In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI accurately predicted that the widespread use of artificial contraception would lead to widespread infidelity and a lower standard of morality. More than 50 years later, we see the institution of marriage despised as divorce rates continue to rise and fornication becomes increasingly accepted and commonplace. Most Christians lament the hedonism in our culture but not many traditions are as vocal as the Roman Catholic Church on this issue. What is a Lutheran to make of the encyclical? While we certainly do not agree with the underlying premise of the Roman Catholic Magisterium as an infallible interpreter of natural law, we can agree with some of the doctrinal principles in the document, which we will be discussing in this post.
The purpose of marriage
Pope Paul VI posits that the estate of marriage is how man cooperates with God to bring new life into being. It is the institution in which God designed for the transmission of human life, through the fruits of married love between a couple. This is defined as a “special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything”. This companionship is ordered to bring about new life into being, by the ‘chaste and intimate’ union of husband and wife (i.e. sexual intercourse).
We generally agree with this sentiment. Luther remarks in the Large Catechism:
He has instituted it before all others, and therefore created man and woman separately (as is evident), not for lewdness, but that they should legitimately live together, be fruitful, beget children, and nourish and train them to the honor of God.
Luther’s Large Catechism, On the Sixth Commandment
Hence, we would both agree that marriage is for:
- Companionship: husband and wife share all things together
- Procreation: children are brought into the world from this relationship
However, Luther goes further to argue that marriage is also commanded for the purpose of avoiding inchastity. He points out that in the natural order of things, it is impossible to remain chaste outside of marriage. The exception to this would be the celibate life, which is only reserved for those whom God has supernaturally gifted the ability to maintain chastity without the married estate. Likewise, the Augsburg Confession affirms that God ordained marriage to ‘be a help against human infirmity’ (Article XXIII).
On the nature of sexual intercourse
Pope Paul VI notes that while sexual intercourse is ordered towards the procreation of human life, not every instance of it will necessarily result in it. In those instances which no child is conceived, it still retains the ‘expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife’. Nevertheless, every marital act must still maintain its relationship to procreation; it must be open to the possibility of life.
As a result, direct sterilization, abortion, and artificial contraception are forbidden and intrinsically wrong. Any action taken intentionally to prevent procreation as an end or means is prohibited.
While the Lutheran Confessions do not directly condemn artificial contraception, one can argue that they are a bad idea based on the 3 purposes of marriage outlined in the confessions (procreation, companionship, and the preservation of chastity). Artificial contraception abuses marital relations because it directly thwarts the procreation aspect of the act. While it still retains the other 2 uses, it still goes against God’s command to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ (Genesis 1:28).
We can also approach the issue as a matter of intent. The prevailing reason why people use contraception today is to avoid having to raise children, as are perceived as an unwanted consequence from intercourse. Such an outlook is scorned by Luther, as he utterly disparages those who avoid children in his commentary on Genesis:
Moreover in this age and at this day, you may find many who wish that they had no children at all born to them. And this far more than barbarous inhumanity and enormity is found more particularly among princes and nobles, who frequently abstain from marriage for the sole reason that they may have no posterity. Still more base is the practice found in those princes, who suffer themselves to be counselled and persuaded not to marry, lest their families should become too large for civil purposes. Such men are indeed worthy of having their names blotted out from the land of the living, as the punishment of their contempt of the laws and intents of God. Who is there that would not execrate such swine-like monsters as these? These inhuman beings however still further manifest in many base particulars the nature and depth of original sin. Were it not for the consequences of this mighty sin, we should all admire the fulfilment of the law of God in generation, as one of the highest acts of the obedience and worship of God. And we should extol it as one of the greatest gifts of God with its due praise and admiration.
Luther’s Genesis Commentary, Chapter 2
In his day, birth control methods were not as widespread and readily available as it is today, and he condemned those who avoided the married estate altogether because they did not want any offspring. How much more would he scorn those who remove procreation from the act? In line with many of the church fathers, he interpreted the sin of Onan as violating the natural order of intercourse:
Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime to produce semen and excite the woman, and to frustrate her at that very moment. He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred. Therefore he did not allow himself to be compelled to bear that intolerable slavery. Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore God punished him.
Luther’s Genesis Commentary, Chapter 38
Granted, Luther also mentions his underlying hated and ungodly motivation as his sin, but he still regards the act itself ‘unchastity’ and ‘Sodomitic’.
On Family Planning
Pope Paul VI also acknowledges that there are various aspects to consider in responsible parenthood. He allows for the consideration of ‘physical, economic, psychological and social conditions’ for families to plan for how many children they should raise.
In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.
Humanae Vitae
Thus, the married couple must ensure that their approach ‘corresponds to the will of God’. With this in mind, married couples are allowed to “take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile”. This practice is known as Natural Family Planning (NFP).
He argues that it does not violate any of the moral principles he had outlined earlier as the married couple ‘rightly use a faculty provided them by nature’ while artificial birth control methods obstruct the ‘generative process’ entirely.
Should a Lutheran approve of NFP? The answer is not so clear cut. Concrete studies on the ovulation cycle and fertility only came out at the advent of the 20th century, so there are not many writings by Lutheran theologians on this subject.
Luther himself probably would not have approved of it, as we see in his commentaries that just the intent to avoid children was contemptible to him, even if the person was concerned about having to raise a large family.
Neither would the Church Fathers have endorsed it. We particularly see St. Augustine condemn the Manicheans for intentionally abstaining from sexual relations during the period of time in which a woman was expected to conceive:
Is it not you who hold that begetting children, by which souls are confined in flesh, is a greater sin than cohabitation? Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh?
St. Augustine On the Morals of the Manicheans
Everyone against birth control in principle can at least agree that practicing NFP with the intent to avoid the responsibility of children is wrong. Nevertheless, one could argue that not everyone is meant to raise a large family. While economic and social factors can play a part in a couple’s decision, the chief end of marriage for the Lutheran is to beget children, and “nourish and train them to the honour of God”. There is only so much the Church can do in training a child in the way of the Lord. It is primarily the responsibility of the head of the household to catechize his children. One could thus argue that NFP recognises that ultimately God is the one who opens or closes the womb, and any child conceived is out of His goodness and mercy, and would be received with thanksgiving anyway.
Where do I lean on the issue of NFP? I am on the fence on it, and think it requires more of a pastoral approach. As I am single, I do not fully grasp the challenges faced by those in the married estate.
Conclusion
I think there needs to be more discussion on this issue in the Lutheran tradition. As marriage is being attacked and reviled by the increasingly promiscuous society we live in, it is our duty to defend it. Let us go beyond opposing just fornication and abortion and get to the root of the issue.
