Indirect or Direct Sterilization? Jesuit Debates over the Pill in the 1960s

When the newly invented birth control hit the market in the early 1960s, many Mexican Catholics —priests and laypeople alike—debated whether the pill could be justified since it was not a traditional barrier method, such as the condom. As the Pope organized a commission to study the issue, many debated the morality of the pill as they waited to hear the results. A popular narrative says that most of this debate occurred in the Global North, while scholarship says otherwise. Mexican Catholic actors participated in these debates, such as the Jesuits. The Jesuits of Mexico City had a monthly magazine called, Christus, where readers asked for advice regarding morally complex issues. My paper focuses on questions submitted by readers regarding how priests should advise couples about the pill.

The Jesuit priest Armando Salcedo answered many of readers’ questions from 1962 to 1966, before the Pope released the results of his commission in 1968. According to Salcedo, the pill could be used to help regulate a woman’s cycle, but it could not be used to intentionally avoid having children. In the previous decade, the Pope had approved of what became known as the rhythm method, which meant having sexual relations according to the sterile periods of a woman’s cycle. Salcedo argued that a woman could use the pill to help “correct nature,” ensuring her sterile periods were, indeed, sterile. For Salcedo, the issue of the pill hinged upon whether this sterilization was direct or indirect. In other words, if sterilization was a side effect of a woman’s intention to regulate her cycle, it was okay to use the pill. My paper uses Salcedo’s commentary about nature and sterilization to think through how the pill challenged Catholic ideas about sex in 1960s Mexico.