Humanae Vitae - on regulating birth

Last week we reproduced the Church’s viewpoint on conjugal love and responsible parenthood in connection with the birth of human life and the issues relative to it. In this regard the encyclical says that conjugal love should be looked upon in its supreme origin, “God, Who is Love,” and that marriage is “the wise institution of the Creator to realize in mankind his design of love.” Hence, the responsible exercise of parenthood requires that “husband and wife recognize fully their own duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society in a correct hierarchy of values.” With such duties fully understood and assumed, how should husband and wife regard their conjugal act? They should regard it in light of its unitive and procreative nature. Unitive because it unites man and wife to “become one only heart and one only soul,” and procreative because it “capacitates them for the generation of new lives according to the laws inscribed in the very being of man and woman.”

On the matter of regulating birth, the encyclical says: “In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth.

“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. 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.

“To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. 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 therefrom; that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being.”

Viewed in this light the argument of the advocates of RH bill that limiting birth is necessary to reduce the incidence of poverty and raise the quality of life of the average Filipino is unacceptable. The attainment of something good cannot be justified by the use of something evil or “intrinsically disorder” even if the purpose is “to safeguard or promote the individual, family, or social well-being.” However, the Church approves the use of therapeutic means to cure diseases even if in so doing the procreative process is impeded, provided such impediment is not directly willed.

The same approval obtains if “there are serious motives to space out births, which derives from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions” provided the natural rhythm inherent in the generative function is used.

What’s the reason for the church to sanction the conjugal act performed during infertile period which at the same time condemn the same act when artificial means are employed to control birth? Here’s the Humanae Vitae on this. “In reality, there are essential difference between the two cases; in the former married couple make legitimate use of a natural disportion; in the latter, they impede the development of the natural processes.”

The Church through this encyclical expresses its concerns on the possible serious outcomes arising from the use of artificial methods of birth control. One is the tendency towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Another is the likelihood that a man may finally lose respect for the woman treating her as a “mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, not a respected and beloved companion.” Still another reason is contained in this question: “Who will stop rulers from favoring, from even imposing upon their peoples, if they were to consider it necessary, the method of contraception which they judge to be most efficacious?”