Humanae Vitae - On the Regulation of Birth - Part II

This article is a continuation of the article in last week’s bulletin
concerning the encyclical letter Humane Vitae, written by Pope Paul VI in
1968. Last week we looked at the beginning of the encyclical. It points
out that in the serious duty of transmitting human life, married persons are
the collaborators of God the Creator. Arguments to justify artificial
methods of birth control often appeal to demands of conjugal love and of
‘responsible parenthood.’ So the encyclical says that “marriage and
conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and
educating of children.” In responsible parenthood, whether generously
deciding to raise a numerous family or, for grave reasons, to avoid a new
birth, “each and every marriage act … must remain open to the transmission
of life.”

From there the encyclical continues in pointing out that “a conjugal act
imposed upon one’s partner without regard for his or her condition and
lawful desires is not a true act of love.” To engage in the marriage act
while intending to destroy the possibility of conception is to destroy the
meaning and purpose of the act. To destroy its ”meaning and its purpose is
to contradict the nature both of man and of woman and of their most
intimate relationship, and therefore it is to contradict also the plan of
God and His will.” It is not possible to justify conjugal acts that are
deliberately made infertile.

The encyclical then states the ways that are morally unacceptable for
regulating birth. First of all, abortion used as a means of birth control
is absolutely wrong. Equally unacceptable is direct sterilization. Also
unacceptable 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.” It is not acceptable, “even for the gravest
reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom … even when the
intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social
well-being.”

This leaves us with a question. Isn’t it reasonable to regulate birth for
the “harmony and peace of the family, and better conditions for the
education of the children already born?” “The Church is the first to praise
and recommend the intervention of intelligence in a function which so
closely associates the rational creature with his Creator;” BUT “she affirms
that this must be done with respect for the order established by God.”

So if there are SERIOUS reasons to space out births, it is legitimate to
engage in the marriage act in the infertile periods only, and in this way to
regulate birth without offending the moral principles we have discussed.
There are essential differences between these two methods of regulating
birth. By engaging in the marriage act during the infertile periods, the
married couple makes legitimate use of a natural disposition. However, when
using artificial methods of birth control, they impede the development of
natural processes.

It is true that both methods intend to avoid children for plausible
reasons. “It is also true that only in the former case are they able to
renounce the use” of the marriage act in the fertile “periods when, for just
motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during”
infertile “periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual
fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest
love.”

From here the encyclical makes a list of the grave consequences of methods
of artificial birth control. They are surprisingly prophetic. We will
start there for part III, the last part of the article, located here.