Where did the Church's contraceptives stance come from?

[1ke]

In addition to the Provan book, I would also recommend Kimberly Hahn’s Life Giving Love.

I will also share that the worldly view of sexuality and contraception was well ingrained in me as a 25 year old woman considering Catholicism. What it boiled down to for me was that if the Church was right, she was right about this too. I just took the leap of faith that I would assent and eventually understand it. And God gave me the grace to not only understand it but to embrace it and become a strong apologist on the topic.

God certainly can move mountains if you let him.

 

[31crystal]

In addition to the Provan book, I would also recommend Kimberly Hahn’s Life Giving Love.

I will also share that the worldly view of sexuality and contraception was well ingrained in me as a 25 year old woman considering Catholicism. What it boiled down to for me was that if the Church was right, she was right about this too. I just took the leap of faith that I would assent and eventually understand it. And God gave me the grace to not only understand it but to embrace it and become a strong apologist on the topic.

God certainly can move mountains if you let him.

Thank you for your useful comments! I like that title, “Life Giving Love.” I should probably ask that one friend of mine who is a practicing Catholic in this area what she likes about it. Kind of too embarrassed to ask a real person though–don’t want to make her feel weird.

 

[HobbitShoe]

The Didache is an early church document that is mentioned by several ancient writers, and was discovered in 1873. The original was probably written in the first century. Chapter 2 of the Didache shows that the church has always opposed abortion. I have also heard that the prohibition against potions (right before the abortion part) was a reference to contraceptives of the time.

Here is a copy of the Didache.

The moral theologians have elaborated on the teaching quite a bit since then.

Here is some of what Pope John Paul II had to say about contraception in Evangelium Vitae:

“It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the “contraceptive mentality”-which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act-are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro- abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church’s teaching on contraception is rejected.”

Here is a link to the encyclical. The part I quoted is in section 13.

Here is a link to Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI’s letter regarding these topics.

One final point. The fact that so many Catholics contracept does not mean that the church teaching has changed. It means that those Catholics are violating the teaching.

 

[SusanneT]

Rather, consider that all mainline Protestant denominations were also dead-set against contraception until about 1930.

What changed, since God did not?

Absolutely - and at the time when Anglicans accepted it there were warnings that it would lead to the range of sins (promiscuity, abortion, family breakdown, sexualisation of society and women in particular, etc) which have undoubtedly resulted from the reduction of sex to a recreational activity supposedly without moral content…

 

[TCEL]

I usually say that the biggest difference between contraceptives two-thousand years ago and contraceptives today is that the latter are simply much more effective. I can’t link to it at the moment, but you can google an article titled “Children of the Reformation.” This search should take you to a website called Touchstone. The author is Lutheran, and the article was immensely helpful to me in trying to make some historical sense of the issue.

Also, if you keep exploring the issue and Catholocism, you’ll find that it makes a great deal of sense sacramentally in light of Christ’s relationship with His bride, a relationship both spiritual and physical. That’s deeper in though.

I am sympathetic to the challenges it can pose, and that’s one reason I don’t buy the argument that NFP is all on the woman. It naturally requires constant communication, and again in light of Christ, it can very often require self-sacrificial love from the husband. But, so can pregnancy, or post-partem (partum?). Without going into too much detail, both those periods of time demanded abstinence for a long time for us, a time considered too long according to many sensibilities. And yet, it’s possible, and can even build some virtue in the process. So, I actually believe NFP has very high expectations of men as well. But those are just some personal opinions, and secondary to your question.

 

[Memaw]

The Catholic Church didn’t ‘become’ opposed to Birth Control. All Christian denominations have always regarded it as a sin until the influence of feminism and the eugenics movement made itself felt in the early 20th century.

The Catholic Church has in fact also weakened its opposition by endorsing and now very much encouraging NFP and frankly turning a blind eye to widespread contraceptive use among members.

It’s NOT the Catholic Church that has turned a “blind eye” to contraception, but the Catholic people that want to do as they please! When I was young after I had my first baby, 10 months after marriage, my Dr. taught me the rhythm method and it worked very well for me and my non-Catholic husband. NFP is a more accurate way of doing that. God Bless. Memaw

 

[Vico]

Does anyone know the details on how the Catholic church became so opposed to birth control of any kind? I’ve heard the general explanation but would like to know how the Church got there. I have noticed that the Catholic church is very, very rigid on its stance, and that families that are the most faithful to the Church in this regard are often put in terrible moral positions. Faithful women are most hurt by it in particular. I feel really bad for women who get into bad health situations (mental with PPD or the many physical conditions) because of this who are met with very textbook “NFP or abstain” responses. Sure, there are women who have had good experiences with it, and I myself use NFP because I don’t want to go on hormones/my husband has a very low drive. I can see this being a serious source of heartache in marriages, even if the two parties get all the “mystical rewards” that are supposed to come with the Catholic life. Makes me sad.

So I want to know specifically where it came from.

The Greek word pharmakeia (from pharmakeuō, “administer drugs”) describes practices that sometimes include chemical abortion and it is sinful. The word was used in Galatians 5:20 and Revelation 18:20 and translated into English Idolatry, sorcery, witchcraft.

Clement of Alexandria wrote that it is a sin against nature to spill the seed and also because reproduction is a divine institution.

Below is not the origin but some developments in response to changing practices in the 19th century.

Here is a Holy See answer to a dubium, from 1880, defining natural family planning, with my translation.

"De uso exclusivo temporum agenneseos:

“Qu.:An licita in se sit praxis coniugum, qui, cum ob iustas et graves causas prolem honesto modo evitare malint, ex mutuo consensu et motivo honesto a matrimonio utendo abstinent praeterquam diebus, quibus secundum quorundam recentiorum theoremata ob rationes naturales conceptio haberi non potest?”
“Resp.: Provisum est per Resp. S. Paenitentiariae, 16. Iun. 1880.”

On the exclusive use of the agenesic (sterile) period:

Whether licit in itself is the practice by which for just and grave causes, wishing to avoid offspring in a honorable way, from the matrimonial use abstain, by mutual consent and with honorable motives, except on those days which, according to certain recent theories, that for natural reasons conception is not possible.

Castii Canubii was issued after the Anglican Lambeth Conference which recommended abstinence as the desired form of birth control but allowed for other methods used in light of Christian principles.

In 1930 Pope Pius IX expressed in Casti Canubii:

“54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate [rob] its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

 

[Gorgias]

It strikes me as odd that … [n]ot even one little inch, one little ray of hope for people in truly bad situations, and ones where NFP won’t work

This is an interesting assertion; I’ve never heard it mentioned. What are the situations to which you refer, in which “NFP doesn’t work”?

It wouldn’t have to be full acceptance, just something that would allow for those who are serious situations to clear their moral conscience and maintain emotionally fulfilling marriages (which God values).

So… the implication here is that, without sex, marriage cannot be emotionally fulfilling? That, unless allowed to have perpetual, sterile marital relations, a marriage is without merit? Or, worst of all, that people who are faced with difficulties in their lives have no recourse – that they can’t turn to God and bear the difficulties of their life courageously and with faith? Hmm… that doesn’t sound like a particularly Christian perspective…

 

[31crystal]

The moral theologians have elaborated on the teaching quite a bit since then.

Thank you for the resources!

 

[31crystal]

This is an interesting assertion; I’ve never heard it mentioned. What are the situations to which you refer, in which “NFP doesn’t work”?

Keep in mind that, as I mention this, I am not using this extreme example to somehow advocate for contraception in all circumstances. I’m addressing my original concern: the rigidity of the system or the utter unwillingness to consider extreme circumstances in a different light. Not that I’ve talked to an actual priest about what they would do in individual circumstances which may be helpful. The lay people who defend the total rejection of all contraception seem to be the most unwilling to consider each person’s circumstances.

Well, for example, there is someone on the message boards right now who has a friend that already has six kids and has some health reason that makes another pregnancy ill advised. (Yes, yes many women have commented in situations like this that that got that advice, too, and went on to have several more children despite the very real danger of leaving the ones they already had without a mother. Confounding.) Unfortunately, her husband has a mental health condition that is causing him to disregard her health and safety by not following abstinence or NFP which the Church would advocate as reasonable ways to deal with her medical issue. The board is suggesting her temporarily separating from him while he receives treatment which seems reasonable. However, many people don’t have the resources or the advocacy for that type of decision, especially when toting six kids along, and would need a surefire way to protect their own health.

Although recently I’ve found on the forum that the Church, in limited instances, allows women to use contraceptives to treat health issues if their primary goal is not to prevent pregnancy, that is just an unfortunate side effect of the treatment. This seems to be a little more workable than some of the more rigid views I’ve seen on the matter lately and is worth looking in to.

 

[31crystal]

So… the implication here is that, without sex, marriage cannot be emotionally fulfilling? That, unless allowed to have perpetual, sterile marital relations, a marriage is without merit? Or, worst of all, that people who are faced with difficulties in their lives have no recourse – that they can’t turn to God and bear the difficulties of their life courageously and with faith? Hmm… that doesn’t sound like a particularly Christian perspective…

Respectfully, no, it really cannot. Not like a marriage with a healthy sex life. And, no, maintaining a sex free marriage is not somehow “better” because of all of the spiritual “benefits” you get from living sex free, even within a marriage. If one’s vocation was to be sex free, they should have been called to the priesthood or to be a nun. If they are married, they were not so called. Telling people to basically “get over it” by turning to Jesus and noticing how selfish it is to want to have sex does not really address the heartbreak of living, in this area, as a widow/er while having a living spouse. There is a rigidity and lack of compassion in that view, and it can become a real barrier to those seeking God.

My current takeaway based on what I’ve learned the past two years to include this forum’s (name removed by moderator)ut: There is, at its base, an assumption that sex is often selfish and bad, and the way to defeat that fundamental badness is all mind over matter. On the one hand, this great, life giving gift from God is presented, then when it doesn’t work out exactly like it’s supposed to we can pray for God to take away this significant part of our personhood through the purifying struggles of abstinence regardless of the emotional impact this has on a marriage. It is this general picture that I will continue to look into.

 

[31crystal]

Thanks for all the resources everyone! At this point, enough articles and books have been recommended to me that I’m going to have to step back and read up before continuing down any particular thought path. Thanks again–I will be busy!

 

[1ke]

My current takeaway based on what I’ve learned the past two years to include this forum’s (name removed by moderator)ut: There is, at its base, an assumption that sex is often selfish and bad, and the way to defeat that fundamental badness is all mind over matter

No. That is not what the Church teaches at all.

Sex is fundamentally good. It was created by God for a purpose and we are not free to disregard that or to disorder God’s plan for sexuality in marriage.

Original sin mars our ability to live in the authentic freedom of God’s design of sexuality.

On the one hand, this great, life giving gift from God is presented, then when it doesn’t work out exactly like it’s supposed to we can pray for God to take away this significant part of our personhood through the purifying struggles of abstinence regardless of the emotional impact this has on a marriage. It is this general picture that I will continue to look into.

I think that you continue to focus on the idea that placing our sex life under discipline (like every other aspect of our life) is bad. And you also focus on the idea that we must allow sin in the name of compassion. Contraception is intrinsically evil, that means there are no circumstances in which it is a moral choice. None. We cannot operate from the idea that contraception is a compassionate option. It is no option at all. It is a false option. As a pro life person, you must see how hollow the abortion as compassion argument rings. This is the same argument.

Extreme circumstances that preclude sexual intimacy happen in marriages. From the scenario you’ve described to cancer, deployment, and family crises. If they are very serious, continence is appropriate while in other cases periodic continence suffices. BUT… They are not forever. The idea that chastity in marriage is never called for is not compatible with the dignity of the spouses or the sixth commandment. Chastity is a fundamental virtue in ALL states of life.

 

[Usagi]

Although recently I’ve found on the forum that the Church, in limited instances, allows women to use contraceptives to treat health issues if their primary goal is not to prevent pregnancy, that is just an unfortunate side effect of the treatment. This seems to be a little more workable than some of the more rigid views I’ve seen on the matter lately and is worth looking in to.

You have been dealing with some seriously rigid notions (more rigid than Church teaching by far) if this is surprising. The sin of contraception lies in artificially separating the two purposes of the sexual act (uniting the couple and producing children), not in the use of particular chemicals. So of course using the same chemicals for medical reasons is permissible, even if they incidentally mean that one will not ovulate.

Having seen some of the responses you’ve gotten, let me hasten to say that I am not trying to be harsh or curt there. It’s more that I’m surprised by the idea that the Church’s stance on contraception would be so inflexible as to forbid the use of hormonal drugs for other medical purposes just because they are also used for contraception.

 

[AiyanaS]

Does anyone know the details on how the Catholic church became so opposed to birth control of any kind?

Starts at 3:40 and ends at 4:41
m.youtube.com/watch?v=vXSu68PmbKQ

 

[Memaw]

Uh, God.
And actually, it is not that the Catholic Church ‘became opposed to birth control.’. Once upon a time --and not that long ago–the mainstream Protestant Churches stood right in line with Catholic teaching.

It was not until the Lambeth Conference of 1930 that the Anglican (here in U.S. Episcopal) church first permitted, under grave circumstances, and for married couples only, careful and ‘rare’ use of contraceptives. Once that edifice crumbled, pretty soon the other churches followed suit.

You’ll hear arguments that ‘throughout history’ there may have been lip service to the "sin of Onan’ argument but that everybody including ‘the Catholic Church’ did a nudge wink. Well, contraceptives themselves were not all that, um, ‘available’ or varied. The ‘sheath’ was an early condom and contributed to the spread of such lovely diseases as syphilis (for which there was little treatment until the 20th century, and which wound up making men, and the women they infected, die some pretty hideous deaths.)
Abortifacient ‘natural remedies’ were a hazard --in order to ingest enough to ‘expel the fetus’ there were usually some pretty fair dangers to the mothers.

The whole contraceptive mentality though is an attempt to ‘ret-con’ history. ZPG types aside, the family unit, and plenty of children, seen as a gift from God, was the norm of true civilization and protected most by Catholic Christians (who have kept this up even now after the slide of their Protestant brothers).

Instead of bewailing the mothers ‘punished with a baby’ (and yes, the stories are heartbreaking), how about going after the society-sanctioned hedonism and the tangled policies of economics that make this possible? How about giving men and women real incentives to marry, instead of making it cheaper NOT to keep her by penalizing taxes, welfare that doesn’t work, and the adversarial “Women don’t need men” brainwashing fed our daughters along with the "they don’t need us, so ‘screw em’’ attitude brainwashing fed to our sons in return. How about encouraging living wages so that families can actually stay together and work together, instead of having all mom’s "need to fulfill myself’ salary (which 90% of the time turns into a “single mom because he dumped me since I could take care of myself” salary) go to paying underpaid, overworked, burnt out child care workers and legal fees for fat cat lawyers who feed on getting ‘the most’ (for them) out of divorce cases?

Thank GOD the Catholic Church is still fighting for true marriage and all it entails, and for the true dignity of men and women, and the gifts of children. And that includes, in marriage, being open to the uniative AND procreative aspects of one of the greatest gifts, sex.

AMEN! and don’t forget it is the Catholic Church and her faithful organizations that do all they can to help folks live their lives according to GOD"S laws and NOT mans. I have always said that marriages need love, babies need their Moms to nurse them and snuggle them, everyone of my babies slept with me until they were older, right between my husband and I. Dad loved to snuggle too. I never worked. Didn’t need those material things as much as my kids needed me. I was widowed twice and raised 7 kids. We are a very close family and my sons are great dads. I am proud of every one of them and thankful to have been able to raise them myself. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

1ke–thank you for giving me the resource to check out!

Obviously the birth control issue is a big deal to those that follow the Catholic faith as evidenced by some of the responses on here. I have been listening to Catholic radio and maybe should have expected the strong responses more based on what I had heard!

I understand that many forms of birth control represent new technology, so it would make sense that humanity at large in addition to the Church would have taken stronger stances on it in the last century or so. The newness of accepting birth control publically makes sense in light of better technology. NFP is a fairly new system, too, perhaps developed in response to the other forms. It was developed by Catholics, right, then spread to people who prefer natural forms of birth control?

I grew up in San Antonio, TX, which was founded by Catholic missionaries. Needless to say, it has a very old presence in the town, and there is a large population of Catholics. Many of them use birth control and have only 2-3 kids. They share that they are “done” having kids. These are people who are active and satisfied in their parishes, not only the (many) nominal Catholics I meet. I have met exactly one Catholic woman in my time as an adult there who is taking kids “as God gives her.” Most families I meet like that are Mormon.

My question: I understand this is a question that can be answered speculatively and has limitations. Please do not be mean in answering. I’m looking to get a Catholic perspective on what I’ve seen from outside, not trying to get at anyone. So, if God made up the strict rejection of all forms of birth control and having large families is a blessing/favorable, etc., why is it that many faithful and practicing Catholics who love God and their Church find it to not be so? If they did, they would do it.

Catholics that go against Church teaching, are not faithful Catholics no matter how active or “satisfied” they are in their parishes. Just because society and other denominations choose to do it, doesn’t make it right. Does legalizing abortion make it right? Artificial Birth Control has opened the Pandora’s Box to all the modern problems in marriage and other moral issues including the “why bother to even get married” attitude. Hop from one guy to the next! We reap what we sow. Look at the “modern” family today, it is deteriorating so fast I can’t believe it, just in my lifetime. All because the sacredness has been shut out!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

First part of bolded

That is not true, the anti child aspect I mean. Limiting for good reasons is not anti child surely. A child a year is what we still see in Ireland often enough

the slogan goes ,"The 2 most dreaded things in the world are Babies and Bombs. It’s not anti-child as long as a sinful means is NOT used to do so. And even if NFP was used for “selfish” reasons, it would be sinful!. God Bless, Memaw

 

[ShrodingersCat]

How about encouraging living wages so that families can actually stay together and work together, instead of having all mom’s "need to fulfill myself’ salary (which 90% of the time turns into a “single mom because he dumped me since I could take care of myself” salary) go to paying underpaid, overworked, burnt out child care workers and legal fees for fat cat lawyers who feed on getting ‘the most’ (for them) out of divorce cases?

???

What?

 

[Anglewannabe]

If one’s vocation was to be sex free, they should have been called to the priesthood or to be a nun.

And what about people like me who were never called to be a nun nor marriage? Being single is a totally acceptable option