Unintended Consequences

The Public Library of Science recently printed an article that showed the contraceptives we use directly reduced frogs’ ability to mate. Viewed through an environmental lens, contraception is a disaster for the frogs. That’s an interesting fact to me, not so much because of the direct harm to the environment, but moreso because it is such an unintended consequence. All technologies invented by man have effects – if they didn’t, we wouldn’t use them. But most affect us in ways we can’t always grasp – and as such, everything we do should be examined.

When in the last few weeks, the President of the United States (POTUS) decreed that the Catholic church must pay for contraception in opposition to its own teachings, he too found that there were unintended consequences to his actions. From a health perspective, we can debate if he was right or wrong, but viewed from a religious liberty perspective, it’s pretty clear this decision was an unmitigated disaster. Catholics and Baptists are often at odds theologically, but when it comes to the government forcing someone to violate their conscience, there is no disagreement.

Interestingly, the Constitution of the United States does not prohibit the church from interfering in matters of state – it is rather the opposite – that the Congress “may not pass any law respecting the establishment of a church” (in this case a term referring to setting up a state-sponsored church) or “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. When the state meddles in the affairs of the church, bad things are bound to happen, and so it was here.

One could argue that the state makes religious laws all the time. As the Economist said in its 2/7/12 issue, Muslims can only take one wife, for instance. In the cited case of polygamy, secular law is merely a curb to a freedom afforded by religion. In the case of contraception, the secular law is forcing adherents to give material assistance to a practice that is completely prohibited. Polygamy is like your dad saying you can have ice cream, but your mom saying you’ve had too many sweets already. What the President is proposing is akin to saying that you, as an animal-rights vegan, are required to butcher the family pet and serve it for dinner to the rest of the family. One prohibits something you could do, the other compels you to do that which you ought not.

As an Episcopalian, I have a natural bent for seeking out the “via media,” the Middle Way. Generously speaking, we often seek to find theological positions that take from the best of the Roman Catholic and Protestant worlds. Less generously, we’re usually stuck in the middle of the road, getting hit on both sides. When it comes to contraception, Episcopalians are far more likely to be using it, and far less likely to think anything’s wrong with it – but perhaps we should. Viewed through the lens of health, I can see the President’s logic. But the Via Media teaches us to see through multiple lenses, and as such I have to look at it from the unintended angles as well. From a religious liberty perspective, it was a flop.

And, as a Christian, I also try to look at any issue through the ultimate lens – the lens of a God who is bigger than I can imagine, but who has given me as much as I can handle – in Scripture.

In the very first chapter of our bible (okay, second – but its pretty early), we believe that God gave us a simple command: “Be fruitful, and multiply.” God gave us a big, blue planet, and he wanted us to fill it. He made sex quite pleasurable in order to goad us in the right direction. For centuries, we had the desire for sex, but it was always tempered with the knowledge that it could have very drastic consequences.

To be sure, we’ve always found ways around it. As early as Genesis 38, we find Onan trying to have sex, but not children. Sheepskin condoms go back a long way and for years, we’ve tried to substitute a calendar and a rhythm for getting our groove on. But it wasn’t until the 20th Century that we found a method that was easy, safe, and really, really effective. We could finally separate sex from responsibility.

But have we? I find it funny that every birth control pill has to come with a warning: “Note: Contraceptives do not stop sexually transmitted diseases.” (Did anyone really think they did?) But see what’s happening – people forget that unwanted pregnancy is not the only danger of sex.

We also live in an age where people are more alienated from each other than ever before. In marriage, sex is supposed to bring people closer together. When two people have a child together, they are bound for life by a third. But sex without consequences provides alternative options. In a bad relationship, these are good. But in a good relationship, the mere presence of these alternatives can lead to even innocent speculation about “what else is out there.” Again, I’m not saying that it is unmitigated bad thing that there are “out clauses” but realize that the unintended consequence is the pitfall.

In the end, the warning of the frog is simply this: Contraception is bigger than you think. If its just a personal freedom issue, look outside your lens to religious liberty. If religious liberty is your lens, look up to what God is doing. You might be surprised at how big this really is.