Is the Church Contradicting Itself by Banning Abortion AND Contraception?

As pretty much everybody knows, the Catholic Church stands firmly against abortion.  What often confuses people is how the Church could then go on to be against contraception too.  Every now and then I'll hear a person say:

"If the Church was really  against abortion, it would be the biggest proponent of contraception.  Properly used, contraception has the power to prevent unwanted pregnancies - thus eliminating the need for abortion.  So it is working cross-purposes in banning both."

That's what I wanted to look at today.


No Half-Measures:

First, let's look at something different.

A while ago we asked whether it would be right to take a time machine back to 1890 and kill Hitler as a baby.  The answer was NO.  Evil deeds (like killing a baby) do not become right just because you have a greater good in mind when you do it.  There are other, more ethical options one should take.

Well, the same thing applies here.  The morality of contraception has to be evaluated on its own - not just in comparison to some greater evil.  And if the Church has good reasons to say contraception is bad, that's what it is going to teach.

Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount:

"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." - Matthew 5:48

So you can expect the Church to follow suit.  It doesn't exist to call us to mediocrity.  It is supposed to hold out the entirety of moral truth and rally us toward it.

Think about it this way.  Imagine the following encounter between a doctor and a patient:

The point is just because you want to do something good, that doesn't mean you can do it in any way you want.  A doctor tells you to do the best thing for your health.  We may find it difficult or unreasonable, but that's what we expect.  The Church calls us to do what is best for the soul.


Football Helmets and Smartphones:

However... you really don't have to grant the premise that contraception reduces the need for abortion.  That would be true if people were machines, but we're not.  The real picture is far more murky.

Sometimes things work in a counter-intuitive way because of a factor often left out of the equation – human nature.  My favorite way to illustrate this is an example from the world of sports.  Take a look at this article from the Wall Street Journal about the dangers of football helmets.

The first hard-shell helmets, which became popular in the 1940s, weren't designed to prevent concussions but to prevent players in that rough-and-tumble era from suffering catastrophic injuries like fractured skulls.

But while these helmets reduced the chances of death on the field, they also created a sense of invulnerability that encouraged players to collide more forcefully and more often. "Almost every single play, you're going to get hit in the head," says Miami Dolphins offensive tackle Jake Long.

What nobody knew at the time is that these small collisions may be just as damaging. The growing body of research on former football players suggests that brain damage isn't necessarily the result of any one trauma, but the accumulation of thousands of seemingly innocuous blows to the head. 

One of the strongest arguments for banning helmets comes from the Australian Football League. While it's a similarly rough game, the AFL never added any of the body armor Americans wear. When comparing AFL research studies and official NFL injury reports, AFL players appear to get hurt more often on the whole with things like shoulder injuries and tweaked knees. But when it comes to head injuries, the helmeted NFL players are about 25% more likely to sustain one.

- “Is it Time to Retire the Football Helmet?”, Reed Albergotti, Wall Street Journal, Nov 11, 2009

This article points out that wearing football helmets gives the players a sense of invulnerability.  That leads to more reckless behavior and more injuries.  Because despite the obvious function of the helmet, human nature accomplishes the exact opposite of what is intended.

Unexpected Results:

Using the logic of the football helmet story, you can begin to explain how the reliance on contraception can lead to changing attitudes and an increase in risky behavior.  Thus, whatever preventative capabilities exist in contraception can be undone by increased sexual activity.

All contraception has a failure rate – and all people can make mistakes in using it.  It is really inevitable.  These two weaknesses ensure that with an increase of sexual activity, many people will find themselves a victim of probability.

And here's the thing... contraception also changes people's mindset toward babies.  People stop being prepared for the inevitable results of sex.  The baby becomes an intruder into what should have been harmless recreation.

Which means...

Yep, abortion jumped as soon as widespread contraception became a thing.  And that same trend can be found in all Western nations at the same time period.  What's more, recent studies have shown that condom distribution plans have backfired.  It turns out reducing contraception programs have actually reduced teen pregnancies.

Why?  Again, because as soon as society promotes sex as a mere sign of affection or a means of recreation, you have more people treating it that way.  Nature will inevitably remind us that the sexual act is inherently ordered toward making babies - even if we don't want it to be.

What this all means is that the Church isn't wrong to oppose contraception alongside abortion.  It knows human nature too well.  And it rightly sees contraception - not as a preventative to abortion - but as the gateway drug which inevitably sparks the demand for it.

The best way to oppose abortion remains the right way;  Patience, chastity, and self-mastery.

There really is no substitute.