Marriage and Contraception

The topic of this post is a wee bit off the normal apologetic posts, but it is indeed apologetics in that it is about refuting Roman Catholic abuse of Scripture on a serious issue.

About 35 years ago I was having a discussion with a fellow employee who was Roman Catholic. He was trying to covert me to Roman Catholicism so I was doing my best to demonstrate the errors of the RCC.  For ease of communication we ended up writing commentaries back and forth and then trade them at work. I thought I had thrown out the whole file but a couple weeks ago, while digging into some old paperwork, I came across my copy of the two pages I wrote to contradict the RCC ideas about marital sexual relations and contraception—including that every act of sexual intercourse should be open to conception. I decide to share this information, hence this article which is copied verbatim except I will put quotations from Catholic sources in blue. Any necessary commentary to give the context will be in brackets.

======================

Purpose of Marriage:

Gen. 2 is an in-depth account of how man was created. Before woman was created Gen. 2:18 gives the primary purpose for marriage: “It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Companionship came before “Be fruitful and multiply.” 

I do not think 1 Cor. 7:2 has a bearing since it was written thousands of years after the purpose of marriage was established.

Matt.19:9 says “except for immorality,” suggesting divorce then is all right and marriage again is not adultery! That’s what I read from the context. I agree with the Greek Orthodox Church. Additionally, the staunch Catholic stance against divorce is hypocritical when they have the same thing in “annulment.”  A couple could be married for 30 years when one wants a separation over something “illegal” in Catholic theology and suddenly they were never married and both can be remarried.

Catholic Catechism:

By specifying onanism (p.371) it is obvious the Catholic doctrine against a “natural” birth control method (i.e. withdrawal) stems from Gen. 38:9-10. The problem is that this is a specific incident where Onan did not want to do his duty because he knew it would not be his child. This was not what God wanted for him (Onan), not a policy to be established for all.

Contraception is not comparable to abortion (although abortion is used for that purpose) or infanticide because you have not taken a life, only prevented its conception.

The Popes have a right to their opinion and that is precisely what the anti-contraceptive doctrine is. That opinion is not divinely ordained! Their ideology is that the sex act is to be used only for childbirth, hence abstinence is great if children are unwanted. But abstinence itself can be considered unnatural within marriage.

“The conjugal act is of its very nature designed for” sexual pleasure between married persons [vs only childbearing]. If the orgasmic pleasure were not part of the sexual experience, people would still mate when children were desired. While it’s true that a man normally reaches his climax during intercourse, I have read in numerous places that women frequently are unable to reach a climax through intercourse alone. That tells me that God wanted man to spend time in loving his wife to give her as much pleasure as he derives from the experience. This is not necessary if all that is desired is conception, and for the most part the women would be left out of it pleasure-wise. Lest you say that is the reason love is part of conception, this can be true while at the same time it is apparent that there are two distinct purposes for sexual intercourse: love and procreation. While love does not have to end in procreation, nor should it always, procreation should definitely begin with love.

Many other sexual activities such as oral sex or mutual manual stimulation to orgasm are nowhere proscribed in the scriptures yet do not result in conception, while at the same time are quite natural activities. It can be said then that they are methods of contraception! Withdrawal or condoms, neither of which add to the system by way of “magic potions” or harm the body in any way, cannot be considered unnatural, shameful or immoral.

Merely having the authority to teach morals does not allow the making up of moral standards. Authority can be, and is, abused by those endowed with it.

What about women who can have children only at the risk of losing their own life? If they opt for sterilization or contraception, is it wrong? Are they not allowed to enjoy marriage at its fullest because they may get pregnant and die? “Natural” contraception the Catholic way is not 100% sure and therefore prohibitive in this instance. Should the husband then get an annulment since he can’t consummate the marriage? Or is that something they just forego because of their love for God?

Why should there always be two functions of marital intercourse? What’s wrong with just the unitive function that was so obviously intended for pleasure?  What about when the couple are no longer in childbearing years—are they to no longer have sexual relations because they aren’t open to conception? 

Pleasure within a loving relationship does not necessarily translate into selfishness [as noted in the information provide to me]. That is merely an opinion by someone abusing authority. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I do not recall reading anywhere in the scriptures where it says a married couple are not to enjoy themselves unless they leave it open for conception. This is such a vital issue that I believe Jesus would have specifically mentioned it.  It therefore seems to be a matter of personal philosophy, not divine rules for living.

The rhythm method is a way allowed for contraception solely because it is “natural.” What hypocrisy! It still interferes with procreation in the strictest sense in that you are choosing when to have intercourse. That is not any more natural than using a condom, or any more natural than using withdrawal. Contraception by any other name…….

What the Church says is that contraception is all right — “our way.” Rhythm doesn’t prove a “truly and praiseworthy love” — it only proves you don’t want children. It is self-righteous garbage to say one way of contraception is selfless love while another way is sin. Both interfere with nature in its strictest sense.

I believe you adequately presented the Catholic Church’s stance and reasons for its anti-contraceptive stance. However, I feel I have presented just as good a case for the “natural” contraceptive practices of withdrawal and condoms (especially the made of natural material vs rubber, etc).

One last item to mention on this subject. As mentioned in some of the material, there are many reasons for not wanting children in a marriage, the primary one of which seems to be financial considerations. To deny someone the right to marriage without children is unnatural. The PRIMARY PURPOSE, as noted in Gen. 2:18, is for companionship; full, loving, intimate companionship. This is what God so obviously intended. If children were the primary reason, there would be no need to make two sexes. God could have made mankind hermaphrodite and let him populate the world by himself!

I do not object to abstinence outside of marriage; not being married demands chastity, as so many times demanded by scripture! 

You can find a more thorough examination of the topic of contraception in my article, Is Contraception Unbiblical? (i.e. Sinful?)