Skip to comments.Attitudes Among Southern Baptist Leaders Shifting on Birth Control
Posted on 03/07/2014 3:33:17 PM PST by marshmallow
Questions about the morality of birth control increasingly appear in columns and blogs by SBC ethicists and ministers.
On the surface, Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists might seem unlikely bedfellows in opposing mandated coverage of contraceptives under Obamacare, but observers say it points to ongoing reconsideration of the morality of birth control among the Southern Baptist Conventions leading thinkers.
Evangelical leaders are tripping over themselves in the rush to stand with Roman Catholic bishops against this perceived governmental overreach, Jacob Lupfer, a doctoral candidate in political science at Georgetown University, said in a Religion News Service commentary in December. At the same time, a growing number of white evangelical leaders are attempting to sow seeds of doubt about the morality of birth control itself.
Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., responded that on that point, Lupfer understates his own case.
A good many evangelicals hope to do far more than sow seeds of doubt about the morality of birth control, Mohler replied. Our concern is to raise an alarm about the entire edifice of modern sexual morality and to acknowledge that millions of evangelicals have unwittingly aided and abetted that moral revolution by an unreflective and unfaithful embrace of the contraceptive revolution.
Shift in the 1980s
In a 2012 column for the Christian Post, Mohler said most evangelical Protestants welcomed the development of artificial birth control as a medical advance just as they celebrated the discovery of penicillin. A shift occurred in the 1980s, with the rise of the Religious Right and opposition to abortion on demand.
Affirming life as sacred at the moment of conception caused many to view intrauterine devices not as contraceptives but abortifacients, he said, and that conviction has extended to the use of oral contraceptives.
(Excerpt) Read more at abpnews.com ...
I’ve been a Southern Baptist since roughly 1977, and I don’t know what a “Southern Baptist Leader” is. My suspicion is that they reflect the average member of the SBC about as well as Peggy Noonan represents the average Republican.
If Baptists and other Protestants are truly rethinking contraception issues to make them more aligned with Christian history, that is good news. However, is this news source affiliated with liberal Baptists, i.e., the CBF?
I am a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, I attend a conservative baptist church. Before receiving Christ, I was neutral but after being saved I had to think about this and other issues. I truly believe that it doesn’t align with scripture to use birth control.
Southern Baptists have no business joining with Rome on anything. You don’t link arms with Satan to fight Satan on another front. Separation from apostate Rome is biblical.
“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them
and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”
—2 Corinthians 6:14-18.
Many evangelical protestants are unaware of it but Protestantism historically held to the same position as Rome concerning this issue until the Anglican Lambeth conference of 1930.
Interestingly enough, the Washington Post of all papers editorialized against Protestantism moving in that direction:
‘Until the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930 no Christian denomination had ever said that contraception could ever be objectively right. The Washington Post, in an editorial on March 22, 1931, said of the Federal Council of Churches’ endorsement of Lambeth:
It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of or suppression of human life. The Church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the scientific production of human souls.
Carried to its logical conclusion, the committees report, if carried into effect, would sound the death knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be careful and restrained is preposterous.’
Would you vote for a Roman Catholic candidate who shared your political views?
I used to have a lot of, um, pejorative and ignorant thoughts about Southern Baptists. Over time, I have come to see them as people of rectitude, commitment and, I guess, as some of the “grown-ups” among Christian sects. May God bless them with good discernment on this and other moral issues.
Well .45 it seems this article on the SBC is recycled quite often here in the RF. It seems when there is some embarrassing news about Pope Francis, the FRomans "run to the keep" to recycle articles about Protestants and birth control.
However, I will opine as I always do. God said be fruitful and multiply. We do well to obey Him. Now what the Bible says about the morality of yanking a rosary out of the cold dead hands of a priest??? I leave that for others to address as I have already on other threads. Just wanted to mention that, though, as we are on the subject of morality.
I have had conversations with females within the body asking why they used birth control, they have said it is what you do and hadn’t really thought about it, also have found it has been the husbands pushing for this, even getting vasectomy to stop pregnancy. My brothers in Christ need to repent on this issue.
The sola interpeter speaks. Nevermind the fact that protestantism and its rebellion against God is the genesis of much of the gross moral evil that is infecting western civilization these days.
The apostates are the ones who rejected Christ’s Church and His teachings 500 years ago. Not unlike those who walked away in John 6. Birth Control? the 20th century version of, “this is a hard saying.”
What’s worse, one man’s sin or those who lead us to sin by theological error due to individualistic pride and arrogance? Since we’re comparing and contrasting.
I voted for a Mormon who doesn’t hold all of my views but holds more than the socialist in the white house.
Indeed. I remember having a conversation some years back with my aunt(who’s a Baptist elementary school principal) and her son(a country singer though not a famous one) and they just assumed birth control was OK or at least neutral like water or air with no sense that they ever considered otherwise. There’s sadly much historical ignorance of the faith among many Christians.
But that is all changing quickly. Many infections currently treatable are mutating into drug resistant versions, and science cannot keep up. We may be in the last stages of a "sexual revolution bubble," a temporary period where the effects of sexual liberation were temporarily suspended. But if drug resistant strains take over, and scientists are extremely pessimistic right now, then sexual liberation is over, and we are back to the traditional morality that allowed us to survive in the presence of these diseases.
CHICAGO, Aug 9 (Reuters) - U.S. health officials are urging doctors to stop using a key antibiotic to treat routine cases of gonorrhea due to signs of bacterial resistance, leaving one treatment left for the sexually transmitted disease.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Thursday it no longer recommends the use of cefixime, marketed under the brand name Suprax by Lupin Ltd, because it is becoming less effective. That leaves the injectable generic antibiotic ceftriaxone, used in combination with another antibiotic, as the last treatment option.
What happens if I dont get treated?
Untreated gonorrhea can cause serious and permanent health problems in both women and men. In women, untreated gonorrhea can cause pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). Some of the complications of PID are
Formation of scar tissue that blocks fallopian tubesExternal Web Site Icon;
Ectopic pregnancy (pregnancy outside the wombExternal Web Site Icon);
InfertilityExternal Web Site Icon (inability to get pregnant);
Long-term pelvic/abdominal pain.
In men, gonorrhea can cause a painful condition in the tubes attached to the testicles. In rare cases, this may cause a man to be sterile, or prevent him from being able to father a child.
Rarely, untreated gonorrhea can also spread to your blood or joints. This condition can be life-threatening. Untreated gonorrhea may also increase your chances of getting or giving HIV the virus that causes AIDS.
I saw Jerry Falwell interviewed some years ago, and this subject came up. Rev. Falwell indicated that he was okay with artificial birth control for married couples. For what it’s worth, there seems to be lots of divided opinions on this particular subject.
I would have been surprised if Falwell said otherwise. I once had a co-worker who was a very nice, conservative Baptist lady(her husband was a youth pastor). We generally agreed on most socially conservative topics but when I advised her about the ethical problems with contraception, she reacted with shock as if she’d never heard that viewpoint before.
Leading only works when someone follows. The SBC member churches are all independent, and don’t need to follow any SBC leader. A couple of the SBC seminaries have good reputations, but several are quite liberal compared to the average member.
Interesting!! So, how often has this article from 3/5/14 been recycled here at Free Republic?
I agree with you about the rectitude and commitment of Southern Baptists. I have the honor of prayer-vigiling in front of the local abortion site with Baptists, brothers and sisters in Christ who are, in devotion, second to none.
Thanks for that quote from WaPo in the 1930’s. I believe the NYT similarly noted, at the time, that birth control would strongly promote nonmarital sex, and weaken the bonds of marital sex. One doesn’t have to be a Catholic, or a Christian, to see the obvious: but it helps!!
Christ taught the sale of indulgences? Seriously?
I just became the editor of our teeny-tiny parish monthly newsletter, and I ran an interview with some NFP teachers, the first time such an interview or article has ever been printed in the newsletter. And to my grateful satisfaction, just a few days ago my pastor mentioned --- merely mentioned in passing --- the morally corrosive effects of contraception in a weekday homily --- the first time I have ever heard the word said at the pulpit of my parish, and I've been here for 25 years.
We Catholics need to practice what we preach. But first, for Christ's sake, we need to preach!
Non-sequitur alert! Seriously! :o)
No, just as I couldn’t vote for Mitt Romney. This short video gives a good explanation of my rationale. I know other Bible believing Christians hold a different view and that’s okay. I firmly believe in God’s sovereignty and I know He establishes the princes of this world, so I’m much more concerned with fidelity to my understanding of God’s Word than outcomes.
Against the World - Mitt Romney, Moralism & the Christian Vote
Just before he died, King David said: “The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.”
A man who worships a false God cannot possibly rule in the fear of the God of the Bible.
But which, contrary to the apostolic norm, (1Cor. 9:4; 1Tum. 3:107) RC clergy are forbidden to do (with few exceptions for a few clerical converts), thus dangerously presuming they all have that gift.
Thus as typical, when Rome is right about something, they err in going to an extreme, which is another example of perpetuating ancient errors by making Tradition equal with Scripture, and an autocratic church supreme above all.
I’m sorry and I don’t wish to offend you, but I do no one any good by withholding the truth. I would far rather be divided by truth than united by error. And the truth is, the religion of Rome is not biblical Christianity. Rome has what Paul labeled “another gospel” and that gospel cannot save the souls of men.
Mere utterance of “Jesus is Lord” is not an indication of salvation. Matthew 7 teaches that clearly. Many who call Him Lord will hear Him say the awful words “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
I remain hopeful there are some born again Catholics out there, but if they exist they were saved by grace through faith, not by the works righteousness system of Rome.
“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”
For the sake of your own soul, learn God’s way of salvation. Romans 1 teaches the gospel is the “power of God unto salvation.” Pray for the Lord to open your eyes to the truth and your heart to His power.
The Testimony of a Former Catholic Priest
The Gospel of Grace
Unmasking the False Gospel
That is an absurd attempt which denies the obvious, since not only is the protestantism that is liberal a rebellion against the basic evangelical core truths of Protestantism (and which once was against contraceptives), esp. that of holding Scripture to be the wholly inspired literal word of God (though using different literary genres), while it is the majority of Catholicism that is overall far more liberal than her evangelical counterparts today.
And if you want to blame protestantism on that, then you indict them as following a multitude to do evil, rather than following those who better represent classic Protestantism in their basic truths and moral views, and even weekly RCs are less conservative.
In addition, Rome treats such as members in life and in death, even notorious public ones, thus manifesting what she really believes and teaches.
Contrary to the cherished image RCs have, this is the reality of your church which are bond to defend, and these liberals are your brethren, and you must own them.
1 Corinthians 4:3-4
Every non-Catholic Christian that has rejected bc within marriage that I have found seem to be very conservative. Anyone can do a search and see this. I don’t know if there has been more lately or not. Of course the Amish and old order Mennonites never accepted it, and that population is exploding.
On the other hand, try to find one person of any faith that accepts things like abortion, ‘gay marriage,’ and female clergy but also thinks bc within marriage isn’t acceptable. I have never found one, anyhow. I very much doubt it is a coincidence.
Whats worse, one mans theological error due to individualistic pride and arrogance (all presumed), or a group of men who lead us to sin by theological error due to collective individualistic pride and arrogance? Since were comparing and contrasting.
In other words, by rejecting determination of Truth by individual examination of evidence (which RCs are not to engage in to determine the veracity of her doctrines), because this can result in disunity and error as well as seeing Truth, then you can end up with an entire church being in error based upon the premise that they cannot error. For according to their autocratic interpretation, only their interpretation can be correct in any conflict.
And which sole ecclesia churches compete with each other for the title of One True Church.
Indeed. I would say acceptance of birth control is a definite pre-requisite to acceptance of abortions, homosexuality and female clergy.
Another thread devolving into Protestants vs Catholics. Shocking.
In all sincerity, I have never even heard the words "works righteousness" in the Catholic Church, let alone encountered the concept using other terms, I have only heard it from others talking about Catholics. Which strikes me as a little dubious.
There's not a single verse in St. Paul that I would disagree with as a Catholic. So I think you are too comprehensive in your rejection, which I think you ought not to be. Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
I recommend you conduct your own "pew" research of the matter.
You would think there would be at least a few exceptions, but I can’t find any. “Ultra liberal Catholic priestess performs gay marriage and gives blistering sermon on the harm of bc within marriage’ and ‘Openly gay pastor praises late term abortion but warns of acceptance of bc within marriage’ are headlines one just doesn’t see.
The issue is NOT whether or not to use birth control. The issue is that some forms of birth control may abort the fertilized egg. If life begins at that union, then I, as a member of a Southern Baptist church cannot advocate that form of birth control because it aborts a human life.
A sub-rebellion of the original rebellion? I fail to see how that is any better. I might even be willing to concede that modern day Catholics (particularly in the western world) are more liberal than their evangelical counterparts.
Which means exactly what? Nothing. It’s the theological equivalent of, “my Dad can beat up your Dad.” We’re talking about Truth here. The Truth about the evil of birth control which has been taught by the Catholic Church since the beginning. And as Catholics, our sin is the greater one for disobeying for we have been given the fullness of Truth.
And what of the basic truths and moral views of protestantism? Sola scriptura? The abdication of the true Scriptures in favor of those adulterated versions that came later? Resulting in confusion within the Body of Christ. A horribly detestable state if there ever was one.
Sola fide? Resulting in the rejection of Christ’s sacraments and the sanctifying grace it imparts as expressed in scripture and preserved by the Church? Treating them with derision by denying the miracle of the Eucharist and calling it “magic”?
Coupled all this with the protestant-inspired radical individualism and what have you got? The current moral state of western civilization. This is the end result of that rebellion. Sure it’s generated some ancillary benefits (if you can call them that) such as the United States, the Constitution, etc. but as we see that today that doesn’t count for much.
What we are seeing today is the the end result of the protestant rebellion. And when it fades away along with its multitude of scriptural and theological error the only thing left standing will be the Roman Catholic Church. Which is why there really is no such thing as the betters of classical protestantism.
Fact. The first principle of a protestant is non serviam. I will not serve. Always the “no” first. Disobedient children. That “collective” you speak of is the Body of Christ guided by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Anyone who uses the word “autocratic” to describe the teaching office of the Church has an authority problem born out of radicial individualism. “Who are you to...[insert objection here]...” Worshippers of Rand and not Christ.
The article is from a Baptist publication dated 3/5/14. Yet, you still suspect Papist tomfoolery here?
Dunno...why not ask the Roman Catholic who posted the article.
Of course I agree with Romans 10:9, but that verse refers to the Jesus Christ of Scripture. Rome has another Jesus and another gospel. It matters what you believe about Jesus. Rome’s Jesus is not the Jesus of Scripture.
The Lord Jesus of Scripture saves by grace alone and He is mighty to save. The Jesus of the Bible finished His work on the cross. The Christ Jesus of Scripture beckons sinners to come to Him and He will give them rest. Rome utterly rejects that Jesus. Rome’s Jesus needs your help and there’s no rest in Him because you are too busy working and striving for an uncertain salvation. The pope’s Jesus didn’t accomplish enough, so your good works need to be added to the work of Jesus. And in the event you don’t do quite enough you can finish working off your sin debt in a place called Purgatory. If you can afford it you might write a few checks and buy your way out of a few years. My Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible, is the sole mediator between God and man. Rome has all kinds of mediators, any old dead saint will do. My Jesus sent the Holy Spirit. Rome has vicar standing in the Holy Spirit’s place. I could go on and on and on. Yes, Rome has a Jesus, but He is not the Jesus of the Bible.
As for works righteousness, Rome may not use that term (you might prefer I call it a sacramental system), but that’s what the Roman system is. Regardless of the label, it’s certainly not a grace alone system. And according to Scripture, if you attempt to add any works to grace, then grace is no more. Based on the Bible you have no works that aren’t tainted by sin. Isaiah likened our best, our righteousness, to “filthy rags.” Don’t forget that works require a wage. And we know that the wages of sin is death.
“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” (Romans 11:6)
In the end Rome is little different from Israel of old.
Romans 10:2-3 “For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.”
I’m about to go on vacation, so I can’t fight all the battles of the Reformation tonight, but I urge you to listen to the presentation of the gospel I linked in my last comment. I know you don’t like what I’m telling you, but it’s far better to hear this now than after it’s too late. Instead of trying to convince me I’m wrong about Rome, presuming that I don’t understand, I urge you to spend your time understanding the biblical gospel.
No: two means of assurance of Truth - which is correct? One is based upon evidential warrant, the other is based upon the premise of assured veracity. In other words, being like a Berean in heart and method, or like Keating: "The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true. Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
The former is harder to obtain widespread unity versus the latter, which is why cults effectively operate under Rome's model (and which surpass Rome in degree of unity), but the quality is inferior to that of the former.
. I might even be willing to concede that modern day Catholics (particularly in the western world) are more liberal than their evangelical counterparts.
You had best do so, since that is the fact.
Which means exactly what? Nothing. Its the theological equivalent of, my Dad can beat up your Dad.
Rather, if your boast is that Wheaties makes your dad superior, and your dad eats them, then being beaten by his Cheerios eating competition, then it means something. You argument is that Protestantism results in liberalism, while in fact RCs are more liberal than those who are closest to being true historical Protestants.
Were talking about Truth here. The Truth about the evil of birth control which has been taught by the Catholic Church since the beginning. And
Which is about the only thing RCs can invoke in which they are more conservative in (and which Prots used to hold to), although not by much in practice, and Rome's actual effectual teaching is that you are a member regardless.
And as Catholics, our sin is the greater one for disobeying for we have been given the fullness of Truth.
The greater sin is the presuming she has the fullness of Truth, based upon her infallible self proclamation.
And what of the basic truths and moral views of protestantism? Sola scriptura?
Since holding Scripture as the supreme standard for obedience and testing Truth claims (and which provides for the church and writings being recognized as Scripture) is what is abundantly evidenced as being Scriptural, and those who hold to the classic Protestant position of Scripture with its basically literal hermeneutic are more conservative and unified in basic moral views than RCs, then it is your basis for Truth that is in error.
The abdication of the true Scriptures in favor of those adulterated versions that came later?
Lacking details who knows what that refers to, but even having poor translations is better than hindering Biblical literacy as was the practice of Rome, while for decades teaching liberal revisionism by her approved notes - which was one thing modern evangelism rose up to counter.
What official unadulterated version has and does your church use in Mass???
Resulting in confusion within the Body of Christ. A horribly detestable state if there ever was one.
Resorting to this comparison is spurious since you cannot compare one church with a multitude which includes those who deny core tenets of historical Prot. faith. A valid comparison is between those who hold to Scripture being the supreme authority as the wholly inspired literal word of God, versus those who hold the church to that supreme authority, presuming a level of assured veracity that warrants implicit submission.
This comparison is to be avoided by RCs, as division and sects are also clearly manifest under sola ecclesia, and while they characterize their opposition as completely disunited due to SS, it is amazing that those who most hold to SS are counted as the greatest threat by both liberals and Rome (in the West at least), due to a shared affirmation and contention for core Truths.
Sola fide? Resulting in the rejection of Christs sacraments and the sanctifying grace it imparts as expressed in scripture and preserved by the Church?
That is simply and manifestly more propaganda. If the "sanctifying grace" claimed to be dispensed via Rome's rituals was regulated as food then it would have been fined for false advertising. I have been there, as a devoutly raised RC, and who later remained for 6 years after being manifestly born again thru true personal repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus to save me by His sinless shed blood (and served as as CCD teacher and Lector), then i know the manifest difference btwn institutionalized religion - which Rome basically is - and true conversion.
Treating them with derision by denying the miracle of the Eucharist and calling it magic?
It is actually a form of endocannibalism, and the idea that spiritual and eternal life is gained by physically eating anything, let alone human flesh, is not at all Scriptural and is absurd. Ignoring the abundant use of figurative language in Scripture, esp. as regards eating and drinking, then to be consistent, Catholics should hold that water turned into the blood of men in the OT, since David clearly stated it was blood. (2Sam. 23:15-17) And which has been dealt with often here in the past .
Coupled all this with the protestant-inspired radical individualism and what have you got?
A certain country began like that, while repeating your mantra may help you ignore the vast diversity in Catholicism, and the unity resulting from holding Scripture as expressed before, but it will not make either go away.
The fact is that RCs are enjoined to provide cultic submission to a limited number of truths, yet they can and do disagree on how many there are, while being allowed some dissent on the rest, relative to their magisterial level, which is open to some interpretation, as is the meaning to some degree on every level of teaching.
Which is in addition to the great liberty RCs have in interpreting Scripture to support Rome with the parameters of RCs teaching, which often results in egregious extrapolation in attempts to support traditions of men.
This variance extends even to clergy, and thus the unity of Rome is largely on paper, and that of having the same ritual and mostly perfunctory professions of it.
In addition are the contrasts btwn what Rome said in the past and those of the present. Both of which result in interpretive views.
This does not excuse the unnecessary divisions among those who do hold to Scripture as supreme, but Christianity began due to division, and in dissent from those who were the magisterium. And its unity was made possible by the level of manifest Divine attestation and holiness of the apostles, which corporately is not seen today, and is in vast contrast to that of Rome.
But it is those are like the Bereans that would examine truth claims by the established word of Truth, the Scriptures, and so follow a Peter or a Paul - contrary to Rome, with its critical and other contrasts with rhe NT church!
No, as that had to be expected by the RC information service poster who posted it.
I see. So your argument is that the historical stewards of Scripture are the infallible interpreters of it, and are to be submitted to, and those that do not are rebels? Affirm or deny.
And consistent with "I will not serve," thus liberalism abounds asc well as lack of common contention to core truth among those who most closely hold to the historical Protestant view of Scripture, while Rome is known for disciplining her liberals, now that she has lost her unBiblical use of the sword of men? Yes or no.
That collective you speak of is the Body of Christ guided by the power of the Holy Spirit.
As you are contending for Catholicism versus those without, you must mean that she is the body of Christ, in contrast to those in Protestantism? Affirm or deny your argument here.
Anyone who uses the word autocratic to describe the teaching office of the Church has an authority problem born out of radicial individualism.
I see, thus it could not be allegiance to Scripture as supreme, and thus conditional submission to authority which it enjoins, that is behind dissent to a church which has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares?
Just answer the questions clearly one by one without the usual propaganda. Its getting late.
I agree with you. That many birth control methods DO cause abortion in the early stages of gestation, is something that MUST be more frequently and loudly explained. Many women and men simply do not know this fact, even though the small print wording is included in the forms that come with the packaging. The wording, too, often is lacking in direct language and relies upon euphemistic terms that mislead.
However, is it disingenuous for Roman Catholics to claim the high road when they overtly support Natural Family Planning - a method that tracks the woman's fertility to determine when sexual intercourse is likely, or unlikely, to result in fertilization. This, to me, is not objectively better, or worse, than other "barrier" type methods that also prevent fertilization while having no impact on the human life that may result from its failure.