A Sticky Mess: The Catholic Church and Birth Control
“What then with the millions we have sent to hell, if these norms were not valid?” — Father Marcelino Zalba
“Father Zalba, do you really believe God has carried out all your orders?” — Patty Crowley
(Robert McClory, Turning Point: The Inside Story of the Papal Birth Control Commission, and How Humanae Vitae Changed the Life of Patty Crowley and the Future of the Church, pg. 1)
To say the Catholic Church has a controversial and complicated relationship with sex would be the understatement of the year. The institution is often scorned by opponents and card-carrying Catholics alike for its stances on birth control, abortion, marriage equality, and so on. Some people label its opinions as irrelevant; others call it antiquated.
For the purposes of this post, I’m going to focus specifically on birth control and how the Church’s current prohibition came into being.
Important Papal Encyclicals
One of the most eye-opening books I’ve ever read is Turning Point by Robert McClory. This book tells the story behind the composition of Humane Vitae “through the experience of some of the lay people who lived it” (McClory, Turning Point, back jacket summary). For those of you who may not know, Humane Vitae was a papal encyclical (authoritative letters written by the Pope for moral instruction) composed in the 1960s. It upheld the Church’s condemnation of all forms of artificial contraception, a position that was first articulated in Casti Connubii, an encyclical written by Pope Pius XI, in 1930. However, as time passed and knowledge of human sexuality and reproduction increased, the Church (rightly) deemed it necessary to regroup and reexamine this position. Humanae Vitae was the result of this reexamination.
It should first be acknowledged that the fact this council even met in the first place was praiseworthy, since
“throughout its existence the Church has found it difficult to acknowledge mistakes. Yet mistakes have been made. Few would deny that the condemnation of Galileo was a mistake. The Crusades were a mistake. The various Inquisitions were mistakes. The virtual selling of indulgences…was a mistake. The failure to take any clear stand against human slavery for nineteen hundred years was a mistake. The longstanding opposition to freedom of conscience was a mistake” (pg. 3–4).
The point here is that the Church has and does change its positions on matters that initially appear to be “infallible,” or at the very least closed to all questioning. Thus, as McClory puts it, the popularization of the “rhythm method, concern over the worldwide population boom, and the pill” more than justified, for many Catholics at the time, a renewed discussion on these matters going forward (pg. 5).
Ruled by the Minority
Growing up, I had always assumed that the birth control ban was an issue that most Church authority figures agreed upon, with maybe just a few “liberal” holdouts. I was shocked to find out that wasn’t the case. On the contrary, the condemnation was pushed through by a handful of men by the names of Ford, Visser, Zalba, de Lestapis, and Ottaviani.
These individuals bypassed the official council and drafted their own Minority Report, applying pressure to the pope in order to obtain the outcome they desired. “…Pope Paul was at first favorable impressed with the Majority Report and was attracted by its conclusions, but after two meetings with Ottaviani and Lio,” he reconverted to the traditional position (130). Indeed, the pope seemed to suffer quite a bit from the decision he knew he had to make; it was far from easy. “Throughout the summer he read the documents of the Commission, anguishing over his papal duties, his pastoral instincts, and the inevitable judgment of history” (131). This frightened and uncertain portrayal is a far cry from the Pope Paul VI I had been raised to think of as a firm and unshakeable moral figure, a man who upheld an unpopular teaching (in the world’s eyes) because he was enlightened by the Holy Spirit and driven by the desire to do what was right.
But wait. What was the opinion of the council majority, then?
McClory provides a copy of the Majority Report of the Birth Control Commission at the end of Turning Point. In it, we see that the council recommended the church remove the blanket ban on birth control. It further contended that the means of family planning were less important than the attitude behind the decision to limit children:
“…a willingness to raise a family with full acceptance of the various human and Christian responsibilities is altogether distinguished from a mentality and way of married life which in its totality is egotistically and irrationally opposed to fruitfulness. This truly “contraceptive” mentality and practice has been condemned by the traditional doctrine of the Church and will always be condemned as gravely sinful…Then must be considered the sense of the faithful: according to it, condemnation of a couple to a long and often heroic abstinence as the means to regulate conception, cannot be founded on the truth.” (pg. 177, 179)
Further Food for Thought
Apart from the shady dealings on the ecumenical side of this matter, I also have a hard time buying into the general reasoning behind this teaching.
The ban on non-procreative sex made sense when we knew very little about sex, reproduction, and the many nuances of physical connection. “Indeed, it was often thought that the sperm contained the whole being of the future child and that the womb provided nothing more than a place for the seed to grow.” (L. William Countryman, Dirt, Greed, & Sex, pg. 271)
Further, you could very well argue that the idea of having sex just for pleasure was immoral to the ancient church fathers because they deeply distrusted the body and its impulses; it was inferior to “reason” and, at times, dangerous to the soul. If you were going to have sex, it had to be for a higher moral reason, other than simply pleasure for pleasure’s sake. And since the “natural” result of sex was babies — -well, that must be the way God intended. (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource/55270/contraception-the-bible-and-early-fathers)
But now, in the 21st century, we can acknowledge that sex isn’t just about making babies. It’s about connection, pleasure, and emotional and physical well-being. The old reasons have lost their power. And the Church doesn’t seem interested in coming up with new ones anytime soon.
The emphasis on the “seed”
In justifying the Church’s stance on birth control, I have heard some people argue that not only is artificial contraception wrong, but so is any sexual activity that doesn’t result in the man spilling his seed into the vagina. This is because such actions are not inherently “open to life.” But as the writer of this article states:
“If semen is so precious, than (sic) why do so many Catholics practice natural family planning? Is a woman’s egg less sacred than semen? I find it VERY strange that it would be considered not as much. Women have a given amount of eggs for their lifetime, while men can continue to produce more sperm. There is only ONE egg for millions of sperm in each given month of sex…how is it possible to DELIBERATELY try to dodge conception by not having sex during ovulation, and NOT call it a waste? How is this any less wasteful then meaningless ejaculation?
How is NFP different then (sic) a simple barrier method of BC? How can (you) INTENTIONALLY trying to have sex at a non-fertile time (be) any less of a sin then ejaculation into a condom, you’re still wasting sperm?” (https://community.babycenter.com/post/a25199533/catholic_double_standard).
For my part, I can’t help but see whispers of centuries-long patriarchy in the idea that sperm is somehow more “sacred” than the eggs. Frankly, it’s hard to take seriously. After all, we’re talking about an organism that is so incompetent on its own, it often needs the help of the woman’s body to even make it to the eggs in the first place (https://helloclue.com/articles/sex/conception-pregnancy-fertilization-explained#:~:text=The%20magic%20happens%20in%20the,the%20sperm%20towards%20the%20egg).
Additionally, I’ve heard confusing messages about the alleged morality of orgasmic timing:
“A man’s orgasm is always tied to his fertility, so, therefore, the Church states that oral sex that would end with a male orgasm outside of sexual intercourse is not permissible. West writes, “Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina. Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, morally speaking, be during actual penetration.” (https://bustedhalo.com/ministry-resources/what-does-the-church-teach-about-oral-sex)
This is an odd argument to me because it’s not as if sperm has a monopoly on procreation. Ovulation is also linked to life — -and by the very teachings of the Church, as already noted above, women are allowed to “waste” an egg every month if they judge it’s the right thing to do at the time. But a guy has to roll the dice every time with his orgasm? Despite the fact that he has millions more to spare than a woman does?
This persistent coddling of sperm seems rather ludicrous. Not only does it limit penetrative intimacy, but it also forbids other forms of pleasure and bonding like oral sex and manual stimulation. It seems unnecessarily restrictive to me.
This rule was established by celibate, non-married men
Consider the fact that this binding and often burdensome moral imperative is given to the woman of the Church by men who do not have wives or families. They do not understand the nuances and trials of married life because they have never lived it. Wouldn’t that be like a bunch of married people coming up with binding moral rules for a monastery? It hardly seems fair. While I think there’s room for theological input, at the end of the day, the only people who should have the final say over this rule are the people who are going to have to live it out every single day.
In short, I believe that the Church’s current teachings on sex and how, when, and why a couple can have it is both voyeuristic and overly simplistic. Indeed, the matter seems to have more to do with upholding “tradition” and power than it does with pursuing truth and the genuine good of the faithful.
