Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Pope Paul VI, Sexual Harassment, and the Pill: Maybe We Should Have Listened
Really want to rile things up at this year’s Christmas party? Bring up Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae. That’s the one in which Paul VI shot down the hope that sex was nothing more than a whole lot of fun. He said no to artificial contraception. So be warned. By the time the discussion is over the guests at the holiday bash may want to kill you.
Humanae Vitae is the ultimate offense against the sexual revolution. The Pope declared (can you believe this guy?) that artificial contraception is an offense against God and the laws of nature; that the use of the pill is intrinsically evil, and the result of such means will be the utter collapse of virtually all moral standards.
What a kook.
Except maybe the Pope had it right. At least it kind of feels that way in light of the daily revelations of sexual abuse. It’s almost become a cliché to say that powerful men are forcing women to give it up and shut-up. As the stories go on ad nauseam—and in nauseating detail—it’s worthwhile to ask how we got to this low estate.
Sexual harassment is nothing new, of course. The Book of Genesis tells of powerful men forcing themselves on women:
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:4).
Sound familiar? Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, John Conyers, and countless other men in high places now stand accused of using their power to satisfy their overweening (and bizarre, or used to be) sexual appetites. It’s becoming so regular a feature of the news cycle that it’s almost impossible to watch the news or read the newspaper without having a vomit bag at the ready.
But there’s something particularly vile about the stuff coming out these days. Mona Charen has it right:
…sexual harassment has become grosser than it was a few decades ago. I know of a few women who faced harassment in the 1970s and 1980s (myself included), but honestly, it was practically as polite as a Victorian drawing room compared with the stories we are hearing now about Louis C.K. or Harvey Weinstein or Mark Halperin. Womanizers used to at least make an effort at seduction. Now they seem to act out repellent narratives from porn movies.
I’ve never watched “Mad Men,” but I gather from my wife’s description that the mad men are interested in, you know, actually sleeping with women. They manipulate women but don’t manipulate themselves in front of women. Today’s harassment isn’t Don Draper’s old-fashioned sexual dilly-dallying. These days, onanism in front of the ladies is the source of real satisfaction, calculated to degrade. Weinstein and company don’t even see the women in front of them. Instead, it’s teenage Playboy stuff. For the Harvey Weinstein sort of sexual abuser, actual women are nothing more than breathing dirty pictures–and as easily thrown away. Matt Lauer’s bag of sex toys is the same thing: the focus is on the machine, something inhuman. The women are no more than a techno-tool for base gratification.
Needless to say, there isn’t much romance here.
Paul VI saw the train wreck coming. He warned that artificial contraception would ultimately lead to utter dehumanization of women:
- Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
The essence of Paul VI’s reasoning lies in his understanding that everything in creation has a final cause, which can be loosely defined as a “purpose.” To forget this, to elevate secondary causes like pleasure above the final cause, generally won’t end well. The final cause of a gun is to kill. We forget that at our peril. It’s a remarkably bad idea to juggle a half-dozen six-shooters in front of a live audience. Just ask the audience.
Sex has a final cause too. It’s how people make babies (I hope that’s obvious). Set the babies aside, encourage a sexual free-for-all, and see where that gets you: Abortion, STDs, and Kevin Spacey, to name just a few of the many delights of never having to say no.
Paul VI was vilified for his defense of truth and the lessons of sin. He was arguably the most reviled Pope of the 20th century. But nowadays he sounds more like a prophet than a spoilsport. I would argue that the Blessed Pope was the greatest Vicar of the 20th Century. John Paul II is rightly beloved, but he was also widely admired. Paul VI was scorned, but things have a way of bursting out all over when reality exposes consequences. Over the years I’ve heard many Catholic intellectuals describe Paul VI as a weak Pope. Yeah, right. Maybe they should take note of his enormous courage in reaffirming ancient Church teaching against near absolute opposition. Paul VI had Hemingway’s grace under fire–guts.
I’m not trying to convert anybody here, but the truth is that the Catholic Church has a genius for understanding human nature. She understands that men are driven to seek pleasure and avoid pain–often to the point of catastrophe. As Paul VI explained, human beings require external restraints to help them to reach true happiness. Absent limits, the average human being is liable to sink into utter depravity. To paraphrase Jack Kemp, if you want more of something, make it free.
But don’t be surprised when the gift giver turns out to be one of those Greek guys.
Published in General
Condoms? Or as mentioned earlier coitus interruptus or the rhythm method?
Rhythm method is the only method proscribed by the RCC because abstinence is the sacrifice to avoiding children. Sex is still linked to reproduction. Don’t want (more) kids? Abstain.
Right just pointing out the it isn’t the artificial part that the church finds objectionable.
We should have co-authored the post, Aaron.
As noted in one of the articles I linked to above, Japan is trying to increase its population, recognizing that present trends will bring about enormous problems. Whether the shrinking population was a conscious decision doesn’t change the fact that Japan’s policies have been destructive.
As for Africa, the heavy handed push for birth control there is seen by Catholic leaders as an attempt to force nations to surrender to a way of life they consider destructive to human flourishing. The assumption that western liberalism is the last best hope for mankind is a Utopian fantasy that has lead to immense trouble. That’s for another post. But given the moral state of the west, there seem to be a host of problems that destroy the illusion that it is the last best hope of the world.
The difference is pretty easy to see. Guns are not intrinsically evil. They can be used for positive good: self defense, hunting, or even just plinking. I did a lot of hunting when I was young. Did a lot of plinking too. But to ignore their final cause is to risk disaster. I once went out camping with a bunch of guys who spent the evening drinking and shooting at everything in sight. By providence and its assistant shear luck nobody got hurt. But they were ignoring the final cause and someone could have been killed.
AC has no good end. Feel free to disagree, but my opinion is grounded in the reality that to intentionally prevent conception by artificial means will not end well.
You’re saying that my life “won’t end well” because I’m permanently contracepted.
This is both obtuse and annoying, to me and my wife, as we decided that we’d had enough children but still enjoy knowing one another in the Biblical sense.
Please explain to me what conceivable harm there could be in this?
Moderator Note:
This is taking your argument well beyond all bounds of politeness. It is one thing to say that you disagree (even vehemently) with Catholicism, it is another matter to denigrate the faith entirely. Desist.The bottom line on all of this seems to be:
A) Don’t have sex unless you’re trying to get pregnant. Unless that possibility exists, you’re doing a bad thing.
And
B) for god’s sake, (literally, as he’s watching you while you do it) don’t enjoy it, as that might lead to wanting to have more sex.
Does that just about cover it?
Ironically, these messages are brought to you by packs of elderly “virgins,” like those busted with the coke and sodomy.Umm, in a sense yes. Human beings have something called self control and look at the problem we have with single motherhood and divorce, who suffers the most…… children. So yea, people should really think about whether or not they want to possibly raise a child with a person before having sex. I hold this position because I am an advocate for children who are the ones who have to deal with the problems of their parents irresponsible sexual decisions. So no we‘re not just a bunch of kill joys, who don’t want people to have a good time. What would be nice is if people realize that sex produces children and controception isn’t 100%.
Also, just because the Catholic church has a few reprobates within the clergy doesn’t dismiss God’s message. It is God we revere, not men.
That’s not quite right. The “rhythm” method is an older, less reliable way of determining fertility cycles. The current method of NFP, the Billings Ovulation Method, is much more effective.
This is a disgusting insult to all Catholics.
I have 100% effective contraception. I can think of several 100% effective techniques.
What’s the next objection?
Don’t you think that it would be helpful if those who are allegedly the teachers of these dogmas could at least hew unto them with some semblance of fidelity?
It’s almost as if the rules that are being preached are so draconian and unnatural that not even those who’ve spent their lives studying them can actually live up to those platonic ideals.
I’m sorry you’re annoyed, but your under no obligation to participate on this thread. Also, there is no reason to fear that the Catholic Church, with its immense army of 140 pike carriers will be bursting through your doors anytime soon.
As for the conceivable harms, I can only respond by pointing to the post and the comments. As to particular harms to you and your wife, I’m not going to go there as I have no desire to allow this thread to deteriorate into personal attacks.
I’m genuinely curious.
How is she harmed?
No it’s not.
It’s an accurate depiction of the sex parties in the Vatican.
If you’re not involved, how are you insulted? You should be condemning these creeps more loudly than I am for their hypocrisy.
The Pill changed the world. And not for the better, as I look back. Before it, and when abortion was illegal at the same time, the fear of an unwanted pregnancy was a truly horrifying thing in our lives. I can tell you there were nowhere near the number of teen pregnancies back then that we see today, and many virgins among college students too (I was one). This poster was very popular at the time:
Say what?
Not to be crude but I know there are ways to have sex with a 100% certainty as to the risk of pregnancy, however perhaps men who want use women that they have no intention of committing to as a masturbatory tool might not be the best solution. Especially as studies has shown that the more sexual partners a woman has the more likely she is to get divorced. These are societal rules, and they are there for a reason. You don’t have to believe in God but if you cherish limited government and liberty than sexual desires have to be tempered. Decadence is a sign of collapse and my fear is that the west is on the verge of collapse. It took a long time for us to get here, perhaps tossing away these kinds of rules and traditions was folly.
Yes, it would be helpful if some of the clergy would live up to the ideals of the faith, however it wouldn’t be the only institution in which a handful of its members or even leaders fall incredibly short of the ideal. It’s a mortal sin, in my opinion when a priest conducts themselves in that way because it creates reasons for the faithful to turn away from the church. But it’s a fallen world and we can’t put our faith in princes.
Also the rules aren’t draconian or unnatural. The rules ARE natural, because they are based in natural law. However, sins of the flesh are universal and the most easily to most people to fall into. The majority of people aren’t murders or theives but the temptaion of the flesh happens to almost everyone. And when we give into our lust more and more and fall further and further from the ideal it damages not just the individual but the society.
It’s called natural family planning, and it works. I’m married with two kids and never took BC.
What policies are you referring to? If the “decision” was “unconscious” there was no decision, also meaning there was no policy specifically addressing the issue.
I did a quick scan through Google, and it seems that Japanese men and women have less interest in marriage, and perhaps sex. And it mostly seems to be more of a cultural issue than a policy issue.
Government, or even church, policy or dogma, seems to have much of an effect, and that’s worldwide. Large birthrates persist in poor countries, and to a lesser extent among poor segments of the population in rich countries.
I do concede that arificial contraception has been a mixed bag, doing a lot of harm with some of the good. I see the creep start just by watching movies from the mid 1960’s on. That did effect our culture and other countries’, and resulted in a lack of personal discipline.
I have to say, I’ve changed my opinion on this, leaving out the RC dogma on the topic.
Well, I guess I’m not as surprised as you. The more power one has, the more opportunity to force one’s proclivities on others, including sexual proclivities and get away with it.
The reason I’m not surprised is because I’ve read about dictators like Idi Amin, or Sadam Hussein’s son, Uday. Or how about the Roman emperors Nero and Caligula? What makes you think that just because they live in America, that somehow we’re going to be more virtuous if there are little to no constraints on our behavior?
I’ve never knowingly encountered someone like Weinstein, but then I’ve never been around someone with that kind of power.
There really isn’t that many people who can get away with stuff like that for a long time. Probably less than one percent. And I mean worldwide.
Personally I don’t think there would be harm with your scenario. But I’ve seen articles in National Review – Bill Buckley was a devout Catholic – which has had columns on how a marriage might benefit by limiting sex to certain times of the month. That a man might respect his wife more as he wouldn’t be objectifying her as much. And in any case, whether you limit what you eat on Fridays (e.g. no meat, with fish being acceptable) or limit your sexual relations, there is a benefit from discipline for discipline’s sake.
A lot of the arguments on this topic center on society as a whole, and less on individuals who are already married with children.
If you’re really curious about this (and I’m skeptical) go find a Catholic priest who is really on board with the church’s teachings (many are not; though even then they know the reasons). If you’re going to discuss your marital relations, it should be done privately, not here.
Well, this is kind of what I was trying to say, but you said it better :) I am not surprised that someone like Harvey Weinstein exists in America, but for the vast majority of Americans, his behavior is not normal or accepted. Which doesn’t mean that the pill is a good thing, but I am not just convinced that the behavior of a few very powerful American men is a reflection on all American men.
The pill is a horrible thing, for a million different reasons, but as you point out, men like Harvey Weinstein have always existed. To try to connect behavior that has been going on since the beginning of time to the pill is a stretch, and it doesn’t help to make a legitimate case against the pill.
Well, in Humanae Vitae (the relevant section is in the OP) Paul VI specifically predicted that AC would lead to the devaluation and objectification of women. In light of recent events he at least appears to have been vindicated. As Mona Charen pointed out, the nature of sexual harassment has grown ever creepier. It strikes me that that has happened because, once women and men no longer respect the sacredness of the marital act because they have eliminated its ultimate end–and ultimate beauty–they feel free to do as they wish. Is there a direct cause and effect relationship? Maybe not, but the Pope’s prediction and the increasingly disgusting events, seem to have converged.
In the last years of my law practice I spent most of my time defending businesses from sexual harassment allegations. I’ll spare you the details, but I can assure the things that go on now would emphatically not have happened 50 years ago.
You’re right in the sense that there was no official policy. Poor choice of words on my part.
But the fact that the fall in fertility is cultural is really what I’m getting out. This is a complicated issue. The causes are a confluence of several factors. But the overall effect stems from the view that sex is just another commodity. That is precisely what AC has done.
I’ll have to write more on this topic. Maybe next week.
You might be surprised at how long many people do get away with some reel gross stuff. See my comment 54.
Excellent post, Mike.
I think paragraph 18 of HV is also one to share here:
Bishop Barron is thinking and writing along the same lines as you.
George Weigel has a companion piece and writes about the demographic oblivion Europe is contracepting itself into.
My only quibble with your post comes from this sentence:
From your quote of paragraph 17 above, Pope Paul VI mentions incentive to keep the moral law – not restraint. This makes me recall what Pope Benedict XVI would say of the Ten Commandments. He wanted us to see them not as a negative list of no, no, no, but as an integral yes to the will of God.
Inconceivable!
We were married in 1980 and already then nobody was proposing the “rhythm method.” We used natural family planning. Not the same thing!
Since you seem to be particularly obtuse on this subject, it is a description of particular scandals at the Curia, described as though they apply to all priests and bishops of the Catholic Church. I do condemn those creeps, and I generally ignore other creeps who try to equate the hypocrites with the whole of the Church. But since you asked.