34. Transmission and Preservation of Life: Contraception and Abortion
There is a close connection in the mentality of contraception and that of abortion. Even if they are sins that are opposed to different virtues, both are products of the same negative values inherent in the “contraceptive mentality.”
40. Contraception
A couple that has economic or health difficulties may see their family increase excessively if they do not refrain from sexual intercourse during certain periods of time. Several physical, moral, and economic factors can sometimes combine to create a crisis situation. These circumstances are often put forward as strong arguments for the limitation of births.
Such demands are linked with the name of Thomas Malthus, an Anglican clergyman, author of Essay on the Principle of Population (1798). According to Malthusian doctrine, the limitation of births is an economic necessity, since—it maintains—the means of subsistence, which increase by arithmetic progression, cannot keep up with population, which naturally increases by geometric progression. Utilitarians regard the principle of maximization of pleasure accompanied by the minimization of pain as the primary rule of human morality. Since sexual intercourse gives men and women so much pleasure—they conclude—means must be found to spare them the need to refrain from it, even when they do not want offspring.
However, man is endowed with reason not so that he may calculate the maximum of pleasure that is obtainable in this life, but that he may seek knowledge of objective truth, as a basis for absolute principles (norms) to live by. Human morality cannot be grounded in utility alone; it must sink its roots in justice. In sexual matters, it is not enough to affirm that a particular mode of behavior is expedient. We must be able to show that it is just.
“Contraception is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [or indeed any genital act], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, either as end or as means, to impede procreation.”1 These actions normally impede the union of egg and sperm before, during, or after sexual intercourse. Some contraceptive mechanisms work by interfering with the purpose of the act of intercourse by placing an artificial barrier between the sperm and the ovum, as in the use of an external device, such as a condom. Some work by destroying the viability of the sperm, as in the case of spermicidal jellies or douches. Long-term contraception is achieved by means of ligation or vasectomy; both are forms of physical castration. Chemical contraception is achieved with the birth control pill.
The marriage act has two functions: a biological or procreative function, and a spiritual-unitive function. Some erroneously claim that contraception suspends the procreative aspect, leaving intact its unitive aspect, and thus, it is lawful. However, the marriage act is a human act (therefore with a material aspect and a spiritual aspect). The unitive and procreative aspects are not two separated acts. If one of these fundamental aspects is artificially removed, the resultant act is no longer a marriage act but a “genital act.” Thus, the two aspects of the marriage act cannot be separated. If one deliberately nullifies the life-oriented process of the conjugal act, one destroys its essential power to signify union.
Birth control is not a merely biological question, but primarily an ethical one. By depriving the marital act of its procreative capacity (by contraception), it becomes a moral disorder against the virtue of chastity. From being an act of mutual self-giving, it becomes an act of mutual masturbation. And by doing so, married couples make their sexual act to be not an act of true marital union, but one that mocks and simulates their one-flesh unity.2 If they choose to do this, their sexual union is no longer truly a conjugal act, because they do not truly give themselves unreservedly to one another. Their (loosely speaking) genital act is not only anti-life but also anti-love.
Contraception is a falsification of love:
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.3
Many are the means towards this end that need to be developed with skill and serious commitment. At the first stage of life, centers for natural methods of regulating fertility should be promoted as a valuable help to responsible parenthood, in which all individuals, and in the first place the child, are recognized and respected in their own right, and where every decision is guided by the ideal of the sincere gift of self.4
The state attacks the family if it uses its power to:
· encourage small families through taxation or housing policies,
· disseminate and distribute contraceptives,
· provide incentives for sterilization, or even enforce it.5
The slogan that is voiced by champions of “free love,” utilitarianism, and individualism is that “no unwanted child ought ever to be born.” Opposed to it is a truth that is rooted in the reality and dignity of human existence, namely that “no person, including children, ought to be unwanted.”6
41. Morality of Contraception
The Catechism states: “Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”7
Love and sexuality cannot be identified or separated. To identify love with sexuality is to destroy the human meaning of both. The unitive and procreative aspects of the marriage act cannot be separated. Any act of contraception, be it by pills, condoms, withdrawal, or ligation is always wrong, and if this is done with full knowledge and full consent, it is always a mortal sin. Every marriage act must be open to the transmission of human life.8
To use the divine gift of the marriage act to destroy its meaning and purpose—even if only partially—is to contradict the nature of both man and woman and their most intimate relationship and, therefore, also the plan of God and his will.9
“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.10 This is a very strong term for the Church to use.
Some may pose the question, “Can a marriage be open to life in general but not in particular?” Pope Paul VI answers:
It is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse that is deliberately contraceptive in a specific instance and so intrinsically wrong.11
All forms of contraception are immoral for all people, not just for Catholics.
42. Abortion
Both the Christian Tradition and the teachings of the Church, all based on the teaching of the Scriptures on the sacredness of life, are unanimous in condemning abortion. Abortion willed either as an end or a means is gravely contrary to the moral law. Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.12 Evangelium Vitae declared:
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. 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.”13
With regard to things, but even more with regard to life, man is not the absolute master and final judge, but rather—and this is where his incomparable greatness lies—he is the “minister of God’s plan.”14 Life is entrusted to man as a treasure and a talent that must be used well. Man must render an account of it to his Master (cf. Mt 25:14–30; Lk 19:12–27). Thus, man is answerable to God for the way he uses creation, and especially for the way he treats life. God himself is the promoter and defender of life; he provides life directly, and forbids its destruction. Thus, John Paul II solemnly declared:
By the authority that Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral.…
The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action.15
From the declaration that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral, even when it is performed as a means to a good end, the application of this moral principle to abortion is natural and inevitable, for there is no more innocent, weak, and defenseless human being than a baby in the womb. The unborn child is totally entrusted by nature (hence, by God) to the protection and care of the woman carrying him in the womb.
Today, in many people’s consciences, the perception of the gravity of abortion has become progressively obscured. The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behavior and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception.
Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as “interruption of pregnancy,” which tends to hide abortion’s true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.
The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor! He or she is weak, defenseless, even to the point of lacking that minimal form of defense consisting in the poignant power of a newborn baby’s cries and tears. The unborn child is totally entrusted to the protection and care of the woman carrying him or her in the womb. And yet sometimes it is precisely the mother herself who makes the decision and asks for the child to be eliminated, and who then goes about having it done.16
Evangelium Vitae concedes that there may be emotional, social, economic, and eugenic pressures on the parents of the unborn child that seemingly favor abortion, but, nevertheless, “these reasons … can never justify the killing of an innocent human being.”17
There are persons and institutions that are responsible for abortion, among them the parents, doctors, legislators, those who encourage sexual permissiveness, and international institutions that campaign (or pay) for the legalization of abortion.
The Church well knows that it is difficult to mount an effective legal defense of life in pluralistic democracies, because of the presence of strong cultural currents with differing outlooks. At the same time, certain that moral truth cannot fail to make its presence deeply felt in every conscience, the Church encourages political leaders, starting with those who are Christians, not to give in, but to make those choices which, taking into account what is realistically attainable, will lead to the re-establishment of a just order in the defense and promotion of the value of life. Here it must be noted that it is not enough to remove unjust laws. The underlying causes of attacks on life have to be eliminated, especially by ensuring proper support for families and motherhood. A family policy must be the basis and driving force of all social policies. For this reason there need to be set in place social and political initiatives capable of guaranteeing conditions of true freedom of choice in matters of parenthood. It is also necessary to rethink labor, urban, residential and social service policies so as to harmonize working schedules with time available for the family, so that it becomes effectively possible to take care of children and the elderly.18
The condemnation of abortion applies also to the experimentation on human embryos and to euthanasia.
43. Mechanism of Contraceptives and Abortifacient Pills
There is a close connection in mentality between the practice of contraception and that of abortion. It is being demonstrated in an alarming way by the development of chemical products, intrauterine devices, and vaccines that, distributed with the same ease as contraceptives, really act as abortifacients in the very early stages of the development of the life of the new human being. The so-called pill is one of these widespread chemical products. The pill has three mechanisms of action:
i) Inhibition of ovulation
ii) Prevention of fertilization (union of sperm and ovum)
iii) Obstruction of the implantation of zygote in the uterine wall (nidation)
The first and second mechanisms are contraceptive, while the third is abortive. The abortive mechanism is becoming increasingly used in place of the contraceptive mechanism of inhibiting ovulation, which is now viewed as disruptive of the woman’s normal cycles. The abortifacient mechanism works by preventing nidation, the process by which the fertilized ovum (a new baby) is implanted in the wall of the uterus, which is necessary for its growth and development. Having prevented nidation, the abortive mechanism then expels the baby from the uterus.
The pill is composed of two synthetic hormones called estrogen and progesterone. The early versions of the pill consisted of high doses of both hormones. This, it was found, led to a high incidence of complications. Companies in the US have now decided to push low-dose combinations and have withdrawn the high dose pills. The low-dose pills permit more ovulation and more conception, and hence rely more heavily on chemical abortion. Chemical abortion can occur in 2%–10% of female cycles (i.e., one cycle per year).19
Nevertheless, from the ethical point of view, there is no objection to a therapeutic use of pills in some purely gynecological disorders, provided that its contraceptive effect is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever, and the possibility of its abortifacient effect is absolutely eliminated.20 It is never licit to use these drugs for contraceptive purposes, i.e., to avoid a pregnancy that could aggravate a medical condition, like grave cardiopathy, tuberculosis, or physical exhaustion.
43a) Direct Abortifacients
(1) Depoprovera
Depoprovera has been labeled a long-term contraceptive but is in fact an abortifacient. It comes in the form of an injection. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has deemed this drug unsafe for American women but has not discouraged its producers (Upjohn) from promoting and distributing it to third world countries.21
(2) RU 486
RU 486 (produced by Roussel-Uclaf) prevents the uptake of progesterone, a necessary hormone in the early stages of pregnancy. Expulsion of the baby occurs in about 86% of women within 24 hours.22 It causes severe bleeding, at times lasting up to 42 days.
(3) IUD (Intra-uterine device)
The IUD (Intra-uterine device) is a plastic device of various shapes that is placed inside the uterus. It alters the lining of the uterus by producing local irritation. It seems to produce inflammation of the uterine mucosa that impedes the implantation of the ovum. Likewise, it alters the mechanism of transport of the spermatocytes. The developing child (fertilized ovum) who has come from the fallopian tube cannot implant and thus dies. The IUD has anti-implantation and abortive effects.
The morning after pill works in the same way as the IUD.
(4) Norplant
Norplant is a series of six non-biodegradable rubber-like rods or capsules that are surgically implanted under the skin in the inside portion of the arm. It can continue its abortifacient activity for up to six years. Its side effects are similar to those of the IUD.
Manufacturers are working at present on an abortifacient vaccine.
(5) The “morning after pill”
The “morning after pill” or “emergency contraceptive pill” (ECP) is a chemical product of hormonal nature. It is increasingly presented and marketed as a contraceptive (i.e., preventing conception) that could be used in emergency situations after sexual intercourse in order to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. In reality, it is an abortive product. It prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus by altering the internal wall of this organ, and provokes its expulsion from the uterus. Only when the ECP is taken before ovulation can it prevent the production of the egg, and therefore work as a contraceptive. Otherwise, the ECP works as an anti-nidatory drug.23
43b) Truth and the Pill
One of the injustices that are suffered by women today is the lies to which they are subjected by the contraceptive industry. Contraceptives are not clearly labeled and their mechanism of action is obscured. Potent abortifacients are commercially sold as medication for hyperacidity (under the generic name, Misoprostol). The side effects of these preparations, which are sometimes lethal, are not stated or explained.
43c) Regulation of Periods
Some of the hormonal preparations can be used in a legitimately moral way to regulate the period in a woman with irregular menses. These should be administered only by a doctor who is faithful to the teachings of the Church. The drug prescribed should not be an abortifacient.
The Church in no way regards as unlawful therapeutic means that are truly necessary to cure organic diseases, even though they have a foreseen contraceptive effect, provided that this contraceptive effect is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.24
44. Sterilization
Equally to be condemned, as the Magisterium of the Church has affirmed on various occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.25 The more commonly used methods are as follows:
· Tubal sterilization (salpingectomy) consists in the ligation or electrocoagulation of both fallopian tubes. It is a highly effective contraceptive method. It is usually irreversible, although there are techniques of recanalization.
· Vasectomy in males consists in bilateral ligation of the vas deferens, which impedes the passage of the spermatocytes.26
A hysterectomy (removal of the womb) that results in the woman being sterile (indirect sterilization) is morally licit if it is performed for valid medical reasons (non-contraceptive). The resultant sterility is an unintended side effect of the procedure.
45. Use of Condoms
In many countries, civil authorities have been encouraging the use of prophylactics (condoms) to avoid the spreading of AIDS.
We believe this approach is simplistic and evasive. It leads to a false sense of complacency on the part of the State, creating an impression that an adequate solution has been arrived at. On the contrary, it simply evades and neglects the heart of the solution, namely, the formation of authentic sexual values.
We strongly reprobate media advertisements that lure people with the idea of so-called safe sex, through condom use. As in contraception, so also in preventing HIV-AIDS infection condom use is not a fail-safe approach.
When one lives by faith, as all followers of Christ must, one is convinced that chastity and the refusal to engage in extra-marital activity are the best protection against HIV-AIDS.27
The use of condoms to prevent pregnancy has also been condemned by the Church.
46. Other Sins against Life
The Second Vatican Council gave a number of examples of sins against life:
All offenses against life itself, such as murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and wilful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offenses against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons: all these and the like are criminal: they poison civilization; and they debase the perpetrators more than the victims and militate against the honor of the creator.28
Euthanasia (or mercy killing) is an action or omission that intentionally causes death in order to eliminate suffering. It is a grave violation of God’s law and can be equated to suicide (when it is freely requested by the individual concerned) or murder (when it is imposed on an unwilling or unconscious person by relatives, physicians, or legislators). Recourse to euthanasia is a case of either “false mercy” or arrogance on the part of those who seize for themselves the power to decide who ought to live and who ought to die. Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, or disproportionate to the expected outcome (that is, very extraordinary procedures) can be legitimate. However, the ordinary care that is owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. Painkillers can be used to alleviate the sufferings.29
Civil laws that justify or legalize abortion and euthanasia are the fruit of ethical relativism. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead, there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. These laws deny the existence of an objective moral law, and derive the concepts of good and evil from the changing perceptions of the majority. Hence the need to rediscover the essential and innate human and moral values, which flow from the truth of the human being, values that no individual, majority, or state can ever create, modify, or destroy, but must only acknowledge, respect, and promote.
Footnotes:
1. Paul VI, Enc. Humanae Vitae, 14.
2. Cf. R. García de Haro, Marriage and the Family in the Documents of the Magisterium, 360.
3. John Paul II, Ap. Ex. Familiaris Consortio, 32.
4. John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, 88.
5. Cf. J.M. de Torre, Informal Talks on the Family and Society, 107–121.
6. W. May, Marriage, the Rock on which the Family is Built, 38.
7. CCC, 2351.
8. Cf. Ibid., 2362, 2363, 2366.
9. Cf. Paul VI, Enc. Humanae Vitae, 13.
10. Ibid., 14.
11. Ibid.
12. Cf. CCC, 2270–2275.
13. John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, 13.
14. Paul VI, Enc. Humanae Vitae, 13.
15. John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, 57.
16. Ibid., 58.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid., 90.
19. Cf. B.M. Kuhar, “Pharmaceutical Companies, The New Abortionists,” Human Life International Reprint, 16.
20. Cf. Paul VI, Enc. Humanae Vitae, 15.
21. Cf. Project Abortifacients, Human Life International, June 1991.
22. Cf. H. Barber, “RU-486: Boon or Bane?” P&T, Jan. 1991.
23. Cf. Uganda Catholic Bishops’ Conference, Letter The “Emergency Contraceptive Pill—ECP”: An Appeal to Reason and Sincerity, Mar. 23, 2001.
24. Cf. Paul VI, Enc. Humanae Vitae, 15.
25. Cf. Ibid., 14; CCC, 2297.
26. Cf. M. Monge, Ethical Practices in Health and Disease, 140.
27. Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, Letter In the Compassion of Jesus, Jan. 1993.
28. GS, 27; cf. John Paul II, Enc. Veritatis Splendor, 80.
29. Cf. John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, 64–77; CCC, 2276–2279.
40. Contraception
A couple that has economic or health difficulties may see their family increase excessively if they do not refrain from sexual intercourse during certain periods of time. Several physical, moral, and economic factors can sometimes combine to create a crisis situation. These circumstances are often put forward as strong arguments for the limitation of births.
Such demands are linked with the name of Thomas Malthus, an Anglican clergyman, author of Essay on the Principle of Population (1798). According to Malthusian doctrine, the limitation of births is an economic necessity, since—it maintains—the means of subsistence, which increase by arithmetic progression, cannot keep up with population, which naturally increases by geometric progression. Utilitarians regard the principle of maximization of pleasure accompanied by the minimization of pain as the primary rule of human morality. Since sexual intercourse gives men and women so much pleasure—they conclude—means must be found to spare them the need to refrain from it, even when they do not want offspring.
However, man is endowed with reason not so that he may calculate the maximum of pleasure that is obtainable in this life, but that he may seek knowledge of objective truth, as a basis for absolute principles (norms) to live by. Human morality cannot be grounded in utility alone; it must sink its roots in justice. In sexual matters, it is not enough to affirm that a particular mode of behavior is expedient. We must be able to show that it is just.
“Contraception is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [or indeed any genital act], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, either as end or as means, to impede procreation.”1 These actions normally impede the union of egg and sperm before, during, or after sexual intercourse. Some contraceptive mechanisms work by interfering with the purpose of the act of intercourse by placing an artificial barrier between the sperm and the ovum, as in the use of an external device, such as a condom. Some work by destroying the viability of the sperm, as in the case of spermicidal jellies or douches. Long-term contraception is achieved by means of ligation or vasectomy; both are forms of physical castration. Chemical contraception is achieved with the birth control pill.
The marriage act has two functions: a biological or procreative function, and a spiritual-unitive function. Some erroneously claim that contraception suspends the procreative aspect, leaving intact its unitive aspect, and thus, it is lawful. However, the marriage act is a human act (therefore with a material aspect and a spiritual aspect). The unitive and procreative aspects are not two separated acts. If one of these fundamental aspects is artificially removed, the resultant act is no longer a marriage act but a “genital act.” Thus, the two aspects of the marriage act cannot be separated. If one deliberately nullifies the life-oriented process of the conjugal act, one destroys its essential power to signify union.
Birth control is not a merely biological question, but primarily an ethical one. By depriving the marital act of its procreative capacity (by contraception), it becomes a moral disorder against the virtue of chastity. From being an act of mutual self-giving, it becomes an act of mutual masturbation. And by doing so, married couples make their sexual act to be not an act of true marital union, but one that mocks and simulates their one-flesh unity.2 If they choose to do this, their sexual union is no longer truly a conjugal act, because they do not truly give themselves unreservedly to one another. Their (loosely speaking) genital act is not only anti-life but also anti-love.
Contraception is a falsification of love:
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.3
Many are the means towards this end that need to be developed with skill and serious commitment. At the first stage of life, centers for natural methods of regulating fertility should be promoted as a valuable help to responsible parenthood, in which all individuals, and in the first place the child, are recognized and respected in their own right, and where every decision is guided by the ideal of the sincere gift of self.4
The state attacks the family if it uses its power to:
· encourage small families through taxation or housing policies,
· disseminate and distribute contraceptives,
· provide incentives for sterilization, or even enforce it.5
The slogan that is voiced by champions of “free love,” utilitarianism, and individualism is that “no unwanted child ought ever to be born.” Opposed to it is a truth that is rooted in the reality and dignity of human existence, namely that “no person, including children, ought to be unwanted.”6
41. Morality of Contraception
The Catechism states: “Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”7
Love and sexuality cannot be identified or separated. To identify love with sexuality is to destroy the human meaning of both. The unitive and procreative aspects of the marriage act cannot be separated. Any act of contraception, be it by pills, condoms, withdrawal, or ligation is always wrong, and if this is done with full knowledge and full consent, it is always a mortal sin. Every marriage act must be open to the transmission of human life.8
To use the divine gift of the marriage act to destroy its meaning and purpose—even if only partially—is to contradict the nature of both man and woman and their most intimate relationship and, therefore, also the plan of God and his will.9
“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.10 This is a very strong term for the Church to use.
Some may pose the question, “Can a marriage be open to life in general but not in particular?” Pope Paul VI answers:
It is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse that is deliberately contraceptive in a specific instance and so intrinsically wrong.11
All forms of contraception are immoral for all people, not just for Catholics.
42. Abortion
Both the Christian Tradition and the teachings of the Church, all based on the teaching of the Scriptures on the sacredness of life, are unanimous in condemning abortion. Abortion willed either as an end or a means is gravely contrary to the moral law. Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.12 Evangelium Vitae declared:
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. 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.”13
With regard to things, but even more with regard to life, man is not the absolute master and final judge, but rather—and this is where his incomparable greatness lies—he is the “minister of God’s plan.”14 Life is entrusted to man as a treasure and a talent that must be used well. Man must render an account of it to his Master (cf. Mt 25:14–30; Lk 19:12–27). Thus, man is answerable to God for the way he uses creation, and especially for the way he treats life. God himself is the promoter and defender of life; he provides life directly, and forbids its destruction. Thus, John Paul II solemnly declared:
By the authority that Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral.…
The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action.15
From the declaration that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral, even when it is performed as a means to a good end, the application of this moral principle to abortion is natural and inevitable, for there is no more innocent, weak, and defenseless human being than a baby in the womb. The unborn child is totally entrusted by nature (hence, by God) to the protection and care of the woman carrying him in the womb.
Today, in many people’s consciences, the perception of the gravity of abortion has become progressively obscured. The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behavior and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception.
Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as “interruption of pregnancy,” which tends to hide abortion’s true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.
The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor! He or she is weak, defenseless, even to the point of lacking that minimal form of defense consisting in the poignant power of a newborn baby’s cries and tears. The unborn child is totally entrusted to the protection and care of the woman carrying him or her in the womb. And yet sometimes it is precisely the mother herself who makes the decision and asks for the child to be eliminated, and who then goes about having it done.16
Evangelium Vitae concedes that there may be emotional, social, economic, and eugenic pressures on the parents of the unborn child that seemingly favor abortion, but, nevertheless, “these reasons … can never justify the killing of an innocent human being.”17
There are persons and institutions that are responsible for abortion, among them the parents, doctors, legislators, those who encourage sexual permissiveness, and international institutions that campaign (or pay) for the legalization of abortion.
The Church well knows that it is difficult to mount an effective legal defense of life in pluralistic democracies, because of the presence of strong cultural currents with differing outlooks. At the same time, certain that moral truth cannot fail to make its presence deeply felt in every conscience, the Church encourages political leaders, starting with those who are Christians, not to give in, but to make those choices which, taking into account what is realistically attainable, will lead to the re-establishment of a just order in the defense and promotion of the value of life. Here it must be noted that it is not enough to remove unjust laws. The underlying causes of attacks on life have to be eliminated, especially by ensuring proper support for families and motherhood. A family policy must be the basis and driving force of all social policies. For this reason there need to be set in place social and political initiatives capable of guaranteeing conditions of true freedom of choice in matters of parenthood. It is also necessary to rethink labor, urban, residential and social service policies so as to harmonize working schedules with time available for the family, so that it becomes effectively possible to take care of children and the elderly.18
The condemnation of abortion applies also to the experimentation on human embryos and to euthanasia.
43. Mechanism of Contraceptives and Abortifacient Pills
There is a close connection in mentality between the practice of contraception and that of abortion. It is being demonstrated in an alarming way by the development of chemical products, intrauterine devices, and vaccines that, distributed with the same ease as contraceptives, really act as abortifacients in the very early stages of the development of the life of the new human being. The so-called pill is one of these widespread chemical products. The pill has three mechanisms of action:
i) Inhibition of ovulation
ii) Prevention of fertilization (union of sperm and ovum)
iii) Obstruction of the implantation of zygote in the uterine wall (nidation)
The first and second mechanisms are contraceptive, while the third is abortive. The abortive mechanism is becoming increasingly used in place of the contraceptive mechanism of inhibiting ovulation, which is now viewed as disruptive of the woman’s normal cycles. The abortifacient mechanism works by preventing nidation, the process by which the fertilized ovum (a new baby) is implanted in the wall of the uterus, which is necessary for its growth and development. Having prevented nidation, the abortive mechanism then expels the baby from the uterus.
The pill is composed of two synthetic hormones called estrogen and progesterone. The early versions of the pill consisted of high doses of both hormones. This, it was found, led to a high incidence of complications. Companies in the US have now decided to push low-dose combinations and have withdrawn the high dose pills. The low-dose pills permit more ovulation and more conception, and hence rely more heavily on chemical abortion. Chemical abortion can occur in 2%–10% of female cycles (i.e., one cycle per year).19
Nevertheless, from the ethical point of view, there is no objection to a therapeutic use of pills in some purely gynecological disorders, provided that its contraceptive effect is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever, and the possibility of its abortifacient effect is absolutely eliminated.20 It is never licit to use these drugs for contraceptive purposes, i.e., to avoid a pregnancy that could aggravate a medical condition, like grave cardiopathy, tuberculosis, or physical exhaustion.
43a) Direct Abortifacients
(1) Depoprovera
Depoprovera has been labeled a long-term contraceptive but is in fact an abortifacient. It comes in the form of an injection. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has deemed this drug unsafe for American women but has not discouraged its producers (Upjohn) from promoting and distributing it to third world countries.21
(2) RU 486
RU 486 (produced by Roussel-Uclaf) prevents the uptake of progesterone, a necessary hormone in the early stages of pregnancy. Expulsion of the baby occurs in about 86% of women within 24 hours.22 It causes severe bleeding, at times lasting up to 42 days.
(3) IUD (Intra-uterine device)
The IUD (Intra-uterine device) is a plastic device of various shapes that is placed inside the uterus. It alters the lining of the uterus by producing local irritation. It seems to produce inflammation of the uterine mucosa that impedes the implantation of the ovum. Likewise, it alters the mechanism of transport of the spermatocytes. The developing child (fertilized ovum) who has come from the fallopian tube cannot implant and thus dies. The IUD has anti-implantation and abortive effects.
The morning after pill works in the same way as the IUD.
(4) Norplant
Norplant is a series of six non-biodegradable rubber-like rods or capsules that are surgically implanted under the skin in the inside portion of the arm. It can continue its abortifacient activity for up to six years. Its side effects are similar to those of the IUD.
Manufacturers are working at present on an abortifacient vaccine.
(5) The “morning after pill”
The “morning after pill” or “emergency contraceptive pill” (ECP) is a chemical product of hormonal nature. It is increasingly presented and marketed as a contraceptive (i.e., preventing conception) that could be used in emergency situations after sexual intercourse in order to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. In reality, it is an abortive product. It prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus by altering the internal wall of this organ, and provokes its expulsion from the uterus. Only when the ECP is taken before ovulation can it prevent the production of the egg, and therefore work as a contraceptive. Otherwise, the ECP works as an anti-nidatory drug.23
43b) Truth and the Pill
One of the injustices that are suffered by women today is the lies to which they are subjected by the contraceptive industry. Contraceptives are not clearly labeled and their mechanism of action is obscured. Potent abortifacients are commercially sold as medication for hyperacidity (under the generic name, Misoprostol). The side effects of these preparations, which are sometimes lethal, are not stated or explained.
43c) Regulation of Periods
Some of the hormonal preparations can be used in a legitimately moral way to regulate the period in a woman with irregular menses. These should be administered only by a doctor who is faithful to the teachings of the Church. The drug prescribed should not be an abortifacient.
The Church in no way regards as unlawful therapeutic means that are truly necessary to cure organic diseases, even though they have a foreseen contraceptive effect, provided that this contraceptive effect is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.24
44. Sterilization
Equally to be condemned, as the Magisterium of the Church has affirmed on various occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.25 The more commonly used methods are as follows:
· Tubal sterilization (salpingectomy) consists in the ligation or electrocoagulation of both fallopian tubes. It is a highly effective contraceptive method. It is usually irreversible, although there are techniques of recanalization.
· Vasectomy in males consists in bilateral ligation of the vas deferens, which impedes the passage of the spermatocytes.26
A hysterectomy (removal of the womb) that results in the woman being sterile (indirect sterilization) is morally licit if it is performed for valid medical reasons (non-contraceptive). The resultant sterility is an unintended side effect of the procedure.
45. Use of Condoms
In many countries, civil authorities have been encouraging the use of prophylactics (condoms) to avoid the spreading of AIDS.
We believe this approach is simplistic and evasive. It leads to a false sense of complacency on the part of the State, creating an impression that an adequate solution has been arrived at. On the contrary, it simply evades and neglects the heart of the solution, namely, the formation of authentic sexual values.
We strongly reprobate media advertisements that lure people with the idea of so-called safe sex, through condom use. As in contraception, so also in preventing HIV-AIDS infection condom use is not a fail-safe approach.
When one lives by faith, as all followers of Christ must, one is convinced that chastity and the refusal to engage in extra-marital activity are the best protection against HIV-AIDS.27
The use of condoms to prevent pregnancy has also been condemned by the Church.
46. Other Sins against Life
The Second Vatican Council gave a number of examples of sins against life:
All offenses against life itself, such as murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and wilful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offenses against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons: all these and the like are criminal: they poison civilization; and they debase the perpetrators more than the victims and militate against the honor of the creator.28
Euthanasia (or mercy killing) is an action or omission that intentionally causes death in order to eliminate suffering. It is a grave violation of God’s law and can be equated to suicide (when it is freely requested by the individual concerned) or murder (when it is imposed on an unwilling or unconscious person by relatives, physicians, or legislators). Recourse to euthanasia is a case of either “false mercy” or arrogance on the part of those who seize for themselves the power to decide who ought to live and who ought to die. Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, or disproportionate to the expected outcome (that is, very extraordinary procedures) can be legitimate. However, the ordinary care that is owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. Painkillers can be used to alleviate the sufferings.29
Civil laws that justify or legalize abortion and euthanasia are the fruit of ethical relativism. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead, there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. These laws deny the existence of an objective moral law, and derive the concepts of good and evil from the changing perceptions of the majority. Hence the need to rediscover the essential and innate human and moral values, which flow from the truth of the human being, values that no individual, majority, or state can ever create, modify, or destroy, but must only acknowledge, respect, and promote.
Footnotes:
1. Paul VI, Enc. Humanae Vitae, 14.
2. Cf. R. García de Haro, Marriage and the Family in the Documents of the Magisterium, 360.
3. John Paul II, Ap. Ex. Familiaris Consortio, 32.
4. John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, 88.
5. Cf. J.M. de Torre, Informal Talks on the Family and Society, 107–121.
6. W. May, Marriage, the Rock on which the Family is Built, 38.
7. CCC, 2351.
8. Cf. Ibid., 2362, 2363, 2366.
9. Cf. Paul VI, Enc. Humanae Vitae, 13.
10. Ibid., 14.
11. Ibid.
12. Cf. CCC, 2270–2275.
13. John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, 13.
14. Paul VI, Enc. Humanae Vitae, 13.
15. John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, 57.
16. Ibid., 58.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid., 90.
19. Cf. B.M. Kuhar, “Pharmaceutical Companies, The New Abortionists,” Human Life International Reprint, 16.
20. Cf. Paul VI, Enc. Humanae Vitae, 15.
21. Cf. Project Abortifacients, Human Life International, June 1991.
22. Cf. H. Barber, “RU-486: Boon or Bane?” P&T, Jan. 1991.
23. Cf. Uganda Catholic Bishops’ Conference, Letter The “Emergency Contraceptive Pill—ECP”: An Appeal to Reason and Sincerity, Mar. 23, 2001.
24. Cf. Paul VI, Enc. Humanae Vitae, 15.
25. Cf. Ibid., 14; CCC, 2297.
26. Cf. M. Monge, Ethical Practices in Health and Disease, 140.
27. Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, Letter In the Compassion of Jesus, Jan. 1993.
28. GS, 27; cf. John Paul II, Enc. Veritatis Splendor, 80.
29. Cf. John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, 64–77; CCC, 2276–2279.