---

Follow My Blog

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.

Silent Abortions

---

From a pamphlet published by Lutherans for Life [Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod], Illinois-Indiana Chapter. All commentary is unedited and reflects solely the position of that denomination.

2 Kings 22:1-2: Josiah was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem thirty-one years. His mother’s name was Jedidah daughter of Adaiah; she was from Bozkath. He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and walked in all the way of his father David, not turning aside to the right or to the left.

Josiah was truly a remarkable kind. The Holy Spirit of God lived powerfully within this man so that in his personal life, Josiah would not deliberately depart from God to the right or to the left.

But Josiah had a problem he was not even aware of. He and the believers within his nation were accidentally sinning against God in ignorance. You see, most likely Josiah had no copy of the original Book of the Law written by Moses. He and the believers within his nation were relying upon the way the Law of God had been handed down in the traditional teaching of their forefathers. Over time, however, various points of the Law became overlooked and forgotten as their ancestors were influenced by the ungodly world.

Then Josiah underwent the greatest experience of his life when he was 26 years old. While the temple was being repaired, the original Book of the Law written by Moses was found! When the government officials opened it and read it, they were stunned. They read it to Josiah, who also was stunned. Josiah tore his robes; he felt sick, ashamed and worried. He and the people had been sinning against God in ways that they had not even realized! For years Josiah’s heart was right with God, but still he had been sinning against the God whom he loved because he did not know better!

Can the same thing still happen today? Absolutely yes! For example, a believer may love God and desire to serve Him, but the believer still may misunderstand a particular command and thereby may sin against God in ignorance. Or a believer may love God and desire to serve Him, and he may correctly understand a particular command of God, but he may misunderstand the worldly or temporal facts with the result that he may sin against God in ignorance. An example of this latter type of sin would be a Christian unknowingly killing an unborn baby through abortive chemicals and devices. Our church takes a firm stand against abortion as a clear and deliberate violation of the Fifth Commandment: “You shall not murder.” And yet many genuine and sincere Christians, who would never think of aborting a child, are still having millions of “silent abortions”. Why? The answer is simply this. Thousands of Christians use an IUD without realizing that they “control” birth by causing abortions. Millions of Christians use modern birth control pills without realizing that part of their birth “control” function is to abort a human being who has been conceived! Yes, you read correctly — modern birth control pills work partly by causing “silent abortions” of humans already conceived.

WHEN DOES HUMAN LIFE BEGIN?

Some people say that this is an unanswerable question. They say, “We cannot be sure of when life begins because there is no consensus between theologians or scientists.” But do you know anything upon which all humans agree? Some people still believe that the earth is flat. No, this is not an unanswerable question. An honest evaluation of the Biblical and scientific facts will reveal the answers.

When we turn to the Holy Bible, we see that unborn babies are always granted the status of being real human beings. They are treated as real human beings from the point of conception (fertilization) as we can see in Psalm 51:5 “Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” It is also clear that unborn babies are never treated as “things” which turn into human beings at some point in their development. The Scriptures ascribe to them personalities, intelligence, emotions, individuality and worth in God’s eyes. The Scriptures show that God personally watches over their development in the womb. Genesis 25:21-23 Exodus 21:22-25 Psalm 51:5 Psalm 139:13-16 Ecclesiastes 11:5 Isaiah 49:1-5 Jeremiah 1:4-5 Matthew 1:18 Luke 1:41,44*

*Please note that the Greek word used here is “brephos”. This same word is also used in Luke 2:12 in reference to a newborn babe and in II Timothy 3:15 in reference to a young child.

Scientists also know that a new human life begins at conception (fertilization). In an excellent book entitled The Position of Modern Science on the Beginning of Human Life (Copyright 1975, Scientists for Life, Inc.) we read this brilliantly simple and clear explanation on page 15:

“When did your life begin? The answer to this question can be phrased simply by going backward in time. Before you were an adult, you were an adolescent, and before that a child, and before that an infant. Before you were an infant — i.e., before you were born — you were a fetus, and before that an embryo. Before you were an embryo, around the time of your implantation, you were a blastocyst, and before that a morula, and before that a zygote or fertilized ovum. However, you were never a sperm or an unfertilized ovum. Therefore, while life is continuous, your life began when the nucleus of your father’s sperm fused with the nucleus of your mother’s ovum, or at fertilization.”

Thus, by honestly examining Scripture and science, the answer is clear: a new human life begins at conception. God created human life (Genesis 1:26-27) and gave that human life the ability to reproduce (Genesis 1:28). When the living sperm from the father unites with the living ovum of the mother, a new human life begins. Though this new human being is very small (smaller than the period at the end of this sentence), he/she is a truly unique human being with a genetic code different from his/her father or mother.

When God states in Exodus 20:13, “You shall not murder”, He is clearly prohibiting the murder of any human beings, whether born or unborn. It is murder to kill a baby 8 months after conception. It is also murder to kill a baby one minute after conception.

WHAT BIRTH CONTROL MEASURES CAN KILL A DEVELOPING BABY?

What follows ia material written by Dr. J.C. Willke, Chairman of National Right to Life Committee, Inc. Please consider it carefully.

The IUD

What is the mechanism of action of the IUD? It would seem at this time that medical opinion has crystallized to a near unanyminity. The presence of this foreign body within the cavity of the uterus produces a foreign body reaction. This is a local, sterile (usually), inflammatory reaction, which alters the normal body fluids within the uterus. It changes what had been a friendly environment, for the migration of sperm and the subsequent implantation of the new human being, to an unfriendly environment. Some have described the intra-uterine fluid produced as containing “sterile pus”. This unfriendly fluid environment can have an influence on the sperm migrating into the uterus and tubes, and quite clearly does have an influence on later implantation.

Not too much has been said or written to indicate that the sperm are incapacitated in their passage through the uterus, for if they were, fertilization could not occur. Most of the research done tells us the same thing. A substantial number of sperm do pass through the uterine cavity, proceed out to the ovary, and fertilization can and does occur.

What is quite plain is that, following fertilization, the process does not proceed to a normally implanted pregnancy. What are the mechanisms postulated as to why she does not “get pregnant”? Overwhelmingly, almost all medical studies have demonstrated various mechanisms that prevent implantation into the nutrient lining of the womb, due to the foreign body and inflammatory reaction caused by the IUD. The end result, however, in almost every case, when fertilization does occur (an occasional pregnancy is carried to full term and delivery with the IUD still in the uterus), it is followed by a process that ends in the destruction of the developing new human life in the uterus through his or her inability to implant. This can be accurately described as an abortion. Clearly, almost all current evidence indicates that the IUD’s major effect is to act to prevent implantation.

The fact that it is described as a “contraceptive” agent is because of a change in the meaning of words by the Food and Drug Administration and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology a decade ago, when they redefined the word “conception” to mean implantation. Under these semantic gymnastics it is a “contraceptive”, but everyone familiar with the function understands thoroughly that its action is that of an abortifacient.

One other relevant medical comment should be made. In all likelihood, the IUD possibly could be withdrawn from the market within a reasonable period of time for it has serious side effects. The “sterile pus” mentioned above does not always remain sterile. At times it becomes infected, resulting in various degrees of inflammation of the female organs and at times sterility. All practicing physicians in the United States were notified several years ago, if they were to insert one specific type of IUD, the Dalkon Shield, into a woman, that it was their legal obligation to inform her that this might make her permanently sterile. To protect from a possible later malpractice suit, such consent should be in writing. In the face of such concern, this specific type of IUD was removed from the market. Whether or not other types of IUDs will remain on the market indefinitely is an open question. It is at least possible that they may be removed for medical reasons before any law can do so.

The Pill

The “pill” consists now of over 30 different varieties of chemical combinations of the synthetic equivalent of the female hormones estrogen and progesterone, as well as the so-called “mini-pill” which contains progesterone alone. Understanding that there are different degrees of actions with different pills, that one has more of this effect and the other has more of that effect, they can. to some extent at least, be described generically.

The combination pills basically exert three actions in “preventing” pregnancy. The first effect of the contraceptive pill is to prevent ovulation or release of the ovum from the ovary. This has been described as “freezing” of the ovary. Even if the sperm do reach the ovary, fertilization cannot occur because the ovum has not been released. This action is accurately described as temporary sterilization. but in common usage it is usually spoken of as “contraceptive” action.

The first contraceptive pill, Enovid, contained ten milligrams of estrogen-like hormone. It was believed that its physiologic function was almost totally that of temporary sterilization. Enovid-5 was then marketed, to be followed by Enovid E (2-5 mg.). Since that time lower and lower doses of estrogen have been presented to the consumer so that now doses of 0.5 mgm. and 0.35 mgm. are commonly used. The well known reason for the reduction of the estrogen dosage was to try to minimize the threat of blood clot complications. Paralleling the reduction of the estrogen dosage, however, there has been the development of breakthrough ovulation, as the lower doses have apparently not been successful in completely suppressing ovulation. With breakthrough ovulation it is now generally accepted that actual fertilization occurs at times in those taking these pills. but as described below, these women do not ordinarily “get pregnant.”

The second action is one of thickening of the mucous plug at the cervical opening- This normally obtains at the beginning and at the end of a menstrual cycle, with the plug melting away at mid-cycle, and being replaced by an egg white like substance containing nutrient fluids, which are “friendly” to the passage of sperm. The combination pill prevents this from occurring at mid-cycle, maintaining the plug, and as such probably exerts true “anti-fertilization” action by preventing entrance of the sperm.

The third function of the combination pill is an anti-implantation or anti-nidatory. When this is the function that is dominant in that particular month, there is sperm passage, there is fertilization and migration of the new human through the tube and into the uterus, but implantation does not occur. This is because the action of the pill has “hardened” the lining of the uterus, created a hostile environment, and the mullicelled tiny human being cannot implant. This function is one of an abortion at one week of life.

[emphasis mine]

There is no definitive medical agreement as to what percentage of times this function occurs, in which woman and with which pill.

The Mini-Pill

This is a form of birth control pill different from the combination of estrogen and progesterone alone which is commonly known as the “mini-pill.” This contains only a small dose of progesterone. It is taken daily, 30 days a month, rather than the 21-7 schedule for the combination pill. It allows a menstrual flow to occur monthly while the pill is being taken. There is considerable controversy as to whether or not its action is primarily in preventing implantation, as other mechanisms of action have been suggested, but general scientific opinion at this time is in substantial agreement. It would seem that it does allow a substantial amount of breakthrough ovulation, and presumably at times fertilization. When fertilization occurs it “prevents” pregnancy by an anti-implantation action. This action is best described as an abortifacient effect.

The Morning After Pill

DES or Diethylstilbestrol is a synthetic estrogen. Given in high dosage. in the days immediately following intercourse. it is known as the morning-after pill. What is its function? This is best illustrated by giving two examples.

In the first, a woman is raped at midnight Saturday and is given DES at 2 a.m. in a hospital emergency room. Within a few hours there is a high level of estrogen in her blood. Her body was programmed to ovulate 24 hours later at midnight Sunday. The high level of estrogen blocks that ovulation, fertilization does not occur, and she does not get pregnant. This effect is one of temporary sterilization.

In the second case, rape also occurs at midnight Saturday and the medication is given at 2 a.m. This woman, however, has ovulated several hours before the rape. The ovum awaited. It was fertilized. She also does not “get pregnant” but the mechanism of action is quite different. The drug had “hardened” the lining of the womb. The multicelled tiny boy or girl, at about one week of life, could not implant and died. This mechanism was an abortion.

Which mechanism occurs in any specific case may well not be known. but the sterilizing action will probably occur two or three times for every abortive action.

What of the morality of the use of the morning-after pill? Many would not use it on their own daughters because of its possible abortifacient action, but this group almost certainly will not seek an abortion later in any case.

Other medications, such as a shot of progesterone, are often used in place of DES, as well as other forms of estrogen. Without going into detail one can say that their mechanism of action is substantially the same.

Prostaglandins

As is well known, these substances cause the onset of strong uterine contractions and delivery of whatever size baby the uterus contains. If used before viability, this is the equivalent of abortion.

The first form licensed, Prostin F2 alpha, carried a directive from the FDA that limited its use to the induction of mid-trimester abortion only. Subsequently, Prostin A2 and 15M have been licensed. These have now been authorized for use for several therapeutic medical conditions (uterine inertia, non-malignant Hyatidaform mole and missed abortion).

J.C. Willke, M.D.

This paper was reviewed before publication by Matthew Bulfin, M.D., Thomas Hilgers, M.D., and Richard Schmidt, M.D.

The fact that every modern birth control pill can and at times does function as an abortifacient (although they will often use different words than abortifacient) is freely admitted by The Food and Drug Administration, by medical books such as Physicians’ Desk Reference and Nursing ’85 Drug Handbook, by pro-abortion books such as My Body, My Health by Felicia Stewart M.D., by pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood, by the drug companies in their literature which accompanies the pill, and by some non- medical reference books such as Random House College Dictionary. Some quotes from the sources will follow.

(1) Federal Register, Part 11, January 31, 1976, from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Food and Drug Administration subtitled ‘Oral Contraceptives”, page 4224 stated:

Combination oral contraceptives act primarily through the mechanism of gonadaotropin suppression due to the estrogenic and progestational activity of the ingredients. Although the primary mechanism of action is inhibition of ovulation, alterations in the genital tract including changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm penetration) and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation) may also contribute to contraceptive effectiveness… but progestogen only contraceptives are known to alter the cervical mucus, exert a progestational effect on the endometrium, interfering with implantation and in some patients, suppress ovulation.

(2) Federal Register, Part III, May 10, 1977, from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Food and Drug Administration subtitled “Intrauterine Devices.” page 23781 states:

How the IUD prevents pregnancy is not completely understood. Several theories have been suggested. IUD’s seem to interfere in some manner with the implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine cavity. The IUD does not prevent ovulation.

(3) Physicians’ Desk Reference Medical Economics Co., Inc, Copyright 1985, Clinical Pharmacology agrees with the Food and Drug Administration. See quote 1 above.

(4) Nursing ’85 Drug Handbook, Spring House Corporation, Copyright 1985, page470, in a chapter entitled “Oral Contraceptives,” states: Progestogen… also causes endometrial changes that prevent implantation of the fertilized ovum.

(5) My Body, My Health, by Felicia Stewart, M.D., Felicia Guest, Gary Stewart, M.D., and Robert Hatcher, M.D., published by Consumers Union, states on pages 169 & 170: In a natural cycle, the uterus lining thickens under the influence of estrogen during the first part of the cycle, and then matures under the influence of both progesterone and estrogen after ovulation. This development sequence is not possible during a pill cycle because both progestin and estrogen are present throughout the cycle. Even if ovulation and conception did occur, successful implantation would be unlikely.

(6)Planned Parenthood, in Grant Application submitted on 9/1/82, stated: The endometrium (uterine wall) is definitely affected by oral contraception… The change may prevent implantation of the blastocyst.

(7) LO/ORVAL (Brand Name) WYETH (Manufacturer): Combination oral contraceptives act primarily through the mechanism of gonadaotropin suppression due to the estrogenic and progestational activity of the ingredients. Although the primary mechanism of action is inhibition of ovulation, alterations in the genital tract including changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm penetration) and the emdometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation) may also contribute to contraceptive effectiveness.

(8) An Article “What We Know About the Pill”, in Changing Times (July,1977, page 21) states:

For example, the pill may affect the movement of the fertilized egg toward the uterus or prevent it from imbedding itself in the uterine lining.

(9) Random House College Dictionary, Revised Edition, Copyright 1982, page 137, states:

Birth control pill: an oral contraceptive for women that inhibits ovulation, ferilization, or implantation of a fertilized ovurn, causing temporary infertility.

One question that many thinking people immediately ask is, “How often?”. Granted that every type of modern birth control pill can and sometimes will function as an abortifacient, how often do they function that way? Is it 10% of the time? Is it .0001% of the time? Is it a percentage which is high enough to be significant in my attitude toward the pill?” Absolute percentages are impossible to obtain. There are too many variables, yet doctors and scientists are able to obtain estimates from their research which realistically should be in the ballpark. Here are some figures:

(1) Planned Parenthood in their Grant Application state that the hormones in the mini-pill prevent ovulation and corpus luteum formation in approximately 1/3 of the cycles. That means that 67% of the lime the women still do ovulate. Women using the mini-pill have a real possibility of a silent abortion on any given month!

(2)Albert D. Lorincz, M.D. in The Pill – How Does It Work? cites a study in which 1200 women were given .5 mg daily of progestogen (an amount equivalent to many birth control pills). Yet 60% of these women ovulated. That means that 60% of the women on this pill had a real possibility of a silent abortion on any given month!

(3) J.C. Espinoza, M-D, writes in his book “Birth Control: Why Are They Lying To Women?”, page 27: When ovulation occurs, pregnancy is possible. Years ago Roland noticed ovulation in 30% of the women taking an estrogen-progestin preparation (combined Pill). Today it is clear that in at least 5% of the cycles of women on the combined Pill, “escape ovulation” occurs. This fact means that conception is possible during those cycles but implantation will be prevented and the “conceptus” (child) will die. That rate is statistically equivalent to one abortion every other year for all women on the Pill. Mini-pills have a much higher ovulation rate. Pituitary block to prevent ovulation is evident in only 50% of the cycles. Conception, then, is possible every other month. This new Pill may produce abortion 50% of the time – six for every year of use. The very low dose progestin-only Pill may never prevent ovulation. With any pill there are a small percentage of pregnancies that go to full term.

Some doctors my give somewhat different numbers, but the evidence is clear – every modern birth control pill can and at times does function as an abortifacient. The IUD works only as an abortifacient.

WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I’VE BEEN ON THE PILL OR I.U.D.?

Your heart may be in pain right now. You may be a woman who has been using the IUD or modern birth control pill without ever realizing that they could be abortive. (You may be a man who has asked his wife to use these without realizing that they could be abortive.) You probably are asking yourself, “Could I have had a silent abortion? Or even several of them? Could I have ended the life of a child which God intended me to have?” The answer, of course, is: “Only God knows”. It is possible that God enabled the pill to prevent you from ever ovulating. and that no silent abortion took place. It is possible that God prevented any silent abortion because you did this not understanding the entire function of the pill. But on the other hand, it is a definite possibility that you have had a silent abortion, if not several. Nowhere in Scripture does God promise to keep us from committing sins in ignorance.

But whether you have had a silent abortion or not, you can find peace in Jesus. Every one of us has sinned against God; all of us stand guilty before His divine law. And the only peace any of us can ever find is Jesus. We know that Jesus died for us. God’s Holy Scripture shows us clearly the objective forgiveness we have received in Jesus’ substitutionary blood sacrifice for our sins. We are assured of that forgiveness in such passages as these:Isaiah 1:18

“Come now, let us reason together,” says the Lord. “‘Though your sins are like scarlet they shall be as white as snow; though they are as red as crimson, they shall be like wool.”Isaiah 53:4-6

Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.John 1:29

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.”I John 1:7-9

But if we walk in the light as he is in the light we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from every sin. It we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

Whenever we realize that we have sinned, or may have sinned against God, we focus our eyes on Jesus. He is the one who already made the payment to God for our sins. Confident of that fact, we go to God and confess our sins. Because God’s Holy Spirit is working in us, we are able to go to God and say,

Heavenly Father, I come to you with great sorrow in my heart. I have just learned that the pill I was taking to prevent pregnancy can be abortive. I do not know if I have had a silent abortion or not. If You have prevented that sin, 0 Lord, I praise Your Holy Name. If I have had a silent abortion, O Lord, I plead the blood of Jesus which was shed for me. Wash me with Jesus’ blood and make me clean in Your eyes. And, Heavenly Father, since this is such a complicated and confusing world, I plead with You, fill me with Your Holy Spirit. Through Your Holy Spirit enable me to understand Your Holy Scripture and show me Your Holy Will for my life. Enable me to live by faith, trusting that You will protect and bless all who trust in You. I ask this in Jesus’ name. Amen.

And then dear friend in Christ, rise from your knees and do not grieve, for the Lord our God is gracious, omniscient and omnipotent. Not only has He granted us the forgiveness of our sins, He also has the ability to turn our sins and mistakes into blessings. As Nehemiah told the weeping people in Nehemiah 8:10,

Go and enjoy choice food and sweet drinks, and send some to those who have nothing prepared. This day is sacred to our Lord. Do not grieve for the Joy of the Lord is your strength.

And right now may we in faith set aside any IUD, birth control pill or hormonal implants or shots taken for contraception. Now that we know how than devices and chemicals work, how can we use them anymore?

To the Glory of our Gracious God.

CASTI CONNUBII – 60 YEARS LATER, MORE RELEVANT THAN EVER

Dr John Kippley – EWTN

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/casti-connubii-60-years-later-11227

The sixtieth anniversary of “Casti Connubii” came and went the same way as its 50th anniversary–without fanfare or great symposiums. However, I suggest that the entire Church would benefit from a closer look at this landmark encyclical in the context of the historical circumstances that prompted it and the sexual revolution in which the Church struggles today.

Let us start with the unhappy realities that face almost every Catholic pastor today. The vast majority of Catholics in their fertile years are using unnatural forms of birth control, the most common of which, the Pill, has the power to cause early abortions. According to the latest National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), in 1988 only three percent of Catholics doing anything at all about family planning were using any form of Natural Family Planning; 32% of couples were sterilized, 34% were using the Pill, and 25% were using barrier methods, and 6% were using “other” which could mean withdrawal, mutual masturbation, or forms of marital sodomy. Is it really probable that all those nice looking people who volunteer as lectors and distributors of Holy Communion come just from that minuscule three percent of Catholics who practice what the Church teaches? On the contrary, I think it is safe to assume that typical parish volunteers are sterilized and using contraceptives and abortifacients pretty much in proportion with the above national statistics. The parish problem can be summed up with the realization that any one of those fertile-years women distributors may be saying “The Body of Christ” at the same time that her Pill is destroying the life of a new human being within her uterus. I think that’s obscene, but that’s the way it is in the Church in America today.

Or you can look at the typical parish situation from a different angle. Both those who accept “Humanae Vitae” and the dissenters are agreed that the acceptance of marital contraception leads “logically” to the acceptance of sodomistic behavior, whether by married couples or homosexuals. Anthony Kosnik and company have argued for the moral equivalency of married couples using unnatural methods of birth control and homosexuals committing sodomy.1 What that means is that, considering typical habits of marital behavior, it is highly probable that those nice looking fertile-years married people who are reading the Word of God and distributing the very Body of Christ have most likely engaged in either direct marital sodomy or its moral equivalent within the 72 hours preceding their formal sanctuary participation.

LEAD THE PARISH BACK

The pastoral problem is to lead the massively contracepting parish back to living the divine truth about human love. Here is where the events leading up to “Casti Connubii” can be helpful. Most parishioners have utterly no idea that before August 14, 1930, birth control was not a Catholic- Protestant issue. This isn’t to say that before that time some theologians, both Catholic and Protestant, had not argued in favor of allowing marital contraception, but the formal teaching of all the Christian churches had held the line. I have found that the simple exposition of the relevant facts can be helpful in leading couples to understand better and then to accept the teaching of “Casti Connubii” and “Humanae Vitae.”

What are the relevant facts? I think it is helpful to explain that the modern sexual revolution did not start in 1960 but rather has developed over a period of almost two centuries. The first stage started with Malthus; the second with Margaret Sanger; the third with Lambeth of 1930; the fourth with the Pill, and the fifth with widespread dissent in the Catholic Church.

Stage 1: Malthus. I credit the Rev. Thomas Malthus with starting the modern sexual revolution because he provided the scare–the fear that would cast out true love. In his 1798 “Essay on the Principle of Population,” Malthus created the modern “population explosion” scare, saying that unless it were checked, population would outgrow food supplies and result in mass starvation. He recommended only moral means of family limitation, i.e., late marriage and sexual self-control, but his scare would outlive his morality. The discovery of vulcanization of rubber in 1839 led to the production of cheaper, more effective condoms, and armed with this technological breakthrough, the neo-Malthusians of the 1860s substituted condoms for the self-control of Malthus and beat the drums of the population scare. (Fear of the future generally provides a good rationalization for sins of the present.) I call this Stage I of the sexual revolution because at the time it was truly revolutionary to advocate separating the unitive and procreative aspects of marital relations.

In the United States, this led to a reaction led by a Protestant reformer, Anthony Comstock, who persuaded Congress in 1873 to legislate against the distribution and sale of contraceptive devices in federal territories. Many states followed suit, and the conglomerate of anti-contraceptive legislation became known as the Comstock laws.

Here’s what I find religiously interesting about these brief historical facts. During the first 400 years of the Reformation, birth control was not a Catholic-Protestant issue. Charles Provan has recently published a small book which contains the anti-contraceptive teachings of 66 Protestant theologians including Luther and Calvin.2 The Comstock laws were passed by essentially Protestant legislatures for a basically Protestant America, and they remained in effect until Christian unanimity about birth control was shattered in 1930.

FORERUNNER TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD

Stage 2: Margaret Sanger. In the years before World War I, Margaret Sanger and others began to wage war on the Comstock laws, and about 1914 she founded her National Birth Control League, the forerunner of today’s Planned Parenthood which she founded in 1939. The contraceptionists frequently advocated a whole new concept of marriage. They denied the divine origin and the permanence of marriage and made efficient contraception the technological cornerstone of “companionate” marriage–a serial polygamy consisting of legal marriage, efficient contraception, divorce when boredom set in, and then remarriage to start the process over. I call this Stage II of the sexual revolution because of the tremendous influence Margaret Sanger had on the practices and moral thinking of her day and even more so today. The pressures she generated were highly influential in removing the legal, religious and social barriers to contraception and then abortion. In fact, I will go so far as to say that as far as American Catholic married couples are concerned, many give more honor to Margaret Sanger than to the Virgin Mary, for while they may give lip service to the latter, they have adopted the practices and frequently the philosophy of the former.

Stage 3: Lambeth of 1930. Stage III of the sexual revolution was its embrace by Protestant Christianity. The key event is the Lambeth Conference of the Church of England in 1930. In 1908, the Anglican bishops had reacted to the neo-Malthusian pressures by reaffirming the teaching that it was immoral to use unnatural methods of birth control. So also at their Lambeth Conference of 1920. But the pressures of the 1920s proved too much for them, so on August 14 at their Lambeth Conference of 1930, the Anglican bishops reluctantly accepted marital contraception as morally licit. In doing so, they acknowledged that previously they had always taught the immorality of marital contraception.3

This marked the first time in history that a Christian Church had given its acceptance to using unnatural methods of birth control. Furthermore, they were warned by one of their own, Bishop Charles Gore, that accepting contraception would open the door to accepting homosexual sodomy, but Gore voted in the minority.

We do not know what would have happened if the Church of England had kept the faith regarding marital love and sexuality. But we can certainly see in hindsight that this was an embrace of the sexual revolution, and today dissident Catholic theologians argue from the acceptance of marital contraception to the acceptance of sodomy. Anglican Bishop Gore was indeed a prophetic voice.

In the United States, Lambeth of 1930 was quickly accepted by a committee of the Federal Council of Churches in March, 1931, when it endorsed “the careful and restrained use of contraceptives by married people.” The general moral atmosphere of the times can be inferred from a March 22 editorial in the “Washington Post”:

“Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report, if carried into effect, would sound the deathknell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be ‘careful and restrained’ is preposterous.” However, it was carried into effect, and the deathknell was sounded. The promise of marital contraception in the eyes and mouths of religious-talking people has always been that with very limited family size and unlimited sex, couples would be happier and divorce would become almost unknown. In the light of current American contraceptive marriage with its 50% divorce rate, what can be said except that nature bats last?

PIUS RESPONDED TO ANGLICANS

It was to the Anglican resolution at Lambeth that Pope Pius XI made reference in his famous and immortal reply in “Casti Connubii” on the last day of 1930:

“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, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth 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 (par. 56).”

Stage 4: The Pill. The fourth stage of the sexual revolution was the Pill. By 1960, the practice of contraception was well accepted by all the mainline Protestant churches and was more or less universally practiced by all “family planners” except Roman and Orthodox Catholics, some very conservative or fundamentalist Protestants, and, I think, Orthodox Jews. Certainly contraception was practiced by many Catholics in the fifties, but hard data is hard to come by. Large families were in vogue, and many couples were just letting the babies come as they might, and without the natural spacing of ecological breastfeeding (which, if practiced correctly, spaces babies an average of two years apart) many couples were having babies every year. There is data indicating that in 1965 rhythm was by far the most widely used form of conception regulation by Catholic “family planners”; trying to read that backwards is hazardous, but I would hazard a guess that before 1960 no more than half and perhaps only a third of Catholic couples in their fertile years were using contraception.

I call the arrival of the Pill in 1960 the fourth stage of the sexual revolution because it brought birth control to the front pages and made it seem all the more acceptable. Since it was totally different in approach from other methods, it was discussed in the papers and popular magazines just as a health matter, and every article conveyed the assumption that birth control was the modern thing to do, almost a social obligation. The morality of birth control as such was not a subject for public debate, but within the Catholic community, the Pill occasioned fierce attacks upon the traditional teaching against all unnatural forms of birth control, and such attacks went largely unanswered in the popular Catholic press: there was little real debate. The teaching of “Casti Connubii” was being seriously muted and undermined, and the result was that more and more Catholics accommodated themselves to the dominant contracepting culture. Thus by 1965, while rhythm was still practiced by 32% of Catholic “family planners,” the Pill was being used by 18%, and barrier methods 24%.

DISSENT FURTHERED REVOLUTION

Stage 5: Catholic dissent. The dissent of 1968 and ever since has effectively removed the Catholic Church as a block to the progress of the sexual revolution. While Pope Paul VI reaffirmed the teaching of “Casti Connubii” in “Humanae Vitae,” he did not use the same strength of language. Furthermore, his language in 1964 (the magisterium is not “in a state of doubt at the present time, whereas it is rather in a moment of study of reflection”) and his delay of two years after receiving the reports of the papal birth control commission had greatly prejudiced public and theological opinion within the Church against a reaffirmation of “Casti Connubii.”

The effects of this dissent can be seen in the progressive NSFG reports. While “rhythm” (which means all forms of natural family planning in NSFG terms) was used by 32% of Catholic family planners in 1965, it dropped to 8.1% in 1973, had a short rise to 8.9% in 1973, perhaps as a result of all the NFP activity of the early seventies, fell to 6% in 1982 and plummeted further to only 3% in 1988. Predictions are rash, but I expect that unless dioceses start to get really serious about chastity instruction at all levels of education including marriage preparation, Catholic usage of NFP will fall another third or half and stabilize at two or even one percent of Catholic family planners. As to what percentage of Catholic families are not engaged in family planning of some sort, all a parish priest has to do is to look at his flock. Without any form of family planning including ecological breastfeeding, the babies will be coming about every 12 months, and with just ecological breastfeeding, they will be arriving at an average of every 24 months. Such families are indeed rare today. Another 10 to 20% will be infertile, some by reason of defects in nature, and some by reason of sterility caused by their own use of the Pill and/or the IUD or from sexually transmitted diseases–premarital, marital, and extramarital.

Along with the vast increase in marital unchastity has come a vast increase in the number of Catholic divorces. I do not have hard data, but it is a matter of common knowledge that before the dissent of 1968, the Catholic divorce rate was well below that of the culture, while at the present time it is approaching the cultural average.

Furthermore, as more and more priests told themselves that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with marital contraception and told the couples they counseled that there was nothing immoral about marital contraception in their particular circumstances, they seduced themselves. By saying and coming to believe that unchaste behavior of one kind was not really unchaste behavior in some circumstances, too many priests gradually came to believe that various forms of unchastity were not really seriously unchaste if there was a proportionate reason to do them, and apparently they found no reason to exclude priestly unchastity from this logic. I cannot offer any other explanation for the apparently vast increase in priestly unchastity at the present time.

A HOMILETIC OPPORTUNITY

I suggest that the 60th anniversary of “Casti Connubii” offers both homiletic and pastoral opportunities to begin a revival of the Church’s traditional role as the promoter and the safeguard of chastity. The priest is free to criticize my suggestions as coming from one who has neither the privilege or the responsibility of the pulpit and pastorship, but regardless, here is what I think I would do if given the opportunity.

First of all, I would give an instructive homily to commemorate the 60th anniversary of “Casti Connubii.” I would tell parishioners the basic historical fact of Lambeth of 1930, and then I would ask, “Before I told you that, how many of you adults realized that before 1930 no Christian Church had ever given its acceptance to contraception as being morally permissible? Please raise your hands if you already knew what I just told you.” When no hands, or almost none, were raised, I would take the opportunity to restate the realities. “I’m not asking anything about your personal beliefs or practices. I’m only asking a question about your knowledge about a much forgotten part of Christian history,” and I would re-explain and then re-ask the question. I would be prepared to see that almost no hands were raised the second time, and then I would go on to emphasize that before 1930 birth control was not a Catholic-Protestant issue. Then I’d probably read some of the half-dozen stimulating questions on the back of the Provan book. For example, “What theologian declared in the 1500s that birth control was the murder of future persons?” “What priest in the 1700s declared that taking ‘preventative measures’ was unnatural and would destroy the souls of those who practiced it?” “Who declared that birth control was sodomy?” (The answers are respectively John Calvin, John Wesley, and Martin Luther.)

I would use that occasion to note that what Calvin, Wesley and Luther were saying in their own way was part of Catholic teaching for centuries that recourse to unnatural forms of birth control is the grave matter of mortal sin, and I would read the key passage from “Casti Connubii” (par. 56 above) to put it into the Catholic frame of reference.

I would go on to explain some of the big differences between then and now– how much better Catholics have it economically than so many in 1930, the widespread knowledge and availability of natural family planning today compared to the bare rudiments of calendar rhythm at the time of the encyclical, the divorce rates (about 1 in 11 marriages in 1910, just before Sanger, versus 1 in 2 today, a 500% increase), and the general decline in the moral fiber of the country and within the Church since the practices of the old pagans have become so widespread among Christians.

OFFER EDUCATIVE COURSES

Pastorally, I would be well read in the encyclical itself.4,5 I would initiate an adult education course to study “Casti Connubii” and “Humanae Vitae”; I would offer instruction in chaste natural family planning; it is difficult to reaffirm the burden, so to speak, without providing the practical help to those who have a genuine need for pregnancy postponement or limitation. I would make attendance mandatory for all lectors, distributors, marriage ministers, and members of parish council, and I would certainly make a full course of NFP instruction (four meetings) a normal part of preparation for marriage. Then I would require a signed profession of faith and practice including the Church’s teaching about love, sex, marriage and birth control from all those who wished to participate in the exemplary roles of sanctuary service, marriage ministry, and the governance of the parish.

Such measures may sound tough, but I contend that the times and the conditions of the Church require an approach quite different from that of the sixties through the eighties. Let me put it this way. With a continuation of the status quo, a parish priest can expect that about 97% to 99% of his newlyweds will be using unnatural methods of birth control and therefore standing under the judgment of “Casti Connubii.” If he is not content with this, he has to do something. For years I have watched well- intentioned priests try to increase the acceptance of “Casti Connubii” and “Humanae Vitae” through soft-spoken persuasion, largely in vain. Persuasion is no longer persuasive. The time has come for action and for the open reaffirmation of that great encyclical and compendium on marriage, “Casti Connubii.”

To those who say that practical action to reaffirm “Casti Connubii” will lead them to be consigned to the diocesan boondocks, I say “Rejoice!” Look at what Fr. John Vianney did in the boondocks of Ars; look what Fr. Robert Fox is doing in the boondocks of Alexandria, South Dakota with his Fatima Apostolate. (In this case, he asked for a small rural parish, but the point still holds.) In Alexandria, a town of about 500, you can stand at the main crossroads and see the cornfields at the edge of town in each direction, but once a year, Fr. Fox has people from all over the country making a pilgrimage to his Fatima convocation for which he rents the city auditorium-gymnasium.

In this article I have focused on only one part of the great encyclical, “Casti Connubii,” its reaffirmation of the Christian teaching against marital contraception. However, it is much more than that. It is truly a compendium on marriage. In fact, it is such a wonderful exposition of Christian marriage that I think Pope Pius XI must have been working on it for some time before Lambeth which probably hastened its issuance. Using Augustine’s triplet of offspring, fidelity, and sacrament (indissolubility), Pius XI shows how these are the great blessings of marriage, and to day we can see the challenges inherent in receiving these blessings. We can also see the tragedies that come from living a secularized version of marriage, and in that respect, “Casti Connubii” is even more relevant today than it was in its own time. Considering the current debate about voting for pro-abortion candidates, it seems fitting to conclude with the words of Pope Pius XI which might well appear in every parish bulletin once a month.

“Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother’s womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cries from earth to heaven (C.C par. 67).”

ENDNOTES

1. Anthony Kosnik et al., “Human Sexuality: New Directions in American Catholic Thought” (New York: Paulist Press, 1977). “All else being equal, a homosexual engaging in homosexual acts in good conscience has the same rights of conscience and the same rights to the sacraments as a married couple practicing birth control in good conscience” p. 216.

2. Charles D. Provan, “The Bible and Birth Control” (Monongahela, PA: Zimmer Printing, 1989). Available from the Couple to Couple League for $7.70 post-paid.

3. See John C. Ford, S.J. and Gerald Kelly, S.J., “Contemporary Moral Theology, Volume 11: Marriage Questions” (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1964) esp. pp. 245-255.

4. Inexpensive copies of “Casti Connubii” are available from the Daughters of St. Paul, 50 St. Paul’s Avenue, Boston MA 02130. However, the “Official Vatican Text” reprinted by the DSP is not really so official (no fault of the DSP) and does not contain the famous “missing paragraph 24” which the initial translator omitted for reasons best known to God and himself. From another source, I quote that missing paragraph so that you can include it in any classes you might give on the encyclical. Par. 23 ends with “as is proved by the example set us of many saints.” Par. 25 starts with “By this same love, it is necessary . . . ” Par. 24 is as follows:

“This mutual inward moulding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof.”

5. For a list of other pro-chastity and NFP materials which are available from the Couple to Couple League, send a SASE and ask for the pink sheet of chastity materials. For more on the historical reaction to Lambeth of 1930, see “Birth Control and Christian Discipleship,” a booklet by the current author, listed in the pink sheet. Address: CCL, P.O. Box 111184, Cincinnati OH 45211.