I might add that from our conversation it was most clear that this priest believed his fellow priests and bishops were quite on board with his thinking on the subject and that they would all consider my views quite preposterous, if not offensive.
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear Father _________________,
Recently we had a conversation regarding the message on the
signage I use for my abortion protests as well as the Church’s position on
contraception (and abortion). I thought
it best to answer your concerns by putting my thoughts to paper and passing
them along in this way.
As I see it, there are a few questions which need asking and
answering.
1.
How are we to resolve the question of what is
the teaching of the Magisterium on the subject of contraception?
It seems more than obvious that the ordinary Catholic will
consult the current Catechism of the Catholic Church on any basic question
relating to faith and morals. In October of 1992, when Pope John Paul II
presented the current Catechism in his encyclical Fidei
Depositum, some of his instruction was as follows:
It can be said that this catechism is the result of the collaboration
of the whole Episcopate of the Catholic Church, who generously accepted my
invitation to share responsibility for an enterprise which directly concerns
the life of the Church. This response elicits in me a deep feeling of joy,
because the harmony of so many voices truly expresses what could be called the
symphony of the faith. The achievement of this catechism thus reflects the
collegial nature of the Episcopate: it testifies to the Church's catholicity.
….
A catechism should faithfully and systematically present the teaching
of Sacred Scripture, the living Tradition of the Church and the authentic
Magisterium, as well as the spiritual heritage of the Fathers and the Church's
saints, to allow for a better knowledge of the Christian mystery and for
enlivening the faith of the People of God. It should take into account the
doctrinal statements which down the centuries the Holy Spirit has intimated to
his Church. It should also help illumine with the light of faith the new
situations and problems which had not yet emerged in the past.
….
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and
the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is
a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or
illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's
Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial
communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.
….
This catechism is given to them [Church's Pastors and the Christian
faithful] that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching
Catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms.
Given these bold pronouncements from the Pope, let us review
the Catechism’s teaching on contraception:
Beginning at paragraph 2366, the
text deals with “The Fecundity of Marriage” and continues through to 2372. The
key statement concerning contraception is contained in 2370:
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation
based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity
with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of
the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an
authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in
anticipation of the conjugal act, 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" is intrinsically evil:
Thus the innate language that
expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid,
through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that
of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive
refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of
conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality…The
difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse
to the rhythm of the cycle…involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable
concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.
Not surprisingly then, we find in the Compendium
of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is a “faithful and sure
synthesis of the Catechism” according to Pope Benedict XVI:
"What are immoral means of birth control? Every action -- for
example, direct sterilization or contraception -- is intrinsically immoral
which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in
the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means,
to hinder procreation." (Compendium, n. 498)
Therefore there can be no doubt that the Catholic who seeks
an answer to the question “What is the teaching of the Magisterium on the
subject of contraception?” quickly discovers from authoritative sources that,
in a nutshell, it is an intrinsically evil act which is contrary to natural
law, human sexuality and married love. Spouses do not have recourse to
contraception if they wish to space the births of their children.
2.
To press the point to a serious limit, even to questioning
the essence of what the Pope asserted in Fidei
Depositum, is it possible that this teaching on contraception was an
orchestrated effort of Pope John Paul II to insert his personal views on this
subject and that the Magisterial
teaching differs substantially from this view?
To answer such a bold charge it is sufficient to examine the
express statements of other Popes in modern times who have sought to address
the sanctity of marriage and family. Unsurprisingly, their statements were
especially pointed to what each considered to be the principal threat against marriage
and family in our time, i.e. artificial birth control.
In 1930 Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical Casti
Connubii. This encyclical prohibited Catholics from using any form of
artificial birth control and judged that contraception was intrinsically
contrary to nature, gravely sinful matter and “those who commit such an action
are stained with the guilt of grave sin.”
In 1951, Pope Pius XII, in an Address to Midwives
said the following:
"Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical
Casti Connubii, of December 31, 1930, once again solemnly proclaimed the
fundamental law of the conjugal act and conjugal relations: that every attempt
of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the
development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its
inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no
'indication' or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a
moral and lawful one.
“This precept is in full force today, as it was in the past, and so it
will be in the future also, and always, because it is not a simple human whim,
but the expression of a natural and divine law.”
In 1961, Pope John XXIII issued his encyclical Mater
Et Magistra and reiterated that artificial birth control was contrary
to the “inviolable and immutable laws of God” and was a “means … opposed to
right reason.”
The transmission of human life is the result of a personal and
conscious act, and, as such, is subject to the all-holy, inviolable and
immutable laws of God, which no man may ignore or disobey. He is not therefore
permitted to use certain ways and means which are allowable in the propagation
of plant and animal life. (193)
They (parents) must instill in them (children) an unshakable confidence
in Divine Providence and a determination to accept the inescapable sacrifices
and hardships involved in so noble and important a task as the co-operation
with God in the transmitting of human life and the bringing up of children.
(195)
Genesis relates how God gave two commandments to our first parents: to
transmit human life -- "Increase and mutliply"[44] -- and to bring
nature into their service -- "Fill the earth, and subdue it."[45]
These two commandments are complementary. (196)
Nothing is said in the second of these commandments about destroying
nature. On the contrary, it must be brought into the service of human life. (197)
In 1965, Gaudium
et Spes, one of the four Apostolic Constitutions resulting from the
Second Vatican Council, was promulgated. It was explicitly confirmed in n. 51
of Gaudium Et Spes that :
"In questions of birth regulation the sons of the Church ... are
forbidden to use methods disapproved by the Magisterium"
Precise reference was made to note 14 in which the passage
quoting Casti Connubii declares contraception to be a grave sin.
Clearly Casti Connubii was considered
to be authoritative teaching up to that point by the Council. The note further
goes on to say that outstanding questions on the subject of artificial birth
control will be taken up by the Pope’s commission, after which “the Supreme
Pontiff may pass judgment” which indeed took place in 1968.
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical Humanae
Vitae condemning any use of artificial birth control. The Pope rejected
the Majority Commission’s recommendations—the Supreme Pontiff’s prerogative—and
refused to overturn opposition to contraception. A firestorm of dissent erupted
from this encyclical and the storm continues unabated today. However, earlier
and later statements by Pope Paul VI, including his General Audience
immediately following publication of the encyclical, make clear that the Pope
felt the grave burden of his ruling. As Fr Lino Ciccone, C.M., Professor of
Moral Theology, in Lugano, Switzerland noted:
Nothing could be clearer than the fact that for Paul VI the problem and
its solution had such weight and importance that one cannot accept the
hypothesis that a slight moral disorder, on the lines of "venial
sin", is at stake. It is clear then, merely on the basis of these few points,
that for the Magisterium contraception is such a morally disordered form of
behaviour that it constitutes gravely sinful matter.
True, Humanae Vitae
was not an infallible pronouncement, but what Pope Paul VI, the Universal
Shepherd and Teacher, said was not only in conformity to the established
Magisterium of that day, but has proved to be eerily prophetic. How should the
faithful respond? Returning to Gaudium et
Spes:
“Religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way
to the authentic teaching of the Pope, even when he is not speaking infallibly;
judgments made by him must be sincerely adhered to according to his manifest
mind and will.”
In 1981, Pope John Paul II, echoing the voices of fellow
Bishops in the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris
Consortio, began to make significant statements about Humanae Vitae. He said:
Thus, in continuity with the living tradition of the ecclesial
community throughout history, the recent Second Vatican Council and the
magisterium of my predecessor Paul VI, expressed above all in the Encyclical
Humanae Vitae, have handed on to our times a truly prophetic proclamation,
which reaffirms and reproposes with clarity the Church's teaching and norm,
always old yet always new, regarding marriage and regarding the transmission of
human life.
For this reason the Synod Fathers made the following declaration at
their last assembly: "This Sacred Synod, gathered together with the
Successor of Peter in the unity of faith, firmly holds what has been set forth
in the Second Vatican Council (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 50) and afterwards in the
Encyclical Humanae vitae, particularly that love between husband and wife must
be fully human, exclusive and open to new life (Humanae vitae, 11; cf. 9,
12)."(83)
In a Wikipedia article on Humanae Vitae, Pope John Paul’s
contributing thought is offered:
After he became pope in 1978, John Paul II continued on the Catholic
Theology of the Body of his predecessors with a series of lectures, entitled
Theology of the Body, in which he talked about an original unity between man
and women,[51] purity of heart (on the Sermon on the Mount), marriage and
celibacy and reflections on Humane Vitae, focusing largely on responsible
parenthood and marital chastity.[52] John Paul II readdressed some of the same
issues in his 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor. He reaffirmed much of Humanae
Vitae, and specifically described the practice of artificial contraception as
an act not permitted by Catholic teaching in any circumstances. The same
encyclical also clarifies the use of conscience in arriving at moral decisions,
including in the use of contraception. However, John Paul also said, “It is not
right then to regard the moral conscience of the individual and the magisterium
of the Church as two contenders, as two realities in conflict. The authority
which the magisterium enjoys by the will of Christ exists so that the moral
conscience can attain the truth with security and remain in it.” John Paul
quoted Humanae Vitae as a compassionate encyclical, "Christ has come not
to judge the world but to save it, and while he was uncompromisingly stern
towards sin, he was patient and rich in mercy towards sinners".[53]
In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI, in his encyclical letter on the
Church's social doctrine, Caritas
in Veritate, referred to Humanae Vitae,
affirming its importance "for delineating the fully human meaning of the
development that the Church proposes" (Caritas
in Veritate, no. 15). He pointed out that the teaching of Humanae Vitae could not be brushed off
as simply a matter of "individual morality:"
Humanae Vitae indicates the strong links between life ethics and social
ethics, ushering in a new area of magisterial teaching that has gradually been
articulated in a series of documents, most recently John Paul II's Encyclical
Evangelium Vitae (Caritas in Veritate, no. 15).
In the Wikipedia article on Humanae Vitae previously cited, we are
reminded of Pope Benedict XVI’s explosive characterization of Humanae Vitae, likening it to a “sign of
contradiction,” which, in Catholic theology, refers to someone
who, upon manifesting the presence of Christ, is subject to extreme opposition:
On 12 May 2008, Benedict XVI accepted an invitation to talk to
participants in the International Congress organized by the Pontifical Lateran
University on the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae. He put the encyclical in
the broader view of love in a global context, a topic he called "so
controversial, yet so crucial for humanity's future." Humanae Vitae became
"a sign of contradiction but also of continuity of the Church's doctrine
and tradition... What was true yesterday is true also today."[54] The
Church continues to reflect "in an ever new and deeper way on the
fundamental principles that concern marriage and procreation." The key
message of Humanae Vitae is love. Benedict states that the fullness of a person
is achieved by a unity of soul and body, but neither spirit nor body alone can
love, only the two together. If this unity is broken, if only the body is
satisfied, love becomes a commodity.[55]
To summarize, beyond a reasonable doubt we can say that,
even if we exclude the time frame before Humanae
Vitae, in our present time the ordinary and universal Magisterium has
taught against contraception definitively and infallibly.
3.
What of those who deny the teaching of the
Church on contraception?
To deny all these—and more—official statements of Popes,
including supporting evidence from Vatican II and various Synods of Bishops, in
favour of arguments from theologians and others who, in many cases, promote and
agitate for change with personal opinions in favour of contraception, is, I
believe, to cross a dangerous red line. However, a few comments are in order.
In the world of faith and religion heresy
is a real phenomenon. At least it surely is in the Catholic world. In regard to
Church teaching on contraception, a knowing choice to reject the plain teaching
of the Magisterium on this, as in any important matter of morality, constitutes
formal heresy. Many Catholics are fully aware and publicly proclaim that the
Church teaches the immorality of contraception, but then go on to repudiate the
teaching. Again, by simple definition, this is an act of formal heresy.
What of the claim that whether the use of contraception is
moral or not depends on the person’s judgment, i.e. his conscience or the
advice of his confessor?
First, let’s address the conscience claim. Let the words of
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI settle the question, from a 1990 address entitled Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian
delivered as Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect for Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith, the Church’s highest doctrinal office. Pope John Paul II ordered its
publication.
38. Finally, argumentation appealing to the obligation to follow one's
own conscience cannot legitimate dissent. This is true, first of all, because
conscience illumines the practical judgment about a decision to make, while
here we are concerned with the truth of a doctrinal pronouncement. This is
furthermore the case because while the theologian, like every believer, must
follow his conscience, he is also obliged to form it. Conscience is not an
independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgement regarding a
responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by
the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the
will in the pursuit of the true good.
The right conscience of the Catholic theologian presumes not only faith
in the Word of God whose riches he must explore, but also love for the Church
from whom he receives his mission, and respect for her divinely assisted
Magisterium. Setting up a supreme magisterium of conscience in opposition to
the magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination
incompatible with the economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church
and thus also with a correct understanding of theology and the role of the
theologian. The propositions of faith are not the product of mere individual
research and free criticism of the Word of God but constitute an ecclesial
heritage. If there occur a separation from the Bishops who watch over and keep
the apostolic tradition alive, it is the bond with Christ which is irreparably
compromised(38).
Secondly, now look at an official Church document entitled Vademecum For Confessors Concerning Some
Aspects Of The Morality Of Conjugal Life which instructs confessors (priests,
Bishops, etc.) on the subject of contraception:
Prop. 2.4. The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of
contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful.
This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is
gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the
transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the
reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it
harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of
human life.33
Imagine the vast and profound damage done in a society such
as Canada when Catholics who seek the forgiveness of God and whose intention is
to lead better, reformed lives, are confused and deceived by confessors who,
knowing the official teaching of Mother Church, fail to transmit the truth of
the faith in clarity and simplicity. It is no surprise then that some,
including Cardinal Edouard Gagnon, PSS (1918-2007), one-time President of the
Council for the Family, have characterized
the Canadian Catholic Church (i.e. the majority of the Bishops of the Canadian
Catholic Church) as one in de facto schism
with Rome and the Pope.
There are other heresies related to the teaching on contraception,
e.g., that contraception, while immoral, is not intrinsically evil. These can
similarly be refuted.
4.
Is it not possible to argue from the theological
principle of probabilism that since there are good reasons and good authorities
on both sides of the moral issue of contraception that Catholics are free to
make up their own minds?
Some have claimed that Catholic theology retains a path to liberal
pluralism in moral matters and this method is called
"probabilism." Put another way, probabilism is said to “bless
diversity of opinion in morally debated areas.” Many opposed to Church teaching
posit that any significant debate among theologians and the faithful can
constitute a sensus fidelium and invoke it in
order to contest the teachings of the Magisterium. In fact, probabilism is used
by a multitude of wayward Catholics to justify abortion, contraception,
homosexual sex, same sex “marriage” etc.
Dr. Brian Clowes of Human Life International provides a
useful summary
of this principle and its proper application.
The fundamental principle of probabilism is “lex dubia non obligat” or
"A doubtful law does not bind."
This leads to the obvious conclusion that an established law does bind,
and that the principle of probabilism may never be used when a prohibiting law
is certain, as is the Church's prohibition of abortion.9 Maguire's statement that "...
probabilism taught that in respectably debated issues, where good people for
good reason disagree, conscience is free" is obviously a thinly disguised
endorsement of situational ethics, and is completely false.
Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia describes the proper role of
probabilism: "Probabilism asserted
that liberty from a law was to be held in possession until the opposite was held
to probably be the case."10
Theologians originally proposed the principle of probabilism only for
those very rare instances where scientific or theological knowledge of a
subject was incomplete, or where the Church had not yet clearly outlined its
teachings on the subject.
There is no doubt whatsoever about the Church's condemnation of
abortion, sterilization and contraception.
Probabilism can never apply to a universal moral prohibition. Therefore, the principle of probabilism does
not apply in these cases.
---CFFC
Argument #2: 2(a)
The ultimate extension of the principle of probabilism, when
used to oppose Church teaching, is an argument for the primacy of conscience,
superseding even the Magisterium.
5.
On what basis can abortion and contraception be
characterized as evil twins?
It has been established that the Magisterium of the Catholic
Church has taught that both abortion and contraception are intrinsic evils. Intrinsically
evil actions are opposed to the moral law and may never be engaged in under any
circumstances. There are many other evils named by the Magisterium, such as
embryonic stem cell research, cloning, rape, incest, etc. but abortion and
contraception can be uniquely paired as explained by Pope John Paul II in his
1995 encyclical Evangelium
Vitae.
It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and
available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic
Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately
continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at
carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use
contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion.
But the negative values inherent in the “contraceptive mentality – which is
very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth
of the conjugal act – are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation
when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed,
the pro-abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church’s
teaching on contraception is rejected. (my emphasis) Certainly, from the
moral point of view contraception and abortion are specifically different
evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper
expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human
being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter
is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine
commandment “You shall not kill”.
But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity,
contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same
tree. It is true that in many cases contraception and even abortion are
practiced under the pressure of real- life difficulties, which nonetheless can
never exonerate from striving to observe God's law fully. Still, in very many
other instances such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling
to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a
self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to
personal fulfillment. The life that could result from a sexual encounter thus
becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only
possible decisive response to failed contraception.
So here we have two evil actions which have been described
as fruits of the same tree, although their differences in nature and moral
gravity have been acknowledged. Taking the analogy just a little further, any
two fruits from the same tree are of the same species, like brothers or
sisters, though they may have different outward characteristics. Being of the
same species they both draw from the same genetic parental makeup so it is only
a small step to call them twins. In this same sense abortion and contraception
may be termed evil twins. They are both evils and they both originate from the
same parents, moral indifference or rebellion.
In addition to being linked through a common mentality, as
indicated by Pope John Paul II, abortion and contraception are linked in other
more practical ways. As Father Frank Pavone of Priests For Life explains:
They are linked sociologically. Every culture and subculture which has
opened the doors to contraception has likewise experienced an increased
practice of abortion. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research division of
Planned Parenthood, indicates the following as the main reasons women offer for
their abortions. Ask yourself what resemblance they bear to the reasons for
birth control. "On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing
abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other
responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do
not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or
partner" (from the website www.agi-usa.org ).
They are linked in law and jurisprudence. In 1973, the Supreme Court's
Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion clearly built upon the recognized
privacy right behind contraception. In 1992, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe
in its Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision, and explained that they could not
remove the "right" to abortion from "people who, for two decades
of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and
made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society,
in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception
should fail" (505 U.S. 833, 835).
They are sometimes linked by being identical. Some
"contraceptives" have a backup mechanism whereby a newly-developing
life may be destroyed in its microscopic stages. These drugs and devices are
abortifacients, capable of causing early and usually unknown abortions. The
morally relevant point here is that "it is objectively a grave sin to dare
to risk murder" (Declaration on Procured Abortion, 1974, n.12-13). If your
action might kill a person, and you do it, you declare your willingness to kill
a person (like shooting at what is behind the bush when you are uncertain
whether it is a bear or a man).
Pope Benedict XVI at various times also highlighted the
connection between the two evils. In 2010 he told a group of visiting Romanian
bishops to resist the “scourges” of abortion and artificial birth control.
Speaking to Latin American bishops in Aparecida, Brazil in May 2007, Benedict
XVI also condemned abortion and contraception and laws that permit them. Such
laws, he said, are “threatening the future of peoples.” We see here that Pope
Benedict recognized that civil authorities had the duty to proscribe the evils
of society and placed contraception in the same category as abortion, as an
evil that civil authorities should outlaw.
Even Pope Pius XI in his 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii recognized the “evil
twins” link. His encyclical repeats the Church's sweeping condemnation of
abortion in every instance and observes a very real connection between parents
who contracept and the same parents who will kill their unplanned children.
. . .those wicked parents who seek to remain childless, and failing in
this, are not ashamed to put their offspring to death.
Summary:
I believe, Father, that the message contained on the signage
which I use outside various parishes is indeed 100% faithful to the teaching of
the Catholic Church and is an urgent message needing courageous response from
all Canadian Catholics, whether laity, priests or Bishops. Furthermore the
graphic image of abortion which I use alongside the text message testifies to
the horror of a current evil practice about which we, as a society, are more or
less silent. God have mercy upon us!
May God guide you today and always.
