A Brief History of Contraception
Contraceptive devices have been around for a long, long time, and contraceptive acts have been around for even longer.
When I distinguish the device from the act, I mean to distinguish some kind of physical object - pills, herbs, potions, latex, etc. - from a distinctively contraceptive act that is performed without the aid of a device - Sodomy, Onanism, etc.
As for contraceptive acts, the first one on the biblical record is in Genesis 38. Onan, son of Judah, was the perpetrator, and for his sin he was slain by God. I have not yet been able to find even one single commentary on Genesis 38 - Protestant or Catholic - that denies that Onan's sin was anything but a contraceptive act, a sin against the natural law, a "pollution" of himself, and an act entirely worthy of death.
The current trend among contracepting bible scholars, pastors, teachers, professors, etc., is to interpret Onan's sin as a sin of selfishness. The text says he refused to raise up children by his brother's widow because he knew the child would not be legally considered his own - hence, he was selfish.
Given that I have been arguing for a common link between contraception and Sodomy, I must point out that there is an eerily similar argument that is currently en vogue amongst the Enlightened of our century with regard to Sodom and Gomorrah. 'Twas inhospitality, and not Sodomy, that earned them a stiff dose of fire and brimstone.
Ironic, isn't it? Both events are as old as Genesis, and so ancient, universal, and uninterrupted is the traditional interpretation of these events, that the names of the sins which were punished are actually taken from the stories themselves. Onan was slain for Onanism; Sodom was burned for Sodomy.
But the scholars of the 20th-21st century would have us believe that "Onanism" is the sin of selfishness, and that "Sodomy" is the sin of inhospitality. In both cases, what Scripture depicts as an "abomination" in God's sight is reduced to a mere injustice against Social Charity.
The use of contraceptive devices is very ancient, and some 1st-2nd century medical documents actually differentiate between abortifacients and mere contraceptives (c.f. Soranus of Ephesus, Gynaecology, 98-138 AD).
The OXford Classical Dictionary mentions that "sponges soaked in vinegar or oil, or cedar resin applied to the mouth of the womb" were used as barrier contraceptives, while "pomegranate skin, pennyroyal, willow, and the squirting cucumber" were "taken orally or used as pessaries."
Soranos spoke of wool suppositories, olive oil, honey, cedar resin, alum, balsam gum, and white lead as barriers. Later writers (Paul of Aegina and Dioskorides) published recipes for herbal-based oral contraceptives. Another common practice, attested to by Aetios of Amida, mentions sorcery, magic, and superstitious acts such as wearing amulets.
This latter practice, involving the use of magic and potions, may well be what St. Paul had in mind when he condemned those who practice "sorcery" (Gal. 5:20), and what St. John had in mind when he wrote of those "did they repent of their murders or their sorceries." (Rev. 9:21) In both cases, the Greek word is pharmakeia, from whence we derive our English words "pharmacy" and "pharmaceuticals." That is to say, the root word is closer to "drug" or "potion" than it is to the idea of spell books and black cats.
For the more Dedicated to Sterility, there was the option of male castration, a truly barbaric procedure that has been sanitized and made respectable in our day under the title "Vasectomy." It will ever be a testament to the 20th century's violation of the English language that the medical community could market a procedure, the sole purpose of which is to make a well-functioning reproductive organ definitively non-functional, which would then be widely known as "getting fixed."
The purpose of all of this is, of course, simpy to familiarize the reader with the fact that contraception is no new invention. Recent decades may have produced more refined and effective methods, but it must be understood by the reader that the early Christians who everywhere condemned the practice of contraception were condemning the mindset, not the lack of sophistication in the popular methods. It is not as if a St. Clement of Alexandria would have gladly embraced wide-spread contraception if only he were a contemporary of Trojan, Inc.
Let me bolster the opinion with some factual data. St. Clement of Alexandria writes (190 AD) that the male seed has a specific purpose: "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly spilled, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted." (The Instructor of Children, 2:10:91:2)
Note that he is not concerned with the method employed, whether it be a potion, a barrier, Onanism, etc., but rather with the fact that the seed is being "wasted," when it has been instituted by God for a specific purpose.
In the same work, he again appeals to the natural law as it has been instituted by God: "To engage in coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."
Lactantius writes (307 AD) in the same way, appealing teleologically to the intrinsic purpose of the reproductive organs: "God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the generating part of the body [genitalem corporis partem], as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring." (Divine Institutes, Book VI, 23)
As if writing against the common wisdom of our age, which says the the number of children to be had should be dictated by finances, the same Lactantius writes that some "complain of the scantiness of their income, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children; as though, in truth, their income were in the power of those who possess it, or [as if] God did not daily make the rich poor, and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from [sexual] congress [ab uxoris congressione] than with wicked hands to mar the work of God." (ibid., Book VI, 20)
In the late 4th century, St. Ephiphanius condemned those who "exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children," because they had distorted the purpose of the act: "Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption,: (Panarion, 26:5:2)
St. John Chrysostom likewise wrote of the sin of coveteousness, and warned that this material greed led men to "esteem grievous and unwelcome" the very thing "which is sweet, and universally desirable: the having of children." He noted two distinct sins that grew out of this coveting, namely, "killing the newborn," and "even acting to prevent their beginning to live." (Homilies on Matthew, 28:5)
Elsewhere, this same saint wrote of the existence of "medicines of sterility," and also "murder before birth" (abortion). His words testify to the fact that contraception was something associated, not with married couples, but with prostitutes. He expresses his own bewilderment at the situation, saying "it is something worse than murder ... I do not know what to call it; for [the harlot] does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation." Doubly damnable, however, was the married man who inflicted this contraception on his wife, "for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife." (Homilies on Romans, 24)
Turning to the 4th and early 5th centuries, we are faced with the witness of two of the Western Church's greatest minds, St. Jerome and St. Augustine.
St. Jerome, in his letter Against Jovinian, testifies again to the Christian understanding of the natural law: "Does [Jovinian] imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" (1, 19)
In a letter to Eustochium, the saint recounts that "some [women] go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception." That he is not speaking of abortion here is proved by his next words, which make the distinction: "Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder." (Letter XXII, 13)
St. Augustine testifies to the purpose of marriage, writing against the Manicheans' "doctrine that the production of children is an evil." He writes that when "the production of children, which is the proper end of marriage," is renounced, husbands "are led to commit adultery even in marriage." His argument seems to be based on the association of contraceptives with the practice of prostitution. That is, when the central sacred character and purpose of marriage - begetting children - is removed from marriage, the marriage itself suffers an essential change in substance, having been demoted from a sacred union to mere prostitution. He rebukes the Manicheans for this desecration, saying "thou seekest to destroy the purpose of marriage. Thy doctrine turns marriage into an adulterous connection, and the bed-chamber into a brothel." (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XV, 7)
In another writing on the subject of marriage, St. Augustine makes the same points. He speaks of couples who come together in instances where "propagation of offspring is not the motive of the intercourse" - which he calls a minor sin - but where "there is still no attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil appliance." Those who have recourse to such desires (some translations render it "prayer," which seems to indicate more than just a latent desire and more of an active plea) or "appliances," says the saint, "although called by the name of spouses, are really not such; they retain no vestige of true matrimony." This "cruel lust," he writes, "resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth." In such situations, he concludes, "I boldly declare either that the woman is, so to say, the husband's harlot; or the man the wife's adulterer." (On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book I, Chapter XVII [XV])
So what does all of this mean?
It proves that contraception and a contraceptive mentality have been around, in many various forms, since the earliest days of Man's existence. It is not a novelty of the 20th century, but rather, the novelty of the 20th century is that "bible-believing Christians" - for the first time in history - began to defend this activity as a positive virtue.
The situation has become so bad in our Christian society that pastors no longer counsel engaged couples to avoid something all of their ancestors condemned as sin, but rather, they are given advice as to which kinds of contraception they should use - or, at the very least, they are encouraged to discuss their contraceptive options together and come to an agreement before the wedding day.
Fortunately, the culpability in such cases is probably minimal - it is not the fault of young men and women in this generation that their shepherds have utterly failed to give proper instruction. To their credit, we are seeing a trend today among young couples who, when faced with these previously-unknown facts about the historical Church's stance on contraception, are giving up their (dare I say it?) man-made traditions and throwing out the contraceptives.
Some, however, cling to their cherished way of life, and they can only be pitied, for they continue to practice what is - objectively speaking - a grave sin. Unless, of course, fully 1,930 years of unanimous Christian testimony is wrong - but then, how likely is that? And if that were true, then perhaps we should be examining whether 2,000 years of Christian testimony on such subjects as abortion and Sodomy are also wrong.
One final word about "the pill." An amazingly large number of people are still very much in the dark about this contraceptive option, and insist on contrasting it with the infamous morning-after pill. The difference is indeed negligible. The normal birth control pill is designed to do two things: prevent the woman from releasing unfertilized eggs according to her natural cycles, and put the woman's uterus in such a state that implantation is impossible.
In other words, if for some reason the pill fails in its first purpose, and a woman produces an egg that then becomes fertilized by a male seed (we pro-lifers call this "conception" and "the beginning of human life"), the pill will prevent that new life from becoming attached to the uterus - which means that it will be expelled at the end of that cycle.
It is a horrific tragedy that so many women are unaware of this, unaware of the fact that they have probably already (unwittingly) assisted in what amounts to a chemical abortion, by taking a drug that makes the womb hostile to implantation.
But that is precisely the rotten fruit that we should expect to come from practicing contraception - sin begets sin, regardless of individual culpibility or awareness.
And few people who are otherwise strongly opposed to abortion, and committed to seeing that particular holocaust come to an end, are aware that the pathway to Legalized Abortion (Roe v. Wade) was paved by Legalized Contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut).
Believe it or not, not so long ago (1965) the state of Connecticut had statutes which provided that "any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned."
Likewise, "any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender."
Thus, when Griswold, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, gave advice and counsel to married couples as to which methods of contraception would best fit their needs, he was punished by state law. The case went to the Supreme Court, and the state's statutes were made null and void - based on an appeal to a couple's right to privacy.
That set the stage for Roe v. wade, a case in which Griswold v. Connecticut was cited no less than four times as a precedent for this twisted understanding of "right to privacy." Thus, at least as far as things are considered from a legal point of view, contraception and abortion are inseparably linked. They will stand or fall together, as far as the courts are concerned.
The challenge is this then: if you're going to be pro-life, be truly pro (in favor of) life, not contra (Latin, "against") conception.
When I distinguish the device from the act, I mean to distinguish some kind of physical object - pills, herbs, potions, latex, etc. - from a distinctively contraceptive act that is performed without the aid of a device - Sodomy, Onanism, etc.
As for contraceptive acts, the first one on the biblical record is in Genesis 38. Onan, son of Judah, was the perpetrator, and for his sin he was slain by God. I have not yet been able to find even one single commentary on Genesis 38 - Protestant or Catholic - that denies that Onan's sin was anything but a contraceptive act, a sin against the natural law, a "pollution" of himself, and an act entirely worthy of death.
The current trend among contracepting bible scholars, pastors, teachers, professors, etc., is to interpret Onan's sin as a sin of selfishness. The text says he refused to raise up children by his brother's widow because he knew the child would not be legally considered his own - hence, he was selfish.
Given that I have been arguing for a common link between contraception and Sodomy, I must point out that there is an eerily similar argument that is currently en vogue amongst the Enlightened of our century with regard to Sodom and Gomorrah. 'Twas inhospitality, and not Sodomy, that earned them a stiff dose of fire and brimstone.
Ironic, isn't it? Both events are as old as Genesis, and so ancient, universal, and uninterrupted is the traditional interpretation of these events, that the names of the sins which were punished are actually taken from the stories themselves. Onan was slain for Onanism; Sodom was burned for Sodomy.
But the scholars of the 20th-21st century would have us believe that "Onanism" is the sin of selfishness, and that "Sodomy" is the sin of inhospitality. In both cases, what Scripture depicts as an "abomination" in God's sight is reduced to a mere injustice against Social Charity.
The use of contraceptive devices is very ancient, and some 1st-2nd century medical documents actually differentiate between abortifacients and mere contraceptives (c.f. Soranus of Ephesus, Gynaecology, 98-138 AD).
The OXford Classical Dictionary mentions that "sponges soaked in vinegar or oil, or cedar resin applied to the mouth of the womb" were used as barrier contraceptives, while "pomegranate skin, pennyroyal, willow, and the squirting cucumber" were "taken orally or used as pessaries."
Soranos spoke of wool suppositories, olive oil, honey, cedar resin, alum, balsam gum, and white lead as barriers. Later writers (Paul of Aegina and Dioskorides) published recipes for herbal-based oral contraceptives. Another common practice, attested to by Aetios of Amida, mentions sorcery, magic, and superstitious acts such as wearing amulets.
This latter practice, involving the use of magic and potions, may well be what St. Paul had in mind when he condemned those who practice "sorcery" (Gal. 5:20), and what St. John had in mind when he wrote of those "did they repent of their murders or their sorceries." (Rev. 9:21) In both cases, the Greek word is pharmakeia, from whence we derive our English words "pharmacy" and "pharmaceuticals." That is to say, the root word is closer to "drug" or "potion" than it is to the idea of spell books and black cats.
For the more Dedicated to Sterility, there was the option of male castration, a truly barbaric procedure that has been sanitized and made respectable in our day under the title "Vasectomy." It will ever be a testament to the 20th century's violation of the English language that the medical community could market a procedure, the sole purpose of which is to make a well-functioning reproductive organ definitively non-functional, which would then be widely known as "getting fixed."
The purpose of all of this is, of course, simpy to familiarize the reader with the fact that contraception is no new invention. Recent decades may have produced more refined and effective methods, but it must be understood by the reader that the early Christians who everywhere condemned the practice of contraception were condemning the mindset, not the lack of sophistication in the popular methods. It is not as if a St. Clement of Alexandria would have gladly embraced wide-spread contraception if only he were a contemporary of Trojan, Inc.
Let me bolster the opinion with some factual data. St. Clement of Alexandria writes (190 AD) that the male seed has a specific purpose: "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly spilled, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted." (The Instructor of Children, 2:10:91:2)
Note that he is not concerned with the method employed, whether it be a potion, a barrier, Onanism, etc., but rather with the fact that the seed is being "wasted," when it has been instituted by God for a specific purpose.
In the same work, he again appeals to the natural law as it has been instituted by God: "To engage in coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."
Lactantius writes (307 AD) in the same way, appealing teleologically to the intrinsic purpose of the reproductive organs: "God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the generating part of the body [genitalem corporis partem], as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring." (Divine Institutes, Book VI, 23)
As if writing against the common wisdom of our age, which says the the number of children to be had should be dictated by finances, the same Lactantius writes that some "complain of the scantiness of their income, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children; as though, in truth, their income were in the power of those who possess it, or [as if] God did not daily make the rich poor, and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from [sexual] congress [ab uxoris congressione] than with wicked hands to mar the work of God." (ibid., Book VI, 20)
In the late 4th century, St. Ephiphanius condemned those who "exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children," because they had distorted the purpose of the act: "Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption,: (Panarion, 26:5:2)
St. John Chrysostom likewise wrote of the sin of coveteousness, and warned that this material greed led men to "esteem grievous and unwelcome" the very thing "which is sweet, and universally desirable: the having of children." He noted two distinct sins that grew out of this coveting, namely, "killing the newborn," and "even acting to prevent their beginning to live." (Homilies on Matthew, 28:5)
Elsewhere, this same saint wrote of the existence of "medicines of sterility," and also "murder before birth" (abortion). His words testify to the fact that contraception was something associated, not with married couples, but with prostitutes. He expresses his own bewilderment at the situation, saying "it is something worse than murder ... I do not know what to call it; for [the harlot] does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation." Doubly damnable, however, was the married man who inflicted this contraception on his wife, "for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife." (Homilies on Romans, 24)
Turning to the 4th and early 5th centuries, we are faced with the witness of two of the Western Church's greatest minds, St. Jerome and St. Augustine.
St. Jerome, in his letter Against Jovinian, testifies again to the Christian understanding of the natural law: "Does [Jovinian] imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" (1, 19)
In a letter to Eustochium, the saint recounts that "some [women] go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception." That he is not speaking of abortion here is proved by his next words, which make the distinction: "Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder." (Letter XXII, 13)
St. Augustine testifies to the purpose of marriage, writing against the Manicheans' "doctrine that the production of children is an evil." He writes that when "the production of children, which is the proper end of marriage," is renounced, husbands "are led to commit adultery even in marriage." His argument seems to be based on the association of contraceptives with the practice of prostitution. That is, when the central sacred character and purpose of marriage - begetting children - is removed from marriage, the marriage itself suffers an essential change in substance, having been demoted from a sacred union to mere prostitution. He rebukes the Manicheans for this desecration, saying "thou seekest to destroy the purpose of marriage. Thy doctrine turns marriage into an adulterous connection, and the bed-chamber into a brothel." (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XV, 7)
In another writing on the subject of marriage, St. Augustine makes the same points. He speaks of couples who come together in instances where "propagation of offspring is not the motive of the intercourse" - which he calls a minor sin - but where "there is still no attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil appliance." Those who have recourse to such desires (some translations render it "prayer," which seems to indicate more than just a latent desire and more of an active plea) or "appliances," says the saint, "although called by the name of spouses, are really not such; they retain no vestige of true matrimony." This "cruel lust," he writes, "resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth." In such situations, he concludes, "I boldly declare either that the woman is, so to say, the husband's harlot; or the man the wife's adulterer." (On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book I, Chapter XVII [XV])
So what does all of this mean?
It proves that contraception and a contraceptive mentality have been around, in many various forms, since the earliest days of Man's existence. It is not a novelty of the 20th century, but rather, the novelty of the 20th century is that "bible-believing Christians" - for the first time in history - began to defend this activity as a positive virtue.
The situation has become so bad in our Christian society that pastors no longer counsel engaged couples to avoid something all of their ancestors condemned as sin, but rather, they are given advice as to which kinds of contraception they should use - or, at the very least, they are encouraged to discuss their contraceptive options together and come to an agreement before the wedding day.
Fortunately, the culpability in such cases is probably minimal - it is not the fault of young men and women in this generation that their shepherds have utterly failed to give proper instruction. To their credit, we are seeing a trend today among young couples who, when faced with these previously-unknown facts about the historical Church's stance on contraception, are giving up their (dare I say it?) man-made traditions and throwing out the contraceptives.
Some, however, cling to their cherished way of life, and they can only be pitied, for they continue to practice what is - objectively speaking - a grave sin. Unless, of course, fully 1,930 years of unanimous Christian testimony is wrong - but then, how likely is that? And if that were true, then perhaps we should be examining whether 2,000 years of Christian testimony on such subjects as abortion and Sodomy are also wrong.
One final word about "the pill." An amazingly large number of people are still very much in the dark about this contraceptive option, and insist on contrasting it with the infamous morning-after pill. The difference is indeed negligible. The normal birth control pill is designed to do two things: prevent the woman from releasing unfertilized eggs according to her natural cycles, and put the woman's uterus in such a state that implantation is impossible.
In other words, if for some reason the pill fails in its first purpose, and a woman produces an egg that then becomes fertilized by a male seed (we pro-lifers call this "conception" and "the beginning of human life"), the pill will prevent that new life from becoming attached to the uterus - which means that it will be expelled at the end of that cycle.
It is a horrific tragedy that so many women are unaware of this, unaware of the fact that they have probably already (unwittingly) assisted in what amounts to a chemical abortion, by taking a drug that makes the womb hostile to implantation.
But that is precisely the rotten fruit that we should expect to come from practicing contraception - sin begets sin, regardless of individual culpibility or awareness.
And few people who are otherwise strongly opposed to abortion, and committed to seeing that particular holocaust come to an end, are aware that the pathway to Legalized Abortion (Roe v. Wade) was paved by Legalized Contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut).
Believe it or not, not so long ago (1965) the state of Connecticut had statutes which provided that "any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned."
Likewise, "any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender."
Thus, when Griswold, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, gave advice and counsel to married couples as to which methods of contraception would best fit their needs, he was punished by state law. The case went to the Supreme Court, and the state's statutes were made null and void - based on an appeal to a couple's right to privacy.
That set the stage for Roe v. wade, a case in which Griswold v. Connecticut was cited no less than four times as a precedent for this twisted understanding of "right to privacy." Thus, at least as far as things are considered from a legal point of view, contraception and abortion are inseparably linked. They will stand or fall together, as far as the courts are concerned.
The challenge is this then: if you're going to be pro-life, be truly pro (in favor of) life, not contra (Latin, "against") conception.
<< Home