It has been 41 years since Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical Humanae vitae (on human life).  I remember that a number of Catholics at that time rejected Paul VI’s teaching that contraception was evil. People asked the question: “How can these old celibate priests tell us married folk how to live our lives?” They said that celibate priests were just trying to make marriage miserable for the laity because priests could not get married themselves. They said that nowhere in Sacred Scripture was contraception condemned except in some Old Testament story about a guy named Onan. And this is as outdated as the dietary and health codes of the Old Testament which are no longer followed by the Catholic Church.  Finally, Catholic people reported that their local priest said that if their consciences said that they could use contraceptives, then they must follow their conscience.

            The aim of this article is to show: (1) that God clearly condemns contraception in Sacred Scripture; (2) that Catholics must conform their conscience (mind and will) to the Church’s teaching that contraception is intrinsically evil; (3) that there is a positive side of the Church’s teaching on contraception, which is quite important for married couples.

The revelation about Onan is for all time

            The author of Genesis reports that God punished Onan because he “wasted his seed on the ground” when he had sexual relations with his wife who was the widow of his brother (Genesis 38:8). Some Catholics do not believe that this Old Testament story means that God condemns all acts of contraception. The point of the story, they argue, is that God was displeased with Onan rather because he did not fulfill his duty to his deceased brother than because of the method he chose to get around it, i.e., spilling his seed on the ground. This very objection is found in the editorial footnote to Genesis 38:8 in the 1986 edition of the New American Bible. Let us examine the story of Onan closely.

            First we must clearly identify the persons  in the story of Onan . There is the Father, Judah. Then there are his two sons: the first is Er and the second is Onan. Finally there is Er’s wife who marries Onan after Er dies. So Onan marries his deceased brother’s widow to bring up children in the name of his brother Er as the Levite marriage laws require.

             The text begins by pointing out that Judah arranged a wife for Er his first born son. “But Er, Judah’s first-born, greatly offended the Lord; so the Lord took his life.”  The Scriptures do not explicitly say what Er did to bring down God’s wrath so greatly that God killed him. But I have my suspicion which will be expressed later.  Let us continue the story. Then Judah told Onan to unite with his brother’s widow to fulfill his duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve his brother’s line. “Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took his life too” (Genesis 38:9).

The footnote to Genesis 38:8 in the 1986 edition of the New American Bible reads:

The ancient Israelites regarded as very important their law of levirate, or ‘brother-in-law’ marriage; see notes on Deut. 25:5; Ruth 2:20. In the present story, it is primarily Onan’s violation of this law, rather than the means he used to circumvent it, that brought on him God’s displeasure.

But how does the author of the footnote know this?

            The writer of the footnote was saying that God was more disturbed by Onan’s refusal to carry out the Levirate law than because he “wasted his seed on the ground” in an unnatural act of contraception. But when one reviews the references that the author of the footnote gives, Deut. 25:5 and Ruth 2:20, to demonstrate the “importance” of the law of Levirate, one does not find God killing anyone for not fulfilling the Levirate law. In Deut. 25:5 the man who refuses to fulfill the Levirate law is disgraced since the law allows his widowed brother’s wife to spit in his face. (25:7-10). And in Ruth 2:20 the near relative who did not take up his duty to marry his relative’s widow (Ruth) merely agreed to give up his claim to Ruth and all of the property. He was not killed for this action (Ruth 4:1-13). So, God killed Onan for something greater than just refusing to fulfill the Levirate law.

            The more likely reason for God’s wrath is the means that Onan used to get around fulfilling the Levirate law.  Pope Pius XI taught about the “conjugal act” that those who “deliberately deprive it of its natural force and power, act contrary to nature and do something that is shameful and intrinsically bad.”  Continuing the Pope stated: 

  . . .Sacred Scripture itself testifies that the divine Majesty looks upon this nefarious crime with the greatest hatred, and sometimes has punished it with death, as St. Augustine relates: “It is illicit and disgraceful for one to lie even with his legitimate wife, when conception of offspring is prevented. Onan did this; God killed him therefore.”[i]

When the 17^th century exegete and theologian, Giovanni Stefano Menochio discussed this same chapter in Genesis, he suggested that the wicked thing or great offence that Judah’s first born Er did to merit death was also contraception or perhaps masturbation. A footnote to Genesis 38:7 taken from Menochio states about the “wicked” thing that Er did: “Wicked; without shame or remorse, sinning against nature, in order, if we may believe the Jews, that the beauty of his wife might not be impaired by having children.”[ii]

            The story of Onan is not just meant for Old Testament times. It was meant to convey a message to all of humanity. The message is that we are not the sole or even primary begetters and owners of our children. All children primarily belong to God. Contraception is intrinsically evil because it is an attempt to determine the existence or non-existence of a child regardless of God’s will. So, the Catholic understanding of the sin of Onan is that God punished Onan primarily for the unnatural act of wasting his seed on the ground. It appears then that the footnote to Genesis 38: 7-10 in the 1986 edition of the New American Bible departs from the Catholic Church’s traditional interpretation of and the wickedness of the act of Onanism or what the Church now calls contraception.

Contraception is intrinsically evil

            Since many people condemn what they do not really know, it is good to give here the exact teaching of the Church on the evil of contraception or Onanism.

            According to no. 80 of John Paul II’s encyclical, “Veritatis splendor,” (The Splendour of truth) the Church has always taught that there are acts which are evil “always and per se” and are called “intrinsically evil” acts. John Paul II says about these acts that they, “independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object.”  Paul VI in his 1968 encyclical, Humanae vitae taught “that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life” (H.V., no. 11).  According to no. 2370 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church Paul VI is hereby teaching that contraception is “intrinsically evil.”

            Paul VI states quite clearly in no. 14 of Humanae vitae that contraception is absolutely evil and must never be done for any reason whatsoever: “…we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even for therapeutic reasons is to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth.”  Since the act of contraception has evolved into many forms since the original form of “wasting the seed on the ground,” the Pope also mentions modern forms of contraception.  Paul VI continues: “Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman.”  Finally, the Pope adds:  “Similarly excluded is every action which, either 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.”

            Some Catholics objected to the Pope’s teaching that contraception was “intrinsically” evil and could not be done at any time for any reason. They claimed that there were valid exceptions to this teaching based on sound reasoning. A couple may have to use contraceptives so that they can preserve the health of the mother whether physical or psychological, facilitate the happiness of the family beset by many medical bills which they could not pay, have enough funds for the future education of their children, etc. 

            But these claims must be rejected because of a more fundamental principle of moral law that the end does not justify the means or that one cannot do evil so that good may come from it. This teaching was cited by the Apostle Paul and is clearly taught by Pope Paul VI. Paul says that some people accused him of teaching the principle that one can do evil so that good may come from it, but he rejects this principle. He says in Rm. 3:8: “And why not say — as we are accused and as some claim we say --- that we should do evil that good may come of it? Their penalty is what they deserve.”  Similarly, Pope Paul VI teaches: “In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil or to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow from there (H.v., no. 14)” So, a couple cannot use contraceptives for a so-called greater personal good, like the health of the mother, or a so-called greater social good, like having enough money to educate their children.

Following one’s conscience

            But don’t we have to follow our conscience on this matter of contraception?  The answer to this is yes but one must understand what this means and what it does not mean.  After Paul VI published Humanae vitae in 1968, many Catholics sought counseling from their parish priest. They asked him the question: what does the Church teach about contraception? Or, can I and my married partner use contraceptives? Many priests responded by saying that Catholics had to follow their conscience on this matter of contraception. While this is true advice in regard to contraception, it is also true advice in regard to any moral situation, even murder. The difficulty is that the priest’s response became understood by people as meaning that if you disagreed with the Church’s judgment about contraception, you could follow your own judgment and use contraceptives. This, however, is not what the Church teaches.

            Following the publication of Humanae vitae, Dr. Germain Grisez talks about this misunderstanding of contraception and conscience. He says:

Normally, conscience becomes a subject of reflection when one is thinking about one’s past action or someone else’s action. In forming one’s conscience here and now, one pays attention to the relevant moral truth, not to conscience. It follows that when someone seeks pastoral guidance, he or she wants to know what the Church believes is truly the right thing to do. If one responds by saying that a person who follows a sincere conscience is morally blameless, the remark can be misleading.

According to Dr. Grisez, the question is: what does the Church teach that I should do? The question is not: if I disagree with the Church’s teaching on contraception and follow my own judgment which later turns out to be incorrect, will I still be blameless? [iii]

            So, what should the priests have said then and what should priests say now? The answer is quite clear. The Second Vatican Council stated the answer to this question quite clearly in no. 25 of their Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.  First, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council stated that “Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth.” Continuing, they say that “In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.” Next, the Fathers apply this teaching to the Pope or the Roman Pontiff. They proclaim that

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.

And how can this “manifest mind and will” of the Pope be known? The Fathers respond by saying that “His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”

            Obviously, the Church’s teaching on contraception is at least an ordinary teaching of the Pope on a “matter of faith and morals.”  Every Catholic, therefore, must “accept” this teaching of the Pope “even when he is not speaking ex cathedra” and “adhere to it with a religious assent,” which is a “religious submission of mind and will.” This means that the faithful must “sincerely adhere to this teaching of Paul VI on contraception “according to his manifest mind and will.” And his manifest mind and will may be known from the document, Humanae vitae, itself and from the Church’s frequent teaching on contraception in the past, e.g. Pius XI’s, teaching, Casti Connubii,” (of chaste wedlock) published on Dec. 31, 1930. In other words, the priests should have told the people following Paul VI’s publication of Humanae vitae in 1968 that they could not use contraceptives under any circumstances.

The positive side of the Church’s teaching

            I studied theology from 1968 to 1972. Paul VI issued Humanae vitae in 1968. During that time I had to give a talk on Paul VI’s teaching on contraception to a group of 125 young married and single women.  I was a deacon and I was quite nervous. As I gave my lecture to the women spelling out that contraception was intrinsically evil and that they could in no way use contraceptives in their married life and be good Catholics, I could see many women wrinkling their faces and folding their arms in a defiant posture.  At the end of the lecture, I asked, “Are there any questions?” And boy, were there ever! I thought that they were going to stone me. But then something interesting happened. A woman asked a question which revealed a very grave problem with contraception. She stated that when her husband wanted sex he had to have it. Perhaps she was proclaiming her voluptuousness. She could not tell him to wait until next week for sex; she was not going to do that. So she had to use contraceptives.  I was wondering how to respond to her question when another woman stood up and questioned her.  She asked, “If your husband has to have sex whenever he wants it, what would he do if you have to go to hospital for a while or he has to go on trips for his work?”  This question forms the basis of this next part; listen very carefully.

            Paul VI warned that if people practised contraception in marriage, a “wide and easy road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality” (H.v., no. 17). Society has moved in the past decades from accepting contraception to also accepting divorce, remarriage, and premarital sex.  Society is now in the process of accepting homosexual life styles and homosexual marriages. Paul VI indeed was a prophet.

            So what did Paul VI know from God that the rest of the world did not know?  Paul VI knew about the mystery of the relationship between a man and a woman and the mystery of evil. Let us take a clear look at these mysteries.

            Many a husband and wife have wondered why the good God made women with a menstrual cycle. Certainly, it was for regulating birth. But it was also so that the man and the woman could come to know each other and learn self-control in married life.  If a couple wants to have a baby, or to temporarily avoid having a baby for a serious reason, that couple will have to pay close attention to the woman’s body and her menstrual cycle. The man and the woman will not simply be able to come together and have sex. Indeed, he will have to get to know his wife. He will have to know, how she feels, when she is in a mood, what makes her happy and what makes her sad, whether she is fertile or not, and when she wants to have sexual relations. He will have to get romantically involved with his wife reminiscent of his courtship of her before they married. In doing this the husband will find out many things about his wife. This knowledge will confirm the many good things he knew about her and reveal even more wonderful things about her which he never knew before. The woman will also get to know her husband at a much deeper level. God created the menstrual cycle so that the man and the woman would get to know each other intimately.

            And when the couple comes to know each other as God intended, the man will know the best time for him to refrain from sexual relations if they choose to avoid a child for a serious reason. This waiting to have sexual relations will have a good by-product. It will strengthen the self-control of each partner, especially the husband. So another important reason why God placed cycles in the woman’s reproductive life is to teach the couple to have the self-control which is so crucial for their eternal salvation.

            One of the most important elements in married life is trust between husband and wife. I am referring here to trust that one’s partner will not betray the marriage bond by having an affair with another person. When a couple trusts that their partner will not have an affair, then the partners can put their mind on other things. They can focus on the wonderful things about one another and their children. Then the marriage and family will blossom.

            But this trust between husband and wife about conjugal fidelity must be based on reality. It is based on the fact that the partners know each other intimately. They know that each of them can control their sexual desires in relation to the other.  How does each know this about his or her partner? Because the partners see each other controlling their sexual desires in relation to their own sexual needs. For example, the wife knows that her husband can resist her own beauty and control his sexual desires when it is necessary. Thus, if the wife is in hospital or away from her husband for a long period of time for some legitimate reason, she is at peace for she knows her husband does not have to have sex just when he wants it. She knows that he can control himself and that he will not be seeking the neighbour woman for sexual favours.

            But if husband and wife use contraceptives in marriage, they can have sex any time they want.  Then, there will be no need or possibility for the husband to get to know the wife and for the wife to get to know the husband. Similarly, since the couple does not practise self control in regard to sex, they will be unable to abstain from sexual relations. Contraception makes knowledge of the partner and self-control seemingly unnecessary and even impossible.

            However, loss of knowledge of the spouse and loss of self-control through the use of contraception also brings with it a loss of peace.  In fact, when knowledge of the person of the spouse and self-control does not grow or ceases, suspicion and distrust enters the marriage. When husband and wife must be separated for any length of time for legitimate reasons, like work or hospital, one partner will worry what the other partner is doing. Each partner knows that the other is not used to abstaining from sex for any length of time and has become dependent on contraceptives. Consequently, each partner cannot help suspecting that the other is now turning to someone else to satisfy his or her sexual instincts? This suspicion destroys trust between husband and wife and, most likely, also the marriage.

            Obviously, the menstrual cycle and the divine and natural law to abstain from sexual relations is a mysterious gift from God as a protection of the unity between husband and wife in marriage and the family. Too bad the world does not understand this. Did you ever thank God that you are a Roman Catholic?