Chapter XVIII: Frustrating Nature

ABOUT a dozen years ago the National Council of Public Morals with official recognition established the National Birth-Rate Commission. Since then the Commission has issued several Reports, and a Special Commission was appointed to study the ethical side of the question. This Special Commission has now issued its Report under the title of The Ethics of Birth Control. This Report professes to adopt the Christian standpoint with regard to human life and its responsibilities. But for all that it is not able to announce any definite conclusions as to the morality or immorality of birth control. The subject, it says, needs much further investigation from the medical, economic, and religious point of view. In the meantime, no one can escape the personal responsibility of forming his own judgement on the question.

Four members of the Special Commission declared it to be their opinion that the use of contraceptives is a frustration of God’s design in Nature and cannot be justified in any circumstances, but this opinion was rejected by the majority of the Special Commission, and in a leading article on the subject, The Times newspaper endorsed the rejection. In support of this rejection it is said that civilization itself has been the story of man’s control over Nature, and that rigid application of the principle advocated by the four members would entail the condemnation of all medical treatment. Medicine tries to arrest natural processes; it is an interference with Nature, an action against Nature.

Nevertheless, the principle adopted by the four members is a fundamental principle of Christian ethics, and if it is properly understood it does not involve the absurd consequences attributed to it. I will try briefly to show this.

Everybody knows that the reign of law is universal. We live in an ordered world. The physical and animal world are governed by necessary laws. The same causes are always followed by the same effects, and nothing else is possible. According to Christian teaching, the whole world inferior to man was created for man’s use and benefit. In the beginning the Creator told man to rule and subdue the earth and everything that it contains. Man can subdue and control the physical world by learning to understand its laws, and in doing this for his own benefit he not only does nothing morally wrong, but he is fulfilling the intention of his Creator. When the doctor, then, destroys the germs of tubercular disease, he not only does nothing morally wrong, he performs an action which in the highest degree is a moral action. He acts against Nature, contrary to Nature, in that he interferes with a natural process which threatens human life, but it is morally right for him to do that.

The reign of law extends to the sphere of human conduct. Certain actions are in accordance with moral law, others are contrary to it. Those actions which are in accordance with moral law are called right, ordinate, lawful; those that are contrary to it are called wrong, inordinate, unlawful. By considering an action in itself and in all its circumstances we can generally see quite clearly whether it is in accordance with moral law and right, or whether, on the contrary, it is against the moral law and wrong. It is clearly right for children to love, respect, and obey their parents, to render to every man what is his due, to wish well to all men, to practise temperance. It is clearly wrong for children to show disrespect to parents, to do unjust injury to others, to show hatred to one’s fellow-man, to give way to intemperance in eating and drinking. We can discern the rule or law of temperance by considering the object of eating and drinking, the purpose which those actions should serve. Eating and drinking are for the sake of supporting life. The body derives heat and energy from food and drink, and bodily waste is repaired thereby. The end of eating and drinking indicates the rule which ought to govern those actions. We should eat and drink what supports life. We should abstain from what injures or destroys life. We should eat and drink that quantity which is suitable for the end in view. If we eat or drink more or less than what conduces to our support we infringe the law of temperance, we act against the moral law, we are bound to preserve our life and to take the necessary means to do so.

We are bound to do what is right and abstain from what is wrong because our Creator and Lord wishes and commands it. He is the Author of the moral law, and because he is good and holy he cannot possibly be indifferent as to whether it is observed or not by his rational creatures. Man is not only a rational creature, he is also endowed with moral freedom. He can recognize the moral law, but, unlike the lower creation, he is not necessitated to obey it. He has the physical power of obeying it if he chooses to do so, but he has also the physical power to refuse obedience to it if he chooses. He can violate the law of temperance if he likes, but he will do so at his peril and to his ruin. What has been said about eating and drinking may be applied to the procreation of children. The means to that end are laid down by Nature and by the Author of Nature. In making use of the means the end furnishes the rule, and it must always be kept in sight so that nothing contrary to it may be done. If we forget the rule of temperance and follow appetite and pleasure in eating and drinking, we are sure to go astray. We shall eat and drink too much, we shall act inordinately, and we shall frustrate God’s design in Nature. Not less evidently and surely will they who use contraceptives act inordinately, violate the moral law, and frustrate God’s design in Nature. We heartily agree, then, with the four members of the Special Commission. They defended a great and important principle of the moral law.