). Needless to say, contraception is, by nature, unnatural. Turning to the Old Testament, we find that the union of man and woman is marriage is described as “one flesh,” which, by implication, precludes artificial barriers. Spouses are more than “close,” more than interwoven. They are absolutely and totally one. Not surprisingly, this passage from genesis was singled out by Jesus to bring home to his listeners the indissolubility of marriage. (*8)
Less clear, perhaps, but highly suggestive, nonetheless, are three sayings of Our Lord: “let the children come to me”; “whoever receives one such little one for my sake received me”; and “worry not about your life, what you shall eat” or “what you shall wear” for “your heavenly father knows” what you need and will provide for you just as he provides for the birds of the air. (*9) Jesus taught his disciples the “Our Father: to foster child-like reliance on God; indeed, there is enough material in this one idea for a hundred homilies.
Returning to Genesis, though, with all of the above in mind, we find still another clue to God’s plan for mankind. Couples are instructed to “increase and multiply. (*10) Such language is all the more striking when one considers that never, in all of Scripture, is there a single reservation about child-bearing. Paul refers to it as a woman’s “salvation (1 Tim.2:15), and children are always portrayed in a positive light. The only passage in the Bible dealing directly with contraception tells of divine wrath. God strikes Onan dead for “wasting” his seed. (*11) Message: contraception is not only wrong: it is an abomination. (*12)
Sooner or later, the homilist must come to the teachings of the Church Fathers, and when he does, he is in for a rare treat, for without exception they castigate contraception, doing so in language that can only be described as scorching. Take, for example, St. Augustine: “Cruel lust resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness.” St. Jerome is equally graphic: “Some go so far as to take potions that they may insure barrenness and thus murder human beings almost before their conception.”(*13)
Christians as dissimilar in theological stripe as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Knox have shared the Catholic position on birth control because this is what they got from the Bible. Catholics, however, have a special duty in this regard owing to their belief in the authoritative nature of Church teaching, particularly the teaching of the Holy Father, whose voice in matters of faith and morals carries immense weight whether or not he claims to speak infallibly. (*14) The phrase used by the Catechism to describe contraception is “intrinsically evil,” meaning that, regardless of the good that may result from it, it can never be justified (#2370). Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical Humanae Vitae, is more specific, describing birth control of this nature as disordered, dishonest, and the cause of a series of additional evils, including the practice of viewing women as mere instruments of selfish enjoyment. He likewise sees it as inviting state intervention in the “most personal and most reserved sector of conjugal intimacy” (Nos. 14 and 17). Bear in mind that this is the encyclical in which priests are implored “to expound the Church’s teaching on marriage without ambiguity” so that all may “speak the same language” (No. 28).
Unambiguous messages on hot button issues of human sexuality are always hard to deliver. But one may comfort one’s audience somewhat by underscoring opportunities for confession and pointing out that God takes into account the degree of one’s awareness. If someone has made an honest mistake or if, for any reason, the person has been improperly informed, then he or she shall not be held to account except insofar as they have been remiss in searching out the Church’s position. No one is excused from the obligation to inform their conscience so that they understand not only what the Church teaches but also why.
Should one introduce the subject of Natural Family Planning? NFP, a technically superior form of what used to be known as “rhythm,” is regarded by some as a useful device to soften the impact of Church teaching and sooth those who may be troubled by the prospect of generating a large number of children in rapid succession. The problem with this approach, though, is that NFP is not for most people under most circumstances, only for those with “grave” reasons (Humanae Vitae, No. 10). Later in his encyclical, Paul VI substitutes other words for “grave.” But, given the overall context, “grave” is the operative term, for what couple, wishing to limit the size of its family, does not regard its reasons as “serious” and “just”?(*15)
There is, too, an added difficulty. NFP advocacy, of its very nature, tends to undercut some of the best arguments against artificial contraception, of which I shall name five: (1) the importance of trust in God (Diving Providence) – the idea that it is God who should decide such matters, and He will never send a person more than he or she can handle; (2) the concept that “every child is a gift from God” (a perfect one-liner when chatting with negative-counting neighbors); (3) the need for generosity in giving, considering that every child is not only a great gift from God but also a precious gift to God; (4) a corollary of point #3: namely, that God can never be outdone in generosity; and (5) the notion of how vital it is in marriage to make a total gift of self. Every one of the above points has been utilized by Church leaders, including the Holy Father, to make the case against contraception, and every one of them is either weakened or nullified by the advocacy of NFP.(*16)
It can be argued, of course, that God “helps those who help themselves” and that to help oneself by means of birth control is the same as self-help elsewhere. But this will not stand. First of all, we can never be certain that we are really helping ourselves when we take measures to prevent or postpone birth. Such action would appear to fly in the face of the elemental truth, spelled out in the previous paragraph, that “every child is a gift from God.” Secondly, we are opting out of an opportunity to cooperate directly with no less a personage that God Himself in the creation of a soul destined for union with the Godhead for all eternity. How awesome!
Nor can one rule out the possibility of scandal. Skeptics delight in the existence of NFP, calling it “Catholic contraception,” and while it differs from contraception in the sense of being more natural and less direct as a means of limiting god’s action, one will not find it easy to explain the subtle nature of such differences. Either way, man appears to have the same end in view and to be acting entirely on his own without reference to the meaning implicit in the words, “Our Father.” Gandhi, who viewed women practicing contraception as unpaid prostitutes, would have been hard put to level such a charge against practitioners of NFP.(*17) Nevertheless, our adversaries are bound to ask, tongue in cheek, if it is progress when cannibals learn to eat with a knife and fork. We are faced with a dilemma.
Even the word “Planning” in NFP seems to imply a certain common ground with Planned Parenthood, the world’s leading provider of abortion and contraception. If nothing else, it uses the language of the enemy and may, in addition, arouse unrealistic hopes and expectations. The fact is that questions have been raised about the feasibility of NFP, not so much from a technical standpoint as from the standpoint of psychology.(*18) It is not easy for a couple in the springtime of their union to abstain from intimacy for a week to ten days during what may be the most inviting time of the month.
One can go further. NFP has never been recommended to couples by the Church as the ideal. It is merely permitted. The Holy Father and those appointed to the Pontifical Council for the Family have placed great emphasis on the need for generosity.(*19) Typically, John Paul II, in his 1994 Letter to Families, had a great deal to say about responsible parenthood, openness to God’s will, and self-sacrifice. As for NFP, it was not even mentioned. In a parallel situation, one is allowed by Church law to miss weekly Mass, but only for reasons that are sufficiently serious. Here again, the key word is “allowed.” Moses allowed divorce on account of the hardness of peoples’ hearts, but he did not recommend it (Matt.19:8). In the Book of Malachi (2:16), God is on record as “hating” divorce, and no biblical leader of stature is ever known to have discarded one wife to marry another.
Homilists and pre-Cana instructors would do well to concentrate on the positive, following the example of Jesus. Our Lord never talked “down” to his audience, always “up,” urging his followers to “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). Indeed, the code of moral conduct enjoined by his Sermon on the Mount is fiercely demanding. Men and women respond best when they are challenged.
Matrimony, by the same token, is meant to be something joyous and hope-filled. Once it is hedged about with reservations and escape clauses, it begins to lose its luster. Time enough for those who anticipate grave difficulties to turn to NFP when the crisis arrives, if this is what their conscience dictates. But for the most part, those who prepare for marriage should be prepared to run risks for the Lord. To establish a marital relationship that is generous, open, and giving is to take a risk. But the risk that one runs in doing anything else is far greater.
This, too, is why it is so important to plan prior to marriage. Much in the way of unnecessary risk-taking can be avoided by a careful, reasoned choice of mate accompanied by chaste dating and straightforward communication. The time to establish a financial base capable of supporting marital arrangements that conform to the moral law is before the wedding takes place.
Some priests may not wish to tackle such a delicate subject before a mixed audience, including children. My experience as a teacher and parent, though, is that youngsters can profit from almost any discussion that is (a) refined, and (b) idealistic. Certain things will be over a child’s head, it is true. But there is nothing wrong with this. Toddlers, without exception, will benefit from exposure to a reverential tone in matters of human sexuality. If nothing else, it helps to immunize them against the coarseness and levity of radio and TV. What they need to hear again and again is that sex is serious business involving life and death, that it is sacred, private, and beautiful; further, that any assault on pro-life principles and the life-producing apparatus designed by Almighty God-any lowering of standards of compromise in this sphere-is tantamount to murder, for lurking behind every attempt to water down or circumvent God’s law is the knife of the abortionist and the bitter wages of divorce. Sex is not a recreational activity.
Four final words: Those who speak on contraception should shun the phrase, “having sex,” because intimacy, to be meaningful and fulfilling, must be something given, rather than “had”. Who ever heard of “having love”? When relations between husband and wife are reduced to what is strictly physical, it is the death of romance. To parrot cheap talk about “having sex” is to be co-opted by the secular press, which wants to ridicule everything that is dear to us. We cannot be too careful, therefore, about saying what we mean. Names count.
Secondly, there is a question that is always worth raising in this connection: how many couples do we know who have put all their faith in the Lord and been disappointed? From what I’ve been able to observe, the answer is none. All the parents of large families whom I’ve been privileged to know over the years have been youthful in appearance, confident in manner, and brimming over with enthusiasm. Perhaps, as G. K. Chesterton quipped, it is not such a bad idea to be in hot water since that is how one stays clean!
Thirdly, for young people in the audience, there is still another quotation worth pondering: “The child must be something very special if God Himself became a child.”
Lastly, be sure to have a copy of your homily typed up and run off so that it can be passed around to outsiders and sent to the bishop if necessary.(*20) There should be no misunderstanding.