Even King David couldn't understand how God could do such a thing: “David was displeased that Yahweh had broken out against Uzzah” (I Chronicles 13:11). And certainly we sympathize with David's reaction. Uzzah probably meant no disrespect to the Ark of the Covenant — in fact, it seems to have been precisely out of respect that he reached out his hand to steady it, in order to stop it from falling. For this, he deserved to be struck dead on the spot?
We can’t hope for any understanding of this dramatic event without first understanding what the Ark was. For one, it was a symbol of God's presence among His people. But if it had been no more than a symbol, why would the act of touching it deserve death? A symbol is just a device for reminding us of something. Saint Patrick used a shamrock to explain the Trinity, but nobody was ever struck down for trampling on a shamrock. Symbols are not sacred in themselves.
So what are we to make of God’s reaction to Uzzah’s daring to touch the Ark of the Covenant” It only makes sense when we realize that the Ark was more than just a symbol of God, but really, in some way, His presence.
What does all of this have to do with contraception? Just as we can’t understand what was wrong with touching the Ark until we know what the Ark was, we can’t understand what’s wrong with contraception until we understand what sex is. Sex is more than just a symbol of the spouses’ unity: it is the presence of that unity; and it is more than just a symbol of God’s fruitful love: it is the living Image of that love.
The love of the Trinity is fruitful — life-bearing — in many ways. In the Creed, we say that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son” — the love between the Father and the Son is so strong that it forms a third Person. Sex is a human enactment of that same creative love, from which a new human person comes forth. And the Son is begotten of the Father’s love, just as a child is begotten of the love of his parents. It is also from the love of the Trinity that all of creation springs forth. Married love’s evocation of these facets of divine love is no coincidence.
The power of sex to unify and give life is more than a representation of divine love; it is an icon of God’s image in man. It is His living face. Contraception, by intentionally removing this life-giving power, removes His face from the spouses’ act of love.
Sex is more than the Ark of the Covenant — the covenant between the husband and the wife and God. Contraception, in eradicating God’ face from the act of sex, is not merely bad symbolism; it is sacrilege, a desecration of something holy.
(Mrs. Tardiff is a homeschooling mother of six who lives in Rhode Island.)
(This article is reprinted with permission from Canticle Magazine.)
