Christian Defenses for Opposing the Prescription and Dispensing of Contraception

A previous article described reasons why a healthcare professional might conscientiously object to prescribing or dispensing contraception or abortion-causing substances. Such health care professionals can likely anticipate backlash from those of liberal political ideologies for that stance, but they might be surprised by the criticism they receive by others who consider themselves to be followers of Christ. This article provides potential responses to some objections.

First, when preparing for potential criticism, it is necessary to know that some might be looking for others to make a mockery out of, especially if it can cause termination of employment. One should not underestimate the potential viciousness of those who support contraception and/or abortion, particularly among those who also oppose the Gospel. There might be some who begin friendly conversation and only pretend to be interested in discussion about conscientious objection with the intention of provoking conscientious objectors to outbursts or other types of unprofessionalism. It is easy to fall for such traps due to the competitive nature of many in healthcare.

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

Similarly, some might think it is a good idea to try to convert others to agree with their stance on conscientious objection at work through conversation. That is sometimes possible, but other times it is best to simply direct others to information that is publicly available rather than trying to focus on work and defend conscientious objection at the same time.

There might be some, however, who genuinely believe in the Gospel teaching about “temporal punishment” for their sins. They realize that theologically and logically there has to be temporal punishment for sins committed after Baptism, even after repentance and absolution. (This is sometimes described as “satisfaction for sins.”) In other words, they believe that God is a Just God who punishes, and they do not want to experience God’s wrath, even if it is only temporary wrath. They are very motivated by holy fear, which, even if it is fear of God’s punishment, is still considered by a Doctor of the Church to be a good thing. These people might be convincible even if at first they vehemently push back at the belief that dispensing or prescribing contraception is evil.

Do Unto God as You Would Have Done to You

Now, if one has studied bioethics or moral theology, one might determine that it is somewhat difficult to explain how “cooperation with evil” is sinful for those who cooperate. A person could spend a significant amount of time trying to determine what is “material,” “formal,” “proximate,” and “remote” cooperation with evil. In healthcare there are many people involved – doctors and other prescribers, pharmacists, nurses, technicians, and many others. So, when a person asks you something similar to, “how are you doing anything wrong when you are simply putting pills in a bag for others to take? How is that cooperating in evil?” There are a couple of approaches that could be taken. Like mentioned previously, some probably cannot be discussed at work.

As far as cooperating with evil in general, a person might try to think of an evil that is still almost universally considered evil. One of these evils is “school shootings.” Now, just hypothetically say that your employer prescribes and dispenses those in a pill form. How many people would say “ah, it’s no big deal, I gotta have a job! You are being scrupulous when you say I am cooperating with evil!” How many people, whether it is a prescriber, dispenser, administer, or simply the people who clean the building, would say it is “no big deal” to work for that company that prescribes and dispenses school shootings in a pill? It seems that, hopefully, most people would say it is sinful and/or wrong to work for an employer that dispenses school shootings.

While extreme, that hypothetical might lead to some progress in a discussion.

FDA Labeling Says Contraception Should Only Be Used for Acne when Birth Control is Desired

A tangent is necessary here. It should be specified that the previous hypothetical is not implying that a person cannot work for a weapon-making or sharp-object-making company. The previous hypothetical is only accurate if it is strictly describing an intrinsic evil rather than something that could be used for good or evil.

Also, while this article cannot go into complete detail on prescribing and drug labeling, hormonal contraception was approved for acne only when it is also desired to be used for birth control. It was not approved for single-use for acne only, and this is likely because the deadly risks of the powerful chemicals do not justify their use as a cosmetic. The official labeling explicitly says something like, “[drug name] should be used for the treatment of acne only if the patient desires an oral contraceptive for birth control.”

The U.S. government’s labeling which uses the words “should be used for the treatment of acne only if…” seems to imply that prescribing such chemicals “off-label” for acne only might expose a prescriber and possibly a pharmacist to malpractice liability should a cardiovascular event or other side-effect occur. The FDA’s indication language seems to suggest that acne treatment without the desire for contraception is outside the FDA-directed appropriate therapy for the approved indication. This unusually restrictive language functions as a strong regulatory limitation on the approved acne indication, making it difficult to argue that these products should be viewed as interchangeable with conventional acne therapies for patients who do not also desire contraception. The FDA has not approved oral contraceptives as treatments only for non-contraceptive conditions. When oral contraceptives have received FDA approval for additional indications, such as acne or PMDD, those indications are generally limited to patients who also choose to use the chemicals for contraception.

The point of this important tangent is that a prescription for an oral contraceptive ordinarily implies an intended contraceptive use. The possibility of cooperation with the evil of contraception is usually deducible.

Contraception is Evil in that it Prevents God from Creating

Unfortunately, the reality is that many people have gotten to the point of simply not caring about many evils, especially those that are wrongly labeled as “healthcare.” So, an approach which includes a description of the evilness of contraception and/or abortion might be helpful in discussions about conscientious objection. Such an approach which emphasizes the seriousness of the evil of contraception might be necessary to sensitize those who might not realize what they are doing. This perspective applies Christ’s command to “do unto others as you would have done to you” to God, or “do unto God what you would have done to you.”

Contraception is used mainly for one reason. Although people might not describe it in this way, they use contraception to prevent God from creating a new human being. This article cannot go into the specifics of philosophy and theology, but God set things up so that humans would provide the necessary conditions for God to create a body and a soul at conception. Humans are called “secondary causes” in those instances. Contraception artificially intervenes in secondary causes to prevent God from bringing a new human life – body and soul – into existence.

But a human being is not a mere biological byproduct; every person is created to be known, loved, and desired by the Creator. It is accurate to say that to prevent God from creating a person is to prevent Him from creating someone He intends to be His best friend. This should expose the very serious harm of a contraceptive act.

If a healthcare professional was asked to prescribe or dispense a pill knowing it would actively prevent the existence of their own best friend – say, a brother or sister – they would rightly refuse to prescribe or dispense the pill. If you would not participate in preventing the existence of your own loved ones, why would you cooperate in preventing the existence of God’s?

Even further, the principles described in this section could lead to arguing that contraception is a worse evil than abortion when the two are compared (a suggestion also made by St. John Chrysostom, calling it “worse than murder”). Hence, following the suggestion to “do unto God as you would have done to you” might lead to some not cooperating in the prescribing or dispensing of contraception.

Response to the Objection that “God Cannot be Prevented from Creating”

At this point, a common objection often arises: how can a sovereign, all-powerful God be prevented from acting (in this case, prevented from creating a human being) by a human intervention?

It is true that nothing can thwart God’s absolute, ultimate power. However, this objection confuses God’s extraordinary power with His chosen ordinary means. In the natural order, God chooses to act through what philosophy and theology calls “secondary causes” – specifically human biology and the marital act – to bring new life into the world. When humans use contraception, they are actively preventing the very secondary causes God designed to accomplish His creative will. Therefore, while we cannot defeat God’s ultimate sovereignty, we can absolutely prevent the normal way God creates human beings.

The concept is clearly described in the Encyclical Humanae Vitae:

If [husband and wife] further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. (Paragraph 13)

Notice the precision of the language: the Catholic Church explicitly teaches that human intervention can frustrate the divine design. An act which impairs the capacity to transmit life is to “refragari tum divino consilio” which is translated into English as “frustrates.” But the use of the Latin verb refragari can also mean to actively oppose, thwart, or obstruct a purpose. By using those words, the magisterial document acknowledges that human actions can indeed block or prevent the ordinary, providential path God established for creation. When a healthcare professional refuses to prescribe or dispense these chemicals, they are refusing to participate in this obstruction of the divine will. “Do unto God as you would have done unto you” is what some of these might be thinking.

Response to False Interpretations of “God’s Permissive Will”

Here a conscientious objector might get the response that “God allows evil. This is His permissive will. If He permits evil, then he must approve it.” That is a false interpretation of both theology and philosophy. Again, a complete explanation is not possible here. However, when people say “God permits evil,” they do not mean “God approves evil.” It would probably be more accurate to say that “God permits humans to have free will. But God is always bringing about good. If humans use their free will to reject God or to commit evil, God will continue to bring about good after the evil is done.”

In other words, God’s “permissive will” should not be understood to be as if God watches every potential abortion and says, “well this one is o.k. Go ahead, I permit it” and then in another scenario He prevents the abortion. If God used His omnipotence to physically block every evil human choice – preventing the abortion, murder, and so on – human beings would be puppets, and would not have free will. It would not be free will if God was to take it away every time you were about to do evil. Without the genuine freedom to choose evil (which is the opposite of loving God), humans would also lack the genuine freedom to choose love, virtue, and obedience to God’s commands.

When discussing evils like abortion and contraception, God’s “permissive will” is possibly one of the most common responses one might get from others who have studied some of the Faith or the Saints. One helpful way to explain to them that “God’s permissive will” does not mean “God approves” every action that you do, including evil, is by referring to Scripture. Does Jesus in any way suggest something like, “Do whatever you want, and if God the Father does not prevent you from doing it, then He permits it and approves it. Do not worry, if God does not want you to do something, He will prevent you from doing it.” No. Jesus continually calls everyone to follow His commands, repent, and then exhort others to do the same.

Jesus consistently treats human beings as responsible for their choices. He repeatedly calls people to repent, obey God’s commandments, and avoid sin. He never teaches that God allowing an action means God approves of it, or that people should simply do whatever comes into their minds because God would prevent anything He disapproved of. On the contrary, Jesus warns of judgment, speaks of Hell, rebukes sin, and calls people to repentance.

Similarly, there is no place in the Bible and especially not a single word about Jesus which suggests that Jesus died so that you could sin all you want without worrying about being punished for those sins. And this is what some conscientious objectors might have in mind – participating in evil has moral consequences and will likely be punished in one way or another.

Response to “You Meant it for Evil, but God Meant it for Good”

At this point there are some who might say, “yeah but what about the story of Joseph in the Old Testament. His brothers significantly harmed him but he later said ‘you meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.’ That means God permits and approves of evil, doesn’t it?”

Joseph is expressing confidence that God’s providence overcame the evil intentions of his brothers. He is not necessarily offering a complete philosophical account of how divine causality and human freedom interact. Joseph is making a true theological judgment about providence; he is not giving a complete doctrinal treatise on divine causality. Evil is never necessary for God to do good. Joseph is not saying, “God needed your evil.” He’s saying something closer to, “Your evil could not prevent God from accomplishing His good.” Joseph’s brothers’ sin was not the only possible way for God to accomplish his providential purposes.

Scripture Verses Explaining God Can Be Harmed and Prevented from Acting

Scripture discusses contraception in the sin of Onan, in which God severely punishes Onan for doing a contraceptive act. Other saints have discussed the evils of contraception as well.

But some might want Scripture verses explaining how God can be harmed. In Acts 9:4, when Jesus confronts Saul (who was persecuting the early church), He doesn’t say, “Why are you persecuting my followers?” He asks, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” This implies at least in one way that God can be harmed. Jesus says similar things in Matthew chapter 25.

Scripture also contains examples of human actions affecting how God chooses to act, without implying that humans can overpower His omnipotence. One of the most obvious examples occurs when Jesus visits His hometown: “And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. And he marveled because of their unbelief” (Mark 6:5–6).

Being all-powerful, Jesus (God) had the power to heal everyone. But the Gospel says He “could do no mighty work there” because of their lack of faith. He possesses the power, but chooses not to override humans. Human unbelief prevents God from acting in this particular way – not because humans have power over God, but because God chooses not to override human freedom.

Another verse describing God being directly resisted by humans is when Jesus weeps over Jerusalem: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” (Matthew 23:37)

Here, Jesus says His divine desire (“How often would I have gathered your children…”) and identifies the precise barrier that prevented it: human free will (“…and you were not willing”). God’s divine desire was resisted because He allows human beings to freely reject Him rather than forcing them to accept His will.

There are other examples as well. In the Acts of the Apostles, during his speech before the council, Stephen makes it clear that human beings can resist God the Holy Spirit: “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you” (Acts 7:51).

If humans did not have the ability to make choices and freely act against God, it would be difficult to understand how Scripture can say that people resist the Holy Spirit. This idea of resisting or rejecting God’s action provides a connection to the Catholic teaching on contraception. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches in paragraph 703 that “the Word of God and his Breath [the Holy Spirit] are at the origin of the being and life of every creature,” and it cites passages such as Genesis 1:2 – “The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters” – and Job 33:4 – “The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”

Scripture therefore teaches that human beings can resist the Holy Spirit, while also teaching that the Holy Spirit is the divine source of creation and life. (The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cannot be separated).

There are more that could be mentioned. However, the above discussion might be enough to persuade some who are open to being convinced.

LifeNews Note: This article reflects the views of the author and not necessarily those of LifeNews.