I'll be attending a conference this weekend called
Humanae Vitae 2006 and its subject matter--contraception--is a highly controversial subject. If people think the debate over abortion is over, then contraception is, well, ancient history.
But maybe it shouldn't be.
As I wrote about the gay marriage issue all last year, and delved into the many reasons why changing the traditional definition of marriage was a bad idea, I read a most interesting collection of essays in a book called
"Divorcing Marriage: Unveiling the Dangers in Canada's New Social Experiment".
This collection of lucid, non-religious arguments defends marriage as a social institution that best guarantees a child's right to be raised by its biological parents. It talks about the dangers of divorcing marriage from procreation. When procreation is cut away from the definition of marriage, then the marriage bond merely becomes a close personal relationship. And if marriage is a close personal relationship why should there not be two men or two women?
But then, why should the number be two?
Taking procreation out of the definition opens Canada up to all sorts of new variations, such as polyamory or polygamy. It might lead eventually to gay couples insisting on their rights to cloning or other forms of genetic manipulation so they can have offspring biologically related to them. The poor child is lost in the shuffle. What about the child's rights to her biological mother and father?
Reading those arguments got me thinking more closely about sex and procreation. Not having grown up Catholic, and still relatively new to a Catholic faith, I hadn't thought much about contraception. But I am thinking about it now, and how many evils spin out of sex separated from the giving of life--pornography, perversions of all kinds, making people, including our spouses, into sex objects on the sex alone side and ever more bizarre kinds of manipulations of the human sperm and ova in petrie dishes and the commodification of human beings on the procreation alone side.
So maybe these Church Fathers in their wisdom were on to something we need to recapture today.
It turns out the
Dalai Lama has recently spoke out against sexual behavior that is not open to life and that's launched quite a discussion over at
Brutally Honest.
The Dali Lama said:
"A gay couple came to see me, seeking my support and blessing. I had to explain our teachings. Another lady introduced another woman as her wife - astonishing. It is the same with a husband and wife using certain sexual practices. Using the other two holes is wrong."
At this point, he looks across at his interpreter - who seems mainly redundant - to check that he has been using the right English words to discuss this delicate matter. The interpreter gives a barely perceptible nod.
"A Western friend asked me what harm could there be between consenting adults having oral sex, if they enjoyed it," the Dalai Lama continues, warming to his theme. "But the purpose of sex is reproduction, according to Buddhism. The other holes don't create life. I don't mind - but I can't condone this way of life."
Thanks to Kathy Shaidle at
Relapsed Catholic for the links.
The
Sheepcat also has some good links on contraception.
He put me over to
this post from Square Zero who writes in a post entitled T
he Language of the Body vs. Language of the Condom:The simple truth is that a couple using a condom is not saying no “with their bodies”—they are saying “no” with a condom. It’s the condom, and it alone, that makes visible the invisible intention to say no to conception. Everything their bodies are doing—whatever their interior disposition towards conception might be—is saying “yes” to conception.
It is the condom that says “no” And the fact that a couple would have to resort to this manufactured piece of latex to express on their behalf the intention to avoid conceptions says everything you need to know about how contraception mars the language of the body. The condom claps its gloved hand over the body’s yes and squeeks out its own little rubbery no.
Such a couple—the Torodes or anybody—who resorts to a condom to say “no” on behalf of the body is tacitly admitting that the body is inadequate to say no while engaged in the one flesh union of marital intercourse. And they’re right: the body can’t say “no” and “yes” at the same time.
What’s more, they are confessing, whether they know it or not, a conviction that their bodies are inadequate. They are in effect accusing God of having provided them with bodies so “marred by sin,” in the Torodes’ phrase, that they lack all that is necessary to express the gift of self that is marital love. Far from rejecting a negative view of the body as the Torodes suppose, the embrace of contraception is nothing less than an endorsement of that negative view.
Of course, the body as created by God and redeemed by Christ lacks nothing for expressing the fullest possible message of love. As we know, their are times in a couple’s life when they must say, not so much “no” but “not now,” to another child—when the most loving thing for them to do is to carefully postpone pregnancy.
One of the reasons why we have to start re-examining contraception is that heterosexuals do not get a pass on this chastity thing that God calls us to and Christians are so quick to insist homosexuals live by if they want to follow the faith.
I've heard many a Christian man (not so many a Christian woman) say that "anything goes" on the marriage bed, as long as the couple is made up of a man and a woman.
That I would take to mean that any number of activities are okay for married heterosexuals but not for gays and lesbians. Sorry. If we want to use a natural law argument to undergird heterosexual marriage, then we might have to think as well about using a natural law argument for sexual behavior as well.
Just think of what a different world it would be if every child was a wanted child, and every sexual act was the coming together of a married man and woman who were conscious that their sexual intercourse could bring a new life into a the world.
How different marriages would be if couples did not decide, okay, we have the marriage certificate, now it's okay to use each other as objects, and use each other to satisfy our needs. If there were love and restraint instead of use and abuse?
The kinds of demands we as Christians place on homosexual Christians to lead chase and holy lives are also upon us as heterosexuals. Chastity is not an easy road for married couples either. For all of us that kind of pure inside and out lifestyle is impossible but for the grace of God. But it is not impossible with the grace of God. And the grace comes through believing the Truth about Jesus Christ.