| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CHRISTIAN MORALITY
Of Human Life
by Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M., Cap.
A pastoral letter to the people of God of
northern Colorado on the truth and meaning of married love
—Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver
July 22, 1998
Of Human Life
Dear brothers and sisters in the Lord,
1. Thirty years ago this week, Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical
letter Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life), which reaffirmed the Church’s constant teaching
on the regulation of births. It is certainly the most misunderstood papal intervention of
this century. It was the spark which led to three decades of doubt and dissent among many
Catholics, especially in the developed countries. With the passage of time, however, it
has also proven prophetic. It teaches the truth. My purpose in this pastoral letter,
therefore, is simple. I believe the message of Humanae Vitae is not a burden but a joy. I
believe this encyclical offers a key to deeper, richer marriages. And so what I seek from
the family of our local Church is not just a respectful nod toward a document which
critics dismiss as irrelevant, but an active and sustained effort to study Humanae Vitae;
to teach it faithfully in our parishes; and to encourage our married couples to live it.
I. The World Since 1968
2. Sooner or later, every pastor counsels someone struggling with an
addiction. Usually the problem is alcohol or drugs. And usually the scenario is the same.
The addict will acknowledge the problem but claim to be powerless against it. Or,
alternately, the addict will deny having any problem at all, even if the addiction is
destroying his or her health and wrecking job and family. No matter how much sense the
pastor makes; no matter how true and persuasive his arguments; and no matter how
life-threatening the situation, the addict simply cannot understand — or cannot act
on — the counsel. The addiction, like a thick pane of glass, divides the addict from
anything or anyone that might help.
3. One way to understand the history of Humanae Vitae is to examine the
past three decades through this metaphor of addiction. I believe people in the developed
world find this encyclical so hard to accept not because of any defect in Paul VI’s
reasoning, but because of the addictions and contradictions they have inflicted upon
themselves, exactly as the Holy Father warned.
4. In presenting his encyclical, Paul VI cautioned against four main
problems (HV 17) that would arise if Church teaching on the regulation of births was
ignored. First, he warned that the widespread use of contraception would lead to
“conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality.” Exactly this has
happened. Few would deny that the rates of abortion, divorce, family breakdown, wife and
child abuse, venereal disease and out of wedlock births have all massively increased since
the mid-1960s. Obviously, the birth control pill has not been the only factor in this
unraveling. But it has played a major role. In fact, the cultural revolution since 1968,
driven at least in part by transformed attitudes toward sex, would not have been possible
or sustainable without easy access to reliable contraception. In this, Paul VI was right.
5. Second, he also warned that man would lose respect for woman and
“no longer [care] for her physical and psychological equilibrium,” to the point
that he would consider her “as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer
as his respected and beloved companion.” In other words, according to the Pope,
contraception might be marketed as liberating for women, but the real
“beneficiaries” of birth control pills and devices would be men. Three decades
later, exactly as Paul VI suggested, contraception has released males — to a
historically unprecedented degree — from responsibility for their sexual aggression.
In the process, one of the stranger ironies of the contraception debate of the past
generation has been this: Many feminists have attacked the Catholic Church for her alleged
disregard of women, but the Church in Humanae Vitae identified and rejected sexual
exploitation of women years before that message entered the cultural mainstream. Again,
Paul VI was right.
6. Third, the Holy Father also warned that widespread use of
contraception would place a “dangerous weapon . . . in the hands of those public
authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies.” As we have since discovered,
eugenics didn’t disappear with Nazi racial theories in 1945. Population control
policies are now an accepted part of nearly every foreign aid discussion. The massive
export of contraceptives, abortion and sterilization by the developed world to developing
countries — frequently as a prerequisite for aid dollars and often in direct
contradiction to local moral traditions — is a thinly disguised form of population
warfare and cultural re-engineering. Again, Paul VI was right.
7. Fourth, Pope Paul warned that contraception would mislead human
beings into thinking they had unlimited dominion over their own bodies, relentlessly
turning the human person into the object of his or her own intrusive power. Herein lies
another irony: In fleeing into the false freedom provided by contraception and abortion,
an exaggerated feminism has actively colluded in women’s dehumanization. A man and a
woman participate uniquely in the glory of God by their ability to co-create new life with
Him. At the heart of contraception, however, is the assumption that fertility is an
infection which must be attacked and controlled, exactly as antibiotics attack bacteria.
In this attitude, one can also see the organic link between contraception and abortion. If
fertility can be misrepresented as an infection to be attacked, so too can new life. In
either case, a defining element of woman’s identity — her potential for bearing
new life — is recast as a weakness requiring vigilant distrust and
“treatment.” Woman becomes the object of the tools she relies on to ensure her
own liberation and defense, while man takes no share of the burden. Once again, Paul VI
was right.
8. From the Holy Father’s final point, much more has flowed: In
vitro fertilization, cloning, genetic manipulation and embryo experimentation are all
descendants of contraceptive technology. In fact, we have drastically and naively
underestimated the effects of technology not only on external society, but on our own
interior human identity. As author Neil Postman has observed, technological change is not
additive but ecological. A significant new technology does not “add” something
to a society; it changes everything — just as a drop of red dye does not remain
discrete in a glass of water, but colors and changes every single molecule of the liquid.
Contraceptive technology, precisely because of its impact on sexual intimacy, has
subverted our understanding of the purpose of sexuality, fertility and marriage itself. It
has detached them from the natural, organic identity of the human person and disrupted the
ecology of human relationships. It has scrambled our vocabulary of love, just as pride
scrambled the vocabulary of Babel.
9. Now we deal daily with the consequences. I am writing these thoughts
during a July week when, within days of each other, news media have informed us that
nearly 14 percent of Coloradans are or have been involved in drug or alcohol dependency; a
governor’s commission has praised marriage while simultaneously recommending steps
that would subvert it in Colorado by extending parallel rights and responsibilities to
persons in “committed relationships,” including same-sex relationships; and a
young east coast couple have been sentenced for brutally slaying their newborn baby.
According to news reports, one or both of the young unmarried parents “bashed in [the
baby’s] skull while he was still alive, and then left his battered body in a Dumpster
to die.” These are the headlines of a culture in serious distress. U.S. society is
wracked with sexual identity and behavior dysfunctions, family collapse and a general
coarsening of attitudes toward the sanctity of human life. It’s obvious to everyone
but an addict: We have a problem. It’s killing us as a people. So what are we going
to do about it? What I want to suggest is that if Paul VI was right about so many of the
consequences deriving from contraception, it is because he was right about contraception
itself. In seeking to become whole again as persons and as a people of faith, we need to
begin by revisiting Humanae Vitae with open hearts. Jesus said the truth would make us
free. Humanae Vitae is filled with truth. It is therefore a key to our freedom.
II. What Humanae Vitae Really Says
10. Perhaps one of the flaws in communicating the message of Humanae
Vitae over the last 30 years has been the language used in teaching it. The duties and
responsibilities of married life are numerous. They’re also serious. They need to be
considered carefully, and prayerfully, in advance. But few couples understand their love
in terms of academic theology. Rather, they fall in love. That’s the vocabulary they
use. It’s that simple and revealing. They surrender to each other. They give
themselves to each other. They fall into each other in order to fully possess, and be
possessed by, each other. And rightly so. In married love, God intends that spouses should
find joy and delight, hope and abundant life, in and through each other — all ordered
in a way which draws husband and wife, their children, and all who know them, deeper into
God’s embrace.
11. As a result, in presenting the nature of Christian marriage to a
new generation, we need to articulate its fulfilling satisfactions at least as well as its
duties. The Catholic attitude toward sexuality is anything but puritanical, repressive or
anti-carnal. God created the world and fashioned the human person in His own image.
Therefore the body is good. In fact, it’s often been a source of great humor for me
to listen incognito as people simultaneously complain about the alleged “bottled-up
sexuality” of Catholic moral doctrine, and the size of many good Catholic families.
(From where, one might ask, do they think the babies come?) Catholic marriage —
exactly like Jesus Himself — is not about scarcity but abundance. It’s not about
sterility, but rather the fruitfulness which flows from unitive, procreative love.
Catholic married love always implies the possibility of new life; and because it does, it
drives out loneliness and affirms the future. And because it affirms the future, it
becomes a furnace of hope in a world prone to despair. In effect, Catholic marriage is
attractive because it is true. It’s designed for the creatures we are: persons meant
for communion. Spouses complete each other. When God joins a woman and man together in
marriage, they create with Him a new wholeness; a “belonging” which is so real,
so concrete, that a new life, a child, is its natural expression and seal. This is what
the Church means when she teaches that Catholic married love is by its nature both unitive
and procreative — not either/or.
12. But why can’t a married couple simply choose the unitive
aspect of marriage and temporarily block or even permanently prevent its procreative
nature? The answer is as simple and radical as the Gospel itself. When spouses give
themselves honestly and entirely to each other, as the nature of married love implies and
even demands, that must include their whole selves — and the most intimate, powerful
part of each person is his or her fertility. Contraception not only denies this fertility
and attacks procreation; in doing so, it necessarily damages unity as well. It is the
equivalent of spouses saying: “I’ll give you all I am — except my
fertility; I’ll accept all you are — except your fertility.” This
withholding of self inevitably works to isolate and divide the spouses, and unravel the
holy friendship between them . . . maybe not immediately and overtly, but deeply, and in
the long run often fatally for the marriage.
13. This is why the Church is not against “artificial”
contraception. She is against all contraception. The notion of “artificial” has
nothing to do with the issue. In fact, it tends to confuse discussion by implying that the
debate is about a mechanical intrusion into the body’s organic system. It is not. The
Church has no problem with science appropriately intervening to heal or enhance bodily
health. Rather, the Church teaches that all contraception is morally wrong; and not only
wrong, but seriously wrong. The covenant which husband and wife enter at marriage requires
that all intercourse remain open to the transmission of new life. This is what becoming
“one flesh” implies: complete self-giving, without reservation or exception,
just as Christ withheld nothing of Himself from His bride, the Church, by dying for her on
the cross. Any intentional interference with the procreative nature of intercourse
necessarily involves spouses’ withholding themselves from each other and from God,
who is their partner in sacramental love. In effect, they steal something infinitely
precious — themselves — from each other and from their Creator.
14. And this is why natural family planning (NFP) differs not merely in
style but in moral substance from contraception as a means of regulating family size. NFP
is not contraception. Rather, it is a method of fertility awareness and appreciation. It
is an entirely different approach to regulating birth. NFP does nothing to attack
fertility, withhold the gift of oneself from one’s spouse, or block the procreative
nature of intercourse. The marriage covenant requires that each act of intercourse be
fully an act of self-giving, and therefore open to the possibility of new life. But when,
for good reasons, a husband and wife limit their intercourse to the wife’s natural
periods of infertility during a month, they are simply observing a cycle which God Himself
created in the woman. They are not subverting it. And so they are living within the law of
God’s love.
15. There are, of course, many wonderful benefits to the practice of
NFP. The wife preserves herself from intrusive chemicals or devices and remains true to
her natural cycle. The husband shares in the planning and responsibility for NFP. Both
learn a greater degree of self-mastery and a deeper respect for each other. It’s true
that NFP involves sacrifices and periodic abstinence from intercourse. It can, at times,
be a difficult road. But so can any serious Christian life, whether ordained, consecrated,
single or married. Moreover, the experience of tens of thousands of couples has shown
that, when lived prayerfully and unselfishly, NFP deepens and enriches marriage and
results in greater intimacy — and greater joy. In the Old Testament, God told our
first parents to be fruitful and multiply (Gn 1:28). He told us to choose life (Dt 30:19).
He sent His son, Jesus, to bring us life abundantly (Jn 10:10) and to remind us that His
yoke is light (Mt 11:30). I suspect, therefore, that at the heart of Catholic ambivalence
toward Humanae Vitae is not a crisis of sexuality, Church authority or moral relevance,
but rather a question of faith: Do we really believe in God’s goodness? The Church
speaks for her Bridegroom, Jesus Christ, and believers naturally, eagerly listen. She
shows married couples the path to enduring love and a culture of life. Thirty years of
history record the consequences of choosing otherwise.
III. What We Need to Do
16. I want to express my gratitude to the many couples who already live
the message of Humanae Vitae in their married lives. Their fidelity to the truth
sanctifies their own families and our entire community of faith. I thank in a special way
those couples who teach NFP and counsel others in responsible parenthood inspired by
Church teaching. Their work too often goes unnoticed or underappreciated — but they
are powerful advocates for life in an age of confusion. I also want to offer my prayers
and encouragement to those couples who bear the cross of infertility. In a society often
bent on avoiding children, they carry the burden of yearning for children but having none.
No prayers go unanswered, and all suffering given over to the Lord bears fruit in some
form of new life. I encourage them to consider adoption, and I appeal to them to remember
that a good end can never justify a wrong means. Whether to prevent a pregnancy or achieve
one, all techniques which separate the unitive and procreative dimensions of marriage are
always wrong. Procreative techniques which turn embryos into objects and mechanically
substitute for the loving embrace of husband and wife violate human dignity and treat life
as a product. No matter how positive their intentions, these techniques advance the
dangerous tendency to reduce human life to material which can be manipulated.
17. It’s never too late to turn our hearts back toward God. We are
not powerless. We can make a difference by witnessing the truth about married love and
fidelity to the culture around us. In December last year, in a pastoral letter entitled
Good News of Great Joy, I spoke of the important vocation every Catholic has as an
evangelizer. We are all missionaries. America in the 1990s, with its culture of disordered
sexuality, broken marriages and fragmented families, urgently needs the Gospel. As Pope
John Paul II writes in his apostolic exhortation On the Family (Familiaris Consortio),
married couples and families have a critical role in witnessing Jesus Christ to each other
and to the surrounding culture (49, 50).
18. In that light, I ask married couples of the archdiocese to read,
discuss and pray over Humanae Vitae, Familiaris Consortio and other documents of the
Church which outline Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality. Many married couples,
unaware of the valuable wisdom found in these materials, have deprived themselves of a
beautiful source of support for their mutual love. I especially encourage couples to
examine their own consciences regarding contraception, and I ask them to remember that
“conscience” is much more than a matter of personal preference. It requires us
to search out and understand Church teaching, and to honestly strive to conform our hearts
to it. I urge them to seek sacramental Reconciliation for the times they may have fallen
into contraception. Disordered sexuality is the dominant addiction of American society in
these closing years of the century. It directly or indirectly impacts us all. As a result,
for many, this teaching may be a hard message to accept. But do not lose heart. Each of us
is a sinner. Each of us is loved by God. No matter how often we fail, God will deliver us
if we repent and ask for the grace to do His will.
19. I ask my brother priests to examine their own pastoral practices,
to ensure that they faithfully and persuasively present the Church’s teaching on
these issues in all their parish work. Our people deserve the truth about human sexuality
and the dignity of marriage. To accomplish this, I ask pastors to read and implement the
Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life, and to
study the Church’s teaching on marriage and family planning. I urge them to appoint
parish coordinators to facilitate the presentation of Catholic teaching on married love
and family planning — especially NFP. Contraception is a grave matter. Married
couples need the good counsel of the Church to make right decisions. Most married
Catholics welcome the guidance of their priests, and priests should never feel intimidated
by their personal commitment to celibacy, or embarrassed by the teaching of the Church. To
be embarrassed by Church teaching is to be embarrassed by Christ’s teaching. The
pastoral experience and counsel of a priest are valuable on issues like contraception
precisely because he brings new perspective to a couple and speaks for the whole Church.
Moreover, the fidelity a priest shows to his own vocation strengthens married people to
live their vocation more faithfully.
20. As archbishop, I commit myself and my offices to supporting my
brother priests, deacons and their lay collaborators in presenting the whole of the
Church’s teaching on married love and family planning. I owe both the clergy of our
local Church and their staffs — especially the many dedicated parish catechists
— much gratitude for the good work they have already accomplished in this area. It is
my intention to ensure that courses on married love and family planning are available on a
regular basis to more and more people of the archdiocese, and that our priests and deacons
receive more extensive education in the theological and pastoral aspects of these issues.
I direct, in a particular way, our Offices of Evangelization and Catechetics; Marriage and
Family Life; Catholic Schools; Youth, Young Adult and Campus Ministries; and the Rite of
Christian Initiation for Adults to develop concrete ways to better present Church teaching
on married love to our people, and to require adequate instruction in NFP as part of all
marriage preparation programs in the archdiocese.
21. Two final points. First, the issue of contraception is not
peripheral, but central and serious in a Catholic’s walk with God. If knowingly and
freely engaged in, contraception is a grave sin, because it distorts the essence of
marriage: the self-giving love which, by its very nature, is life-giving. It breaks apart
what God created to be whole: the person-uniting meaning of sex (love) and the life-giving
meaning of sex (procreation). Quite apart from its cost to individual marriages,
contraception has also inflicted massive damage on society at large: initially by driving
a wedge between love and the procreation of children; and then between sex (i.e.,
recreational sex without permanent commitment) and love. Nonetheless — and this is my
second point — teaching the truth should always be done with patience and compassion,
as well as firmness. American society seems to swing peculiarly between puritanism and
license. The two generations — my own and my teachers’ — which once led the
dissent from Paul VI’s encyclical in this country, are generations still reacting
against the American Catholic rigorism of the 1950s. That rigorism, much of it a product
of culture and not doctrine, has long since been demolished. But the habit of skepticism
remains. In reaching these people, our task is to turn their distrust to where it belongs:
toward the lies the world tells about the meaning of human sexuality, and the pathologies
those lies conceal.
22. In closing, we face an opportunity which comes only once in many
decades. Thirty years ago this week, Paul VI told the truth about married love. In doing
it, he triggered a struggle within the Church which continues to mark American Catholic
life even today. Selective dissent from Humanae Vitae soon fueled broad dissent from
Church authority and attacks on the credibility of the Church herself. The irony is that
the people who dismissed Church teaching in the 1960s soon discovered that they had
subverted their own ability to pass anything along to their children. The result is that
the Church now must evangelize a world of their children’s children —
adolescents and young adults raised in moral confusion, often unaware of their own moral
heritage, who hunger for meaning, community, and love with real substance. For all its
challenges, this is a tremendous new moment of possibility for the Church, and the good
news is that the Church today, as in every age, has the answers to fill the God-shaped
empty places in their hearts. My prayer is therefore simple: May the Lord grant us the
wisdom to recognize the great treasure which resides in our teaching about married love
and human sexuality, the faith, joy and perseverance to live it in our own families —
and the courage which Paul VI possessed to preach it anew.
—Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver
July 22, 1998
IV. Addendum: Some Common Questions
In the weeks following publication of his pastoral letter,
Archbishop Chaput answered some common questions about family planning and related issues
in his regular Denver Catholic Register column.
1. Isn’t a couple’s method of family planning a matter of
personal conscience?
Yes it is. Catholics, like all people, are always obligated to follow
their consciences — on birth control and every other matter. But that’s not
where the problem lies. The problem lies in the formation of one’s conscience. A
conscientious person seeks to do good and avoid evil. Seeing the difference between good
and evil, though, can sometimes be difficult. As Pope John Paul II has said, the basic
moral law is written in the human heart because we’re created in the image and
likeness of God. But we bear the wounds of original sin, which garbles the message and
dims our ability to judge and act according to truth.
Truth is objective. In other words, it’s real; independent of us;
and exists whether we like it or not. Therefore, conscience can’t invent right and
wrong. Rather, conscience is called to discover the truth of right and wrong, and then to
submit personal judgments to the truth once it is found. Church teaching on the regulation
of births, like all her moral teachings, is a sure guide for forming our consciences
according to the truth. For we have the certainty of faith, as Vatican II reminds us, that
the teachings of the Church on matters of faith and morals are “not the mere word of
men, but truly the word of God” (Lumen Gentium n. 12).
Too often, we use “conscience” as a synonym for private
preference; a kind of pious alibi for doing what we want or taking the easy road. We only
end up hurting others and ourselves.
2. I still don’t see the big difference between a couple using
“artificial” birth control and a couple using “natural” family
planning. Don’t both couples have the same intention, and isn’t this what
determines morality?
It’s hard to see the difference when the emphasis is placed
on “artificial” versus “natural” methods. People rightly point out
that many things we use are artificial but not immoral. So it’s important to realize
that the Church doesn’t oppose artificial birth control because it’s artificial.
Rather, what the Church opposes is any method of birth control which is contraceptive,
whether artificial devices, pills, etc., are used or not.
Contraception is the choice, by any means, to sterilize a given act of
intercourse. In other words, a contracepting couple chooses to engage in intercourse and,
knowing that it may result in a new life, they intentionally and willfully suppress their
fertility. Herein lies a key distinction: Natural family planning (NFP) is in no way
contraceptive. The choice to abstain from a fertile act of intercourse is completely
different from the willful choice to sterilize a fertile act of intercourse. NFP simply
accepts from God’s hand the natural cycle of infertility that He has built into the
nature of woman.
Regarding the issue of intention: Yes, both couples may have the same
end in mind — to avoid pregnancy. But the means to achieve their common goal are not
at all alike. Take, for example, two students, each of whom intends to excel in school.
Obviously that’s a very good intention. With the same goal in mind, one studies
diligently. The other cheats on every test. The point is, the end doesn’t justify the
means — in getting an education, in regulating births, or in anything else.
3. I’m a priest. If I preach about what’s wrong with
contraception, I’ll lose people.
Let me turn that around: If priests don’t preach the Church’s
message about contraception, heaven loses people. Don’t be afraid. When Jesus
preached the truth, He lost people. But, little by little, He gained even more people.
Take courage in the Lord. It shouldn’t surprise us that people find this teaching
hard to accept. Every Gospel-based life has things which are hard to accept. Should we
stop teaching the truth because it’s difficult? Of course not. We have the joy and
the responsibility before God to preach the truth lovingly in season and out of season.
The Church won’t be renewed without a renewal of family life. And
the family can’t be renewed without a return to the truths taught in Humanae Vitae.
Ignoring this issue can’t be an option: In the long run, its cost is too high.
Therefore, we should make every effort to better understand the importance of Church
teaching in this regard, and witness to it boldly and with confidence.
4. In your pastoral letter, you said that the most intimate,
powerful part of each person is his or her fertility. My husband and I are unable to have
children. What does this mean for us?
Many couples bear a great cross because, despite their openness to
life, they’re unable to have children. But marital love is always life-giving when
spouses give themselves honestly to each other, even if a child isn’t conceived. Only
when husband and wife intentionally withhold their fertility, or abuse their sexuality in
some other way, can we speak of a “life-less” act of intercourse. Spouses’
self-giving in one flesh remains the most intimate, powerful and life-giving expression of
their love for one another, even when nature, or some problem of nature, prevents new life
from being conceived.
Medical technology can sometimes correct a physical problem, allowing a
child to be conceived by the loving embrace of parents. This is a proper and wonderful use
of technology. However, couples should remember that, as creatures themselves,
they’re not the arbiters of human life. Ultimately, no one is free to manipulate the
conception of a human person. No matter how sincere a couple’s intentions, many of
today’s new procreative techniques treat human life as a product which can be
manufactured — and in doing so, they violate human dignity. Again, the end never
justifies the means.
Children aren’t the only way a marriage can be fruitful. If God,
in His design, closes one option for a couple, He will open another. Their love can find
expression in adoption, foster-parenting, or dozens of forms of apostolic work. This kind
of counsel, of course, is much easier to give than to willingly accept. I would never want
to understate the real pain and loss felt by infertile couples. But I know, both from
faith and from my friendships with married couples over the years, that if a husband and
wife choose to trust God, their love will always be rewarded with fertility and new life
— if not in the form of a child, then in the way they impact the world around them.
5. Why is the Church so obsessed with sex?
You know the old saying about the pot calling the kettle black —
well, here’s a great example. Questions like this one may very well be honest, but
they conceal where the real obsessions lie. American society is drowning in a sea of
disordered sexuality. In such circumstances, it’s hardly an “obsession” for
the Church to speak clearly and forcefully about how to swim. It’s her responsibility
and mission.
God created our sexuality to be a sign in the world of His own life and
love, and to reveal to us that we can only fulfill ourselves by loving as He loves. When
sexuality becomes distorted, however, it’s no longer able to communicate God’s
life and love. Empty of true love, life lacks meaning, and people soon seem disposable.
Sex becomes a pursuit of selfish gratification at the expense of others. Children are no
longer welcomed as the natural fruit of married love, but are seen as a burden to be
avoided. We don’t even shrink from killing (through abortion) thousands of innocent
preborn lives a day in satisfying our convenience and appetites.
It’s no exaggeration, then, to say that disordered sexuality is
the beginning of what Pope John Paul II calls “the culture of death.” In fact,
we’ll never build a culture of life and love without first restoring the true meaning
of human sexuality. If the Church is so concerned about sex, it’s because she seeks
to defend the dignity of the human person, and to safeguard the true meaning of life and
love which sexuality is meant to reveal.
6. How can I preach against contraception and praise the virtues of
NFP? As a priest, I’m not married.
First, the truth is the truth, no matter who speaks it. Second,
preaching isn’t about the preacher; it’s about the message. Third, in his
promise of celibacy, a priest doesn’t forget or deny his sexuality. Instead, he
dedicates it to a different — but equally fertile — kind of fruitfulness. In
other words, priestly celibacy is an affirmation, not a rejection; a strength, not a
weakness. It’s a “yes” to God which enables us to understand and serve our
people better. Remember that marriage, religious life, the single vocation and the
priesthood are all designed to fit together and complement each other in the life of the
the Church. Each needs the other. Each, in its own proper way, fulfills the fundamental
human vocation to give ourselves away in love.
I think we priests often underestimate how effective our pastoral
counsel can be on issues like contraception. People want and need the truth, and over
time, the human heart naturally responds to it. But our people can’t respond if they
don’t hear the message of Humanae Vitae faithfully and persuasively from their
pastors. That’s our job, and we should embrace it joyfully.
Charles J. Chaput is the Archbishop of Denver