Marriage is not an institution that can be
subjected to arbitrary manipulation by individuals or society. The moral
laws
regarding it are the same for all people in
all places at all times. These moral principles arise directly from the
Wisdom of
God the Creator and they simultaneously express
and protect the dignity of the human person. "Humanae Vitae" warned
that the rejection of its norms would open
up a great wound at the heart of society. Subsequent history is proving
what a
true prophet Pope Paul VI really was.
Contraception
In reaffirming in "Humanae Vitae" the constant
teaching of the Church regarding the moral laws pertaining to the
transmission of life, Pope Paul VI was thereby
intending to clarify a point in the first article of the Creed concerning
God
the Creator of life.
In doing so, Pope Paul VI recalled the teaching
of Pope John XXIII who said: "All must regard the life of man as sacred,
since from its inception, it requires the
action of God the Creator."
The human person is a union of body and soul.
Only God can bring into existence the immortal and spiritual soul of the
human person. Referring to this truth of faith,
the Catholic Catechism says: "The Church teaches that every spiritual soul
is created immediately by God -- it is not
produced by the parents."
Shedding further light on this same truth,
Pope John Paul II said: "God himself is present in human fatherhood and
motherhood. ... Indeed, God alone is the source
of that 'image and likeness' which is proper to the human being, as it
was received at Creation. Begetting is the
continuation of Creation."
In the performance of the conjugal act, the
structure of which belongs to the natural order which has God as its Creator,
it is God himself and not the married couple
who is the final arbiter as to whether or not a new human being will come
into existence through conception. Consequently,
contraceptive acts are a negation of the honor due to the Creator since
by engaging in them a married couple seek
to impede any possible creative intervention by God.
Speaking of this, Pope John Paul II said: "When,
therefore, through contraception, married couples remove from the
exercise of their conjugal sexuality its potential
procreative capacity, they claim a power which belongs solely to God;
the power to decide in the final analysis
the coming into existence of a human person. They assume the qualification
not
of being cooperators in God's creative power,
but the ultimate depositories of the source of human life. In this
perspective, contraception is to be judged
so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified. To say
or think
the contrary is equal to maintaining that
in human life situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize
God as
God."
By contracepting, a married couple seek to
usurp God's role as Creator. In proclaiming the doctrine of "Humanae Vitae,"
Pope Paul VI was concerned to warn married
couples against the temptation of adopting this contemptuous attitude to
the Creator which is inherent in the contraceptive
way of life.
He said: "Just as man does not have unlimited
dominion over his body in general, so also, with particular reason, he
has
no such domination over his generative faculties
as such, because of their intrinsic ordination toward raising up life,
of
which God is the principle."
Speaking of contraception as an objective refusal
to recognize God as Creator, Dr. Siegfried Ernst, M.D., said: "The
essence of contraception is the exclusion
of the creative quality of human sexuality in favor of the mere production
of
pleasure and ecstasy. No psychological theories
and excuses, however ingenious, can conceal the fact that the
exclusion of creation from the closest and
most intimate human relationship -- total physical and spiritual union
in the
creation of new human life -- means the exclusion
of the Creator himself."
The Link Between Contraception and Abortion
Speaking of the consequences of not giving
the Creator the honor that is his due, Father Joseph M. de Torre says:
"When human life is considered without reference
to a transcendent God as source and end of it, it loses all its intrinsic
value, whether this is done in the name of
liberalism or of socialism."
The accuracy of Father de Torre's observation
was demonstrated in an editorial which appeared in the London Economist
on June 21, 1997. Supporting the legalization
of "assisted suicide," this Economist editorial stated: "Western religions
have an answer, and it is uncompromising:
it is wrong for individuals to end the lives that God has given them. The
classic liberal position, which is that of
the Economist, starts from a different premise. Individuals have a right
to
self-determination, and this includes -- perhaps,
naturally culminates in -- the right to cut short one's life."
Being expressive of an objective refusal to
acknowledge God as the final arbiter of the coming into existence of a
new
human being, the disregard for the Author
of Life which is characteristic of the contraceptive attitude, fosters
disregard for
the sanctity of life in general.
In this regard, it is noteworthy how Pope John
Paul II has frequently drawn attention to the link between contraception
and abortion. On one occasion, while speaking
to a group of Austrian bishops about the doctrine of "Humanae Vitae,"
the Holy Father said: "No doubt may be permitted
regarding the validity of the moral prescriptions expressed therein
[Humanae Vitae]. ... The invitation to contraception
as a supposedly 'harmless' manner of the relation between the sexes
is not only an insidious denial of man's moral
freedom. It fosters a depersonalized understanding of sexuality which is
restricted mainly to the moment and promotes
in the last analysis that mentality out of which abortion arises and from
which it is continuously nourished."
In "Evangelium Vitae," Pope John Paul II stated
that the pro-abortion culture is especially strong wherever the Church's
teaching on contraception is rejected. While
acknowledging the difference in nature and moral gravity between
contraception and abortion, the Holy Father
nevertheless stated that "contraception and abortion are often closely
connected, as fruits of the same tree."
Speaking of a "hedonistic mentality" which
is "unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality" and "which
regards procreation as an obstacle to personal
fulfillment," Pope John Paul II added: "The life which 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."
It has been known for many years now that certain
"contraceptives," so-called, actually act as abortifacients.
Unfortunately, theologians and others who
dissent from the doctrine of "Humanae Vitae" and who encourage married
couples to do the same, frequently fail to
draw attention to this abortifacient nature of various forms of "contraceptives."
The connection between contraception and abortion
is evident in the fact that both IUDs and contraceptive pills are
known to have abortifacient capacities. Writing
in the Medical Journal of Australia in 1987, Dr. Alan Trounson and
professor Karl Wood called for greater freedom
to carry out destructive experiments on human embryos on the grounds
that the community already accepted the use
of "intrauterine devices which kill early embryos."
The fact that the pill can act as an abortifacient
was well documented by John Wilks in his 1996 book "A Consumers
Guide to the Pill and Other Drugs." The pill
acts as a contraceptive when it suppresses ovulation or when it prevents
the
sperm reaching the egg by altering female
secretions. However, if these modes of operation fail, the pill can still
act to
prevent implantation of the fertilized egg
in which case it induces an abortion.
Apart from the direct links between abortion
and contraception as outlined above, attitudes also need to be taken into
account when analyzing contraceptive behavior.
Describing the contra-life nature of contraception, one group of
distinguished moralists said:
Usually when people contracept, they are interested
in sexual intercourse which they think might lead to conception. If
they did not think that, they would have no
reason to contracept. They look ahead and think about the baby whose life
they might initiate. Perhaps for some further
good reason, perhaps not, they find the prospect repugnant: "We do not
want that possible baby to begin to live."
As the very definition of contraception makes clear, that will is contra-life;
it is a
practical (though not necessarily an emotional)
hatred of the possible baby they project and reject, just as the will to
accept the coming to be of a baby is a practical
love of that possible person.
Speaking of the link between contraception
and abortion, Dr. Siegfried Ernst, M.D., said: "The anti-baby pill has
made it
possible to separate, fundamentally and radically,
the production of pleasure from the act of procreation. It thus
automatically started the 'sexual revolution.'
... Having become 'safe,' sexual acts have multiplied as a result of
contemporary propaganda touting 'the right
to a happy sexual life.' 'Accidents' have increased proportionately despite
-- or
has been in consequence of? -- the anti-baby
pill. And those 'unwanted children' must logically, be removed by abortion."
Professor Janet Smith also drew attention to
the link between contraception and abortion when she said: "Contraception
takes the baby-making element out of sexual
intercourse. It makes pregnancy seem like an accident of sexual
intercourse rather than the natural consequence
that responsible individuals ought to be prepared for. Abortion, then,
becomes thinkable as a solution to an unwanted
pregnancy. Contraception enables those who are not prepared to care
for babies to engage in sexual intercourse;
when they become pregnant, they resent the unborn child for intruding itself
upon their lives and they turn to the solution
of abortion. It should be no surprise that countries that are permeated
by
contraceptive sex, fight harder for access
to abortion than they do to ensure that all babies can survive both in
the womb
and out. It is foolish for pro-lifers to think
that they can avoid the issues of contraception and sexual irresponsibility
and
be successful in the fight against abortion."
This link between the contraceptive mentality
and abortion was well illustrated in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in
Planned Parenthood v. Casey which confirmed
Roe v. Wade.
This decision stated that "In some critical
respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use
contraception. ... For two decades of economic
and social developments, people 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."
Commenting on this Supreme Court decision,
Professor Janet Smith said: "The Supreme Court decision has made
completely unnecessary any efforts to 'expose'
what is really behind the attachment of the modern age to abortion. As
the Supreme Court candidly states, we need
abortion so that we can continue our contraceptive lifestyles. It is not
because contraceptives are ineffective that
a million and a half women a year seek abortions as backups to failed
contraceptives. The 'intimate relationships'
facilitated by contraceptives are what make abortions 'necessary.' ...
Here the
word 'intimate' means 'sexual'; it does not
mean 'loving and close.' Abortion is most often the result of sexual
relationships in which there is little true
intimacy and love, in which there is no room for a baby, the natural consequence
of sexual intercourse."
To
View helpless babies murdered by babykilling abortionists like Barnett
Slepian
Back
to Army of God Home Page.
Genesis 9: 6
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by
man shall his blood be shed:
for in the image of God made he
man.
Numbers 35:33 So ye shall not pollute
the land wherein ye are:
for blood it defileth the land:
and the land cannot be cleansed of the
blood that is shed therein, but
by the blood of him that shed it.