At the January 7, 2012 Republican presidential debate, there came a point at which the questioning turned to “social issues.” Moderator George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney whether he thought a state could ban contraception. Stephanopoulos had in mind the 1965 Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticut, which ruled that a state could not ban contraception, and which, by invoking a presumed “right to privacy,” laid the groundwork for the subsequent Roe v. Wade decision overturning bans on abortion.
Romney did not catch the drift of Stephanopoulos’ questioning, and kept wondering why he would ask such a question and why any state would be interested in banning contraception. Eventually, Stephanopoulos explicitly mentioned Griswold to indicate why he was posing the question. Romney answered jocosely, “Contraception: it's working just fine. Just leave it alone,” prompting laughter in the audience.
Understandably, none of the other candidates were eager to respond to Stephanopoulos’ gotcha question. Rick Santorum said he thought a state theoretically had the right to ban contraception, but did not take the opportunity to follow up regarding the connection with Roe v. Wade. Jon Huntsman just pointed to his large family, indicating his lack of interest in contraception. Ron Paul pointed to the interstate commerce aspect: if it is legal to import contraceptive pills, then it is legal to sell them.
What the debaters could have pointed to, of course, was the fact that the “right to privacy” interpretation (variously and ambiguously related to the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution), which has been used to support the right of couples to use contraceptives, was also an important ingredient in the 1973 decision protecting the right of a woman to abort her child.
One thing the GOP debate illustrates dramatically is the broader cultural sea change that has taken place in regard to contraception. It may seem that the “catalyst” for this change in attitude was simply the invention of the contraceptive pill in the early 1960s, which was far more convenient than existing methods of birth control. But even before such convenient methods surfaced, contraception in previous decades had become progressively more in vogue, even for Christians who had previously strenuously opposed it. The following March 22, 1931 editorial of the Washington Post in the aftermath of the 1930 Episcopalian Lambeth Conference, which spearheaded the acceptance of contraception for Protestants in the U.S., is absolutely inconceivable today:
It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation or suppression of human birth. The church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the “scientific” production of human souls. Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report if carried into effect would sound the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous.
Anyone reading the Post today would consider this a forgery or the result of Internet hacking. But such was once the majority opinion, reflected by the paper. But little by little, almost all Protestant denominations fell in line.
The Catholic Church has resisted the movement to the moral acceptance of contraception. Pope Paul VI in 1968 issued his famous encyclical, Humanae Vitae, condemning and warning about consequences of artificial regulation of births; Pope John Paul II and other church officials, including U.S. bishops, have reiterated that position.
But many priests, bishops, and theologians either resisted the messages, or kept silence. So now the polls tell us that the vast majority of Catholic married couples, just like Protestants, are using artificial contraception—in spite of the admonitions of the Church that this involves “grave sin.” “Natural family planning” is often treated as an oddity, or a punchline.
But, a social conservative might still object, all the Republican candidates are at least against gay marriage.
A little logic will show why the public, massively using contraception, is becoming more and more accepting of gay marriage, and laws permitting it—thus completely redefining the concept of marriage, which has from time immemorial been heterosexual and family-oriented. For if intentionally non-procreative sex is permissible for married couples, on the basis of their love and commitment, with or without an intention of eventually raising children, there is no reason to prohibit such liaisons for gay couples. Indeed, the love of gay couples, and the strength of their mutual commitment, may be more intense than in the case of heterosexual couples; and they may be even more desirous of raising progeny (through adoption, in vitro fertilization, etc.) than heterosexual couples.
Perhaps, then, contraception and gay marriage are not as unrelated as they may appear: both completely redefine the concept of marriage and sexual activity away from its long-accepted end in childbearing. While contraception is not likely soon to become a political issue, it remains a cultural watershed. Anyone who seeks to lead our country should recognize its ill effects and be willing, when necessary and appropriate, to discuss them.
Howard P. Kainz is Professor Emeritus in the Philosophy Department at Marquette University. His most recent book is The Existence of God and the Faith-Instinct.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
In all events, to write that the Republicans are off-base on contraception is to focus on a Republican "mote" while ignoring the Democratic "beam." The real public contraception issue is the Democratic Administration's dictatiorial interference with the conscience rights of the Catholic Church on the contraception issue.
My question: Have those who are pro-contaceptive ever read the contraindications that accompany every device or pill for contraception? If one does, the evidence is incontrovertible: contraceptives are not only contra-child, but contra-woman.
I am opposed to a radical redefinition of marriage on biological, policy, legal, moral, religious and traditional grounds, but let's face it folks, unless we change our contraceptive mentality all our arguments won't amount to much in the presence of the Oprah emotivism that today rules the air waves.
Depending on the brand tested, the USDA has found condoms fail between 8-15% of the time. IUDs can fail. Birth control pills can fail. I've even heard of (admittedly rare) a case where a vasectomy failed to prevent pregnancy.
Abstinence is the only form of contraceptive/birth control that can boast a 100% success rate, but the media routinely mocks it and tries to prevent its promotion.
First, that women are still inept when it comes to knowing how the female body works cyclically, and second that married or single people do not understand that the leading cause of babies is sex.
Pregnancy is not a disease but a normal part of the human life cycle.
Patrick Sarsfield, you might be correct that the public's rethinking the wisdom of contraception is a bridge too far, but the fact that it is a bridge too far paved the way for the cultural acceptance of Roe, undeniably. (Wendy chose "safe" sex for fun, not children, so of course she should have the choice to kill the child she didn't chose.) And the portrayal in culture as sex being primarily about personal entertainment, coupled with the pop culture inconceivability that someone could be against birth control full stop, has paved the way for the redefinition of marriage. After all, if sex isn't primarily about children, then haven't we already redefined marriage to a certain degree?
But there is reason to hope! This HHS mandate is proving a blessing. Even folks who haven't been to church in twenty years know that a natural right isn't about what the state allows you to do, but about what the state isn't allowed to do to you. Even some friends of the administration realize that their personal conscience is not Obama's to decide.
Let's hope then, that as people fight for their natural right of conscience that they are reintroduced to the difference between positive law (law written by man), and natural right (rights that come from God). Now let me paraphrase Philip Rieff: if our rights come from God, then it is because he chose us. "Free choice" without this understanding that our freedom comes from being chosen by God is the foundation of modern tyranny and nihilism. But if we understand that our riights come from God because he chose us and expects something from us, then we are obligated to take our subsequent choices seriously. Says Rieff, "Put another way, freedom does not exist without responsibility."
I am pleasantly shocked at the reaction to this HHS mandate. The church is on the front lines here because only the church points to an authority higher than the government, and this battle is a battle between those two authorities. My greatest hope is that as more and more people ponder where their freedoms come from they will also rethink their responsibilites to the one who chose them, and that they will rethink irresponsible choices they have made in the past. Remember the words of St. Benedict: the church is in the best position when it is under attack from all sides.
It seems to me that most of us naively assume that this dissociation will always remain in our individual power to undo, as when we choose to reconnect the act with its intended end. While for the time being that may indeed be true, it would be a rash presumption that it will always remain so.
A time may come when the state, citing its own reasons, may take control of procreation, and then regulate it as it sees fit. Barren sex itself may remain outside of state's interest, or, as George Orwell suggested, the state may want to sublimate it for its own uses, if it so desires.
You write, "Abstinence is the only form of contraceptive..." I don't think it a subtle distinction in differentiating between planned intentional spacing of children (using abstinence) and being against (contra) conception. This, again, becomes apparent when you read the contraindications on contraceptive devices and pills, where harm is always being done to a woman's body, and can result in serious harm. This is never true of natural family planning, where no war against a woman's body exists.
You will never outlaw cigarettes or contraceptives, for, just as there are powerful cigarette lobbyists, there are powerful pharmaceutical lobbyists, and we live in a democracy that allows us to do harmful things to our bodies and our psychological/emotional lives. But what can be done is educate people, especially youth (who are now being lied to in just about every school in the country), on how dangerous contraceptives are to a woman's body and psychological/emotional good health, and provide information on natural family planning which is the only safe alternative to this form of destruction. In other words, once a woman knows all the physical, psychological and emotional effects of using contraceptives, there is a good chance she will stop using them, the same as many people eventually stop smoking cigarettes.
And that masses of educated people believe it is is astounding. It does not bode well for humanity's future, for even the most educated can obviously be taught to believe any death-inducing absurdity, including that the slaughter of the innocent is a good. This is why the fable “The Emperor’s New Clothes” is a perennial favorite.
The faithful are thus in a covenantal oath , to live in that power and holiness , in the relationship with God and with each other , this esap. so , in marriage .
A contracepting couple is essentially telling The Lord and each other that they want no part of such power or holiness ..instead would prefer to pump up the women , with chemicals every month , with its attendant ill effects , not just in mind and body but in the deepest realms , from what such selfish choices for lust can do - seen as evidenced in family breakups , immorality and all else .
This, in contrast to a couple that might choose to accept that power , which in turn could help them and possibly many others , one body that we are , to live , more in the Holy Spirit power , for the good that same can do - to bring down enemy strong holds of immorality , greed etc ; possibly at many levels .
Asking The Church to be the very agent to promote this destructive curse in the lives of those She is to lead to truth, holiness and repentance - seems the very plan of the enemy itself , to try to get The Church , to sort of curse her childern, saying they are not worthy or capable of having God's grace , to live holy lives and also thus , to block off means for repentance and healing !
The resemblance to homosexulaity would be in the diminishing of the intrinsic dignity and identity of the person, who is to play a disordered role and the wickedness of the one who promotes same .
As far as the love in such arelationship being even better - how can it be , when the definition of love is that it always protects , is kind, is not proud and rejoices with the truth - seems all these criteria are broken , in homosexual relationships .
The comment by Romney , esp. after having been Gov., of a catholic state , only should show how out of touch he is , about matters he ought to know ; there were reports of how he went all out , to rescue the daughter of a Mormon clolleague ; seems he is capable od action , when the interest is there ; should voters not wonder why such an interest in truth was not evident in this very important matter - was it because he does not care about it as being a 'catholic thing ' ; this all the more troubling , esp. in light of the fact that his own wife has breast cancer ..its connection too , to use of pills ( not implying she did use any )
Major silver lining - all this could be a God send for Santorum , the only one among the candidates with the moral authority , to speak rightly on the issue .
Not bad , esp. if Romney has spent all the big guns on Gingrich and now would be cautious , so that he does not appear as anti Church , esp. since persons might connect same to his belief system .
The extent of misinformation out there is vast ; hope that this whole thing gives The Church , some free education moments , to make up for past negligences as well as for unjust ways of the media against Her .
May The Lord grant repentance , to those who are pushing for these dangerous measures before it comes to cause perosonal tragedies , such as breast cancers , infertility etc : to their own dear and near !
"My point at the end was that it is logically inconsistent for contracepting married couples to condemn gay marriage. I hope that was clear. "
There is a hobgoblin in all of that I am sure, but it would be lost in the political discourse. What the debaters should have been asked about are the issues current in the 2012 Election Campaign. The outlawing of contraception is not an issue that has any currency in the current day political discourse, so it was odd for Stephanopoulos to raise the issue. He seemed to be "trolling" to get any of the candidates--but most particularly Santorum--to go out on a limb in opposing contraception and that suggests he was anything but unbiased.
I recently had a student from Italy in one of my on-line classes. She told me that when she and her husband were newlyweds, they had a circle of about ten other young couples that were friends. Out of those ten couples, only three had children. (My student was one of those three.) The other seven couples remained childless by their own choice. I was stunned, and asked why she thought they had made that decision. She had a one-word answer: "Selfishness." They just didn't want to make the sacrifices that parenthood involves. And that, my friends, is the core problem, rather than the availability of artificial birth control technology. We have a disease of selfishness loose in modern society. For European nations, Japan, and a few others, it means national suicide. In a few more generations, their senescent "tribes" will no longer exist. They will most likely have been overrun by other, more prolific tribes.
In both cases, after the Church had been riven by a decade-long dispute, a papal document was issued that was intended to be definitive.
In both cases, the original quarrel was immediately forgotten and argument raged over the scope of papal authority to decide the question. In the Jansenist case, peace, of a sort, was achieved, when Pope Clement IX brokered an agreement that neither side would argue the question, at least, from the pulpit.
The “Peace of Clement IX” lasted for about 35 years and ended in 1705 when Clement XI declared the clergy could no longer hide behind “respectful silence.” Eventually, in 1713, he issued Unigenitus and demanded the subscription of the clergy to it. There was enormous resistance, with bishops and priests appealing to a future Council (and being excommunicated for their pains, in 1718). As late as 1756, dissenters were still being denied the Last Rites.
Will the “Truce of 1968” end in a similar fashion?