Sarah Palin and Contraception

By John Vennari

            It is rare to see Pat Buchanan enthused over a Republican candidate, but he is certainly enthused about Sarah Palin.

            Because of Barak Obama’s ferociously pro-abortion stand, and the Republican platform’s appearance of anti-abortion with no exceptions, Buchanan calls this election “America's last hope to reverse Roe v. Wade. Upon its outcome will rest the life, or death, of millions of unborn children.”[1]

            McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin solidifies this conviction in most people’s minds, from conservatives of almost every stripe, to those on the left who hate Palin vociferously; including media, politicians, homosexuals, pro-aborts and trendy Hollywood creatures.

            Sarah Palin is certainly the most interesting personality to appear in a presidential race in decades. Coming from a small town with old-fashioned values, she appears to be genuine and honest.  In the maelstrom of American naturalism, in conjunction with the confusion of the times, she is probably – warts and all — one of the best the United States can now produce. [2]

            I have seen some conservative writers rip the stuffing out of her because she does not conform to the Catholic ideal, and I agree she does not conform to the Catholic standard. But I long ago gave up expecting the Catholic ideal from American politicians. I’ve even given up expecting it from American bishops, which is why I am shocked if an American prelate publicly displays backbone on a Catholic issue.

            Forty-four year-old Palin was baptized Roman Catholic, but followed her mother into a Protestant sect when Sarah was twelve. She is openly against abortion, and proved herself opposed to eugenic abortion by carrying to term and giving birth to son Trig, now five months old, whose was diagnosed with Down Syndrome in pre-natal testing.

            Palin’s weakness in the pro-life area shows itself in her attitude toward contraception. In a 2006 debate in Juneau, Alaska, Palin is on record saying, “I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues.”[3] This is a common Protestant position. It is also the mindset of multitudes of confused Catholics, that there is no discrepancy between being against abortion and for contraception simultaneously.

            I place the blame on this collapse of understanding on present-day Catholic leaders rather than on laypeople themselves. I went through twelve years of post-Conciliar Catholic school and was never taught that contraception is objectively immoral. (I never heard the term ‘mortal sin’ during my entire stay in high-school). Nor was I ever taught why the Catholic Church forbids contraception. As I was fortunate not to attend a modern Catholic university, I was spared the undermining of the Church’s anti-contraception teaching that is now the norm in most Catholic colleges – an undermining that post-Conciliar bishops seldom seek to correct.

            We’ve all heard Catholic priests and bishops mouth weak lip-service to Humanae Vitae (Pius XI’s superior Casti Cannubii is virtually never mentioned).  Yet it is rare to find a Catholic teacher, priest or bishop teach the simple truth that the moral argument against contraception and against abortion is one and the same argument.  

            There is not one argument against abortion, and a different argument against contraception. Both contraception and abortion violate the same principle of the natural law moral law; namely, It is never lawful to exercise an act and reject the end for which the act is designed.[4]

             The conjugal act is designed for the generation of new human life. Anything that frustrates that end is against both the natural moral law and the Divine Law. Both contraception and abortion frustrate the end of the marriage act, thus both contraception and abortion are grievously immoral for the exact same reason.

            We have no difficulty grasping this principle when it comes to eating. We do not take a bite of food, chew it to savor the flavor and then spit it out. Such an act would be contrary to reason, as it is against the purpose of eating, which is the nourishment of the body.

            Most people are rightly disgusted by the (perhaps fabled) account of ancient Romans gorging themselves with food, only to trot to the so-called “vomitorium”  and spew it all so that they could return to the feast to consume more food.

            We see that in both of these unnatural acts, the principle is the same: it is never lawful to exercise an act and reject the end for which the act is designed. The purpose of eating is the ingestion of food for the nourishment of the body. The above-mentioned acts are contrary to nature and therefore against reason.

            The spitting of the food can be compared to contraception; the self-induced vomiting of food can be likened to abortion, though contraception and abortion are far more heinous. Yet many of the same people who would denounce these eating habits as grotesque would nonetheless favor both contraception and abortion. Such a viewpoint demonstrates a mind that is not formed on principles, but on sentiment, on the imagination, and on the whim of human will.

            The principle is best illustrated in the alleged controversy surrounding St. Thomas Aquinas and abortion.  Democratic Senator Joe Biden recently made a prize fool of himself attempting to quote Aquinas on this point. Biden focused on the argument “when human life begins”, and quoted St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica, who said that human life does not occur until about 40 days after conception. Biden referred to this as a “controversy” in the Church.[5]

            In fact, there is no controversy, and no confusion in St. Thomas’ mind regarding abortion.

           St. Thomas was following the biologists of his time who believed that the child in the womb goes through three stages of gestation: vegetative, animal and finally human. This understanding of biology has proven to be inaccurate. We now know that the fetus is human from the moment of conception.

            Yet, as the eminent philosopher Dr. Raphael Waters points out, even though St. Thomas Aquinas may have been mistaken on biology, he never approved of abortion. Aquinas specifically condemned abortion in his doctoral thesis in which he said, “Although the child in the womb may not be human, nevertheless it is a very great evil to abort it.”[6]

            Dr. Waters explains that St. Thomas adhered to the true principle that must be followed. Aquinas argued from the end – from the purpose — of the conjugal act. Aquinas did not argue from the “humanity of the fetus”. He was on the surer principle that abortion is evil whether the fetus is “human or not”, because the end – the purpose -- of the conjugal act is discarded.  It is never lawful to exercise an act and reject the end for which the act is designed.

            Once we understand this principle, we better grasp the intrinsic immorality of contraception.[7] We better comprehend why the ethician Father Thomas Higgins wrote, “Positive contraception is a hideous crime against nature.”

            Higgins explained this statement by invoking the same principle we’ve already enunciated: “The ultimate purpose of the sex faculty is a tremendously important good [new human life]; and precisely because this ultimate perfective good is not so much a good of the individual as it is good of the human race, nature has attached the most vehement of all sense pleasures. Therefore to set this faculty in motion, to cull the pleasure and then positively and deliberately to prevent conception, to destroy the ultimate good for which alone the faculty exists, is a foul perversion, and intrinsically disordered use of the faculty, a frustration of nature in the matter of the utmost moment.”[8]

            In other words, to the conjugal act – as to eating – nature has attached pleasure as an inducement to the act, but it is not lawful to act strictly for pleasure alone and discard the very purpose of the act.

            The celebrated philosopher Romano Amerio concisely explains, “Contraception means a disassociation between what nature intends and what the human will intends, or to put it in the terms of an old but proper distinction, between the finis operas [the goal of the work] and the finis operantis [the goal of the one who performs the act.]”[9]

            This demonstrates that contraception is not a specifically Catholic issue, but rather an issue of the natural moral law to which all individuals are bound. Morality does not flow from the will of man but from the nature of man. Morality does not even flow from the will of God, but from the nature of God. It is blasphemous to believe that God could one day make one set of Commandments that forbid adultery and murder, and the next day make another set of Commandments that approves of adultery and murder. Morality does not flow from His will, but from His nature of infinite, perfect goodness.

            In a similar manner, the natural moral law flows from the nature of man, not his will. This is one of the reasons that the practice of modern democracy, which decides morality based on a conglomeration of human wills (i.e, leaving individuals to vote whether or not to “legalize” abortion, whether or not to redefine marriage to allow “homosexual-marriage”), is likewise against the natural moral law.

            Thus, the main principle against abortion and contraception is one and the same: It is never lawful to exercise an act and reject the end for which the act is designed.

            Sarah Palin, as with many in the pro-life movement, does not understand this principle, or perhaps has never had it sufficiently explained to her. This article was not meant to be condemnatory of Palin, nor is it meant to tell anyone how to vote, something CFN has never done. When friends tell me they intend to vote for McCain/Palin as, if nothing else, a vote against the rabidly pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Obama, I don’t try to talk them out of it. In this instance, as in all instances, each individual must act according to an informed Catholic conscience.

Notes:

From the October 2008 edition of
Catholic Family News
MPO Box 743 * Niagara Falls, NY 14302
905-871-6292

CFN is published once a month (12 times per year)
Subscription: $28.00 a year.
Request sample copy

  Home  •  Audio Cassettes & CDs   • New DVD Offer • CFN • Subscribe on