Birth Control

"As Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and the sacredness of marriage."

"The Pill manufacturers and many in organized medicine are mainly con-cerned about the Pill's medical side effects and its effectiveness in preventing pregnancies and are less concerned about how the drug achieves its effectiveness. Unfortunately, many "otherwise" pro-life physicians and pharmacists find it hard to admit that these abortifacient properties exist because they would have to discontinue prescribing and dispensing the Pill if they were to remain consistent in their respect for life at all its stages of development. Pro-abortion organizations and their lawyers readily admit the early abortion potential of the Pill. In February 1992, writing in opposition to a Louisiana law banning abortion, Ruth Colker, a Tulane Law School professor, wrote, "Because nearly all birth control devices, except the diaphragm and condom, operate between the time of conception...and implantation.., the statute would appear to ban most contraceptives." In 1989, attorney Frank Sussman argued before the U. S. Supreme Court that ". . . IUDs (and) low dose birth control pills. . . act as abortifacients.""

"In our teaching we emphasize that children are a blessing from God and couples should beware of false materialistic standards of measuring the quality of their lives. Forms of birth control that are really methods of inducing a very early abortion must not be used. WELS, however, does not maintain that there is a clear scriptural prohibition against all forms of contraception. Such factors as the mother's health may be a valid concern of couples, which may lead them to consider limiting the number of their children."

"[A]mong evangelical Protestants, at least, birth control — and who has access to it — has only recently become a major political issue. Unlike Catholics, whose catechism denounces use of most forms of contraception as a sin, evangelical Protestants by and large do not. (Because of the disparate nature of evangelical Protestantism, which includes hundreds if not thousands of separate denominations, it’s difficult to speak of a “formal stance” in the way we can of Catholics.) But alongside Catholic organizations like [w:Little Sisters of the Poor| Little Sisters of the Poor]], it’s evangelical-led companies like Hobby Lobby that have been on the forefront of opposition to the ACA birth control mandate."

"In contrast to the Catholic stance, the current set of evangelical objections to the ACA birth control mandate have less to do with any formal doctrine about birth control per se than they do about wider cultural issues, including the abortion debate, the aftermath of the sexual revolution, and precedents for religious exemptions more generally."

"When Hobby Lobby filed its 2012 lawsuit objecting to the mandate on religious grounds — with the Supreme Court ultimately ruling in its favor — it didn’t do so because of a general objection to birth control. Rather, it did so because certain forms of birth control, including Plan B, also known as the "morning after pill,” could be considered an abortifacient because it prevents implantation of an already fertilized egg. Hobby Lobby founder David Green wrote in a 2012 op-ed for USA Today: “Being Christians, we don’t pay for drugs that might cause abortions. Which means that we don’t cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs.” The extent to which this line of reasoning applies to other forms of contraception has been a subject of debate among evangelicals, particularly in regard to the pill, which critics have argued — often in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence — may prevent the implantation of an already-fertilized egg. But these are often academic arguments — confined to scholars or pastors at conferences — rather than ones that apply to the average evangelical Christian’s lived experience."

"Talcott noted that objection to birth control among evangelicals had been more prevalent prior to the developments of the 20th century. Christians disenchanted by the outcomes of the sexual revolution, he said, might find themselves “attracted to the older view, the historic forms of marriage and Christianity and trying to see what resources are maybe there for trying to help us figure out what to do today in this sort of Wild West of Christianity. ... The marriage debate, transgender issues, are [all] forcing on the conservative wing evangelicals to think about what marriage is, and how birth control can fit into that.” For those evangelicals, birth control — particularly the Pill — represents the worst excesses of the sexual revolution: a change in mentality from one that venerated reproduction and family life to one that focused on the individual’s (and, particularly, the individual woman’s) right to transcend their personal biology in pursuit of personal or sexual fulfillment. As Agnieszka Tennant, writing about her disillusionment with the Pill in Christianity Today, puts it: "Could Mircette have changed not just the hormonal makeup of my cells, but also what cannot be seen under a microscope? Could it have served as one more safety lock on the door not just to my womb, but also to my figure, my marriage, my home, my career, my gym routine?”"

"[[w:Evangelical|[E]vangelical]] couples like Sam and Bethany Torode published books like 2002’s Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contraception, which argued that taking medical steps to delay childbearing went against God’s plan for creation and contributed to an ethos of selfishness (the two ultimately divorced after nine years and four children, retracting their position on contraception and leaving the evangelical church). A 2015 article in Al Jazeera profiled a number of evangelical Christians who took this stance, including Andrew Walker, director of policy studies at the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, who said, “The idea of talking about children as a ‘scare’ and viewing them as an obstacle to the American dream, that’s not a Christian way of looking at family. ... That’s what I like to tell young couples: The family is actually a pretty adaptable institution. It doesn’t necessarily have to put a brake on your life.”"

"It is a reckless analyst who risks reopening sixteenth-century disputes between Roman Catholics and the Protestant Reformers. I do so in the interest of a greater good, but my purpose is not to say who was right or who was wrong. I would simply like to explore why the Protestant churches maintained unity with the Catholic Church on the contraception question for four centuries, only to abandon this unity during the first half of the twentieth century."

"For most contemporary Americans, contentious questions about birth control are considered a peculiar “Catholic” problem. With the use of contraceptives at some point being nearly universal among fertile adults (and quite common among teenagers, as well) and with birth control enjoying the blessing of state and federal governments as the alternative to both “unwanted” births and abortion, only a minority of especially devout Catholics seem to be left to puzzle occasionally over the issue. Even their interest is commonly understood to be a consequence of medieval thinking codified in Pope Paul VI’s reactionary 1968 Encyclical, Humanae vitae. Mostly forgotten is the fact that, as recently as one hundred years ago, it was American Evangelical Protestants who waged the most aggressive and effective campaigns against the practice of birth control within the United States; Roman Catholics quietly applauded on the sidelines It was evangelicals who-starting in 1873-successfully built a web of federal and state laws that equated contraception with abortion, suppressed the spread of birth control information and devices, and even criminalized the use of contraceptives. And it was Evangelicals who attempted to jail early twentieth-century birth control crusaders such as Margaret Sanger. All the same, by 1973-the year the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states-American Evangelical leaders had not only given a blessing to birth control; many would also welcome the court’s decision in ‘’Roe v Wade’’ as a blow for religious liberty. This book traces the transformation of American Evangelical leadership from fervent foes to quiet friends of the birth control cause. It examines, in particular, the shift in motives for this change over time: from a sweeping culture war against all forms of vice; to a desperate effort to salvage dreams of Protestant world empire; to swelling anti-Catholicism; to fear of “population explosion,” and surrender to a newly dominant culture."

"The key figure in elaborating the Protestant family ethic was the former Augustinian monk and priest Martin Luther. In theological terms, however, Luther’s opposition to contraception was actually amplified by his rejection of clerical celibacy. Luther’s critics have seen him as a failed celibate, a man unable to control his lusts. Luther blamed the doctrine of celibacy itself."

"How might we judge the success of the Protestant family ethic? For nearly four centuries it worked reasonably well, as judged by its understanding of the divine ordinance to be fruitful and replenish the earth. Accordingly, the Protestant opposition to contraception remained firm. Writing in the late eighteenth century, for example, John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, also condemned the sin of Onan, adding, “The thing which he did displeased the Lord.” The nineteenth-century Reformed Pastor Johann Peter Lange, in his Christian Dogmatics, described contraception as “a most unnatural wickedness, and a grievous wrong. This sin . . . is [as] destructive as a pestilence that walketh in darkness, destroying directly the body and the soul of the young.” At their 1908 Lambeth Conference, the world’s Anglican bishops recorded “with alarm the growing practice of artificial restriction of the family.” They “earnestly call[ed] upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralizing to character and hostile to national welfare.” As late as 1923, the Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod’s official magazine The Witness accused the Birth Control Federation of America of spattering “this country with slime” and labeled birth-control advocate Margaret Sanger a “she devil.” Pastor Walter Maier, founding preacher of the long-running Lutheran Hour radio program, called contraceptives “the most repugnant of modern aberrations, representing a twentieth-century renewal of pagan [bankruptcy]].” On doctrine, then, Protestant leaders held firm well into the twentieth century."

"As late as 1874, the average Anglican clergyman in England still had 5.2 living children. In 1911, however, just three years after the bishops had condemned contraception, the new census of England showed that the average family size of Anglican clergy had fallen to only 2.3 children, a stunning decline of 55 percent. The British Malthusian League—a strong advocate of contraception—had a field day exposing what it called the hypocrisy of the priests. As the league explained, the Church of England continued to view contraception as a sin, and yet its clerics and bishops were obviously engaging in the practice. Apparently only the poor and the ignorant had to obey the church. There was not much that Anglican leaders could say in response. This propaganda continued for another two decades, and soon some Anglican theologians were arguing that Britain’s poverty required the birth of fewer children."

"Pressures culminated at the 1930 Lambeth Conference, where bish-ops heard an address by birth-control advocate Helena Wrighton on the advantages of contracep-tion for the poor. On a vote of 193 to 67, the bishops (representing not only Eng-land but also America, Canada, and the other former colonies) approved a resolution stating that: In those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete absti-nence, other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. This was the first official statement by a major church body in favor of contra-ception. Thus was Christian unity on the question broken. The decision was condemned by many religious and secular bodies, including the editors of the Washington Post. Pope Pius XI responded to it in his encyclical Casti Connubii four months later. The same stress line emerged in America. For example, in the very conservative Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod, the average pastor in 1890 had 6.5 children. The number fell to 3.7 children in 1920, 42 percent below the 1890 number. Other churches saw a similar decline. Here, too, the Protestant clergy had ceased to be models of a fruitful home for their congregations and the broader culture. During the 1930s, the Missouri Synod quietly dropped its campaign against the Birth Control League of America. In the 1940s, one of the church’s leading theologians, Albert Rehwinkel, concluded that Luther had simply been wrong. God’s words in Genesis 1:28—“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth”—were not a command; they were merely a blessing, and an optional one at that."

"In 1931, the Committee on Home and Marriage of the old Federal Council of Churches issued a statement defending family limitation and arguing for the repeal of laws prohibiting contraceptive education and sales. Some member churches—notably the Southern Methodists and the Northern Baptists—protested the action, and the Southern Presbyterians even withdrew their membership from the Federal Council for a decade, but they were the minority and even their protests did not last. In only three decades, the Lambeth Conference’s qualified approval would turn into full celebration. At the astonishing and deeply disturbing‘’ 1961 North American Conference on Church and Family’’, sponsored by the National Council of Churches (successor to the Federal Council), population-control advocate Lester Kirkendall argued that America had “entered a sexual economy of abundance” where contraception would allow unrestrained sexual experimentation."

"Rejecting both lifelong celibacy and contraception, classic Protestant theology required family-centered and child-rich pastors. When those clerical leaders, in the privacy of their bedrooms, broke faith with their tradition, when pastors and their wives consciously limited their families, the Protestant opposition to contraception faced a crisis. Typical of a less radical development was the 1981 decision of the Missouri Synod’s Commission on Theology and Church Relations, which argued that although “Be fruitful” is “both a command and a mandate,” “in the absence of Scriptural prohibition” contraception was acceptable “within a marital union which is, as a whole, fruitful.” And if contraception is acceptable, “we will also recognize that sterilization may under some circumstances be an acceptable form of contraception.”"

"The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) itself had in 1971 urged its members to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother. However, reflecting the movement of Evangelicalism as a whole (though not mainline Protestantism), in 2003, the SBC declared that this and the 1974 resolution “accepted unbiblical premises of the abortion rights movement, forfeiting the opportunity to advocate the protection of defenseless women and children” and that “we lament and renounce statements and actions by previous Conventions and previous denominational leadership that offered support to the abortion culture.”"

"Among the most important of man's faculties is the sexual power. Its chief purpose is the generation of new life. This purpose pertains to the social order; it concerns the common good rather than the individual good. When husband and wife perform their marital functions in the natural manner, they are concurring in the designs of God toward the preservation and the propagation of the human race. The full import of this objective is perceived only by those who admit the eternal destiny of mankind. To them parenthood means, not merely the procreation of another member of society, but primarily coöperation with the Almighty in the creation of an immortal soul that is destined to be happy with God forever. However, when husband and wife deliberately and positively frustrate the procreative purpose of sexual intercourse, they pervert the order of nature and thus directly oppose the designs of nature's Creator. And since the reproductive function is so vital to the upkeep of the race, and since any exception to this law would be multiplied indefinitely, every act of contraceptive frustration is a gravely immoral act, or, in Catholic terminology, a mortal sin."

"It does not follow from Catholic principles that conjugal inter-course is forbidden whenever conception is naturally impossible, as when a woman is already pregnant or advanced in years. Nature itself includes such conditions in its plan, and so in these circumstances a married pair do nothing against nature, nothing immoral, if they make use of their marital rights, provided they have the power of complete coition. They are not positively frustrating the chief purpose of the sexual act, they are not opposing the designs of nature and of nature's Author. It is important to note that the argument which is being urged against contraception is not based on any such principle as 'It is always sinful to oppose or to check any force of nature.' The misunderstanding of this point has occasioned innumerable objections of the species known as reductio ad absurdum against the Church's denunciation of contraceptive practices. For example: 'The Catholic teaching on birth control would lead to the conclusion that a person commits a sinful act whenever he cuts his hair or trims his nails, since in performing these actions one frustrates nature.' The flaw in this manner of reasoning is the failure to distinguish between the restricting of a natural power and the preventing of the purpose of a natural power. The former by no means necessarily includes the latter. It is within the designs of nature itself that there should be opposition and conflict among the multitudinous forces and agents that operate in the universe, that one creature should restrain and control the tendencies and activities of another and utilize them to its own advantage. The animal violently interrupts the vital functioning of the plant by using it as food, and man does the same to the animal; but there is no frustration of any divinely ordained purpose in this process. On the contrary, there is the fulfillment of the Creator's design that the lower in the scale of perfection should contribute to the sustenance of the higher. Similarly -- to answer the specific objection -- when a person cuts his hair or trims his nails he does indeed curtail the growth of these bodily appendages, but their chief purpose, the utility of the individual himself, is promoted rather than frustrated. Certainly nature does not call for an unchecked augmentation of hair and nails; they must be clipped if they would be beneficial to the whole person, to whom they are subservient as the lesser good to the greater. But it is an utterly different case with contraception, which prevents the very primary purpose of sexual activity and inverts the due order of things by making the social benefit of conjugal intercourse subservient to the benefit of the individuals concerned. This can be illustrated by a development of the parallelism which exists between the faculty of nutrition and that of sex. The primary purpose of the former is to preserve the life of the individual; the primary purpose of the latter is to preserve the life of the human race. To attract human beings to the due use of these faculties, the Creator has annexed to the functioning of each a feeling of pleasure. Sexual gratification is particularly vehement, and in this is manifest the sagacity of divine providence, inducing men and women to undertake the arduous duties of parenthood for the benefit of the human race. But, to continue the analogy, it is possible for a person to enjoy the pleasure accompanying the use of either of these faculties, and at the same time to distort his action in such wise that its chief purpose is rendered unattainable. This is what takes place relative to the sexual faculty when contraception is employed. And the analogous case in the use of the nutritive faculty is the revolting practice of some ancient Roman gourmands, who ate to satiety and then induced regurgitation. In each case the sensual gratification intended by the Creator as an incentive to the use of the respective faculty is sought and enjoyed, while the divinely established main purpose is deliberately and positively obstructed. Is it not strange that many persons who shudder at the very thought of the disgusting custom of the ancient voluptuaries do not hesitate to defend and to practise the equally perverse operation of contraception?"

"If the human race is in existence ten thousand years hence, no matter what changes may have taken place in the social and economic and scientific spheres, the Catholic Church will still be preaching the same doctrine on birth control that it is teaching today."

"[T]he public media tend to identify opposition to unnatural forms of birth regulation with Catholicism. However, as will become clear, Catholic teaching on this matter was formerly held by all Protestant Churches, and some of them still retain it. Secondly, because of the controversy over birth control, the Catholic Church has issued a number of statements to which there is easy access and reference."

"Does the Church teach that the unnatural or artificial means of birth control are immoral and blameworthy? Yes. In Humanae Vitae, the first-named form of illicit or unnatural method of birth control is abortion (n. 14). Then, "equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary whether of the man or woman" (Humanae Vitae, 14). This condemns tubal ligations, vasectomies, and the Pill. "Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae, 14). Such unnatural forms include the Pill, the intrauterine device, foams, diaphragms, condoms, withdrawal, mutual or solitary masturbation and sodomistic practices."

"Are some forms of unnatural birth control worse than others? Yes. Those forms that act after conception has occurred to prevent the continuation of the pregnancy participate in the additional evil of abortion. "From the moment of its conception life must be guarded with greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes" (Gaudium et Spes, 51). Surgical abortion is the most obvious but not the only form. The intrauterine device (IUD) acts primarily as an early abortion agent by preventing implantation of the week-old human life. The birth control Pill makes the inner lining of the uterus very hostile to implantation. It is not known how often the Pill acts in this way, but it cannot be denied that the Pill may be acting as an early abortion agent in any given cycle in any given woman."

"In the natural act of completed marital sexual intercourse, there is a symbolic bodily unity of man and wife. However, in every form of unnatural birth control, there is a positive effort to destroy the [w:Procreative|procreative]] potential of an act that God has given us as a unique sign of married love. Looked at in another way, the sex act is meant by God to be a symbolic way in which a couple are called to renew, at least implicitly, their marriage covenant. In this bodily union, they are called to affirm anew their original promises of married love, to take each other for better or for worse, to be as one until death. Unnatural birth control contradicts the symbolic renewal of the marriage covenant. Instead, it says, "I take you for better but not for the imagined worse of parenthood.""

"In the New Testament, it is possible that the Greek "pharmakeia" refers to the birth con-trol issue. "Pharmakeia" in general was the mixing of various potions for secret purposes, and it is known that potions were mixed in the first century A.D. to prevent or stop a pregnancy. The typical translation as "sorcery" may not reveal all of the specific practices condemned by the New Testament. In all three of the passages in which it appears, it is in a context condemning sexual immorality; two of the three passages also condemn murder. (Gal. 5:19-26; Rev. 9:21, 21:8). Thus it is very possible that there are three New Testament passages condemning the use of the products of "pharmakeia" for birth control purposes."

"The growing use of unnatural birth control since 1913 has been accompanied by an almost 500% rise in the divorce rate. Among Catholics, the divorce rate formerly was much lower than the national average, but the divorce rate has risen sharply since the mid-1960s when Catholics began using unnatural birth control at about the same rate as the rest of a culture that is no longer Christian. Even if other factors have contributed to the breakdown of family stability, there are ample indicators that the use of unnatural birth control has been a significant factor."

"Many couples who have left unnatural methods of birth control have reported an improved marriage relationship with NFP. This has been confirmed by scientific social studies and by informal surveys showing an extremely low divorce rate among couples practicing NFP. Improved communication, ab-sence of feelings of being used, development of non-genital courtship, peace of conscience, and no fear of the dangerous effects of some unnatural methods have all been mentioned as contributing to the improved relationship. In addition, the practice of NFP helps to develop the same character strengths that are necessary for marital fidelity and life-long marriage."

"The question of birth control has been raised many times for 19 centuries of Christian life, and the Church has always responded with a firm and universal negative to abortion, sterilization and all forms of unnatural birth control. The encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968 simply reaffirmed this universal Tradition."

"Before 1930, no Protestant Christian church accepted contraception, sterilization or abortion. However, in 1930 the Church of England accepted contraception. Many churches followed that path, but there are still some Protestant churches that reject all forms of unnatural birth control. The Eastern Orthodox churches likewise retain the authentic Christian Tradition against contraception."

"The demographer Pierre Chaunu wrote: Since 1964--the take-off point for most European countries--we have arrived at a process of reproductive collapse never seen before in [history]]...From a gradual death we are moving to an instantaneous death: Germany is dead; its situation is non- reversible (1.2 children per German woman, while an average of 2.1 children per woman is necessary to replace a generation). How is this implosion, this destruction, explained? The most blame apparently can be assigned to the contraceptive revolution which started in 1960. This demographic trend carries with it dire consequences for European populations. Without an influx of immigrants, many European nations will lose almost half of their recruitment pool of active military personnel in the next three generations (about 75 years), and their social fabric will increasingly unravel. Evelyn Sullerot, a dyed-in-the-wool humanist who has worked long and zealously for a change of morals, puts it this way: In ten years time, since 1972, one can see the fabric of civil society quickly falling apart: more and more free forms of "living together," more and more divorces, more and more children born out of wedlock, more and more singles. This change is without precedent in its nature, its extent, and the speed with which it is advancing."

"So-called painless childbirth, contraception, abortion, the new ways of research - all this has not only altered the stature of women and restored honour to their human sexuality; these innovations have also changed the people themselves and the nature of their relationships; they have been joined with a total change of cultural and societal values." In order to reach this goal, the Groupe Littre would zealously promote the idea that people should have free determination over their own bodies. Pierre Simon admits that "this does violence to the Christian ethic, which considers the body a gift from God. In order to promote this "freedom," it was necessary to introduce contraception in the various countries. Indeed, thanks to "the new view of the meaning of life introduced through contraception, society will be completely changed."

"On the political and legal level, the change agents had to make short work, at least in France, of the 1920 law that sought to prevent the lowering of birth rates by for-bidding the sale and advertising of birth control devices. Dr. Simon wrote: "To attack the law in its totality meant to liberalize abortion. {Public} opinion, however, was not yet ready for that. Therefore we had as our first goal to take apart this amalgam. Once contraception was common and accepted by law, then abortion would be accepted. The future proved us right."

"The struggle for contraception was to last longer and be more difficult than the struggle for abortion. To change a famous saying: We had won the war, the only thing left was to fight the last battle. "The relation between contraception and abortion is clear. It is the same as that between a war and the ultimate battle: The final goal, as already seen, is to exercise freedom over one's own body as a piece of material "in the ecological meaning of the word." In other words: Once contraception is common in society, it brings about a new way of thinking; the body is seen as biological material with which one can do as one pleases. As this mentality spreads, abortion is increasingly accepted. History has proven Simon to be right. In December 1967, nine months before the encyclical Humanae Vitae was issued, the Neuwirth Law was passed in France allowing the sale and advertising of contraceptives. In 1975, the Weil Law followed, which legalized abortion. By 1983 this "unspeakable crime" (Gaudium et spes, No. 51) was paid for by national health insurance - that is, by all taxpayers. The Weil Law's "conscience clause" (allowing for refusal to participate in abortion) is no more than an empty formality, since all French citizens, whatever their convictions, pay for health insurance and so participate in the funding of abortion. By refusing to acknowledge the inviolable right to life, the government has become, in effect, a totalitarian State."

"The widespread use of contraception unavoidably and inexorably results in a number of cata-strophic social consequences. Marital oneness, propagation and the very meaning of love are divorced from the marital act when contraceptives are injected into a relationship. The underlying roles of man and society are thereby jeopardized. We therefore can see the great wisdom of the Catholic Church in upholding the moral law from which no human activity is excluded - not even science. Science is not neutral. Properly used, it must serve the welfare of the people and respect their dignity. Contraception is not a private matter without moral repercussions for society at large. As we have seen, widespread contraceptive use thoroughly impacts the very foundations of the culture that embraces it. Enlightened by the teaching of the Church, we believe that man can come again to a practice of birth regulation that respects human dignity and the sacred character of marriage and of life."

"We often hear that the church accepts natural methods of birth control while she rejects artificial means. This is not true. The Church accepts periodic sexual abstinence, based on the virtue of chastity, but she condemns every form of contraception. Contraception is "an act which has as its goal the prevention of propagation" (Humane Vitae, No. 14). This is not the case with periodic abstinence. With periodic abstinence, the person is honoured in the sexual relationship-the wife through her own biological rhythm, the husband through the sperm that he gives. No separation disturbs the oneness of the marriage act, the oneness of spirit and body. There is no contradiction between the (good) goal and the means. The Church considers contraception a moral disorder, not for biological, ecological or naturalistic reasons, nor out of fear for science and technique, but for spiritual, anthropological and metaphysical reasons. Contraception casts man himself in the role as lord of life, allowing him to use his body as a piece of material that is subject to his desire; as an object he can manipulate as he wishes. His desire then becomes the only criteria of his actions. His morality is based on situation ethics; on subjective standards. By periodic abstinence, however, man accepts himself as a creature of God, sublimating his will to that of his Creator. He sees his body as a sign of his dependence, and at the same time as a symbol of his transcendence. His desire - which is always obscure and confused - submits itself in freedom to the law that is written in his nature, and which therefore becomes a reasonable, true human desire."

"By separating what God has joined, by detaching love from fruitfulness, contraception has given birth to a deformed way of thinking - one which, when followed, results in tragic consequences[. The first consequence - the most miserable, but one that at first escapes attention - is practical atheism. Whenever a man raises himself to the status of lord and master over life, to the role of "boss" over his own body, he ceases to recognize and acknowledge his dependence on God. Such a man fantasizes that he is creator, thereby mentally placing himself of God's throne. The person who does this becomes an atheist without even recognizing it. Such a person does not need to expressly deny God; he merely needs to accept a premise that is intrinsically sinful and materialistic rather than spiritual and holy. This is not to say that the practice of contraception automatically produces atheists. But justification of the practice brings a man imperceptibly nearer to the way of thinking which results in atheism. Dr. Simon clearly understood this when he wrote that contraception introduces a revision of the meaning of life and that "it changes the people as well as the nature of their relationship.""

"A second miserable social consequence of the contraceptive mentality is that is makes it impossible to receive a child as an unexpected and undeserved gift from God. Rather, the child, is perceived merely as the object of parental desire ("I want a child" or "I really wanted that child"). Because the child is not seen as a gift, but as "wanted" (an acquisition), it is increasingly viewed as an objects. The value of the child then depends entirely on the will of the parents. The child is no longer known for what he or she is: someone who, simply by being, requires absolute respect. Once this fallacious reasoning is embraced, it is but a short step to abortion, especially when the child is not "wanted." Tragically, this step is made without much difficulty. Dr. Raymond Pearl of the United States established in 1937 that couples who use contraception have three or four times more abortions than couples who do not use contraception. A 1952 Japanese study of 3,500 families showed that couples who used contraception aborted their children six times more often couples who did not use contraception."

"A third consequence: Sterilization is no longer seen as a mutilating encroach-ment on human dignity and divine providence, but as a radical and definitive contracep-tive method. According to research by the Family Planning Service in England, the number of sterilized couples rose from 4 percent in 1970 to 24 percent in 1983. It is anticipated this percentage will rise to 33 in 1995. Pope Paul VI pointed out that contraception is a dangerous weapon in the hands of government. How many governments in the Third World promote contraceptives or advance sterilization to solve their demographic problems? The rich countries encourage them, driven by thinly disguised imperialism. Who could blame a government for applying, as a solution to the problems of the community, those means acknowledged to be permissible for married couples in solving a family problem (Humane Vitae No. 17)?"

"A fourth consequence of the contraceptive mentality is that the field of medicine is evolving into a bio-technology and the medical corps is becoming a health bureaucracy responsible for the regulation of a health policy formulated and enforced by political might. This is even clearer in the case of abortion. Here there is no talk of a medical act, but of a crime which is covered with a medical garment so that it is performed in a hospital or clinic by a little angel maker with a medical diploma. The same can be said of the implements of torture discovered by the pharmacists of the Soviet Gulags, or of electrical shocks administered under medical supervision in some Latin American countries. Thus the medical profession is increasingly reduced to an instrument of political and social policies."

"The fifth social consequence of contraception we will deal with here involves the separation of the marital act from marriage and propagating, thereby depriving it of its designation as "a private matter." As the social meaning of marriage disappears, will the community no longer have anything to do with it? Why make a distinction between marriage and non-marital living arrangements? Why speak about rights and obligations for one person and not for another?"

"In 1958, Pope Pius XII approved The Pill for Catholics, so long as its contraceptive effects were “indirect”—that is, so long as it was intended only as a remedy for conditions like painful menses or “a disease of the uterus.” That ruling emboldened Rock still further. Short-term use of The Pill, he knew, could regulate the cycle of women whose periods had previously been unpredictable. Since a regular menstrual cycle was necessary for the successful use of the rhythm method—and since the rhythm method was sanctioned by the Church—shouldn’t it be permissible for women with an irregular menstrual cycle to use the Pill in order to facilitate the use of rhythm? And if that was true why not take the logic one step further? As the federal judge John T. Noonan writes in “Contraception,” his history of the Catholic position on birth control: If it was lawful to suppress ovulation to achieve a regularity necessary for successfully sterile intercourse, why was it not lawful to suppress ovulation without appeal to rhythm? If pregnancy could be prevented by pill plus rhythm, why not by pill alone? In each case suppression of ovulation was used as a means. How was a moral difference made by the addition of rhythm? These arguments, as arcane as they may seem, were central to the development of oral contraception. It was John Rock and Gregory Pincus who decided that the Pill ought to be taken over a four-week cycle—a woman would spend three weeks on the Pill and the fourth week off the drug (or on a placebo), to allow for menstruation. There was and is no medical reason for this."

"John Rock’s long battle on behalf of his birth-control pill forced the Church to take notice. In the spring of 1963, just after Rock’s book was published, a meeting was held at the Vatican between high officials of the Catholic Church and Donald B. Straus, the chairman of Planned Parenthood. That summit was followed by another, on the campus of the University of Notre Dame. In the summer of 1964, on the eve of the feast of St. John the Baptist, Pope Paul VI announced that he would ask a committee of church officials to reëxamine the Vatican’s position on contraception. The group met first at the Collegio San Jose, in Rome, and it was clear that a majority of the committee were in favor of approving the Pill. Committee reports leaked to the National Catholic Register confirmed that Rock’s case appeared to be winning. Rock was elated. Newsweek put him on its cover, and ran a picture of the Pope inside. “Not since the Copernicans suggested in the sixteenth century that the sun was the center of the planetary system has the Roman Catholic Church found itself on such a perilous collision course with a new body of knowledge,” the article concluded. Paul VI, however, was unmoved. He stalled, delaying a verdict for months, and then years. Some said he fell under the sway of conservative elements with-in the Vatican. In the interim, theologians began exposing the holes in Rock’s arguments. The rhythm method “‘prevents’ conception by abstinence, that is, by the non-performance of the conjugal act during the fertile period,” the Catholic journal America concluded in a 1964 editorial. “The pill prevents conception by suppressing ovulation and by thus abolishing the fertile period. No amount of word juggling can make abstinence from sex and the suppression of ovulation one and the same thing.”"

"In hindsight, it is possible to see the opportunity that Rock missed. If he had known what we know now and had talked about the Pill not as a contraceptive but as a cancer drug—not as a drug to prevent life but as one that would save life—the church might well have said yes. Hadn’t Pius XII already approved the Pill for therapeutic purposes?"

"In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 2 closely held for-profit corporations asserted claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) 3 to ex-"

"The claimants in Hobby Lobby challenged a law requiring employers to provide their employees health insurance that covered contraceptives the claimants deemed “abortifacients.” The law, they argued, forced them to “provid[e] insurance coverage for items that risk killing an embryo [and thereby] makes them complicit in abortion.” The concept of complicity has a richly elaborated theological basis in Catholicism. But evangelical Christians, such as the Greens, who own Hobby Lobby, also assert that their beliefs preclude them from engaging in conduct that would make them complicit in sin. As Justice Alito explained in Hobby Lobby, the claimants believe “it is immoral and sinful for [them] to intentionally participate in, pay for, facilitate, or otherwise support these drugs.”"

"Religious conservatives opposed to practices that separate sex from procreation may object not only to same-sex marriage and abortion, but also to contraception. While Hobby Lobby featured an objection to contraceptives the claimants viewed as “abortifacients,” many religious claimants object to contraception generally. There are Catholics and evangelical Protestants who object to a “contraceptive mentality” that separates sex from procreation. The plaintiffs in Hobby Lobby were supported by amici who opposed contraception and advised the Court that contraception harms women. And in other litigation over the ACA, claimants have expressed objections to coverage of any FDA-approved contraceptives."

"I have described the contraceptive means known to different eras, and what can be inferred as to their diffusion and employment. The data here set forth, gathered from the canon law, the manuals for confessors, the commentaries of theologians and canonists, and medieval medical books and herbals, substantially alter the picture formerly drawn of contraceptive practice. In particular, the period between 400 and 1600 will be seen to be marked by a possession and use of contraceptive means which previous accounts have not suggested. It was in the face of this contraceptive practice that the doctrine upon it was promulgated in western Europe."

"To relate in detail the circumstances, for example, that led St. Albert the Great to describe three methods of contraception belongs to the biographer of St. Albert; all the forces that made Pope Sixtus V decree the penalties of murder for contraception are the domain of the social historian of sixteenth-century Rome. No historian describes all the factors, for he does not know them all; of necessity there is choice and emphasis. Here I have tried to catch the most significant pressures and events that affected the doctrine on contraception. There is an advantage to looking at a single set of concepts over two thousand years."

"There is a consensus in the Catholic Church. The Orthodox churches not in communion with Rome are outside of this consensus: The propositions constituting a condemnation of contraception are, it will be seen, recurrent. Since the first clear mention of contraception by a Christian theologian, when a harsh third-century moralist accused a pope of encouraging it, the articulated judgment has been the same. In the world of the late Empire known to St. Jerome and St. Augustine, in the Ostrogothic Arles of Bishop Caesarius and the Suevian Braga of Bishop Martin, in the Paris of St. Albert and St. Thomas, in the Renaissance Rome of Sixtus V and the Renaissance Milan of St. Charles Borromeo, in the Naples of St. Alphonsus Liguori and Liege of Charles Billuart, in the Philadelphia of Bishop Kenrick, and in the Bombay of Cardinal Gracias, the teachers of the Church have taught without hestitation or variation that certain acts preventing procreation are gravely sinful. No Catholic theologian has ever taught, 'Contraception is a good act.' The teaching on contraception is clear and apparently fixed forever."

"The judgments made by Christians on contraception in the first four centuries can be understood only if the existence, effect, and use of contraceptive technique in the Roman Empire are appraised. The existence of contraceptive technique in the pre-Christian Mediterranean world is well established. The oldest surviving documents are from Egypt."