On Artificial Contraception

People want to drop dense items and watch them float into the air.

Bishop Francis Deniau told the Catholic magazine Le Pelerin this week that Benedict's first encyclical "Deus Caritas Est" (God is Love), which was widely praised for the positive way it spoke about sexual love, was a hopeful sign for possible change [regarding teaching on contraception.]

Sociologist Catherine Gremion noted the encyclical -- the highest form of papal writing -- did not condemn Catholic couples "who do not manage to live out their love in strict respect for Church teachings"

Well, I haven’t finished DCE, but the vibe I get is not one of the Pope getting ready to hand out condoms at his audiences.

Yet it is neither the spirit alone nor the body alone that loves: it is man, the person, a unified creature composed of body and soul, who loves. Only when both dimensions are truly united, does man attain his full stature. Only thus is love —eros—able to mature and attain its authentic grandeur.

When contraception is used, it is the body alone that loves. Body and soul cannot be united and become one flesh with the partner if there is a barrier.

This sounds a bit like paragraph 2363 of the CCC:
2363 The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

Paragraph 2370 offers this (from Familia Consortio 32)

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.

All of this seems to be in accord with my brief look at DCE. I am not sure what these people hope to accomplish. Do we not remember what happened with Humanae Vitae?

Basically PPVI called some dudes together. They were all like, “Contraception is great!” PPVI was like, “No way, Jose! This is why!” Then a lot of people were like “Yeah whatever,” and chose to ignore it, much to PPVI’s and my chagrin.

Now Jesus never specifically said, “Don’t wear a Jimmy hat,” but he didn’t exactly say a lot of things to which Christians adhere. He did address divorce, and I find his discourse relevant to this discussion/pontification.

Let’s have a look at Matthew 19: 3-11, shall we?
Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?"

He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."

They said to him, "Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?"

He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."

[His] disciples said to him, "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. …”

Here Moses changed the rules to suit the hardness of man’s heart. Jesus came around and said that that was bunk and that divorce was not allowed. I see a great similarity in Protestant churches. All the mainline protestant churches felt contraception was sinful years ago. It was not until 1930 and the Lambeth Conference that the Anglican church allowed contraception. (source) It was by the hardness of man’s heart that they accepted this. Man’s hard-heartedness continues as some protestant churches begin to accept homosexual intercourse and abortion. They are also pretty fluid about divorce.
Jesus said this to Peter (not to the Anglican Communion or even Calvin or Wesley) :

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Mt 16:15-19)

That promise was made to the first Pope, Peter. Paul VI upheld the truth nearly 38 years ago, John Paul II fought to promulgate it, and you can rest assured that Benedict XVI will do the same. These pro-contraception folks can pray to Newton to reverse gravity and get the same results.

The article itself is rife with ignorance. See these two paragraphs:

Benedict made clear last November he was not considering any change in the contraception ban and that family planning was only allowed by the "rhythm method" of abstinence from sex during a woman's fertile period.

Pope Paul VI banned contraception in the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, arguing that sexual intercourse was meant for procreation and any artificial method to block a pregnancy went against the nature of the act.

The Church also sanctions the sympto-thermal method (STM). Natural Family Planning (NFP) courses in this method are offered through many parishes. Humanae Vitae kind of had bad timing. It was at this same time that the STM was being developed. At the time of the promulgation of the encyclical, the only approved method of NFP was the “calendar rhythm method” based solely on previous reproductive cycles of the women. STM works just as it sounds. Basal body temperature and the woman’s symptoms are monitored to determine the best time for intercourse. This can be used to make pregnancy more likely or less likely. (i.e. the couple hoping to get pregnant has sex during the most fertile period. Editor’s note: I think I would just have sex all the time to be sure.) The most common use of NFP I imagine is to regulate and space the birth of children. (sources: Vocations class with Mr. Walters, church papers)

The second paragraph there implies that contraception wasn’t banned until 1968. Contraception was never approved by The Church. This is just the first modern condemnation of the more modern methods of artificial contraception. Paul VI did not himself ban contraception, he simply restated and updated what the Church already taught.

Man can try all he wants to determine what he thinks is sinful, but in the end God’s Law preserved through the Church founded by Christ, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, will prevail.