I think that today contraception is a huge cause of sex outside of wedlock as we have seen increase in the past 50 years with the advent of the "pill". Today more people then ever are shacking up and less people marrying and its makes sense .Why marry and be stuck with kids when you can have consequence free sex with whomever you want?
But... the bigger question is given that the scripture seems to condemn contraception(that book I linked from a protestant demonstrated that), and given that early Church was unanimous on this, and given that all the major protestant reformers also condemned contraception, and given that all Christian churches(all of them) taught contraception was sinful until 1930 with the Anglican Lambeth conference, We have to ask ourselves why did the moral Christian truth all the sudden 1930 years later change? That seems dubious and a Johnny come lately! Can we really expect doctrine to change radically all the sudden after 1930 years? If So maybe tomorrow then we will can change other doctrines at our own will and say Jesus allows adultery or homosexuality(hey wait this has already been done )
? Slippery slope. Does your church condemn it? If not why not? All Christians did for most of history!
Fairly sure my Church does not condemn it.
But there is a major difference here: The nature of the Contraceptives.
In ancient times, contraceptives were mostly abortifacients, and that is what the Church railed against. Barrier methods prior to latex and rubber, utilising sheep intestine or the like, are woefully ineffective; as are most spermicide concoctions smeared on the cervix (except for some limited evidence for Acasia gum, but these were not aseptic, so were hardly healthy, and often included dung). So the only really effective contraceptive was to induce a miscarriage by drinking mercury or herbal concoctions, or to physically hit the uterus or so. Not only does this equate to an abortion, it likewise was highly dangerous to the woman. No wonder the Church condemned it.
The situation changed in the early 20th. Condoms are fairly effective, and actually help prevent spread of sexual diseases (though if everyone was either faithful or abstinent, that wouldn't be a problem). Hormonal contraceptive such as the Pill, Implanon implant, or Depo injections, prevent the release of the woman's ova, so fertilisation can never take place. These thus prevent a pregnancy before it happens, so no argument on ending one can really be made. The Catholic Church has advocated Rhythm method, which is functionally the same - only having intercourse at periods of least fertility to prevent conception - so the difference isn't stark.
It is slightly different with some Intra-Uterine devices like the Copper T: They induce an unfavourable environment for the conceptus to adhere to the uterine wall, so could be construed as prematurely 'ending' that life. Likewise the 'morning after Pill' hormonal contraception. They are the exception here, but people usually fail to make the distinction.
So yes, the Church historically condemned Contraception, and rightly so. Contraceptives were dangerous, and mostly worked as pharmaceutical Abortion. Nowadays, this is no longer the case - while contraceptives aren't without side effects (oral contraceptive slightly raises your cardiovascular risks for instance), they are no longer poisonous abortifacients. The difference between timing intercourse for least fertility, and inducing a state of low fertility, are minor. The strongest argument against Contraception has always been the potential of ending an existing human embryo's life, which many modern contraceptives no longer have. Merely preventing fertility has not really been an issue for the Church historically, as its endorsement of Rhythm methods show.
So revisiting this is not unwarranted. The situation is different, but the morality perhaps not. It is misleading to lump modern medical Contraceptives with the abortifacients of yore, which belong more in line with Misoprostol and other such modern medical abortifacients. There is a difference in kind.