Contraception’s Carnage The Preamble to “Gay Marriage”

In many arenas where contraception’s ills are discussed, the focus of the discourse is often devoted to the negative effects on marriage (both in general and in particular), the possible abortifacient effect that some forms of contraception may introduce, the merits and arguments in favor of NFP, or the ravages of the contraceptive mindset. I will take up this last concern (the contraceptive mindset, which is normative in the developed world and an a priori fact of life) and one of its derelict effects: the onset of so-called “gay marriage.” To be sure, many students of the contraceptive mindset do not immediately connect it to “gay marriage.” Even in preaching praxis, congregations are often stunned at the suggestion. It seems that contraception is the province of heterosexual couples and an option that is not relevant in relations between persons of the same sex. And while that is true, it’s the philosophical underpinning behind contraception that is really in play. Simply put, the divorce of the teleological elements of marital conjugality (unitive and procreative, or babies and bonding) provided the precise template for the wide acceptability of the gay lifestyle and its logical conclusion—“gay marriage.”

The natural moral law’s teleological bent instructs us that the ends or goal of marital conjugality are unitive and procreative, or babies and bonding. Contraception frustrates the faculty of the conjugal act, by promising bonding without babies (even if the bonding dimension is itself not possible). This separation led to a change in the teleology in the wider culture. Instead of babies and bonding, the teleology of marriage and its conjugality became “personal fulfilment.” There was no global memo that announced this change, but over time, this mindset became prevalent and is now normative—all part of the wider contraceptive mentality. For many in the developed world, the idea of marrying but not raising a family of children is not uncommon. This pattern is already well-established with many co-habitating couples who prefer raising dogs to children, for example.

This takes us to alleged “gay marriage.” When the gay lobby began pushing for “gay marriage” and ubiquitous celebrations of June Pride Month (circa during the first term of the Obama presidency in the US context), the Church did not seem to have any compelling arguments to offer in response. After all, who could tell any two persons that they could not seek the new teleology of relations (no longer babies and bonding): personal fulfilment. We can infer from this impotence on the Church’s part that very few in the Church were themselves convinced of the efficacy of the natural moral law or the teleology of marital conjugality. It was too late—the die had already been cast in a post-Humanae Vitae rejection moral landscape. Anecdotally, most moral theologians and canonists (who handle annulments) will unhesitatingly admit that the Church’s teaching against artificial contraception is perhaps its most-ignored moral teaching, even among self-identified practicing Catholics. And so, state after state in the US context began legalizing “gay marriage” almost without any opposition. Massachusetts was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2004, followed by other states in subsequent years through court rulings, legislation, or popular vote. Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire legalized it between 2008 and 2009. This expansion of rights was a state-by-state process until the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 made it legal nationwide. And the Church’s response was mostly silent, to its shame. Currently, the acceptance of “gay rights” and “gay marriage” is considered a mark of modernity for developing nations.

While it is true that the Church does not officially teach that artificial contraception is morally licit, the lived reality of this teaching is abysmal. And so, it should not have come to anyone’s surprise that the Church was ill-prepared to make its case, leveraging the merits of the natural moral law. It can be argued that the Church lost the argument because the Church itself was not in concert with her own moral law ad intra. Cynically, one might even argue that it’s surprising that it took the gay lobby as long as it did to arrive at their successful campaign to normalize homosexuality and all of its attendant rights claims. It was just a matter of time.

Observant Catholics appreciate that the Church is among the last of communities on the planet where the natural moral law is taught and respected. It is important to know, however, that practically all Protestant sects diverge from traditional Catholic moral theology on this precise point. And so, it is important not to lay blame entirely on the Catholic Church in this regard. Hardly a Protestant congregation would be willing to stand in solidarity with Catholics who still adhere to the natural moral law. This division dates all the way back to the Lambeth Conference in the late 1920s, when the doctrinal schism in Western Christianity took a new turn into moral schism, beyond the acceptance of divorce and remarriage.

Given this teleological shift, what is an observant Catholic to do? A few ideas come to mind: First, it requires mastery of the contours of the narrative presented here. Every human person is born into a zeitgeist and knows no other lived reality. Hence, it is imperative to learn that this is not always the way things used to be. Furthermore, the narrative presented above does not express a nostalgia for a pre-Lambeth world. Rather, it is illustrative of the need to recommit to the natural moral law, man’s rational participation in the eternal law of God. Second, it requires the courage to challenge conventional wisdom regarding contraception. Citing the decline of marriage (in part attributable to contraception’s mutual internal rejection within the union) and all of its derelict social effects (like the one cited in this reflection), observant Catholics can tap into the frustration and despair that many feel regarding the decline of society. And third, observant Catholics ought to pray and fast for the conversion of the culture, that it will rediscover the cultus and its moral demands that makes culture what it is and ought to be.