[With a brief footnote response at end of the article to a Roman Catholic e-pologist by the name of John M. Esparolini, a.k.a., "The Curmudgeon" in Roman Catholic apologetic circles]
It never fails. When discussing issues of authority with Roman Catholics, one of them will eventually bring up the issue of birth control as the sine qua non of authority. Rome, we are told, has outlawed birth control; yet Protestants are divided on this issue. This somehow "proves" (at least in the Roman Catholic mind) that Rome must have teaching authority from God. Strangely enough, some have even pointed to this issue as the issue that resulted in their conversion to Rome.
Since Pope Paul VI issued his papal encyclical Humanae Vitae it has been commonplace for conservative Roman Catholics to adopt an almost hostile attitude toward sexual relations with one’s spouse. While they would certainly deny this with words, many Roman Catholics do in fact look upon the sexual act itself with what can only be described as open disdain. Take a trip to any Roman Catholic online discussion board and you’ll eventually find the topic broached. I’ve read comments from Roman Catholics on these boards that betray a marked disparaging of marital relations, if not outright contempt. Comments regarding marital sex—"Why all the hype over sex; I can certainly live without it, and only have it because my husband wants it," to "Why all the fuss over pleasure? In my opinion it is not important that the sex act be an enjoyable experience," to "Take it from a woman who’s been married for 18 years, there are going to be times when one or both spouses aren’t as interested in sex as they once were. That’s a natural part of life"—all exemplify an extremely perverted view of marital relations.
This attitude over sexual relations within a marriage has its roots in a third- and fourth-century church that was highly influenced by Gnosticism. Particularly with Jerome, virginity was considered not only a virtue, but truly the only way one could be entirely holy. Marriage was viewed as a second-rate state of spirituality reserved for the weak-willed, sin-prone masses. Mary, the epitomized virgin, was said to have borne Jesus without "the stain of carnal commerce." This phrase does not refer to some perversion in the marital sexual act, but rather to the marital sexual act itself. Such a view of marital relations implies that however necessary the sexual act may be in procreation, any pleasure one may derive from it is inherently sinful. This attitude still plagues the minority conservative Roman Catholic contingent even today.
One of the prominent aspects of Humanae Vitae is its teaching against what some Roman Catholics call "onanism" (named after the biblical character Onan in Gen 38); namely, that all sexual acts within a marriage must eventually lead to intercourse, and that there can be no "spilling" of the man’s "seed." This is based on a lamentable misreading of Gen 38:6-10, which says:
Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the LORD's sight; so the LORD put him to death. Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.
Conservative Roman Catholics think this passage is a polemic against birth control—it is nothing of the kind. They think the reason God put Onan to death was because God condemns contraception. But this misses the point of the passage entirely. What is condemned here is not a contraceptive practice, but rather neglect in fulfilling the duty of every Jew to carry on the lineage of his dead brother. Judah specifically instructs Onan to "Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." The biblical writer even goes so far as to reveal Onan’s motive to us: "But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother." There it is, and it couldn’t be clearer. It was this sin that led to Onan’s death: "What [Onan] did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death." This principle is later reiterated in the Law of Moses (Deut 25:5-6):
If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.
The notion of contraception is utterly foreign to either text. It is simply amazing that someone could actually read these passages and conclude otherwise. But that nicely illustrates how exegetically inept Rome really is. One wonders, if this passage is all-important to them, why Roman Catholics don’t actually obey the true mandate and intent of the passage; namely, to marry one’s sister-in-law, after his brother’s death, in order to carry on his brother’s name. Not only do Roman Catholics insist on obedience to a decidedly flawed interpretation of the passage, but none of them actually obeys the correct interpretation of it! How ironic—not to mention hypocritical.
More recently, Pope John Paul II, commenting on Jesus’ words that "everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt 5:27-28), in his The Theology of the Body, has stated that: "Christ did not stress that it is ‘another man’s wife, . . . Even if [a man] looked in this way at the woman who is his wife, he could likewise commit adultery in his heart" (159). So, according to the pope, a man may have sexual relations with his wife; but he may not enjoy her beauty, femininity or sexuality in the process—that would, after all, be lusting after her. One wonders just how it is possible to become sexually aroused without these things. Isn’t lust identical to sexual attraction, after all? When Jesus gave the mandate not to lust after a woman, he obviously meant nothing other than that a man should refrain from sexually desiring a woman other than his wife. Jesus calls such action adultery. Adultery, by definition, is the act of sexual infidelity with someone other than one’s spouse. So, by its very definition, one cannot commit adultery by lusting after his own spouse.
When Humanae Vitae was issued, there was seen a need to obey the papal encyclical and at the same time to limit the number of children a couple has; hence, the "rhythm method"* was born. The rhythm method consists of complicated calculations about just when a woman is likely to ovulate (and hence conceive), and encourages abstinence from sexual relations during those times. This is a widely practiced method among Roman Catholics who want to be in obedience to the encyclical, but who do not want to have (more) children.
But once again hypocrisy rears its ugly head. Roman Catholics cannot licitly engage in any sexual gratification that does not lead to intercourse because that would be "onanism." It is a sin, on this view, to prevent pregnancy from occurring. In the particular case of Onan, contraception was achieved by "spilling the seed"; hence, in Roman Catholicism, if a marital sex act leads to a man "spilling the seed" before intercourse, that is a sin. Let’s compare two very real scenarios using this principle. Say a devout Roman Catholic couple have had two children and decide they don’t want any more. They can’t use contraception when having intercourse, so they decide on the "rhythm" method. Two incongruities are immediately obvious in this case. First, the very fact that they are using the "rhythm" method indicates that they intend to engage in sexual relations for the sheer pleasure of it, apart from procreative intent. But isn’t that a form of lust? Second, even though this couple may think they are avoiding contraception, they are in fact practicing the only authorized form of contraception available to a Roman Catholic. Premeditated abstinence for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy is itself a form of contraception because it shares a common purpose with all other contraception. The purpose of contraception is to provide a couple the ability to enjoy pleasurable sex while minimizing the likelihood of conception. That’s what the pill does; that’s what a condom does; and, like it or not, that is precisely what the rhythm method does. Each one of the these birth control methods exists solely to prevent pregnancy. So why is one approved by Rome, but the others condemned? Shouldn’t they all be sin under Roman teaching since they all accomplish the same purpose? As it stands, a Roman Catholic may do all he can to prevent pregnancy from happening, so long as he doesn’t use birth control or "spill the seed" in the process.
Now let’s look at a second couple. This couple is equally devoutly Roman Catholic, with the difference that they actually want to have children, but can’t due to the infertility of one or the other. Is it then okay for that couple to engage in marital sex that leads to "spilling" the man’s "seed"? After all, if one or the other is infertile, and neither of them intends to prevent pregnancy—and in fact they ensure that they regularly engage in intercourse during her "fertile" days to maximize the chances of conception—what real difference would it make if they are engaging in other-than-intercourse sexual activities at other times? How has this couple engaged in "onanism"?
As difficult as it is to believe, Rome still condemns this couple for that practice. Keep in mind that this couple actually wants to have children, has never prevented it through contraception (not even the "rhythm" method of contraception), and has simply concluded after five or ten years of marriage that it’s likely not going to happen. And so, in addition to intercourse (not in lieu of it, mind you) the couple engages in marital sex that leads to the man "spilling his seed," but does not lead to intercourse. According to Rome, this couple (who intends to have children, after all) is in sin, whereas the first couple (the one intending to prevent conception by practicing the "rhythm method" of contraception) is in right standing with God. In other words, in Roman Catholicism God is not interested in motives and intents of the heart; but He is vitally concerned about external acts. One cannot help but think of the "Corban" rule of the Jews, condemned by Jesus in Mark 7, which neatly suggested a way of getting around the internal intent of the law while still technically obeying the external form of the law. The so-called "rhythm method" is not only a Roman Catholic form of contraception, but it is also today’s Roman Catholic Corban rule.
I have had these thoughts for some time now, but have never written them down until now. What prompted me to write is a fairly recent book by Garry Wills, titled Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit. Wills is a professor of History at Northwestern University. It is a fascinating read, and in it Wills demonstrates the utter ridiculousness of some modern Roman Catholic sentiments regarding sex, birth control, marriage and divorce—oops, I mean annulment; Roman Catholics aren’t allowed to divorce, but sixty-thousand of them are allowed to "annul" their marriages every year. Even if they have been married 15 or 20 years and have several children, such a marriage "didn’t really exist" because of "invalid form"—whatever that means. The book is published by Doubleday.
Eric Svendsen, Ph.D.
*Some Roman Catholic epologists--namely, John M. Esparolini (http://pub145.ezboard.com/fcatholicoutlookfrm1.showMessage?topicID=110.topic ; http://disturber-of-the-peace.blogspot.com/ ) and John Pacheco (http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/coitus.htm), have taken swipes at my articles above, citing my supposed ignorance of the distinction between the rhythm method (an earlier version of Roman Catholic birth control) and its offspring, NFP (Natural Family Planning--the modern version of Roman Catholic birth control). I am, of course, aware that Roman Catholic apologists make a distinction between these, but it is a distinction without a difference--one is simply a more effective form of birth control than the other, and the difference lies chiefly in the length of the period of abstinence. If they argue that the rhythm method is obsolete and that NFP is universally accepted among Roman Catholics, then the charge of "ignorance" is easily redirected at them. All one need do to disprove that thesis is to speak with a Traditionalist Roman Catholic (such as the staff of CAI), who will happily condemn NFP as a modernist "contraceptive mindset." Moreover, the reason I focus on the rhythm method rather than NFP is because that is what Wills himself focuses on in his book (80-81, 89-90, 92, 99-101; both Pacheco and Esparolini would know this if they themselves had read Wills' book, and if they had paid attention to the title of this article--"Oh, and a Book Review, too"). Wills doesn't deal with NFP in his book; he deals with the rhythm method. If John M. Esparolini wants to take me to task for this kind of thing, then (if he's honest) he needs at least to acknowledge that I am simply reporting Wills' findings in my book review above.