Contraception Why Not Exploring Janet Smiths Arguments

In contemporary discussions about reproductive health and sexual ethics, contraception is often framed as a neutral or even necessary component of modern life. Yet, within Catholic moral theology, a robust critique of artificial contraception persists—one most clearly articulated by Dr. Janet Smith, a leading moral theologian and professor emerita at Sacred Heart Major Seminary. Her work challenges not only the widespread acceptance of birth control but also invites deeper reflection on human dignity, marital love, and the natural law. This article examines the core of Smith’s arguments, their philosophical grounding, and their relevance in today’s cultural context.

The Foundations of Janet Smith’s Moral Theology

Janet Smith’s opposition to contraception is rooted in a consistent interpretation of Catholic moral doctrine, particularly the teachings reaffirmed in Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae. While many expected the Church to liberalize its stance on birth control after the advent of the pill, Paul VI upheld the traditional teaching that any action deliberately intended to prevent conception violates the moral order of human sexuality. Smith defends this position not merely as an act of obedience to authority, but as a logically coherent and ethically sound framework grounded in natural law theory.

Natural law, as Smith explains, holds that human actions should align with their inherent purposes. Sexual intercourse, in this view, has two inseparable ends: the unitive (strengthening the bond between spouses) and the procreative (the potential for new life). To intentionally suppress one of these ends—particularly through artificial means—severs the integral connection between love and life. As Smith puts it, “You cannot separate the language of the body from its meaning.”

“We are not inventing morality; we are discovering it in the very design of our bodies and relationships.” — Dr. Janet Smith

Five Key Arguments Against Contraception

Smith’s critique extends beyond doctrinal repetition. She presents a multi-layered case that combines theological insight, philosophical reasoning, and sociological observation. The following five arguments form the backbone of her position:

1. The Integrity of the Marital Act: Contraception introduces a contradiction into sexual intimacy. Couples say “yes” to each other but “no” to life. This duality, Smith argues, undermines the full self-giving that marriage requires.
2. The Objectification of the Body: When sex is divorced from its procreative potential, it risks becoming a mere instrument for pleasure. This shift can erode respect between partners, especially toward women, whose fertility is treated as a problem to be managed.
3. The Slippery Slope of Technological Control: Once society accepts contraception, it opens the door to further interventions—abortion, in vitro fertilization, euthanasia—where human life is manipulated or discarded based on convenience.
4. The Empirical Consequences: Smith points to social trends such as rising divorce rates, declining fertility, and increased sexual exploitation as unintended outcomes of the contraceptive mindset.
5. The Alternative of Natural Family Planning (NFP): Unlike contraception, NFP respects both the unitive and procreative dimensions of sex. It fosters communication, mutual sacrifice, and reverence for the woman’s cycle.

Tip: When discussing sensitive topics like contraception, focus on listening first. Understanding someone’s experience creates space for meaningful dialogue about moral principles.

Case Study: A Couple Discovers NFP

Consider Mark and Sarah, married for three years, who initially used hormonal birth control to delay having children. After attending a retreat focused on Catholic marriage, they began studying NFP. At first skeptical, they found that tracking Sarah’s fertility signs led to deeper communication and greater appreciation for her body. When they decided to conceive, they were able to do so quickly—within three months. More importantly, they reported feeling more united, as the rhythm of their relationship became attuned to natural cycles rather than pharmaceutical intervention.

Their story reflects what Smith often emphasizes: NFP is not just a method, but a spiritual discipline. It requires patience, cooperation, and trust—virtues central to lasting marriages. Unlike contraception, which can foster a mentality of control, NFP cultivates a posture of receptivity and responsibility.

Common Misconceptions About Smith’s Position

Critics often misrepresent Smith’s views as rigid, outdated, or dismissive of women’s autonomy. However, her argument is neither anti-woman nor anti-science. She acknowledges the real challenges couples face—health concerns, financial constraints, spacing children—and insists that moral solutions must respect both compassion and truth.

Smith does not advocate for reckless reproduction. Instead, she supports responsible parenthood exercised through morally permissible means. Periodic abstinence within NFP is not repression but discernment—a recognition that love sometimes means waiting.

Aspect	Contraception	Natural Family Planning
Moral Intent	Prevents conception deliberately	Respects fertility; may abstain during fertile window
Effect on Unity	May reduce communication about fertility	Encourages shared responsibility and dialogue
Health Impact	Potential side effects (e.g., hormonal imbalances)	No chemical interference; promotes body literacy
Ethical Foundation	Separates sex from procreation	Integrates love and life

Why These Arguments Still Matter Today

In an era where reproductive technology is increasingly normalized, Smith’s voice offers a counter-cultural witness. She challenges the assumption that more control equals greater freedom. On the contrary, she argues, when we attempt to dominate our biology, we risk alienating ourselves from our humanity.

This is especially relevant amid growing concerns about plummeting fertility rates in developed nations, rising anxiety among young adults about relationships, and the commodification of reproduction through surrogacy and egg freezing. Smith’s framework invites us to ask not just “Can we?” but “Should we?”

Moreover, her emphasis on the spousal meaning of the body resonates with people across religious lines. Even secular philosophers have begun to explore how the fragmentation of sex, love, and procreation affects personal well-being and social cohesion.

Checklist: Reflecting on Your Approach to Family Planning

• Do my choices honor both my partner and the potential for new life?
• Am I informed about my or my partner’s fertility cycle?
• Have I explored NFP methods with proper instruction?
• Are my decisions guided by long-term values, not short-term convenience?
• Do I view fertility as a gift rather than a disease to be managed?

Frequently Asked Questions

Isn’t rejecting contraception unrealistic in the modern world?

Smith acknowledges the challenge but insists that moral truths don’t change with cultural trends. Just as society once rejected slavery or child labor despite economic incentives, so too can it re-evaluate practices that undermine human dignity. Many couples find NFP not only feasible but enriching when supported by education and community.

Doesn’t the Church’s teaching on contraception harm women?

Smith strongly disputes this. She argues that contraception places disproportionate physical and emotional burdens on women—from side effects of hormones to societal pressure to be sexually available. In contrast, NFP empowers women by helping them understand their bodies and fostering shared responsibility in marriage.

What if a couple has serious reasons to avoid pregnancy?

Smith affirms that spacing or limiting children for grave reasons (health, poverty, etc.) is morally acceptable. The key distinction lies in the means: avoiding conception through abstinence during fertile periods is permitted; using artificial methods to render sex infertile is not.

Conclusion: Reclaiming a Vision of Integral Human Love

Janet Smith’s arguments against contraception are not merely prohibitions—they are invitations. Invitations to see the body as meaningful, sex as sacred, and love as inherently open to life. In a culture that often reduces intimacy to technique and choice, her work restores a vision of marriage as a covenant shaped by mutual self-donation.

Understanding her position does not require agreement, but it demands engagement. Whether one ultimately accepts or rejects her conclusions, the questions she raises about freedom, love, and human flourishing remain essential. In revisiting her arguments, we are invited not to retreat from modernity, but to confront its deepest assumptions with clarity and courage.

🚀 Ready to explore deeper? Read Dr. Janet Smith’s book Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later or attend a certified NFP course in your area. Begin a conversation—with your partner, your pastor, or yourself—about what authentic love truly requires.