"All programmes of economic assistance aimed at financing campaigns of sterilization and contraception . . . are to be morally condemned as affronts to the dignity of the person and the family."

In reviewing the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church during my stroll through its discussion of “law,” I was reminded earlier this week of a passage that I encountered when I first began thinking about the contraceptives mandate currently being challenged in the federal courts. It is the second paragraph of no. 234, the opening sentence of which is the title of this post. Here is the whole number: 

234. The judgment concerning the interval of time between births, and that regarding the number of children, belongs to the spouses alone. This is one of their inalienable rights, to be exercised before God with due consideration of their obligations towards themselves, their children already born, the family and society[528]. The intervention of public authorities within the limits of their competence to provide information and enact suitable measures in the area of demographics must be made in a way that fully respects the persons and the freedom of the couple. Such intervention may never become a substitute for their decisions[529]. All the more must various organizations active in this area refrain from doing the same.

All programmes of economic assistance aimed at financing campaigns of sterilization and contraception, as well as the subordination of economic assistance to such campaigns, are to be morally condemned as affronts to the dignity of the person and the family. The answer to questions connected with population growth must instead be sought in simultaneous respect both of sexual morals and of social ethics, promoting greater justice and authentic solidarity so that dignity is given to life in all circumstances, starting with economic, social and cultural conditions.

Is this aspect of Catholic teaching “out there” in the discussion of the HHS Mandate already, and I’ve just missed it? Or has the focus on individual conscience connected with how the legal claims have largely been framed and litigated thus far caused us to neglect the structural dimension of this issue? We do not need to choose between these two kinds of understanding of the problem in pressing for legal relief, and we should not. The problem with the HHS Mandate is not either/or, but both/and.