Can We Stop Making Love to Latex? (Part 2 of 2)

In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI primarily focused on the impermissibility of contraception, generally.  He did not outline each form of contraception, and explain the reasons why they are morally impermissible and contrary to natural law.  So, I guess I’ll do that here.  For Catholics, the ends do not justify the means.  In other words, one can desire a certain result, and even if that result is understandable, or even a moral good, that does not justify immoral means to achieve that end.  For example, a couple struggling with infertility can desire a child, which is a moral good, but that would not justify the act of kidnapping to achieve that end.  So, too, with contraception, a couple might understandably want to delay pregnancy for a just cause, but that does not permit immoral means, such as contraception.  If someone is pro-contraception, he must therefore conclude that one of the modes of contraception is therefore good.  But are they? 

Condoms:

Condoms in various forms date back several millennia, with the earliest condoms supposedly being made of animal intestines…nothing says romance like animal intestines.  The modern day latex condom seems to have come about sometime in the 1920s.  Latex, though perhaps an improvement over animal intestines, still doesn’t scream romance if you ask me.  Nonetheless, they have gained tremendous popularity, with an estimated $12 billion worldwide market in 2024 alone.  While condoms may or may not be an effective way of preventing pregnancy, are those who are pro-contraception prepared to say that condoms are a moral good, or even a permissible, if not ideal, means to prevent pregnancy?  Do condoms aid the flourishing of the human being? 

Condoms are not permitted in Catholic teaching because they quite literally separate the sexual act from the procreative aspect.  Not only that, but they also prohibit the unitive aspect of the conjugal act.  When a man uses a condom, he not only says to the woman, “I don’t want to have kids with you,” but he also is saying, “I don’t even want to touch you.”  Indeed, a condom prevents the man from even making skin to skin contact with the woman.  Instead of bringing the couple together, a condom does not even allow them to touch.  It seems to me that when a man uses a condom, he is using the woman as nothing more than a masturbatory aid, and is literally making love to latex.  And what is he left with afterwards?...a woman whom he hasn’t even touched and some latex thing filled with semen, that I guess sits in the trash for several days until the trash service comes.  “Take my semen to the landfill,” he says.  Condoms not only prohibit the unitive and procreative aspect of the conjugal act, but they are also simply weird, gross, and seemingly unsanitary.  Thus, they are condemned by Catholic teaching and common sense, and ought to be condemned by all.

The Pill:

As noted in Part I, the FDA first approved The Pill in 1960.  The Pill has become even more popular than condoms, with an estimated reported worldwide market upwards of $20 billion in 2024.  Conservative estimates show that nearly two-thirds of women aged 15 to 49 in America are on The Pill.  Recent estimates suggest that there are approximately 75 million women in that age group in America, which means that there are roughly 50 million women on The Pill in America today.  There are, of course, theological and philosophical reasons to reject The Pill, but there are physical and psychological reasons to as well.

The Pill, it seems to me, is slightly less problematic than condoms, because at least it allows the man and woman to touch each other.  So a man whose wife is on The Pill can take solace in the fact that he is not actually making love to latex.  That, however, is where any slight improvement ends.  The Pill is still intentionally used to disrupt the procreative purpose of the marital act, as it is used with the intention and hope of preventing pregnancy.  Moreover, it disrupts the unitive aspect of sex because it does not allow the man and woman to fully give themselves to the other.  The couple says to one another, “I’ll give you my body, but not my fertility.”  In other words, the couple is happy to sleep with one another, but do not want the natural consequence of sex, which is a child.  Because The Pill disrupts the unitive and procreative aspects of sex, it is gravely immoral.

Now, a Catholic looking to weasel his or her way out of this reality might argue something to the effect of, “well, The Pill isn’t always 100% effective, so really I am open to life, and if God wants my wife to get pregnant, He will do it.”  This is not particularly compelling for a couple reasons.  First, the medical literature suggests that The Pill, when taken regularly, is over 99% effective; this number is probably closer to 100% when The Pill is ingested precisely as instructed.  Thus, a couple’s claim that they are “open to life” when on The Pill is entirely incoherent, as they are doing everything in their power to close themselves off to life, leaving a negligible chance of pregnancy on the table.  Second, saying that “God can work with that miniscule chance if He actually wants us to be pregnant,” is an afront to God, as it is testing Him.  When the devil tempted Jesus, He replied “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.’”  (Matthew 4:7).  As Christians, we have a moral duty to cooperate with God; we cannot go against His Providential Design, and then have the gall to say, “if He wants X, He’ll make it happen.”  This would be like a man throwing himself off the Empire State Building, saying “if God really loves me, he’ll save me.”  God does love that man, and he loves the contracepting couple, but they cannot take every act possible contrary to God’s will and then throw their hands up in the air and say, “I’m open to God’s will.”  This thinking is inherently self-contradictory, and ought to be avoided.

While there are several theologically and philosophical reasons to oppose The Pill, there are physical and psychological reasons to as well.  First, The Pill has numerous side effects that are actually extremely common.  They range from nausea, headaches, and migraines, to weight gain, increased moodiness and depression., and a decreased libido.  On the surface, a man may think that having his wife on The Pill is a good thing…sex without the consequence of children, he thinks.  That doesn’t always end up being the case, however.  Instead, he may find himself with a wife who is more temperamental, gains weight, is less interested in sex, and complains of headaches, migraines, and nausea.  What he initially thought may lead to more romance has now lead to less sex, an agitated and unhealthy wife, and increased marital tension.  Not a recipe for success.  If that’s not enough to deter you, there is fairly significant evidence that taking The Pill for an extended amount of time increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer and cervical cancer.  Moreover, The Pill often increases a woman’s level of inflammation; long-term inflammation is show to increase the woman’s risk of not only cancer, but cardiovascular disease and autoimmune disorders as well.  One study published in 1990 concluded that in the years between 1960 (the year The Pill was approved by the FDA) and 1985, breast  cancer rose by 45%.  The largest increase occurred in women aged 60 and older, whose incidence of breast cancer rose by 74%.  That same study found that between the mid-1970s and the mid-1980s, “incidence of estrogen receptor-positive tumors increased an average of 131%...perhaps implicating hormonal factors in the rising incidence of breast cancer.”  Gee, shocking.  Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that women who were of child bearing years in 1960 proceeded to pump themselves full of weird hormones for the better part of two decades.  Now, some may argue this isn’t causative, merely coincidental.  Some may even argue that rates of breast cancer only increased because more women starting testing with more frequency.  Perhaps that’s true, perhaps not.  But if this isn’t enough to convince you that The Pill is not conducive to your long-term health and your flourishing, I’m not sure what is. 

IUD

IUDs were approved by the FDA as early as 1984; later forms of IUDs were approved in the early to mid 2000s.  IUD standards for “Intrauterine Device” and the organization founded by Margaret Sanger with the goal of preventing the propagation of black people and the disabled describes an IUD as “a tiny device that’s put into your uterus to prevent pregnancy.”  That same organization touts the efficacy of IUDs, writing that “[i]t’s long-term, reversible, and one of the most effective birth control methods out there.”  The “benefits” of this form of contraception are that IUDs are supposed to reliably last for many years and supposedly don’t require regular or daily upkeep, unlike The Pill that must be taken daily.  Of course, the theological problem with IUDs is the same as the problem with The Pill: IUDs disrupt the procreative and unitive aspects of the marital act by clearly preventing the possibility of pregnancy, which in turn disrupts the unitive aspect, as it does not allow the couple to give their fertility to one another.  Of course, in addition to the theological and philosophical problems, there are practical negative impacts to the woman, despite what some may have you believe.   Margaret Sanger’s genocidal organization writes that “[i]f  you decide to get pregnant or you just don’t want to have your IUD anymore, your nurse or doctor can quickly and easily take it out. You’re able to get pregnant right after the IUD is removed.”  This promise of a quick, hassle-free removal is touted by the device’s manufacturer as well.  In recent years, tens of thousands of women have discovered that IUDs aren’t the magical devices they were advertised to be.  In fact, several thousand women have taken these manufacturers to court.  Lawsuits against Bayer, the manufacturer of Mirena, a popular IUD, allege that the device caused uterine perforation injuries, leading to organ damage, intestinal problems, infections, expulsion of the IUD device, scarring, and even ectopic pregnancies when the device failed to prevent pregnancy.  The following is clear: IUDs may be effective at preventing pregnancy, but IUDs, like The Pill, are not beneficial to women’s health, and are likely detrimental.  Given all of this, it would be hard to conclude that an IUD is conducive to the flourishing of women, and it would be even more difficult to conclude that IUDs ought to be endorsed and used en masse. 

Conclusion

Certainly there are other forms of birth control, such as vasectomies and “pulling out” (otherwise known as the sin of Onanism), but condoms, The Pill, and IUDs appear to be the biggest three forms of birth control in the modern era, and that is why I addressed them here.  The beautiful aspect of Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae is it established eternal truths and eternal principles, which can be applied to all forms of birth control, known and unknown, to explain why they are sinful, immoral, and contrary to natural law and common sense.  The proposition of reliable birth control is certainly appealing at first, but when one digs deeper, it is easy to see why the Catholic Church condemns it.  Not only do they disrupt the unitive and procreative aspect of the marital act, but in so many cases, they are terrible for the health of women.  The FDA, the medical establishment, and the pharmaceutical industry have told a terrible lie over the last 65 years, a lie similar to the Serpent’s lie to Eve in the garden: take it, and you will flourish.  Flourishing, however, has not occurred.  Women are more depressed than ever, more prone to feminine cancers than ever, and so often remain infertile even after going off The Pill.  The Pill has created chaos and the prophetic Pope Paul VI was, and is, entirely correct.  Hopefully, in due time, the world will come to see that too.

Liam

10/18/2025