Some might not know that the evilness of contraception was also described in the 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii:

Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. (No. 54)

And:

Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. (No. 56)

Casti Connubii continues by mentioning priests and others’ duties not to “connive” (to cooperate in others’ actions) in the false opinions which support contraception:

We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: “They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.” (No. 57)

Much could be emphasized there; for this article, the former Pope’s statement that “we admonish…others who have the care of souls…not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God” and “in no way conniv[e]” or cooperate with the “shameful and intrinsically vicious” evil of contraception is especially relevant. In one way or another, most people have the care of souls. Those who have the care of souls and also are more directly presented with the evil of contraception are often physicians and other prescribers, pharmacists, nurses, technicians, and others in health care. Such people are often presented with the question of, “is it evil for me to prescribe birth control if I am not the one using it?” Or, for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, “is it evil for me to dispense, sell, or fill a prescription, which I did not write and am not going to use, for contraception?” And so on.

This author made the decision years ago not to dispense contraception as a pharmacist. Many people, even well-meaning but incorrect people in the Catholic Church, oppose that decision. And, after several years of studying the issue, the conclusion can be made that one of the main problems is not that health care professionals and others are confused about cooperation in the evil of contraception; instead, the problem is often that health care professionals do not understand how evil contraception really is.

(One reason that chemical contraception is evil is indeed due to the ability to cause abortion; this article acknowledges that evil without elaborating and provides more reasons why all types of contraception, including those that are not chemical and do not cause abortions, are evil.)

Again, mass murder is a vicious action. Contraception is also a vicious action, and by replacing contraception with other vicious actions one might see that the moral conundrum of participating in or cooperating with the prescribing and/or dispensing of contraception is not where the confusion is; instead, the confusion is in regards to how evil contraception is.

On the subject of cooperation with evil (or, “conniving,” as Casti Connubii mentions), one suggestion given to this pharmacist (often by well-meaning but incorrect people who think it is crazy to not have a relatively high-paying pharmacist job) is something like the following: “You didn’t write the prescription for contraception, and you aren’t the one taking the contraception. Can’t you just fill the prescription, give it to the woman, tell her that it is evil, or encourage her to do otherwise? Or, why not just fill the prescription and pray for her.”

There is an analogy which can be given as a response to such a suggestion. Most people understand other evils in which the effects can be observed; for example, the effects of school shootings are often publicized and observable. Most people are obviously rightly horrified by such events, and such events would be accurately described as a “grave sin” or “vicious.”

Obviously hypothetically speaking, imagine if school shootings were prescribed, say, because (similar to false arguments used to support so-called transgender dysphoria) a person feels anxiety and distress if they cannot indulge the impulse to do such a thing, and the doctor wrongly believes that alleviating the anxiety by prescribing the indulging in the action is the proper way to alleviate the anxiety and distress. Would a doctor be morally obligated to refuse to prescribe such a prescription for school shootings? And would a pharmacist be morally obligated to refuse to dispense such a prescription?

Or, would a pharmacist say to himself or herself, “hey, I’m not the one doing the school shooting. Not my responsibility. I cannot take away their freedom. They get extreme anxiety and distress if they cannot do what they want. I am simply dispensing a prescription for it. I will tell the person how evil the action is and get back to the antibiotics.”

A normal society would label such a pharmacist, physician, or others who cooperate in those evils either as very evil themselves, insane, or both. (Such people, at least at the present time, would get in serious trouble with civil law as well for their conniving in the evil.)

Again, mass murder is a vicious action. Contraception is also a vicious action, and by replacing contraception with other vicious actions one might see that the moral conundrum of participating in or cooperating with the prescribing and/or dispensing of contraception is not where the confusion is; instead, the confusion is in regards to how evil contraception is.

A basic comparison is that abortion kills an already existing human being’s body, while contraception prevents existence altogether.

How, then, can one understand how grave of an evil contraception is? One way is to compare contraception to what is often considered to be a similar evil which is abortion. (Some might be taken aback by the following comparison; this is likely due to the widespread profanation of marriage and the conjugal act which is a sacred action, in part because of God’s potential bringing forth of a new body-soul unity through such human actions. It is suggested that such people study the subject with honesty, especially paying attention to contraception preventing the forever-existence of a human being and how great of a gift from God that such existence is.)

A basic comparison is that abortion kills an already existing human being’s body, while contraception prevents existence altogether. Abortion is indeed a grave evil; however, there is a significant difference between abortion and contraception: the “aborted” body-soul unity of the human being will exist forever, although they are not baptized. As the Catechism states, based on the mercy of God, one can hope that non-baptized people are in heaven forever. (The Catechism is referring to miscarriages; abortion, or the unjust killing and preventing of one from being baptized, is much different, and God’s Justice might also be involved with permitting an aborted human being to get to heaven.)

Contraception, however, “prevents procreation.” It prevents the existence of a human being altogether, and it prevents God from creating humans who will have the ability to potentially get to heaven. It prevents the creation of both the body and the soul, while abortion kills the body but cannot harm the soul. (Catholic theology of the Resurrection of the body also means that an aborted body is not prevented from existing forever.)

Philosophers such as Aristotle understood that it is better to exist than to not exist:

For in all things, as we affirm, Nature always strives after 'the better'. Now 'being' (we have explained elsewhere the exact variety of meanings we recognize in this term) is better than ‘not-being’… (On Generation and Corruption II.10)

St. Thomas Aquinas took a similar, if not the same, position. In his Commentary on the Sentences, he wrote about the possibility of a leprous child being generated: “although a sickly child may be generated, nevertheless it is better for it to exist diseased like this than not to exist at all.” (On the Sentences 4.32.1.1) His statement implies that it is better to exist and suffer than to be prevented from existing.

Basically, being redundant to make the point, abortion prevents life on earth, but it does not prevent existence of a human being altogether; the body is temporarily killed, but the human being will exist forever. Contraception prevents existence of the body and soul altogether, thus seemingly making contraception a worse evil than abortion.

And, going more into the philosophy, if it is better for a human being (again, body and soul unity) to exist than not exist, it seems reasonable to say it is worse to prevent existence altogether (which contraception does) than to not prevent existence forever but end existence on earth (which abortion and other forms of murder do).

(The argument should not be interpreted as diminishing how gravely evil abortion is. Again, being redundant in attempt to prevent confusion, it is instead intended to explain how evil contraception is, which often cannot be understood because the effects might not be observable. Nor is it intended to support false philosophies and moralities which often support “the lesser of two evils.”)

Now, some might say, “no person can block a divine action such as creating a human being! Thus, the argument that humans block God from creating by using contraception is not possible!” The basic objection is that humans cannot block God’s actions. A thorough philosophical or theological response cannot be given in this article; Divine Action, human freedom, sin as an offense against God, sins against God the Holy Spirit (“the Lord and Giver of Life”) and several other subjects would have to be thoroughly discussed; some of those subjects are not even coherently described by the so-called experts, in part because human beings cannot fully understand God.

However, one might again refer to abortion; does abortion prevent God from maintaining a human being’s life on earth? It seems reasonable to say that abortion blocks God from providing a human being with continued life on earth. One who objects to the above argument on contraception because, so they say, God’s actions cannot be prevented, would have to say that abortion does not block God from sustaining life on earth; or, they would have to say that God does not sustain life on earth, and that would be a grave falsehood.

The argument above about “existence is better than non-existence” cannot be equally applied to humans, non-human animals, and other non-human living beings like plants. Authentic Catholic theology on the human person is implied.

Another objection has to be mentioned here; the above argument that contraception is a worse evil than abortion is based partially on the philosophical principle that existence of a human body-soul unity is better than non-existence. Some might wrongly say that abstinence would then be sinful, or something absurd like any person who is not engaging in the conjugal act is preventing existence. Such people falsely claim that not engaging in the conjugal act is the same as contraception; these people will go as far as absurdly saying that a person who is sleeping or doing any non-conjugal act is therefore “contracepting” and preventing existence.

Again, a thorough response cannot be given in this article. Basically, though, the argument above is not that every action which does not result in the conception of a human being is preventing existence. The argument describes the prevention of existence through a contraceptive act. And a condition necessary for a contraceptive act to occur is the conjugal act. Acts that do not involve the conjugal act are likely not relevant to this discussion.

Finally, the argument above about “existence is better than non-existence” cannot be equally applied to humans, non-human animals, and other non-human living beings like plants. Authentic Catholic theology on the human person is implied.

Various forms of the “shameful and intrinsically vicious” have undoubtedly contributed to the general lowering of morals observed throughout the world. As Casti Connubii appears to imply, for the salvation of souls, one may not cooperate in any way (“in no way conniving”) with the propagating of false opinions about contraception; this likely prohibits not only prescribing but also dispensing, selling, and other types of cooperation with such evils.

And, is contraception a worse evil than abortion? It appears to be.

Latest from RTV — OLYMPIC BLASPHEMY: Catholics on Kilimanjaro vs Christophobes in France