Christian views on birth control

Prior to the 20th century, contraception was generally condemned by all the major branches of Christianity, including by major reformers like Luther and Calvin. This unified front no longer exists, however. Among Christian denominations today there are a large variety of positions towards contraception.

Roman Catholic Church

Like pre-1930s Protestantism, the Catholic Church has been morally opposed to contraception and orgasmic acts outside of the context of fully natural marital intercourse as far back as one can historically trace. For instance, the 2nd century Epistle of Barnabas takes it for granted that oral sex is immoral.

The official position of the Catholic Church regarding birth control is expressed very clearly in Pope Pius XI's 1930 encyclical entitled Casti Connubii. It was written in response to the Anglican (then-recent) approval of artificial means of contraception when used in cases of grave necessity.

Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, ... in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, ... proclaims anew: 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.

In 1968 Pope Paul VI released an encyclical titled Humanae Vitae, which again said that chemical and barrier methods were morally impermissible but suggested natural methods such as the rhythm method or natural family planning might be considered in cases of necessity, a suggestion some see implicit in Casti Connubii as well. These methods are known as "periodic abstinence" and are argued to be morally different from positively modifying the couple's fertility, since the modus operandi is abstinence, albeit not all the time.

"The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." — Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae (1968) [1]

Couples seeking marriage in the Catholic Church are in most dioceses required to undergo counseling by a Catholic priest. In the past priests led couples seeking to delay children to rhythm, today they are instructed to point new couples toward the more effective methods of natural family planning.

In addition to a theological argument from the essentially unanimous pre-20th century Christian tradition prohibition of contraception, Catholic philosophers have proposed three types of philosophical arguments. These arguments are not official Church teaching, but attempts to give a philosophical argument for what might also be accepted on faith.

First, St. Thomas Aquinas claimed that it was wrong to perform a positive act that deliberately frustrates the primary purpose of a human organ. According to his theory, if the sexual organs have reproduction as their primary purpose, then it follows that contraception is wrong. Opponents of this argument claim that frustration of the primary purpose of an organ is not necessarily wrong (see blindfold or earplug or handcuff) or that the sexual organs have interpersonal union as a co-primary purpose.

Second, as a defense of the teaching of Humanae Vitae, Catholic thinkers John Finnis and Germain Grisez gave a new argument. They considered what it is that is wrong about killing people, and concluded that what is wrong about murder is that one is acting directly and positively against the value of human life. Since birth control when it is done by a positive act such as swallowing a pill or putting on a condom (but not when it is "done" in a negative way, i.e., through abstinence), is directly aimed at preventing the formation of life, it is an act directly and positively against the value of human life, and hence wrong. Although Finnis and Grisez deny it, some critics claim that the Finnis and Grisez argument has the consequence that use of non-abortifacient contraception in cases of danger of rape is also wrong when done to prevent conception. However the Catholic Church has no official teaching on the morality of using non-abortifacient contraception by those being raped.

Finally, a number of thinkers of the "personalist school", most notably Karol Cardinal Wojtyła, who was to become Pope John Paul II, argued that contraception is contrary to the interpersonal union that sexual intercourse should cement. The most popular form of this argument asserts that sexual union should involve total mutual bodily self-giving if it is not to be a form of self-deceit. Contraception holds back something significant, namely fertility, and hence is argued to be objectively anti-unitive, even if the couple subjectively feels united (that something is held back might be clearest in the case of barrier methods, but it is argued that other methods still involve holding something back from giving). But to act anti-unitively is, it is argued, to act against marital love, and this is wrong.

A variant version of this argument states that non-contracepted intercourse makes the couple a biological unit. What makes them a biological unit is that their organs are working together, biologically striving for reproduction, even if the intercourse is at a time when reproduction is biologically impossible. But to deliberately and positively act to make reproduction impossible is to set one's will directly against the activity of the organs that are putatively uniting the couple, and hence against the union of the two persons. Some thinkers such as John Finnis, Robert P. George and Gerard Bradley have also employed versions of this biological unit account of intercourse to argue against orgasmic homosexual activity.

Protestant Christianity

The condemnation of contraception was first relaxed by the Anglican Communion at the 1930 Lambeth Conference, and most Protestant groups followed suit over the course of the 20th century.

"The Church of England does not regard contraception as a sin or a contravention of God's purpose." — Church of England, Science, Medicine, Technology and the Environment (2005) [2]

"Sex is a powerful drive, and for most of human history it was firmly linked to marriage and childbearing. Only relatively recently has the act of sex commonly been divorced from marriage and procreation. Modern contraceptive inventions have given many an exaggerated sense of safety and prompted more people than ever before to move sexual expression outside the marriage boundary." — Focus on the Family, Abstinence Policy (2005) [3]

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has a stated position of:

When [having children] is not their intention, the responsible use of safe, effective contraceptives is expected of the male and the female. Respect and sensitivity should also be shown toward couples who do not feel called to conceive and/or rear children, or who are unable to do so.

This is a fairly overt acceptance of modern contraceptives. The other major Lutheran and Presbyterian associations, as well as other Protestant groups in general, may take other positions.

Quiverfull

Since the 1980s, a Protestant evangelical movement known as Quiverfull has arisen. They believe that all forms of family planning are immoral. The movement is also sometimes known as 'providentialism'. Members sometimes cite the passages in Genesis (1:27-28 and 9:7) that say to "be fruitful and multiply". But the name of the movement comes from Psalm 127:3-5

Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them...