Thursday, June 26, 2025

Dogs that Don't Bark, Part 2

Hearing John Paul II's three barks in section one

06/14/2025

We have reached now the penultimate section of the entire Theology of the Body (only one to go). All the preceding pages were essentially John Paul plowing fertile ground so that the Word of God, the Sower’s seed (Mt 13, Mk 4, Lk. 😎 could be planted in it and bear much fruit. And the pope-saint will not allow any contraceptives to frustrate the fecundity and yield an abundant harvest.

The Holy Father wants to accomplish three objectives in this first section of chapter three named “The Ethical Problem”, or according to our metaphor in this chapter he is a guard dog that barks three times. First, the pope insists that the teaching about contraception proceeds from a deeply pastoral care and concern for Christians.

Second, he shows how the teaching on contraception is built on the whole preceding Theology of the Body, and stands as its culmination point. And third, he believes that even though the teaching on contraception feels daunting, indeed, like way of the cross, it is the surest road to follow Jesus.

First John Paul admits that human sexuality and regulating births is a genuinely vexing question and has far-reaching ramifications. Still it is precisely because the Church takes these challenges so seriously that she reiterates her unbroken doctrine against contraception. Consider the pope’s pastoral perspective:

[The Church’s teaching about contraception] is intended to be a response to the questions of contemporary men and women…Those who believe that the [Second Vatican] Council and the encyclical [Humanae Vitae] do not sufficiently take into account the difficulties of concrete life do not understand the pastoral concern that stood at the origin of these documents. Pastoral concern means seeking the true good of man, promoting the values impressed by God on the human person (623, 625)

That is, Paul VI and John Paul II are not preaching from some lofty ivory tower far removed from the problems of common Christians.

In fact, the opposite is true, both are keenly aware of exactly what is at stake. If the popes allowed Christians to behave as they pleased – indiscriminately following their erotic passions – and use contraceptives without censure, the popes would analogously be like parents who negligently let their children eat junk food and ignore the harm it inflicts on their physical health.

Think about it: contraceptives poison our souls like excessive cookies and cakes are inimical to our bodies. They may taste pleasant at first, but in the end they rob us of our physical and moral health. "Pastoral parents" make their children aware of of that danger and protect them from it. "Permissive parents" allow their children to consume whatever their disordered hearts desire because they are like dogs that don’t bark.

Secondly, John Paul asserts that the morally relevant reason that contraception is wrong is because of who the human person is, that is, he or she is created “in the image and likeness of God” (Gn 1:26). Recall how the pope painted a picture of man in the Garden of Eden by describing him as enjoying three unique experiences: Original Solitude, Original Unity, and Original Nakedness.

If we wanted to combine those original experiences into one concept, we might say Adam and Eve formed – especially in their sexual intimacy – a “communion of persons.” Further, that human communion of spouses reflects – albeit by analogy – the Holy Trinity, the infinite and divine Communion of Persons. And just as God’s communion is always loving and fruitful – the Holy Spirit is the eternal Fruit or the love of the Father and the Son – so spousal love is intrinsically and necessarily both unitive and procreative.

The pope ties together several strands of his foregoing arguments, and states:

As ministers of a sacrament that is constituted through consent and perfected by conjugal union [the wedding words and works], man and woman are called to express the mysterious “language” of their bodies in all the truth that properly belongs to it…According to the criterion of this truth…the conjugal act “means” not only love but also potential fruitfulness, and thus it cannot be deprived of its full and adequate meaning by means of artificial interventions. Such a violation of the inner order of the conjugal communion, a communion that plunges its roots into the very order of the person, constitutes the essential evil of the contraceptive act (632, 633).

In other words, spouses should not use artificial means to block their sexual fruitfulness for the same reason that in the heart of the Holy Trinity nothing blocks their essential love and eternal fruitfulness. Until you can behold each human person, especially a husband and wife, as a child of God, you will not catch the “essential evil of contraception.”

Let me bring this a little closer to home. I adopted my dog Apollo when he was 4 months old. The vet told me I should wait until he was between 6 to 8 months old before having him neutered, by removing his testicles. Poor guy. Now that is a morally good thing to do to Apollo, but it would be a morally very bad thing to do to Fr. John. Why? Because Fr. John is created in the image and likeness of God, and Apollo is not; although he think he is a god because he’s named Apollo.

The difference between me and Apollo highlights “the essential evil of the contraceptive act.” This difference between man and dog, and this dignity between man and God, is precisely what the pope has been at pains to demonstrate in the preceding 600 pages. And the reason people continue to use contraception is because they can neither acknowledge that difference nor do they appreciate that dignity.

Thirdly, John Paul gets to the “brass tacks”, the hard part of not using contraceptives, namely, periodic abstinence. He states the salient points of Paul VI’s encyclical: “Humanae Vitae underlines several times that “responsible parenthood" is connected with a continual effort and commitment and that it can be realized only at the price of a precise [asceticism or self-discipline] (see HV 21)” (637).

When I meet with young couples for marriage preparation I encourage them to learn and use Natural Family Planning. I present NFP by asking them: “In most forms of contraception, which person makes all the sacrifices?” The young girl immediately raises her hand with a wry frown on her face. She take the pill, the IUD, the Depovera, the diaphragm, etc. I go on: “And when one person is carrying all the weight and making all the sacrifices, it can create some imbalance, and even resentment.”

But then I add: “The reason NFP is so good and healthy for marriage is that even though for 7 to 10 days you cannot have sex (and that is hard), you both have to tighten your belt and suck it up together. By sharing the burdens and carrying your crosses together, you build a stronger marriage.” By the way, couples who faithfully practice Natural Family Planning have a virtually zero divorce rate.

Put differently, couples who avoid using contraception are avoiding consuming moral poison. Instead, by practicing periodic abstinence, they are doing the ethical work-out called Natural Family Planning, and building the muscles to sustain a strong marriage. And most importantly, they are shining examples of the love and fruitfulness, the unity and procreativity, of the Most Holy Trinity. Woof! Woof! Woof!

Praised be Jesus Christ!

No comments:

Post a Comment