Contraception shatters human dignity

I had my personal copy of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (CSDC) a long time ago. Just recently, I chanced-upon glancing on it in my bookshelf. An idea flashed in my mind!

Is not this the portion of Catholic Doctrine that the Church proposes as principles for reflection, criteria for judgment, and norms and guidelines for action (CCCC, 509) in order for people to proclaim the Gospel that brings salvation and genuine freedom also to temporal realities. (cf. CSDC, 2)?


I must remind myself, at the outset, that the Catholic Church has a spiritual and supernatural aim. Cardinal Donald Wuerl recently said, On earth the kingdom [proclaimed by our Lord Jesus Christ] is hidden mysteriously and may be encountered anywhere, but only in a spiritual way (9 October 2012, Report at the Synod of Bishop). But through the social doctrine, the Catholic Church has something to contribute towards the betterment of the social and earthly conditions of peoples.

In the Philippines, the Filipino Catholic Church hierarchy seems to be intervening in state affairs concerning the passage of the Reproductive Health bill (RH Bill) taken up in Philippine Congress. RH Bill will legalize the use of contraception as means of spacing births, giving state authorities and government workers the legal mandate to compel compliance to practice artificial family planning to people, especially in the poor and destitute areas.

I asked myself, What is the basis in the social doctrine for Filipino bishops to voice out their opposition to RH Bill?

I skimmed through the book to find out.

I was happy to encounter several sections, but I would concentrate only on two (2) for now, namely:

1. The Equal Dignity of People; and
2. The Family is the Sanctuary of Life

The Equal Dignity of People

In the section "The Equal Dignity of People" a paragraph could be read, and I quote (with my own emphasis in bold letters):

' "Male" and "female" differentiate two individuals of equal dignity, which does not however reflect a static equality, because the specificity of the female is different from the specificity of the male, and this difference in equality is enriching and indispensable for the harmony of life in society: The condition that will assure the rightful presence of woman in the Church and in society is a more penetrating and accurate consideration of the anthropological foundation for masculinity and femininity with the intent of clarifying woman's personal identity in relation to man, that is, a diversity yet mutual complementarily, not only as it concerns roles to be held and functions to be performed, but also, and more deeply, as it concerns her make-up and meaning as a person.' (CSDC, 146)

Furthermore, the same section in the book elaborated more on the woman's complementarity towards man ...

"Woman is the complement of man, as man is the complement of woman: man and woman complete each other mutually, not only from a physical and psychological point of view, but also ontologically. It is only because of the duality of "male" and "female" that the "human" being becomes a full reality. It is the "unity of the two", or in other words a relational "uni-duality", that allows each person to experience the interpersonal and reciprocal relationship as a gift that at the same time is a mission: to this "unity of the two" God has entrusted not only the work of procreation and family life, but the creation of history itself. The woman is "a helper" for the man, just as the man is "a helper" for the woman!: in the encounter of man and woman a unitary conception of the human person is brought about, based not on the logic of self-centredness and self-affirmation, but on that of love and solidarity." (CSDC, 147)

Contraception shatters the equal dignity of the "male" and "female". Pope Paul VI already prophetically pronounced it in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae that ...

"... a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection." (Humanae Vitae, 17)

Contraception reduces the woman, from being a person into a thing, into an object of pleasure and enjoyment for the man. Man, at the same time in doing so and by being a user, also reduces himself down to the level of animals and things. Thus, the degradation is sadly mutual and, often times, becomes reciprocal.

Some will object that they do not feel degraded. Indeed, the impact is difficult to perceive. The degradation, first and foremost, is spiritual. But it has its bodily manifestation later. Some women, who are spiritually sensitive, sense a feeling of being used.

Some feminists object and claim instead that contraception grants autonomy to women. But questions should be asked at them:

• Is that desire for woman's autonomy universal to all women?
• Is it not just a consequent bitter and affected desire of a few dysfunctional damaged women?
• Is it in accordance with the anthropological foundation for masculinity and femininity already perceptible in Sacred Scriptures?

Pope St. John Paul II gave an enlightening interpretation of Genesis chapter 3 verse 16 (Gen. 3:16), in his Catecheses on June 18, 1980 and June 25, 1980, that could give light to the real relationship between woman and man. According to him, man and woman, indeed, will always desire union with the opposite sex, but, due to concupiscence, that desire would easily and spontaneously deteriorate into a relationship of possession and use. It is only in imitation of Our Lord Jesus Christ's total, free, faithful and fertile love for humanity, lived either in marriage or in virginity for the kingdom of God, that women and men can attain true union, happiness, joy and freedom.

The Family is the Sanctuary of Life

In the section "The Family is the Sanctuary of Life", there is a categorical denunciation of contraception:

"Also to be rejected is recourse to contraceptive methods in their different forms: this rejection is based on a correct and integral understanding of the person and human sexuality and represents a moral call to defend the true development of peoples. On the other hand, the same reasons of an anthropological order justify recourse to periodic abstinence during times of the woman's fertility. Rejecting contraception and using natural methods for regulating births means choosing to base interpersonal relations between the spouses on mutual respect and total acceptance, with positive consequences also for bringing about a more human order in society." (CSDC, 233, paragraph 2)

In the same section could also be read an admonition to respect and to give primacy to the inalienable right of spouses to decide for themselves when and how they will space the births of their children:

"The judgment concerning the interval of time between births, and that regarding the number of children, belongs to the spouses alone. This is one of their inalienable rights, to be exercised before God with due consideration of their obligations towards themselves, their children already born, the family and society. The intervention of public authorities within limits of their competence to provide information and enact suitable measures in the area of demographics must be in a way that fully respect the persons and the freedom of the couple. Such intervention may never become a substitute for their decisions. All the more must various organizations active in this area refrain from doing the same.

"All programmes of economic assistance aimed at financing campaigns of sterilization and contraception, as well as, the subordination of economic assistance to such campaigns, are to be morally condemned as affronts to the dignity of persons and the family.The answer to questions connected with population growth must instead be sought in simultaneous respect both of sexual morals and of social ethics, promoting greater justice and authentic solidarity so that dignity is given to life in all circumstances, starting with economic, social and cultural conditions." (CSDC, 234)

In light of the aforementioned words, the justification of some social workers in a Jesuit school in Quezon City, Philippines, to dictate and impose artificial family planning to couples in the poor sectors of society as a manifestation of the "preferential option to the poor" is obviously ill-conceived. The intervention is becoming more apparent as coming from their "contempt of the poor".

The Filipino Catholic bishops, nonetheless, have a firm and consistent basis to oppose RH Bill.

Through its social doctrine, the Catholic Church proposes and is not seeking to impose upon state authorities, who has the main obligation and the mandate to care for the temporal socioeconomic welfare of the citizens:

"The Christian knows that in the social doctrine of the Church can be found the principles for reflection, the criteria for judgement and the directives for action which are the starting point for the promotion of an integral and solidary humanism. Making this doctrine known constitutes, therefore. a genuine pastoral priority, so that men and women will be enlightened by it and will be thus enabled to interpret today's reality and seek appropriate paths of action: The teaching and spreading of her social doctrine are part of the Church's evangelizing mission." (CSDC, 7)

FOR FURTHER READING:
Paul VI, Humanae Vitae
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (CSDC)
John Paul II, General Audience of June 18, 1980
John Paul II, General Audience of June 25, 1980
Cardinal Donald Wuerl's Report at the Synod of Bishops