the-early-church-and-contraception.pdf

8/9/2019 the-early-church-and-contraception.pdf

1/25

THE EARLY CHURCH AND CONTRACEPTION

Matthew D. Schultz


2/25

One cannot understand the medical ethics of ancient times unless one acknowledges that

these ethics were informed by a wide variety of cultural and philosophical persuasions.1

If one asks, then, where the Christian athers derived their notions on marital

intercourse!notions which have no e"press biblical basis!the answer must be, chiefly

from the #toics.$

1%rich &oewy and 'oberta &oewy, Textbook of Health Care Ethics, #econd %dition ()ordrecht* +luwer

cademic -ublishers, $/0, .$2ohn 3. 4oonan, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists

(Cambridge, 5* 6arvard 7niversity -ress, 1890, :.


3/25

ABSTRACT

3his paper seeks to address the claim that the early church fathers were universally

against contraception, and that this historical fact should in some way be of a concern to

-rotestants who only began to accept the practice in the early twentieth century.

faithful understanding of the early church;s condemnation of contraception and an

evaluation of its application to -rotestantism re


4/25

INTRODUCTION

In the realm of Catholic and -rotestant apologetic e"changes, a popular maneuver

on the part of Catholics is to claim that one form or another of -rotestant practice is

clearly and distinctly denied by the universal testimony of the Christians before the

'eformation. @hile such charges have been largely defeated, on both historical and

methodological grounds, there remains one area of inoining of sperm and egg. I

take this to logically include 4-, but, for the sake of argument, another distinction can be admitted

between physical devices (condoms, pills, etc.0 and physical practices (e.g., abstaining during times of

fertility0.


5/25

'eformation, the appropriate response should cover at least two areas. First, we must

identify the rationale that drove previous generations of Christians to condemn

contraception./ @as there an impetus for these condemnations, such as an e"ternal or

internal threat to doctrine or practices of piety and holiness @as the rationale informed

by #cripture If so, what were their e"egetical arguments @as it informed by particular

biological or philosophical notions If so, were these notions, or the intellectual

framework out of which they arose, grounded in Biblical principles If not, were they at

least grounded in wisdom failure to address these sorts of


6/25

inally, it is not enough to simply illustrate the historical conte"t of the fathers

and >udge their positions to be inadeudicate the ethics of contraception

for Christian belief and practice.

THE INFLUENCE OF ANCIENT BIOLOGY ON EARLY CHRISTIANITY

n obvious area of in


7/25

published them at 'ome in the first century B.C.,8and these works were known and

commented on by the famous physician Galen (b. 1A .).0, who came to represent the

common depository of the anatomical knowledge of the dayE what he had learnt from

many teachers, rather than the results of his own personal research.1 In terms of

influence, Galen was on par with ristotle, being the most influential medical authority

in anti


8/25

e"tensively, if selectively, from itF.Beginning in the fourth century several

Christian writers demonstrate the influence of Galens medical and philosophical

views.1A

#urveying other scholarship, erngren also observes that, ar from being re>ected as a

professionFmedicine proved to be an especially attractive one to Christians and that the

familiarity that many of the fathers e"hibit with Greek medical writings demonstrates

that in spite of 3heodotuss heresy Christians did not ordinarily regard medical theory as

theologically harmful.1/6aving established the raw influence of ristotle and Galen on

the church fathers, it is now time to analyKe their notions of reproductive biology.

SEED AS FORM: THE REPRODUCTIE BIOLOGY OF ARISTOTLE! GALEN

ncient knowledge subsumed what we roughly call both philosophy and science

into the same body of knowledge.1D -hilosophy was often practiced in near the same

rubric as what we might otherwise call hard science, and this is relevant to our

understanding ristotles reproductive biology inasmuch as his physical findings are

intricately tied to his metaphysical views of reality*

Greek science began in the large unity of the grand desire to know the

constituents and processes of the world. It was pursued by men whom we havebeen taught to call philosophersE and in fact only gradually did philosophy, more

properly speaking, differentiate itself from physics, that is, from the elemental

attempt to observe and know the physical world. Greek philosophy was to consist

of logical and metaphysical conceptionsE Greek physical, or let us say specificallybiological, science was to continue as observation and induction. Jet it did not

part company from philosophy, and occasionally employed the same processes of

logic and even metaphysics. 3he same men might still both be scientists andphilosophers!or metaphysicians. 3he greatest of Greek biologists was very

1AGary erngren,'edicine and Health Care in Early Christianity(Baltimore, 5)* 3he 2ohns 6opkins

7niversity -ress, $80, 1D.1/Ibid., 1.1Dor problems in terminology, see also 'use, The !xford Handbook of "hilosophy of #iology, 1$E

5ar>orie Grene and )avid )epew, The "hilosophy of #iology(4ew Jork, 4J* Cambridge 7niversity

-ress, $/0, DffE and erngren,'edicine and Health Care in Early Christianity, /.


9/25

nearly the greatest of Greek philosophersE and ristotle the biologist did not

ab>ure the logical and metaphysical reasonings of ristotle the philosopher.1

3his methodological approach was no less the case for ristotle or Galen. Both men

understood their biological pro>ect through the lens of a philosophical system,19

and this

lens dictated their scientific >udgments.1:

or ristotle, his approach to biology18was governed by his highly influential

teleology of causes*

In observing the world, ristotle saw four causes responsible for making an

ob>ect what it is* the material, formal, efficient, and final. In the case of a chair,

for e"ample, the chairs material cause is its wood and cloth, its formal cause is

the structure or form given in its plan or blueprint, its efficient cause is the workerwho made it, and its final cause is sitting. 3he material cause, then, is that ot of

/hicha thing is made, the formal cause is that into /hicha thing is made, theefficient cause is that by /hicha thing is made, and the final cause is thatfor

/hicha thing has been made. It is the last of these, the final cause, that ristotle

held to be most important, for it determined the other three. 3he goal or end(telosin Greek0, the final cause, of any given substance is the key to its

understanding. 3his means that all nature is to be understood in terms of final

causes or purposes. 3his is known as a teleological e"planation of reality.$

3his teleological e"planation can be seen throughout his treatise on reproductive

biology, !n the +eneration of Animals.$1 In this work, ristotle argues that the male

sperm contains the form of the species, and that the female contribution to se"ual

reproduction resides only in material. s the classic study on ristotle notes*

3he form is the plan of structure considered as informing a particular product of

nature or of artF.the male parent, whose function in reproduction is treated as

16enry Osborn 3aylor, +reek #iology and 'edicine(Boston* 5arshall 2ones Company, 18$$0, /H/1.19nd perhaps they were more sophisticated than some modern scientists who seem to forget that a good

scientist is also competent philosopher of science.1:or e"ample, sometimes his philosophical framework would dictate biological conclusions. ristotles

theories, which were in part a response to the 6ippocraticpangenesis, stresses the unity of form in themale parent more for metaphysical than for empirical or ideological reasons. Grene and )epew, The

"hilosophy of #iology, $8.18or a longer overview, cf. &enno",Aristotle.s "hilosophy of #iology, 1$:ff. lso consider relevant

articles at theInternet Encyclopedia of "hilosophyand the *tanford Encyclopedia of "hilosophy.$orrest Baird and @alter +aufmann,From "lato to errida, 3hird %dition (-rentice 6all, 18880,1/A.$1Cf. On the Generation of nimals,http*ebooks.adelaide.edu.auaaristotlegenerationinde".html,

accessed 2uly $/, $11. 3hese e"amples are replete such that it would be redundant to


10/25

being purely that of form, finds in the matter contributed by the female parent a

new embodiment for the form of the species.$$

4ot only did the male contribution contain the all important form,$Abut the form in

particular was >udged to be more valuable than the material offered by the female*

It is clear that ristotle believes not only that there is a difference in the

contributions of male and female to generation, but also that there is a hierarchybetween those contributions, the hierarchy between matter and form. It is also

clear that he places the female lower on that hierarchy by identifying her with

matter rather than with form.$/

&ike ristotle, Galen incorporated philosophical categories into his biology,

especially ristotelian categories. or e"ample, while Galen critiected the doctrine of pangenesis, ristotle proceeds to the other


11/25

overKealous tendency to read into all of the structures and processes of the body the

purposefulness of nature.$9 3his concern for teleology, for the purposefulness of

nature is an important point to which we shall return.

It is somewhat significant that Galen differed from ristotle on the nature of the

male contribution to reproduction. 3his can be seen in his treatisee *emine, where he

engages ristotles arguments on the sub>ect.$: -hillip )e &acy observes that Galen

thought that male semen is not merely a power initiating a process but that, contrary to

ristotles view, its substance provides matter for the formation of the fetus.$8 @hether

Galen or ristotle was followed, or a similar theory available at that time,

A

is ultimately

insignificant to the final calculusE all views would have thought the male contribution to

be of particular import, and this valuing would have likely influenced the >udgments of

the early church fathers to some e"tent.

ll this, however, does not lead to a conclusion that the early churchs views on

contraception can be outright dismissed due to faulty biology. 3he biology, of course, is

faulty by modern standards, but not in a way that is of concern to us. @hatever the

fathers thought, it seems their biology was influenced more by teleological concerns than

modern concerns of personhood, of when life begins. 3his is confirmed by the fact that

the early church fathers seemed not believe life or personhood (as we would

understand the concepts0 began until sometime in the first trimester.A1 nd while the

$9-aul Carrick,'edical Ethics in the Ancient 2orld(@ashington, ).C.* Georgetown 7niversity -ress,

$10 /$.$:Cf. 5ichael Boylan, Galen, Internet %ncyclopedia of -hilosophy, http*www.iep.utm.edugalenQ6/,

accessed 2uly $9, $11.$8Galen, !n semen, Nol. D, -art A, Issue 1, trans. -hillip )e &acy (Berlin* kademie Nerlag, 188$0, /:.

lso consider Guy,Introdcing Early Christianity, 1/D.ACf. 4oonan, 11H119.A1ristotelians followed ristotle and without much further study of embryos interpreted development,

including human development, as gradual and epigenetic. 3raditional Catholicism agreed. #t. ugustine

and #t. 3homas


12/25

teleological approach will be critiect

has been decisive, and his work deserves an e"tended


13/25

converts to Christianity breathed. 6alf consciously, half unconsciously, they

accommodated some Christian beliefs to a #toic senseF.3he Christians shared

with the #toics, or took from them, the assumption that there was a natural law bywhich acts unworthy of human beings might be >udged.

3he #toic approach to se"uality apparently had a particular appeal for ChristianmoralistsF.&ogically, a #toic might have condemned marriage as another form of

coerced dependence on another. But moderation and respect for nature curbed

#toic logic. -assion in marriage was alone suspect. 5arriage must have anotherbasis. -lainly that basis was its necessary part in the propagation of the race. By

this standard of rational purposefulness, selfHevident and supplied by nature,

e"cess in marital intercourse might be measured. 3his view of marriage was to

seem right and good to many Christians.

F

5usonius taught that marital intercourse was morally right only if its purposewere procreativeE intercourse for pleasure within the limits of marriage was

reprehensible. 6is doctrine >oined the #toic distrust of pleasure and the #toicinsistence on purpose.

F

3he prevailing doctrine in these highly respectable, morally earnest circles thus

favored the restriction of se"ual activity by rules of reason appealing to nature.

3hese authors had sought a purpose for se"ual activity, and they had found it inthe biological function. 3he suspicion they felt toward affection and dependence

e"cluded the e"pression of love as a purpose. 3he supreme norm for them was

not love, but nature.

If one asks, then, where the Christian athers derived their notions on marital

intercourse!notions which have no e"press biblical basis!the answer must be,chiefly from the #toics. In the case of such an early and influential teacher as

Clement of le"andria, the direct descent is obviousE his work on the purposes of

marriage is a paraphrase of works of 5usonius. In the second century, Origens

standard for intercourse in pregnancy is clearly #enecas. In the third century,&actantius remarks on the obvious purpose of generative faculties echo Ocellus

&ucanus. In the fourth century, 2eromes most austere remarks are taken from

#eneca. It is not a matter of men e"pressing simple truths which common sensemight suggest to anyone with open eyes. It is a matter of a doctrine consciously

appropriated. 3he descent is literary, the dependence substantial.AD

It must be observed that the rationale for appropriating these #toic categories was

borne out of a concern for defending theological truth. acing a tide of heretical factions,

AD4oonan, H:.


14/25

most notably in Gnosticism, and also in secular immorality,Athe early fathers found that

#cripture had little to say on se"uality, and contraception specifically.A9 4eeding

intellectual tools by which to respond to these concerns, they found the #toic conception

of what was natural to be an effective reply*

#turdier, more tangible, commoner reasons were needed, or so at least theChristians of the second century seem to have thought, if the Gnostic view of

marriage was to be successfully opposed. 3he demands of %phesians D must have

seemed unrealE the re


15/25

It was not, therefore, out of a crass and mindless adherence to pagan philosophy

that the early church fathers found themselves committed to #toic principles. 3he

motivation was decent, even if the final calculation seems less than reasonable and

ultimately problematic. #hould we think ourselves above such errors, this is, of course, a

temptation that besets Christians in every ageE we often behave, and perhaps even

believe, that the Bible is insufficient to solve contemporary intellectual challenges to

faith./

THE FATHERS ON CONTRACEPTION

One ect. 'ather,

it is the case that in those places where the fathers spoke to the sub>ect, they were

universally against it. 3hese places, however, are few and far between./1

3he following ect. 3he list is not e"haustive, nor need is it

intended to beE other ective reason, identified as sets of uncontroversial, selfHevident truths. 3his

pro>ect was and, to the small e"tent to which it still e"ists, is largely influenced by %nlightenmentconceptions of reason. 3he motivation for this appeal was not, in this instance, necessarily evil. It was

born out of a desire to defend the truth of Gods @ord./1or the first centuries, there are admittedly only a few references that go beyond a general appreciation

of human fertility and an emphasis on the purpose of se"ual reproduction in marriage and une


16/25

to analyKe their words in depth given the general scholarly consensus about the early

churchs beliefs on this matter.

Clement of Alexandria

3wo u"taposes it with se"ual intercourse for nonHcreative purposes, condemning the

latter without


17/25

@hat food is for the health of man, intercourse is for the health of the species, and

each is not without carnal delight which cannot be lust if, modified and restrained

by temperance, it is brought to a natural use. @hat is unlawful food in supportedlife, this is fornication or adulterous intercourse in seeking offspringE and what is

unlawful food in the wantonness of the belly and gullet, this is unlawful

intercourse seeking in lust no offspringE and what is for some the immoderateseeking of lawful food, this is that pardonable intercourse in spouses./D

Consider as well theEnchiridion, where ugustine e"plicitly denies that it is acceptable

for married couples to engage in se"ual activity for nonHprocreative ends*

@hat sins are trivial and what are grave, however, is not for human but for divine>udgment to determine. or we see that, in respect of some sins, even the apostle,

by pardoning them, has conceded this point. #uch a case is seen in what the

venerable -aul says to married folks* )o not deprive one another, e"cept by

consent for a time to give yourselves to prayer, and then return together lest #atantempt you at the point of selfHcontrol.One could consider that it is not a sin for a

married couple to have intercourse, not only for the sake of procreating children!which is the good of marriage!but also for the sake of the carnal pleasure

involved. 3hus, those whose selfHcontrol is weak could avoid fornication, or

adultery, and other kinds of impurity too shameful to name, into which their lustmight drag them through #atan;s tempting. 3herefore one could, as I said,

consider this not a sin, had the apostle not added, But I say this as a concession,

not as a rule. @ho, then, denies that it is a sin when he agrees that apostolic

authority for doing it is given only by concession/

3hus, for ugustine, se"ual intercourse serves a singular purpose, and that is

procreation./9 3his is a position he continued to hold throughout his life, as his

reflections on the above passage in&etractionsreveal,/:and his conclusions on this

matter e"erted enormous influence over the church, including up and through the present

day./8

/DThe +ood of 'arriage, 1:, as cited in 4oonan, 1A. n alternative translation, with conte"t, is available

at http*www.ccel.orgccelschaffnpnf1A.v.ii."i".html,accessed 2uly $:, $11./

Enchiridion: !n Faith( Hope and )ove, trans. lbert Outler, A/. vailable at*http*www.ccel.orgaaugustineenchiridionformatsenchiridion1..pdf,accessed 2uly $:, $11./9fter analyKing several passages from ugustine, 4oonan concludes that, for ugustine, Offspring areassigned an absolute value. 3he #toic rule is accepted without acknowledgment of its derivation. Only

se"ual intercourse Pfor the sake of procreating is fully lawful. 4oonan, 1A./:ugustine, The &etractions, trans. #ister 5. IneK Bogan (Chicago, I&* Catholic 7niversity of merica

-ress, 18:0, 1D./83he heart of the ugustinian position is the old rule of -hilo and the #toics, buttressed by their appeal to

a nature whose purposes are evident. ugustine did not invent the doctrine. 6e gave it its classic form.

6e synthesiKed, to a degree, the re


18/25

)actantis and Chrystotom

3hese fathers belong in the heading simply because deviated somewhat from the

total appropriation of #toic notions of se"uality*

In the late third century &actantius gave a value to the -auline purpose ofintercourse as remedy for incontinence. 6e wrote, @hoever cannot control his

affections, let him keep them within the lines of a lawful bed. 3he passage by

itself would be ambiguous, but &actantius went on to discuss intercourse in

pregnancy. God has made other female animals re>ect their mates when pregnant,but 6e has made woman suffer her husband lest, when their wives repel them,

husbands be driven by lust to seek elsewhere and so doing not keep the glory of

chastity (ivine Instittes.$A.A, $, C*E)18*D, D:0. 3his re>ection of

animal behavior and of the #toic norm is the only opinion I have encountered inany Christian theologian before 1D e"plicitly upholding the lawfulness of

intercourse in pregnancy. Jet even &actantius did not give the practice completeapproval. 3he wife does not sin, but neither can she be considered as having the

virtue of modesty (pdicitia0.D

4oonan continues by noting that &actantius also argued, despite his position offered

elsewhere on the -auline purpose of intercourse, that nature demonstrates that the only

purpose for intercourse is to produce children. 6e referencesivine Instittes.$A.1:,

which I ust as God gave us eyes not to gaKe and grab at pleasure but to see for the

sake of those actions relevant to the needs of life, so too we have been given thegenital part of the body, as the word itself indicates, merely for the creation of

offspring.D1

It seems, then, &actantius would have re>ected any intentional frustration of the normal

purpose.D$

indissolubility. or a thousand years and more the ugustinian formulas guided the Church in the @est.

rom .). / to the present, the ugustinian termsproles,fides,sacramentmhave, with muchdevelopment, served to define for Catholic theologians the good of marriage. 4oonan, 1DH1. 4oonan

gives an e"position of these terms as ugustine understood them on 11ff.DIbid., 1A.D13hose searching for this citation at CC%& or similar resources dependent on letchers nineteenth century

translation will find only &atin. 3he


19/25

2ohn Chrysostom was the other father who did not incorporate the #toic view.DA

6owever, it did not temper his view of contraception, which he, due to his implicit belief

that interfering with marital intercourse was a direct assault on the work of God, thought

worse than homicide*

@hy do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit @here are themedicines of sterility @here there is murder before birth Jou do not even let a

harlot remain a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. )o you see that

from drunkenness comes fornication, from fornication adultery, from adultery

murder Indeed, it is something worse than murder and I do not know what tocall itE for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation.D/

)espite his re>ection of #toic categories, it seems that Chrysostom would still have

ob>ected to se"uality that was not used specifically for the purpose of creating children.

5any points could be raised at this >uncture, but one observation in particular

re


20/25

fathers on contraception, whether Catholic or -rotestant,Dsince none restricts the

natural function of se"ual intercourse onlyto procreation.

EALUATING EIDENCE: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EARLY FATHERS

@hile the universal consensus of the fathers is often


21/25

although here we run into the difficulty of definingproximity. @hat kindof pro"imity do

we mean Chronological pro"imity is of no help, since this alone would ority conclusions carry a strong measure of weight. If one

hundred scientists, utiliKing the same methodology and operating out of the same

philosophical framework, all study a set of data, and each conclude that these data have

one valid interpretation, this would carry a certain amount of credence, at least in the

D8 man who re>ected the apostolic authority of 2ohn. I have written something to the church, but

)iotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. Cf. A 2ohn 1*8, %#N.


22/25

sense that they have likely identified the correct application of their framework to the

current data.

6owever, as we have seen, the early church fathers deliberated their doctrine in

e"ceptionally different historical circumstances. 3heir philosophical framework was

largely alien to ours. 3his does not necessitatethat their conclusions are wrongE far from

it. It does, however, reected contraception. But we are not #toics. 4either are we

ristotelians. 4ot only do modern Christians, Catholic or -rotestant, apply a different set

of intellectual tools to


23/25

that se"ual intercourse is only moral when engaged for the purpose of procreation, Gods

@ord celebrates this union as intrinsically good.1

3he #criptures do not speak directly of contraception, and, again, the flight of the

early church to #toic philosophical categories during their time of need reinforces this

truth. 3his general silence is remarkable given the practice of contraception in the

ancient world, including in areas -aul worked and to which he ministered by letter. s

-aul Carrick observes*

we must confront an additional important fact* limiting family siKe by whatever

means was a widespread ancient practice. @e possess several reliable reports,

especially during the 6ellenistic and 'oman periods, of whole communitiesfacing much lower population counts than their leaders and their own social

critics deemed desirable from the standpoint of national welfare. In 5acedoniantimes, for e"ample, -hilip N was so worried about his country;s depopulation that

he created a law forbidding the willful limitation of the family by contraception,

abortion, or infanticide. It is reported that in thirty years -hilip;s edict succeededin raising the manpower of his nation by almost fifty percent. -olybius, writing

about 1D B.C., was well aware of the widespread practice of family limitation.$

@hile the limiting of family siKe was generally carried out through abortion and

infanticide, contraception was still utiliKed.A

One possible reason the 4ew 3estament documents, in particular the -auline

epistles, do not speak to contraception is that such measures were usually only available

to the rich and upper class./ 6owever, given that it is likely -auls letters would

circulated among at least some wealth individuals, especially to the church in 'ome, it is

difficult to perceive why -aul, if he did disapprove of contraception, would fail to

1

*ong of *olomonbeing one prominent e"ample.$'edical Ethics in the Ancient 2orld(@ashington, ).C.* Georgetown 7niversity -ress, $10, 1$$.A3hat contraception was used in the ancient world is uncontroversial. 3he scholarly opinion differs onlyon the e"tent to which it was used. &eading e"pert 2ohn 5. 'iddle argues that it was highly popular and

widespread in Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient 2orld to the &enaissance(6arvard 7niversity

-ress, 188$0 andEve.s Herbs: A History of Contraception and Abortion in the 2est(6arvard 7niversity

-ress, 188:0. or a critim.orgdoifull1.1D4%25188911AA918$,accessed 2uly $:, $11./Cf. 2Utte, Contraception, 1DH1.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199711063371920http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199711063371920http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199711063371920


24/25

condemn its use in his broad, sweeping denunciations of se"ual immorality. 3his does

not mean that, were we able to ask -aul today what he thought of the modern use of

contraception, that he would not condemn the practice. 3hat would be taking the absence

of evidence too far. But since #cripture is silence, we must respect this silence. @e must

turn to wisdom instead.

@hat might a -rotestant ethic of contraception look like or interested readers, I

commend the work of )avid Nan)runen in#ioethics and the Christian )ife: A +ide to

'aking ifficlt ecisions(@heaton, I&* Crossway, $80.D @ith refreshing clarity,

Nan)runen analyKes broader #criptural principles and applies wisdom to discern their

relationship to


25/25

had trusted its sufficiency, the Church might not have spent centuries laden with a #toic

se"ual norm that denied the unitive function of marital relations. #ince the early churchs

#toic framework is ultimately unscriptural, its condemnations of contraception carry far

less weight than if they had been established within the scaffolding of #criptural

principles. 3hat the entire postHpostolic Church has been against contraception is an

e"aggeration of dubious ect is e"posed for what it is.

Documents

the-early-church-and-contraception.pdf