Birth Control by Halliday G. Sutherland (guided reading books txt) 📕

THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON BIRTH CONTROL

Section 1. A FALSE VIEW OF HER DOCTRINE

One of the marks of the Catholic Church, whereby she may be distinguished from all other Churches, is that her teaching is always clear and above all logical. Yet this fact has not saved her teaching from misrepresentation in the hands of Malthusians. For example, Dr. C. Killick Millard writes as follows:

“The Churches have taught that it was the divine wish that human beings

should multiply and population increase—the more rapidly the better;

the traditional authority for this being the instruction given to Noah

and his family, after the Deluge, to ‘be fruitful and multiply and

replenish the earth.’ The Churches have continued to teach that the

duty of man was to obey the divine command and still _to increase and

multiply_, and until recently any attempt by married couples to

restrict or regulate the birthrate was denounced as sinful.

“This is still the orthodox attitude, I believe, of the Roman Catholic

Church, with its celibate priesthood; but, as it is clearly useless to

reason with those who claim infallibility, it is unnecessary to discuss

the question further so far as Roman Catholicism is concerned.” [122]

Now, although it may be unnecessary for Dr. Millard to discuss the question further, he will, I am sure, regret having inadvertently misstated the truth. The Catholic Church has never denounced as sinful “any attempt by married couples to restrict or regulate the birthrate.” On the contrary, the Catholic Church has taught, by her greatest doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, “that the essence of marriage is not primarily in the begetting of offspring, but in the indissoluble union between husband and wife.” [123]

Section 2. THE ESSENCE AND PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE

There is an obvious distinction between the essence of a thing and the ends or purposes for which the thing exists. For example, in a business partnership the essence of the partnership is a legal instrument, whereas the purposes or ends of the partnership are various commercial projects. The following is a clear statement, by Father Vincent McNabb, O.P., [124] of Catholic teaching concerning the nature and end of marriage:

“Marriage is an indissoluble state of life wherein a man and a woman

agree to give each other power over their bodies for the begetting,

birth, and upbringing of offspring. The natural and primary end of

marriage is this duty towards offspring. But, as sin has despoiled the

human will and disturbed human relations, marriage has now the

secondary end of allaying sexual lust.

“But it is a principle of ethics that what is primary cannot be set

aside as if it were secondary, nor can the secondary be sought as if it

were primary. To invert the ethical order is to bring in that disorder

which is called sin. If the human act brings in a slight disorder, it

is venial sin; if the human act brings in a grievous disorder it is a

grievous or mortal sin.

“It is a grievous disorder, and, therefore, a grievous sin, to desire

satisfaction in such sexual intercourse as could not result in the

begetting of offspring.

“As the wedded pair have given each other power over their bodies it

would be a grave sin for one to refuse either altogether or for a

considerable time the fulfilment of the marriage debt. But it is not a

sin if by mutual agreement the wedded pair refrain from the marriage

debt for a time, or for ever. As a rule, and speaking objectively, it

would be heroic virtue for a wedded pair to abstain for a long time,

and still more for ever, from the marriage debt. To counsel such a

practice indiscriminately would be a sinful want of prudence, and, in a

confessor, of professional knowledge.

“It is quite clear that by mutual consent, even without any further

motive, the wedded pair can abstain from marital intercourse. Still

more may they abstain for a time or for ever, for a good motive, e.g.

in order to have time for prayer, for good works, for bringing up such

family as they already have to support.”

Section 3. ARTIFICIAL STERILITY WHOLLY CONDEMNED

Artificial birth control is an offence against the law of God, and is therefore forbidden by the Catholic Church. Any Catholic who wilfully adopts this practice violates the law of God in a serious matter, and is therefore guilty of mortal sin, an outrageous and deliberate insult offered by a human creature to the Infinite Majesty.

The Catholic Church teaches that men and women should control the sex impulse just as they should control their appetite for food or drink. The principal end of marriage, as we have seen, is the purpose of its institution, the procreation and bringing up of children. The secondary end of marriage is mutual assistance and companionship, and a remedy against concupiscence. Where it is advisable, owing to the health of the mother or owing to reasons of prudence as distinct from selfishness, to limit the number of children, the Catholic Church points out that this should be done by the exercise of self-control, or by restricted use. As those who deny the possibility or even the wisdom of self-restraint are not likely to pay the slightest attention to the teaching of the Church, I will quote the opinions of two clear-thinking, non-Catholic writers.

Mr. George Bernard Shaw has said:

“I have no prejudices. The superstitious view of the Catholic Church is

that a priest is something entirely different from an ordinary man. I

know a great many Catholic priests, and they are men who have had a

great deal of experience. They have at the back a Church which has had

for many years to consider the giving of domestic advice to people. If

you go to a Catholic priest and tell him that a life of sexual

abstinence means a life of utter misery, he laughs. And obviously for a

very good reason. If you go to Westminster Cathedral you will hear

voices which sound extremely well, and very differently from the voices

of the gentlemen who sing at music-halls, and who would not be able to

sing in that way if they did not lead a life extremely different from

the Catholic priest….

“I may say that I am in favour of birth control. I am in favour of it

for its own sake. I do not like to see any human being absolutely the

slave of what we used to call ‘Nature.’ Every human action ought to be

controlled, and you make a step in civilisation with something which

has been uncontrollable. I am therefore in favour of control for its

own sake. But when you go from that to the methods of control, that is

a very different thing. As Dr. Routh said, we have to find out methods

which will not induce people to declare that they cannot exist without

sexual intercourse.” [125]

Of course the use of contraceptives is the very negation of self-control.

The late Sir William Osier, speaking of venereal disease, says:

“Personal purity is the prophylaxis which we as physicians are

especially bound to advocate. Continence may be a hard condition …

but it can be borne, and it is our duty to urge this lesson upon young

and old who seek our advice on matters sexual.”

Section 4. THE ONLY LAWFUL METHOD OF BIRTH CONTROL

There are methods of control whereby people are enabled to exist, and to exist happily, without being slaves to the sex impulse. These methods are those of the Catholic Church. Her people are encouraged to take a higher and a nobler view of marriage, to overcome their egoism and selfishness, and to practise moderation and self-restraint in the lawful use of marital rights. The Church urges her people to strengthen their self-restraint by observing the penitential seasons, especially Lent; by fasting or by abstaining from flesh meat at other times, if necessary by abstaining from alcohol; and by seeking that supernatural help which comes to those who receive the Sacraments worthily. When all other deterrents fail, it is lawful, according to the teaching of the Church, for married people to limit intercourse to the mid-menstrual period, when, although conception may occur, it is less likely to occur than at other times.

All other methods are absolutely and without exception forbidden. This limited use of marriage, which, as we have seen, is within the rights of the married, differs from all methods of artificial birth-control as day differs from night, because: [Reference: Explanation]

(1) No positive or direct obstacle is used against procreation.

(2) The intercourse is natural, in contradistinction to what is equivalent to self-abuse.

(3) Self-restraint is practised in that the intercourse is limited to certain times.

(4) There is no risk to mental or physical health.

(5) There is no evil will to defeat the course of nature; at worst there is merely an absence of heroism.

Even if the question be considered solely as a matter of physiology the difference between these methods is apparent. Physiologists and gynaecologists believe that in natural intercourse there is, apart from fertilisation, an absorption of certain substances into the system of the woman. The r�le of this absorption is at present obscure, but it obviously exists for a purpose; and it is permissible to speculate whether, under natural conditions of intercourse, there is not a mutual biological reaction that makes, amongst other things, for physical compatibility. Whatever be its purpose or explanation in the marvellous mechanism of nature, this absorption of vital substances is either hindered or is absolutely prevented by artificial methods of birth control; whereas, in the method permitted by the teaching of the Catholic Church there is no interference with a physiological process. Even those who fail, from their lack of training, to comprehend moral distinctions in this matter should be able to appreciate the difference between a method that is physiological and one that is unphysiological.

There are thousands who know little of the Catholic or of any other faith, and thousands who believe the Catholic Church to be everything except what it is. These people have no infallible rule of faith and morals, and when confronted, as they now are, by a dangerous, insidious campaign in favour of birth control, they do not react consistently or at all. It was therefore thought advisable to issue this statement in defence of the position of the Catholic Church; but the reader should remember that the teaching of the Church on this matter is held by her members to be true, not merely because it agrees with the notions of all right-thinking men and women, not because it is in harmony with economic, statistical, social, and biological truth, but principally because they know this teaching to be an authoritative declaration of the law of God. The Ten Commandments have their pragmatic