421 REGULATING CONCEPTION

YOUCAT Lesson 421, July 17, 2015

YOUCAT the catechism for Catholic youth

421  Why are all methods of preventing the conception of a child not equally good?

The Church recommends the refined methods of self-observation and natural family planning (NFP) as methods of deliberately regulating conception.  These are in keeping with the dignity of man and woman; they respect the innate laws of the female body; they demand mutual affection and consideration and therefore are a school of love.  [2370-2372, 2399]

The Prophet Jeremiah by Michelangelo Buonarroti.  The artwork is in the Sistine Chapel ceiling. ….. 421

The word of the LORD came to me:  Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,  before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you. –Jeremiah 1:4

The Church pays careful attention to the order of nature and sees in it a deep meaning.  For her it is therefore not a matter of indifference whether a couple manipulates the woman’s fertility or instead makes us of the natural alternation of fertile and infertile days.  It is no accident that Natural Family Planning is called natural: it is ecological, holistic, healthy, and an exercise in partnership.  On the other hand, the Church rejects all artificial means of contraception—namely, chemical methods (the “Pill”), mechanical methods (for example, condom, intra-uterine device, or IUD), and surgical methods (sterilization)—since these attempt to separate the sexual act from its procreative potential and block the total self-giving of husband and wife.  Such methods can even endanger the woman’s health, have an abortifacient effect (=cause a very early abortion), and in the long run be detrimental to the couple’s love life.

Pope John Paul II describes “contraception” (as opposed to “the regulation of births”) as follows:  “When couples (have) recourse to contraception…they manipulate and degrade human sexuality—and with it themselves and their married partner—by altering its value of total self-giving.  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.”  Pope John Paul II (1920-2005), Apostolic Exhortation: “Familiaris Consortio, #32”

[2370-2372, 2399]

The fecundity of marriage

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. (Humanae Vitae 16.)¹⁵⁸ 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: (Humanae Vitae 14.)¹⁵⁹ –Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

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. (Familiaris Consortio 32.)¹⁶⁰ –CCC

2371 "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny." (Gaudium et Spes 51 § 4.)¹⁶¹ –CCC

2372 The state has a responsibility for its citizens' well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children. (Compare Humanae Vitae 23; Populorum Progressio 37.)¹⁶² In this area, it is not authorized to employ means contrary to the moral law. –CCC

IN BRIEF

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception). --CCC