The World of Religions, November-December 2008 —
On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, Benedict XVI firmly reiterated the Catholic Church's opposition to contraception, with the exception of "the observation of the natural rhythms of a woman's fertility," when the couple is going through "grave circumstances ," justifying child spacing. These remarks naturally sparked a chorus of criticism, once again highlighting the disconnect between the Church's moral doctrine and the evolution of morals. This disconnect does not seem to me to constitute, in itself, a justified criticism. The Church is not a business that must sell its message at all costs. The fact that its discourse is out of step with the evolution of our societies can also be a salutary sign of resistance to the spirit of the times. The Pope is not there to bless the revolution of morals, but to defend certain truths in which he believes, even if it means losing the faithful. The real criticism that can be made of this condemnation of contraception concerns the argument that justifies it. Benedict XVI reminded us that excluding the possibility of giving life "by means of an action aimed at preventing procreation" amounts to "denying the intimate truth of conjugal love." By indissolubly linking the love of spouses to procreation, the Church's magisterium remains in conformity with an old Catholic tradition dating back to Saint Augustine, which distrusts the flesh and carnal pleasure, and ultimately conceives of sexual relations only in the perspective of reproduction. On this basis, can a sterile couple be in the truth of love? However, nothing in the Gospels corroborates such an interpretation, and there exists in other Christian traditions, notably Eastern ones, a completely different view of love and human sexuality. There is therefore a fundamental theological problem here that deserves to be completely rethought, not because of the evolution of morals, but because of an eminently questionable vision of sexuality and the love of spouses. Not to mention, of course, the often dramatic social consequences that such discourse can have in poor populations, where contraception is often the only effective means of combating increasing impoverishment. Religious figures themselves, such as Abbé Pierre and Sister Emmanuelle – a young centenarian to whom I wish a happy birthday! – both wrote to John Paul II to this effect. It is undoubtedly for these profound reasons, and not only because of the revolution in morals, that many Catholics have deserted the churches since 1968. As Cardinal Etchegaray recently said, Humanae Vitae constituted in its time a "silent schism," so many of the faithful were shocked by the vision of married life conveyed by the papal encyclical. These disappointed Catholics are not libertine couples, advocating unbridled sexuality, but believers who love each other and who do not understand why the truth of their couple's love would be dissolved by a sexual life dissociated from the plan to have children. Apart from the most extremist fringes, no other Christian denomination, and indeed no other religion, holds such a view. Why is the Catholic Church still so afraid of carnal pleasure? It is understandable that the Church recalls the sacred nature of the gift of life. But does sexuality, lived in authentic love, not also constitute an experience of the sacred?