34.

Transmission and Preservation of Life: Contraception and Abortion

There is a close connection in the mentality of contraception and that of abortion. Even if they are sins that
are opposed to different virtues, both are products of the same negative values inherent in the
“contraceptive mentality.”
40. Contraception

A couple that has economic or health difficulties may see their family increase excessively if they do not refrain from
sexual intercourse during certain periods of time. Several physical, moral, and economic factors can sometimes
combine to create a crisis situation. These circumstances are often put forward as strong arguments for the limitation
of births.

Such demands are linked with the name of Thomas Malthus, an Anglican clergyman, author of Essay on the Principle
of Population (1798). According to Malthusian doctrine, the limitation of births is an economic necessity, since—it
maintains—the means of subsistence, which increase by arithmetic progression, cannot keep up with population,
which naturally increases by geometric progression. Utilitarians regard the principle of maximization of pleasure
accompanied by the minimization of pain as the primary rule of human morality. Since sexual intercourse gives men
and women so much pleasure—they conclude—means must be found to spare them the need to refrain from it, even
when they do not want offspring.

However, man is endowed with reason not so that he may calculate the maximum of pleasure that is obtainable in this
life, but that he may seek knowledge of objective truth, as a basis for absolute principles (norms) to live by. Human
morality cannot be grounded in utility alone; it must sink its roots in justice. In sexual matters, it is not enough to affirm
that a particular mode of behavior is expedient. We must be able to show that it is just.
Contraception is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [or indeed any
genital act], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences,
proposes, either as end or as means, to impede procreation.”1 These actions normally
impede the union of egg and sperm before, during, or after sexual intercourse. Some
contraceptive mechanisms work by interfering with the purpose of the act of intercourse by
placing an artificial barrier between the sperm and the ovum, as in the use of an external
device, such as a condom. Some work by destroying the viability of the sperm, as in the
case of spermicidal jellies or douches. Long-term contraception is achieved by means of
ligation or vasectomy; both are forms of physical castration. Chemical contraception is
achieved with the birth control pill.

The marriage act has two functions: a biological or procreative function, and a spiritual-
unitive function. Some erroneously claim that contraception suspends the procreative
aspect, leaving intact its unitive aspect, and thus, it is lawful. However, the marriage act is a
human act (therefore with a material aspect and a spiritual aspect). The unitive and
procreative aspects are not two separated acts. If one of these fundamental aspects is
artificially removed, the resultant act is no longer a marriage act but a “genital act.” Thus, the
two aspects of the marriage act cannot be separated. If one deliberately nullifies the life-
oriented process of the conjugal act, one destroys its essential power to signify union.
Birth control is not a merely biological question, but primarily an ethical one. By depriving the marital act of its
procreative capacity (by contraception), it becomes a moral disorder against the virtue of chastity. From
being an act of mutual self-giving, it becomes an act of mutual masturbation. And by doing so, married
couples make their sexual act to be not an act of true marital union, but one that mocks and simulates their
one-flesh unity.2 If they choose to do this, their sexual union is no longer truly a conjugal act, because they
do not truly give themselves unreservedly to one another. Their (loosely speaking) genital act is not only anti-
life but also anti-love.

Contraception is a falsification of love:

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.3
Many are the means towards this end that need to be developed with skill and serious
commitment. At the first stage of life, centers for natural methods of regulating fertility
should be promoted as a valuable help to responsible parenthood, in which all
individuals, and in the first place the child, are recognized and respected in their own
right, and where every decision is guided by the ideal of the sincere gift of self.4

The state attacks the family if it uses its power to:

· encourage small families through taxation or housing policies,

· disseminate and distribute contraceptives,

· provide incentives for sterilization, or even enforce it.5

The slogan that is voiced by champions of “free love,” utilitarianism, and individualism is
that “no unwanted child ought ever to be born.” Opposed to it is a truth that is rooted in
the reality and dignity of human existence, namely that “no person, including children,
ought to be unwanted.”6
41. Morality of Contraception

The Catechism states: “Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its
procreative and unitive purposes.”7

Love and sexuality cannot be identified or separated. To identify love with sexuality is to destroy the
human meaning of both. The unitive and procreative aspects of the marriage act cannot be separated.
Any act of contraception, be it by pills, condoms, withdrawal, or ligation is always wrong, and if this is
done with full knowledge and full consent, it is always a mortal sin. Every marriage act must be open to
the transmission of human life.8

To use the divine gift of the marriage act to destroy its meaning and purpose—even if only partially—is to
contradict the nature of both man and woman and their most intimate relationship and, therefore, also the
plan of God and his will.9
“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.10 This is a very strong term
for the Church to use.

Some may pose the question, “Can a marriage be open to life in general but not in
particular?” Pope Paul VI answers:

It is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can
justify sexual intercourse that is deliberately contraceptive in a specific instance and so
intrinsically wrong.11

All forms of contraception are immoral for all people, not just for Catholics.
42. Abortion

Both the Christian Tradition and the teachings of the Church, all based on the teaching of the Scriptures on the
sacredness of life, are unanimous in condemning abortion. Abortion willed either as an end or a means is gravely
contrary to the moral law. Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the
canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.12 Evangelium Vitae declared:

It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and available to all, is the most effective remedy against
abortion. The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately continues to
teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be
that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative
values inherent in the “contraceptive mentality”—which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect
for the full truth of the conjugal act—are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is
conceived. Indeed, the pro-abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church’s teaching on contraception
is rejected. Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion are specifically different evils: the former
contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of
a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice
and directly violates the divine commandment “You shall not kill.”13
With regard to things, but even more with regard to life, man is not the absolute master and final judge, but rather—and
this is where his incomparable greatness lies—he is the “minister of God’s plan.”14 Life is entrusted to man as
a treasure and a talent that must be used well. Man must render an account of it to his Master (cf. Mt 25:14–30; Lk
19:12–27). Thus, man is answerable to God for the way he uses creation, and especially for the way he treats life. God
himself is the promoter and defender of life; he provides life directly, and forbids its destruction. Thus, John Paul II
solemnly declared:

By the authority that Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the
Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral.…

The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit
either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and
indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity.
Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an
infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no
one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her
care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or
permit such an action.15
From the declaration that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral, even
when it is performed as a means to a good end, the application of this moral principle to abortion is natural and
inevitable, for there is no more innocent, weak, and defenseless human being than a baby in the womb. The unborn
child is totally entrusted by nature (hence, by God) to the protection and care of the woman carrying him in the womb.

Today, in many people’s consciences, the perception of the gravity of abortion has become progressively obscured.
The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behavior and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely
dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and
evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to
have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient
compromises or to the temptation of self-deception.

Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as “interruption of
pregnancy,” which tends to hide abortion’s true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this
linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the
reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human
being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.
The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in
particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very
beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be
considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor! He or she is weak, defenseless, even to the point of lacking
that minimal form of defense consisting in the poignant power of a newborn baby’s cries and tears. The unborn child is
totally entrusted to the protection and care of the woman carrying him or her in the womb. And yet sometimes it is
precisely the mother herself who makes the decision and asks for the child to be eliminated, and who then goes about
having it done.16

Evangelium Vitae concedes that there may be emotional, social, economic, and eugenic pressures on the parents of
the unborn child that seemingly favor abortion, but, nevertheless, “these reasons … can never justify the killing of an
innocent human being.”17

There are persons and institutions that are responsible for abortion, among them the parents, doctors, legislators,
those who encourage sexual permissiveness, and international institutions that campaign (or pay) for the legalization of
abortion.
The Church well knows that it is difficult to mount an effective legal defense of life in pluralistic democracies, because
of the presence of strong cultural currents with differing outlooks. At the same time, certain that moral truth cannot fail
to make its presence deeply felt in every conscience, the Church encourages political leaders, starting with those who
are Christians, not to give in, but to make those choices which, taking into account what is realistically attainable, will
lead to the re-establishment of a just order in the defense and promotion of the value of life. Here it must be noted that
it is not enough to remove unjust laws. The underlying causes of attacks on life have to be eliminated, especially by
ensuring proper support for families and motherhood. A family policy must be the basis and driving force of all social
policies. For this reason there need to be set in place social and political initiatives capable of guaranteeing conditions
of true freedom of choice in matters of parenthood. It is also necessary to rethink labor, urban, residential and social
service policies so as to harmonize working schedules with time available for the family, so that it becomes effectively
possible to take care of children and the elderly.18

The condemnation of abortion applies also to the experimentation on human embryos and to euthanasia.
43. Mechanism of Contraceptives and Abortifacient Pills

There is a close connection in mentality between the practice of contraception and that of abortion. It is being
demonstrated in an alarming way by the development of chemical products, intrauterine devices, and vaccines that,
distributed with the same ease as contraceptives, really act as abortifacients in the very early stages of the
development of the life of the new human being. The so-called pill is one of these widespread chemical products. The
pill has three mechanisms of action:

i) Inhibition of ovulation

ii) Prevention of fertilization (union of sperm and ovum)

iii) Obstruction of the implantation of zygote in the uterine wall (nidation)

The first and second mechanisms are contraceptive, while the third is abortive. The abortive mechanism is becoming
increasingly used in place of the contraceptive mechanism of inhibiting ovulation, which is now viewed as disruptive of
the woman’s normal cycles. The abortifacient mechanism works by preventing nidation, the process by which the
fertilized ovum (a new baby) is implanted in the wall of the uterus, which is necessary for its growth and development.
Having prevented nidation, the abortive mechanism then expels the baby from the uterus.
The pill is composed of two synthetic hormones called estrogen and progesterone. The early versions of the pill
consisted of high doses of both hormones. This, it was found, led to a high incidence of complications. Companies in
the US have now decided to push low-dose combinations and have withdrawn the high dose pills. The low-dose pills
permit more ovulation and more conception, and hence rely more heavily on chemical abortion. Chemical abortion can
occur in 2%–10% of female cycles (i.e., one cycle per year).19

Nevertheless, from the ethical point of view, there is no objection to a therapeutic use of pills in some purely
gynecological disorders, provided that its contraceptive effect is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever, and
the possibility of its abortifacient effect is absolutely eliminated.20 It is never licit to use these drugs for contraceptive
purposes, i.e., to avoid a pregnancy that could aggravate a medical condition, like grave cardiopathy, tuberculosis, or
physical exhaustion.
43a) Direct Abortifacients

(1) Depoprovera

Depoprovera has been labeled a long-term contraceptive but is in fact an abortifacient. It comes in the form of an
injection. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has deemed this drug unsafe for American women but has not
discouraged its producers (Upjohn) from promoting and distributing it to third world countries.21

(2) RU 486

RU 486 (produced by Roussel-Uclaf) prevents the uptake of progesterone, a necessary hormone in the early stages of
pregnancy. Expulsion of the baby occurs in about 86% of women within 24 hours.22 It causes severe bleeding, at
times lasting up to 42 days.

(3) IUD (Intra-uterine device)

The IUD (Intra-uterine device) is a plastic device of various shapes that is placed inside the uterus. It alters the lining of
the uterus by producing local irritation. It seems to produce inflammation of the uterine mucosa that impedes the
implantation of the ovum. Likewise, it alters the mechanism of transport of the spermatocytes. The developing child
(fertilized ovum) who has come from the fallopian tube cannot implant and thus dies. The IUD has anti-implantation
and abortive effect
(4) Norplant

Norplant is a series of six non-biodegradable rubber-like rods or capsules that are surgically implanted under the skin
in the inside portion of the arm. It can continue its abortifacient activity for up to six years. Its side effects are similar to
those of the IUD.

Manufacturers are working at present on an abortifacient vaccine.

(5) The “morning after pill”

The “morning after pill” or “emergency contraceptive pill” (ECP) is a chemical product of hormonal nature. It is
increasingly presented and marketed as a contraceptive (i.e., preventing conception) that could be used in emergency
situations after sexual intercourse in order to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. In reality, it is an abortive product. It
prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus by altering the internal wall of this organ, and provokes its
expulsion from the uterus. Only when the ECP is taken before ovulation can it prevent the production of the egg, and
therefore work as a contraceptive. Otherwise, the ECP works as an anti-nidatory drug.23
43b) Truth and the Pill

One of the injustices that are suffered by women today is the lies to which they are subjected by the contraceptive
industry. Contraceptives are not clearly labeled and their mechanism of action is obscured. Potent abortifacients are
commercially sold as medication for hyperacidity (under the generic name, Misoprostol). The side effects of these
preparations, which are sometimes lethal, are not stated or explained.

43c) Regulation of Periods

Some of the hormonal preparations can be used in a legitimately moral way to regulate the period in a woman with
irregular menses. These should be administered only by a doctor who is faithful to the teachings of the Church. The
drug prescribed should not be an abortifacient.

The Church in no way regards as unlawful therapeutic means that are truly necessary to cure organic diseases,
even though they have a foreseen contraceptive effect, provided that this contraceptive effect is not directly
intended for any motive whatsoever.24
44. Sterilization

Equally to be condemned, as the Magisterium of the Church has affirmed on various occasions, is direct sterilization,
whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.25 The more commonly used methods are as
follows:

· Tubal sterilization (salpingectomy) consists in the ligation or electrocoagulation of both fallopian tubes. It
is a highly effective contraceptive method. It is usually irreversible, although there are techniques of recanalization.

· Vasectomy in males consists in bilateral ligation of the vas deferens, which impedes the passage of the
spermatocytes.26

A hysterectomy (removal of the womb) that results in the woman being sterile (indirect sterilization) is morally licit if it is
performed for valid medical reasons (non-contraceptive). The resultant sterility is an unintended side effect of the
procedure.
45. Use of Condoms

In many countries, civil authorities have been encouraging the use of prophylactics (condoms) to avoid the spreading
of AIDS.

We believe this approach is simplistic and evasive. It leads to a false sense of complacency on the part of the State,
creating an impression that an adequate solution has been arrived at. On the contrary, it simply evades and neglects
the heart of the solution, namely, the formation of authentic sexual values.

We strongly reprobate media advertisements that lure people with the idea of so-called safe sex, through condom use.
As in contraception, so also in preventing HIV-AIDS infection condom use is not a fail-safe approach.

When one lives by faith, as all followers of Christ must, one is convinced that chastity and the refusal to engage in
extra-marital activity are the best protection against HIV-AIDS.27

The use of condoms to prevent pregnancy has also been condemned by the Church.
46. Other Sins against Life

The Second Vatican Council gave a number of examples of sins against life:

All offenses against life itself, such as murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia
and wilful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as
mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all
offenses against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary
imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and
children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools
for profit rather than free and responsible persons: all these and the like are
criminal: they poison civilization; and they debase the perpetrators more than
the victims and militate against the honor of the creator.28
Euthanasia (or mercy killing) is an action or omission that intentionally causes death in order to eliminate suffering. It is
a grave violation of God’s law and can be equated to suicide (when it is freely requested by the individual concerned)
or murder (when it is imposed on an unwilling or unconscious person by relatives, physicians, or legislators). Recourse
to euthanasia is a case of either “false mercy” or arrogance on the part of those who seize for themselves the power to
decide who ought to live and who ought to die. Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, or
disproportionate to the expected outcome (that is, very extraordinary procedures) can be legitimate. However, the
ordinary care that is owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. Painkillers can be used to alleviate the
sufferings.29

Civil laws that justify or legalize abortion and euthanasia are the fruit of ethical relativism. There is no obligation in
conscience to obey such laws; instead, there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious
objection. These laws deny the existence of an objective moral law, and derive the concepts of good and evil from the
changing perceptions of the majority. Hence the need to rediscover the essential and innate human and moral values,
which flow from the truth of the human being, values that no individual, majority, or state can ever create, modify, or
destroy, but must only acknowledge, respect, and promote.
Footnotes:
1. Paul VI, Enc. Humanae Vitae, 14.
2. Cf. R. García de Haro, Marriage and the Family in the Documents of the Magisterium, 360.
3. John Paul II, Ap. Ex. Familiaris Consortio, 32.
4. John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, 88.
5. Cf. J.M. de Torre, Informal Talks on the Family and Society, 107–121.
6. W. May, Marriage, the Rock on which the Family is Built, 38.
7. CCC, 2351.
8. Cf. Ibid., 2362, 2363, 2366.
9. Cf. Paul VI, Enc. Humanae Vitae, 13.
10. Ibid., 14.
11. Ibid.
12. Cf. CCC, 2270–2275.
13. John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, 13.
14. Paul VI, Enc. Humanae Vitae, 13.
15. John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, 57.
16. Ibid., 58.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid., 90.
19. Cf. B.M. Kuhar, “Pharmaceutical Companies, The New Abortionists,” Human Life International Reprint, 16.
20. Cf. Paul VI, Enc. Humanae Vitae, 15.
21. Cf. Project Abortifacients, Human Life International, June 1991.
22. Cf. H. Barber, “RU-486: Boon or Bane?” P&T, Jan. 1991.
23. Cf. Uganda Catholic Bishops’ Conference, Letter The “Emergency Contraceptive Pill—ECP”: An Appeal to
Reason and Sincerity, Mar. 23, 2001.
24. Cf. Paul VI, Enc. Humanae Vitae, 15.
25. Cf. Ibid., 14; CCC, 2297.
26. Cf. M. Monge, Ethical Practices in Health and Disease, 140.
27. Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, Letter In the Compassion of Jesus, Jan. 1993.
28. GS, 27; cf. John Paul II, Enc. Veritatis Splendor, 80.
29. Cf. John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, 64–77; CCC, 2276–2279.