Contradictions with Contraception

Arguments Against Protestantism Part III

As a philosophy student, I began finding that inconsistencies within Protestantism weren’t so much in the theology as in its ethical theories. Particularly, I found the idea that contraception was permissible an absurd conclusion, especially when we must hold that the purpose of sex is reproduction. Of course, not all Protestants believe contraception is permissible, so this isn’t a universal argument against Protestantism. However, by my lights, most denominations deem it permissible; thus, I would safely conclude those denominations are false.

The Main Argument

As we know, a consistent ethical system cannot contain logical contradictions. However, most Protestants hold the following two propositions: A. Contraception within marriage is permissible. B. Homosexual relations are impermissible. Let’s call this set of (A) and (B) the “Contra-Homo” set (short for contraception and homosexual relations). I contend that the Contra-Homo set contains a logical contradiction, and thus, any Christian who uses contraception or deems it permissible contradicts themselves.

The argument isn’t that the Christian must be psychologically repulsed by contraception. Rather, even if the Christian concludes that “contraception isn’t for me, but it could be for other married couples,” they still contradict themselves because they allow the possibility of the Contra-Homo set in their ethical system. Much like how I cannot say, “Islam isn’t for me, but it could be for other people.” This contradicts my belief that people can only be saved through Christ, not by the false prophet Muhammad. I cannot allow the possibility of believing both “Saved through Christ only” and “Saved through Muhammad.”

So, what follows is that any Protestant denomination that allows the possibility of the Contra-Homo set is logically incoherent.

Defence of the Logical Incoherence in the Contra-Homo Set

The crux of my argument lies in the question, “What is the purpose of sex?” Well, sex finds its purpose within the context of marriage. Pre-marital sex is intrinsically evil, and so are homosexual relations. The purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children. At least, this is the primary end of marriage. Marriage also has secondary ends, including unity of spouses and pleasure. However, the secondary ends are meant to perfect the primary end; therefore, any active impediment towards the primary end of marriage is intrinsically evil.

Despite this clear hierarchy of the purpose of marriage, a lot of Protestants would actually deny that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children. Due to their denial of marriage as a sacred Sacrament, most of them are content with saying that the purpose of marriage lies elsewhere, and that the secondary ends can become primary. These Protestants make a grave mistake: by allowing the possibility of secondary ends to be primary, homosexual marriage becomes justifiable.

Suppose a Christian couple says, “The purpose of OUR marriage is whatever God wants it to be. And God doesn’t want us having children. So, we will be using contraception.” Okay, so one must accept that this couple is inherently denying that the purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children. Therefore, the purpose of sex between the couple lies elsewhere. Most couples seem to take the route that the purpose of sex within marriage is the unity of spouses. Fair enough; there are many external temptations, and one must regularly be reminded who loves them enough to give themselves entirely, spiritually and physically. As St. Paul advises,

But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.

1 Corinthians 7:2-3

So the purpose of sex is not the procreation and education of children, but rather, the unity of spouses. If it is the case that there is no need for procreation, then it follows that there’s no need for the couple to be capable of procreation. There is nothing intrinsic about the “unity of spouses” which necessitates that it is only fulfilled by heterosexual couples. The purpose of unity would be to draw closer to the loved one. So, if a gay man wants to be more united with his gay lover, he may express this through sexual intercourse. At the end of the disordered act, they not only feel more united, but they desire each other even more than before. They’ve thus fulfilled the purpose of unity through this disordered act.

One may argue, “No, because this unity must be rooted in love. And engaging in homosexual acts is not willing the good for each other.” However, this misunderstands the properties of love and unity, or that which is necessarily derived from an act. Unity is a property of love, but love is not a property of unity. Much like how the ability to learn a language is a property of rationality: the ability to learn a language is derived from rationality, not the other way around. So, since love is not derived from unity, unification between two people can still be fulfilled even if something immoral has occurred.

A clear example is feeding the hungry. A property of love is charitable acts, and feeding the hungry is a good way to show your love of neighbour. However, suppose I am only feeding the hungry because I want to make myself look good in front of other people. This is an immoral act, yet I am still successfully feeding the hungry. It’s not like the soup and bannock despawn from their bellies once they know I was only feeding them to boast. Likewise, acts of unification can still be fulfilled, even with immoral acts.

This leaves us with the uncomfortable conclusion that homosexual acts of unification between the lovers are permissible. Only so long as we are under the impression that the purpose of sex within a marriage is the unity of spouses. Since homosexual sex is permissible under this assumption, there is nothing really stopping the notion that homosexual marriages are permissible. After all, if God created marriage for the unification of couples, and two gay men can fulfill this through disordered acts, then God seems to allow gay marriage.

Thinking back on the Contra-Homo set, the Christian has two options:

1. Deny the absurd conclusion that gay marriage is permissible, and accept that the purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children (hence, making contraception intrinsically evil)

or

2. Continue to believe the purpose of marriage is not the procreation and education of children, and accept the absurd conclusion that gay marriage is permissible.

As far as I’m concerned, the Catholic Church is the only denomination that has dogmatically declared that both contraception and homosexuality are immoral. Most of the Protestants that I know take the common conservative stance that contraception is okay and homosexual relations are not. Some more liberal Protestants will accept both contraception and homosexual relations. Ironically, in this instance, it is the liberal Christians who are logically coherent in denying the Contra-Homo set and accepting homosexual relations within their ethic. Of course, I strongly disagree with them, but their logical coherence is objectively more epistemically virtuous than the logically incoherent position that most conservative Christians take.

It is clear that the Contra-Homo set is untenable, and therefore, any Protestant denomination that allows contraception for married couples is false. And as it turned out, denominations like the Pentecostals, Alliance, Anglicans, Lutherans, and even some non-doms allow contraception between married couples. It was easy for me to dismiss those, since God does not logically contradict Himself, and would not allow logical incoherence to be taught in His Church. (Of course, someone will say, “But the Catholic Church contradicts itself!” That’ll be another essay for another time). I will now turn to looking at potential objections.

Objections

Objection 1. It seems that the Contra-Homo set is true, because Scripture itself teaches that homosexual relations are immoral, and it doesn’t teach that contraception is bad. Therefore, the Contra-Homo set is true.

Obj 2. Further, it can still be the case that the spouses need to be of opposite sex but do not need to procreate. For example, if a man is impotent or a woman is barren in a marriage, through no fault of their own. It would be absurd (and repugnant) to say that couples who cannot conceive are being immoral every time they engage in the marital act. Therefore, the Contra-Homo set is true.

Obj 3. Further, the Catholic answer of “Natural Family Planning” is similar (if not identical) to contraception. In both scenarios, the married couples are intentionally not fulfilling the primary purpose of marriage, that is, “the procreation and education of children.” Therefore, either the Contra-Homo set is true, or the primary purpose of marriage is not the procreation and education of children, or the Catholic Church teaches a contradiction.

Reply to Objections

On the contrary, the Apostle says, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.”

I answer that moral truth is not derived by Scripture alone. The wicked are not well acquainted with the Scriptures, yet are still without excuse. Even if one posits that Scripture teaches the Contra-Homo set, it still remains a contradiction; thus, Scripture contains a contradiction. This merely pushes the issue back. Further, sexual acts become intrinsically evil when the couple intentionally impedes the primary purpose of marriage.

Reply obj 1. It is true that Scripture explicitly teaches that homosexual relations are evil (Leviticus 18:22; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 1:7). So, one part of the Contra-Homo set is true. However, there is no explicit teaching in Scripture that says that contraception is okay, except by arguments from silence. Since Scripture doesn’t say anything about contraception, says the man who is pro-contraception, it follows that it is either permissible or is up to the discretion of the Christian couple.

Arguments from silence are notoriously weak and fallacious, and the argument for use of contraception isn’t any different. We can conceive of immoral acts that aren’t explicitly stated in Scripture, but can be derived from the principles of Scripture or by natural law. Nowhere is it explicit in Scripture that paedophilia is immoral. There is no explicit passage that says, “Do not engage in sexual relations with children.” However, it is pretty obvious that we don’t need Scripture to tell us that it is wrong to engage in coitus with a child: we know it’s wrong either by the principles of Scripture or by natural law.

Likewise, the principles that assume that the Contra-Homo set is true derive a contradiction, and thus, the permissibility of contraception must be rejected.

Further, there are some passages which at least imply that contraception is immoral (Genesis 1:27-28; 38:9-10; Psalm 127:3-5). Some may argue that this is an argument from silence. The passages cited above imply it, but no explicit passage says, “Contraception is immoral.”If Scripture isn’t clear on either side (as we can see, there are neither clear passages for nor against contraception), then we must go by rational principle. So this is not an argument from silence, but a prompting of a symmetry problem that can be resolved through argumentation. As I’ve shown, the Contra-Homo set is illogical, so all married couples are obligated to refrain from contraception.

Reply obj 2. The purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children. Anyone who intentionally impedes that purpose commits an intrinsically evil act. The married couple who cannot conceive, through no fault of their own, are not intentionally impeding procreation. Therefore, they are not committing an intrinsically evil act.

Reply obj 3. There are two ways to avoid procreation, either actively or passively. Actively avoiding procreation is what we have called intentionally impeding. These acts are intrinsically evil. Passively avoiding procreation is only done by ordering oneself to the primary purpose of marriage, but during times when the reproductive system of the woman makes it impossible. The couple intentionally remains open to procreation, but through prudence, engages in the marital act during times when reproduction cannot occur. It isn’t so much that the couple is actively engaging in coitus when it is impossible to bear children, but rather, they are fasting from it during times when reproduction is most viable.

Conclusion

We can see deep philosophical/ethical tensions within most Protestant denominations. From the general falsity of sola scriptura via the truth of the papacy, to the logical incoherence within most Protestant ethical frameworks. Some of the answers to my critiques of sola scriptura, like the clarity of Scripture, only spring up further issues. As I’ve shown, all theological objections Protestants raise are de jure objections, and they fail without a proper defeater. Lastly, my biggest philosophical objection to Protestantism is the argument that contraception is immoral, yet most denominations accept it. Only the Catholic Church has explicitly condemned it. We can thus serve as a proper defeater to any Church that allows the possibility of the Contra-Homo set.

So, why am I not a Protestant? It’s not because Catholicism was more practical in my life (I suffered for it), but rather, it is because Protestantism has severe problems, which at least didn’t allow me to presume it. I was thus able to look at the Catholic Church more objectively and eventually enter into it during Easter 2025.

Thank You, Lord, for making me Catholic! Amen.

Biblical Citations

• 1 Corinthians 7:2-3
• Leviticus 18:22
• 1 Corinthians 6:9
• 1 Timothy 1:10
• Jude 1:7
• Genesis 1:27-28; 38:9-10
• Psalm 127:3-5

Post Script: Self-defeat objection

“In part II you say, ‘theological critiques implicitly assume specific interpretations of Scripture within a system which itself hasn’t been proven true, and cannot be self-referentially proven, and therefore, cannot serve as de facto defeaters for competing interpretations in relation to other contrary theological systems.’ Yet, your main argument relies on specific interpretations of Scripture (namely, those which are claimed by the Catholic Church), and therefore, assumes a theological system which cannot serve as a de facto defeater against Protestantism.”

Reply: This misunderstands the de jure/de facto critique I presented, and therefore, misunderstands the deeper critique against those who use their specific interpretations as de facto objections. Any theological critique is a de jure objection insofar as its intrinsic principles are used to explain away other theological systems that do not hold to the same principles. A lot of Liberal Christians do not hold to the same principles that Conservatives do. My objection that the contra-homo set is false is a de facto objection in virtue of the fact that most Conservative Protestants believe in the logical coherence of God.

Theological systems that allow logical incoherence can be provided defeaters such as arguments for classical logic. Defeaters for Liberal Christians that deny the inerrancy of Scripture would be arguments for the inerrancy of Scripture. It would only be illegitimate if my argument were, “Look, the pope dogmatically declared contraception was immoral. So, Protestants contradict themselves,” since Protestants don’t accept the authority of the pope. However, that was not my argument. It was an argument for the end of marriage being the procreation and education of children, and a reductio ad absurdum based on the acceptance of the contra-homo set.