# data[].attributes.headline
How Do We Respond to the Catholic Teachings in the Post-Modernist World?

# data[].attributes.subject
How Do We Respond to the Catholic Teachings in the Post-Modernist World?

# data[].attributes.body
Is there a need for revisions to the Catholic teachings regarding contraceptives?
Should the Church have a say in the matter? Or is this obsolete?
How does this not impede on women's rights?
How is this not an ethical concern/affect those in third-world countries?

# data[].attributes.body
Genesis

# data[].attributes.body
Class Debate!!
At the end of the class activity, have students engage in class discussion regarding how the debate ran, key points raised from both parties. As well I would have the class complete a self-evaluation, notating: their level of engagement and effort in preparing for the debate, what they feel went well, what they learned from this experience and how that impacts their faith, and what areas they could improve on for future debates!

# data[].attributes.headline
Additional Thoughts Regarding a Unit/Lesson Plan on this Church Issue:

# data[].attributes.subject
Additional Thoughts Regarding a Unit/Lesson Plan on this Church Issue:

# data[].attributes.body
As an exit ticket, it might be beneficial for the class to give a definition of what the Catholic church teaches about contraception and perhaps the implications of this teaching in a modern-world context.

Ideally this lesson/unit is best suited for the Intermediate level, although due to the rapid development/earlier onset of puberty within youth, it is more acceptable to introduce discussion in the Junior Grades.

Another activity may be to have the students develop their own timeline regarding the Catholic Church and the wavering views regarding the birth control pill/use of contraceptives.

As well, it might be beneficial to have the class review an article/case studies outlining some of the implications of Catholic hospitals and beliefs on women’s health. This could also cover the issue regarding abortion, and when the Catholic faith accepts ‘indirect’ abortion (I.e., ectopic abortion).

# data[].attributes.body
Perhaps it might be worthwhile to have the class divide into groups (Pro-contraceptive and con-contraceptive). Students will have the opportunity to develop a thesis/ voice their assigned stance on the current issue regarding contraception and support their argument with research acquired throughout class time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Debating Catholic Teaching on Contraception on BBC Sunday Morning Live

# data[].attributes.headline
Reasons for which the Church Opposes Contraception:

# data[].attributes.subject
Reasons for which the Church Opposes Contraception:

# data[].attributes.body
1. The unitive dimension of the conjugal act: Genesis=when God created Adam and Eve, “The two shall become one flesh”.

2. The procreative act: Genesis= God gave the blessing of fertility to Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply”

Marriage and to “give oneself without reservation”

# data[].attributes.headline
Introductory video in response to contraceptive use and the Catholic Church.

# data[].attributes.subject
Introductory video in response to contraceptive use and the Catholic Church.

# data[].attributes.body
6-minute-long video defining ‘contraception’ as any act before, during or after sexual intercourse that renders it sterile. The person in the video claims that any act that prevents conception happening as a result of the sexual act is immoral. He claims, “....it is not right to engage in the gift of sexuality without receiving all of its gifts (I.e., childbirth), without receiving all the purposes for which it is intended.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Catholic Teaching on Contraception - Explained

# data[].attributes.headline
How this church issue of the 21st Century can be incorporated into a lesson/unit plan:

# data[].attributes.subject
How this church issue of the 21st Century can be incorporated into a lesson/unit plan:

# data[].attributes.body
Religion: Church Issues of the 21st Century. What are the teachings regarding contraception?

Social Studies: Human Rights and Ethics, Women’s Right to Proper Health Care, Abortion, Access to Use Contraceptives.

History: How Catholics Came to Oppose Contraceptives.

Geography: Overpopulation and Diseases like Zika on the population.

Science and Technology: Human Reproductive System and the Invention/Development of Artificial Contraceptives.

# data[].attributes.headline
Pope Francis’s reaction to the matter. Contraceptives could be permissible regarding the spread of Zika.  

# data[].attributes.subject
Pope Francis’s reaction to the matter. Contraceptives could be permissible regarding the spread of Zika.  

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pope Francis suggested Thursday that contraceptives may be morally acceptable to avoid spreading the Zika virus, framing their use as "not an absolute evil" compared with abortion and setting off a debate about whether the pontiff's remarks were unprecedented.

Francis was on a plane back to Rome after a six-day trip to Mexico when a reporter asked him whether he thought abortion or avoiding pregnancy could be "the lesser of two evils" in responding to the mosquito-borne Zika virus, which has hit Latin American countries hard.

"Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. That's what the Mafia does," the pope said, according to a transcript from the Catholic News Agency.

Francis cited the decision made by Pope Paul VI in the 1960s to permit nuns in Belgian Congo to use artificial contraception to prevent pregnancies because they were being systematically raped. "On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil,'' he said. "In certain cases, as in this one [Zika], such as the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear."

It was not immediately clear what effect the pope's remarks would have in heavily Catholic Latin America, where cases of Zika are multiplying. Researchers increasingly believe the virus is linked to thousands of cases of microcephaly - a condition in which babies are born with small heads and brain abnormalities - in Brazil. There also is evidence that the virus is spread through sexual transmission in some cases.

When recently asked about Catholic teaching and Zika, some prominent Catholic leaders in the region have emphasized that artificial contraception is immoral. But the issue of whether it might be acceptable in the case of Zika is "a question that's still under debate," said Monsignor Gregorio Rosa Chávez, auxiliary bishop of San Salvador.

Some church leaders might be waiting to make statements about the virus because the scientific link between Zika and microcephaly in infants has not been scientifically proved, said Richard Coll, foreign policy adviser for Latin America and global trade at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who was in El Paso-Juarez at the U.S.-Mexico border for the pope's Mass on Wednesday. Health officials warn that it may take months to know more definitively.

Contraceptives are legal and widely used in many parts of Latin America, although poor and rural areas often suffer shortages.

Theologians disagreed about whether the outspoken pontiff had said something new. Popes in the past have spoken of exceptions to the ban on artificial contraception, but the debate Thursday centered on the context.

Pope Benedict XVI made news in 2010 when he said condoms might be acceptable for a male prostitute, a comment welcomed by many activists in parts of Africa where the AIDS virus was rampant. But Benedict spoke about it as "a first step" toward improving morality.

Boston College moral theologian Cathleen Kaveny said Francis's comments might be seen as a "development" in theology because he suggested contraception can be used to prevent pregnancy even in a consensual sexual relationship.

Also unusual: Francis's comments were pragmatic and pastoral, Kaveny said. Previous leaders appeared more focused on policy statements aimed at changing behavior, she said.

But other experts saw Francis's remarks as classic Catholic theology.

"It would be a bad mistake to think of this as a liberal pope changing Catholicism again," said Charles Camosy, a moral theologian at Fordham University. Benedict "asked the same kind of questions and responded in a similarly vague and open-to-multiple-interpretations kind of way."

In using the example of Paul VI, Francis was in keeping with church doctrine, "in the sense that contraceptives are not an end in themselves" but used "to protect one's well-being," said Jorge Traslosheros, a history professor and Catholic Church expert at the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

Because the question was about "avoiding pregnancy," it wasn't clear what kind of contraception Francis meant - and Catholics debated that point. Some suggested that he was speaking of artificial contraception, since he mentioned a case of nuns using hormones. Others thought he could have been encouraging Catholic women to abstain or use natural family planning, which are acceptable practices in church teaching.

The Catholic Church views the use of artificial contraception and abortion as intrinsically immoral. The church does not object to certain oral pharmaceuticals that are prescribed for medical purposes, but current Catholic teaching forbids the use of oral contraceptives to prevent pregnancy.

The spread of the Zika virus has accelerated debates over contraception and abortion in Latin American countries. Mexico's health department said Tuesday that it had confirmed six pregnant women who are infected with the virus.

Church teaching has come up against the views of some public health advocates who want women to have greater access to abortion and contraception. Health officials in some Latin American countries have advised women not to get pregnant because of the potential for birth defects caused by the virus.

Earlier this month, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights called on Latin American countries to repeal their policies restricting contraception and abortion rights.

If women in Catholic-heavy Latin America do get pregnant, abortion is illegal in most countries in the region, although some have exceptions in cases of rape, fetal impairment or danger to the life of the mother.

Responses of Latin American church leaders have varied somewhat on the use of contraception in response to the virus. Bishop Leonardo Ulrich Steiner, the secretary general of the National Council of Bishops of Brazil, said in an interview with the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil that contraception was not a viable solution and that church teaching has not changed. Meanwhile, Cardinal Odilo Scherer of Sao Paulo said the use of condoms was a "personal choice."

But like Francis, the same church leaders have drawn a hard line at abortion.

The Vatican released a statement Tuesday saying that it was concerned by the call from international leaders to increase access to the procedure, calling abortion and abortifacients "an illegitimate response to this crisis."

"Regardless of the connection to the Zika virus . . . these children deserve to be protected and cared for throughout their lives, in accordance with our obligation to safeguard all human life, healthy and disabled, with equal commitment, leaving no one behind," Archbishop Bernardito Auza, the Vatican's representative to the United Nations, said on Vatican Radio.

Francis has called for a less centralized church in which local bishops have greater decision-making authority, which could mean that each region could handle the virus differently, rather than wait for a directive from Rome, said Christopher Hale, executive director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.

"How the church in the U.S. deals with this can be different from Latin America," Hale said. "This is going to be a great test of whether Francis's call for a more decentralized church will bear fruit."

Pulliam Bailey reported from New York. D. Ashley Campbell in Washington, Gabriela Martinez in Mexico City, Nick Miroff in Bogota, Colombia, and Sarah Esther Maslin in San Salvador contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pope: Contraceptives could be morally permissible in avoiding spread of Zika

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pope Francis suggested Thursday that contraceptives may be morally acceptable to avoid spreading the Zika virus, framing their use as "not an absolute evil" compared with abortion and setting off a debate about whether the pontiff's remarks were unprecedented.

# data[].attributes.body
An additional resource outlining Catholic hospitals around the world. This article not only outlines the difference of treatment for non-Catholic patients, but also the training of Catholic and non-Catholic doctors and they systematic issues which arise when Catholic hospitals merge with secular hospitals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When the Obama administration decided that birth control coverage would be mandatory for all insurance policies, even those provided to employees by large religious institutions, the outcry from Catholic leaders and social conservatives surprised a lot of people. But conflicts between health care and religion, particularly Catholicism, are not news in many parts of the country. Just ask physicians in Sierra Vista, Arizona.

Sierra Vista is a rural community about 80 miles southeast of Tucson and about 20 miles north of the Mexican border. It has one hospital: the Sierra Vista Regional Health Center. In 2010, administrators announced that their secular institution would be joining the Carondelet Health Network, a system of Catholic hospitals. The intention was to make the hospital more financially viable, the administrators explained, but it would also entail some changes: The obstetrics service would have to abide by care directives from the Catholic Church. Although the merger would not be official for another year, staff would begin observing Catholic medical guidelines right away.

The hospital did not perform elective abortions, which is typical for small conservative communities. But the obstetricians were accustomed to terminating pregnancies in the event of medical emergencies. And just such a case presented itself one November morning, when a woman, 15 weeks pregnant, arrived at the emergency room in the middle of a miscarriage. According to a deposition later obtained by The Washington Post, the woman had been carrying twins and passed the first fetus at home in the bathtub. When she arrived via ambulance, she was stable and not bleeding. But the umbilical cord from the first fetus was coming out of her vagina, while the second fetus was still in her uterus.

Robert Holder, the physician on duty who gave the deposition, said the odds of saving the second fetus were miniscule. Doctors would need to tie off the umbilical cord and put the woman at severe risk of infection. After discussing the options, the family, with some difficulty, opted for a medical termination. But, under the new rules, Holder had to get approval from a nurse manager and eventually a more senior administrator. When Holder briefed the administrator, she asked whether the fetus had a heartbeat. It did, he said. "She replied that I had to send the patient out for treatment," Holder later recalled. He arranged for the woman to get the procedure at the nearest major medical institution-in Tucson. According to his account, the 90-minute trip put her at risk of hemorrhaging and infection, which did not happen, and "significant emotional distress," which did.

Holder said that an official from Ascension Health, which oversees Carondelet, told him earlier that the rules permit terminating a pregnancy when a spontaneous abortion seems inevitable. (Officials from Ascension and Sierra Vista were not available for comment.) But Bruce Silva, another obstetrician on staff and an early skeptic of the merger, told me that confusion over the rules was common. "We couldn't get a straight answer," Silva says. "There was so much gray area. And sometimes you need to make these decisions quickly, for medical reasons." Even when the new rules were clear, Silva adds, they sometimes prevented physicians from following their best clinical judgments, not to mention their patients' wishes. A prohibition on tubal ligations, a surgical form of sterilization that severs or blocks the fallopian tubes, meant women had to go elsewhere for this procedure. However, physicians routinely perform this operation as part of a cesarean section, either when patients have requested the procedure or when it's medically recommended, in order to avoid a second invasive surgery and the attendant medical risks. "I had a patient who was blind. She and her husband were working but poor, and she was diabetic, too," Silva told me. "She was having her second baby, and that's all she wanted and she's got these medical issues. She asked for a tubal ligation. And I can't do it."

CATHOLIC HOSPITALS have been a bulwark of U.S. health care since the early twentieth century, when orders of nuns from Europe came to tend to the immigrant communities powering the industrial revolution. Many of these hospitals provided care to people of all faiths. But their first order of business was to help fellow Catholics, particularly those of the same ethnicity, who required care-and, frequently, last rites-delivered in a language they understood. In this respect, the Catholic institutions were like religious hospitals from other faiths that provided services for their own followers, whether it was Lutheran hospitals that could communicate with patients in their native German or Jewish hospitals that provided only kosher food on the wards.

Today, Catholic hospitals supply 15 percent of the nation's hospital beds, and Catholic hospital systems own 12 percent of the nation's community hospitals, which means, according to one popularly cited estimate, that about one in six Americans get treatment at a Catholic hospital at some point each year. We now depend upon Catholic hospitals to provide vital services-not just direct care of patients, but also the training of new doctors and assistance to the needy. In exchange, these institutions receive considerable public funding. In addition to the tax breaks to which all nonprofit institutions are entitled, Catholic hospitals also receive taxpayer dollars via public insurance programs like Medicare and Medicaid, as well as myriad federal programs that provide extra subsidies for such things as indigent care and medical research. (Older institutions also benefited from the 1946 Hill-Burton Act, which financed hospital construction for several decades.)

But sometimes the dual mandates of these institutions-to heal the body and to nurture the spirit, to perform public functions but maintain private identities-are difficult to reconcile. That was the issue with the recent contraception controversy. The whole point of the new health care law is to make insurance a public good to which every citizen is entitled, regardless of where he or she works. And, because employers have traditionally been the source of insurance for most working Americans, the law effectively deputizes employers to provide this public good. In some cases, that means forcing religious institutions to pay for benefits-such as birth control-that violate the terms of their faith. Even Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association and a staunch supporter of health care reform, protested the contraception rule, arguing, "The explicit recognition of the right of Catholic organizations to perform their ministries in fidelity to their faith is almost as old as our nation itself."

This tension has implications that go far beyond birth control. In 2004, during the Terri Schiavo controversy, Pope John Paul II decreed that Catholic health care providers had obligations to provide food and water intravenously-even to patients in vegetative states, as long as doing so would keep them alive indefinitely. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops interpreted that as a mandate to provide life-sustaining treatment except in cases where treatment would be "unduly burdensome to the patient"-prompting ethicists at different hospitals to debate when, and whether, that prohibited physicians from removing feeding tubes for patients with no hope of recovery. When President Obama early in his term announced a new policy for stem-cell research, leaders of Catholic hospitals hinted their institutions were not likely to allow such projects, clinical value notwithstanding.

Still, reproductive health is the area that has given rise to the most public controversies. In 2007, a physician wrote an essay in the Journal of the American Medical Association about a woman, also pregnant with twins, whose pregnancy was failing, threatening infection that could jeopardize her ability to have future children and perhaps her life. Distraught, she and her husband decided to terminate the pregnancy-only to learn the Catholic hospital would not perform the procedure. The physician, Ramesh Raghavan of St. Louis, knew about the case because he was the husband.

A few years later, according to an article in Ms. magazine, a New Hampshire waitress named Kathleen Prieskorn went to her doctor's office after a miscarriage-her second-began while she was three months pregnant. Physicians at the hospital, which had recently merged with a Catholic health care system, told her they could not end the miscarriage with a uterine evacuation-the standard procedure-because the fetus still had a heartbeat. She had no insurance and no way to get to another hospital, so a doctor gave her $400 and put her in a cab to the closest available hospital, about 80 miles away. "During that trip, which seemed endless, I was not only devastated but terrified," Prieskorn told Ms. "I knew that, if there were complications, I could lose my uterus-and maybe even my life."

Probably the most notorious incident occurred in 2009, when a 27-year-old woman with "right heart failure" came to the emergency room of St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, a Catholic hospital in Phoenix, while eleven weeks pregnant. Physicians concluded that, if she continued with the pregnancy, her chances of mortality were "close to 100 percent." An administrator, Sister Margaret McBride, approved an abortion, citing a church directive allowing termination when the mother's life is at risk. Afterward, however, the local bishop, Thomas Olmsted, said the abortion had not been absolutely necessary. He excommunicated the nun and severed ties with the hospital, although the nun subsequently won reinstatement when she agreed to confess her sin to a priest.

THERE'S REASON to think these kinds of conflicts are becoming more common. Like every other industry in health care, hospitals are consolidating to strengthen their financial positions or merely to survive. "There are a lot of rural places that now have only a Catholic hospital," says Lois Uttley, director of MergerWatch, a research and advocacy group based in New York City. "We hear regularly from doctors there who are just distraught at not being able to provide the care they want." Silva, from Sierra Vista, notes that such arrangements can be particularly tough on poor patients: "If you're wealthy, you go up to Tucson and you get a hotel. But a lot of people can't even pay for the gas to get up there."

Catholic ownership of a hospital can mean different treatment for the patients-a recent study in the journal Women's Health Issues found Catholic-run hospitals tended to offer different counseling and different medical remedies than secular institutions-but it can also mean different training for the doctors. Standards for training obstetricians and gynecologists include instruction on medical contraception and tubal ligations, as well as abortion techniques (although residents may opt out), but most Catholic teaching hospitals will not provide it. "Residents will have to take the time to do it as an elective, and sometimes they just end up taking one or two lectures a year on it, which really isn't adequate," says Debra Stulberg, a family physician and assistant professor at the University of Chicago Medical School.

Sometimes, the tensions are too great to resolve. The deal to bring Sierra Vista under Carondelet fell apart, following protests that Silva, working with MergerWatch and the National Women's Law Center, helped lead. In December, the governor of Kentucky, acting on the recommendation of his attorney general and in response to community lobbying, rejected a proposed merger that would have put two major hospitals under the control of a Colorado-based Catholic hospital system. Not long after, Catholic Healthcare West, a network of 38 hospitals, voluntarily severed ties with the Church and renamed itself "Dignity Health."

But sometimes institutions have been able to reconcile religion and medicine with creative solutions. When a secular hospital in Kingston, New York, merged with a Catholic institution, in effect reducing the community's hospitals from three to two, administrators set up a separate maternity unit in the parking lot. It provides a full range of reproductive services, including abortion. In Troy, New York, leaders of a newly merged secular-Catholic hospital came up with a different solution: The maternity unit operates on the second floor, as a "hospital within the hospital"-complete with its own financial operations.

These distinctions may seem artificial or meaningless, which is precisely what some people have said about President Obama's proposal for contraception coverage. Under that proposal, insurers are supposed to provide coverage of birth control directly to the employees of institutions who believe contraception is a sin. Although it satisfied some of the critics, like Sister Carol, it infuriated critics like columnist Charles Krauthammer, who called it "an accounting trick." But what's the alternative? For better or worse, the government depends on Catholic hospitals to provide vital services-and the hospitals depend on the government for money to provide them. Convoluted solutions may be the only way for this convoluted mix of public purpose and private institution to survive.

Jonathan Cohn is a senior editor at The New Republic. This article appeared in the March 15, 2012 issue of the magazine.

Read More

Politics, Jonathan Cohn, Tucson, Ascension, Sierra Vista, The Washington Post, Arizona, Bruce Silva, Kathleen Prieskorn, Catholic Church, Robert Holder, Carondelet, Carol Keehan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The controversy over the Catholic Church and health care goes beyond birth control. When the Obama administration decided that birth control coverage would be mandatory for all insurance policies, even those provided to employees by large religious institutions, the outcry from Catholic leaders and social conservatives surprised a lot of people.

# data[].attributes.body
Great video discussing world issues regarding the sin of using ‘bith control’, as well, a clearly defined timeline from 300AD to present day regarding the Catholic Church’s views on the matter.

# data[].attributes.body
“Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods."

# data[].attributes.body
“With the introduction of a contraceptive means (artificial or not) to the marital act, the procreative dimension is purposefully suppressed and ignored.  The unitive dimension, therefore, is separated from the procreative.  Just as a forced act of physical love by one spouse upon the other violates the unitive dimension of marital love, the impairment of the capacity to transmit human life violates the procreative dimension.  Here note that contraception involves an impairment or a suppression of one inherent dimension of an action as God has designed it.  Essentially, God has designed marital love to be both unitive and procreative; to suppress or to violate either one contradicts the design of God.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Catholic Church has always maintained that it is intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

# data[].attributes.body
“Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life (#11).  The Holy Father continued, “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage pact” (Humanae Vitae, #12).

# data[].attributes.headline
What is the Church's Teaching on Contraception?

# data[].attributes.subject
What is the Church's Teaching on Contraception?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This question concerns probably one of, if not the most controversial moral teachings of Catholicism. This topic is definitely the one that prompts headlines and excites some people to say, "I disagree with the Church" or "The Church is wrong." I have even had Catholics report to me that when they have visited a Protestant Church, they have heard sermons denounce the Catholic Church's teaching on this subject. In marriage preparation programs, the topic sometimes ignites heated debate between couples and the presenters upholding the Church's teaching. Sadly, many Catholics simply do not understand the Church's teaching on this issue. Moreover, many priests have failed to address this subject from the pulpit- whether in a positive, rational way or at all. So we need to put aside our prejudices and our misconceptions, open our minds and hearts, and approach this issue.
Marriage in the Eyes of God and the Church
Before addressing the issue of contraception per se, one must first understand the Church's moral teaching concerning marriage. The Church does not simply deliver a moral teaching in isolation; rather, the moral teaching is undergirded by a moral framework of how life ought to be lived in the eyes of God. In this case, the moral framework is what God has revealed concerning marriage.

In the creation account of Genesis, we find the beautiful truth, "God made man in His image; in the divine image He created him; male and female He created them" (Genesis 1:27). In this one verse, we find an intrinsic goodness and dignity to each human being. We also recognize a goodness to our human sexuality- both man and woman are made in God's image and likeness, and both masculinity and femininity are equally good. Yes, man and woman are different- anatomically, physiologically, and even psychologically (as admitted by many psychologists, even "feminist" ones). These differences do not indicate inequality, instead complementarity.

With this truth, we must also view our human life not just by the confines of this world, but also with a view to a supernatural and eternal destiny. God has made us for Himself, and we hope one day to find this life fulfilled in the Kingdom of Heaven.

In the next verse of Genesis (1:28), we read, "God blessed them, saying, 'Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.'" Here is marriage, a God-given, God-designed institution. If we could think of the best way to realize that "image and likeness of God," it would then be in marriage. In this sacred union, man and woman- each made in God's image and likeness with their similarities and their uniqueness- come together as one.

The second creation account of Genesis reinforces this idea: Here, God takes the rib from the man to create "a suitable partner," whom the man recognizes as "'This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called 'woman' for out of 'her man' this one has been taken.' That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body" (2:23-24). Pope John Paul II reflected that in marriage "man" in the moment of communion truly becomes the image of God, "an image of an inscrutable divine communion of Persons."

Our Lord, Jesus Christ, in the gospel affirmed the teaching of Genesis. When asked by the Pharisees about divorce, Jesus replied, "Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and declared, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall become as one'? Thus, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, let no man separate what God has joined" (Matthew 19:3ff).

Given this basis in Sacred Scripture, we hold marriage as a sacrament in our Catholic belief. Vatican II's Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World (#47-52) spoke beautifully about marriage: Marriage is a partnership of life and love designed by God and endowed by Him with its own proper laws, with various benefits, and with various ends in view. Both husband and wife "surrender themselves to each other" and give their "irrevocable personal consent." Marriage involves a mutual giving of two persons, which entails total fidelity and permanence.

Moreover, the love of husband and wife which binds them together as one overflows, and they may participate in creation, giving birth to children. Through the sacrament they live and the bountiful graces offered by our Lord, couples are fortified to fulfill their duties to each other and their family. As such, marriage is clearly the foundation of the family and the whole human race.

Therefore, we speak of marriage not as a contract but as a covenant. Just as God made a covenant of life and love with His people of the Old Testament through Abraham and Moses, just as Christ made the perfect, everlasting, and life-giving covenant through the blood of His cross, so marriage is a covenant, a permanent bonding of life and love. (For this reason, St. Paul frequently used the image of Christ and His Church in explaining the love of husband and wife (e.g. Ephesians 5:22ff).) Therefore, when a couple exchanges vows, they are promising a love of fidelity, permanence, exclusivity, and perpetuity to each other and God. Man and woman enter into a life-giving covenant with God as husband and wife.
Marital Love
Given our understanding of marriage and marital love, we can readily see that the most beautiful expression of love in marriage is marital love, or physical love, or sexual intercourse, or conjugal love- whatever term one prefers. Granted, love in marriage encompasses much more than the act of conjugal love. Nevertheless, this action radiates an unique and special symbolism of the sacrament of marriage- the covenant shared between the two who have become one flesh.

Interestingly, conjugal love plays an important role in understanding the sacrament of marriage. In our sacramental theology, we hold that a sacrament has two parts: the form, or prayer part of the sacrament; and the matter, the physical and action part of the sacrament. For instance, in performing a baptism, the matter of the sacrament is the priest pouring water over the head of the person or immersing the person in water three times; at the same time, the priest prays the form of the sacrament, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." In marriage, the couple are the ministers of the sacrament; the priest is the official witness of the Church who also imparts God's blessing. The form of the Sacrament of Marriage is the exchange of vows; the matter of the sacrament is the consummation of the marriage, when the two people enact those vows in that physical expression of love. Therefore the Church teaches, "The acts of marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude" ( Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #49).

Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae (#9) offered a beautiful reflection on this conjugal love of marriage. The Holy Father said that marital love is a genuinely human love, because it embraces the good of the whole person and is rooted in a free willed, giving of one spouse to the other. This love endures through joy and pain, success and failure, happiness and sorrow, uniting the couple in both body and soul. This love is also total- free of restriction, hesitation, or condition. This love is faithful and exclusive to both partners. In all, this love must be a mutually respectful action, a genuine expression of love. Unlike what is so often portrayed by the various media today, marital love is not some erotic action, rooted in selfishness, fleeting pleasure, or dominance. No, marital love is a sacred action which unites a couple with each other and God. The spirit of this teaching reflects what Jesus said at the Last Supper, "There is no greater love than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends" (John 15:13).

Moreover, the act of marital love also participates in God's creative love. The couple who has become a new creation by becoming husband and wife, one flesh, may also bring about the creation of new life in accord with God's will. Vatican II asserted, "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory" ( Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #48, cf. #50). The Council acknowledged that while not diminishing the importance of sacramental union symbolized in marital love, "it must be said that true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it is directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich His family from day to day" (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #50).

Most recently, our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical The Gospel of Life, reflected that God's own image and likeness is transmitted through the creation of an immortal soul directly by Him. Moreover, a child is really the personification of the love of husband and wife in union with the Creator. Therefore, "it is precisely in their role as co-workers with God who transmits His image to the new creature that we see the greatness of couples who are ready 'to cooperate with the love of the Creator and the Savior, who through them will enlarge and enrich His own family day by day'" ( The Gospel of Life, #43, quoting also Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #50).

Throughout sacred Scripture, we find the birth of children as a blessing from God and a sign of the living covenant between God and husband and wife. For example, Moses delivered the law of the covenant, declaring: "As your reward for heeding these decrees and observing them carefully, the Lord, your God, will keep with you the merciful covenant which He promised on oath to your fathers. He will love and bless and multiply you; He will bless the fruit of your womb and the produce of your soil, your grain and wine and oil, the issue of your herds and young of your flocks, in the land which He swore to your fathers He would give you. You will be blessed above all peoples; no man or woman among you shall be childless nor shall your livestock be barren" (Deuteronomy 7:12-14). Clearly life, fruitfulness, and fertility were cherished as goods granted by God.

Because of this decree and the understanding that the procreative aspect of marital love is a sacred gift, "barrenness" or infertility was a true cross to bear for a couple. For example, in the Old Testament, in the story of Hannah, wife of Elkanah, we read of how she grieved at not being able to have a child although she had a beautiful loving marriage. Sacred Scripture reads, "Hannah rose..., and presented herself before the Lord; at the time, Eli, the priest was sitting on a chair near the doorpost of the Lord's temple. In her bitterness, she prayed to the Lord, weeping copiously, and she made a vow, promising, 'Oh Lord of hosts, if you look with pity on the misery of your handmaid, if you remember me and do not forget me, if you give your handmaid a male child, I will give him to the Lord for as long as he lives; neither wine nor liquor shall he drink, and no razor shall ever touch his head" (I Sam 1:9-11). The Lord heard the plea of Hannah, and she conceived and bore a son, Samuel.

In the New Testament, we read the story of Elizabeth and Zechariah, who were "just in the eyes of God" and "upheld the commandments of the Lord." However, in their old age, they remained childless. By God's will, they conceived a child, John the Baptist. Elizabeth said, "In these days the Lord is acting on my behalf; He has seen fit to remove my reproach among men." (Cf. Luke 1:5-25.) Following this line of thought, Vatican II asserted, "Indeed children are the supreme gift of marriage and greatly contribute to the good of the parents themselves" ( Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #50).

Therefore, we must not separate the unitive dimension of marital love from the procreative. Both dimensions are intrinsically good. Both dimensions are inherent in the act of marriage. Even if a couple is infertile, the act of marriage still retains the character of being a communion of life and love. We must constantly keep in focus the covenant of life and love a couple shares with each other in union with God.
The Church's Teaching on Contraception
Given this understanding about the sacrament of marriage, Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae stated, "Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life (#11). The Holy Father continued, "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage pact" ( Humanae Vitae, #12).

With the introduction of a contraceptive means (artificial or not) to the marital act, the procreative dimension is purposefully suppressed and ignored. The unitive dimension, therefore, is separated from the procreative. Just as a forced act of physical love by one spouse upon the other violates the unitive dimension of marital love, the impairment of the capacity to transmit human life violates the procreative dimension. Here note that contraception involves an impairment or a suppression of one inherent dimension of an action as God has designed it. Essentially, God has designed marital love to be both unitive and procreative; to suppress or to violate either one contradicts the design of God.

Nevertheless, we have witnessed the proliferation of the use of artificial birth control in particular. As Pope John Paul II, as well as Pope Paul VI, have repeatedly warned, what has consequently evolved in society is a contraceptive mentality, the removal of conjugal love from the Sacrament of Marriage, and in many cases- especially outside the context of marriage- the reduction of conjugal love to simply a sex act without genuine love. In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II lamented about the effects of contraception: "Sexuality too is depersonalized and exploited: from being the sign, place, and language of love, that is, of the gift of self and acceptance of another, in all the other's richness as a person, it increasingly becomes the occasion and instrument for self-assertion and the selfish satisfaction of personal desires and instincts. Thus, the original import of human sexuality is distorted and falsified, and the two meanings, unitive and procreative, inherent in the very nature of the conjugal act, are artificially separated: in this way, the marriage union is betrayed and its fruitfulness is subjected to the caprice of the couple. Procreation then becomes the 'enemy' to be avoided in sexual activity: if it is welcomed this is only because it expresses a desire, or indeed the intention, to have a child 'at all costs,' and not because it signifies the complete acceptance of the other and therefore an openness to the richness of life which the child represents" (#23).

Here we must pause to examine another dimension of the problem with some forms of artificial birth control. Most artificial birth control pills today are such that they have a "double-barrel" effect. On one hand, they serve as a contraceptive in suppressing ovulation; on the other hand, if ovulation occurs and conception takes place "by accident," they also make the lining of the uterus hostile to implantation, thereby expelling the conceived life. Remember that once conception occurs, an unique, precious individual has been created who has the right to life. Consequently, these pills are really abortifacients, having the same effect as the IUD (intrauterine device). Actually, this "double barrel" effect is the sad selling point for the drug RU486, commonly called "the morning after pill."

Moreover, we must also consider the possible side effects of these pills to the health of the woman. In examining the Physician's Desk Reference for various oral contraceptives available, the small-print list of possible health complications include, to name a few, myocardial infarction, thrombosis, cerebrovascular disorders, birth defects, and various forms of cancer (breast, cervical, ovarian, and uterine). Tragically, many doctors do not inform the woman of these health risks when prescribing these drugs. Actually, Planned Parenthood of America stated that more women die each year from complications arising from the taking contraceptive pills than from complications in pregnancy and childbirth. Since each individual has an obligation for maintaining his health, any drug which consistently changes the normal functioning of the body and which carries these risks would be morally objectionable.

So what is a couple who has serious issues facing their marriage, such as a medical problem or economic constrictions, to do? The Church has always taught that a couple must act as responsible parents: "The couple must fulfill their role as cooperators of God's creative love with responsibility: they must respect the divine providence of God, consider their own good and the good of their children, born and yet to be born, weigh their own situation and needs on the spiritual and material levels, and look to the good of family, society, and Church" ( Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #50). A husband and wife, with a vision of being responsible parents, must decide if now is the time to have a child. There may be serious reasons for postponing a pregnancy- even indefinitely- because of health, financial burdens, or other serious reason.

However, one must be careful not to distort what is a "serious" reason. Pope John Paul II stated, "The decision about the number of children and the sacrifices to be made for them must not be taken only with a view to adding comfort and preserving a peaceful existence. Reflecting upon this matter before God, with the graces drawn from the Sacrament, and guided by the teaching of the Church, parents will remind themselves that it is certainly less serious to deny their children certain comforts or material advantages than to deprive them of the presence of brothers and sisters who could help them to grow in humanity and to realize the beauty of life at all ages and in all its variety" (1979).
Natural Family Planning
If a couple thinks serious reasons do indeed exist for postponing a pregnancy, the Church teaches that a couple may take advantage of "the natural cycles of the reproductive system" Humanae Vitae, #16). We know that a woman can only conceive a child during the period of ovulation. Therefore, a couple may resort to expressing their love only when they are in the infertile phases of their cycle. This method of regulating birth is called Natural Family Planning, a safe and effective means which is morally acceptable and which preserves the covenant love of marriage.

Actually one of the earliest forms of natural family planning is breast feeding. If a woman breast feeds her baby consistently, she probably would not conceive for 18-24 months. Actually, many tribal people naturally regulate births this way.

In the 1930s, Calendar Rhythm was developed. This method was effective if the woman had regular cycles and if she was properly instructed. Actually, rhythm is about as effective as condoms or other barrier methods of birth control. Nevertheless, Calendar Rhythm was unreliable for many couples. Perhaps this unreliability is why many joked, "What do you call a couple who uses rhythm? Answer: Parents."

However, modern Natural Family Planning is technically called the Sympto-Thermal Method. This method relies on three signs of fertility in the woman: basal temperature pattern, cervical mucus pattern, and physical changes in the position of the cervix. These three signs inform a couple when the wife is in ovulation and possibly could conceive a child if the couple engages in marital love. Ironically, while many doctors prescribe artificial means to prevent a pregnancy, they prescribe the techniques of Natural Family Planning to help a couple who is having trouble conceiving a child identify the period of ovulation and thereby know when the possibility of conception is the greatest. Moreover, if one is worried about effectiveness, the Sympto-Thermal Method is proven to be as effective as the Pill and more effective than barrier methods if used properly.

Immediately, some people may honestly ask, "What is the difference between Natural Family Planning and other forms of contraception? Both seem to do the same thing." While both means may have the same intent- postponing pregnancy- the difference lies in the means themselves. With Natural Family Planning, couples keep their covenant of life and love intact. They use only the means given to them by God, which are intrinsic to who they are. In expressing their marital love, they are mindful that this action not only unites them as husband and wife, but also may participate in God's creative love. Rather than suppress and ignore one dimension, they respect both dimensions. Therefore, if they decide for a serious reason to postpone a pregnancy, then both husband and wife make the decision and both share in the sacrifice of not expressing their marital love during the period of ovulation. Natural Family Planning is also safe, and the burden is shared by both husband and wife. Moreover, the couple is open to the providence of God's will: if a child should come who "was not planned," so be it- that is God's will and God's gift; whereas with contraceptives, where the couple has everything nicely planned and is in control, the surprise pregnancy oftentimes spells disaster. Remember that one of the arguments for legalized abortion is to correct "unplanned pregnancies."

Pope John Paul II addressed the anthropological and moral differences between contraception and Natural Family Planning in his encyclical, The Christian Family in the Modern World: "The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of the person, that is the woman, and thereby accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and self-control. To accept the cycle and to enter into dialogue means to recognize both the spiritual and corporal character of conjugal communion, and to live personal love with its requirement of fidelity. In this context the couple comes to experience how conjugal communion is enriched with those values of tenderness and affection which constitute the inner soul of human sexuality, in its physical dimension also. In this way sexuality is respected and promoted in its truly and fully human dimension, and is never 'used' as an 'object' that, by breaking the personal unity of soul and body, strikes at God's creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person" (#32).

Actually, Natural Family Planning has had great successes. For example, in 1960, the government of Mauritius, a small island country in the Indian Ocean east of Madagascar, wanted to commence a major contraceptive campaign to control the population. The bishop published a pastoral letter denouncing these plans. After discussing the issue with government officials, in 1963, an education program was started for Natural Family Planning. Doctors educated training couples who in turn taught the method to other couples. Today they train 2,000 couples each year. Each parish has a special program for educating couples in preparation for marriage, and 85% of couples married in the Church complete that training. In all, 20% of women of child-bearing age use Natural Family Planning, of whom Hindus and Moslems account for 62%. Moreover, artificial methods are on the decline. The effectiveness of Natural Family Planning has been a convincing argument against legalizing abortion in the country. What Bishop Margeot fears today is the coalition of governments- America, Japan, and Northern Europe- and foundations- Rockefeller and Packard- who are striving to impose artificial birth control throughout Africa, which in each case has eventually led to abortion.

While this column cannot give a full explanation of Natural Family Planning, I would suggest that any couple who is interested take the course. Rather than just brush aside the Church's teaching, investigate the teaching and inquire about Natural Family Planning. Ask the couples what the difference between the two methods actually is. Moreover, if used properly, Natural Family Planning is almost 100% effective with a .004 pregnancy rate (U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1978)) versus "the pill," which is 97% effective, or the condom, which is 79-88% effective ( Contraceptive Technology). Courses for Natural Family Planning are offered throughout the Diocese of Arlington.

Nevertheless, this whole issue concerns that covenant love between husband and wife, and God. It deals with the creation of life in union with God. Therefore, concerning the regulation of births, Vatican II stated, "It is the married couple themselves who must in the last analysis arrive at these judgments before God" ( Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #50). However, any faithful Catholic must first take into account the teaching of the Magisterium. As has been emphasized, marriage is serious, marital love is serious, the creation of life is serious. The means of are intrinsically evil ( Catechism, #2370). Thereby the violation of marital love through the use of contraceptive practices is objectively a serious, mortal sin. Granted, grave circumstances may exist which in turn may reduce the culpability of a couple in this matter. If a couple is struggling with this issue, I advise them to see a priest or talk with one of the couples who teaches Natural Family Planning. Oftentimes, the teaching couple has used the artificial means and can best explain to another couple the differences between the methods and guide them through this issue.

Nevertheless, no one cannot cavalierly dismiss the consistent teaching of the Church on this issue. We cannot simply consider good intentions or motives. Moreover, we cannot just go to the "Yellow Pages" to find the priest or theologian who will give us the answer we want to hear. We have to be honest and wrestle with the truth and by the grace of God conform to it. As Pope John Paul II asserted, "As Teacher, [the Church] never tires of proclaiming the moral norm that must guide the responsible transmission of life. The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm. In obedience to the truth which is Christ, whose image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person, the Church interprets the moral norm and proposes it to all people of good will, without concealing its demands of radicalness and perfection" ( The Christian Family in the Modern World, #33).
The Church's Teaching in Light of Sacred Scripture and Tradition
In explaining the Church's teaching about contraception, many people mistakenly think that this teaching is relatively new, something which occurred with Humanae Vitae in 1968. Other people, from a more fundamentalist bent, want to know if there is any basis in Sacred Scripture for these teachings. In reviewing both Sacred Scripture as well as the history of our Church's teaching in this area, one finds a very positive and solid foundation, as has been presented to date.

Concerning "What does the Bible have to say?" the very positive presentation concerning creation, marital love, and covenant emerges from the texts of Sacred Scripture. However, we also discover references to any violation of the unitive-procreative dimensions of marital love and to the divine consequences which followed. In Genesis, we find the story of Onan, the second son of Judah, who married Tamar, the widow of his older brother Er. (The Levirate law of Judaism prescribed that if the oldest brother died, the next oldest, single brother would marry his widow to preserve the family line.) The Bible reads, "Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took his life." (Cf. Genesis 38:1ff). Here is a basic form of contraception- withdrawal, and clearly a sin in the eyes of God.

Interestingly, the Protestant tradition cited this story as a basis for condemning any form of contraception. Luther commented, "Onan...spilled his seed. That was a sin greater than adultery or incest, and it provoked God to such fierce wrath that He destroyed him immediately" ( Commentary on Genesis). In another work, he wrote, "For Onan goes in to her, that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed" ( Works).

Calvin also commented on the story of Onan: "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born an hoped-for offspring" ( Commentary on Genesis). Interestingly, two of the leaders of the Protestant movement both condemned a practice which suppressed the procreative dimension of marital love.

History further illuminates the Church's position on this subject. Anthropological studies show that means of artificial birth control existed in antiquity. Medical papyri described various contraceptive methods used in China in the year 2700 BC and in Egypt in the year 1850 BC. Soranos (AD 98-139), a Greek physician from Ephesus, described seventeen medically approved methods of contraception. Also at this time, abortion and infanticide were not uncommon practices in the Roman Empire.

The early Christian community upheld the sanctity of marriage, marital love, and human life. In the New Testament, the word pharmakeia appears, which some scholars link to the birth control issue. Pharmakeia denotes the mixing of potions for secretive purposes, and from Soranos and others, evidence exists of artificial birth control potions. Interestingly, pharmakeia is oftentimes translated as "sorcery" in English. In the three passages in which pharmakeia appears, other sexual sins are also condemned: lewd conduct, impurity, licentiousness, orgies, "and the like." (E.g. Galatians 5:19-21.) This evidence highlights that the early Church condemned anything which violated the integrity of marital love.

Further evidence is found in the Didache, also called the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, written about the year AD 80. This book was the Church's first manual of morals, liturgical norms, and doctrine. In the first section, two ways are proposed- the way of life and the way of death. In following the way of life, the Didache exhorts, "You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure abortion, nor destroy a new-born child. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods...." Again scholars link such phrases as "practice magic" and "use potions" with artificial birth control.

In all, the Catholic Church as well as other Christian denominations condemned the use of contraceptive means until the twentieth century. The first Christian denomination to approve contraception was the Church of England or Episcopalian Church. At the August 14, 1930 Lambeth Conference of Bishops of the Anglican Church, a resolution was passed which allowed the use of methods to limit the size of families "where there is a clearly-felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood." The "primary and obvious method" was considered "complete abstinence from intercourse...in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit"; however, other methods could also be used, namely artificial means. Bishop Brent gave an impassioned plea stating that if the resolution passed, soon contraception would be allowed for any reason and the decision would give way to selfish rationalization. Interestingly, Following the Lambeth Conference decision, T. S. Eliot commented, "The world is trying the experiment of attempting to form a civilized, but non-Christian mentality. The experiment will fail, but we must be very patient in waiting its collapse" ( Thoughts after Lambeth).

In response to the Church of England's approval of contraception, Pope Pius XI issued his encyclical Casti Connubii on December 31, 1930, stating: "Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."

The Church faced increasing pressure regarding the use of contraceptive means with the marketing of the anovulant pill. In response, Vatican Council II stated in the Pastoral Constitution in the Modern World, "In questions of birth regulation, the sons and daughters of the Church, faithful to these principles, are forbidden to use methods disapproved of by the teaching authority of the Church in its interpretation of the divine law (#51). However, Pope Paul VI had transferred the investigation of new questions concerning this matter to a special commission (originally established by Pope John XXIII in March, 1963) for the study of population, the family, and births. The Holy Father would then review their findings and render judgment. The commission included married couples and those of various competencies in this field. Select bishops were also asked for their views; other bishops voluntarily submitted them.

On July 25, 1968, Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae which upheld the consistent teaching of the Church based on natural law as well as divine revelation: "Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life" (#11).

Our Holy Father has continually repeated the Church's teaching. In The Christian Family in the Modern World, he lamented the signs of a "disturbing degradation of some fundamental values" evident in "the growing number of divorces, the scourge of abortion, the ever more frequent recourse to sterilization, the appearance of a truly contraceptive mentality" (#6).

Interestingly, in 1968 Pope Paul VI prophesied grave consequences from contraception: increased marital infidelity and a lowering of moral standards; increased lack of respect for women, including seeing a woman as a sex object and as an instrument to satisfy sexual pleasures rather than seeing her as a partner in marriage; and the danger of empowering public authorities to regulate the lives of others. Thirty years later, these warnings have become realities: Statistics show the rapid increase of divorce, from a rate of 25% in 1965 to 50% in 1975 during the first five years of marriage. By the year 2000, 50% of American teenagers will have lived a significant part of their lives without a father figure. Moreover, Dr. Robert Michaels of Standord University found a direct, positive correlation between the growing rate of divorce and the rate of contraception. (Interestingly, couples who use Natural Family Planning have a much lower divorce rate: 0.6% according to the Couple to Couple League, and 2-5% according to research conducted by California State University.)

Any person can attest to the deterioration of the moral quality of television and movies during this time. Pornography has become increasingly prevalent, with 630 million pornographic video rentals reported each year in the United States. The availability of pornography and sexual contacts through the internet is alarming.

Crimes of rape continue to rise each year. The news is replete with cases alleging sexual harassment. This year alone, we have been appalled by several cases where unmarried teenage parents killed their newborn child.

Finally, the intrusion of government into family planning has become more prevalent. Some municipal or state governments, such as Maryland and Kansas, have attempted to begin programs which pay women to use Norplant (the five-year contraceptive implanted in a woman's arm) to control the pregnancies of teenagers and welfare recipients; foreign countries like Peru have introduced sterilization programs and have compelled poor citizens to be sterilized. International policy set by the affluent Western nations to help developing Third World countries oftentimes include mandatory population control provisions, including artificial birth control and abortion. Little wonder, Pope John Paul II declared Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae a "truly prophetic proclamation" ( Familiaris Consortio, #29).

Interestingly, Dr. William May in 1968 signed a statement with numerous other theologians dissenting from Humane Vitae. He has long since recanted. In 1988, on the 20th anniversary of the encyclical, he said, "I was beginning to see that if contraception is justifiable, then perhaps artificial insemination, test-tube reproduction, and similar modes of generating life outside the marital embrace are morally justifiable too.... I began to realize that the moral theology invented to justify contraception could be used to justify any kind of deed. I saw that it was a consequentialist, utilitarian kind of argument, that it was a theory which repudiated the notion of intrinsically evil acts. I began to realize how truly prophetic the Pope had been, and how providential it was that he had been given the strength to resist the tremendous pressures brought to bear upon him" ( Columbia, June 1988). Now ten years later, articles concerning in vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, and cloning appear regularly in the news media. One has to ask, "Where are we headed as a society?"
Conclusion
Pope Paul VI concluded Humanae Vitae with the statement that the Church is to be "a sign of contradiction." So indeed she is in upholding the sanctity of marriage and the error of contraception. Yes, the Church is going against the popular culture of the age. Nevertheless, St. Paul's words originally addressed to the Romans should resound in our own ears: "Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, so that you may judge what is God's will, what is good, pleasing and perfect" (Romans 12:2).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the Church's teaching on contraception? - Catholic Straight Answers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This question concerns probably one of, if not the most controversial moral teachings of Catholicism. This topic is definitely the one that prompts headlines and excites some people to say, "I disagree with the Church" or "The Church is wrong." ... Continued

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Other names: Birth control

Contraceptives are the name given to medicines and other devices that are used to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Contraceptives may also be referred to as birth control.

Hormonal contraceptives consist of one or more synthetic female sex hormones.

Hormonal contraceptives that contain both an estrogen and progestin are called combined oral contraceptives (COCs).

Those that contain just progestin are called progestin-only contraceptives (POPs).

COCs prevent pregnancy by inhibiting the normal process of ovulation (the release of an egg from an ovary) and by altering the lining of the uterus (the endometrium) so that it is unable to support a fertilized egg. They also change the viscosity (stickiness) of mucus within the cervix to make it hard for sperm to travel to the uterus.

POPs mainly just change the viscosity of mucus and thin the endometrium; however, in some women, they may also prevent ovulation, although this is usually inconsistent.

Hormonal contraceptives are available as pills (oral contraceptives), injections, implants, intrauterine devices, patches, and vaginal rings.

Nonhormonal contraceptives include condoms, diaphragms, sponges, spermicides, and cervical caps.

What are contraceptives used for?

Contraceptives are mostly used to help prevent women from becoming pregnant. Some hormonal contraceptives may also be prescribed to:

Emergency contraceptives are contraceptives that are taken (or inserted if a copper IUD) within a few days after unprotected sex to help prevent implantation of a fertilized egg and a possible resulting pregnancy.

Condoms are contraceptives that offer the most protection against sexually transmitted infections, although protection is not 100%.

What are the differences between contraceptives?

There are several differences between contraceptives. The main difference is that some contain hormones whereas others do not. Hormone-containing contraceptives have more side effects than nonhormonal contraceptives.

Some combined hormonal contraceptives also contain supplements such as iron or folic acid.

Oral hormonal contraceptives: Combined hormonal contraceptives

Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) contain an estrogen and a progestin to prevent ovulation (the release of an egg from an ovary), thin the uterine lining, and thicken cervical mucus making it impenetrable to sperm.

Oral hormonal contraceptives: Progestin-only contraceptives

Progestin-only contraceptives (POPs) contain just one hormone, progestin. Most work by thickening cervical mucus, preventing sperm from entering the uterus. POPs must be taken within the same three hours every day.

Emergency hormonal contraception

The emergency contraceptive pill (ECP), sometimes called the ' morning after pill' may be taken to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex, contraceptive failure, or after a sexual assault. Levonorgestrel ECPs work best if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex; however, they are still moderately effective if used within five days of unprotected sex. The ulipristal ECP can be used within five days of unprotected sex.

Other contraceptives

Diaphragm with spermicide

Flexible dome-shaped cup that is inserted before sex.

Hormonal contraceptive patch

One patch is applied each week for every three weeks, then usually followed by a patch-free week

Hormonal contraceptive rings

One ring is inserted into the vagina and remains in place continuously for three weeks, then removed for a one week break before a new ring is inserted.

Intrauterine devices (IUD)

Small, T-shaped device that is inserted through the vagina into the uterus to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Lasts 3 to 10 years depending on the type,

Implantable rods

Small rod the size of a matchstick that is implanted under the skin of the upper arm. Lasts up to 3 years.

Female condom

Must be used every time that sex occurs. Provide some protection against STIs.

Must be used every time that sex occurs. Provide some protection against STIs.

Shot/injection

Given by injection under the skin once every 3 months (12 to 14 weeks).

Cervical cap with spermicide

Soft silicone Cup that covers the cervix and is inserted before sex. May cause irritation, and allergic reactions, and increase the risk of an abnormal Pap test.

Sponge with spermicide

Soft polyurethane sponge that is inserted before sex and kept in place for six hours after sex.

Spermicide alone

Must be used every time that sex occurs. Not very reliable. May cause irritation, and allergic reactions, and increase the risk of STIs and UTIs.

Are contraceptives safe?

Hormonal contraceptives may not be suitable for some women especially those with certain types of cancer, at higher risk of clotting or strokes, liver disease, severe headaches, undiagnosed vaginal bleeding, uncontrolled high blood pressure or heart disease. Nonhormonal methods of contraception are more suitable for these women. Women who are pregnant who still wish to protect themselves from sexually transmitted infections should use barrier methods of contraception (such as condoms).

Serious side effects associated with hormonal contraceptives include:

Blurred vision

Chest pain and an increased risk of blood clots, heart attack and stroke

Leg pain or swelling

A severe headache

Severe stomach pain.

Smoking increases the risk of serious heart side effects with COCs, including the ring or the patch. COCs should NOT be used in women aged over 35 years who smoke because they are at higher risk of serious side effects such as heart attack, blood clots, or stroke.

Certain medications and some supplements can make hormonal contraceptives less effective. Hormonal contraceptives do not offer any protection against STIs such as HIV or hepatitis. Male or female condoms should be used in combination with hormonal contraceptives if protection against STIs is needed.

For a complete list of severe side effects, please refer to the individual drug monographs.

What are the side effects of contraceptives?

Hormonal contraceptives have been associated with several different side effects such as:

Acne

Appetite changes

Breast tenderness, enlargement or discharge

Changes to menstrual flow, bleeding or spotting between periods, painful or missed periods

Constipation or diarrhea

Gingivitis (inflammation of the gums)

Hair growth in unusual places

Mood changes

Skin color changes (brown or black patches)

Stomach cramps or bloating

Weight gain or loss

Vaginal burning, discharge, irritation, itching, redness, or swelling

Nonhormonal contraceptives may be associated with irritation, itching, redness, or discomfort during sex.

For a complete list of side effects, please refer to the individual drug monographs.

Always consult your healthcare provider to ensure the information displayed on this page applies to your personal circumstances.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
List of Contraceptives + Types & Side Effects - Drugs.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Other names: Birth control Contraceptives are the name given to medicines and other devices that are used to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Contraceptives may also be referred to as birth control. Hormonal contraceptives consist of one or more synthetic female sex hormones. Hormonal contraceptives that contain both an estrogen and progestin are called combined oral contraceptives (COCs).

# data[].attributes.body
Although the church has changed its views regarding sex, the 1968 encyclical, “Humanae Vitae” remains. However, many Catholics around the world choose to ignore this fact. This then puts into question, is this an ethics issue if contraceptive pills are still considered a sin in the eyes of Catholic reform?

# data[].attributes.body
EDUC 5445
Church Issues

# data[].attributes.headline
Brief History of the "birth control pill"

# data[].attributes.subject
Brief History of the "birth control pill"

# data[].attributes.body
Devout Catholics in the 1950’s demanded explicit permission to use contraception.

The question was left for consideration by the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control, held between 1963 to 1966. This commission by an overwhelming majority – a reported 80 percent – recommended the church expand its teaching to accept artificial contraception.

# data[].attributes.body
“The church, however, had little to say about contraception for many centuries. For example, after the decline of the Roman Empire, the church did little to explicitly prohibit contraception, teach against it, or stop it, though people undoubtedly practiced it. Most penitence manuals from the Middle Ages, which directed priests what types of sins to ask parishioners about, did not even mention contraception.”

“It was only in 1588 that Pope Sixtus V took the strongest conservative stance against contraception in Catholic history. With his papal bull “Effraenatam,” he ordered all church and civil penalties for homicide to be brought against those who practiced contraception. However, both church and civil authorities refused to enforce his orders, and laypeople virtually ignored them. In fact, three years after Sixtus’s death, the next pope repealed most of the sanctions and told Christians to treat “Effraenatam” “as if it had never been issued.”

With advancements in technology and scientific knowledge about the human reproductive system during the 19th century, new discussion was needed to progress as a society. However Victorian sensibility made it very difficult to vocalize issues regarding sex and contraception.

It was only around the 20th century that we see an increase in the use of contraception and a need to discuss this issue regarding Catholic practice. It is around this time that is issue became a ‘visible priority’ for the church.

Regarding his frank 1930 pronouncement on birth control, “Casti Connubii,” Pope Pius XI declared that contraception was inherently evil and any spouse practicing any act of contraception “violates the law of God and nature” and was “stained by a great and mortal flaw.”

Condoms, diaphragms, the rhythm method and even the withdrawal method were forbidden. Only abstinence was permissible to prevent conception. Priests were to teach this so clearly and so often that no Catholic could claim ignorance of the Church’s prohibition of contraception. Many theologians presumed this to be an “infallible statement” and taught it thus to Catholic laypersons for decades. Other theologians saw it as binding but “subject to future reconsideration.”

1951, there was a modification to the church’s stance regarding contraception. “Pius XI’s successor, Pius XII, deviated from its intent. He approved the rhythm method for couples who had “morally valid reasons for avoiding procreation,” defining such situations quite broadly.”

# data[].attributes.headline
Implications Regarding Early Church Practice 

# data[].attributes.subject
Implications Regarding Early Church Practice 

# data[].attributes.body
It is apparent that early Christians knew about contraception and likely practiced it.

“Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek and Roman texts, for example, discuss well-known contraceptive practices, ranging from the withdrawal method to the use of crocodile dung, dates and honey to block or kill semen.”

Although Judeo-Christian scripture encourages humans to “be fruitful and multiply”, McClain argues there is nothing in Scripture which explicitly prohibits contraception.

“The purpose of marriage, they believed, was producing offspring. While sex within marriage was not itself considered a sin, pleasure in sex was. The fourth-century Christian theologian Augustine characterized the sexual act between spouses as immoral self-indulgence if the couple tried to prevent conception.”

# data[].attributes.body
McClain states; “As a scholar specializing in both the history of the Catholic Church and gender studies, I can attest that for almost 2,000 years, the Catholic Church’s stance on contraception has been one of constant change and development. And although Catholic moral theology has consistently condemned contraception, it has not always been the church battleground that it is today.”

# data[].attributes.headline
How the Catholic Church Came to Oppose Birth Control

# data[].attributes.subject
How the Catholic Church Came to Oppose Birth Control

# data[].attributes.body
In Lisa McClain’s article (2018), she opens the discussion regarding the Catholic church’s stance on contraceptives. Pope Paul VI banned contraception for Catholics in the 1968 encyclical, “Humanae Vitae”, which was in reaction to the development of the birth-control pill. Although the conservative Catholics at the time praised Pope Paul VI for what they considered a ‘confirmation of traditional teachings’, his remarks shocked many priests and the Catholic community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This month marks the 50th anniversary of the landmark "Humanae Vitae," Pope Paul VI's strict prohibition against artificial contraception, issued in the aftermath of the development of the birth control pill. At the time, the decision shocked many Catholic priests and laypeople. Conservative Catholics, however, praised the pope for what they saw as a confirmation of traditional teachings.

As a scholar specializing in both the history of the Catholic Church and gender studies, I can attest that for almost 2,000 years, the Catholic Church's stance on contraception has been one of constant change and development.

And although Catholic moral theology has consistently condemned contraception, it has not always been the church battleground that it is today.

Early church practice

The first Christians knew about contraception and likely practiced it. Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek and Roman texts, for example, discuss well-known contraceptive practices, ranging from the withdrawal method to the use of crocodile dung, dates and honey to block or kill semen.

Indeed, while Judeo-Christian scripture encourages humans to "be fruitful and multiply," nothing in Scripture explicitly prohibits contraception.

When the first Christian theologians condemned contraception, they did so not on the basis of religion but in a give-and-take with cultural practices and social pressures. Early opposition to contraception was often a reaction to the threat of heretic groups, such as the Gnostics and Manichees. And before the 20th century, theologians assumed that those who practiced contraception were "fornicators" and "prostitutes."

The purpose of marriage, they believed, was producing offspring. While sex within marriage was not itself considered a sin, pleasure in sex was. The fourth-century Christian theologian Augustine characterized the sexual act between spouses as immoral self-indulgence if the couple tried to prevent conception.

Not a church priority

The church, however, had little to say about contraception for many centuries. For example, after the decline of the Roman Empire, the church did little to explicitly prohibit contraception, teach against it, or stop it, though people undoubtedly practiced it.

Most penitence manuals from the Middle Ages, which directed priests what types of sins to ask parishioners about, did not even mention contraception.

It was only in 1588 that Pope Sixtus V took the strongest conservative stance against contraception in Catholic history. With his papal bull "Effraenatam," he ordered all church and civil penalties for homicide to be brought against those who practiced contraception.

However, both church and civil authorities refused to enforce his orders, and laypeople virtually ignored them. In fact, three years after Sixtus's death, the next pope repealed most of the sanctions and told Christians to treat "Effraenatam" "as if it had never been issued."

Read more: Cómo vino la Iglesia Católica a oponerse al control de natalidad

By the mid-17th century, some church leaders even admitted couples might have legitimate reasons to limit family size to better provide for the children they already had.

Birth control becomes more visible

By the 19th century, scientific knowledge about the human reproductive system advanced, and contraceptive technologies improved. New discussions were needed.

Victorian-era sensibilities, however, deterred most Catholic clergy from preaching on issues of sex and contraception.

When an 1886 penitential manual instructed confessors to ask parishioners explicitly whether they practiced contraception and to refuse absolution for sins unless they stopped, "the order was virtually ignored."

By the 20th century, Christians in some of the most heavily Catholic countries in the world, such as France and Brazil, were among the most prodigious users of artificial contraception, leading to dramatic decline in family size.

As a consequence of this increasing availability and use of contraceptives by Catholics, church teaching on birth control - which had always been there - began to become a visible priority. The papacy decided to bring the dialogue about contraception out of scholarly theological discussions between clergy into ordinary exchanges between Catholic couples and their priests.

Regarding his frank 1930 pronouncement on birth control, "Casti Connubii," Pope Pius XI declared that contraception was inherently evil and any spouse practicing any act of contraception "violates the law of God and nature" and was "stained by a great and mortal flaw."

Condoms, diaphragms, the rhythm method and even the withdrawal method were forbidden. Only abstinence was permissible to prevent conception. Priests were to teach this so clearly and so often that no Catholic could claim ignorance of the Church's prohibition of contraception. Many theologians presumed this to be an "infallible statement" and taught it thus to Catholic laypersons for decades. Other theologians saw it as binding but "subject to future reconsideration."

In 1951, the church modified its stance again. Without overturning "Casti Connubii's" prohibition of artificial birth control, Pius XI's successor, Pius XII, deviated from its intent. He approved the rhythm method for couples who had "morally valid reasons for avoiding procreation," defining such situations quite broadly.

The pill and the church

AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews

By the early 1950s, however, options for artificial contraception were growing, including the pill. Devout Catholics wanted explicit permission to use them.

Church leaders confronted the issue head-on, expressing a variety of viewpoints.

In light of these new contraceptive technologies and developing scientific knowledge about when and how conception occurs, some leaders believed the church could not know God's will on this issue and should stop pretending that it did, as Dutch Bishop William Bekkers said outright on national television in 1963.

Even Paul VI admitted his confusion. In an interview with an Italian journalist in 1965, he stated,

"The world asks what we think and we find ourselves trying to give an answer. But what answer? We can't keep silent. And yet to speak is a real problem. But what? The Church has never in her history confronted such a problem."

There were others, however, such as Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, leader of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the body that promotes and defends Catholic doctrine - who disagreed. Among those adamantly convinced of the truth of the prohibitions was the Jesuit John Ford, perhaps the most influential U.S. Catholic moralist of the last century. Although no Scripture mentioned contraception, Ford believed the church's teachings were grounded in divine revelation and therefore not to be questioned.

The question was left for consideration by the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control, held between 1963 to 1966. This commission by an overwhelming majority - a reported 80 percent - recommended the church expand its teaching to accept artificial contraception.

That was not at all unusual. The Catholic Church had changed its stance on many controversial issues over the centuries, such as slavery, usury and Galileo's theory that the Earth revolves around the sun. Minority opinion, however, feared that to suggest the church had been wrong these last decades would be to admit the church had been lacking in direction by the Holy Spirit.

'Humanae Vitae' ignored

AP Photo/Bruce Smith

Paul VI eventually sided with this minority view and issued "Humanae Vitae," prohibiting all forms of artificial birth control. His decision, many argue, was not about contraception per se but the preservation of church authority. An outcry ensued from both priests and laypeople. One lay member of the commission commented,

"It was as if they had found some old unpublished encyclical from the 1920s in a drawer somewhere in the Vatican, dusted it off, and handed it out."

Much has changed in the Catholic Church since 1968. Today, priests make it a pastoral priority to encourage sexual pleasure between spouses. While prohibitions on birth control continue, many pastors discuss the reasons a couple might want to use artificial contraception, from protecting one partner against a sexually transmitted disease to limiting family size for the good of the family or the planet.

Despite the changes in the church's attitudes about sex, the prohibitions of "Humanae Vitae" remain. Millions of Catholics around the world, however, have simply chosen to ignore them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the Catholic Church came to oppose birth control

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This month marks the 50th anniversary of the landmark "Humanae Vitae," Pope Paul VI's strict prohibition against artificial contraception, issued in the aftermath of the development of the birth control pill. At the time, the decision shocked many Catholic priests and laypeople. Conservative Catholics, however, praised the pope for what they saw as a confirmation of traditional teachings.