Dillon on Contraceptives & Expectations

Dillon on Contraceptives & Expectations by MSW at NCR

Going back to Ozzie and Harriet is not what society needs. She does raise an interesting point, however, on the empowerment of women to work or not work - or if they have the better job to allow their spouses to stay home and care for the children. As younger women are now better educated than women, this is increasingly an option, provided women are socialized to accept a non-working spouse (even after the kids go to school - golf anyone?)


Rather than stepping between women and the coverage that their doctors say is essential to them, which sometimes are necessary for reasons other than birth regulation, it should, as an employer, pay women a living wage (or their husbands) - defined as a $12,000 raise whenever a child is born - or even on the way so that the family can relocate to bigger housing before the blessed event occurs. If Catholic Charities, Parishes, Catholic Schools and Catholic Hospitals all adopted that policy, none of their employees would opt for contraception for economic reasons. Of course, conservatives are likely to quickly object, saying that individuals should be responsible for their child bearing decisions. Our task, and indeed the task of Catholic theologicans, should be to say in no uncertain terms that they can't have it both ways.
The Church should provide an example of living wage policy. Sadly, it is not the case. They should also use the efforts they are wasting on contraception (even though no one is listening) to advocate for a large enough child tax credit so that economics is not a factor in childbearing - or even so that it actually encourages it. I would even go further and advocate the excommunication of Catholic employers who don't pay such a living wage, since they are essentially participating in the decision to abort or use contraception. Of course to do that, the Church must offer such a wage and make sure its vendors do the same thing.

Sadly, the reason that this is still an issue is that Catholic theologians have dropped the ball. Natural science tells us that until gastrulation, the development of the blastocyst is entirely controlled by the DNA of the mother, even though the paternal DNA is present. It is not until gastrulation that paternal DNA interacts with maternal DNA in development and that bad matches or incomplete DNA is weeded out and the whole of the genetic code controls the development of the child. In classical ethics, the higher follows the lower - which means the actions of the physical shows what is happening on the spiritual level. This seems to indicate that if the maternal DNA is in charge, it is the mother's life energy that is in control of development before gastrulation.
This brings up the point of where the soul resides. Neuroscience has shown it does not reside in consciousness. Consciousness is an effect of thought, not its cause. If there is a soul (and because I believe in the resurrection as witnessed by the apostles, so I do), it resides not in the brain only but in every cell of the body, including the egg. It has to be the energy that stops entropy from acting on the body and that energy must begin at gastrulation, but cannot exist before. It is no longer acceptable to allow the argument to exist that ensoulment cannot occur until the brain can receive a soul - since neuroscience proves this is not the case. Either there is no soul or it is in every cell. Theologians should champion an "ever cell" theory of ensoulment - even if doing so requires that they concede that Humanae Vitae was in error on this issue. The reason they can't bring them selves to do that is a question for sociology, not theology.