What do you think?
Rate this book
Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists
Originally published in 1965, Contraception received unanimous acclaim from all quarters as the first thorough, scholarly, objective analysis of Catholic doctrine on birth control. More than ever this subject is of acute concern to a world facing serious population problems, and the author has written an important new appendix examining the development of and debates over the doctrine in the past twenty years. John T. Noonan, Jr., traces the Church’s position from its earliest foundations to the present, and analyzes the conflicts and personal decisions that have affected the theologians’ teachings on the subject.
561 pages, Hardcover
First published June 1, 1965
5 people are currently reading
88 people want to read
About the author
John T. Noonan Jr.
23 books3 followersJohn Thomas Noonan, Jr. (1926-2017) was a Senior Circuit Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with chambers in San Francisco, California. He was appointed in 1985 by President Ronald Reagan.
Affiliations:
United States. Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
University of California, Berkeley. School of Law
University of Notre Dame. Law School
Affiliations:
United States. Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
University of California, Berkeley. School of Law
University of Notre Dame. Law School
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
February 8, 2021
Excellent in-depth look at Catholic teachings regarding contraception over time. I would have liked to see greater discussion/analysis of why modern biological insights may have altered Catholic beliefs (something Noonan alluded to but never went into in-depth). But apart from that, this is a really comprehensive tome for strange people like me who are curious about this subject. The historical Catholic teachings on sex are a lot weirder than I'd realized.
Rating: 4.5 Stars (Excellent).
Rating: 4.5 Stars (Excellent).
June 30, 2015
Very good book on the histroy of Contraception, as seen through the eyes of the canon law of the Catholic Church. This version of the book was published just before Humane Vitae (and just before the completion of the 2nd Vatican Council), and so it does not include a discussion of that controling encyclical (though it does discuss Casti connubii) nor of the Council's comment on contraception. The book ends with an anticipation of doctrinal development on the issue, ancipitaion which seems to have been "in the air" in those days. It would be interesting to read his updated edition to find out what his take is on the subsequent developments. His treatment is fair (for the most part) and historical.
August 18, 2019
A very complete history of the Church's view of contraception. Because contraception spills out to many other topics as well, there is a lot in here on the theology of sex, procreation, marriage, sterilization, etc. If the book has any fault it is that it is repetitive in places, because in recounting how Catholic views evolved, it was necessary to revisit the thinking of earlier theologians, in particular Augustine and Aquinas.
March 10, 2026
A Classic reference text on the (theological) history of how Christians have dealt with the issue of Contraception.
What emerges is a degree of confusion in the early Church era. On the one hand there were a number of figures condemning any form of sex that was not procreative (ie sex during pregnancy). We can see that idea in Justin Martry, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Ambrose, Jerome…(etc). But there are also contrary trends evident in some writers. Lactantius accepts that non-procreative sex is acceptable. John Chrysostem accepts that older (non-fertile?) sex is acceptable.
Those words paint a picture, but what is missing from that picture is what the Church’s actual policy was when it came to rules for marriages. If bishops really thought that there could be no non-procreative sex, then presumably they would have banned marriages of those who cannot procreate (ie the old, the sterile, etc). Noonan doesn’t explore that issue. As far as I am aware there is no evidence of bans (?).
Where matters become clearer is in the codification of Church laws, which begins in the tenth century. Two principles explicitly banned contraception. The first is a rule known as ALIQUANDO, which is a statement of St Augstine’s. The second principle was known as Si QUIS and it was a ban on “potions of sterility” which make conception impossible. Those two rules were in force for about 1000 years until they were superceded by the new code of Canon Law in 1917.
As we move through the centuries and into the twentieth century, different nuances and stresses arise in theological thinking, but the background existence seems to be a fairly clear and consistent rejection of Contraception. This is reflected in the fact that Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox all equally rejected Contraception until 1930.
Of course, one of the key issues is the interpretation of the ban. Was Christianity rejecting contraception because it was contraception, or was it being rejected because of some other factor. The author thinks the later, but its not particularly clearly argued here, and so the issues remain, inevitably controversial.
The version of the book I read was the 1966 (2nd printing). There is a later enlarged edition of the book which covers the 1968 publication of Humanae Vitae.
This is a scholarly academic work which is well referenced and it is already a standard source book for students on the subject. It is well written, with a clear and relatively concise prose, so it is accessible to readers who have no prior theological or ethical expertise in the issues.
What emerges is a degree of confusion in the early Church era. On the one hand there were a number of figures condemning any form of sex that was not procreative (ie sex during pregnancy). We can see that idea in Justin Martry, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Ambrose, Jerome…(etc). But there are also contrary trends evident in some writers. Lactantius accepts that non-procreative sex is acceptable. John Chrysostem accepts that older (non-fertile?) sex is acceptable.
Those words paint a picture, but what is missing from that picture is what the Church’s actual policy was when it came to rules for marriages. If bishops really thought that there could be no non-procreative sex, then presumably they would have banned marriages of those who cannot procreate (ie the old, the sterile, etc). Noonan doesn’t explore that issue. As far as I am aware there is no evidence of bans (?).
Where matters become clearer is in the codification of Church laws, which begins in the tenth century. Two principles explicitly banned contraception. The first is a rule known as ALIQUANDO, which is a statement of St Augstine’s. The second principle was known as Si QUIS and it was a ban on “potions of sterility” which make conception impossible. Those two rules were in force for about 1000 years until they were superceded by the new code of Canon Law in 1917.
As we move through the centuries and into the twentieth century, different nuances and stresses arise in theological thinking, but the background existence seems to be a fairly clear and consistent rejection of Contraception. This is reflected in the fact that Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox all equally rejected Contraception until 1930.
Of course, one of the key issues is the interpretation of the ban. Was Christianity rejecting contraception because it was contraception, or was it being rejected because of some other factor. The author thinks the later, but its not particularly clearly argued here, and so the issues remain, inevitably controversial.
The version of the book I read was the 1966 (2nd printing). There is a later enlarged edition of the book which covers the 1968 publication of Humanae Vitae.
This is a scholarly academic work which is well referenced and it is already a standard source book for students on the subject. It is well written, with a clear and relatively concise prose, so it is accessible to readers who have no prior theological or ethical expertise in the issues.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews