On the Transmission of Life by Natalie Weaver


Natalie Weaver

Among the more controversial Roman Catholic documents is Humanae Vitae, the 1968 encyclical of Pope Paul VI on birth control.  This encyclical famously instructs against the use of artificial contraception methods in the regulation of birth.  This position is based on the theological warrant that the natural law of God’s reproductive design requires human sexuality, if it is to be moral, to be always nuptial, companionable, and open to new life.  The encyclical anticipates a number of reasons why people will object to this teaching, including: population problems, family and personal limitations, economic concerns, and so on.  It also anticipates that some will suggest procreative and unitive ends must be seen diachronically in the context of the fullness of nuptial sexuality, such that sexuality would be understood holistically rather than as a series of individual sexual acts.  Despite its acknowledgement of these concerns as legitimate, the encyclical argues that grave harm flows from the distortion of natural law and leads inevitably to the degradation of sexual dignity and nuptial integrity (for example, in making free sex more available to young people outside of marriage or cheapening male regard for women on account of women’s sexual objectification).  The encyclical thus opts for an approach that evaluates sexual morality in terms of individual sexual acts.

The perspective of the document has been critically unpacked for decades, and its instruction is in the very least unconvincing to many Catholic couples.   I find in my teaching that Catholic college students today are unfamiliar with the document’s language and rationale, even though they may know the basic instruction that Catholics aren’t supposed to use birth control.   Since this issue is both topical currently due to the healthcare legislation and since birth regulation is a requisite discussion in my course on sexual ethics, I have the students read the encyclical itself.  Now, this is a hard task because I know by and large what the student reactions will be.  Their most favorable reaction is generally that the document has no instructional or binding value for them.  Their least favorable reaction is that the document makes poor sense of the human situation today, especially because human sexual expression reaches well beyond the Church’s vision of normative, heterosexual, marital union.

As a Catholic educator in my field, I am obliged to represent the Church teaching as accurately as I can, and I feel that part of being accurate lies in trying to understand Church teaching in its best possible light.  At the very least, even where I myself might dissent from Church teaching, I feel my position stronger if it is held against the best, rather than the worst, renderings of magisterial instruction.  Pedagogically, then, I have adopted the mode of asking students both to articulate why the Church teaching on this issue makes sense according to its overarching, creational framework for interpreting all human life.  Then, on those same terms, I invite the students to evaluate critically the teaching in light of their own personal experiences, researched information, social science studies, and theological insights.

In so doing, and despite my deep reservations about the adequacy of the Church’s teaching on natural law as it pertains to human sexuality, I find myself curiously illuminated by a particular insight of Humanae Vitae ~ namely, that life is transmitted.  So often, especially in the classroom, I hear the language of “having sex” and “having kids.”  I can only recall one instance in twelve years of teaching when a student used the phrase “making love.”  Now, our language reflects not only how we communicate about things but also how we value and, more importantly, how we are able to value.  I am certain that my attitudes toward children and family are impacted by whether I view them as something that I have as opposed to someone(s) to whom I have transmitted life.  What is more, Church teaching here expresses that life must be seen in the context of our total, even eternal, personal meaning.  The refrain of the phrase “truly human” in the encyclical suggests an encompassing vision of culture and human being-ness, imbued with the deepest value.  This insight is profoundly beautiful to me, even if it represents merely a goal yet to be understood by its very proponents.

Having celebrated Hanukkah, Thanksgiving, and the first Sunday of Advent this past weekend, I was and am very aware that transmitting life is the highest human responsibility.  I thought about it when I called my mom to ask her about my method for defrosting the turkey, and I thought about it again when I fried onions to make my grandmother’s Hungarian rice.  I thought about it when I instructed my children on the lighting of candles, and I thought about it again when they stood beside me as I played piano for them to sing prayers.  Then, I thought about it once more as I stood beside my mother while she played and I sang.  I thought about what it means to raise human beings as my children entertained the children of our friends, who graced us as guests for the holiday dinner.  I thought about it as we all exercised decorum and gentility in our mannerisms.  I thought about it as I heard my father-in-law speak to his son (my husband) and my son’s godfather (my husband’s closest childhood friend) about his childhood and his working years.

We were all to one another, in our varying relationships, more sibling in our human-ness than anything else.  And, at some point, it occurred to me, the specific relationships we share will fade into the fabric of time.  In that far vision, what matters most is that we transmit life meaningfully and responsibly and deliberately to one another; that we actually make love; and that we try to see our meaning and the meaning of others in the context of our maximal, eternal value.  I am inspired by the idea of transmitting life as the foundation for a bodily ethic.  And, in this holiday season, I offer that we might mediate upon all the many wonderful directions such a foundation might lead us.

Natalie Kertes Weaver, Ph.D., is Chair and Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Ursuline College in Pepper Pike, Ohio. Natalie’s academic books include: Marriage and Family: A Christian Theological Foundation (Anselm, 2009); Christian Thought and Practice: A Primer (Anselm, 2012); and The Theology of Suffering and Death: An Introduction for Caregivers (Routledge, 2013). Natalie is currently writing Made in the Image of God: Intersex and the Revisioning of Theological Anthropology (Wipf & Stock, 2014).  Natalie has also authored two art books: Interior Design: Rooms of a Half-Life and Baby’s First Latin.  Natalie’s areas of interest and expertise include: feminist theology; theology of suffering; theology of the family; religion and violence; and (inter)sex and theology.  Natalie is a married mother of two sons, Valentine and Nathan.  For pleasure, Natalie studies classical Hebrew, poetry, piano, and voice.



Categories: Body, Catholic Church, Catholicism, Church Doctrine, Contraception, Ethics, Feminism, General

Tags: , ,

8 replies

  1. I also read humane vitae. And i am sorry, but as transgender person having had heterosexual and homosexual relationships ( all outside marriage of course) i can only see the text as an outdated patriarchal and oppressive herosexual fantasy of celibatair old men. I am sorry.. And really a danger to our overpopulated world and diminishing natural resources.

    Like

  2. Life is indeed transmitted from mother to child, from parents and grandparents to children, and from generation to generation. I too was reflecting on this at thanksgiving when I used my grandmother’s cloth napkins and my nannie’s tablecloth and tried to recreate the good memories I have of thanksgiving and Christmas in their homes.

    Good that the winning fathers (it was a split vote as the “objections” reflect) recognized that, but too bad they didn’t see the transmission of life in all its fullness and not just in terms of the sexual act.

    For me as for refter2012, the responsible transmission of life requires thinking about the interdependence of life, overpopulation, and the “rights” of other than human beings as well as human beings to life; it also requires thinking about the difference between wanting to and being ready to transmit life and being forced to.

    I’m sure you take these factors into account too, but the fathers of the church continue to focus narrowly and certainly not on the needs of particularly situated women, men, children, and the planet as a whole. Siggghhh…

    Like

  3. Natalie, your post is beautiful and thought-provoking. The world was so different when the encyclical was written: 3.7 billion. We reached 7 billion last year: almost double in 44 years. What I agree with, and appreciate, is the transmission of love, energy and life force through love-making and all our interactions with others. The very highest ideal I would ascribe to, too.

    But, as with the other commentators here, I do not find the encyclical relevant today. We must do all we can to help couples (of whatever sexuality) to plan their families, particularly with the very long-lived older generations around the world now. Our resources are limited, and climate change is having a massive impact on communities around the world.

    Perhaps what the church needs now is an Encyclical for children, the poor and those affected by climate change. That we value all for being fellow human beings, rather than what they achieve or produce. That is an encyclical that I could ascribe to and support (as a non-Catholic.)

    Like

  4. I liked your post very much, it started from one point and then ended on a very different one than I was anticipating. Kind of like my favorite “Simpsons” episodes.

    I think what confuses me about the Encyclical is that it assumes a particular quality of life will be established from their theory. However, it seems that the reality of this quality does not match up to their theoretical framework- a bit like the USA Republicans’ “Trickle down” theory of economics.

    Like

  5. I had not read Humanae Vitae until now. What strikes me as particularly problematic is that, as the official heading/title indicates, it is a document composed by men and addressed to men and yet it clearly purports to apply to men and women. A principle Gregory of Nazianzus invokes in criticizing the family law of his day as it related to adultery (Oration 37.6) can be applied here. To the extent it discriminates based on gender, a document written by men that purports to dictate terms of behavior to women should not be considered to have any authority over them. Clearly, the real issue is not birth control by itself. The castration of men (a crude but effective form of birth control) for religious purposes is implicitly endorsed by Christ himself (Matthew 19:12). Rather, the real issue is birth control controlled by women–something that only became a realistic option (and threat to the status quo) beginning in the mid 20th century.

    Like

    • Wait a second! What about condoms? I suggest you review the “Every Sperm is Sacred” dance number from the Monty Python movie “The Meaning of Life”. Beware of ear worms.

      Like

      • Representatives of a tradition that is OK with the mutilation of male genitalia, including circumcision and castration, cannot coherently argue they have an issue with condoms. The promulgation of Humanae Vitae had nothing to do with condoms. It was all about challenging the emerging control of reproduction by women.

        Like

  6. Your post reminds me of one of my favorite poems by Kahlil Gibran:

    “Your children are not your children.
    They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.
    They come through you but not from you,
    And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

    You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
    For they have their own thoughts.
    You may house their bodies but not their souls,
    For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
    which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
    You may strive to be like them,
    but seek not to make them like you.
    For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

    You are the bows from which your children
    as living arrows are sent forth.
    The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
    and He bends you with His might
    that His arrows may go swift and far.
    Let your bending in the archer’s hand be for gladness;
    For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
    so He loves also the bow that is stable.”

    (Of course, I have to translate the masculine gender of God in the last verse.)

    Like

Please familiarize yourself with our Comment Policy before posting.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: