![[Home]](pics/index07.png)
![[About Me]](pics/aboutme07.png)
![[Stats]](pics/statistics07.png)
![[Blog]](pics/blog07.png)
![[Pictures]](pics/pictures07.png)
![[Sitemap]](pics/sitemap07.png)
This is a summary of my research on contraception and marriage. Yes, a summary; I read substantially more than what I listed here. My academic side went wild. A couple years ago, I did some of this reading, but back then I could faithfully claim that I had no position on the matter. It didn't matter much, and I hadn't examined things. Now it might matter. Eventually. Hopefully. So here goes.
Looking at early church documents, contraception is mentioned from time to time. The late Jesuit Father Hardon chose a fairly large selection at therealpresence.org. EWTN provides a set of selective quotes from early Church teachers, containing some repeats and some other ideas. In these early documents, taking drugs or potions is condemned universally. Sterilization is sinful. Onanism is condemned occasionally, and never positive. Barrier methods are mentioned only implicitly under early withdrawal, though they are different in execution. In early withdrawal, the sex is not completed. Using a condom allows the male to finish, but places an impediment inside the act.
Some, but not all, condemn any form of deliberately preventing having children, the intent question. Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, and Epiphanius condemn the intent to avoid children. So does the 2nd Council of Braga, which gives 10 years of penance "if she contrives to make sure she does not conceive, either in adultery or in legitimate intercourse." The key section of Augustine is in On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book 1, Chapter 17; he writes that contraception applies to wrong desire as well: "It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin. For although propagation of offspring is not the motive of the intercourse, there is still no attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil appliance."
Arguing against the Manicheans, Augustine appears to refer to a timing-based method as practiced by the Manicheans. His view on the matter is negative. "Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children." Here, the exact Manichean method is unknown, though it sounds like a rhythm method. Manicheans disdained any procreation, which is the point of Augustine's argument. He condemns marriage with permanent or primary contraceptive intent. It is not clear whether temporary intent is acceptable.
Thomas Aquinas is the other grand author of Church history, deserving of his own paragraph. He doesn't write much on the subject, making it part of sections on matrimony and fornication. There are some interesting things there, including the phrase "marital debt", and that it is forbidden to ask for sex on a holy day. Supplement, Question 64. In one section of the Summa Contra Gentiles, it seems clear that any completed sex act without the proper goal of procreation is sinful: "Hence it is clear that every emission of the semen is contrary to the good of man, which takes place in a way whereby generation is impossible; and if this is done on purpose, it must be a sin." Furthermore, this is a big deal: "Hence, after the sin of murder, whereby a human nature already in actual existence is destroyed, this sort of sin seem to hold the second place, whereby the generation of human nature is precluded."
I also find some references in the 16th century Roman Catechism of Trent, designed for parish priests. In the section on the Sacrement of Matrimony, the section on the use of marriage encourages abstaining from the marriage debt. For instance, there is to be no sex for three days before Communion. The unitive aspect is mentioned, under the Motives and Ends of Marriage: "First of all, nature itself by an instinct implanted in both sexes impels them to such companionship." Desire of family is the second motive, and avoiding lust. Though there is a reminder that "marriage is not to be used for purposes of lust or sensuality, but that its use is to be restrained within those limits which, as we have already shown, have been fixed by the Lord."
It appears to be unknown when timing based methods became relatively common. The history of Catholic deliberation is contained on this web page. (Another translation source I used is over here, but be warned that CMRI is an Sedevacantist organization, not belieing in Vatican II.) The first reference to safe periods is in a 1853 question to the Sacred Penitentiary about its licitness: "Certain married couples, relying on the opinion of learned physicians, are convinced that there are several days each month in which conception cannot occur. Are those who do not use the marriage right except on such days to be disturbed, especially if they have legitimate reasons for abstaining from the conjugal act?" The Penitentiary judges if private internal forum practices are sinful; here, the organization responded that "Those spoken of in the request are not to be disturbed, providing that they do nothing to impede conception."
Another ruling appears in 1880. Two questions were submitted: "Whether married couples may have intercourse during such sterile periods without committing mortal or venial sin? Whether the confessor may suggest such a procedure either to the wife who detests the onanism of her husband but cannot correct him, or to either spouse who shrinks from having numerous children?" The answer is again favorable: "Married couples who use their marriage right in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously, however, to those married people whom he has tried in vain by other means to dissuade from the detestable crime of onanism."
Thus, from the 19th century, timing methods are considered legitimate. This was not inherently obvious from earlier church authors. I would say this opposes the thoughts of Augustine, the 2nd Council of Braga, and a few other authors, because the desire is not "right" by earlier definition. In order to accept this teaching, I must accept that sexual activity is licit when the life-giving purpose is severly reduced, and the primary purpose is not the procreation of children. This is a shift. Throughout the late 19th and early 20th century, this procedure was mentioned, though not a large part of debate. Marriage still focused on children, even in official documents. Sadly, the 1917 Code of Canon Law is not online in English. Since most people don't read Latin, I refer you to this page for an online translation. Canon 1013 states that "the primary object of marriage is the procreation and education of offspring; the secondary purpose is mutual assistance and the remedy of concupiscence."
Major change started with the Episcopalians, who have the Lambeth Conference of bishops about every 10 years. The conferences were held in 1908, 1920, 1930, 1948, 1958, and then on the eights through 1998, and soon 2008. The 1920 Conference prohibited unnatural means for the avoidance of conception. In a clear reversal, a majority of bishops at the 1930 Conference allowed other methods "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 abstinence ..."
Surprised by this decision, the Catholic Church and Pope Pius XI rushed to respond, publishing Casti Connubii on the final day of the same year. Section 56 maintains the ban against deliberate frustration of the marital act: "any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."
A new statement appears in Section 59 of Casti Connubii. In terms of marriage, it is substantially more generous than the 1917 Code. "Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved." Historically, the phrase "natural reasons either of time or of certain defects" meant menopause and natural infertility. Nothing in this papal encyclical document officially promoted timing-based methods, though the rulings of the penitentiary still held. Many, many Catholics hastened to the rhythm method, which received additional approval in a 1932 ruling referenced here. Nevertheless, there were still many questions, from theologians, Catholics, and the public. Additionally, artificial methods gained stature in society. More explanation was desired.
The next Pius, Pius XII, was more explicit in his 1951 Allocution to midwives. Online here, this address appeared in the official proceedings of the Apostolic See, and is thus considered valid by anyone who believes Pius XII was valid. The section roughly halfway down the page entitled "Birth Control" is extremely important. I considered including the entire section here, all eight paragraphs. Instead, let me summarize and comment the first seven paragaphs, then quote the final paragraph as summary.
Paragraph 1 asks my first big question: Is being ready for maternity reconcilable with the periods of natural sterility, "which seems a clear expression of a will contrary to that precept"? Paragraph 2 reminds midwives that this is mostly a pastoral problem, but midwives must know and defend the Church's moral law. Paragraph 3 notes that using the matrimonial right during days of natural sterility, as part of using the right in general, is fine. When the husband and wife limit sex to just those periods, "their conduct must be examined more closely." Paragraph 4 notes that a permanent restriction, decided at the start of the marriage, means consent for the marriage was invalid. I believe that would likely be grounds for an annulment. Paragraph 5 examines the temporary decision. Even in this case, morals and intent matter. Couples must be willing to accept the "happy accident", but mere acceptance is not enough to render a temporary choice valid. Paragraphs 6 and 7 are about the responsibilities of marriage. The major positive duty is for children. Only "grave motives" may allow this responsibility to be avoided. Recall that the phrase "grave" refers to serious major things, like mortal sins. For example, Canon 916 of the cyrrent 1983 code states "A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess ..." Because children are the preservation of mankind, the primary duty of marriage is still children; neglecting that casually is sinful. I will now quote the last paragraph in full.
"Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications," may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to tile full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.
There are other important points in the Allocution. One important here is later under "the primary end of marriage." It reminds us that slightly before this document was published in 1951, "the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it."
As documented by PBS, a combination of estrogen and progesterone was shown to prevent ovulation and menstrual disorders. In 1957, the FDA approved the first combination, Enovid, only for women's problems, and considered the prevention of ovulation and thus conception merely a side effect for the warning label. By 1959, somehow half a million women had mysteriously developed severe menstrual disorders. In 1960, the drug combination was approved for on-label contraceptive use. One prominent doctor, John Rock, argued that since the Enovid (the Pill) just extended the already licit "safe period", using natural ingredients, the Pill was permissible to Catholics. [I would consider this overly optimistic, because Enovid is a potion, albeit in powder form, and contraceptive potions have been universally condemned by Church theologians. But let's see.]
In response, Pope Paul VI convened a Pontifical Commission in 1964. This separated the issue from Vatican II, which discussed the issue but made no statement, at least partially due to controversy. One important note is that a Polish bishop named Karol Wojtyla was invited to the special commission, but could not attend due to travel restrictions. This bishop, now known as Pope John Paul II, had in 1960 published the book Love and Responsibility, in general defense of historical values, but with a strong line drawn between natural and artificial methods. Bishop Wojtyla shall return.
At the Commission, what happened is summarized by Garry Wills in his book Papal Sin, excerpted online. A majority of commission members, theologians, and even of bishops felt that contraception was not intrinsically evil, when applied inside a marriage. The official report is available online. This summary quote talks about technology and the dominion of humans: "For it is natural to man to put under human control what is given by physical nature. The opposition is really to be sought between one way of acting which is contraceptive and opposed to a prudent and generous fruitfulness, and another way which is in an ordered relationship to responsible fruitfulness and which has a concern for education and all the essential, human and Christian values."
The minority members of the commission wrote a document as well. They explicitly state that teaching on marriage has changed from Augustine and Aquinas, which agrees with what I have noticed and commented upon. "The theological history of the use of matrimony is very complicated. It evolved very much in the course of the centuries up to the Second Vatican Council. Teachings which have slowly evolved this way are especially: concerning the nature of sexual concupiscence; the teaching of the malice (venial) of the use of matrimony without the procreative intention or from motives of concupiscence; the teaching about the positive value of the sexual element in the use of matrimony, and as it involves conjugal love. Then, too, human sexuality and its genuine value is now being treated more positively. The history of this evolution is by no means simple."
Later, the minority report explains why earlier decisions should remain true. "The Catholic Church could not have furnished in the name of Jesus Christ to so many of the faithful everywhere in the world, through so many centuries, the occasion for formal sin and spiritual ruin, because of a false doctrine promulgated in the name of Jesus Christ. If the Church could err in such a way, the authority of the ordinary magisterium in moral matters would be thrown into question. The faithful could not put their trust in the magisterium's presentation of moral teaching, especially in sexual matters." [To me, this looks suspicious, given that the authors acknowledged changes in the meaning of the Sacrament of Matrimony. The Church routinely makes decisions about new technology as that technology has become available, such as the Sacred Penitentiary answer from 1853.] A quote more in line with historical thought is about the intent of contraception, a seriously evil idea. "Some see the malice principally in the fact that procreation itself (that is, the act and the generative process) is a certain fundamental human good (as truth, as life itself is such a good). To destroy it voluntarily is therefore evidently evil. For to have an intention, directly and actively contrary to a fundamental human good, is something intrinsically evil."
Pope Paul VI decided to follow the arguments of the minority members, and hold licit only timing based methods in serious situations. Bishop Wojtyla supplied some assistance in writing the encyclical, known as Humanae Vitae. Section 14 does not equivocate: "Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation - whether as an end or as a means."
Section 16 contains Pope Paul VI's words on the natural methods exception, "If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained." As for the difference between timing based methods and other methods, Humanae Vitae continues: "In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result."
It is not the intent of this document to discuss societal reaction to the decision pronounced in Humanae Vitae. Many Catholics, including bishops and theologians, found this argument lacking. Most of these appealed to individual conscience.
After Paul XII's death, Pope John Paul I was elected, despite relatively poor health. He served for less than 40 days. The second conclave election of 1978 compromised on Bishop Wojtyla, who became Pope John Paul II. Not surprisingly, he continued to focus on modern sexuality, strongly supporting Humanae Vitae. Speeches made between 1979 and 1984 became known as Theology of the Body, and expanded upon the themes found in his earlier book. [A full treatment of this book would take a lot more space.] In official papal documents, Familiaris Consortio in 1981 made the following quote in section 32: "Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. ... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle ... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality." Twelve years later, in Veritatis Splendor, this teaching is reinforced by calling active contraception intrinsically evil.
Other documents were published during Pope John Paul II's tenure, including the 1983 Code of Canon Law and a new general Catechism. These have a very different definition of marriage than the 1917 Code and the Allocution to Midwives of 1951, just 32 years earlier. The definition Canon 1055 is repeated in the Catechism: "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized." The order of the objects of marriage has been reversed. In 1917, offspring were primary, and in 1951, the two ends were explicitly not equal. The claim of the minority in the Pontifical Commission is validated; marriage has changed.
The Catechism has further teachings on sexuality and children. In number 2363, states that "The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life." In the same section, number 2368 adds about the duties of marriage that "A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood." Language has changed; the "grave reasons" and exemption from duty of earlier documents including the Allocution have been replaced with "just reasons" and conformity with generosity.
If you've made it this far, thanks for reading! Through these 3800 words, I hope you've gathered lots of Catholic historical perspective. I've tried to minimize and note my personal commentary, focus on major theologians, and provide links to English copies of official writings. I still have many personal questions, hypotheticals, and frustrations, but I'll keep those in separate places. Feel free to take a look around the rest of the site if you like.