Possibly no teaching of the Church has been more misunderstood than that on contraception. And nothing has been more responsible for divisions within the Church than rejection of this teaching. Catherine Collins, who has written some perceptive articles on current issues for Catholic Insight, here provides an excellent introduction to Janet Smith's magnificent book on Paul VI's famous but controversial encyclical. Janet Smith 's explanations are cogent and lucid, but they are not always easy to follow; Catherine Collins provides a way into the issues and arguments they bring up.

It is now thirty years since the promulgation of Humanae vitae in 1968, and around 40 years since the development of The Pill. So it is fair to say that most Catholics today for whom birth control is a live issue have grown up in a contraceptive society and in a Church of dissenters. For some of us, it can be difficult even to imagine what it must have been like to have churches crammed with small children, and, at the academic level, to have seminaries whose Natural Law theology led easily to the conclusion that contraception was wrong.

Janet Smith's clear but technical book, Humanae vitae: A Generation Later, takes us back to the early days of the contraceptive takeover. She begins with the documents of the Papal Commission that was to study the question of birth control: a Majority Report recommending change and a Minority Report issued in rebuttal. She shows that the lines of the debate were drawn even then, although in a moderate form, and she traces the development of the "majority position" as it hardened into dissent over the next twenty years. She also looks at the traditional Natural Law arguments against contraception and how these have also been developed in recent years in response to the dissenters.

The "competing goods argument" 

Dissenters are famous for their dissent from Church teaching, hence the name. They have elaborated a hair-splitting and subtle body of thought to justify dissent in those situations where they, in fact, happen to disagree with the clear meaning of unbroken Church teaching-a kind of justification through complication. But in rejecting Church teaching on contraception, they have also written a lot on that subject and the role of fertility in marriage. While details differ between authors, in general most hold to what we might call the "competing goods argument."

Fertility, they say, is a good-but so are marital harmony, the health of the mother, the needs of children already born to the marriage (Editor: In the language of Thomistic philosophy a "good" means an end or purpose or goal of an action). These goods need to be balanced against each other and the use of contraception may be essential toward achieving this balance. They would probably concede that large families are an ideal and that sex is "more natural" without contraception, but if need be, these values can be sacrificed to achieve other benefits for the marriage. And since the traditional Catholic argument does not lead to this conclusion, they also criticize the application of Natural Law in this area, that being the philosophic technique most frequently used by traditional Catholic moralists. Some dissenters repudiate Natural Law entirely, others try to use it to justify contraception.

Janet Smith's aim in writing her book, she says, was twofold: to show that the traditional Natural Law arguments have more merit than their critics allow; and to show that those who attempt to justify the use of contraception by appeal to the principles of Natural Law have abused those principles and abandoned that tradition. Anyone wishing to justify contraception must ignore both the teaching authority of the Church and the Catholic philosophical tradition of moral analysis.

The urban apostle, anyone with secular friends to convince, might wonder if refuting dissenters is worth the effort. I do not know any contraceptive users who would justify their choice by an appeal to Natural Law arguments, however flawed. We would prefer a book in which traditional Catholic thought is engaged by the philosophy of the age. How does secular utilitarianism justify contraception, and how would it refute the Natural Law philosophy that opposes it? How should we respond?

Unfortunately, that book will not be written because the spirit of the age does not run to articulate arguments in its own defence. We must first guess what our contemporaries are thinking (since they often don't know themselves), and then find convincing answers to unformulated questions. As it turns out, the secular argument has a lot in common with the arguments of Catholic dissenters, although less nuanced, and Janet Smith's book is helpful in dealing with both.

The modern argument

While rarely stated, the modern, secular argument runs something like this:

1. Large families are impossibly expensive and difficult to raise.

2. It is unreasonable to expect a married couple to restrict family size using periodic abstinence.

3. Contraception limits family size without the need for abstinence and it has no major ill effects.

4. Therefore contraception in marriage is both permissible and responsible.

This is the personal argument for contraception. There is also an ecological argument, preferred by government agencies, in which premise 1 is replaced by:

1a. Large families pose an extreme threat to the environment and reduce the wealth of nations. (The rest follows as above.)

While the dissenters claim to be balancing competing goods, the secular argument is not about goods at all: it says quite bluntly, "if you don't contracept, bad things will happen." It is utilitarian, pure and simple (Editor: Utilitarians are people who view things and actions principally in the light of whether or not they are "useful".) But as Janet Smith argues, the dissenters are also utilitarian: to "balance competing goods" amounts to doing a cost-benefit analysis.

Counter argument

Popular Catholic apologetics counters the secular argument by taking issue with the assertions upon which it is based. It argues that large families are possible and rewarding, that the overpopulation crisis is a myth, and that growth is necessary for the creation of wealth; that natural family planning (NFP) strengthens marriage; and that contraception has many ill effects.

These are strong points with notable supporters. Paul VI warned against four ill effects likely to flow from widespread use of contraception-lowered sexual morality, disrespect for women, tyranny, and a purely technical approach to the body. And John Paul II has written extensively on the theme that contraception, far from strengthening marriages, destroys the unity that should grow between husband and wife.

But while these good points might prove convincing to some people, they are not sufficient to defend Humanae vitae. Strictly speaking, they only show that you are not required to contracept in order to have a happy marriage and a prosperous society. They do not show why contracepted intercourse is wrong in itself, and that is what we need to show our friends, secular or Catholic.

Natural law tradition

There is a powerful, direct and effective tool for grappling with moral mysteries and complex issues: it was developed by St. Thomas Aquinas and is called the Natural Law tradition. There is no simpler path. Good theology does not complicate issues, it clarifies them. Luckily we have a clear-sighted guide in Janet Smith, who can help us get to the heart of the matter.

The traditional Catholic analysis does not rest on "bad consequences" or "balancing goods." Whether the world has too many people or too few, whether abstinence is difficult or easy, are not the issues. What matters is the sex act, what it means, what it does, and what is required for it to be worthy of human dignity and pleasing to God. Both Natural Law and the Church's magisterial teaching against contraception are expressed in these terms.

"The Church .... teaches that it is necessary that each conjugal act remain ordained in itself to the procreating of human life" (Hv 11). To act otherwise is to "defy the plan and holy will of God" (Hv 13).

In fact, Paul VI compares contracepted sex to rape-"a conjugal act imposed on a spouse." It is not a true act of love when the desires of the spouse are ignored and excluded. In a similar way, contraception ignores and excludes the will of God, the Author of human life. The pope goes on to argue that man "does not have power over his generative faculties as such, for they by their very nature are directed to bringing forth human life, and God is the source of human life."

Similarly, Janet Smith articulates the Natural Law approach as follows: "It is wrong to impede the procreative power of actions that are ordained by their nature to the generation of human life."

This is one of those ideas that are either obvious or incomprehensible. Secular moderns reject it completely: they see no reason against manipulating human fertility. One might call this the argument from personal blindness: "I see no difference between men and animals, and will govern myself accordingly." The two positions are so far apart it is hard to know where discussion might begin. But looking at the kind of arguments used to elaborate the traditional teaching, we can find a difference that might offer the possibility of dialogue, since it is a difference that both sides might understand.

If we look at their arguments, we see that utilitarians look to the future, while the Natural Law looks to the present moment. In one way or another, a contraceptive society, a society of fetal testing and abortion, of euthanasia, makes its decisions on the basis of future events we can't possibly predict or control. Will there be enough money for another baby? Would periodic abstinence place impossible strains on my marriage? Could I cope with a handicapped child? How would I deal with the pain of terminal illness? Will the Earth's increasing population lead to mass famine and economic collapse?

Oddly enough, the more unanswerable the questions, such as those pertaining to world population, the more decisive they seem. A choice (to contracept or not to contracept) is judged to be morally good if we expect that its good results will outweigh the bad results.

This is the tempter's promise in the Garden of Eden: you will be like gods and have the knowledge of good and evil. In other words, we will know the good and bad consequences of our actions as these unroll into the future and can choose the course of action with the best result. It was a lie then, and it is a lie today. We cannot possibly know all the consequences of our choices, or how we would react under adversity-that expensive baby might be the one to support his parents in their old age; I might find reserves of courage in the face of illness that I never knew I had.

Conflict with reason

This has an unexpected consequence. Utilitarianism is held to be "rational", but a choice based on unknowable future outcomes cannot possibly be rational. In the absence of reason, emotion takes over. Emotionally, the decision for contraception in marriage rests on the desire for frequent sex and the fear of being overburdened by children. We should not be surprised, then, that a contracepting society like ours is dominated by hedonism and timidity.

The natural law tradition takes a different approach. Since we cannot know all the consequences of our actions, we cannot base our decisions on the probable good of possible outcomes. They must be based on what we can know precisely at the time the decision is being made.

According to St. Thomas, there are basically four things we can know at the point of action: what we propose to do, why we intend to do it, the relevant circumstances, and our follow-through (Are we competent? Skillful? Courteous? Kind?). For a decision to be a good one, all of these must be good, including the action itself. This means that once we determine that it is wrong to block the fertility of the sex act, then contraception is wrong, regardless of circumstance and intent; regardless also of whatever "good" we think might result from contraception, such as a less stressful married life or fewer people in crowded cities. That is, results are what matter-even though results are frequently out of our control.

Actually, the Tradition promises a double win: you can be good in the present and get good results in the future as well. On balance, and for society at large, the best results occur when people do in fact choose what is objectively good. Paul VI warned against a number of bad consequences to society if contraceptive use became widespread, and his warnings have proven to be prophetically accurate. Utilitarianism aims for results, assuming that man is a machine; but the Tradition obtains results by aiming much higher, to the formation of the individual human soul. By choosing the good now, in the present moment, where choice can be made, we are choosing ourselves; choosing to be the kind of people who love what is good, or as Christians would say, choosing to be in love with the will of God.

The role of faith

Contraceptive use is so entrenched in Western society that it is difficult to know how to begin to justify the Church's opposition. To succeed, one would have to explain to the unconvinced why blocking the fertility of the sex act is to repudiate the good to an extent that gives offence to the Creator. In principle, Humanae vitae can be defended by reason, but where an entire society is in error, revelation is needed to enlighten what the mind can no longer see. Most of our friends will accept Humane vitae by faith before coming to understand it through philosophy or common sense.

Their path will begin in conversion to Christ, progress to belief in the teachings of his Church, faithful obedience, experience with natural marriage, and coming to understanding only at the end. But at some point in this process, people will want reasons. They will need to dismantle what is unchristian and utilitarian in their old way of thinking and replace it by a moral analysis that helps them to find the will of God in the choices of every day.

Janet Smith's book is a valuable resource for Natural Law thinking and its application to contraception, surely the most critical impediment to the re-evangelization of the West. Our contemporaries have been taught to live in a world of future "maybe's" and we need to return their attention to the exercise of freedom and the object of choice.

Contraception is an area where self-delusion has long had the upper hand, and we need to help our friends see what is really being chosen in the contraceptive act and what is being refused: concretely, contraception is a choice for pleasure, taken in fear of a baby, and a choice against a baby, taken in the desire for pleasure. People need to ask themselves not what they may gain from contraception, but what kind of person they will become by choosing it.

Catherine Collins is a wife, mother, mathematician and author who resides in Ottawa.