Dummett on Humanae vitae
In another thread, Ann Olivier drew attention to the article published in the February 11 issue of Commonweal, excerpted from Michael Dummett’s book The Nature and Future of Philosophy. I confess to being less impressed than Ann is, for three reasons. I write, of course, as minus sapiens in these matters, and welcome comments and discussion.
First, Dummett does not engage the actual argument offered by Pope Paul VI in Humanae vitae, which is not based simply on the physical integrity of the marriage act, as Dummett implies.
Second, while speaking of the relation between religion and morality, Dummett makes the statement: “It is a mistake to believe that there is a universal morality shared among all human beings, or all civilized human beings.” This is true, of course, as an empirical matter. But it would seem that for Dummett philosophy somehow escapes this fate, as when he asserts, “Moral philosophy cannot accommodate such a prohibition,” that is, the kind offered in the papal encyclical. Are we to believe that there is a universal moral philosophy shared among all philosophers? Dummett surely knows that there are philosophers who have defended the teaching of Humanae vitae on grounds proper to moral philosophy, Elizabeth Anscome being one from Dummett’s own philosophical tradition. You can find her famous essay here.
Third, in explaining the meaning of an “intrinsically wrong” act–an act that can never be justified by any ulterior purpose–, Dummett offers as an example, poisoning someone in order to prevent his massacring a whole family. He bases this on the unargued premise that “to give someone a fatal dose of poison must in all circumstances be wrong.” Is this premise correct? Why could one not use force, even deadly force, to prevent the massacre? Or is it something about poison that makes it different from, say, a gun? If the attempt to assassinate a Hitler could be morally justified, would poisoning him have to be ruled out as the means?
Now it may be that in his book Dummett has made fuller and more careful cases for these positions than those found in the Commonweal excerpts, but, as published there, I don’t think his essay contributes a great deal to the discussion.
Fr Komonchak, your link to Anscombe has an extra “close parenthesis” at the end and returns a “Not Found”. Should be:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/AnscombeChastity.php
“Moral philosophy cannot accommodate such a prohibition,” that is, the kind offered in the papal encyclical. Are we to believe that there is a universal moral philosophy shared among all philosophers?
I think Dummett’s point here is a good one, as I understand it. He’s saying that if taking the pill isn’t wrong in itself, and taking action to limit the number of children you have is not wrong in itself, then to any moral philosopher, taking the pill to limit the number of children you have could not be wrong. Two rights don’t make a wrong in any philosophical system.
That reminds me of a story I heard about a philosopher who was widely feared for his ability to come up with counterexamples to demolish an argument. He was sitting in the audience when someone was presenting a paper discussing the fact that a double negative resulted in a positive, but a double positive did not result in a negative. The philosopher sitting in the audience said (and tone of voice is critical here), “Yeah, yeah.”
David: I took the comment I single out to refer to the whole paragraph that it ends.
As you note, Joe, according to the article at least Dummett’s reasoning is suspect. Maybe Ann can find more details. Your reference to Anscombe stimulated some interesting thoughts. To me she makes assertions without backing them up. Wonder if she claims philosophical privilege. Or is that what makes philosophy interesting but not applicable. But I tend to agree with this thought of hers shown below. I believe that mediocrity is the biggest problem among Christians. It seems to be encouraged almost by official sanction. Isn’t that what Jesus condemned the most?
“That is not to say that Christians were good; we humans are a bad lot and our lives as Christians even if not blackly and grossly wicked are usually very mediocre.”
Dummett points out logical flaws in Humanae Vitae, which is fine. To me however, the biggest flaw in Humanae Vitae is that it uses the vocabulary of natural law but not the method (e.g., grasp basic moral principles, derive secondary moral principles as needed, make a judgment about a particular action, applying primary and secondary moral principles and keeping in mind the virtues, particularly the virtue of prudence. Then decide how to behave.
HV doesn’t do any of this. It declares that procreation is one of the basic goods that defines human flourishing, a good basic moral principle I don’t think anyone would disagree with. Then it declares that every single marital act must therefore be open to procreation, so artificial contraception is inherently evil. That’s it. No logical argument, just a declaration. The encyclical does not explain how it gets from procreation being a basic good to the fact that every single marital act has to be open to procreation; there is no application of general or secondary moral principles to specific actions based on knowledge and practical reasoning. There is only a declaration.
Practical reasoning is at the heart of natural law. HV uses the vocabulary of natural law but not the method of natural law itself. Natural law is not a magic wand to be waved over an act which then stamps it “intrinsically evil.” The argument has to be made with the full scope of the evidence available to reason.
All HV did was reiterate Casti Cannubi and the Pius XII approval of natural family planning. The reasoning set forth in the majority report from the Papal Commission on Birth Control were not even addressed, never mind countered.
If the attempt to assassinate a Hitler could be morally justified, would poisoning him have to be ruled out as the means?
Can assassination be morally justified? It seems to me assassination is murder (in Catholic thought), no matter how wicked the person assassinated.
Self-defense is justified, but is preemptive self-defense justified in Catholic moral philosophy? If I need to shoot someone who is about to pour poison into the drinking water in order to stop the poisonings from taking place, that is one thing. But if I know someone has plans to poison the drinking water but I don’t know how or when, I don’t believe Catholic moral philosophy would allow me to shoot that person.
However, I agree that the premise “to give someone a fatal dose of poison must in all circumstances be wrong” cannot be argued to be true, unless all killing is wrong, and that is not the Catholic position.
Hasn’t there been a long debate on the legitimacy of tyrannicide?
Jeanne: You are correct that Pope Paul VI did not offer an argument from the general principle to the specific statement about every marital act. Which raised the question whether one can say that something is against the natural law if one does not have a reason for it, since natural law is, as I understand, the reign of “right reason”.
Anscombe specifically states that faithful married life is inferior to celibate life and maybe this is her first off-step down the line of sexual ethics. . She uses about 3000 words yet fails to convince that taking the pill is intrinsically evil. . but on reflection, she does makes me feel better about having failed to convince the 2000 couples we prepared for marriage that Humanae Vitae had the ‘ring of truth’. Talk about Mission Impossible!
Fr. Joe, I think that’s exactly why HV was such a killer of trust and thus authority; it simply made no sense. I remember thinking at the time that it was essentially crazy talk, which gave me a completely different attitude towards that which came forth from the papacy.
“Anscombe specifically states that faithful married life is inferior to celibate life…”
The fuller context from Anscombe’s article:
“The meaning of this teaching “not purely for pleasure” should, I think, have a great appeal for the Catholic thinking of today that is greatly concerned for the laity. We want to stress nowadays, that the one vocation that is spoken of in the New Testament is the calling of a Christian. All are called with the same calling. The life of monks and nuns and of celibate priesthood is a higher kind of life than that of the married, not because there are two grades of Christian, but because their form of life is one in which one has a greater chance of living according to truth and the laws of goodness; by their profession, those who take the vows of religion have set out to please God alone. But we lay people are not less called to the Christian life, in which the critical question is: “Where does the compass-needle of your mind and will point?” This is tested above all by our reactions when it costs or threatens to cost something to be a Christian. One should be glad if it does, rather than complain! If we will not let it cost anything; if we succumb to the threat of “losing our life”, then our religion is indistinguishable from pure worldliness.”
Hasn’t there been a long debate on the legitimacy of tyrannicide?
Fr. Komonchak,
You are correct, and I admit I didn’t know of such a debate, but according to the old Catholic Encyclopedia, “Catholic doctrine condemns tyrannicide as opposed to the natural law . . . . .” If I read the article correctly, even the right to rebel against an oppressive ruler is taken to be rather limited.
So far as I can see, Fr. Komonchak’s 3:58 post is right to acknowledge Jeanne Follman’s 3:38 comments about the natural law tradition.
I also think that David Nikol’s 2:16 reading of Dummet is persuasive.
I also think that Fr. Komonchak’s third point in his opening statement of this thread raises an important issue. Could the editors find out whether Dummett would respond. to it.
For what it’s worth, may I add that I see good reason for thinking that there is some ultimate norm for evaluating moral judgments and the principles and judgments that we make. Let’s call that norm “natural law.” What I find hard to accept is that there is, or could be, some exhaustive propositional articulation of just what that norm is. There can be, I agree, some propositions that forbid some actions. The Hiroshima example that Dummett cites, strikes me as one that we can say is ruled out by natural law.” So are genocides.
But to say that we can have an full list of “intrinsic evils” that are “intention independent” strikes me as unwarranted. Think about the variety of circumstances that show up in cases of what we what we might, in ordinary talk, call “stealing.” Notice this remark of Dummett’s: ” A certain type of act, DEFINED BY A GIVEN FORM OF DESCRIPTION, may be intrinsically wrong.” Lots of argument concerns the propriety of the “form of description” that one proposes to use to characterize the act in question. Often enough, it is hard to pick out just the uniquely right description. This is especially true when it comes to trying to trying to inscribe certain classes of actions in positive law, civil or ecclesiastical. In these and many other cases cases, one has to exercise practical wisdom. And practical wisdom, since it is always “context-dependent,” simply does not yield universalizable conclusions. Or so I think.
I forgot to add that, given our finitude, I do think that there are tragic cases that are not amenable to any sort of unqualified answer. The classical example appears in Sophocles’ “Antigone,” (Hegel notwithstanding). The recent Phoenix hospital case strikes me as another one.
Thank you, Father Joseph, for the essay by Elizabeth Anscome, which I know I will enjoy reading. In reading Humanae Vitae, one is reminded of the inherent unitive and creative nature of The Holy Spirit, The Lord and Giver of Life, and The Filioque, which illuminates the fact that Love is not possessive, nor does it serve to manipulate.
one is reminded of the inherent unitive and creative nature of The Holy Spirit
This, of course, is key to understanding Humanae Vitae and later magisterial teaching — that the fullness of love is both unitive and fruitful (creative), as is seen in the Triune God who is Love. If a given conduct is less than unitive and fruitful, then it is less than the fullness of love. And if that act is, by design, contrary to and destructive of communion and fruitfulness, it not only is not the fullness of love, it is not even love. Rather than a giving of self, it is a taking, a using, an objectification of the human person.
And THAT is what Humanae Vitae is about — the fullness of love. Paul understood this. John Paul understood this. Benedict understands this. It is unfortunate that so many others cannot see this.
Sorry, that should not have been entirely in italics, but I apparently forgot the end tag.
David N @ 3:46 pm asks: “Can assassination (of Adolph Hitler) be morally justified? It seems to me assassination is murder (in Catholic thought), no matter how wicked the person assassinated. “
Let’s apply the idea of murder to another set of circumstances in WWII.
During the WWII, both the British and German air forces deliberately bombed cities with the intention of killing civilians. There was no pretense that these deaths were the consequence of the victims living close to military targets. The use of atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki also had the intention of killing civilians. Even if it were argued that the civilian populations contained war workers who were not “innocent” in the context of war, their deaths would not justify the killing of the children and others in these populations. In any case, the prime purpose of bombing whole cities was not to kill workers but to break civilian morale, and/or to bring the war to an early close.
To the best of my knowledge, neither the Catholic hierarchies in the countries concerned, nor the Pope, condemned these bombings. And no Catholic participating in them was excommunicated.
Why would this kind of murder be acceptable, but not the assassination/murder of Adolph Hitler? Trying to apply moral norms to war, i.e., murder on a grand scale, is, at best, a fool’s errand – just war theory or not.
“The life of monks and nuns and of celibate priesthood is a higher kind of life than that of the married, not because there are two grades of Christian, but because their form of life is one in which one has a greater chance of living according to truth and the laws of goodness; by their profession, those who take the vows of religion have set out to please God alone.”
Pardon me, but that is pure balderdash! I am not married in the traditional sense, but the married couples that I have known, including my parents, have no less lived “according to truth and laws of goodness” than many vowed religious and celibate males have. Neither has a “greater chance” of doing so because of their state. Rather, the success/failure of their “form of life” is directly dependant on their intentions of entering into their chosen state, the faithfulness with which they carry out their intentions over time, and the grace of God. The cards are NOT stacked in favor of one way of life over the other.
Lay people have had this foolishness thrown in their face for way too long and the more it is, the more the reality of lives lived in the spotlight of contemporary society proves the foolishness to be just that.
Bender writes: “If a given conduct is less than unitive and fruitful, then it is less than the fullness of love. And if that act is, by design, contrary to and destructive of communion and fruitfulness, it not only is not the fullness of love, it is not even love.”
Let’s try to parse this. The sex of a married couple using NFP to avoid conception is “less than fruitful” by any reasonable definition. Maybe Bender would aknowledge this and say that such sex, though licit, is “less than the fullness of love.” In that case, his reading of Humanae Vitae gives us NFP as a kind of second-class sex, permissable but incomplete. The sex of a married couple who use the Pill to avoid conception is presumably what Bender has in mind in his second sentence — an act “contrary to and destructive of communion and fruitfulness.” Whereas the use of NFP is merely “not the fullness of love,” sex with the Pill is “not even love.” This way of reading Bender makes some sense, but it leaves us with two problems. First, Humanae Vitae doesn’t say that the use of NFP makes sex less loving. Second, Bender doesn’t say why use of the Pill is an abomination while use of NFP is merely imperfect. All he tells us is what they have in common: that they both allow a married couple to have sex while intending not to conceive a child. Something beyond this intentional fruitlessness apparently makes use of the Pill, but not NFP, “contrary to…fruitfulness.” What? (I’m not sure what Bender’s getting at with “destructive of…fruitfulness”–he does know that the Pill doesn’t permanently destroy a woman’s fertility, doesn’t he?)
But maybe that’s not the way Bender wants to be read. Maybe he thinks he’s saying that only the Pill makes sex less than fruitful, while NFP is innocent on all counts. In that case he needs to tell us, in clear analytic terms, exactly what makes them morally different (since it obviously isn’t the couple’s intention to have sex without the woman getting pregnant), rather than obscurely inveighing against “taking…using…objectifying…a human person.” There are arguments available to Bender, arguments I once found persuasive, but he doesn’t bother with them any more than he bothers with Dummett’s argument. For him the Pill equals lust, end of story.
“…one has a greater chance of living according to truth and the laws of goodness”
Although unsettling at first blush, I think there’s some truth to this. The key phrase is, “has a greater chance.” It leaves open that, in the event, a married person may well live closer to the truth than a monk. Nevertheless, it strikes me that some professions have a head start. For example, wouldn’t many on the left contend that a social worker/teacher has a greater chance than, say, an investment banker. For me, I’d say that just about anyone would have a greater chance than a trial attorney.
Robert Grosseteste (13th century, English bishop) thought that some tyrants *ought* to be killed. He was a friend of and influence on the Simon deMontfort who led a revolt against HEnry III of England and lost.
Hello All,
Thanks to Ann and to Fr. Komonchak for pointing us to this excerpt from Dummett’s book that appears in the February 11 issue. I have not received my copy yet, but I think it’s interesting that Dummett is addressing Humanae Vitae. When I get my print copy this will be the first discussion of Humanae Vitae I’ve seen in print by a professional philosopher in over ten years, and I’m a philosopher by profession.
I’ll try to give only very short comments here in response to the discussion thus far: First, I think Bender has given us about the most succinct and accurate summary I have seen of what I’ll call the main argument in support of Church teaching on contraception, and I’ve studied the relevant literature for some years now. The main argument is variously attributed to Paul VI in Humanae Vitae and John Paul II in Lectures on Theology of the Body and/or the earlier Love and Responsibility. I have not been able to find a clear statement of the argument in any of in the original documents. Again, Bender’s short summary of the main argument is the best of any I have seen. I interpret this argument as a Kantian argument, since Kant is famous for proposing that morality requires that one never use anyone merely as a means towards one’s own ends. (However, I have yet to see Kant credited in John Paul II’s writings, and Humanae Vitae was of course not intended primarily as a work of philosophical scholarship.) A key, and of course controversial, premise of the main argument is that the use of contraception turns an sexual act into an act where the couple merely use each other as means, from which it follows at once that this sexual act cannot be an expression of love. The main argument does not apply to NFP, which opens the door to NFP being morally acceptable.
As with a number of controversial arguments I have seen over my long academic career, philosophers seem quite polarized as regards the main argument. A few, like Anscombe years ago and Finnis in our own time, find the main argument obviously sound and seem to think that those who disagree are simply refusing to accept the main argument out of spite. The majority are not persuaded because they doubt the truth of this controversial premise stated above.
One aspect of the debate that has not yet been touched in this thread has to do with the moral difference between an act an omission. Both NFP and the pill allow a couple to have sexual relations without conceiving. However, while the pill accomplishes this through an act (taking a pill that disrupts the natural hormone cycle such that ovulation does not occur), NFP accomplishes this through an omission (the couple deliberately does not have sex during those time periods when the woman is naturally fertile). I am admittedly a bit ignorant in this area of moral philosophy and would be greatly obliged to hear from anyone who can speak to how acts and omissions are (or aren’t) treated differently in the Catholic moral tradition.
JAK –
Perhaps the reason Dummett doesn’t argue against Paul VI’s argument in HV is because, as Jeanne points out so well, Paul doesn’t really argue, he just declares, at least as far as natural law is concerned. (And the same is true of JP II in his prohibitions of contraception.)
As to what Dummett says about universal morality, I think his statement is ambiguous, but I doubt that he meant that there no highly general norms. Whether there are more specific ones, and which ones those might be, that is another question.
As far as poisoning someone being an intrinsically immoral act (wrong in every case), I think your point is well taken. His example doesn’t advance his argument. Since almost the beginning of Western philosophy the morality poisoning someone has been a matter of dispute — think Socrates drinking the hemlock at the command of the city of Athes.
Still the general question is, I think, an important one: are there any intrinsically immoral acts without any exceptions? And, it seems to me, he seems to think that that is possible. What he doesn’t think is that the use of the Pill is an intrinsically immoral.
Where do you think his argument against contraception goes off the rails? Or do you think it does?
Dummett’s books on Frege etc., though prolix, are very instructive and one feels one is in the hands of an expert. When he pontificates on HV and other such topics, however, he is just an opiniator like any of us.
Didn’t St Thomas Aquinas justify tyrannicide?
JAK –
Can one say that something is against the natural law without giving a reason? Well, what you you mean by “law” there? If you mean “law” as in an explicit command expressed by someone or some group of people, then I’d say the answer is you have to give a reason for the command, otherwise it would not be based on reason/a reason/many reasons.
On the other hand, if by “natural law” you mean the objective reality which is human nature, then obviously whether or not we *say* something is right or wrong is irrelevant to the exigencies of what human nature requires and rules out in order to flourish. Yes, in that sense, “natural law” IS human nature considered as ordered to its own flourishing, as having certain potentials which must be actualized if the person is to flourish. It is simply what we require to flourish. This “law” reveals itself in human action, not in what we say about it. We flourish (or not) independently of what anyone commands us to do or not do.
Bender –
You (and the popes) say that sex without being open to fruitfulness is wrong. But what do you mean by “fruitful”? Aren’t you using a metaphor there? Sex can be “fruitful” in more than one way in the sense that it can lead not only to a child but to a deeper love of husband and wife.
Poetry is not ethics.
(And just why must sex lead to some further good? Everything in God’s creation is good to begin with. Why not just enjoy it?)
The sex of a married couple using NFP to avoid conception is “less than fruitful” by any reasonable definition. Maybe Bender would aknowledge this
You have read, but you have not understood. It is LOVE which is fruitful, it is LOVE which is procreative. Love, by its very nature, is dynamic, not static. Love seeks to burst out from itself and grow.
Indeed, love is so creative, that it was by and through love that the entire universe came into being. It was by love that death itself was destroyed on the Cross. It is by love that each and every one of us is made by Him who is Love.
Consider the Trinity, in whose image we are made, and who we are called to imitate. A loving communion of persons in one divine being. The Trinity is both unitive and fruitful.
Consider the virgin marriage of Mary and Joseph, another loving communion of persons. Again, both unitive and fruitful.
Consider the virgin marriage between Jesus and His Bride the Church — unitive and fruitful.
And, no, this is not fruitful or creative merely in the poetic or figurative sense, even though it is procreative beyond the biological sense. In fact, as shown above, it is more creative than mere sex can ever hope to be, the whole universe and birth into eternal life are just some of the fruits of this fullness of love.
This understanding of the fullness of love is not limited to human sexuality, but it certainly does apply to it. The relation between married persons should aspire to be the fullness of love in all things, and when those relations involve sex, that too should aspire to the fullness of love, and not some lesser love, much less the counterfeit of love that is sexuality of use.
And that is what Humanae Vitae is — an application of love to the area of human sexuality, and not merely a bunch of harsh prohibitions or restrictions on freedom. It is about spouses loving one another, fully, totally, and completely. Fully giving of themselves to each other, not withholding a part of themselves, not imposing barriers — literally, either physical or chemical — between them. Acting in a manner which is consistent with and oriented toward the unitive and fruitful in the fullness of love. Sexuality which is human, not mechanistic, a sexuality which is loving, not utilitarian.
But what do you mean by “fruitful”?
Well, fruitfulness certainly can include children. But it is not limited to them. In addition to what I just said in the prior comment, some of the fruits of the fullness of love are well established, including additional love, generosity, kindness, gentleness, and patience, goodness, faithfulness, chastity, modesty, and self-control, joy and peace.
We are made in the image of the Triune God. Fallen though we may be, we are not called to wallow in our fallen state, but to be what God made us to be — like Him. Now, it usually requires quite a generous dose of grace to do that, but especially in marriage, the primoridal sacrament, is this image of the Trinity, a loving communion of persons, manifested. Just as the persons of the Trinity do not impose barriers between them, just as Jesus does not impose a barrier between Him and the Church, because to do so would be neither unitive nor fruitful/creative, neither can we who are made in that image impose barriers between us and still call that the fullness of love.
I would love to give Benders poetry ‘proofs ‘ to the billions of brides through out the ages who were turned over by their families to older men in arranged marriages, men who were strangers. then I would present to the couple his note ‘Consider the Trinity, in whose image we are made, and who we are called to imitate’……. is that the ticket that will bring everybody back ‘home’?
…
Bender,
You need to prune your metaphors. Theological analogies have their place, and I accept most of those you include in your spiritual reflection on the diffusiveness of love, but they don’t help us answer the question Dummett is asking. Everyone knows exactly what you mean when you refer to a condom as a “physical barrier,” but I very much doubt that even you know exactly what you mean when you refer to the Pill as a “chemical barrier.” A barrier to conception? Obviously. Therefore a barrier between the husband and wife who use it? That’s not obvious at all, and this is precisely where the disagreement is and where you need to offer an argument. If it is true that any measure taken — by anyone for any reason — to have sex without conceiving constitutes a barrier between the man and the woman involved, then surely we may speak of NFP as a calendric barrier. The question is: Is it always wrong for a married couple to have sex while intending not to conceive? Does such an intention violate the basic logic of love, which “seeks to burst out from itself and grow”? In that case NFP is to be rejected no less than the Pill. But if this intention is not always wrong, then why does it matter so much, or at all, whether you realize this intention with a pill or a thermometer and a calendar? Because you swallow a pill? Because the pill affects the body’s chemistry? How are those differences morally relevant? The church does not teach that it is intrinsically wrong to swallow pills or change the body’s chemistry. A vague suspicion of technological intervention will not help you distinguish between modern NFP and the Pill.
Any activity that requires the participation of two people could be viewed as one “merely” using the other — If I play tennis with another person am I merely using him for my own ends? Then again, neither one of us would get much if anything out of playing tennis alone, would we?
Where is the logic that all sex that takes place on earth between any two people, whatever their relationship to one another and whatever their material or personal circumstances MUST be the “mere” use of one person by the other unless it is “open” to procreation? More properly when considering married people in particular, most sexual activity (contraceptive or not) is the consensual use of each other for mutual pleasure — and even that rather ignores the frequently determined efforts of each to GIVE and not just RECEIVE pleasure.
I can only conclude that this notion, that sex without procreative potential (through whatever means) is the “mere” use of another human being for one’s own ends, must be based on an astonishingly dour, not to say simplistic or just plain uninformed, view of sex and married people, and perhaps humanity in general.
The irony is that this degrading and punitive doctrine is defended along the lines of allowing married people to grow in the fullness of their love, when in reality, by concluding ab initio that two people can’t fully love one another unless they are open to the biological results of sexual activity, it more or less reduces human marriage to the union you might find between any two animals.
“Therefore a barrier between the husband and wife who use it? That’s not obvious at all, and this is precisely where the disagreement is and where you need to offer an argument. ”
Matthew – Isn’t it obvious that the Pill is a barrier to conception between husband and wife?
Right on Barbara!
“I would love to give Benders poetry ‘proofs ‘ to the billions of brides through out the ages who were turned over by their families to older men in arranged marriages, men who were strangers.”
Ed, no need to talk in the past tense. This is common today. I’ve known couples who were brought together this way who have had good marriages. No doubt there are also some bad ones. But the same could be said about the Western practice with its trappings of romantic love and sexual lust. At any rate, what is taught in Humanae Vitae applies to all of these situations.
Matthew – Isn’t it obvious that the Pill is a barrier to conception between husband and wife?
Jim,
Barrier is a loaded word here, because it might be construed to apply that the pill is, like a condom, a barrier method of contraception. The pill is a “barrier” in the same sense breast feeding is a “barrier.” It prevents a woman from ovulating.
Taking the pill, in and of itself, is not wrong if done for noncontraceptive purposes. Having sexual intercourse while on the pill is not wrong, in and of itself, if the pill is being taken for noncontraceptive purposes. Consequently, what is it that makes sexual intercourse immoral between a husband and wife, when the wife is taking the pill for contraceptive purposes?
Barbara, why constrain yourself to sex within marriage? Surely two people can fall in love (or even skip that step) and desire to pleasure their partner without getting married first. Is that morally acceptable, too?
“What is it that makes sexual intercourse immoral between a husband and wife, when the wife is taking the pill for contraceptive purposes?”
David, you and I both know the answer to that question, as does everyone else reading this thread. Various folks may not accept the answer for various reasons, or wish there was a way to not accept it, but the reason, and its morally binding quality, hasn’t changed since the last time contraception was discussed here, or the time before that.
Jim, I was going to respond, but in thinking about it, I find your response to be too much of a dodge. The subject is HV, and whatever you think about sex outside of marriage, HV applies its logic to unions in which all Christian doctrine posits that sexual activity is licit. Indeed, HV was premised on the notion (however sublimely foolish) that sexual activity is only a married activity.
“Practical reasoning is at the heart of natural law. HV uses the vocabulary of natural law but not the method of natural law itself. Natural law is not a magic wand to be waved over an act which then stamps it “intrinsically evil.” The argument has to be made with the full scope of the evidence available to reason.”
Jeanne, I don’t believe that Paul VI would wholly agree with your characterization of natural law. In the encyclical, he asserts, as a matter of faith, that the church’s magisterium includes the authority to interpret natural law; and this because natural law is itself a form of God’s revelation of his will for us, including our married life.
None of this is to deprecate practical reason. But practical reason doesn’t bear the entire burden of interpreting natural law. Or so I take his words in HV.
“Where is the logic that all sex that takes place on earth between any two people, whatever their relationship to one another and whatever their material or personal circumstances MUST be the “mere” use of one person by the other unless it is “open” to procreation? More properly when considering married people in particular, most sexual activity (contraceptive or not) is the consensual use of each other for mutual pleasure — and even that rather ignores the frequently determined efforts of each to GIVE and not just RECEIVE pleasure.”
I agree, Barbara – it is perfectly possible for spouses who are not using contraception and are open to generating new life to nevertheless use one another for selfish, pleasure-seeking purposes. Eschewing contraception would seem to be a necessary but not sufficient condition for achieving the ideal of married love presented in HV.
“Barrier is a loaded word here, because it might be construed to apply that the pill is, like a condom, a barrier method of contraception. The pill is a “barrier” in the same sense breast feeding is a “barrier.” It prevents a woman from ovulating.”
I’m certain that’s a distinction with a difference; but fwiw, the translation of HV at the Vatican website uses the term “impairing” rather than barrier. Less problematic?
Ann:
You distinguish two meanings of “natural law,” one is a stated ethical demand, the other is “the objective reality which is human nature,” with what it requires or rules out in order to flourish. To the latter, you say, what we say about rights or wrongs (meaning 1) is irrelevant to meaning 2, so that you write: “This ‘law’ [meaning 2] reveals itself in human action, not in what we say about it.”
But, of course, to say that this law “reveals itself” is to make a judgment about what is the case, that is about “the objective reality that is human nature” [meaning 2] and, on this basis, about what that “objective reality” requires or rules out if human beings are truly to flourish [meaning 1]. All of this requires the exercise of human intelligence and reason.
Those who appeal to natural law derive from your second meaning the moral norms that constitute your first meaning. What they have judged to make for human flourishing, that is, provides the ground for judgments about what ought and ought not to be done. (There is a third element that enters in: that these norms are not derived from supernatural revelation but from reasoned reflection that in principle can be carried on without revelation or grace.)
I was obviously talking about a view that derives a norm from reflection on what is needed for human beings to flourish, and claims to do so independently of revelation. In this sense, I do not see how one can reasonably say that something is against the natural law unless one has a reason for making that judgment. And if he has a reason, I do not know why any teacher who wants genuinely to teach would refrain from giving it.
Jim, you say “Jeanne, I don’t believe that Paul VI would wholly agree with your characterization of natural law.” I think that Paul VI’s use of natural law wouldn’t agree with Aquinas’ characterization of natural law either, and that’s exactly the problem. As Fr. Joe says, “I do not see how one can reasonably say that something is against the natural law unless one has a reason for making that judgment. And if he has a reason, I do not know why any teacher who wants genuinely to teach would refrain from giving it.”
The Church’s magisterium includes the authority to interpret natural law but that doesn’t mean it can interpret it outside the bounds of natural law, any more than a creationist can use “science” to prove the world was created in seven days. If you do, it ain’t science, and unless you authentically employ evidence and reason, it ain’t natural law, because evidence and reason is what you use to discern the nature of the created world.
According to Brian Davies in his book The Thought of Thomas Aquinas, Aquinas thinks that “human goodness lies in acting in harmony with what people are by nature insofar as reason can discern this. Our primary moral imperative, you might say, is to recognize what we are and to act accordingly. … He says, for instance, that to flourish in this world we need food, health, sleep, and friends. We also need to be able to exercise our minds in the contemplation of truth. More generally, however, Aquinas holds that to be good as human beings we need to be skilled at practical reasoning.” (Davies, black book, pg. 231-2)
As far as I understand it, Aquinas thinks that goodness lies in acting in harmony with what we are by nature, that we can figure out proper human action in a rational manner, that this is our primary moral imperative, and that we do this through practical reasoning. We do this by grasping basic moral principles (e.g., good is to be done and evil avoided); we do this naturally, because such principles are basic and obvious:
First, we must conserve human life and oppose death.
Second, we must do whatever accords with our physical nature, which is what we have in common with other animals (e.g., having sex, raising children).
Third, we must do whatever accords with our rational nature, including knowing the truth about God, living a social life, avoiding ignorance by knowing the reality in which we live, and not offending those we live with.
We may also derive secondary moral principles from the basic ones; for example, if it’s a good thing to raise children and know the truth about God, then it follows that teaching our children about God is also a good thing. Then, we make a judgment about the particular action we are planning, applying primary and secondary moral principles and keeping in mind the virtues, particularly the virtue of prudence. Then we decide how to behave. This is conscience. Aquinas defines it as “the application of knowledge to activity.” (1a2ea, 1)
I don’t see how any of this can work without evidence and reason. If you want to call on natural law to make a case, you have to exercise practical reasoning to make the connections between the primary moral principles, the secondary ones, and the judgments about the actions. This is where HV fails.
” A vague suspicion of technological intervention will not help you distinguish between modern NFP and the Pill.”
I think the distinction has been made between natural and artificial means. NFP uses the natural functioning of our God-given body, which we monitor (husband and wife both necessarily involved, an action toward becoming “one flesh”). Other means, condoms/Pill/ IUD are artificial, external to our bodies, an invasive means. And the only mutual involvement might be for a husband to nag his wife to take her pill that morning? No mutuality, artificial, versus a conjoined interest. Ultimately, the contraceptive mentality is the sin of Pride, the belief that we know better than God how we are to use our bodies, that we are in charge and not Him.
Bender has made a compelling (and poetically beautiful) case against contraception in this thread that could scarcely be improved on, as one commenter has noted. It is disheartening that so few seem to be open to it.
I guess many (all kinds of) peopel do not find Bender’s case “compelling.”
I think Barbara is right and that the whole issue of human sexuality and natural law has already been revisited by them beyond the traidtional view.
Also not being as wise as some about Dummett’s article, I’ll refrain from further commentary, but it strikes me that the discussion (as it has been for 40 odd years) will continue along the same fault lines and perceptions.
David, you and I both know the answer to that question, as does everyone else reading this thread.
Jim,
A. Be Nice.
B. No, I really don’t have a clue. I know that the pope has made a somewhat authoritative statement that results in this being considered wrong. But I don’t understand the reasoning. I think that is the point of this whole thread. Why is it okay to have sexual intercourse taking the pill for noncontraceptive reasons, and wrong to have sexual intercourse taking the pill for contraceptive reasons?
I understand the reasons (sort of) why barrier methods are considered wrong, but where the pill is concerned, I don’t understand the reasons.
In the encyclical, he asserts, as a matter of faith, that the church’s magisterium includes the authority to interpret natural law; and this because natural law is itself a form of God’s revelation of his will for us, including our married life.
Jim,
I thought the whole point of natural law was that it was available to all through the use of reason. If the Church is needed to interpret natural law, then it can hardly be natural law.
I agree, Barbara – it is perfectly possible for spouses who are not using contraception and are open to generating new life to nevertheless use one another for selfish, pleasure-seeking purposes.
Jim,
Selfish here would seem to be a technical term with a meaning other than “seeking or concentrating on one’s own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others.” I used to correspond with a remarkable woman whose husband was dying of a progressive neurological disease. In order for them to have sex according to Catholic specifications, it was necessary for her to maneuver in ways that she found uncomfortable and unpleasant. I have no idea whether she took the pill or not. It would seem perfectly reasonable to me that a wife with a bedridden, dying husband would not want to get pregnant. But how in the world, under the circumstances, could that woman have been regarded as selfishly using her husband for her own pleasure if she took the pill? There was no pleasure involved for her.
A question, somewhat belated here, for moral theologians. If I correctly read things like James Keenan’s “A History of Moral Theology in the 20th Century: From Confessing Sins to Liberating Consciences,” I gather that virtue ethics resists any EXCLUSIVE focus on discrete acts. Rather, one should think in terms of moral development over time. Attention to individual acts is not irrelevant, but is not sufficient for moral reflection. If this is so, then, while it may be correct to say that some act x, considered in isolation is “intrinsically evil” it does not follow that each person who does x does something sinful. One would have to ask about the connection between that x and the rest of the person’s conduct.
This strikes me as pretty Aristotelian and, I would add, pretty sensible. Obviously, this matter has relevance to the conduct between Mr. and Mrs. A and Mr. and Mrs.B, etc. but it would imply, for example, that some contraceptive acts by the A’s might be morally different from some of the same sort of contraceptive acts by the B’s.
In an Aristotelian vein, one would note that making discriminations in such matters would call for taking into account the advice of well respected and prudent members of of the community, here the the Catholic community.
Am I even in the ball park with this reading of Keenan et al? Note that all this does not amount to rampant relativism. Furthermore it does not preclude the acknowledgment of “natural law” as a regulative idea. Recall Aristotle’s view that the good or virtuous person habitually does the right thing at the right time in the right circumstances.
I think the distinction has been made between natural and artificial means. NFP uses the natural functioning of our God-given body, which we monitor (husband and wife both necessarily involved, an action toward becoming “one flesh”).
P Flanagan,
But it is maintained by many that NFP can be used with “contraceptive intent,” thereby rendering it immoral. And a woman taking the pill for noncontraceptive purposes is not doing anything wrong having sexual intercourse with her husband. So on the one hand, using natural means to avoid pregnancy can be wrong, and on the other hand, having sexual intercourse while using the pill can be either licit or illicit, depending on the reason for taking the pill. Actually, I suppose that if a woman is taking the pill for noncontraceptive reasons and her husband is pleased she is taking it and views it as a welcome opportunity to have sex without worrying about pregnancy, sexual intercourse is licit for the wife but illicit for the husband.
The question that bewilders many of us is why it is wrong to use artificial means to prevent pregnancy, but it is apparently not wrong to use artificial means to do just about anything else. Is it immoral, for example, to use the weight loss drug Ali because it blocks absorption of some of the fat eaten? It is an artificial means. The natural means would be not to eat the fat in the first place. There are, after all, people starving in the world who might otherwise live if people spent less on fatty foods, spent nothing on Ali, and gave that money to help feed the starving.
It is apparently only in sexual matters that “artificial means” are impermissible. No one has ever suggested that aspiring to bring down a fever is illicit, and instead a person should be packed in ice.
Jim, yes, of course “it is perfectly possible for spouses who are not using contraception and are open to generating new life to nevertheless use one another for selfish, pleasure-seeking purposes.” Who could disagree with that?
That doesn’t address much less prove the HV corollary of that statement — that spouses who ARE using contraception MUST BY DEFINITION AND WITHOUT QUALIFICATION be using one another for selfish, pleasure-seeking purposes. Because that’s the basis upon which HV rests the Catholic prohibition on using contraception — that, somehow, lessening the procreative potential of our union through “artificial” means turns us all into creatures who merely “use” our spouses to satisfy our wholly selfish pleasure seeking.
Jim writes: “Matthew – Isn’t it obvious that the Pill is a barrier to conception between husband and wife?”
The Pill, like the use of NFP, is a barrier to conception. Bender claims that for this reason the Pill, but not NFP, is also a barrier to the love between a husband and his wife. Bender needs to tell us, first, why any technique that allows a married couple to have sex without conceiving a child diminishes or frustrates their love for each other, or defiles their act of love-making. Then he needs to tell us why the Pill does this while NFP does not.
To his credit, P Flanagan makes an effort to provide the argument Bender needs in order to make his position intelligible, let alone credible. Flanagan tells us it’s all right there in the name: Natural Family Planning is natural, and natural is good. Artificial contraception (a phrase that implies that there’s such a thing as “natural contraception,” though most champions of NFP are loath to acknowledge that it’s any kind of contraception) is artificial, and artificial is bad. He adds that couples who use NFP must cooperate as they work with nature to prevent conception, whereas use of the Pill involves no cooperation: “the only mutual involvement might be for a husband to nag his wife to take her pill that morning.” These tendentious characterizations are a cheat. True, it is in some sense easier for a woman to swallow a pill than to keep track of her ovulation cycle, and it is obviously much easier for a man to let his wife swallow a Pill than for him to help her keep track of her ovulation. But you can’t argue that the Pill is a moral abomination just because it is too easy. If it’s wrong, the fact that it’s also easy might explain why people continue to use it even when they’re told by religious authorities that it’s wrong. But you’re still left with the task of explaining why it’s wrong. Because it’s artificial? There are at least two problems with that argument. First, NFP is also artificial: it involves using modern medical knowledge and modern instruments of measurement to schedule sex in such a way as to make sure it’s nonprocreative. The most effective versions of NFP are the most artificial. Those who defend NFP and condemn the Pill seem to imagine that NFP is not artificial because it is not a thing. But a method designed to control natural processes is no less a technology than a device so designed. Second, the church doesn’t teach that it’s generally wrong to interfere with the body’s natural biology. Catholics are not Christian Scientists. The obvious response is that the church allows such interference only to cure a disease, and fertility is not a disease. But that’s not quite right either. Hunger isn’t a disease, and the church doesn’t teach that appetite-suppressants are immoral. Nor does the church teach that drugs designed to enhance a woman’s normal fertility are immoral. Which brings us back to the question at hand: what makes this particular chemical intervention illicit?
I should add that I have great respect for the traditional Christian teaching that married couples should welcome as many children as God allows them to have. This teaching is straightforward and logically impeccable. But it is also a hard teaching, much harder now than it was two thousand — or two hundred — years ago. It didn’t always require heroic virtue to follow this teaching. Now, because of technological advances and economic changes, it usually does. Nor is this teaching really compatible with its modern update in Humanae Vitae, which, acknowledging the difficulties I just mentioned, allows married couples to use NFP to limit how many children they have under certain circumstance, while reinforcing the prohibition on “artificial” contraception. The “certain circumstances” are notoriously susceptible to an expansive interpretation, and efforts to define the circumstances more rigorously are notoriously, well, fruitless. Even enthusiastic NFP-users ask, Who is any priest to tell me what counts as a hardship for me and my family? And so we get the spectacle of middle-class Catholics who use NFP and have three kids preening themselves on their adherence to the Culture of Life and concluding that Catholics who have three children and use the pill belong to the Culture of Death. This is an awkward situation for the church, about as awkward as it’s administration of annulments. But that’s for a different thread.
“But it is maintained by many that NFP can be used with “contraceptive intent,” thereby rendering it immoral. ”
I have to say, I don’t understand how NFP can be used with ‘contraceptive intent’, unless the meaning of the word “contraceptive” is reduced to “hoping I don’t get pregnant.” (I have no doubt that this is the primary motive for taking the Pill in many cases: “I really don’t want to get pregnant.” But there are so many more layers of implication and meaning that need to be unpacked for people taking that approach).
“I thought the whole point of natural law was that it was available to all through the use of reason. If the Church is needed to interpret natural law, then it can hardly be natural law.”
David (and Jeanne) here is Paul VI in Humanae Vitae:
“4. This kind of question requires from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection on the principles of the moral teaching on marriage—a teaching which is based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation.
“No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation. (3)”
So there seem to be several claims here:
* That divine revelation both enriches and illuminates natural law. Thus it seems that natural law, by its unilluminated, unenriched self, isn’t sufficient for apprehending the truth of married love that is presented in HV.
* That the church, in possession of the teaching authority granted to it by Jesus, is the authentic teacher and guardian (not *a*, but *the*) of natural law, because this Jesus-granted authority pertains to all moral law, and natural law is a subset of natural law.
The unitive and procreative aspects of marriage are commonly treated in theoretical discussions as coextensive. See above. Nature disagrees.
The conjugal act is available to a healthy human heterosexual couple essentially all the time and offers the potential for various unitive benefits. Nature guarantees that the “transmission of life” is absolutely impossible 80% or more of the time in a month, year, and decade for a healthy, fertile woman. During those times, no sexual act can “remain open to the transmission of life” since it is not open to start with. The initiation of procreation, i.e., conception, cannot possibly occur, and nothing can be said, intended, or done to make the act open to the impossible during those times. Thus, the meaning of “each and every marriage act must remain open…” is logically uninterpretable unless it is intended to preclude all conjugal acts outside the short fertile periods, which has not been claimed.
Long ago, wise men believed that the male was the active principle causing human life by transmission to the female, who was the source of inert matter with potential for development if realized by the male. “Transmission of [human] life” made literal sense. Today, we know it is a metaphor. Observations based on modern scientific understanding of female thermal and viscous cycles, aided by various devices if desired, permit Natural Family Planning. This enables one to recognize when colocation of ovum and sperm can occur and procreation may begin. Similarly, the Lactational Amenorrhea Method (see Wikipedia) provides detailed rules for exploiting the hormonal variations involved in breastfeeding in order to maintain infertility. Hormonal manipulation by the Pill for the exact same purpose is called illicit or worse. Arbitrary distinctions between “natural” and “artificial” as criteria for approval mean little if some reason is applied to nature, the script of the natural law.
“Be Nice.”
You’re quite right. I apologize for being so snippy.
I think more than a few people here are missing the obvious. Married couples practicing NFP, as I understand it, refrain from relations during the periods when the woman is likely to be most fertile. There’s no “contracepting” going on, it’s (temporary) abstention. The intent is to space children, by refraining from relations, not to avoid children, yet have relations. That’s a huge difference.
Artificial contraception (a phrase that implies that there’s such a thing as “natural contraception,” though most champions of NFP are loath to acknowledge that NFP is any kind of contraception) is artificial, and artificial is bad.
I would say that “artificial contraception” is a redundancy. The more useful (and usual) phrase, I think, is “artificial birth control” — I don’t think NFP could be described as “contraception,” but it certainly is a form of “birth control.” That distinction is useful because (as many have noted here) “birth control” is not what HV rules out; “artificial birth control” is.
While I’m quibbling with language, Matt, you said: “a method designed to control natural processes is no less a technology than a device so designed.” I think I would say “designed to discern natural processes,” rather than “control.” NFP doesn’t change the way your body works, it just helps you know what’s already happening. That seems to be the big difference between it and the Pill; it’s working around the cycles already in place vs. manipulating them. But that doesn’t answer Dummett’s argument. A related problem, for me, is that the reliability of NFP as a method today is a big help to those who want to promote it (and the message of HV in general). But it’s only reliable because of how much we know about how fertility works — things we didn’t know decades ago (and knowledge that is the product of technology). So are we just lucky to be living in a time when the only moral option gives us reliable control? God wanted us to figure all this out — but he didn’t want us to come up with the Pill?
Jim, you’re right, Paul VI does make several claims relating to natural law in HV but those claims are **incompatible** with the definition of natural law described by Aquinas and understood as a part of the tradition. That’s the whole problem. So who has a greater claim to authority? Aquinas and the natural law tradition or one pope? If you buy into the definition of natural law Paul VI puts forth, you’re basically giving Aquinas and the natural law tradition the boot.
Mark said:
“The intent is to space children, by refraining from relations, not to avoid children, yet have relations. That’s a huge difference.”
I say: Sure, it’s a huge difference the same way stabbing someone is hugely different from shooting them, but that doesn’t make the difference morally significant.
And why does this difference, which is continuing to have sex without the prospect of conceiving, inevitably turn the spouses into wholly selfish pleasure seeking creatures who are only using each other?
Mollie,
I take your point: there’s a reason why people use the term “birth control” rather than “contraception.” “Birth control” sounds both more natural and more innocent. Strictly speaking, the better term might be “conception control” but I doubt that’ll catch on.
If birth control means doing something to make sure (or very likely) that sex won’t result in conception, I think it’s fair to call birth control contraception. This is close to Dummett’s point: what matters most, what matters morally, is the intention to prevent — or contravene — conception, whatever the method. To answer Dummett’s argument, a defender of Humanae Vitae would have to say the method matters even if it isn’t “intrinsically evil.” The means must be appropriate to the end, and the Pill, for reason X, is not.
To your other point, NFP is not just about “discerning” a natural cycle. It’s a practical method, not a method of disinterested discovery. That is, NFP uses what science knows to arrange a certain practical effect, which makes it a kind of technology. The natural process it “controls” is not ovulation but rather the process of sex leading (sometimes) to conception. Timing something in a certain way so as to insure a certain result is one way to control it.
“First, NFP is also artificial: it involves using modern medical knowledge and modern instruments of measurement to schedule sex in such a way as to make sure it’s nonprocreative. The most effective versions of NFP are the most artificial. Those who defend NFP and condemn the Pill seem to imagine that NFP is not artificial because it is not a thing. But a method designed to control natural processes is no less a technology than a device so designed. ”
Clearly, it’s not a matter of introducing human technology, like a medical thermometer.
I prefer to approach the question of what’s verboten and what’s not from the point of view (which I believe is a respectable starting point in moral theology) that anything and everything is permitted, unless there is a compelling reason that it shouldn’t be. That applies to marital sex as much as anything else. Let’s make the default assumption that what we are doing with our spouses is okay, and then deal with the problematic exceptions.
What the church seems to ask of spouses is that their marriages, including their marital acts, be done under God’s loving care and guidance. Thus they should be faithful to one another; they should be open to children and even generous about it; their self-giving should be total; it should be human – physical, psychological, and so on – etc. Why should they do all these things? Because we believe this is what God wishes.
So, from that point of view: is there anything about NFP (since you are drawing an equivalence between NFP and contraception) that makes it morally unacceptable? Morally, all NFP does is identify the fertile and non-fertile periods of the woman’s cycle. Is there anything morally objectionable about identifying those segments in the cycle, and tailoring our marital love-making accordingly? It seems that there is nothing wrong: the cycle itself is from God; and NFP involves using human reason and even human technology is to understand this gift from God. It all sounds okay to me.
If there is nothing objectionable about identifying naturally-occurring fertility cycles, then I’m assuming we all agree that, morally speaking, NFP is in the clear. To my way of thinking, this is the totality of what HV is saying about NFP – it’s not sinful.
Then we come to the question that I believe you’re posing: if NFP is okay, and contraception isn’t okay, then what is the critical distinction that puts them on opposite sides of the line of moral acceptability?
The case of the Pill seems pretty clear-cut in this respect, because it is an intentional regimen to ensure that *no* sex act could *possibly* be open to life (at least within the limits of whatever the state of the art is in contraception). In fact, the whole naturally-occurring cycle itself (which is God’s gift) is seriously disrupted or even completely suppressed. So it is wrong in two respects: it wrecks the cycle that God ordained should be the cycle that regulates human conception; and it represents an intention on the part of at least one spouse to not be open to the creation of human life.
Condoms and morning-after pills might, to my way of thinking, be somewhat different categories (let’s set aside allegations that morning-after pills also cause abortions – we’re not talking about abortion here; let’s stick to their contraceptive effects). Condoms and morning-after pills seem different because, whatever else they do, they don’t interfere with the naturally occurring fertility cycle. (I’m not very knowledgeable about morning-after pills, so if that’s not right, I hope someone will correct me).
In the case of condoms, if the male wears a condom, then at least one spouse is showing that he is not open to the possibility of conception. (It seems somewhat unlikely that a male would don a condom without his partner’s knowledge and consent, so I imagine that both partners are morally implicated in most cases).
Morning-after pills are even more interesting, because they suggest that, at the time of the actual sex act, both partners *may* have been open to conception, but that at least one of the spouses subsequently regretted it.
There’s no “contracepting” going on, it’s (temporary) abstention.
Mark,
By your definition of contraception, the pill would not be a contraceptive. The intended purpose of the pill (although some claim it has other effects) is to prevent ovulation. If there is no egg present, there is no conception to prevent.
Bernard –
ISTM that these days “virtue ethics” is not synonymous with “natural law ethics”. True, virtue was a central notion within Aristotle’s theory, but not the whole of it. In fact, as I read him, he seems to have two different foundations for his theory. The first is based on his metaphysical notion that things have ends and that the end of a human person is the fulfillment of potntials of certain sorts. The second is his more psychologically oriented view, more pragmatic view that understanding of virtue is to be found in what a virtue is (a good habit) good, specifically human habits. Knowing what a virtuous man does is what reveals what is right and wrong. (This second view seems to me to beg the question — how do we know which man is indeed virtuous???)
This thread seems to have shifted from a consideration of Dummett’s arguments about the issues in HV to the grounds of natural law theory. I suspect that our disagreements are mainly concerned with the latter. So I think it’s essential that we try to get clear about the varied meanings of “natural law theory’ and “natural law ethics’ and about what we mean by the “grounds” of a theory. Unless we agree about those matters (or at least settle on some vocabulary) it’s unlikely we’ll ever resolve some of these problems.
“Jim, you’re right, Paul VI does make several claims relating to natural law in HV but those claims are **incompatible** with the definition of natural law described by Aquinas and understood as a part of the tradition. That’s the whole problem. So who has a greater claim to authority? Aquinas and the natural law tradition or one pope? If you buy into the definition of natural law Paul VI puts forth, you’re basically giving Aquinas and the natural law tradition the boot.”
Hi, Jeanne, I’m not knowledgeable enough about natural law to know how and in what ways it has developed from Aquinas’ day to the 20th Century. If you believe that Aquinas contradicts what Paul is saying, though, I would like to know more.
Jim said:
“The case of the Pill seems pretty clear-cut in this respect, because it is an intentional regimen *to ensure that *no* sex act could *possibly* be open to life* (at least within the limits of whatever the state of the art is in contraception). In fact, the whole naturally-occurring cycle itself (which is God’s gift) is seriously disrupted or even completely suppressed. So it is wrong in two respects: it wrecks the cycle that God ordained should be the cycle that regulates human conception; and it represents an intention on the part of at least one spouse to not be open to the creation of human life.”
I put in stars the point that is the logical leap in your analysis — the pill is a TEMPORARY measure for most couples. All they have to do to reverse its effects is to stop taking it — and that’s what most people do when they want children. Therefore it does not ensure that NO marital act will be fruitful, just the marital acts that occur while one is taking BCPs.
Maybe this is a subtle distinction, but your analysis seems to depend on the notion that the spouses have to be willing to risk pregnancy in order for ANY sex act to be licit within marriage, but under that analyis then NFP is indeed as bad as the pill.
And there is still the idea that by using BCP they have turned themselves into selfish pleasure seeking creatures who are only using each other.
So it is wrong in two respects: it wrecks the cycle that God ordained should be the cycle that regulates human conception; and it represents an intention on the part of at least one spouse to not be open to the creation of human life.
Jim,
And yet taking the pill for noncontraceptive reasons also “wrecks the cycle.” Apparently it is not intrinsically wrong to wreck the menstrual cycle, even by chemical means. There are many ways in which we interfere with natural bodily functions — for example, anesthesia. It is supposed to hurt when you are cut open. And NFP advocates claim that when it is correctly used, it is as effective as the pill. So how can those using NFP be open to the creation of new life and those using the pill not be? Their odds of conceiving are the same.
“Open to the creation (or transmission) of life” need have nothing to do with whether conception is possible. Infertile couples (say, 80-year-old married couples) are bound by the same rules as fertile couples. It is not the possibility of the transmission of life that seems to be important to the Church, it is the form of the act. Sexual intercourse must be performed in the same way by fertile and infertile couples. It is a matter of form, and not a matter of whether there is really a possibility of conception.
JAK –
About you 10:46 post — I agree with everything it says. Further, I think that the function of reason is involved in both 1) the process of generalization grounded in widespread empirical evidence and 2) in the application of those principles to particular, individuals situations after the principles have been established, and 3) the derivation of secondary principles from primary ones. All requite rational procedures including reasoning in the most ordinary sense of the term “reason”. I mean if=then,either-or, therefore sort of reasoning, viz., inference, while the first of necessity involves probabilistic reasoning from the experiences of many, many people (or at least it should theoretically).
It seems to me that Rome is deficient in using reason to make generalizations about human nature — it shies away from the on-the-ground, empirical evidence. Or, if it does try to use empirical evidence, it doesn’t tell us how it got the empirical evidence. For instance, JP II in his writings about marriage makes all sorts of generalizations about the nature of women as women but he doesn’t provide empirical evidence that justifies his generalizations, and, in fact, what he says runs counter to what many women say is how they experience themselves in the world
Inference is also involved in going from the primary principles to the secondary ones. The whole issue of the permissibility of contraception is of this sort. Primary principles such as “the end doesn’t justify the means” are applied to less general claims such as, “condoms are intrinsically evil”. Rome offers few such arguments, and in the matter of contraception, I don’t think that any of the last three popes have offered us any reasoning of this sort — the have mainly just made declarations of conclusions, as Jeanne and others have pointed out.
The Arizona case is an instance of a bishop applying general principles to individual cases. And, as we should have notices, he got some of his facts of the case wrong and some of his general principles were arguable.
Having offered no reliable empirical generalizations nor any reasoned conclusions, Rome does convince. They haven’t truly been natural law ethicists. The Arizona bishop did try to apply general principles to actual facts. I’ll give him that.
For those of you too young to recall the reception of Humanae vitae, you can find an article of mine, written ten years after the encyclical appeared, at this website: http://www.ts.mu.edu/content/39/39.2/39.2.1.pdf
Oops — should be; Rome does NOT convince.
“The intent is to space children, by refraining from relations, not to avoid children, yet have relations.”
It’s not a huge difference at all.
Catholics who use Natural Family Planning intend to space or limit the number of their children.
Catholics who use artifical means do so for exactly the same reasons. The artifical means are usually more effectve, and that is the only difference.
I propose a thougt problem:
NFP already advertises that it is nearly 100% effective. Suppose, in addition, that a thermometer is developed that NFP is in fact 100% accurate and allows couples to determine within one hour the moment of ovulation, requiring abstention fo 48 hours. With minimal effort, it is far superior to any form of artifical birth control. (NFP already makes this claim of effectiveness) Is NFP now illicit because of its ease of use and effectiveness?
If artifical birth control is used to space children or limit the family to four children (to pick a number), how is that different from “perfect” NFP being used to achieve the same purpose?
The distiction is not a “contraceptive mentality.” The disctinciton is drawn between artifical and natural. The Churhc hasn’t articulated a covincing reason why that distinction is morally significant.
“”If you believe that Aquinas contradicts what Paul is saying, though, I would like to know more.
Jim P. –
That is one of the main points Dummett is making — that Paul VI departed from the traditional natural law theory of Aquinas, and to me his arguments (Dummett’s) are persuasive.
Jim, I second Ann’s comments. I would add that it’s not so much a case of Aquinas contradicting what Paul is saying, like Aquinas says “A” and Paul says “B.” It’s a case of Paul saying he’s using natural law without actually using it. I think he plucks out a concept or two from a systematic framework without honoring the demands of the framework as a whole. It’s like saying a finding is “scientific” without going through the whole business of the hypotheses, the experiments, the measurements and the results.
I also think the spirit of Aquinas demands that you use reason and evidence when presenting arguments and also that you hear and understand the specific criticisms of your views that are offered by others and counter them with reason and evidence.
Ann: Dummett certainly doesn’t say that that’s what he’s doing. In fact, he never mentions Aquinas, and there is, I believe, only a single reference to “natural law” in the excerpted essay. Aquinas, of course, vigorously condemned contraceptive practices. So I, too, would like to know in what respects Paul VI should be considered to have departed from Aquinas’ position or methodology.
My understanding is that NFP is used with a “contraceptive mentality” when it is used to avoid having children for selfish reasons. For example, if a couple decided never to have children at all because their careers would suffer, NFP would not be licit. It is not clear to me, however, if each and every act of intercourse would be considered sinful (as it would be using, say, condoms), or if the choice not to have children itself was sinful. I would hazard the opinion that each act of intercourse was sinful (in Catholic thought).
“I should add that I have great respect for the traditional Christian teaching that married couples should welcome as many children as God allows them to have. This teaching is straightforward and logically impeccable. But it is also a hard teaching, much harder now than it was two thousand — or two hundred — years ago. It didn’t always require heroic virtue to follow this teaching. Now, because of technological advances and economic changes, it usually does.”
This gets to the heart of the issue, Matthew: a hard teaching. And one might say, as with Moses on divorce, the Church has offered NFP because of the hardness of our hearts in refusing to abandon ourselves to his providence, when He commanded us to go forth and multiply.
But I wonder whether the reluctance to abide by Church teaching is more difficult now because of external factors you cite, or rather because of a modern sense of personal autonomy. Economically, we are far more wealthy now and thus able to afford more children, although I suppose the decreased child mortality rate means we are more likely today to be required to support a larger number of children. But if we cry out to God that having too many children means we cannot, say, send them all to college, surely His response would be: your children need not attend college to attain heaven.
It just seems that there is a win-win situation, and it is NFP. As effective as artificial birth control, and licit when used in prudential judgment to space out the introduction of children into the family. Why such virulent opposition? It’s not like the Church is telling Catholics they HAVE to be constantly pregnant, that there is no alternative. I just don’t understand the hardhearted refusal to even attempt to live out this teaching of the Church. A hard teaching…
It just seems that there is a win-win situation, and it is NFP. As effective as artificial birth control, and licit when used in prudential judgment to space out the introduction of children into the family.
P Flanagan,
There is someone over on Vox Nova who is a great supporter of NFP but writes about his own very serious problems with it. His wife’s cycles are very irregular, and I believe he has said they can go for three months without knowing for sure whether she is fertile or not. Obviously, as he explained, she is not fertile for three months at a time. But whatever indicators they use do not let them know with certainty whether she is fertile or not at any given time. NFP may be easy for some people, but it may be hell on earth for others.
But if we cry out to God that having too many children means we cannot, say, send them all to college, surely His response would be: your children need not attend college to attain heaven.
Even children who suffer from malnutrition and whose parents cannot afford to take them to the doctor can go to heaven. A woman whose next pregnancy may kill her can go to heaven along with her unborn child.
We may have hard hearts, but it seems sometimes Catholic teaching wants us to believe God himself has a hard heart.
“P,” where is the “virulent opposition” to NFP you’re decrying? I don’t see any here. I see a lot of back-and-forth about whether the argument in HV makes sense according to the principles of moral philosophy. Saying lovely things about NFP, true as they may be, dodges that question. Proclaiming that HV presents us with a “win-win” situation because it affirms that NFP is licit, and therefore removes any need to query further whether HV is correct, is simply begging the question.
Meanwhile, your “hardness of our hearts” conjecture is itself badly at odds with HV, which asserts that it is not wrong — is in fact admirable — to consider one’s personal circumstances when deciding whether or not to have (more) children. Does God always want couples to have as many children as is physically possible? HV says no. If that’s wrong, using NFP can’t be moral, and there’s no point in any of the rest of this debate.
P Flanagan,
Thanks for your reply. I don’t think it’s fair to characterize Dummett’s criticism of the argument against the Pill in Humanae Vitae as “virulent.” It is certainly a strong criticism, and strongly worded; but I don’t get the sense that Dummett relishes his disagreement with Rome on this question. I certainly don’t relish mine.
The situation you describe as “win-win” seems to me to fall between two stools. Either the church can say that a married couple must never have sex with the intention not to conceive, or it can revise the traditional teaching — as it already has, implicitly, by endorsing NFP — and say that while sex is only for marriage and marriage must be open to children, it is up to married couples to decide how many children they will have and when they will have them. If it says the first thing, then it must withdraw its support for NFP. If it says the second, it must withdraw its prohibition on chemical contraceptives (unless it is conclusively demonstrated that these may function as abortifacients). The ground the magisterium now occupies is unstable. Augustine would be as appalled as Dummett is.
As for the economic changes I alluded to in an earlier comment, they mainly involve the introduction of women into the workforce. This has at least two consequences. If Catholic women who marry must have as many children as God and nature allow them to have, then they will not be able to work until they can no longer bear children. This was not a sacrifice in times when no woman who didn’t have to work outside the home would want to. It is now. You may think it is a virtuous sacrifice, but I doubt you’d disagree that the virtue it requires is unusual, if not heroic. If Catholic women don’t work as long as they are bearing children, and if Catholic families have many more children than non-Catholic families, then most Catholic households will be considerably poorer than non-Catholic households. It has been my impression that most Catholic couples who practice NFP come from middle-class families and have — or are en route to — middle-class incomes. It is one thing for a lawyer and his wife to have as many children as they can; they may have to sacrifice luxuries, but they will probably be able to afford a house with a few bedrooms. It is another thing to ask a delivery man and his wife to have as many children as they can. Living on his income alone, raising several children, they will live in poverty, able to feed themselves, perhaps, but priced out of the housing market. No doubt you have considered all this. Why, then, do you say the church offered NFP only because of “the hardness of our hearts.” The real hardness of heart is in talking about all this as if it did not have serious material consequences for ordinary Catholics.
Here is another piece worth reading. In 1943 Bernard Lonergan published an article dealing with the debate about the “ends” of marriage. He invited collaboration…there was none to speak of. For Lonergan, the problem was not taking account of a recent development in biology (ie not Aristotelian biology). While natural law accounts for the role of “reason” in relation to judgements of value generically, there is a specific need to take seriously the role of empirical science specifically–that holds not only for sexual morality but also economic morality. See http://www.ts.mu.edu/content/4/4.4/4.4.1.pdf
P. Flanagan –
You suggest two possibilities to account for reluctance and heard-heartedness of others – external factors and sense of autonomy. Consider a third which has been observable for 40 years – the words of Humanae Vitae. Fr. Komonchak’s article (link at 2:39P) is well worth reading for its thoroughness on some aspects of this problem and for its currency today as well. Also instructive is a recent quick history of early HV days by the Archbishop of Baltimore at
http://www.catholicreview.org/subpages/storyworldnew-new.aspx?action=4477
On its arrival in 1968, Humanae Vitae was promptly rejected by many theologians, laity, and clergy. A majority in a preparatory papal commission had already concluded that the existing Church position was in error and required change. Since then, bishops and Pope, unable to persuade, fruitlessly continue to support it as a major part of sexuality-oriented morality. Therefore, as generations pass, it appears that Humanae Vitae has little to do with most Catholics’ sexual lives but much to do with diminishing the real authority of the hierarchy. Most significantly, the resulting diffusion of their authority applies to their offices, not just to the one encyclical, as we can see today. The effects of Humanae Vitae over 40 years have been a good illustration of the law of unintended consequences.
I have studied HV and the history of the teachings of the Church on marriage and procreation. Below are some of the problematic areas:
1. HV did rely on an understanding of natural law as the non-frustration of the natural procreative end of marital acts. This dates back to Augustine: human genital organs were ordinated for procreation and the sex act is be used only for procreation. Later, th ends of marraige was expanded to include other things including mutual love. HV was the first time a doctrine on marriage was no longer about the ends of marriage, but on the ends of marital acts. Hence, the marital act was licit only if it possessed a procreative and uniitive love dimension that could not be separated. Critics of HV proclaimed this moral norm as legalistic, physicalistic and biologistic. This critical argument became known as “the preverted faculty argument”. The foundational premise for each marital act was ambiguous at best. A better explanation was needed.
2. In 1993, John Paul moved away from a physicalist understanding of natural law when he wrote Vertitatis Spendor (VS). VS says that the language or signs of the body is relevant but not morally determinitive; but must be further understood in light of the acting persson, the virtues and the orientation of the person towards self-giving love and human goods that fulfill the person (human florishing). This was still quite unintelligible to most Catholics. However, it rejuvenated Thomistic ethics and a virtue-centered approach to marriage and procreative responibility and responsible parenthood.
3. Most Catholics (perhaps only myself) find perplexing a seeming contradiction in the Church’s teachings on marriage. Pius XII (later affirmed by Paul VI and JP II) said that spouses can be exempted from their procreative obligations on the marriage level for good reasons (they don’t have to have a certain number of children). Yet under these same circumstances every single marital act must be open to the meaning of procreation.
4. After many years of stalemate debate, the procreative meaning of the marital act evolved (or was reinterpreted). It now meant “no one must do anything before, during or after the marital act that have precreative consequences from having those consequences”. However, most critics of HV said “NFP couples do something before the marital act to pervent procreative consequences”. They plot by temperature and cervical mucus to determine when procreation would be impossible, then limit sexual intercourse to only those times. During fertile times, they abstain. The act of abstinence is a deliberate act of ommision whose purpose is to avoid new life. How can one say NFP couples are intentionally open to procreation?
5. Periodic continence programs (e.g. NFP) have a 25% failure rate based on acutal usuage. They also have a 53% discontinuence rate in the first year. Imperfect compliance over a 20 year fertility period would mean many more children than desired and significant emotional, social and financial hardships. Moreover, only 1.2% of U.S. women practiced PC in 2006-2008. World-wide the it is 2.1%.
The virture of chastity and temperance as manifested in PC programs is flawed for one big reason. Thie purpose of this virture in marriage is to master the sexual appetite that some propose helps to strengthen conjugal love and the physical and spirituall well being of the spouses. However, the issue is not self-sacrifice or the benefits of the virtue of chastitly/ temperance, it is how the mean of this virtue is measured. Aquinas said there can be no universal commandment for temperance because of the variation of sexual desire among humans. Aristotle said that the golden mean of temperance can only be determined by “common sense”.
Prudence is the measurement of temperance. Th number of days of conjugal abstinence, as the virtue of chastity/ temperance, is not based on the degree of ones passions, the level of ones spiritual condition or based on ones human good. It is based “solely” on a bioloigical factor. The average number of days of conjugal abstinence per month in PC programs is 12 consecutive days. This universal standard is applied equally to spouses with a weak, moderate or strong sexual appetite. It is not a prudent reasoned mean of temperance. What we have here is overkill in terms of controling the sexual appetite. As mentioned, with its 25% failure rate it will lead to unnecessary burdens that can be even destrucitve to a marraige. Does PC not violate the virtues of justice and charity when spouses decide to limit the number of children in marraige in order to share with them limited family goods? Does not more children than desired cause marital disharmony?
Hence, while we can argue about absolute moral norms (e.g., contraception is intrinsically evil), the Church leaves Catholics with no reasonable means of limiting children in marriage. Contraception is intrinsically evil and PC does not work.
I could offer many more reasons why HV is not intelligble including its narrow definition of unitive love as total mutual self-giving. However time and space does not afford me this luxury.
Ann,
Blogs don’t lend themselves particularly well to lots of nuance, but let me offer a few remarks in response to the comment you addressed to me. In no particular order:
1. If one recalls that Aristotle speaks about both intellectual and moral virtues, then the good person is one who both thinks well and acts well. So is there some gap between the “metaphysical” and the “pragmatic” Aristotle here? I don’t see it.
2. Aristotle takes it, rightly I think, that (a) we’re born and develop in an ongoing community in which people have been reaching conclusions about what makes for a good life and what doesn’t. So no one has to start off from some Cartesian “Archimedean” point to learn how it makes sense to live. There is no such point.
3. All conduct involves interaction with others. Their experience, both in thinking and acting is relevant. All societies are of course marred to lesser or greater extent by people who either think or act badly. But nontyrannical societies (societies that have no genuine politics , in Aristotle’s sense of politics) are characterized by people who have come to see what it takes to live well with one another. These people serve as guides and models for thinking and acting well. They have recognized that reality is intelligible and have learned how to respond well to it. They have understood and act in accord with “natural law.”
4. Part of what they have learned is the importance of practical wisdom, i.e., the art of tailoring the general norms they have arrived at to fit the specific circumstances in which each person has to decide what to do. For, Aristotle, exercises of practical wisdom “refine” the “coarseness” of the general norms so that they apply properly to the case at hand. So, I would say that this line of thinking shows why it makes sense for us to say that one must always follow his or her conscience, provided that he or she has taken the steps necessary to form it properly. It would be wrong to talk of the “infallibility” of conscience. Rather, it is a matter of doing as well as one can, given one’s limitations.
If I’m not mistaken, for Aquinas, the natural law is the human participation in the divine eternal law. How all that fits with Aristotle, I’ll let others say. But I take it that this participation is our finite grasp of what we ought to think and do. So again, no “infallible” conclusions about each specific application of the natural law. As Aristotle put it, we can only reasonably aspire to the kind of precision that is appropriate to the subject matter.
All this, I think is directly relevant to the matter of how a married couple lives out their sexuality in their particular marriage.
Perhaps we can all take another look at Humanae Vitae with an open mind and an open heart, knowing that once again, a “crisis of authority” has caused division in His Church.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Pace Mr. McFaul, Barbara, and others who claim that having relations during an interval where the woman is unlikely to conceive is no different that using the pill to avoid conception, consider the following:
1) The Church teaches that each act should be open to the transmission of life. Assuming most Catholics would rather live in harmony with Church teaching, why would they use the pill if there were no prospect of conceiving with NFP? I think they realize there is a real chance of conceiving, in accord with Church teaching.
2) From what I’ve read, couples who practice NFP tend to have more children than those who don’t.
3) Olga Korbut would marvel at the mental gymnastics going on if the assertion is being made that NFPers practice contraception by actually HAVING relations, albeit during a period of expected infertility.
“In the encyclical, he asserts, as a matter of faith, that the church’s magisterium includes the authority to interpret natural law; and this because natural law is itself a form of God’s revelation of his will for us, including our married life.”
Jim (P?) –
The idea of “interpreting” natural law needs attention, I think. “Natural law” can mean the objective realities of human behavior leading to its fulfillment or it can refer to the verbal commands based on those behaviors. Is it the function of the Church to “interpret” the actual behavior of people? If so, what does this mean? Does it mean gathering data about it, as empirical scientists do? Or what?
If we’re talking about “interpreting” the commands of natural law, just what does *that* mean? Purely linguistic interpretations of what has been said before? “Interpreting” which of conflicting principles of natural law should be observed in a particular circumstance? Or what?
(See why I didn’t go into ethics? It is so very, very mushy linguistically, among other important reasons things.)
David N. –
The reason that Aquinas gives for the need of the Church in applying natural law is that Original Sin makes it difficult for us to use our reasoning ability because our feelings so often prejudice our thinking. The grace of God, and the Church, are needed if we are to reason well.
It seems to me he’s right about this. Obviously, we need the grace of God,but it seems to me that there is a lot of wisdom stored in the Church not only because of the priest-confessors, but because of the theologians’ efforts, not to mention the sensus communus when it operates at its communal best. This certainly doesn’t mean that the official Church, the theologians, the priests and the people don’t make mistakes. Far from it. Still, the Holy Spirit is with us, and the teachings of Our Lord are there to guide us. It’s simply that all in all we’re better off with the Unholy Old Woman than without her.
The Church teaches that each act should be open to the transmission of life.
Mark,
As I understand the teaching, it is not that there must always be a possibility of getting pregnant. If that were the case, then infertile couples would not be allowed to have sex. And if NFP is refined to the point of being absolutely foolproof, it would have to be disallowed. Also, all forms of birth control (except certain types of sterilization) have a failure rate, and hence using a condom (as one example) perhaps leaves an act of intercourse more open to the transmission of life than an act of intercourse by a couple who practices NFP carefully. In short, the Church does not say, “You may have sex only if you risk pregnancy.”
“And there is still the idea that by using BCP [NFP, I assume} they have turned themselves into selfish pleasure seeking creatures who are only using each other”
Important point, Barbara. I’ve not seen it made before. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I wrote, in response to Jeanne: ”If you believe that Aquinas contradicts what Paul is saying, though, I would like to know more.”
Ann then commented (and Jeanne seconded): “That is one of the main points Dummett is making — that Paul VI departed from the traditional natural law theory of Aquinas, and to me his arguments (Dummett’s) are persuasive.”
I’ve pasted here the paragraph from Dummett’s piece that I think(?) Ann and Jeanne have in mind. (Commonweal editors, I hope that is okay). I’ve read this passage three or four times and … I confess I’m not entirely sure how natural law enters into his argument. He seems(?) to be saying something that seems rather aligned with what Paul said in HV – that moral precepts derived from natural law rely upon revelation for their completion or perfection (or I suppose Dummett is stating that religious leaders would argue that).
“A religious body can thus come to acknowledge something formerly considered morally right as in truth morally wrong. What authority can its leaders claim for their moral teaching? It is wrong to claim that to treat a moral precept as part of natural law is to base it solely upon fallible human reason; it may be part of revelation even if accessible without it. Traditional Christian morality stems in great part from the teaching of Christ, of the Epistles, and of ancient texts like the Didache, and is too integrated a system for a Christian to regard it as mere opinion, but precepts not manifestly part of the original integrated system cannot be taught as with divine authority. Though the church contrived to slide out of its condemnation of usury, it has difficulty discarding a teaching that declares some type of action immoral. Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae vitae reiterating the prohibition on contraception illustrates this. This encyclical greatly damaged the respect of the faithful for the Catholic Church’s moral teaching in general, since many of them do not accept the ban on contraceptives, and in the confessional many priests surreptitiously collude with their rejection of it. But it has also damaged the integrity of Catholic moral theology.”
“The idea of “interpreting” natural law needs attention, I think. “Natural law” can mean the objective realities of human behavior leading to its fulfillment or it can refer to the verbal commands based on those behaviors. Is it the function of the Church to “interpret” the actual behavior of people? If so, what does this mean? Does it mean gathering data about it, as empirical scientists do? Or what?”
Ann – yes, we need a definition of natural law. My (undoubtedly imperfect or incorrect) conception of it is that it is not human behavior as much as a set of moral precepts that are ‘naturally’ discernible by all persons of reasonable ability. Thus, in a Christian context, the set of precepts that comprise the natural law should be accessible to those who have not been evangelized – possibly have never even heard of the person of Jesus of Nazareth nor have been exposed to the Bible or Judeo-Christian moral tradition.
” Either the church can say that a married couple must never have sex with the intention not to conceive, or it can revise the traditional teaching — as it already has, implicitly, by endorsing NFP — and say that while sex is only for marriage and marriage must be open to children, it is up to married couples to decide how many children they will have and when they will have them. If it says the first thing, then it must withdraw its support for NFP. If it says the second, it must withdraw its prohibition on chemical ”
Matthew –
Fine summary of Dummett’s conclusions and how they’re inter-related.
The reason that Aquinas gives for the need of the Church in applying natural law is that Original Sin makes it difficult for us to use our reasoning ability because our feelings so often prejudice our thinking. The grace of God, and the Church, are needed if we are to reason well.
Ann,
It is odd, isn’t it, that God aids the people in the Church more than ordinary mortals in reasoning on matters of faith and morals, but when it comes to science, the reasoning power of the Church seems to be deficient. From at least Galileo on, the Church has lagged behind the scientific world on many of the most important discoveries about the empirical world. It seems to me that the Church is just as prone as any other group of humans (if not more so) to be impeded in its reasoning by forces that prejudice its thinking.
” If one recalls that Aristotle speaks about both intellectual and moral virtues, then the good person is one who both thinks well and acts well. So is there some gap between the “metaphysical” and the “pragmatic” Aristotle here? I don’t see it.”
Bernard –
I have no problem with Aristotle’s recognition that virtue must be an important part of an ethical system. My problem is limiting *the foundations” of an ethical system to a consideration of virtue. Some of the contemporary virtue ethicists do this, and I have to admit that sometimes Aristotle seems to agree — as when he says things like ‘if you want to know what virtue is, look at a virtuous man’. (I think that begs the question.)
I agree with the rest of your post.
Most of the arguments for and against HV become circular at some point. Hence, we drift away from the moral philosophy and theology underlying this papal encyclical. Some of this confusion was caused by our ever evolving understanding of truth. Consider the following:
1. Thomas said the relation to the natural end is accidental to the morality of the human act, whose moral species comes from the single proximate end intended by the agent. Here, accidental does not mean irrelevant, but it does indicate that Thomas’s understanding of Natural Law was not centered in the non-frustration or normativity of natural ends. Hence, up until recent times natural law was seen as the non-violation of natural ends. The role of reason was limited to a speculative recognition of the natural and the telelogies following from this natural as morally binding. Thus, moral theories that appealed to “nature” or “natural law” in this context were rejected as legalistic, physicalistic and biologistic.
This caused much confusion expecially since natural law was also right reason (e.g., practical reason participating in divine reason). However, since we live in a Fallen-Redeemed world and sin makes it difficult for humans to recognize and embrace the truth through practical reason, the Church offers her Magisterium as a guide. This is good, but the Theology of the Magisterium in the 20th century has turned into the Theology of the Papal Magisterium with little regard to Ecumenical Councils.
2. What makes HV and all sexual ethical teachings unintelligible is that they all are grounded in the principles of HV. Once you permit contraception under certain circumstances you open up the question of the use of condoms, pre-marital sex, homosexuality and abortion (e.g., under certain circumstances). That is why the Church has closed the debate. However, the cracks of the moral philosophy of HV surface as complex cases appear (e.g., the Phoenix Case….abortion to save the life of the mother when the fetus has no chance of survival under any circumstance, and the African AIDS Crisis among married couples….the use of a condom to prevent the transmission of the disease to the other spouse).
Martin Rhonheimer is trying to solve this problem by introducing a virtue-centered action theory. In this theory, the morality of human acts are judged by how they achieve virtuous ends, not necessarily what they cause physically. The morality of human acts are found through the structures of the virtues. However, this theory becomes problematic as my previous post explained regarding the measure of virtue (e.g. temperance and conjugal abstinence).
3. There is HOPE. Recently, Joseph Selling introduced a different approach in determining the moral species of human behavior based on Thomas. I am writing an essay about it, but it is still in its beginning phase. However, instead of approaching the “moral event” from human acts and behavior, you can approach it from intention and ends. While this may seem irrelavent, approaching the moral event from acts and behavior cause you to say something about acts and behavior. Hence, you run into absolute moral norms like contraceptin is intrinsically evil….end of discussion. You prematurely cut short the moral analysis. However, you can demonstrate that by using Thomas you can arrive at a different conclusion about “fertility regulation”. Absolute moral norms are inflenced by many factors including “definition of human acts”. Surgery can be defined as “mutiliation”, an evil act. However, if it is defined as “organ transplantation” it can be a good act. Murder can be defined as killing another person. However, this does not take care of self-defense. If murder is defined as willingly, unjustly and directly killing another person it can be evil. So, contraception can be defined as an act of preventing procreation or it can be defined as an act of fertility regulation.
Enough for now. Comments?
I was very impressed the message posted by Michael J. Barberi’s. I hope we hear more from him. My only knowledge of NFP comes from what I read. Some people claim it has done wonders for their marriage. Others, even deeply committed to the Church’s teachings, say for them it has been a terrible ordeal.
This is my prejudice showing, I freely admit, but when I read people saying how marvelous NFP is and how greatly it has enhanced their marriage, I think of the friends who have stopped smoking and say how much better they feel, how delicious food now tastes, and so on. And then a few months later they are back to smoking.
Jim P. ==
I think that the text from Dummett that you quote is not an ethical argument but is, rather, concerned with the relationship between faith and reasoned moral principles.
The paragraphs in Dummett that I think present the crucial arguments are:
Paragraph 6 — about contraceptives in general with a comparison of arguments for and against the Pill., NFP, and condoms.
Paragraph 8 == about the Pill used as a contraceptive and as having other uses, and about an argument in Humanae Vitae leading to contradictory teachings.
Paragraph 10 — about problems specific to Church teachings about condoms.
Note that Dummett is particularly concerned with the Church’s arguments as leading to contradictions and how the various specific teachings about the Pill, NFP and condoms lead to the contradictions. In other words, the arguments are inter=related.
JAK –
True, Dummett doesn’t mention Aquinas by name, but he presents his basic arguments. And he says explicitly of Paul’s argument against the Pill that, “Whatever may be thought about the maintenance in the encyclical of the traditional teaching on other methods of contraception, the prohibition on the use of the Pill is indefensible on the basis of moral theology as it has always been previously understood, and throws the moral teaching of the church into confusion.” (end of paragraph10)
I appreciate the specific point about Dummettt. However, the larger issue is HV. The language of the Church is moral theology and philosopy, especially when it comes to debating doctrine. Contradiction is important in such a debate as well as comparative analysis.
However, while arguments centered in existential reality and married life are important, they must be tied to a philosophical, ethical and theological foundation to be meaningful to theological debate. Having said that, most of the theological debate falls on deaf ears in the Vatican. Ditto on the ears of Magisterium theologians. However, we must continue to move the conversation forward if there is any hope for reform.
As for contradictions there are many. Consider the principle of graduation in cofession. This principle was primarly promoted as an answer to that fact that 98% of Catholics practice contraception and receive Eucharistic Communion each week. This princilple is not new. It has to do with “habitual sinners”. Hence, absolution is given to habitual sinners such as those who practice contraception. However, notice how contradictory this principle is. Once you confess contraception as a sin and receive absolution as a habitual sinner, why confess the sin again. Do you have to keep going back to confession before you receive the Eucharist? For the majority of Catholics who do not confess contraception as a sin, what message does this send them?
The contradiction gets worst. Divorced and remarried Catholics are habitual sinners, yet this principle does not appy to them!! They cannot get abolution nor can they receive Eucharistic Communion.
Mark Proska, I don’t want to belabor the point but your answer comes very nearly close to saying that NFP is better because it is less likely to work. Either it’s wrong to intend not to have children or it isn’t, but saying it isn’t and then calling the thing that actually works to prevent pregnancy intrinsically evil requires you to base that judgment on the nature of the thing itself — not its effect (not getting pregnant), which we have just been told is perfectly fine.
Michael Barberi –
Thanks for the history lesson. The Church’s arguments about sexuality are so varied and complex — and inconsistent, as you point out — that historical perspective helps clarify our understanding of it.
“While I”m quibbling with language . . . ” @ 1;04
Mollie —
You’re NOT quibbling. Misuse and ambiguity of language leads to all sorts of important errors, and the misuses need clearing up! So thanks.
While I’m talking about language problems, just what does “open to procreation” mean? “Open” seems to signify a spatial metaphor for something, but for what? The whole phrase (“open to procreation”) obviously has something to do with a possibility, but I don’t think it’s synonymous with “the possibility of a child”. If they were synonyms, you could substitute “possibility of a child” for “open to procreation” and still have the same meaning.
Ann, that was kind of my point in my response to Jim up above. Most married people use contraception at some point but also have children at some point. How is it that they as a couple are not open to procreation? Therefore, it must be based on the notion that each marital act has to be “vulnerable” to resulting in pregnancy — in which case, why is it okay not to intend to become pregnant in the first instance? And as others have said, nearly every form of contraception, including BCP (birth control pills) can fail, so I still don’t understand how even that requirement differentiates NFP from other forms of birth control.
Back to Dummett: I don’t see where he presents an argument, much less a Thomistic one, against HV. His argument is that the encyclical is incoherent, perhaps even self-contradictory, but you don’t have to be Thomist in order to do that. And what about Aquinas’s position on interfering with the natural law of human procreation? Or is the point that Thomist reasoning enables us to refute Thomist conclusions–a possibility I admit, but I’d like to hear how the argument would go. In any case, it certainly is not one that Dummett attempts.
Ann: You cite Dummett: “Whatever may be thought about the maintenance in the encyclical of the traditional teaching on other methods of contraception, the prohibition on the use of the Pill is indefensible on the basis of moral theology as it has always been previously understood, and throws the moral teaching of the church into confusion.” I simply note that this is bald assertion, not sustained by a single sentence of explanation or justification of what it maintains. This, in part, why I was so unimpressed by this article. Perhaps the editors of Commonweal could tell us whether he offers any reasons for the claim in the full piece from which this article was excerpted.
Fr. Joe, Dummett’s argument that the encyclical is incoherent isn’t necessarily a Thomistic one and I think HV can be taken apart in ways that are Thomistic (e.g., Pope Paul VI did not offer an argument from the general principle to the specific statement about every marital act etc.).
Yet if an encyclical is incoherent or self-contradictory, I don’t think it’s a stretch to think that whatever it says is ‘indefensible on the basis of moral theology’ and would ‘throw the moral teaching of the church into confusion.’ Any document that is supposed to teach some aspect of Catholic doctrine, yet is incoherent or self-contradictory, is naturally indefensible for the very reason it is incoherent or self-contradictory. If you want to teach something, you can’t *not* make sense. This is what throws the moral teaching of the church into confusion. At a very basic level it simply doesn’t make sense so people ignore it.
I think another point to consider when talking about HV is this. To me, HV’s logic flaws and lack of authentic natural law argument are a result of the fact that it is essentially about authority and not about birth control. The real question Paul VI answered was whether the previous encyclical on the topic, Casti Cannubi, was reformable. After the papal commission on birth control produced its report which said that it was, a few of the members produced the “Minority Report, ” a dissenting opinion. John Ford was the author.
“For Ford, a moral norm taught by the Church was valid because the Church said so, and could never be wrong because the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.”
“He believed that the authority of the magisterium to teach on moral matters would be seriously compromised in the teaching on contraception, expressed in the encyclical Casti connubii, were substantially changed.”
(From John Cuthbert Ford, SJ: moral theologian at the end of the manualist era by Eric Marcelo O. Genilo.)
In the Minority Report, John Ford says :“The Church could not have erred through so many centuries, even through one century, by imposing under serious obligation very grave burdens in the name of Jesus Christ, if Jesus Christ did not actually impose these burdens.”
In Papal Sin, Gary Wills puts it a little more pointedly: John Ford “said that if the church reversed itself now, it would prove that the Holy Spirit had been with the Anglicans at Lambeth, not with the Pope in Rome. That was an admission Rome could not make.”
Jeanne: I agree with what you say about the disastrous implications of a teaching that is suspected, or convicted, of inchoherence.
Ann asks what does “open to procreation” mean. The key sentence in HV reads: “The Church, nevertheless, in urging people to observe the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that it is necessary that every marital act remain destined of itself to the procreation of human life” [ut quilibet matrimonii usus ad vitam humanam procreandam per se destinatus permaneat]. The English version on the Vatican website translates the final clause: “that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” Destinatus is, I would guess, the word translated as “open’; “oriented toward” might be better. The per se should not be overlooked; it’s what is translated as “intrinsic” in the Vatican version.
I’ve always wanted to see a study of the origin and use of the phrase. It’s very similar to the one used in the canon law of marriage where the marriage act is defined as “actus per se aptus ad prolis generationem” [an act of itself fit to generate a child] c. 1061). Persons who cannot perform such an act are considered impotent and incapable of marriage. The “per se” again permits one to say that a marital act performed by the sterile is still of itself capable of generating a child.
The most significant aspect of Humanae Vitae is portrayed by this thread coming after countless other commentaries, discussions, and debates over 40 years. The encyclical was sent out in 1968 to communicate to all Catholics and men of good will an authoritative Church view on relevant papal authority, a concept of Catholic marriage, and some ordinary sexual behavior related to reproduction in marriage. Since then, experts and others have spent decades and well-informed effort (see above) attempting to understand and interpret it coherently as if it were some ancient code dug up in the hills of Crete. Marriage and sexual behavior therein, including birth control, are complex because humans are involved but are hardly the mechanical mysteries that Humanae Vitae seems to envision, as Barbara (8:46A) and others try to address.
Leaving aside the illogic and abiology of the document (and Aquinas’s and Aristotle’s ancient understanding of the natural law as reflected in human reproduction), the simplistic logical purity of abstract marriage conveyed by Humanae Vitae is clearly incomprehensible to most who study, read, and hear of it. Humanae Vitae should be dismissed and ignored henceforth like many other embarrassing pronouncements in the Church’s history. It demonstrably cannot provide what many seek in it, it damages the authority that defends it, and more promising challenges need serious attention.
I’ll just add a couple of points in this thread that I think were germane:
-Barbara (best of all) on the logic of what man yexperience ( not a question of pro-anti Dummett) argumentation,
-the notion of those who enter religious life having a “higher” status -which is less beleived also and shows an interesting problem of the view of sexuality in the church
-the reference to Lonergan’s piece of long ago and our openness to how much things have changed and how much we have learned and have more to learn.
The ‘bonum prolis” and emphasis on fecundity goes back to Augustine -was he always perfect on huiman sexuality? -and the discussion on individual acts “being open” seems more and more problematic to many.
Finally, Mr. Barberi’s posts ar eadmirable in the struggle to make sense of wher ewe’re at from historical perspective.
May I ask the following question? To say that act x is “intrinsically evil” means that it should never be performed unless the performer has sufficient excuse for doing so?
Without the proviso, I think that the notion of “intrinsic evil” is indefensible. With the proviso, I think that it makes great good sense.
Unsurprisingly, any consideration of what counts as a sufficient excuse hinges in no small part on who the performer in question is and what circumstances are relevant.
Many have been asking whether there is a meaningful difference between NFP and the pill since both can be undertaken with the same intention and the same results. One of the most frequent answers to this question is that NFP involves an omission whereas the pill requires an act. I tried to solicit some thoughts on this subject earlier in the thread, but have so far gotten no takers. Can anyone who is knowledgeable in Catholic moral philosophy speak to how acts and deliberate omissions are and/or aren’t treated differently in the catholic tradition?
Re dismissing and ignoring HV: It has been dismissed and ignored by the vast majority of the faithful. It still, however, continues to have a huge negative effect on the Church as an institution:
It created a chasm between what the Pope and hierarchy teach and what the faithful believe. This will continue unabated while its teaching stands.
It continues to distort the honest communication between priests and the faithful.
It continues to be a litmus test for the selection of bishops.
It continues to affect every Catholic moral teaching related to sex and marriage.
It continues to seriously compromise the intellectual credibility and thus the moral authority of the Church. The argument that the Church can teach valuable truths about life is hard to make if the teaching voice of the Church refuses to teach in a rational and understandable way.
For this reason, I think the teaching on artificial birth control it puts forth needs to be officially reformed rather than just ignored.
I take this paragraph to be the kernel of Dummett’s argument:
“No one supposes that it is intrinsically wrong for a woman to take the Pill, for example for its original purpose of regularizing irregular periods. ”
I agree with the general statement, although there must be better examples than regularizing an irregular period. Istm that for a married woman in her fertile years to knowingly suppress her ability to conceive, there should be an equally serious reason, and I’m not certain that “regularizing an irregular period” rises to that level. (I’m speculating here; if this is flawed reasoning, I welcome an explanation. Istm that Dummett is deploying Principle of Double Effect reasoning. Is PDE applicable in the case of a woman taking the pill for a medical reason other than contraception?)
“It has been persuasively argued that the Pill may be legitimately taken with contraceptive intent, for instance by a nun who knows herself in danger of rape.”
I agree, with the proviso that the only instances in this category that I can think of are those *outside of the context of marriage* – and of course, the primary/only context of HV’s prohibition of contraception is within marriage.
“Equally, the intention, on the part of a married couple, of reducing the frequency or number of the wife’s pregnancies is, as already noted, recognized by the church as legitimate and, in appropriate circumstances, praiseworthy. ”
I agree; but it does not therefore follow that *all methods of achieving this end* are praiseworthy.
“In the ruling of Humanae vitae, we have therefore a condemnation as morally wrong of an act not intrinsically wrong but held to become wrong when it is done for a particular end, even though that end is likewise not in itself wrong. It is incomprehensible how this could be so; it is impossible to think of a parallel—at least, I have not been able to think of one. Whatever may be thought about the maintenance in the encyclical of the traditional teaching on other methods of contraception, the prohibition on the use of the Pill is indefensible on the basis of moral theology as it has always been previously understood, and throws the moral teaching of the church into confusion.”
Humanae Vitae prohibits a married couple from contracepting. Dummett’s premises, in my (amateur) opinion, fail to elicit reasons or instances that contravene that prohibition. Therefore, in my (amateur) opinion, his conclusion is not warranted.
The Church will not change positions on birth control, simply because the Church is correct.
That our modern society does not like the fact that artificial contraception is morally wrong is not relevant.
In Humanae Vitae, Pope Pius VI simply points out that artificial contraception is objectively wrong.
Many things are wrong and people like to do them anyway. This does not mean any pope will for example, pronounce that drug abuse or heavy boozing is now Ok. He would not because those things obviously are not Ok.
Not much left to argue about it would seem.
America is a free country and you can use artificial birth control if you like. However morally, artificial birth control is still wrong.
Jeanne,
What you propose is tantamount to saying that because society finds it difficult to live up to this particular moral truth, the Catholic Church should change so that it will match society.
That is what Protestants do. Old Henry VIII could not live up to being married, and so he wanted the Church to change the rules regarding divorce. Nice.
No – Society should try to reflect Church teaching; not the other way ’round.
Ken, what you propose is tantamount to saying that the Holy Spirit has whispered the Truth into the ear of every Pope since Peter, an assertion that given the shenanigans of a number of the Popes in the past, is a bit of a stretch!
I don’t think the papacy should change its teachings to match society, I think the papacy should change its teachings if it is later concluded that they are wrong. It’s happened numerous times in the past. The papacy used to condemn all those “modernist” ideas like democracy, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the supremacy of conscience, the study of the Church fathers, ecumenism, and biblical criticism. It no longer does. Hence, it corrected its errors. This is the category into which I think HV fits.
Ken –
The Church has a lengthy history of inhumane teachings now preferably ignored. The well-known list is long: slavery, condemning to bloodless executions, etc., etc. Generally, there was no issue of the Church changing to match society. Society was shaped to follow the Church on these matters. The Church’s teachings were imposed on society over many years because the Popes had the necessary political power to make it happen, supplemented at times by allied military power. In all cases, the Church declared itself correct. It is reasonable to assume that people with their own notions of human dignity like slaves, Joan of Arc, and similar victims of the Church’s version of moral truth found it difficult to accept.
Humanae Vitae fits into a long-standing tradition of ill-advised papal pronouncements, most of which, eventually, were corrected or at least abandoned. The question today is how long its far-reaching negative effects (see Jeanne Follman, 2/11, 11:49) will be tolerated by the laity and by those in a position to make a change before more serious impacts occur.
“Self-defense is justified, but is preemptive self-defense justified in Catholic moral philosophy? If I need to shoot someone who is about to pour poison into the drinking water in order to stop the poisonings from taking place, that is one thing. But if I know someone has plans to poison the drinking water but I don’t know how or when, I don’t believe Catholic moral philosophy would allow me to shoot that person.”
Of course it is justified. You should refer to the Commonweal editorial dated 21 December 2010.
Jeanne and Jack – Obviously the Pope is a man and therefore makes mistakes. You are referring of course to past abuses and mistakes that fall more into the realm of politics and secular matters than eternal truths.
It is worth noting that while the Pope is humans and is subject to error, in line with the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, the Holy Spirit does in fact especially guide the Holy Father when he teaches on matters of fait and morals.
That is an old technique but as with the Church’s teachings on divorce and abortion, the truth exists regardless of whether or not society sees fit to recognize it.
Taking pills, using a metal or plastic IUD, or slapping on a condom simply go against the natural order, and Pope Paul VI simply points that out.
You are correct that as a society, we can choose not to accept the truth, but that does not change the fact that what the pope says regarding this is true.
“Re dismissing and ignoring HV: It has been dismissed and ignored by the vast majority of the faithful. It still, however, continues to have a huge negative effect on the Church as an institution. It created a chasm between what the Pope and hierarchy teach and what the faithful believe.”
Jeanne’s comment gets to what I take to be the source of much of the heat generated in this conversation.
I was reflecting last night a little bit on why this topic is discussed so much. I’ve concluded that the real split, at least on dotCom but probably more generally, is that there is one camp that is bound and determined, for what reason(s) I truly don’t know, that HV be treated as a dead letter, as completely ignored/superseded/invalidated/judged as non-credible.
It seems to be very important to them to portray HV as a relic which the world has completely passed by. As I say, I don’t know what that should be, but it seems to be the case.
The great problem for that camp is that if there was even one couple who managed to abide by HV’s strictures, that would be enough to puncture and deflate the entire dead-letter claim.
As it happens, there is more than one couple. There are millions of couples. When HV was issued, there were millions of couples who were *already* abiding by this allegedly-antiquated teaching. In the wake of its issuance, amid all the furor and turmoil, many of them – surely millions – continued to live this way in their marriages. A lot of those couples are still alive, still together, and still trying to live in faithful Catholic marriages.
And today there are young couples, born years and decades after 1968, who inexplicably, perhaps quixotically, try to shape their marriages under HV’s guidelines.
Thus, I take issue with formulations like this one: “[HV] created a chasm between what the Pope and hierarchy teach and what the faithful believe.” That’s not accurate. It would be much truer to say that HV created a chasm between what the Pope and hierarchy teach and *some* of the faithful believe.
Now, you may believe that every single person you know practices artificial birth control. That wouldn’t be surprising; a commenter commented in this forum recently that she didn’t know a single person who voted for Ronald Reagan, who, despite bypassing that entire circle of acquaintances, nevertheless assembled majorities in virtually every state in the union in two straight elections. Such statements simply seem to illustrate the limits of our social connections, and our tendency to congregate with the like-minded.
It’s been suggested here that abiding by the rules laid out in HV require heroic virtue. I say, nonsense. If millions of couples can do it, virtually all of us can do it.
Of course it is justified. You should refer to the Commonweal editorial dated 21 December 2010.
MAT,
I don’t see how the editorial supports preemptive self-defense. It is discussing wartime powers of the president. Governments and military personnel have powers in wartime that ordinary citizens do not have. As I understand Catholic teaching on self-defense, it is never permissible to intend to kill another person, even in self-defense. The least amount of force necessary must be used, and although deadly force may be used if necessary, the person defending himself or herself must not have the intention of killing.
Barbara -
You did make your point exceptionally clear, and I agree entirely. Dummett too is mystified how the Church can make both assertions simultaneously. As he puts it, “It is incomprehensible how this could be so; it is impossible to think of a parallel—at least, I have not been able to think of one.”
I particularly admire Dummett because he is willing to criticize the party line even though he himself is a Catholic conservative. And God bless Commonweal for publishing it. Rome needs such conspicuous blowback.
there is one camp that is bound and determined, for what reason(s) I truly don’t know, that HV be treated as a dead letter
What I don’t understand is why they continue to comment on those threads. If they are really so convinced that HV can be treated as a dead letter, then why not ignore those threads as well?
It’s been suggested here that abiding by the rules laid out in HV require heroic virtue. I say, nonsense. If millions of couples can do it, virtually all of us can do it.
Jim,
First of all, where do you get your statistics?
Second, suppose we apply this to infertile couples, and say to them, “If millions of couples can have babies, virtually all couples can have babies.” Or you might say to my developmentally disabled niece, who cannot even read and write at age 20, “Millions of people have learned
calculus. If millions can do it, so can you!” How many self-made millionaires over the years have said, “If I can become a millionaire, anybody can do it”? And if millions of people can live into their 80s, then virtually everybody should be able to live into their 80s.
Third, we’re seeing here that many people, including good and faithful Catholics, simply don’t understand why NFP is licit and the pill is not. Why should they study and study and study HV, conclude that it is unconvincing, and follow it anyway?
If married couples try in good faith to understand HV, find it unconvincing, and find that practicing NFP hurts rather than helps their marriage, I find it bizarre that they should just accept it on blind faith.
The great problem for that camp is that if there was even one couple who managed to abide by HV’s strictures, that would be enough to puncture and deflate the entire dead-letter claim.
If there is one person who sticks by the old Church prohibitions against charging interest on loaned money, is that teaching still in force?
I am still reading a great book called Being Wrong, and the author says, “[W]e look into our hearts and see objectivity; we look into our minds and see reality . . . . Evry one of us confuses our models of the world with the word itself—not occasionally or accidentally but necessarily.” This leads to three possible conclusions when people disagree with us. They are either ignorant (in the non-pejorative sense) and need more information; they are idiots, incapable of understanding; or they are evil. You seem to be leaning toward the third. You don’t know why, but some people are just intent on relegating HV to the dustbin. Maybe the haven’t studied it deeply enough. Maybe they aren’t bright enough to understand it. But probably they just don’t want to accept it.
Of course, if one really is right (about something that actually is true), and others disagree, then it may very well be that they are don’t know enough, aren’t bright enough, or are stubbornly persisting in error. But Kathryn Schulz points asks how you know you are the one who is right. Every word I write seems to me objectively true. My own opinions feel true. I sometimes marvel at the fact that I am so right so much of the time. But Schulz points out that being wrong feels exactly like being right. We don’t know what being wrong feels like. We only know what having been wrong feels like.
“Back to Dummett: I don’t see where he presents an argument, much less a Thomistic one, against HV. His argument is that the encyclical is incoherent, perhaps even self-contradictory, but you don’t have to be Thomist in order to do that.”
JAK ==
In Dummett’s showing that the HV argument about openess/aptness (is there such a word? there should be) for procreation is inconsistent with the Church’s arguments against the Pill he has shown that Church teaching has something dreadfully wrong with it.
If you are arguing that the Church should choose *either* the anti-Pill argument or the anti-aptness argument in order to be coherent (and i’m not sure you are) — that the Church has to give up either the Pill OR the aptness argument, that would NOT be logically justified because all that follows from the particular bit of incoherence which Dummett uncovers is that there is something dreadfully wrong with Church teaching about the Pill-and-aptness. Logically it remains possible that the conclusions of BOTH arguments might be false.
In other words, though Dummett doesn’t attack the aptness argument in isolation, he certainly shows Church teaching (whether re aptness or the Pill, possibly both) to be in serious need of revision.
“I don’t see how the editorial supports preemptive self-defense. It is discussing wartime powers of the president.”
It is discussing the U.S. policy of targeted assassinations of non-state actors from the period 20 January 2009 to present. The targeted assassination of non-state actors is based on the concept of anticipitatory self-defense (cf for example, the “Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions” by Philip Alston). The editorial in question states “…targeting Al Qaeda militants is probably justified…”.
Jim Pauwels and Joseph Komonchak:
First Jim:
Some statistics will help you understand that the chasm is between the pope and Church Heirarchy and the faithful.
1. A U.S. Government Study on Fertility, Family Planning and Reproductive Health of U.S. Women 1982-2006 showed only 1.2% of married women in 2006 used periodic continence (PC) as a birth control method.
2. Thiis report also showed that this 1.2% has been declining since 1982.
3. A United Nations Report said that only 2.1% of women world-wide use PC. Hence, those that practice PC cannot be used as a litmus test for its reasonability for the other 98%. Read on.
4. A Princeton University and other scientific researchers published studies on PC. While most supporters of PC (e.g, NFP) say that it is as effective as the pill, they are correct. HOWEVER, what they don’t tell you is that this result if only based on “perfect compliance”. The effectiveness rate is only 75% (e.g., a 25% failure rate) based on actual usage! Actual usage is the key statistic because it reflects reality and the burdens impossed on couples that must abstan 12 consecutive days per month. PC also has a 53% discontinuence rate in the first year.
Therefore, PC is not a reasonable or effective method of birth regulation when you consider that imperfect compliance over a 20 year fertility period will result in more children than wanted and marital disharmony.
5. A NY Times Survey of Priests and Nuns in 1994 showed that only 44% of priests support HV. Janet Smith, the most prominent theologian supporting HV in the U.S. said that some surveys put the percentage between 35%-45%; however she believes it is 35% or less.
5. The late Bishop Unterner said that HV is not compelling to many bishops. It is a well know fact that “silent dissent” among the world’s bishops is profound but they will never go public because it will only cause more division within the Church.
Young priests are not very dissimilar despite assertions to the contrary. More importantly, unless new priests are given a convincing argument for HV, they will not be able to convince the laity. Thus, we are back at square one.
Joseph:
A strict reading of HV causes much confusion because it is unintelligible. However, HV was not written as a moral theory. As you know, there have been many interpretations of HV over the years. The arguments started with a traditional interpretation of natural law as the non-violation of natural ends; then Veritatis Spendor came along. VS moved away from the old natural law approch. The focus was on the contraceptive act as “every action which before, during or after sexual intercourse intends to render procreation impossible. This means the openness to the transmission of new life should be understood as intentional openness….It means one must never intentionally act against the transmission of life through contraceptive acts. This was supported by the absolute moral norm that some acts are intrinsically evil. The transmission of life is a sacred gift from God and He participates in the procreative process. Thus, one must never presuppose God’s Will. Of course, this is also hard to swallow but the answer IMO is by using Thomas.
We will never persuade Magisterium theologians to move away from their point of view unless we fight them on their grounds….moral philosophy and theology….with an emphasis on Thomistic ethical argumentation. We cannot rely on the old criticisms of Augustine, the moral manuals, and Casti Cannubii. Aquinas has always been a bulwark of foundational ethics in the Church. Today, a revival of his work continues to dominant theological discussion. However, many still do not understand Thomas. Even Bill Murphy of Josephinum agrees that Thomas understanding of natural law was not centered in the non-frustration of natural ends. However, the big disputes are: the understanding and application of the proximate and remote ends (e.g., the proximate end of the object is its moral species), absolute moral norms and conclusions based on secondary principles, definitions of human acts, etc.
My remarks earlier suggested an approach that could move the conversation forward. However, unless I get some help many theological journals will not publish such an essay.
I would be happy to share a draft of this essay with you for your review and commentary.
Per David; “…Third, we’re seeing here that many people, including good and faithful Catholics, simply don’t understand why NFP is licit and the pill is not. Why should they study and study and study HV, conclude that it is unconvincing, and follow it anyway?”
Per Ken – Where do you get your statistics; how do you know this to be the case?
David: “..If married couples try in good faith to understand HV, find it unconvincing, and find that practicing NFP hurts rather than helps their marriage, I find it bizarre that they should just accept it on blind faith.”
Ken – How do you know if “married couples try in good faith to understand HV…” ?
You should not just toss around blanket statements like this
Per Ken – Where do you get your statistics; how do you know this to be the case?
Ken,
I am reading their comments right here in this thread. I did not mention any numbers.
Ken – How do you know if “married couples try in good faith to understand HV…” ?
I did not assert that they do. I asked a question if they do. Now, I give people here credit for speaking in good faith. It seems like many people who both agree and disagree with HV have studied it extensively.
You should not just toss around blanket statements like this.
You shouldn’t claim people are making statements when they are asking questions.
It is discussing the U.S. policy of targeted assassinations of non-state actors from the period 20 January 2009 to present.
MAT,
It is discussing wartime powers of the American government. Anwar al-Awlaki is an enemy combatant. The rules that apply to governments and enemy combatants do not apply to individuals. Civilians are never allowed to deliberately kill another human being, even in self-defense. They may wind up killing as a foreseen but unintended effect of an act of self-defense, but they may not deliberately kill. It is in the Catechism.
Ken, on “blanket statements” – people who live in glass houses….
As seen above Jim P. it’s not “some” (could be two or three) but a significantly large group of faithful that disagree with Papl teaching on this.
And speaking of questions, I hope noone here thinks that if they are unhappy with Dummett, then it follows HV is correct?
Ann: The only thing I was arguing for is that Dummett did not, as you maintained, present a Thomist argument against HV. I was not defending HV–my views on its argument were published 34 years ago in the last part of my ThSt article to which I gave a link yesterday. I still maintain that Dummett’s article is not a very good one, and I think it should be possible to criticize it without being thought to be defending the encyclical. He really didn’t engage HV, which was not just about the pill nor did its argument rest solely on the physical integrity of the marital act. And I don’t think referring to “the party line” here is very helpful. Apparently one is not allowed to criticize critics of HV.
Michael Barberi: I’m not entirely sure why your last remarks above were directed to me. I would only point out that in your first paragraph I don’t see any move in VS away from the argument of HV. It was in the latter that the sentence appeared that you quote as if representing VS: “Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.”
I have followed this thread with great interest and admiration, particularly at the fact that the discussion can continue to be so civil while simultaneously being so passionately debated. It is thus a little sad to read that people who disagree with Humanea Vitae or people who think it is a ‘dead letter’ have no say in the discussion of it. Mostly because, as a very concrete example, HV functions as a way of evaluating the relationship between the teaching magisterium, ethics, morality, authority, theology and philosophy.
Fr. Komonchak, thank you for the two articles, Anscomb’s and your own. I am curious if your opinions have changed or developed since you wrote the article and if so, how?
Concerning Natural Law and HV, I am glad to read some of the comments here and reread HV. It is a powerful observation the HV does not argue along natural law lines for it’s pronouncement, but still uses natural law language to simply make a statement. I believe that Pope Paul must have been aware of Germain Grisez’ critique of the traditional natural law arguments. It is also my understanding that John Finnis is not satisfied with the previous arguments though both Grisez and Finnis agree with the ban on artificial birth control. Likewise, Maritain seems to have concluded that classical natural law was not sufficient to maintain the ban on contraception (from an old Commonweal article) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_10_128/ai_75445694/
That Natural Law language has been altered as of late, to include quasi-theological/philsophical ‘theology of the body’ (JPII). I have also heard scriptural arguments, geopraphic arguments, cultural arguments etc. So I suppose I am left with the impression that the teaching on contraception is a teaching (authoritative?) floating around without a foundation, without a justification. Not only is this an interesting question, ‘can the magisterium demand adherence to a teaching?’ but it is an interesting example which illuminates the relationship between authority and reason.
I am reminded of a passage from A Canticle for Leibowitz “Insofar as thought could be governed at all, it could only be commanded to follow what reason affirmed anyhow; command it otherwise, and it would not obey. Like any wise ruler, Abbot Arkos did not issue orders vainly, when to disobey was possible and to enforce was not.”
“The rules that apply to governments…do not apply to individuals….It is in the Catechism.”
So, are saying you think it is permissible for governments to engage in anticipitatory self defense but not individuals? Would that not contradict #2313 of the Catechism?
Also, Mr. al-Awlaki, consistant with the Justice Department’s March 2009 memoranda, is not considered an enemy combatant. I reckon that is why the editors chose to use the qualifier “[p]resumably” when referring to him.
Joseph Komonchak:
I apologize if my remarks were confusing to you. Yes, you are correct that that passage was from HV.
What I tried to say was that VS moved away from the physical notion of natural law to embrace Thomas. VS defined intrinsically evil acts as human acts that are evil by means of their object, which includes the proximate end intended by the agent, and which can also be specified by those circumstances that are what Thomas calls ‘principal conditions’ of the object.
In other words, the intrinsically evil act of contraception in not merely the choice of some physical behavior that prevents procreation. Instead, it is a choice of some external act precisely for the proximate end of preventing the procreative consequences of a foreseen marital act. However, this can be challanged.
The above is meaningful because VS attempted to find a way out of the post-conciliar stalemate in moral theory by moving to Thomas’s notion of the proximate end. By this I meant that the moral species of an object is the proximate end of the agent. This helps to indentify the moral species or kind of the human act. This was explicitly done to reject the revisionist notion that the remote end of the agent determines the object. Nevertheless, it was not sucessful.
In directing my comments to you I wanted to suggest that in order to show that HV is wrong must be based on Thomas. I believe I have found such a way. Hence, my suggestion (based on your interest) to send you a draft of my essay for your comments. This does not mean that there are no other argumentations that can refute HV. However, all of those arguments are in stalemate. My objective is to move the converstion forward by appealing to Thomas in a different way. This will hopefully intereset traditionists who understand and use Thomas as their defense of HV.
“Whatever may be thought about the maintenance in the encyclical of the traditional teaching on other methods of contraception, the prohibition on the use of the Pill is indefensible on the basis of moral theology as it has always been previously understood, and throws the moral teaching of the church into confusion.” I simply note that this is bald assertion, not sustained by a single sentence of explanation or justification of what it maintains.
Fr. Komonchak, I don’t understand how you can say this about this article. That statement is not a bald assertion, it’s a conclusion, and it seems to me to be more than justified by what’s right there in the article — no further reading necessary. You may find his analysis unconvincing, but I don’t see how you can say he hasn’t bothered to offer one. Several people here have obviously understood Dummett’s argument. I’m still wondering if someone will be able to argue against it.
JAK —
Yes, “openness” does seem to be an extremely poor translation of “destinatus” (which seems closer to “destined to” if not identical with it). As meaning “apt to” or “able to” or “capable of”, the argument would then seem to be a matter of fulfilling a potency. And this, I think, makes the argument not a new one but really a variation on the old argument that right and wrong is a matter of fulfilling potentials that must be fulfilled.
Mollie:
What I think is a bald assertion is the part about HV’s argument departing from “moral theology as it has always been previously understood.” Perhaps Dummett thought this obvious, and not in need of explanation or justification.
Ann: There are two different adjectives used: destinatus in HV, and “aptus” in the Code. The first suggests an in-built tendency, the second simple ability or capability. In the two documents, the phrase serves different purposes, but they’re close enough to each other that I wonder if there hasn’t been a transfer from one context to another.
I thought Dummett’s arguments were sound especially when he contrasted the fact that it is licit to limit sexual intercourse to infertile periods and the lawfulness of limiting children in marriage for good reasons (e.g., being exempt from their procreative obligations on a marriage level…Pius XII) VERSUS the intrinsical evil of contraception. If contraception is an act of fertility regulation (which it is according to Pius XII and many other theologians like Van der Marck), then HV is contradictory on many levels.
1. What is the justification for being exampted from procreative obligagtions on a marriage level for good reasons and under these same circumstances the requirement that every marital act be open to procreation?
2. What is the basis for preventing foreseen procreative consequences of marital acts? It can not be Thomas because natural law was not centered in the non-frustration of natural ends. Is it based on God’s Will? If so, how was this revealed?
3. Fertility regulation is lawful. PC and taking the pill are acts of fertility regulation. Yet, PC is licit and taking the pill is illicit.
4. The proximate end of fertility regulation can be the good of existing children, spousal well-being and no more pregnancies/children (especially when spouses are exempt from their procreative obligations on the marriage level for good reasons). The act of taking the pill as fertility regulation is good, the intention and end (as stated) is also good. Why is taking the pill intrinsically evil?
An article _About John C. Ford, S.J._ by Germain Grisez offers interesting material on the papal birth-control commission with which he and Ford were closely associated before Humanae Vitae was issued. One line about Humanae Vitae seemed particularly apt after observing this thread: “The central teaching seemed to Ford entirely sound, precisely formulated, and complete. The explanation of it, however, seemed unclear and incomplete.”
http://www.twotlj.org/Ford.html
Last year, when Benedict XVI wandered into ambiguities and imprecision in various speeches, the Vatican spokesman was close behind to clarify what the Pope was and wasn’t referring to and what he did and didn’t mean. Is there no Church mechanism over 40 years to perform a similar function for a presumably more important, authoritative, 20-page encyclical?
“May I ask the following question? To say that act x is “intrinsically evil” means that it should never be performed unless the performer has sufficient excuse for doing so?”
Bernard –
According to traditional Church teaching (the most common, that is) an intrinsically evil act may never be performed licitly because even a good end or good intention does not justify an intrinsically evil means. (Back to ends not justifying means.)
MAT,
In 2001, congress authorized the president to use force against Al Qaida. Anwar al-Awlaki is a member of al Qaida. Legitimate governments in wartime have the authority to kill. Individuals acting as individuals never have the authority to kill intentionally.
2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
Now, I would say the United States flagrantly violates the part about prisoners, but I don’t think Anwar al-Awlaki can be defined as a non-combatant even if he isn’t technically an “enemy combatant.” So I don’t see how the paragraph applies to him. The Catechism’s definition of a non-combatant does not necessarily include someone who doesn’t meet the definition of “enemy combatant.” The Vatican and the US government don’t coordinate their definitions.
In any case, I am not sure what Anwar al-Awlaki has to do with this (or what this has to do with Humanae Vitae). It seems quite clear to me that individuals have no right (in Catholic teaching) to kill in anticipatory self-defense. In order to defend yourself, you must be under attack. Bringing in government actions and wartime actions doesn’t clarify anything. It unnecessarily complicates the issue.
This conversation has been filled with complex moral analysis, a lot of which is above my head. I would like to offer a different perspective on this topic, that of lived experience.
When my husband and I graduated from college about 15 years ago, we belonged to a perhaps unusual social group (although not that unusual if you hang around Catholic colleges): we and a bunch of our friends were getting married in our early twenties and were gung-ho for NFP. We had heard lots of talks about the evils of contraception and many testamonials about the wonders NFP did for marriage. Above all we were eager to live as young Catholics who were faithful to the Church. However, almost all of our cohort of friends, including us, abandoned the practice of NFP within a few years because of the strain to our marriages. This wasn’t the healthy strain and struggle of trying to live virtuously. It was the strain of doing something that was actively hurting our relationships. For some it was the way it lead to poor decisions about when to have children. (One marriage was struggling and close to failing and the couple chose to risk conception so that they could have greater intimacy and bonding during that difficult time in their relationship. The added strain of the child they conceived to the problems they already had was the last straw in their marriage.) For others it had to do with the inability to work through sexual problems (e.g. painful intercourse) because NFP required long periods of abstinence when they couldn’t do the exercises their therapist was recommending. For another couple it had to do with the wife’s irregular cycles that would frequently mean going for months without intercourse. Even now, I know my husband and I would never go back. We have four young kids and are exhausted at the end of most days. The chances for all the stars to align for us to be sexually intimate are rare enough as it is without more days blocked out by the NFP calendar. I don’t think anyone can accuse us of not being open to life (heck, we are even thinking about going for #5), but I think NFP at this point would mean sacrificing the unitive part of our marriage. So we are contracepting for the sake of our marriage.
There are lots of people who have had good experiences with NFP. But there are also a lot of people who have whole heartedly embraced it and had very negative experiences. (And I should add: for some, this has broken their relationship with the Church because of the resentment they feel about this and/or their ongoing sense of being rejected for doing what was best for their marriage.) The Church really needs to listen to the experiences of both groups. I have found that priests and bishops are quick to trumpet NFP success stories and quick to discount stories where NFP had a negative impact. They assume the couple just wasn’t trying hard enough.
Adam, thank you for the link to the article on Maritain. I don’t think most people mean to denigrate NFP with their comments on HV, I certainly don’t. However, NFP is used like a stalking horse (as VZE’s poignant comment shows), a blunt instrument to avoid addressing the logical shortcomings of HV — as in the comments of Bender and P Flanagan and Jim P. — essentially, since you have NFP available to you, you have no right to complain that you can’t take the pill. The issue is whether NFP should be compulsory and exclusive for all married couples who want to avoid pregnancy. For that discussion, its shortcomings are more important than its blessings. Even the author of TCOYF, probably the biggest proponent of NFP on the face of the planet (which btw she calls fertility awareness or FA) thinks that you need a supply of condoms as a back up if you plan to use it as contraception.
“In 2001, congress authorized the president to use force against Al Qaida. Anwar al-Awlaki is a member of al Qaida. Legitimate governments in wartime have the authority to kill.”
“…I don’t think Anwar al-Awlaki can be defined as a non-combatant even if he isn’t technically an “enemy combatant.” So I don’t see how the paragraph applies to him.”
The 2001 AUMF did not say that (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/content-detail.html). Mr. al-Awlaki is not a member of “Al-Quaeda”, he is a member of “Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula”. I do not know anything about the Catechism but under international law, governments do not have the authority to kill whoever they want for any reason. And its not “wartime”, it’s a “non-international armed conflict;” under such a conflict, there is no such concept as a “combatant”.
“In any case, I am not sure what Anwar al-Awlaki has to do with this (or what this has to do with Humanae Vitae).”
As an individual, he has nothing to do with this. My question is, and I freely admit I do not know anything about the CCC, you are making a distinction between state actors and non-state actors. What is the basis for that distinction? Is there a document you can refer to? In the absence of that distinction, I am saying that, based on the editorial I referred to, it is permissible for people acting on behalf of a state (strangely, international law notwithstanding) to kill in anticipatory self-defense. It has nothing to do with HV – that is way over my head. Just thought the comment regarding the morality of the preemptive poisoning of Hitler was interesting and wanted to understand more about it given its similarity to the program of the US intelligence services we’ve been discussing.
And that’s enough about U.S. intelligence policy for this post.
Ann, I owe you a couple of responses, but for now let me offer the following observation that is applicable to lots of the discussion here. The discussion has, as one of its principal foci the issue of rules for sexual conduct in marriage, what reasons support these rules, etc.
Regrettably, there is little reference to the biblical wisdom found, for example, in the words of Jesus that the sabbath is made for men, not men for the sabbath. The institution of marriage exists for people, not people for the institution of marriage.
Marriage is certainly a crucial and necessary institution. But as an institution it gives expression to what people have in common, to some dimension of WHAT we are as human beings. It makes no pretense of giving expression to the uniqueness of each of us, a uniqueness that is no less constitutive of each of us than is what we have in common. Linguistically, this uniqueness finds expression in sentences that say WHO I am and WHO you are.
Each of us , by virtue of our common humanity, has a stake in the preservation and perpetuation of the human race. This includes both homosexual as well as heterosexual people. The institution of marriage exists to achieve this objective.
Each marriage, though, joins two unique people. How they live in the institution cannot be determined EXCLUSIVELY by norms that can only give expression to what they are. How it is wise for them to live is also determined by who they are. Citing institutional rules is insufficient for determining in each case for each married person how he or she should live out their marriage.
Lots of things follow from this, among them the need for the sort of practical wisdom that Aristotle describes in his practical philosophy ( Ethics, Politics, Rhetoric). This wisdom does not yield universally applicable norms. It presupposes some such norms, but tailors their application to the unique persons and their unique situations.
Now, specifically to Ann.
We ought to distinguish the performance of some intrinsically evil action from culpability for committing it on some particular occasion. To claim that they can be no EXCUSES that can exculpate a person who commits such an act entails that his or her uniqueness is irrelevant in this instance. Since a person’s uniqueness is constitutive of his or her very being, such a claim would make no sense.
I forgot to add that I too found VZE’s comment not only poignant, but also very instructive.
It is tragic that there is such profound misunderstanding.
Rather than reading any specific magisterial document in isolation, like Humanae Vitae, it is helpful to understanding to read such things in the context of the whole. So, let’s set Humanae Vitae aside for the moment and come back to it later.
In trying to understand the Church’s teachings on human sexuality, including contraception, rather than starting from an outcome-determinative stance, it is helpful to start instead from some simple basics. Namely, the foundation of EVERY teaching of Jesus Christ and the key to understanding every teaching of the Church — you shall love the Lord thy God with all your heart, etc., and love one another as Jesus has loved us.
The purpose and meaning of human life is to love and be loved in truth. THAT is the starting point. That is the starting point for the Magisterium, that should be the starting point for us. Caritas in veritate in all things. Made in the image of the Triune God, man, male and female, is made to be like Him. We are not merely self-concerned, self-contained individuals, but are instead social creatures, we are made for relation, most especially that relationship which is “communion,” the fullness of love in truth. And part of the purpose and struggle of this worldly life, after the Fall, is to turn back toward Him and grow towards being more like Him, “to be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.” It is not merely a matter of Salvation History, but Jesus invites us to enter also into Sanctification History. To be like Him who is Love and Truth, to be perfect in love and truth ourselves, and to help us to that, Jesus sends us the Holy Spirit. To be perfect in this way, we must do what we can ourselves and ask God for the grace to do the rest.
Starting from this foundational point, the foundation of the entirety of the Faith — that is where one must start if one wishes to understand the Church’s teachings on human sexuality, much less the particulars of Humanae Vitae.
With respect to a given act, for example, sex, the question is — is what the individual doing, thinking, wanting consistent with love and truth, or is it inconsistent with or in opposition to love and truth? Is it seeking perfection in love and truth?
Is meeting a stranger in a bar and “hooking up” with them, a quick one-night stand, an act of love and truth?
Is living with your boyfriend/girlfriend and having repeated pre-marital sex acts of love and truth?
Is cheating on one’s spouse and having adulterous sex with another an act of love and truth?
Is looking at porn and having sex with yourself an act of love and truth?
Is recreational sex, sex as entertainment, sex as seeing physical stimulation as the be all and end all of existence, is that an act of love and truth?
Is having sex with a spouse with an anti-child mentality an act of love and truth?
Is having sex with a spouse with the selfish attitude of self-satisfaction, of viewing sex as only what you can get out of it, rather than what you can give to the other, is that an act of love and truth?
While having sex with a spouse, is refusing to give the entirety of yourself, closing off and withholding a part of yourself, such as your fertility, is that an act of love and truth?
Is engaging in an act which involves the transmission of procreative genetic material into that part of the body of another where other procreative genetic material is often present, and the entirety of the act is oriented toward facilitating and causing the transmission of that procreative genetic material, and doing this all while denying that it is an inherently potentially reproductive act that one is engaged in, is that an act of truth and love?
If one asks these questions regarding whether certain conduct and attitudes are consistent with the truth of the human person, the truth that we are made to love and be loved in truth, and that anything contrary to that is necessarily contrary to moral truth, i.e. immoral, then one can begin to understand the Church’s teachings on human sexuality and other things.
With that foundational understanding, if one then goes and re-reads Humanae Vitae in that light, then one will see that that is exactly what Humanae Vitae is teaching — love and truth.
Love and Truth, that is what Humanae Vitae and the other teachings of the Church on human sexuality are all about. Love and Truth. Indeed, they must necessarily be based on love and truth because they are based on God, who is Love and Truth. Not opinion. Not oppression. Not misogyny. Not senile old men who are probably gay anyway. Love and Truth.
Love God and love one another, fully and completely, and the truth will set you free.
JAK –
As I interpret Dummett, his main point is not to argue against any one form of birth control but to show that Church teachings are blatantly inconsistent and therefore intolerable as they stand. However, he expressly argues (in paragraph 6) against the consistency of the Church’s teaching on NFP, the Pill, and condoms and he faults Church teachings about other sorts of birth control. (Note: in a different paragraph he distinguishes “birth control” and “contraceptives”. By the latter he seems to mean devices which prevent conception.)
Perhaps what is most important about paragraph 6 (at least as I understand it) is that he shows clearly (even if he doesn’t say it explicitly) that the *universality* of the Church’s traditional principle that birth control is alway wrong does NOT always hold — that by the Church’s explicit teachings on NFP, there are exceptions to that prohibition..
Concerning NFP he says, “But the church’s recognition that the use by a husband and wife of the “natural” or rhythm method, whereby they confine sexual intercourse to infertile periods, is morally legitimate denied it [ the Church] the right to hold the purpose of reducing the frequency or number of pregnancies to be in itself wrong.” (If you grant that some circles are squares, you thereby eliminate the possibility that no geometrical figures are squares.)
He discusses two different ways in which, according to traditional Church teaching, birth control methods can be immoral: 1) if an *extrinsic* goal/purpose (an end external to itself) is immoral, and 2) if a method is *intrinsically* evil, i.e., wrong in itself. The Church has always condemned certain sexual acts as intrinsically evil (e.g., oral and anal sex). Now, in HV the Church is saying that the use of certain birth control methods such as use of the Pill (an act) and condoms (a device) are wrong because they are intrinsically immoral.
The problem with the Pill is that
1) it cannot be said to be immoral because of its purpose because approval of NFP allows avoidance of pregnancy at least in some cases.
2) it cannot be said to be immoral because it violates the integrity of the marriage act, because it does not affect the marriage act itself. In fact it is used *prior* to the marriage act, so it cannot be said to violate it.
So the Church is left with no reason the condemn the Pill.
Here is the whole of paragraph 6 for anybody who doesn’t get CWL.
“The encyclical did not merely reaffirm a long-standing tradition: it also dealt with something quite new—the Pill. The condemnation of its use for a contraceptive purpose accorded with the manner in which it had been usual to say why it was wrong to use other devices for that purpose, namely precisely because of the purpose. But the church’s recognition that the use by a husband and wife of the “natural” or rhythm method, whereby they confine sexual intercourse to infertile periods, is morally legitimate denied it the right to hold the purpose of reducing the frequency or number of pregnancies to be in itself wrong. A condemnation of the use of contraceptive devices such as condoms could not therefore be consistently based upon their intended purpose, only on a claim that an act involving such a device was intrinsically wrong, regardless of the purpose—for instance, on the ground that it violated the integrity of the marriage act. Such a claim would assimilate such an act to other deviations from normal intercourse condemned by Christian tradition, such as those now generally referred to as oral and anal sex.But, if the prohibition of contraceptives were based on such a ground, the Pill really did pose a new question, since its use could not be described as violating the integrity of the marriage act. Instead, the encyclical condemned its use when the purpose was contraceptive, that is, to reduce the frequency or number of pregnancies, and for that purpose alone. Moral philosophy cannot accommodate such a prohibition.
” Can anyone who is knowledgeable in Catholic moral philosophy speak to how acts and deliberate omissions are and/or aren’t treated differently in the catholic tradition?”
David Tenney –
This is a fine question. I know some moral theology but am no expert, and it’s a puzzler to me too. It involves, I think, the whole notion of obligation, a puzzler to many people. Even a child knows there is such a thing, but exactly what is an obligation? And how can not meeting one be a sin?
ISTM that any time philosophers have to deal with negatives they find themself in trouble :-)
Oops — that should have been “moral philosophy”, not theology.
” Is PDE applicable in the case of a woman taking the pill for a medical reason other than contraception?”
Jim P. –
Yes. Dummet points out that regulation of the menstrual cycle was the original purpose of the Pill, and it is a good purpose in itself. Therefore, PDE can apply to using it even as it prevents pregnancy, but for a proportionate reason.
“And today there are young couples, born years and decades after 1968, who inexplicably, perhaps quixotically, try to shape their marriages under HV’s guidelines.”
Jim P. –
I have reason to think that there have been many young couples who have wrestled with HV and with much fear and trepidation have followed their consciences and admitted to themselves that HV is wrong about some forms of contraception. I say this because some of those young couples were my friends. They most certainly did not just choose to reject it because they wanted to for whatever reason. And, given what I know of my friends, in some cases it took a great deal of courage to say to the official Church, “No, you’re wrong about this matter”. In other words, they are highly virtuous people. Others have disagreed, and they are highly virtuous too.
However, I must say that I suspect that some who follow HV do so because they lack the courage to follow their own consciences, but I might be wrong, of course. The reason I say this is because some of them are usually very rational, but when it comes to criticizing any Church teaching they suddenly turn their logic off. There must be some reason why.
I think that one of the reason HV elicits such interest is for this very reason — many thoroughly serious Catholics who want to do what is right have used their reasoning power to judge that HV is not admissible, but they, being humble at the same time, know that they might have been mistaken back when they first struggled with HV. (And yes, they struggled. They do not take the Church’s injunction lightly that we must form their consciences rightly, including taking the Church’s official teachings extremely seriously.) So now, when they find another serious discussion of HV they pay close attention because they 1) know they might have been wrong in the past, and 2) they might find either corroboration of their original judgment or some reason to reverse their old judgment.
That’s what the Church’s teaching about conscience implies: that we admit we can be wrong (a difficult thing to do in any case) and that we reverse our judgments when need be. This is true for all of us. Including the bishops.
With students I used to begin discussion of obligation by asking them if they had ever experienced an “ought”; none ever denied ever having had the experience. But, of course, that wouldn’t work with philosophers who hold to the “black box” theory.
Let’s try to keep to a minimum suspicions about the motives or character of those who do or don’t subscribe to HV.
“Therefore, PC is not a reasonable or effective method of birth regulation when you consider that imperfect compliance over a 20 year fertility period will result in more children than wanted and marital disharmony.”
Michael Barberi –
Not persuasive. If it is reasonable to held that contraception is moral because many people use it is like arguing that lying and stealing are not sinful because many lie and steal.
YOU: ” We will never persuade Magisterium theologians to move away from their point of view unless we fight them on their grounds….moral philosophy and theology….with an emphasis on Thomistic ethical argumentation.:
ME: Agreed. If you want to argue with someone you have to speak a common language. And while I agree that Thomas is still the best ethicist available, he’s not perfect even aside from his antiquated biology. There are great lacunae in his moral thinking. He just doesn’t ask some questions that the moderns and contemporaries are rightly interested in or doesn’t give them enough attention. For instance, his just war theory while fine for old wars, but in my opinnion it simply doesn’t apply to such events as the declarations of war by only a part of a nation against another whole nation (e.g., Al Queda against the U.S.).
We really do need a new Aquinas, or should I say a great supplemental one.
Rather than reading any specific magisterial document in isolation, like Humanae Vitae, it is helpful to understanding to read such things in the context of the whole. So, let’s set Humanae Vitae aside for the moment and come back to it later.
Bender,
The question here isn’t the whole of Catholic thought. It is, as I understand it, why Catholic thought allows a woman to take the pill for noncontraceptive reasons, doesn’t prohibit marital sex while the wife is taking the pill for noncontraceptive reasons, but prohibits taking the pill (and having marital sex) with contraceptive intent. The pill, at least as far as I can tell, is unique among contraceptives in that it does not alter the “form” of sexual intercourse. Just as naturally infertile couples are required to perform intercourse in exactly the same “form” as fertile couples, unnaturally infertile couples would be required (and could) perform sexual intercourse in exactly the same “form” as all other Catholic couples. They are not interfering with the “form” of the act.
So contraception with the pill seems to be purely a matter of intention. Someone observing the physical actions of two married couples, one where the wife used the pill with noncontraceptive intent, and the other where the wife used the pill for contraceptive intent, could see no difference between the two couples. So if the intention to have sex during a time when the wife cannot conceive is acceptable for users of NFP, why is it unacceptable for the users of the pill?
If it is wrong in itself to do something unnaturally, why is it acceptable to take an aspirin to lower a fever when you could pack yourself in ice? If it is wrong to do something unnaturally when it involves sex, why isn’t it wrong to intervene medically to help a woman get pregnant?
A few days after its publication, in a General Audience on July 31, 1968, Pope Paul expressed the hope that Humanae Vitae would be received in the same spirit of love and truth in which it was written –
Pope Paul VI on Humanae Vitae
L’Osservatore Romano
Our words today concern a subject that We must take up because of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, dealing with birth control, which We issued this week. We presume that you are acquainted with the text of this papal document, or at least its essential contents. It is not just a declaration about a negative moral law, which forbids any action aimed at making procreation impossible; it is above all a positive presentation of conjugal morality in relation to its mission of love and fruitfulness “within the integral vision of man and of his supernatural and eternal, as well as natural and earthly, vocation.” (n. 7). . . .
We never felt the weight of Our office as much as in this situation. We studied, read and discussed all We could; and We also prayed a great deal.
You are already aware of some of the circumstances surrounding this matter. We had to give an answer to the Church, to the whole of mankind. We had to evaluate a traditional doctrine that was not only age-old but also recent, having been reiterated by Our three immediate predecessors; and We had to do this with all of the sense of obligation and all of the liberty that go with Our apostolic duty. We had to make Our own the Council’s teaching . . .
Many times We felt as if We were being swamped by this wave of documents and many times, humanly speaking, We felt Our own humble inadequacy in the face of the formidable apostolic task of having to speak out on this matter. . . . We consulted many people with high moral, scientific and pastoral qualifications. We invoked the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit and put Our mind at the complete disposal of the voice of truth, striving to interpret the divine law that rises from the intrinsic requirements of genuine human love, from the essential structures of the institution of marriage, from the personal dignity of the spouses, from their mission in the service of life and from the holiness of Christian marriage. . . .
Another feeling that always guided Us in Our labors is that of charity, of pastoral sensitivity toward those who are called upon to integrate their individual personalities into conjugal and family life. We willingly followed the personalistic conception that was characteristic of the Council’s teaching on conjugal society, thus giving love—which produces that society and nourishes it—the preeminent position that rightly belongs to it in a subjective evaluation of marriage. . . .
Finally, a feeling of hope accompanied the labor of editing this document. We hoped that it would be well received for its own merit and for its human truth, despite the variety of opinions spread far and wide at the present time . . .
Lastly, We hoped that Christian married couples would understand that Our words, however severe and hard they may seem, are intended to express the genuineness of their love, which is called upon to transfigure itself in imitation of Christ’s love for His mystical spouse, the Church . . .
JAK –
I apologize — I did indeed misinterpret some of what you said. But I do think that Dummett offers some very strong criticism of some of HV and he does offer specific arguments against Church teachings about the Pill, NFP and condoms. The arguments aren’t lengthy, but they hold.
Conscience works two ways: as affirmation that one has done right or one has done wrong. There are no infallible criteria to determine if the decision of your concscience is true. A conscince can indeed err. The theological and cardinal virtues, especially the virtue of prudence can help. The peace and joy of a good conscience is also a good critieria for guarding against error. However, error is always a possibilty.
As for a troubled conscience, this can be a sign that what one has done or is expected to do is wrong. If a conscience is at peace and has a sense of joy, then that can also be a sign that your judgment is right. What distinguishes between the two can usuually, but not necessarily, mean that your conscience has not been sufficiently informed. A thorough education of the subject, prayer and priestly council is part of informing your conscience. After you make a judgment and it is against a Church teaching, one must be continuously open to further education and prayer.
Christian theology teaches that God will judge us, not on the basis of our actions being objectively righ or worng, but on the basis of the sincerity of our hearts in seeking to to what is right, even if we make a mistake.
As for the reason why young Catholic adults support or disapprove of HV, only surveys can give us a clue. In 2007, Dean Hoge conducted research on Catholic opinion and differentiated by the various cohorts. What he found was surprising to some. Those Catholics born between 1960-1979 and those born after 1979 tended to distinguish faith in God from obeying the rules of the institutional Church. They rely more on individual authority in religious and moral decisions than older Catholics. With respect to birth conrol, only 8-10% of those two cohorts said using condoms or birth control pills were always morally wrong compared to 25% of older Catholics (born born Vatican II).
Hope this helps.
David, et al. — don’t be so quick to get to the sex. Take it slow. Nice and easy. Let’s warm up a bit before getting it on. A nice dinner, some music and conversation. . . .
Reflect merely on the nature of love, on the truth of the human person. Meditate on that for a while. The sex stuff can come later.
Bender, this post is about Michael Dummett’s article. Do you have a response to that?
Ann Olivier:
Thank you Ann for your comments. This blog is limited to short discourses, so let me further explain my rmark. Perhaps you will agree.
I did not want to leave anyone with the impression that statistics were a “solely” the moral critieria for rejecting PC. However, consider a married couple with the following end/goals:
1. To have no more pregnancies and children for good reasons (and are exempted from your procreative obligations…per Pius XII, et al),
2. To share limite family goods with your existing children,
3. To ensure the physical and spiritual well being of each spouse and existing children, and
4. To avoid the physical, emotional, social, and financial hardships that another pregnancy and child would cause.
Now consider two ways to achieve those end/goals: contraception and PC. As you deliberate according to reason, you consider many things including “safety” in terms of effectiveness and confidence in achieving your end/goals. A 25% failure rate over a 20 year fertility period would mean a high likilhood of many more children than desired. This would mean significant and uncessary burdens that may well cause marital disharmony. Under these circumstances, one could easity argue that taking on too much risk would not be prudent and jepordize the virtues of justice and charity (e.g., sharing limited family goods with 2 chidlren but now must share the same limited goods with 4-5 with burdensome consequences). Having 4-5 children is not wrong, not is having 7-8 children. However, it is not what the couple wants for good reasons. Only the couple can decide if this fact (the 25% failure rate) is important or not to them. From my perspective, it would be.
Hence, rejecting PC in the decision-making/ choice process is virtuous, the intention and end/goals are good and the act of contraception is an act of fertility regulation. Fertility regulation is good, not morally reprehensible.
Hope this helps in explaining my rationale.
“Yet if an encyclical is incoherent or self-contradictory, I don’t think it’s a stretch to think that whatever it says is ‘indefensible on the basis of moral theology’ and would ‘throw the moral teaching of the church into confusion.’”
Jeanne –
Remember that Dummett is a logician, and a great one according to many. If the Church asserts that the general principle that NFP relies on is false, then it follows logically that the *whole ethical system* which had relied on that principle is incoherent because, as both the medievals and moderns put it, from falsity *everything* follows. That there has been great disagreement about HV since its publication, to a logician merely corroborates the incoherence.
” Not only is this an interesting question, ‘can the magisterium demand adherence to a teaching?’ but it is an interesting example which illuminates the relationship between authority and reason.”
Adam –
Dummett considers this question in the first part of the article. His answer is that the connection between the early teachings in Scripture, the Fathers, etc., and the new magisterium must be “manifest”. He doesn’t define “manifest”, but seems a good choice of words to me.
In other words, if the new teaching does not follow *clearly* from the early ones, then it cannot have the same certainty as the early ones. That’s a fine principle, it seems to me, but even it has the problem: how certain is “certain”? and how clear is “clear”?
“2. What is the basis for preventing foreseen procreative consequences of marital acts? It can not be Thomas because natural law was not centered in the non-frustration of natural ends”
Michael B –
But that is just what I was taught about the part of natural law concerning contraception. One must not frustrate the end of the sex act. I was taught this way, way before HV. I think it is quite consistent with what I was taught of Thomas later in grad school. The notion that morality is founded on human flourishing and such flourishing demands the actualization of specific human ends seems to me to require that those ends should not be frustrated.
There are some major problems with such an ethic, but I think it’s on the right track.
The question is do we rely on natural law as in our observations about human creation and its natual ordering as in the sexual organs are made for procreation. In other words, do we deduce moral norms from what “is” to what “ought” to be done. That was Augustine’t thinking taken to an extreme.
NFP (e.g., PC) is an act of fertililty regulation and an act under the virtue of chastity and termperance. There is nothing wrong with choosing PC as an act of chastity/ temperance. However, what is an issue is the measurement of temperance. Prudence is the measure of temperance. Self-sacrifice is a good thing, but no one today throws themselves into the thickets and wears a hair shirt as St. Frances did. Nor does most Catholice practice flagelation. When it comes to the application of the virtue of chastity and temperance to human sexuality, its measurement is to master the sexual appetite.
Aquinas and Aristotle said there can be no universal commandments for temperance and common sense must be our guide, respectively. NFP requires 12 consecutive days per month of conjual abstinence. This universal standard is applies without prejudice to those with weak, moderate or strong sexual appetites. The measure of temperance in this case is based solely on biology, not on the degree of ones passions, the level of ones spirtual condition or ones human good.
It is overkill in terms of mastering and controlling the sexual appetite. Maybe, this is the reason for the 25% failure rate of PC programs and their 53% discontinuance rate in the first year.
Yet, NFP is the only licit way of limiting children in marriage. It is a forced requirement because it is the only licit way. Hence, 12 consecutive days per month is right regardless if it is overkill in controlling the sexual appetitive, or if PC cannot achieve the goals of many Catholic who want no more children for good reasons.
“We ought to distinguish the performance of some intrinsically evil action from culpability for committing it on some particular occasion. To claim that they can be no EXCUSES that can exculpate a person who commits such an act entails that his or her uniqueness is irrelevant in this instance. Since a person’s uniqueness is constitutive of his or her very being, such a claim would make no sense.”
Bernard –
I would say that if an exceptional action is required, then it cannot be evil, and that it requires neither excuse nor absolution. But if this is so, then the “absolute principle”, i.e., the totally universaly\ principle, was not really absolute in the first place.
I think this is perhaps my biggest quarrel with many of the moral theologians — they want to have it both ways. They want both the absolutes and the exceptions. But they can’t have it that way. And this is what leads to the sometimes chaotic moral teachings of the official Catholic Church.
Bender –
How do you distinguish between a specific loving and a specific non-loving act? For instance, how would you tell Sophie to choose between the lives of her two children??? Is there a method? Or do you just *feel* that some act is right? What if your neighbor’s feeling is different from yours? Or if you feel one way in the morning and another way in the afternoon? How doo you *know* what is right?
Just having a highly generic *concept* of love won’t tell us — it is totally empty when it comes to specifics.
“The peace and joy of a good conscience is also a good critieria for guarding against error. However, error is always a possibilty”
Michael B –
Indeed. When I was young most of the people I knew thought that segregation was right — it was the way God had planned things for the good of everyone involved. The thought never deprived them of a moment’s sleep. But the civil rights movement made them realize they were wrong, and most have changed their minds, though I’ve met a couple of hold-outs in recent years.
Michael B. –
Thanks for the explanation. I do agree, with the exception of having more than two kids in most cases. At this point in time the world is heading for ecological and economic disaster because already there are not enough material goods available to support the people already hear, and the population is increasing exponentially. It follows that, with some exceptions, couples should be limited to replacing themselves. (An exception, I think, would be, say, jewish or Armenian couples whose ethnic groups suffered horrendous genocide. I think they are entitled to more,)
But that is a whole other problem, and I wish Commonweal would start paying attention to it.
Ann: It doesn’t seem that the world’s population is growing exponentially. According to a Wikipedia article, citing UN figures, the rate of global growth has been declining ever since a peak in 1963. Which, of course, doesn’t mean that there’s no problem at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
“As for a troubled conscience, this can be a sign that what one has done or is expected to do is wrong. If a conscience is at peace and has a sense of joy, then that can also be a sign that your judgment is right.”
Michael B –
By “conscience” here you seem to be thinking of the ordinary sense which includes our *feelings* about what we think is right or wrong or about what we have done or not done. But in the Thomistic, more technical sense conscience is our application of general laws of right and wrong to specific situations by the use of reason. Feeling has no place in the process, though it is true that feelings can prompt us to reconsider our moral thinking and possibly revise it.
ISTM that the everyday meaning is positively bad for “examining our conscience” (there’s still another meaning of “conscience” there, I think.) Too often people think that they ARE guilty simply because they FEEL guilty. But guilt is not a feeling, it is a state of soul. One can be guilty as hell with no feelings of remorse, and, on the other hand, some poor folks actually have so-called “guilt-feelings” when they are not morally guilty at all. This is pathological state of mind, and all too common among Catholics who attended Catholic schools. It is something we have to get over, not something we should rely on.
End of my sermon for the day :-)
:”Current projections show a continued increase of population (but a steady decline in the population growth rate) …”
JAK –
The projected rate might be slowing but the increase continues at an alarming rate. Part of the reason it’s slowing is that China has a one-child policy which it enforces by abortion, and I wonder how long that will be tolerated.
One wake-up figure at that very interesting site: North America has only 5% of the world’s population while India and China together have only 37%. Hmmmm..
Per percentage point, that looks like this:
North America: mmmm
China and India mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Then there’s the rest of the world.
Ann O:
I wish there was an infallible criteria for determining if the judgment of your conscience is right, but there are none. Emotiions and part of who we are.
Close confidant of the late John Paul II and now Benedict XVI, Martin Rhonheimer argued in his book The Ethics of Procreation that “many Catholics are intuitively aware that something is wrong with contraception that they often unconsciously feel ashamed about heir behavior. He believes this is the silent prescence of the demand of natural law in human conscience and is prcisely the insight into the rrequirements of he virtue of chastitly.” Clearly feeling ashamed is an emotion. Of course, Rhonheimer likely relied on his experience is the confessional. However, this is make this affirmation without proof is highly misleading and erroneous. It is also a very narrow perspective since most Catholics don’t confess contraception as a sin. His limited experiences with those that entered his confessional is far from proof about the goblal perspective. Perhaps Rhonheimer meant the few and not the many.
The Church continues to believe that those who practice contraception are the victims of invincible igonrance, the mentality of the enlightenment religion and the ills of the modern world. It is hard to imagine, much less reason, that in the war for the souls of man the score is Satan: 98, the Church: 2. (as in 98% of Catholics practice contraception).
To All:
I want to thank everyone for contributing to this blog on contraception (albeit Dummet on Humanae Vitae).
I have been spending 24/7 for the past 3 years on this subject in an attempt to take the challenge of Janet Smith, et al, that “most Catholics have not received HV because they don’t understand it. She believes, as many other traditionanist theologians, that most Catholics never read HV or have attended any education about NFP.” After 30 books, unnumerical articles and many communications with several theologians on BOTH sides of this debate, I have finally learned the underpinnings of HV, moral theology etc, and can argue each way. I am now writing a insightul essay entited “Re-thinking Contraception: The Struggles of an Informed Pilgrim”…..or something like that.
We only have to reflect on the African AIDS Crisis and the condom issue, and the tragedy in Phoenex to understand that we must move the conversation forward regarding HV. Our Church deserves hear a new argument and the cry of the faifthful for a Church united, not divided.
All of you have helpful to me a great deal.
Until we are all exhausted, I remain engaged.
But Michael, if that’s how you keep score, Satan is really ahead 100 to 0; we’re all sinners, one way or another.
And if less than 10% (my figure) of those Catholics who disagree with HV have ever read it, don’t you think Ms. Smith is right?
Mark:
The reference to Satan was sarcasm. Janet Smith is right from the point of view that most Catholics have not read HV. THowever, that does not mean they do not understand some of the fundamental principles of HV. Most importantly, it does not make their judgment of conscience wrong when the smoke finally clears.
I wanted to step back and approach this subject with an open mind and thoroughtly educate myself from both points of view. I wanted to be able to argue both sides of the debate in the language of the Church.
But, to reverse the question – how many of those who actually read HV agree with it? How many can live it? If its theological underpinnings are weak or as poorly described as some say, all the more reason why theologians should be free to debate its premises and try to understand the experience of those who try to live its teaching. Prayerful meditation and open discussion in the Church will lead us closer to the truth.
Bob K:
A few brief remarks before I answer you question. First, public opinion was never, and will never, be a critieria for doctrine formation or reformation. If a doctrine is unintelligible and unconvincing it does not make it wrong. However, a doctrine that is not received calls forth no power to change behavior. This is justification for continued reflection and debate. Unfortunately, the Church has closed the debate on HV. Nevertheless, it continues in the theological community. While the CDF considers it closed to further formal debate, we know certain Magisterium theologians are trying to find a way to re-interpret HV using a revival of Thomas. The fact that the CDF permitted Martin Rhonheimer to publish several books, including issuing an article in the Tablet justifiying the use of condoms for HIV postitve spouses, is proof that these were so-called trial balloons IMO. Rhonheimer has caused much consternation among traditionalist theologians like Janet Smith because his action theory is considered wrong….mainly because it will open the debate on sexual ethics and potentially cause a crisis. I will not go into detail but you can read the latest give and take about Rhonheimer and Smith if you google it.
I tend to think very few Catholics who read HV agree with it. While the USCCB has encourged and promoted NFP programs, a significant number of parishes have not implemented them. Those that did bear little fruit. The fact that there are millions of Catholics who practice NFP is not significant since they represent only 1.2% of women.
Most theologians don’t agree with it and they are experts in moral theology. When HV was issued in 1968, Charlie Curran (a priest and theologian) secured the signatures of hundreds of theologians who believed that HV was wrong.
Depending on the survey you choose, about 50% of priests don’t agree with HV especially the assertion that contraception is always a mortal sin.
“According to traditional Church teaching (the most common, that is) an intrinsically evil act may never be performed licitly because even a good end or good intention does not justify an intrinsically evil means. (Back to ends not justifying means.)”
In the eyes of “the Church” (in deference to JAK, I assume that to mean the entire assembly of the People of God which, we all know, has little or no effect on what “the Church” teaches), what is the relationship between “intrinsically evil” and “intrinsically disordered?”
jimmy Mac –
No, I was ;thinking only of what has most often been taught by the official teachers, like the clergy and theologians, not what is most commonly *thought* by the faithful.
I’m not aware that the Church has ever done any study of any kind about what the faithful think throughout the Church, and the studies done now in this or that country are relatively new. This is one reason why i think that claims of “universal” beliefs are generally very shaky.
Ann -
You could confirm your suspicion fairly quickly by doing a survey of a handful of blogs on America. Look for sentences that begin “The Church teaches….” or equivalent. Amazing diversity of convictions.
The assertion that the Church makes the contraception is intrinsically evil is not based on revelation in scripture. It is based on an absolute moral norm deduced by Paul VI and John Paul II based on natural and divine law, without much justification. In other words, contraception is intrinsically evil regardless of circumstances, reason, intention, end, or object.
Once you define contraception as a absolute moral norm, game over. This is why starting a moral analysis from object/act or behavior cut shorts the analysis. The approach needed to to start from end and intention and proceed through all the moral components of the moral event. You can then challenge the foundational arguments about natural and divine law that underly the absolute moral norm.
Maybe I am missing something here, but there are many surveys about the opinions of both clergy and lay persons on a variety of issues. However, I don’t recal any of them getting to the question about how many Catholics read HV.
The Church Heirarchy may pay some attention to surveys but they don’t do anything about them. In particular, the USCCB never reacted to Father Andrew Greenley’s monumental Catholic Opinion Survey in the late 1970s, early 1980s. The bishops were shocked by the findings, but did abolutely nothing to address any of the major conclusions. Ditto fro other more recent surveys of clergy or laity.
Speaking of surveys, here’s one that shows the reaction to HV from the bishop’s conferences at the time: Joseph A. Selling, The Reaction to Humanae Vitae: A Study in Social and Fundamental Theology. As quoted in Robert McClory’s book Turning Point, “he found that eighteen episcopal conferences, including Ireland, Poland, Spain and New Zealand, accepted HV completely and without qualification. Ten, including Austria, Belgium, Canada and Holland, clearly mitigated the teaching. And nine, including England, Italy, and the United States, issued statements that seemed uncertain or ambiguous. Thus, concluded Selling, fewer that half of the world’s bishop conferences received the encyclical with a total embrace.” McClory then goes on to report the analysis of Benedictine Philip Kaufman, who looked at the number of diocese represented by the bishop’s conferences in Selling’s study rather than just the number of conferences, and concluded that “262 diocese (or 17 percent) fully accepted Humanae Vitae, while at least 56 percent preferred to soften or reinterpret the strong message, with others somewhere inbetween.”
(One can only imagine the young Karol Wojtyła remembering this hostile reception, especially from the bishops, when it came time for him to set the ground rules for who would be elevated to the episcopacy during his reign.)
Bender; you might be wasting your breath (or I should say your blog-type). It seems the answer most folks on this thread are looking for is three-fold and goes something like this:
1 – Old Pope Paul VI might have been a good man, but he was wrong. The human race simply cannot be expected to live up to the awful things he outlined in Humanae Vitae.
2 – The Church of today might mean well (maybe; we always keep an eye on it) but in any case, because recent Popes have not yet denounced Paul VI and pronounced in favor of artificial birth control, they are wrong-headed, too clerical and old fashioned; simply out of step with the times and the challenges the laity (especially the youth) face these days.
3 – Because the Magisterium is made up of men (and mainly older men at that; yikes!), the laity should not look to it for commentary on anything involving sex or marriage, and they certainly cannot be relied upon regarding anything that pertains to the women of today.
With that in mind, everyone should just move along to the next thing.
Please move along now, nothing to see here . . .
:-)
“simply out of step with the times”
Ken —
I think I can safely say that no one on this blog — NO ONE — has faulted Rome for being “simply out of step with the times”. You’ve made this up out of whole cloth.
Ann,
I think you invoke “ends do not justify means” talk all too easily.
Consider whether there may be multiple ends that conflict.
Consider whether it makes sense to say that attention to ends does not serve to determine what means are efficacious in getting to the ends. In other words, ow would we know what means to use unless we saw how they are related to the ends.
Consider further whether there are such things as some ends subordinate to other “higher” ends. Return to Aristotle. If the ultimate end of human conduct is happiness (eudaimonia), then the end that we name self-preservation is subordinate to that ultimate end.
All these considerations are relevant to cases like the Phoenix hospital case. They are also relevant to the comments VZE made on 2/12.
Regrettably, there’s lots of “easy talk” about intrinsic evils that seem to treat moral norms as discrete rules whose that have nothing to do with one another when we get around to applying them in situations that are in in any notable measure complex.
Ken:
What you say is true. However, moving on is the easy thing to do. Most Catholics are doing just that. However, that does not help solve the problem. If I may use an analogy to make my point.
When you are very young your parents mean the world to you and you love them unconditionally. They can do no wrong. When you become an adult you realize that some things, perhaps many things, they do is not right; perhaps even serious immoral things. You don’t stop loving them because of what they are doing because they are your parents (save for extreme cases). You don’t turn you back on them and leave them but try to help them.
In a similar way, the Church is like these parents. We as adults understand the Church has done some terrible things. They have embraced misguided teachings, have not listened to the cries of the faithful but have been stubborn to change. We like the children of these parents continue to love God and His Church. WE do not want to turn our back on them and walk away. We want to help them see a alternative viewpoint for reform based on right reason. Perhaps it will take a long time for the Church to change, but we should never give up hope.
This blog helps to articulate the opinions of good faithful Cathlics that are profoundly disappointed with some of the Church’s teachings. Moving the conversation forward helps everyone to do their part until a solution is born.
I respect your opinion and perhaps for you moving on is the right thing to do.
The entire post-conciliar debate about HV boils down to one or two issues as follows:
1. The Church emphatically asserts that certain physical behavior patterns, regardless of intention, end or circumstance is incompatible with acts of marital love at the service of life, and therefore are immoral. In other words, contraceptive human acts are intrinsically evil and an abolute moral norm.
2. It is true that there are a heirachy of ends and that sometimes a remote or ultimate end is morally determinitive instead of the proximate end. For example, to fight well for victory. The proximate end of fighting well is directed to the remote of victory. Hence, the remote end of victory is morally determinitve, not the proximate end of fighting well. In just about every case, Thomas says that the proximate end of the object determines its moral species. However, is some cases the remote end specifiies. These are complex moral arguments. Nevetheless, if your intention and end is good and the way you choose to achieve the end is good (the choice of the object/act plus circumstances), then the moral event is good.
The real issue is what is good, what is the end, how do you define the object. Even if your moral analysis is correct and persuasive, you will run into the brick wall called the absolute moral norm….contraceptive acts are intrinsically evil and right reason cannot choose evil. Right reason is natural law. It is also practical reason participating in divine reason. However, practical reason also considers subjective or theoretical reasoning and the natural inclinations and other factors (e.g. wisdom) in its deliberations. However, right reason cannot choose evil (it goes aganst natural and divine law).
The freedom to choose based on right reason is limited by absolute moral norms. Hence, we come full circle and are back to the absolute moral norm of ilicit contracetion.
Having said all of that, the Church is trying to figure out a way to permit the use of condoms when one spouse has AIDS. This is a huge issue. It is prima facie the right thing to do. However, the Church has to find a way around HV. Rhonheimer’s virtue-centered action theory is one attempt but it is running into stiff head winds from other traditionalist theologians.
In conclusion, once you break the absolute moral imperative, you can easily use Thomas to show that contraception for good reasons under certain circumstances is licit.
“However, the Church has to find a way around HV.”
Repeat after me: As the Church has always taught —–
Many doctrines of the Church have been proclaimed by popes and taught by bishops for centuries as truth, but were reformed. Repeat after me: slavery, usury, the right to silence, capital punishment and the ends of marriage.
Michael – Slavery was a doctrine of the Catholic Church? That will be news to many people. Wow.
Michael – Slavery was a doctrine of the Catholic Church?
Ken,
Of course, Michael does not say slavery or any of the others were doctrines.
I apologize to any folks who may have tried to engage me directly on my earlier comments here – I’m not ignoring you so much as swamped by the sheer volume of comments here. My plea here is pretty modest: take HV seriously. If you take HV seriously, and either sincerely don’t understand the distinctions it makes, or understand it but sincerely reject it, I have no quibble with you. If you are sincerely dissenting, then – that is a respectable position for a Catholic. I’ve stated before that I don’t believe that many couples from my generation and succeeding generations (i.e. those of us from the post-HV generations) have done Paul VI the courtesy of taking HV seriously.
Slavery was not a doctrine of the church, but — (it’s a bit of a long read):
The Third Lateran Council of 1179 imposed slavery on those helping the Saracens. The legitimacy of slavery was incorporated in the official Corpus Iuris Canonici, based on the Decretum Gratiani, which became the official law of the Church since Pope Gregory IX in 1226:
24. Cruel avarice has so seized the hearts of some that though they glory in the name of Christians they provide the Saracens with arms and wood for helmets, and become their equals or even their superiors in wickedness and supply them with arms and necessaries to attack Christians. There are even some who for gain act as captains or pilots in galleys or Saracen pirate vessels. Therefore we declare that such persons should be cut off from the communion of the church and be excommunicated for their wickedness, that catholic princes and civil magistrates should confiscate their possessions, and that if they are captured they should become the slaves of their captors. We order that throughout the churches of maritime cities frequent and solemn excommunication should be pronounced against them. Let those also be under excommunication who dare to rob Romans or other Christians who sail for trade or other honourable purposes. Let those also who in the vilest avarice presume to rob shipwrecked Christians, whom by the rule of faith they are bound to help, know that they are excommunicated unless they return the stolen property.
Note that this is an Ecumenical Council! Surely, this is a far more “authoritative” proof that the ordinary and universal magisterium supported slavery than the local synods (Nimes, Orange, and Laodocia) cited to support the ban on women priests.
However, even Ecumenical Councils contain matters that are not considered infallible doctrine. Just as the law of celibacy for ministerial priests and passed at the Second Lateran Council is a discipline, rather than a dogma, so too, canon 24 of Lateran III is a disciplinary matter.
The point, however, is that an Ecumenical Council not only takes for granted that slavery is acceptable, but imposed slavery as a punishment for sin. It is important to note that if slavery is so bad as to be considered a punishment, one cannot argue that the slavery supported by the magisterium was less cruel than later slavery!
Instead, one must either accept infallibly that slavery is God’s will, or recognize that the magisterium does make errors when creating disciplines or making judgments with ordinary authority rather than extraordinary authority.
Indeed, some conservatives accept that Ecumenical Councils use “sloppy language”. One conservative layperson argued with me that in the case of the canon regarding the ordination of deaconesses at the Council of Chalcedon (canon 15), the Church was being “sloppy”.
But maybe the conservatives think that three synods outweigh a single Ecumenical Council due to number.
At lower levels of authority, the ordinary magisterium also supported slavery in the following instances:
- The local Council at Gangra in Asia Minor, in 362 AD, excommunicated anyone telling a slave to despise his master or withdraw from his service. The same decree is repeated in a Council under Pope Martin I in 650 AD!
- The ninth Council of Toledo in 655 AD imposed slavery on the children of priests.
- The Synod of Melfi under Pope Urban II in 1089 imposed slavery on the wives of priests.
Still not convinced the Church supported slavery? Consider the following quotation from the Apostolic Constitution written by His Holiness, Pope Nicholas V, on January 8, 1455 (“Apostolic Constitutions” carry more authority than an “Apostolic Letter”, and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was issued as an Apostolic Letter):
We (therefore) weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso — to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery,…
The full text can be read at this link: http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/indig-romanus-pontifex.html
Note, as well, that Pope Nicholas seems to congratulate Henry, infante of Portugal, for “slaughtering” non-Christians and imposing forced conversions on “negros” and other peoples!
As late as June 20, 1866, the Holy Office (now called the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a statement that said:
“Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons…. It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.
Are the conservatives absolutely sure that we want to consider every authoritative word of the Pope’s infallible?
Certainly, there were Catholics opposed to slavery long before the Vatican supported them. In his book, How the Irish Saved Civilization?, Tomas Cahill suggests that Saint Patrick of Ireland may have been the first person in history to condemn the institution of slavery, and there were Catholics opposed to race based slavery even in the fifteenth century. However, it was not until Pope Leo XIII finally condemned slavery in 1890 in Catholicae Ecclessiae that the Vatican was clearly opposed to slavery. Leo was further confirmed at the Second Vatican Council came along and lumps slavery in the same paragraph with abortion and other grave evils as an offense against human dignity (GS 27).
However, the point that the progressives make is that prior to 1890, those Catholics who opposed slavery were often looked at as radical dissidents opposed to teachings of Popes and Ecumenical Councils.
There is a role for loyal opposition in the Church?
The doctrine of usury is relevant to a discussion fo HV because of its similar facts and cirumstances:
1. The Church set out to change behavior of many Catholics,
2. To end a theologian controvery,
3. The teaching was based on natural law enriched by Divine revelation, and
4. It was enunciated by popes, 3 Ecumenical Councils, proclaimed by bishops, and taught unanimously by theologians for centuries.
Eventually, the theologians and the laity helped to reform the doctrine of usury despite 3 papal bulls. Interestingly, no one in the Church ever explained how something that was explicitly written in Scription as Divine Law could be reformed.
In Catholic Answers: Did the Church Change its Stance of Usury? Christopher Kazor ended his article with the following comment.
“The teaching on usury is not a simple reversal and rejection of what was taught before but rather a development of the same principles used by Thomas applied to radically new circumstances.”
This tells me that the Church can justify almost anything. If we apply Thomas to HV we are confronted with both a absolute moral norm (contraception is intrinsically evil) and a non-infallible but definitive/irreformable doctrine. The Vatican has closed all debate and considers both doctrines irreformable. However, when John Paul II issued his Motu Proprio ushering in a new classification of infallibilty called non-infallible but defintive/ irreformable, the cover letter sent to bishops by the CFD (e.g, Ratzinger/Benedict XVI) gave examples of doctrines and teachings that fell under this definition. However, surprisingly HV was not mentioned. Some theologians today even argue that HV is infallible based on the secondary principles of infallibilty.
I tend to think that any reform of HV will not happen in this papacy and perhaps the next. An interesting but not very known fact that when the first baby was born by invitro fertilization, John Paul I sent the couple a congratulations note and professed that this was good news. John Paul II would have condemned it, as he indeed taught. He was a theologian, which was much different than pastoral clergyman. There was much hope that he would have reformed HV. Unfortunately, he died shortly after becoming pope.
The cracks in any papal encyclical or teaching usually can be found in conflict cases. The hardened doctrine on abortion and contraception are cases in point. The Phoenix case was a tragedy. This case justifies that two people should die, rather than save the life of one while the other has no chance of survival under any circumstance.
The African AIDS crisis is a case where the application of HV is absurd, prima facie. A spouse is prevented (e.g., it is illicit) from protecting the other spouse from the transmission of this disease by using a condom. While the condom is not 100% effective, and not an answer to the AIDS epidemic, however the dogmatic assertion that the use of the condom in these situations is intrinsically evil goes against the virtues of prudence, justice and charity.
Bernard –
I’m sorry, apparently I didn’t make myself clear. When I said “Enter the end justifies the means again” I meant that this is the logical consequence of some of the HV’s argumenation. I myself don’t think that the principle is an absolute one at all. I don’t know of any justification for it in either Aristotle, Aquinas or anybody else, for that matter, though perhaps there is one. Yet it is claimed to be one of the most fundamental principles of natural law ethics. I’d like to hear any arguments for it, but I think it needs revision.
I’m also beginning to wonder if there is any such thing as an “intrinsic” evil. What does that MEAN?? I don’t see how it can apply at all to negative evils, to deprevations, because negations have no being at all, so how can anything be intrinsic to a non-existence? And to say that a positive thing itself is evil seems to be saying that God created evil. Hmm. Got to learn some more ethics.
And, yes, conflicts of ends can be a great problem. I see that as the problem of prioritizing goods. How to do it. I’m not sure it can be systematized.
A while back I ran across an old article from 1965 (pre-HV) called Contraception and the Logical Structure of the Thomist Natural Law Theory by Richard H. Beis, that are relevant re Thomas and the contraception discussion. (Ethics, Vol. 75, No. 4. (Jul., 1965), pp. 277-284)
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2379725
Here are a few excerpts —
“Consequently, no consideration relevant to the realization of human nature, for example, the world population problem, financial inability to support more children, psychological and physical health of the marriage partners, etc., is extrinsic to the determination of the moral goodness or evil of contraception in terms of Thomist natural law. On the contrary, such considerations are necessarily included in that determination. …
…
“It is, therefore, evident from what has been said that the same reasons used to justify rhythm-medical, eugenic, economic, and social (to quote the Pope!) may also justify contraception. For, since we are concerned here with the moral structure of human sexuality-and not simply its biological structure-in the case of contraception, as in the case of rhythm, such natural reasons may lead one to the conclusion that his nature under these conditions can only achieve greater realization through the practice of contraception whereas to pursue the opposite course of action would be to frustrate such realization.
…
“We have seen, then, that the claimed demonstration of the intrinsic evil of contraception in terms of Thomist natural law is, in fact, no demonstration at all. For no convincing argumentation, either of an analytical or of an empirical sort, has been offered in terms of the logical requirements of that theory. Second, we have seen that the very argument used to show the “intrinsic evil” of contraception, presumably in terms of Thomist natural laws, that is, the argument from the intrinsic finality of the act, in fact, introduces a logical inconsistency into Thomist natural law. For by such argumentation a kind of Kantian, deontological absolute is inconsistently introduced into Thomist teleology. Finally, we saw that in terms of the logical requirements of Thomist natural law itself the practice of contraception, as the practice of rhythm, may even be demanded. Perhaps these conclusions, while new, will not seem too surprising if we will but recall that for St. Thomas Aquinas, as opposed to Immanuel Kant, morality is made for man-not man for morality.”
It is interesting to note that Jean Follman’s (10:29AM) reference by Richard Beis is nearly coincident in time with the reported majority conclusions of the pre-HV papal commission on contraception, whose work the Pope recognized and dismissed in HV. Debate continuing in 2011 brings to mind “dead horse” except for the ever-sensitive issue of authority.
Jack, yup, authority is the real issue. Paraphrasing what one of our contributors said in another thread, since HV many of us have gone from acceptance of the hierarchy’s authority to define sin, to an uncomfortable ambiguity, to a confidence to figure it out for ourselves. Yet if a religious authority can’t define right and wrong in a trustworthy manner, it fails as an authority and we’re all left dangling in the wind.
Jack and Jeanne:
Great stuff. The Theology of the Magisterium is a huge issue and one that many theologians criticize. In past times, most doctrines were the result of ecumenical councils (I believe, but not certain). That changed after Vatican I when the Pius IX forced through papal infallibiity. This is the same pope who issued the infamous Syllabus of Errors and kidnapped a young Jewish boy, Edgardo Mortara, and held him in the Vatican against his and his parent’s will until adulthood. Facts: A young Christian servant secretly baptized the sick 1 year old Edgardo fearing for the child’s life. When she told the Church about what she did they conducted a lengthly 5 year inquiry. The pope said that the boy was now Catholic and he could not trust the Jewish parents to bring him up Catholic. So, the police seized the boy and brought him to the Vatican. Despite protests from foreign dignitaries and Jewish religious authorities, the pope remained intransigent. The boy lived in the Vatican until adulthood when, miraculously, he became a Catholic priest.
In the 20th century papal encylicals became a sort of infallible teaching without the benefit of ecumenical councils or synods of bishops. No bishop felt confortable criticizing a papal encylical until HV was issued. Certainly, many spoke out both in public and private about HV. However, most kept silent especially under John Paul II.
As to the classification of HV,the CDF has never (to my knowledge) issued a definitve statement whether HV is non-infalible, non-infallible but definitive or infallible based on secondary principles of infallibility. The only evidence we see in print is the theological arguments, pro and con, about its classification.
I am encouraged by the open letter of 200+ German theologians for Church reform. Let’s hope it catches on.
Does anyone know where I can find the complete Majority and Minority Reports of the Pontifical Birth Control Commission?
This appears to be related to your request on reports.
http://www.twotlj.org/BCCommission.html
These are attached to an interesting article on John C. Ford S.J. by Germain Grisez. Both were involved in the mid-60s proceedings. Ford was a noted promoter of the commission’s minority view, which, as I understand it, prevailed in HV.
http://www.twotlj.org/Ford.html
Thank you very much for sharing your hard-earned learning in the foregoing.
Doe anyone know about Martin Rhonheimer’s action theory and its reception to date?
I am most interested because I think Father Martin is a brillant philosopher and I agree with most, not all, of his action theory and ethics of procreation. In particular, I don’t embrace his conclusions but I do think a solution to the dilemma of sexual ethics can be found in this general direction.
Rhonheimer describes the contraceptive act in terms of its proximate end sought by the agent as a proximate good and not merely as a physical behavior pattern that causes infecundity. He basis his theory on a recovery of Thomas’s teaching, which is in tension with tradtional interpretations. Contraceptive acts are a form of sexual behavior and thus they are properly understood as violations of the virtue of chastity. If for Thomas the rational standards of human actions are in the structures of the virtues. Then, it makes sense to analyze the case of contraceptive acts with respect to the appropriate virtue.
While I have some evidence that his theory is being argued against by many traditionalist theologians, others believe that if Benedict XVI embraces it, physical human acts will be judged morally based on how they achieve virtuous ends, not what they achieve physically. His 2004 Tablet article arguing for condoms for spouses with one infected who is HIV positive broke new ground.
In my opinion, if Benedict XVI embraces Rhonheimer then it will open the debate to sexual ethics. If I argue contraception using Rhonheimer’s theory, I reach a different conclusions since the virtue of chastity/ temperance is not measured prudently. Rhonheimer argues that contraception is wrong because it goes against this virtue, but he fails to demonstrate the role of prudence in the measurement of temperance as it is applied to conjugal abstinence.
The majority report (not sure if it is the full one) can be found here
https://www.endowonline.com/resources/classes/humanae-vitae/majority-papal-report
The minority report can be found here
https://www.endowonline.com/resources/classes/humanae-vitae/minority-papal-commission-report
I’ve been following the comments. This is a great discussion. As a 20-something Catholic who supports HV, yet struggles to understand what seems to me to be its narrow and deterministic (if that is an appropriate term) conception of marital love, it is somewhat of a relief to discover that many other Catholics with far more experience and education can be just as baffled by the Church’s Teaching. Thank you all for some insightful and educational comments.
Joe –
Your insight as a young person is particularly valuable. (Adopt this as a general rule: if you want to know your faults and failings, ask your enemies and your children :-)
I just read the pamphlet distributed to laypeople of the Diocese of Washington, prepared for the bishop by Germain Grisez….in 1968. It was written in a question and answer format. There were two questions and answers that deserve some attention. NOTE: The questions are not exact, but you can find them in this pamphlet; the answers are paraphrazed by accurate.
1. On the question “Can Catholics continue to receive Eurharistic Communion if they practice contraception?” The answer was NO, as long as they intend to continue practcing it. They must go to confession.
Fast Foward: The Church issued guidelines for confessor/priests (don’t know exact date) about using the principle of graduation for habitual sinners especially those who practice contraception. As habitual sinnners they can receive absolution and Eucharistic Communion without a firm purpose of amendment. The hope is that continued prayer and sacrament will change them. Once they get absolution however, why go to confession again if you intend to keep practicing contraception? For those that don’t confess contraception as mortal sin, what message does it send them?
Equally important, the principle of graduation cannot be applied to other habitual sinners like divorsed/remarried Catholics. Contradictory?
2. On the question “Can Catholics dissent to HV based on conscience?” The answer is NO, because as a Catholic you must obey the Church’s definitive teachings. That is being Catholic. Theologians can withhold assent but must follow certain rules.
Fast Forward: An article by William May indicated that both the laity and theologians can withhold assent. More importantly, the statement by the USCCB in 1968 addressed to all Catholics called “Human Life in Our Day”, said Catholics can use their informed conscinence in deciding on moral issues as those expressed in HV. Also, the communique said HV was a non-infallible papal encyclical.
Was the communique issued by the Diocese of Washington contradictory to the USCCB communique?
3. Lastly, on another question about the moral philosophy supporting HV, the Grisez-written pamphlet, said the reasons supporting HV were not important because it was written by the pope and the Holy Spirit does not allow him to issue errors in truth.
Ann -
Thanks for your positive remarks.
Not to move too far beyond the scope of the specific discussion(s) that have occurred on this thread, but I want to say that I’m surprised at the variety of interpretations of Thomism. Through my limited exposure in education and the day-to-day discussions on a topic such as HV and Catholic Sexual ethics in general, I was under the impression that ‘orthodoox’ Thomism and natural law theory necessarily confirms HV and Catholic sexual ethics as it is understood.
So, I suppose my question for you (or others who have commented) is this: what can explain the hegmony of these few readings of natural law and st. thomas to the point that someone such as a Fr. Rhonheimer, whose orthodoxy cannot be questioned, can be viewed with such suspicion and – in the cases of some of my 20-something peers with appropriate theological or philosophical backgrounds – too easy rejection if not outright dismissal?
From comments on this thread it seems pretty obvious that there was a critical juncture in the history of the 20th-century development of Catholic sexual ethics at which point we can place a (ideational?) rupture at which point we can begin to explain our current situation. I just don’t understand where that is.
I’ve been reading through HV and _Love and Responsibility_ and will hopefully work through TOB at some point; and, while I see in those texts a beauty and authority of the Church (and in JPII a sophistication that is boggling), there seems to me to be a discomforting abstractness and unrealistic approach that colors the thinking represented by those texts. I can’t make specific references, so this is an intuitive impression that I have. I don’t want to presume upon other commentators, however if there are those who have read JPII and HV and other documents who might be able to provide some critical comments about their philosophical positions, it might help me to better understand my own misgivings. Beautiful documents – they truly do help me as a late-20-something Catholic understand the foundations, expectations and final ends of any relationship – yet, in spite of the aesthetic pleasure and philosophical sophistication, I cannot help but question the strength of the foundation.
To end my rant (apologies to other commentators), I am curious if someone would be able to explain to me this ‘physicalism’ argument. At the end of the day, that is what I scratch my head over because I read HV and JPII as implicitly over-emphasizing the physical act of sex, may it be natural law/thomism, or in the case of JPII with his personalism and all of its intermediary layers of consideration (if that is a fair and relatively accurate way to describe his work). Be that as it may, many friends of mine argue the opposite that in fact the Catholic sexual ethics may it be natural law, JPII’s personalism or any other of the orthodox manifestations are in fact not physicalist but rather the orthodox position (which I want to stress is the position I support, in spite of my questions and reservations) is not deterministic or over-emphasizing the physical act. I don’t recall all the specifics, I don’t think, but let me try to list a few: the necessary co-equal existence of the unitive and procreative acts as constitutive of and the ‘openness’ of every particular act to the generation of human life; and, the simple fact that there are fundamental anthropological and spiritual components of this ethic that by their nature refute this physicalist criticism. And, it is the critics with their ‘cartesian’ dualism who are the actual physicalists and determinists in their separation of the two functions. So, I’m curious how it is that the supporters and critics of HV and traditional Catholic sexual ethics can accuse each other of being guilty of the same philosophical problems?
Thanks for any insights anyone can provide. I realize this discussion is long and my questions have likely been addressed time and time again. Be that as it may, I appreciate any responses.
Joe –
The existence of Humanae Vitae has less to do with Thomist or any other philosophy than with machinations by conflicting convinced believers. The recent story of John Ford, SJ by Grisez is very significant in that he and Ford were principal participants on the minority side which prevailed. Working papers he has just revealed tell more.
Ford The Way of the Lord Jesus: John C. Ford, S.J.
http://www.twotlj.org/BCCommission.html
A quick review of the history was recently put out by the Archbishop of Baltimore, indicating that HV was commonly rejected as soon as experts got a look at it.
http://www.catholicreview.org/subpages/storyworldnew-new.aspx?action=4477
Many references in Chaps 5 and 6 in Papal Sins (2000) by Garry Wills are illuminating.
The most significant aspect of HV to me is that it has done little in 42 years, since I first read it as a 20-something, to affect Catholic sexual behavior but a great deal to damage the papal and episcopal authority invested in defending it in spite of its widely recognized faults – logical, biological, and others mentioned above. Nothing has changed lately.
Jack -
I’ve read bits and pieces of the back room politicking that took place which resulted in the issue of HV. I have to chuckle a bit because OSV has an article about the commission and the way the history of pontifical commission is framed sounds like a story that Dan Brown could write. The title alone suggests an evil, rather than a genuine and sincere effort by those on the commission (note that the piece is critical of the use of the terms ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ to classify the leaked reports). Rather unfortunate that such a nefarious motive can be ascribed to any members of the group, let alone in a headline found in a major Catholic newspaper.
Church birth control commission docs unveiled
New records show pope’s advisers were stacked in favor of changing Church teaching. Intentionally?
http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/7539/Church-birth-control-commission-docs-unveiled.aspx#
I found an excerpt of Garry Wills’ book Papal Sin here. It’s interesting stuff.
http://theology1.tripod.com/readings/hvcommentary.htm
I suppose a retort (albeit a cheap one) to those who criticize the Church’s position is to say that the difficulties are not an indication of the Church’s mistake. Rather, they are to be expected and indicative of our natures that ought to be overcome. People sin, of course. People are weak, of course. Sin and weakness are not a legitimate reasons to change the Church’s teaching on sexuality.
Joe, I think “Aquinas” and “natural law” in the Church is a lot like “the Constitution” in the U.S., which is to say that a lot of people argue from it without really exploring it. I’d suggest picking up a book on Aquinas, Brian Davies has a couple, and reading him for yourself. Once you let him seep into your head I think you’ll see he’s quite rigorous and as in all systematic works, the power is not only in the ideas but in the connections between ideas. As to John Paul II, I wouldn’t confuse sophistication with logic. It may take a while to get through Aquinas but at the end it will make sense; you will not be boggled.
Re OSV, the Genilo’s biography of Ford tells a different story. The author of the Majority Report, Fr. Fuchs, was initially opposed to changing the teaching but became convinced that it was the right thing to do as a result of the information provided by other commission members.
Jeanne –
if you have already addressed on this thread, I apologize and would ask that you just direct me to your relevant comments. With that said, do you interpret JPII’s TOB as a significant advance in Catholic sexual ethics? The way I hear it, his teachings in that realm are usually spoken of very high terms as much-needed re-thinking of Catholic sexual ethics, and he provides the teachings the philosophical grounding that supporters of traditional Catholic sexual ethics even have acknowledged were deficient. His arguments radically and successfully re-interpret traditional teachings in ways that critics simply have not bothered with. What is your impression of his TOB and its relationship to HV/traditional Catholic sexual ethic teachings?
Joe, sorry to say I never read it. I tried the encyclical on faith and reason and found it incomprehensible so I never pursued his other works.
His works I find to be at times difficult, too. What about Faith and Reason did you find incomprehensible? To relate this to the larger question of HV and the Church’s sexual ethics, would you place blame on a certain “unintelligibility” of the Church’s teachings of HV and after as being a major source of the problem of criticism and dissent? In other words, will better education result in better compliance? Or, is it more likely that the Church has somehow committed an error and needs to reform its teaching to be open to an ethic beyond that articulated at the present? I think you very early on in this thread criticize HV for its failure to incorporate natural law methods into the document, so I’m wondering if that is a symptom of a certain unintelligibility or is it a symptom of a flawed ethical foundation?
Joe, I just got lost in the words of Faith and Reason; couldn’t make out what he was trying to say. Maybe it was me but it seems an encyclical, especially one on faith and reason, should be intelligible to an interested reader.
I do think unintelligibility is a key problem but I’d say it flows from a flawed ethical foundation. I think the Church has committed an error and needs to reform its teaching to regain its moral authority.
Joe:
For a good understanding of the post-conciliar debate over HV, read William F. Murphy Jrs, “Forty Years Later: Arguments in Support of HV in Light of Veritatis Splendor” (VS), published in 2008 in the Josephinum. He will take you through the various theories and aguments leading up to the present day including Martin Rhonheimer’s (MR) virtue-centered action theory and ethics of procreation. I agree with Murphy that MR theory is a better explanation of HV and that a solution might be found in this general direction. However, I don’t believe in MR’s conclusions.
I have been corresponding with Bill Murphy and we are not on the same page but it has been a healthy and respectful exchange.
Another intersting book that has a good deal of analysis of HV including MR’s theory supporting it, is The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology” by Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler…..chapters 2 and 3.
As you pointed out, there the initial reaction to HV was that is was too legalistic, biologistic and physicalistic. This resulted in what became known as the “perfected faculty argument”. Next, came Grisez, et al, and the New Natural Law Theory. This human-goods theory was also controversial. JP II’s Theology of the Body was somewhat extreme but beautifully crafted. However, a signifcant shift in JP II’s thought began with VS in 1993. JP II moved to Thomas in defining contraceptive acts as the proximate end of the object and PC as the virtuous and only licit means of limiting children in marriage. MR picked up on VS with his action theory.
I wrote a critique of MR’s action theory and ethics of procreation. I also have written a draft of HV, pros and cons, including a moral analysis based on Thomas. It is not finished, but if you email me I would be willing to share either essay with you, in return for your comments. My email is mj2barberi@yahoo.com.
With respect to your judgment about HV et al, you are right about confusion. I have been studying this issue 24/7 for the past 3 years and I am still learning all the nuances of various arguments.
Hope this helps.
Michael:
First off, I sent you an e-mail tonight and look forward to reading and offering comments upon your articles when I have an opportunity. Thank you.
Thanks for the suggestions. I’ve found the Murphy article and have begun to read it. It looks very good.
I will try to find a copy of the book you recommend.
In your research and interpretation of HV and post-HV Catholic sexual ethics, how do you understand the consecutive and shifting philosophical-explanations-cum-defenses of the position? In your opinion, would I be making an incorrect inference if I were to comment that the shifting justifications indicate a fundamental weakness in the argument(s) or is a more accurate – and charitable – interpretation of this philosophical variety that simply these views coincide with a better understanding of HV and the logic behind it?
Would you mind elaborating upon your comments on JPII and TOB? You are the first I have read to describe his view with the word “extreme.” Given my impression that his view is not simply orthodox, but a game-changer in the world of Catholic sexual ethics, any explication and elaboration you give would particularly interesting to me as well as a welcome alternative.
It is a confusing and dare I say poorly formed non-argument. With that stated, I (unmarried that I am. I think that is important to state in such an exchange as this), I am compelled not simply by deference to authority but also a perception (or perhaps expectation) of Truth to live by it and expect all Catholics to do the same. Is it wrong to expect – nay, demand – that those vested with the responsibility to guard the faith and guide the faithful to do a little better than a document whose obviousness of Truth is restricted to those (in my experience) who possess advanced degrees or exceptional intellects? Something seems wrong if a fundamental teaching is so confusing as that found in HV.
Thank you again for your guidance. Your comments are insightful and educational.
Joe –
I agree with your closing. Recurring implications that the mass of ordinary faithful need a graduate-level Master of Abstruseness degree in order to engage properly, by the rules, in a primordial human activity like conjugal sexuality seem odd to me, too.
The Supreme Pontiff addressed his encyclical of about a dozen pages to “…THE CLERGY AND FAITHFUL OF THE WHOLE CATHOLIC WORLD, AND TO ALL MEN OF GOOD WILL…”, among others, presumably intending to be understood. For any communication to be successful, there is a necessary sequence of questions determining “intelligibility”. (Michael B. almost got into this at 3:42P, 2/13.) First, what did he say? Then, and only then, what did he mean? Finally, after the first two questions are answered, how do I react? Much of the endless discussion of HV seems to wrestle with the third without much consensus on the first two. As a result, there is not one Humanae Vitae but a great many different implicit versions, each invented by a proponent of some reaction in order to support his or her conclusions.
If the statement of a teaching is unintelligible to many after long attempts by numerous experts to understand what it says, as history and current events seem to suggest about HV, how could anyone decide correctly whether it is right or wrong? true or false? logical or self-contradictory? based on reality or an imaginary Nature? The failure of the responsible authority to clarify the HV situation intelligibly over 40 years says a lot about what matters most in the Vatican. (Last year, when Benedict XVI strayed into ambiguities and vagueness in his speeches, the Vatican spokesman promptly stood up and clarified what the Pope did and didn’t say and what he did and didn’t mean. Paul VI and Humanae Vitae deserve the same.)
You ask good questions.
Jack -
I do wish that the Church would provide us with a definitive interpretation of HV and the ethical teachings that have flowed from it. I know them, but I think as a service to the faithful it would be useful if they were actually explained.
You raise some good points in your questions. I think many folks – myself included – merely assume that a definitive interpretation of HV exists. No one bothers to consider that multiple, competing and often contradictory readings of the enyclical – and subsequently competing and contradictory understandings of Catholic sexual ethics – exist. Instead, the assumption is made that HV is obvious to any one who reads it, and for those who have not bothered the sexual ethics are nevertheless comprehendible with sensible, obvious and clear philosophy behind it.
I think Michael B. is onto something – the Church may very well be changing. I wonder if in my lifetime we will see any change, and in what direction that change will shift the Church’s positions. The hierarchy can close the conversation for only so long before the moral theologians burst through the doors. If such an event happens, hopefully it is not a burst with the splintered remains of the Church’s teaching scattered about the floor, but rather it is a friendly invitation to walk through, into the house and sit down in a freshly cleaned house (not a great metaphor, but…).
Joe and Jack:
There is truth in what you say. History has taught us that our understanding of the truth is progressive. However, it has been 43 years since HV was published and the various interpretations to explain and support it lack intelligibility.
The 2 most perplexing issues I face, and believe most educated people as well face, are the following:
1. Most human acts can be related to a virtue or vice. Some acts may relate to more than one virtue. However, there is no intrinsic correlation between Chastity/ Temperance and marital acts and marriage. In other words, there is no intrinsic moral requirement the lack thereof is a sin against this virtue and nature. Arguments that support the requirement that PC is the only licit means to limit children in marriage, start from asserting an absolute moral norm that every marital act must be open to the unitive and procreative meaning….regardless of circumstances. However, this type of assertion runs into the counter-intuitive teachings that couples can be exempted from their procreative obligations on a marriage level, but under these same circumstances, every single marital act must be open to the meaning of procreation.
The other counter-intuitive argument is that marital acts must have an intentional openness to the transmission of life and that nothing be done to intend the end or goal that procreation be impeded. As one astute theologian put it ” contraception does prevent procreative consequences when the couple chooses to engage in sexual intercourse, just as PC during fertile periods prevents procreative consequences when the couple chooses to engage in sexual intercourse.” Both are intentional acts with the same end/goal.
2. There is also no correlation that a marital act, not open to the meaning of procreation, is also not open to marital love. People get married primarily because of love, not primarily because they want children. Children are a gift of marriage that all couples are obligated to seek and all couples (save for exceptions) want. Love is fully expressed through the marital act and couples complete themselves through this act and the one flesh mystery. There are numerous books and articles that show that martial love is much broader than procreation. Yet, the Church continues to insist that sexual intercourse without a procreative meaning is devoid of total self-giving love.
When the Church says that couples who practice contraception have a love that is dishonest, disrespectful and selfish, it goes against common sense. The argument the Church offers is not reasonable! There is no moral argument that is intelligible based on the assertion that the sexual act is solely for pleasure, and affective fulfillment, when the act is not open to the meaning of procreation.
Finally, I fall back on the kitchen-table argument “if God told the pope that contraception under all circumstances is intrinsically evil, why did he make it so profoundly difficult for 98% of Catholics to understand it?”
Joe, as for JP II’s Theology of the Body and Veritatis Spendor, there was a shift moral philosophy from the physical act to an understanding based on Thomistic ethics. In the TOB, there is much analogy from on-high that JP II uses to justify his language of the body theory. TOB implies that human knowledge of the body as a primordial sign or language or message that is the body itself informs the practical and speculative reason and leads man to do the truth. This means being open to the body along the path to particular normative conclusions. He ties the Body-Soul being to the connaturality of practical reason, as Natural and Divine Law. It is highly complex reasoning and it is very different from any other theory. In the end, JP II says that sin prevents man from grasping the truth but the Holy Spirit guarantees the Church will not err in terms of Faith and Morals. Thus, Catholics should follow its teachings.
Michael:
The two criticisms you list and explain I think are two problems I have with it. You explain very well – far better than I could – my own misgivings about HV. FWIW, your #2 criticism presents perhaps the biggest hurdle I have in fully accepting (that is not to say I would not follow) the teachings of HV. That strict definition you criticize makes no sense to me whatsoever.
If I may, I will briefly describe the point #1 you have written in my own language in order to confirm whether or not I understand your analysis.
1. Most human acts are related to virtues or vices. However, it is incorrect to assert that there is a relationship between chastity/temperance and the marital act and marriage. The definition of marriage precludes an intrinsic relationship, in so far as a lack of chastity/temperance in marriage does not violate the virtues of charity or temperance. [the rest gave me no trouble, so I won't restate it].
2. As I write above, your 2nd criticism presents a huge problem for me. I simply cannot see marriage or marital love to be so narrowly – and insecurely – defined.
But, if I may play devil’s advocate, let me try a response to your #2:
You make the mistake of mis-attributing ethical value to an immediate human sense. This sense of love is the method through which God works to unite human beings. It’s immediacy, however, is not the reason for marriage. The reason for marriage remains the procreation of species. That is the ultimate end and your criticism misunderstands that end by prioritizing “love” – a lower method used by God in order that we may fulfill His will for us – for the higher end of procreation. This is why the unitive and the procreative functions of the marital act cannot be separated. These are, by definition, inseparable. Yours is a modern understanding that falls into the trap of cartesian dualism that the Church rejects in its understanding of sexual ethics. In your “love” value, you incorrectly separate the body and soul into distinct spheres, when the reality is that they are united.
As for JPII: I will have to read VS. I am working my way slowly through Love and Responsibility (a nice break from more important priorities) and I notice in that early work a complexity of reasoning that is difficult to grasp. And yet, why does a sexual ethic paradigm require such a complex level of reasoning to defend itself?
Joe,
Sorry to be getting back to your questions so late. (Had eye-problems.)
About Catholic natural law theory:
Thomas is far from the only Catholic natural law theorist, and, in my opinion, he is not entirely consistent in what he says about it in various places. He is therefore subject to many different interpretations (as everything ever written is!) plus different conclusions can be drawn from him.
My problem with the Vatican’s “natural law theory” is that it is largely non-existent. It parrots the conclusions of the medieval theorists at times, but it doesn’t give whole *arguments* for those conclusions. Natural law theory is nothing if not an evidence based theory of what people are, and what people are is known only by experience, which experience yields the *premises* of natural law conclusions. The Vatican isn’t too interested in premises.
O I grant you that Paul VI did offer some premises to ground his rejection of contracetpion. And JP II offers some, but he offers no empiriacal evidence for those premises. All lovely poetry about the philosophy of the body is at this point a fiction, speculation at best (and contrary to a lot of what the psychologists claim). These days there is just too much data about the psychology of men and women for him to make his generalizations about our differences without appealing to scientifically gathered facts Yes, this is a rather radical view of JP II, but frankly I dont think that much of him a a philoopher. So there.
There’s a lot more to be said about these issues, and this thread is about to run out of space. But I’m sure we’ll get back to the issues again. We always do. :-) Stick around.
Joe –
I recommend this intro to Aquinas. It’s rather new and, I think, very well done.
Edward Feser, “Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide”, One World, 2009.
And, of course, there’s always good old reliable Copleston, S.J., his volume on Aquinas. Very clear,
But you won’t understand Aquinas unless you understand his Aristotelian vocaulary. That means learning a bit of Aristotle. I recommend Mortimer Adler’s little paperback highly, “Aristotle for Everybody”. Don’t be put off by the title. This is a classic. And it’s cheap, having been in print a long time. Vocabulary does get to be a problem with Aristotle and the Scholastics. Words that are used in ordinary English often have technical meanings in Aristotle and the Scholastics.
I found Faith and Reason of JP II excellent, except for the part about conscience, which is dreadful, but, I must admit, it’s what Thomas also taught.
Ann -
Thanks for the recommendations. Are you famliar with Josef Pieper, in particular his Guide to Thomas Aquinas? Your thoughts on him I would appreciate, since you seem to have much more familiarity with Thomas and Thomistic philosophy than I have. He seems to be particularly popular amongst hard-right-philosophically-inclined Catholics I know.
Your comment about interpretations of Thomas amuses me: just today I was discussing with a friend (a Thomist of the “neo-classical” variety, I guess. The type that only uses Thomas and a few Thomistic philosophers after him) who was making authority-based-Truth-claims privileging his brand of Thomistic philosophy over others – and other philosophies – due to the Church’s official acceptance of Thomism and the Truth-implications such an assertion by the Church has for Thomist philosophy and all non-Thomist (read: “modern”) philosophies. This multitude of interpretations is something I often forget and that forgetfulness is a danger that lurks around us when we engage with any materials (I say this as I try to prepare for doctoral exams, ha).
The Aristotelian vocabulary has surprised me by its difficulties. I encountered him as in undergraduate and graduate-level political theory courses. Unfortunately I had no idea how expansive the vocabulary was. This unfamiliarity is a source of one of the major difficulties I’ve had, I think, when I have read the papal enclycicals or discussed with colleagues with appropriate theological or philosophical backgrounds.
Moving back to JPII: what do you think explains his unique philosophical defense in the form of TOB and why do you think there are no appeals to modern social and physical science in his writings, such as TOB? To look at it from another perspective: is TOB a conscious philosophical architecture to support HV, or ought it be understood beyond such a restrictive origin? I know that in Love and Responsibility, he seems to engage at some level those contemporary thinkers, so I’m a bit surprised to hear – especially given his reptutation – of a failure to integrate or dialog with contemporary science in his later writings as Pope.
As for natural law theory: your make an interesting observation. If it is the case that the Church’s natural law philosophy is non-existent, why do so many people, especially those with philosophical backgrounds, continue to believe this fiction that it is a substantial and substantive philosophical system? Why not someone point out that the emperor has no clothes?
And, when you refer to “natural” as in ‘nature’ do we not risk falling into a trap of biological determinism or materialism? To draw this out, is the Church’s vocabularly of ‘natural law’ truly ‘natural’ and if it is not – if it is, say, based upon an explicitly Catholic-Christian anthropology that exists outside of physical nature – why does the Church persist in promoting a system and making seemingly false claims of a philosophy whose tenets it does not actually subscribe to? A classic example, I guess, is that not everything that is ‘natural’ is good; so, the Church’s understanding of ‘natural’ must be different than that which is in nature. then i return to that question of why the Church persists in classifying its preferred philosophy as such when it is not ‘natural’ in either a scientific or philosophical sense?
Joe:
Thank you for your remarks. You make good points. Let me try to be clearer.
1. You are completely correct that the ends or purposes of marriage are procreation and love. However, it was only in 1968 that the ends of marriage became the ends of the marital act. Even in Canon Law procreation is still a gift of marriage. The Majority Report, IMO, got it right. Procreation is an obligation of marriage, not an obligation of every single martial act.
Nevertheless, you bring up an excellent point in that I should be careful with my choice of words like people get married for love, not necessarily children. I did inadvertantly imply love was more important than procreation, but that was not my intent.
However, I think you misunderstand that the reasoning for the inseparability of the unitive and procreative meanings of marital acts. God did not say that procreation was a “higher” end of marriage unless He was speaking to all of humankind when he told Adam and Eve to go forth and mulitple. If so, the Church never considered this to mean “the more the better”. However, a large family was implied as more faithful than a small family for centuries. From Augustine to Aquinas, the “primary and sole” purpose of marriage was procreation. However, the Church today does not assign a higher value to procreation or love, but they are equal but inseparable.
History makes clear that the ends of marriage were an ever changing and evolving definition: from procreation only…to procreation and faithfulness between the spouses…then was added remedy of concupisence, then was added mutual love….then was added moderate pleasure…then Vatican II defined the ends of marriage as Human, Total, Faithful, Exclusive, Responsible Parenthood…then the focus was the unitive and procreative meaning of a martial act (not marriage) in HV.
Paul VI rejected the Majority Report for two stated reasons: it contradicted tradition and the “constant” teachings of the Church on marriage, and that there was not “complete’ agreement in the Commission on the recommendations. The former reason was totallly inaccurate and the later was perplexing since no formal Council or Commission ever reached 100% agreement on complex issues. 75% of the Commission members voted for the Majority Report!
As for the love value being separated into two spheres was not my intend. I believe the real issue is the confusion over the ends of marriage and the ends of the martial act. The procreative end of marriage and the procreative end of marital acts are not mutally exclusive, but closely related. The confusion, as I stated, was that couples can be exempted from their procreative obligations on the marriage level, but under these same circumstances, they cannot be exempt from their procreative obligation in martial acts. The further confusion is that the “procreative meaning of each marital act” is defined as “not impeding foreseen procreative consequences”. However, PC during fertile times impedes procreative consequences when couples perform sexual intercourse.
When a moral philosophy or theology is not completely correct, contradiction and unintellible arguments surface under analysis, especially when applied to complex cases and circimstances.
2. As for Natural Law, it is understood as practical reason participating in Divine reason, in parrallel with subjective reason, working within inclinations where humankind is lead to the good and the truth. In past times, it was associated with natural ends and the physical. However, this is a very complex theory, as is Divine Law. It is full of confusing interpretations. This is why the conversation over HV has shifted to an understanding of Thomas. Nevertheless, Natural and Divine Law is still part of the Doctrine. It leads you to the Theology of the Magisterium, especially papal encyclicals as Doctrine without full consideration of ecumenical councils.
I am exhausted. Later.
Joe –
I’m afraid I didn’t make myself clear. When I spoke of “the Vatican’s natural law theory” being almost non-existent I was thinking of the most recent Vatican, namely, JP II and Benedict. They are the ones who constantly repeat the old scholastic natural law conclusions, but do not support them with persuasive evidence.
There have been *many* natural law theories, and many by Catholics. Thomas’ has been the donimant one, especilly since the end of the 19th century. But Scotus has long been revered by many, and there were in particular some Spanish natural law philosophers who have had great influence on social theory and even on economics. I would define a “natural law theory” as one which grounds ethics in what it is to be a human person using reason alone, not revelation (though revelation can suggest questions and answers in the Catholic tradition). They are therefore fact based theories to use Humean terminology. Different natural law theorists give different grounds and sometimes different conclusions, even within the Church.
Joe:
Below are some thoughts about how Paul VI used natural and divine law, IMO.
HV and Gaudium et specs must be read together. Guadium et specs called for a more person-centered observance of love and procreation. Married love takes it source from God, Who is Love, and whose love is both personal and paternal. However, not before HV was their any authoritative document of the Magisterium that made conjugal love the starting point for a teaching on the signifcance of conjugal intercourse and its relation to procreation. Contraception was unnatural because it contradicted the natural purpose of the genital organs and the genital act.
Vatican II said that “objective criteria” should be taken from the nature of the person and his acts to determine the morality of any method in such as way as to preserve the meaning of mutual gift and human procreation in the context of true love. HV said it was unlawful to impede or prevent conjugal intercourse foreseen to have procreative consequences, from having those consequences. In asserting this as the basis of his doctrine, Paul VI showed that the basis of the law was the symbolic meaning rooted in biological rhythms, not in animal biology. It was symbolic meaning rooted in the human natural processes. The natural processes of procreation is the plan of the Creator. Therefore, respect for the symbol is united with the respect for life. Therefore, contraception is a departure from the order established by God.
When rhythm produces infertilty, there is no offense to the natural order in letting the act signify love alone.
In summary, HV was based on natural law as it manifests itself in the natural human fertility cycle. This natural rhythm of sterile and fertile times was the order of human nature (biological) that was created by God for reproduction. Anyone that disrupts this order, goes against natural and divine law.
There are several aguments that are opposed to this line of reasoning. Later.
The serious use of fact-based theories of natural law mentioned by Ann O 2/19 7:43PM could offer promise. Prof. Luke Gormally of the Pontifical Academy for Life recently engaged in debate over contraception. http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1345990?eng=y
He defined “a minimal condition for marital intercourse being of the reproductive kind” only in terms of the male, apparently not considering minimally necessary the female’s provision of an accessible ovum. The difference matters when the subject of “natural rhythms” comes up. His puzzling concept is less so if one thinks of the biology as Aristotle and Aquinas imagined it. Similarly, talk of “the transmission of life”, to which marital acts are required to be open, was literally meaningful to them whereas today it is a metaphor, seldom defined. Our understanding of nature has advanced since Aquinas. Thus, to entertain conclusions of his without validating his underlying premises in depth invites confusion, at least, if not error. As Michael B. noted, “our understanding of the truth is progressive”. True, on average.
(The notions of Aristotle and Aquinas on reproduction are described in detail in Femina ut imago Dei in the Integral Feminism of St. Thomas Aquinas, Volume 260 by Joseph Francis Hartel (1993) (Google Search: isbn:8876526463 ). About page 80 on.)
Imagine what Humanae Vitae might have said about the true nature of marriage if the final authorities on it were not all life-long celibates (Paul VI, Ottaviani, Ford, etc.). Empirical evidence and fact-based theories potentially illuminate our understanding of creation, some say.
Jack and Joe:
Let me try to restated my less-than-perfect opinion once again.
The “language of the body” that JP II mentions in his TOB is precisely the natural nexus of the fertility and sterile periods. The body provides signs for spouses to regullate their fertility and manage procreation by the natural biological process created by God.
Procreation is brought about by sexual intercourse in marriage. The conjugal act is a gift from God which has an intrinsic love and procreative meaning. This means that a marital act has a procreative meaning in sterile and fertile times and it presupposes love. In other words, as long as spouses do not break the natural nexus of fertile and sterile cycles making procreation impossible, then sexual intercourse at any time is in accordance with Natural and Divine Law.
So, HV is not violated if spouses limit marital acts to sterile times as a means to limit children in marriage. The nexus is not brokern because there is still fertile and infertile times of the natural fertility cycle. HV could have been worded much better because certain sections seem to contradict other sections. Nevertheless, if you take HV as a whole that is what it is saying.
Hence, the crux of HV relies on Paul VI’s formuation and interpretation of Natural and Divine Law. The questions are:
1. Did Paul VI committ the naturalistic fallacy when he derived a moral ought from a biological is?
2. If God is pleased when spouses have 2 children and want no more for good reasons, is God offended under these same circumstances if every marital act is not open to procreation (e.g., spouses ensure sterile times during normally fertile times by taking the pill)?
3. Did God “implicitly” want spouses to practice conjugal abstinence during fertile times as the only licit way of regulating fertility and limiting children in marriage?
4. Natural fertile times in the strictest sense lasts 4 days. However, because science cannot detect this 4 day period precisely (yet), most PC programs require 12 days of conjugal abstinence each month to ensure against pregnancy. Yet, NFP (e.g. PC) has a 25% failure rate based on actual usage. Perfect compliance is largely only realistically possible for a limited number of couples. Does this not cause a choice of alternative duties for spouses? On the one hand, they want no more children for good reason. They want to ensure the physcial and spiritual well being of themeselves and their children. They want to share limited family goods with existing children. They want to avoid significant financial and emotional burdens. This is responsiblie parenthood. On the other hand, they are being forced to use PC to limit children in marriage and not violate the unitive and procreative meanings of sexual intercourse as responsible parenthood. They cannot prevent procreative consequences during fertile periods. However, a 25% failure rate over a 20 year fertility cycle means high risk of more children and burdens. Does this not set up a conflict of responsible parenthood duties? Is this a case of double effect?
5. If PC is a form of the virtue of chastity/ temperance. Is the measurement of temperance (e.g., 12 consecutive days of conjugal abstinence per month) a prudent reasoned mean of this virtue? In other words, 12 consecutive days per month is solely based on a biological factor. It is not based on the degree of one’s passions, their spiritual condition or their human good. It is not based on what is needed to control their sexual appetite. Is this relevant in the moral choice of ways to achieve fertilty regulation? Can spouses reject this measurement as overkill in terms of mastering their sexua appetite? Could this excessive measurement of temperance be a reasons for the high failure rate of PC programs?
Joe and Jack:
Take the followin example:
1. A spouse has 5 children and the health of the spouse will be endangered by a pregnancy. The husband is unemployed and an alcoholic. When is gets drunk, he seeks sexual intercourse with any regard to his spouses wishes or health.
> Does the spouse violate HV is she takes precaution by taking the pill under this loveless intercourse which sees foresees?
2. A spouse has 3 children and both spouses want no more for good reason. The husband travels frequently and there will be a number of months they will not be together. When the husband is at home, many times are during fertile times (during 12 days in the month where abstinence is required to limit children). They jointly decide to use contraceptive intercourse on certain occasions.
> Does this violate HV? HINT: the French bishops in this case permitted it. The bishops of Canada and Belgium also supported the bishops of France. Paul VI repudiated it.
The question of whether a person violates a law which does’t apply to that person is moot. Nevertheless, re the two examples:
1. One of the 75-90% of Catholics that reject HV points the wife toward one of the 50% or so of priests that reject HV. He agrees with her that her highest priority in her life is to bring up 5 living children as well as she can. He confirms her common sense that having more, accidentally or intentionally, would be obviously insane human behavior. God doesn’t demand animal-like reproduction of anybody. He advises her to take steps to ensure reliably that she doesn’t procreate any more, and that’s what the pill is for. He recommends to her a doctor or health agency that he knows will help.
The truth announced in the first 2 sentences of HV show that it certainly doesn’t apply to her: “The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator. It has always been a source of great joy to them, even though it sometimes entails many difficulties and hardships.” Those statements clearly exclude her from the scope of the encyclical.
2. If marriage is to be considered important, their primary marriage goal at the time needs to be unity because of the added stress of the travel on top of the normal burden of 3 children, cared for only by the mother during the travel periods. They are said to have good reason at the time for no more children. Blindly excluding 12 (or 7) days out of every 28 or so with no consideration of whether and when the husband and wife are within arm’s reach of one another reflects the the HV concept of robotic marriage following nature’s alleged immanent rhythms. Yet, the only human rhythm that appears to be recognized by HV is the biological ovulatory cycle.
Declarations about the fundamental inseparability of various unitive and procreative aspects may be based on the one-organ-one-function rule (one visible organ) but does not appear to recognize human beings as observable in nature. Perhaps the bishops of France and elsewhere recognized human complexity in ways that Paul VI and his collaborators failed to.
Jack:
The law (HV) does apply to both couples….as far as the Church is concerned.
With respect to the first example, I do agree with your conclusions. However, in this case there is no mutual self-giving love. In reality, this is a loveless marriage especially during the times of sexual intercourse when the husband is drunk, selfish and reckless. This case shows that the inseparable link between the unitive and procreactive meanings of the marital act is broken because there is no unitive love exists. This is a case where HV fails as a moral doctrine.
In the second case, the circumstances are not common, but not rare either. Only under these circumstances is the good that is accomplished greater than the evil of disassociating fertilty from the expression of love. The good is the life of the mother, the well-being of existing children and the necessary expression of love for marital harmony. This is another case where HV fails as a moral doctrine.
A BETTER EXAMPLE: The use of a condom by a serodiscordant spouse to protect the transmission of a deadly disease to the other spouse is forbidden and illicit according to HV. While it is true that a condom is not 100% effective, perhaps wearing 2 of them (or a special type) is a not the reason for rejecting this external act. The Church believes that permanent conjugal abstinence is the only licit answer for such couples. This posits the virtue of chastity/temperance against the virtues of justice and charity. It also makes the measurement of chastity/temperance an imprudent and unreasoned mean of this virtue. Permanent conjugal abstinence is celibacy. It is not voluntary celibacy but forced celibacy. Hence, this choice of behavior (forced celibacy) is rejected by right reason. Yet the Church insists HV is correct.
If there are many circumstances that would exempt spouses from HV, then the doctrine is flawed as a moral imperative.
Jack and Mike -
Sorry for the late responses.
On this question of temperance/chastity, I would highly recommend picking up, if you haven’t, _Love and Responsibility_. I’m into Chapter 3, “The Person and Chastity.” While the entire work presents a philosophical justification and interpretation of pre-VII teachings on sexuality, that chapter (and a subsequent chapter which examines marriage), provides an in-depth – if also very peculiar – understanding of chastity and ties this virtue as a fundamental element of authentic love.
It seems rather evident from _L&R_ that in the case of the two examples you provide above, Mike, that as early as that publication JPII would have asserted a traditional Catholic sexual ethic in response to your examples. As you have pointed out, Mike, the philosophy of JPII – in particular, for me, the language he uses – presents a unique architecture for Catholic sexual ethics.
I don’t have the time (or the energy) to go into details and cite relevant passages, so if I may state only that the chapter in chastity makes clear in an odd way that even in marriage, concupisence can occur. And chastity, rightly present and helping to order the love toward authenticity (as opposed to lesser, false loves built upon the mere interest in the body), serves an important purpose. Otherwise, those false forms of love can take hold, in which a true love of person does not develop. I greatly oversimplify (and perhaps incorrectly state) the arguments. So please don’t take my word for them, but also read the book if you can. That helps to understand his later work.
It’s very odd that a philosophical argument can be constructed which can elevate chastity within marriage as a necessary virtue in order to fully develop and appreciate an authentic love. I understand the notion of non-use of another, but I cannot wrap my head around a philosophical position that elevates virginity within marriage (to steal something from Garry Wills) as indispensible, seemingly, to the fulfillment of other virtues within marriage.
Mike and Jack
re: the ‘naturalistic fallacy’ with regard to HV – many folks I know with appropriate backgrounds in theology and philosophy make the point that it is the naturalistic fallacy which is avoided through HV and Catholic sexual ethics in general. I usually hear responses that fall broadly under a few examples I’ll give here
1) the separation of the unitive and the procreative acts within the marital act indicates a flawed anthropology. Rather, a correct anthropology would reject the dualism implicit in such an interpretation.
2) it is not a ‘naturalistic fallacy’ to acknowledge the God-given rhythms of one’s body. Rather, it is indicative of the beauty of the act and a discipline which instills respect and temperance of these ‘natural’ urges by practicing PC. So, it is those on birth control who would be reducing sex to this ‘use’-end, natural sex act. HV and Catholic sexual ethics in general prevents these unhealthy, natural appetites from governing one’s lives. True love is then able to flourish when it is rightly ordered.
I think there are others, but they slip my mind. I’ll have to provoke some discussion so I that I get the other responses out of the people.
Joe -
Some oddities may seem less so if you recall that the underlying perspective of marriage on which those constructions build is imaginary, developed in the minds of lifelong celibates. Imagination unfettered by external reality is not generally a reliable source of truth about the world we live in.
One of the illuminating anecdotes from the 1965 papal birth control commissions tells of member Mrs. Patty Crowley blowing the minds of other members (in dignified fashion). She told them what she, a wife and mother, her husband, and thousands of Catholics they had surveyed knew about marriage, including rhythm, from having lived it, unlike the clerical members. Those were the commissions whose work recommending change was rejected by Paul VI in Humanae Vitae.
(Papal Sins, Garry Wills, (2000), pp. 89-93).
(Mrs. Crowley is co-author, with Robert McCIory, of Turning Point, The Inside Story of the Papal Birth Control Commission (1995) – Not seen)
Jack -
I don’t think it is that easy to dismiss it as the imaginations of celibate men. They’re celibate status has no relevance on the truth of the Teachings of the Church.
Here is a link to a brief critique of Wills’ account of the history preceding HV
http://www.staycatholic.com/papal_sins_greatest_sin.htm
“In the pages that follow, Wills:
Misrepresents natural law, implying that it was chiseled in stone somewhere by ancient Greeks or Romans.
Implies that the church did not approve of periodic abstinence before Pius XII (it had done so at least a century earlier).
Claims in passing that the Church found Darwin “unacceptable” (the Church never condemned his theory, and none of Darwin’s books were forbidden).
Misrepresents natural family planning, which, like all dissidents, he insists on calling “rhythm.”.
Treats the so-called Majority Report of the “Birth Control Commission” as a definitive document which should have been binding on the Magisterium (it was not a “report” at all but a working paper with flawed logic and no teaching status whatsoever).
Fails to mention that the birth-control pill often works as an abortifacient and is connected with all sorts of social pathologies, recently documented by sociologists like Lionel Tiger and Francis Fukuyama.
Does not acknowledge the fact that every prediction made by Paul VI in the famous Section 17 of Humanae Vitae [of Human Life] has come true.”
Modern History Sourcebook:
John Henry Newman (1801-1890):
On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine, July 1859
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newman-faithful.html
Joe:
The kinds of arguments that attempt to link contraception to abortion and to various other social ills are not lost on responsible Catholic couples; these assertions are simply not convincing because they are based on selected data susceptible to subjective slanting that result in credibility issues. It is a fundamental principle in statistics that many things can be shown to correlate but are not a cause. The sexual permissiveness that characterizes the secular world today has many causes. For example, the increase in the use of contraceptives can correlate with the increase in spousal abuse. However, it is widely known that the cause of spousal abuse is deep physchological problems of the husband, drug and alcohol abuse, unemployment and financial problems.
The prophesy of Paul VI was never, and never can be, a justification for HV as doctrine of truth. It is not prudent or wise to jump to erroneous conclusions and exaggerate an argumentation in an effort to persuade.
For example, ff one of the unsubstantiated reasons that contraception is illicit is because it tends to lead to abortion, then the reason that anti-abortive contraception is not permitted is perplexing. The term anti-abortive contraception is a voluntary act of choice with a specific meaning that by definition does not lead to abortion.
Janet Smith tried to make a case by citing some statistics that more abortions are performed by contraceptive couples than PC couples. However, Smith fails to state that only 1.2% of women practice PC in the U.S. By definition, there will be more women who contracept and have an abortion than those that practice PC and have an abortion. To then conclude that contraception leads to abortion, or that contraceptive couples are more abortionistic than couples who practice PC is absurd and deliberately misleading!!!
There has been no widely accepted scientific research that asserted that contraception is a cause of secular society’s social and moral ills.
Joe:
The naturalistic fallacy is simply this: you cannot derive a moral ought from a biological is.
JP II tied the signs/language of the body to the nature of the man of concupiscence and to the virtue of Chastity. However JP II stresses that a man can remain true to the person only in so far as he is true to nature. It is a heirarchy of the natural over the personal and relational. One must ask whether the biological and the physical can serve as an adequate foundation for the personal and relational. The biological is only one aspect of a person which should not be given inordinate import in the hierarchy of being or as a foundation for sexual anthropology. The act-centered morality betrays virtue ethics which focuses on character and relationship. To methphorically, analogically or ontologically assert that a married couple must practice the virtue of chastity in order to master their sexual appetite because their concupiscence can lead to moral sin is replete with difficulties.
Below is what JP II said in 1983 to a general audience. His topic was “Man called to overcome concupiscence.” Note below how JP II prioritizes the language of the body as central to the sacrament of conjugal love.
“The sacramental sign of marriage—the sign of the conjugal covenant of a man and a woman—is formed on the basis of the language of the body reread in truth (and continuously reread).”
“In the light of the words Christ spoke in the Sermon on the Mount, in the light of the whole Gospel and of the new covenant, the threefold concupiscence (and in particular the concupiscence of the flesh) does not destroy the capacity to reread in truth the language of the body—and to reread it continually in an ever more mature and fuller way—whereby the sacramental sign is constituted both in its first liturgical moment, and also later in the dimension of the whole of life. In this light one must note that concupiscence per se causes many errors in rereading the language of the body. Together with this it gave rise also to sin—moral evil, contrary to the virtue of chastity (whether conjugal or extra-conjugal). Nevertheless in the sphere of the ethos of redemption the possibility always remains of passing from error to the truth, as also the possibility of returning, that is, of conversion, from sin to chastity, as an expression of a life according to the Spirit (cf. Gal 5:16).
Sacramental sign of love
4. In this way, in the evangelical and Christian perspective of the problem, historical man (after original sin), on the basis of the language of the body reread in truth, is able—as male and female—to constitute the sacramental sign of love, of conjugal fidelity and integrity, and this as an enduring sign: “To be faithful to you always in joy and in sorrow, in sickness and in health, and to love and honor you all the days of my life.” This signifies that man, in a real way, is the author of the meanings whereby, after having reread in truth the language of the body, he is also capable of forming in truth that language in the conjugal and family communion of the persons. He is capable of it also as the man of concupiscence, being at the same time called by the reality of the redemption of Christ (simul lapsus et redemptus).”
I will read “Love and Responsibility” especially the chapters you suggest. I have this book in my home library.
Jack and Joe:
I am almost finished with several chapters in “Love and Responsibility”. WOW. I knew that someone said that 60% of HV was based on this book published in 1960. However, I believe 90% of it was based on this book. LOL.
L&R provides an outstanding insight into the thought of HV and JP II’s Theology of the Body. I want to give some reflection before I post. However, it does not take away from my previous comments, although it will cause me to re-adust my argumentation somewhat, but not significantly.
Later.
Mike:
You have already re-read portions of L&R? Wow. You are a fast reader. Anyway…
Mike and Jack: I agree that L&R is the foundation of HV. I can’t imagine it is the foundation of only 60% of the document. I read somewhere (perhaps it is Wills’ book Papal Sin) in which it is stated that either Paul VI or John XXIII received a copy of the book in the early 1960s.
If I may (hopefully this is not legal) quote a large passage of JPII’s L&R on this issue of continence. Mike and Jack, if you also own a copy, this can be found on 207-208 of the 1993 Ignatius edition translated by H.T. Willetts. It is the last page or so of chap. 3.
“It may nevertheless seem strange that our discussion of tenderness forms part of a chapter devoted to the problem of continence. But the connection is a close one, and the discussion is in its proper place. There can be no geniune tenderness without a perfected habit of continence, which has its origin in a will always ready to show loving kindness, and so overcome the temptation merely to enjoy put in its way by sensuality and carnal concupiscence. Without such continence, the natural energies of sensuality, and the energies of sentiment drawn into their orbit, will become merely the ‘raw material’ or at best emotional egoism. This must be very clearly and emphatically stated. Life teaches us this lesson at every step. For believers, what lies behind this fact is the mystery of original sin, the consequences of which are particularly grave in the sphere of sex, and are a threat to the person, the greatest good in the created universe. This danger is, so to speak, a very near heighbor of love: for true love, a union of persons, may develop from just the same raw material as the semblance of love which merely masks an inner attitude, an egoism which is the contrary of love. Continence plays here a very important and positive part, in that it liberates us from that attitude and from egoism, and so indirectly creates love. Love between man and woman cannot be built without sacrifices and self-denial. We find the formula for this renunciation in the Gospel, in the words of Christ: “Whoever would follow me must first renounce his own self…”
The Gospel teaches continence as a way of showing love.”
END
Mike: that passage I just quoted deals with the same theme you mention in your discussion of the naturalistic fallacy. I’m aware of what the naturalistic fallacy is, but it is something I have not encountered since an undergrad philosophy course, ha. As I read JPII’s _Love and Responsibility_ I become hung up on this philosophical language which merely masks this naturalistic fallacy in the analogical, ontological and metaphorical language you mention.
Now, a way to respond (in fact, I’ve heard the response) is to say that we make deductions and derive conclusions about our reality all the time. Such as with science. So, it is not necessarily fallacious for JPII to observe the body and derive conclusions from it.
Wait, that should read, hopefully this is not illegal (to quote the passage)…
Joe –
Please note first mention of Papal Sins ( 2/17/2011 – 8:44am) which said:
“Many _references_ in Chaps 5 and 6 in Papal Sins (2000) by Garry Wills are illuminating”
Reference lists start on pp. 85 and 102.
Re George Sim Johnston, in light of readily available demonstrations that show explicitly how he has misquoted and misrepresented Popes, Augustine, Darwin, Gould, the Magisterium, and much else in his published writings, a more credible critic would be preferable, notwithstanding his popularity in some quarters.
People receive the Teachings of the Catholic Church, not direct from God, but from men who believe them true or are willing to speak as if they were (e.g., some bishops and priests after HV was issued). You seem to suggest that one’s formative life experience, including celibacy or not, does not influence how one perceives, believes, and thinks about the world around us, including marriage, which I find puzzling.
Earlier, you wondered about John Paul II ignoring physical science in his writings. In various sources I’ve read about John Paul II that claim to be written by him or with direct access to him, he commented on what he learned years earlier about (atheistic) science and scientists in post-war Poland and about male-female relations from listening to young men and women with whom he hiked. I’m sorry I no longer recall the particular books (maybe Szulc’s?) but haven’t forgotten what he said he carried away from these experiences. It makes some of his later work less surprising, at least to me.
Jack -
I was unfamiliar with George Sim Johnston. Thanks for that information.
My point about the celibacy issue is not so much that their views won’t be relevant or inform their interpretations, but rather that it has no relevance to the merits of their statements. Or in the cases of faith and morals, it is the Holy Spirit that guides the Church in order that there is no error.
In Love and Responsibility he makes a similar statement about the origins of his knowledge of male-female relationships through his pastoral work.
Joe:
I am not crticizing JP II because he is deducing and concluding based on his perception of reality….as in the signs or language of the body and his interpreation of scripture.
Consider the following:
1. L&R, HV and JP II’s TOB goes something like this: God made man in his image in terms of body and spirit. The signs and language of the body, in terms of its natural procreative fertility cycle, is God’s plan for man. One must not go against God’s plan or attempt to presuppose His will. God did not want every marital act to be fertile and productive; only a few days are truly fertile. Limiting children is licit for good reasons. However, one must never prevent procreative consequences by physical means. That would go against God’s plan. Conjugal chastity is a virtue and this is how couples should limit children in marriage by abstaining on fertile days. Chastity in marriage leads to a happier marriage, a stronger spiritual union. perfection of marital love and better sex.
2. If we accept this theological speculation as truth, then couples should not physically prevent procreative consequences during 4 fertile days per month (the real number of days based on human biology). The problem is that science (to date) cannot determine accurately when those 4 days occur. However, this is the only number of days God apparently forbids couples to keep fertile. [Side comment: Why did God wait until 1930 to reveal the mystery of the human fertility cycle to man?]
3. If we are to believe that God’s procreative plan for man manifests itself in the human fertility cycle (the language of the body), then the virtue of chastity/ temperance with respect to conjugal abstinence should be only limited to 4 days per month. 10-13 days per month is not a prudent reasoned mean of this virtue. That is why PC programs have a 25% failure rate and a 53% discontinuance rate in the first year. It is overkill in terms of mastering the sexual appetite. God never intended couples to practice an excessive degree of conjugal abstinence. A 25% failure rate is also not a prudent level of risk couples should be forced to embrace to limit children in marriage. Any argument about “infused temperance” is problematic because no one knows when God provides such graces. Does it depend on one’s sanctity; is it given all at once or over one’s lifetime?
4. This issue boils down to prudence, wisdom and right reason. When faced with a choice between PC or contraception, right reason rejects PC. A 25% failure rate over a 20 year fertility period will mean many more children than desired and significant financial and emotional burdens. It will also cause the sharing of limited family goods with existing children to be significantly curtailed with remainder. The choice of contraception, under these circumstances, is directed to the virtues prudence, justice and charity. This claim will freak out most traditionists and they will argue against it, but not convincingly.
5. The other issue is the narrow definition of uniitve love and the absurdity that marital acts that lack a procreative meaning is simply for pleasure and is not true marital love. When you read L&R it becomes clear that this is a theology based on a highly disciplined and determined celibate person. He truly believe what he is saying. It is logical but unfortunately excessive. He admits that such a theology will be difficult for people to grasp and embrace. Yet, it is the truth as he sees it.
Mike -
I want to be clear that I was not necessarily arguing against you, but rather pointing out an argument that I’ve heard. I understand the argument that you are making and I appreciate that you are further explaining it.
Given your dissection of JPII, I think it does raise some serious questions. But, let me put on my traditionalist cap and respond:
I think the traditionalist (or even orthodox) response would be this: that is the discipline that being a Catholic requires. Many people I know would simply look at that and say, “so what?”
The failure rate would be attributed to the fallenness of man. The Truth of the Church’s teaching remains inviolate. The inability of couples to maintain the practice is unfortunate, but indicative of the Truth of the Teaching. The Church does not change its Teachings (or base them) on the whims of the faithful. People just need to try harder in overcoming their sins. That is what the 25% failure rate indicates.
Furthermore, 12 days is not excessive. That is a reasonable amount of time to abstain. How much sex do you think that married couples should be having in a given month? It is that indulgence which the Church (and JPII in particular) teaches must be mastered in order for authentic love to occur. Your suggestion that 12 days is excessive conjugal abstinance is merely evidence that the modern behaviors are disordered and ought to be properly ordered, that occurring (in part) when PC is practiced.
Look, the Truth does not change with the times, it is not a fad, it does not succumb to the whims of a few people in what is a small point in time who cannot live up to its teachings. It remains eternal and what it teaches is eternal. God’s Truth does not change in spite of history.
Of course, the problem remains that artificial birth control leads to (contributes to, etc) objectification of the other, relationships per se, sexuality etc by its separation of procreation from the marital act. And, the fact is that it is according to the Church, intrinsically immoral. The Church teaches that.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm
The fecundity of marriage
2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,”151 teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.”152 “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”153
2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 “Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility.”155
2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156
2369 “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood.”157
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160
2371 “Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man’s eternal destiny.”161
———————————–
Now, to return to my own thoughts instead of playing some traditionalist…
I have not yet thought of how narrow the definition of unitive love is. Would you care to elaborate? I’ve been hanging my hat on the idea that the definition of unitive love is relatively broad, but perhaps I will have to re-read L&R or move on to TOB and HV again order to get the gist of that.
Regardless, the absurdity of the necessity of the procreative act and the idea that those without it is simply for pleasure (which he does argue in L&R, and about which I was scratchnig my head) I notice as well. Indeed, I have noticed that the theology is “based on a highly disciplined and determined celibate person.” The logic of it is scary. Yet, one can simply point to it as a cross to bare. I’m sure that’s what traditionlists would do.
Mike -
Regarding the examples you provide above of the two instances where HV fails as a moral doctrine (the drunk abuser and the other example):
Would it not be the case to simply acknowledge that the sin has occurred in both instances?That is the conclusion. Contraception does not become an option, but rather it is acknowledged that the husband failed to honor his wife. HV (and TOB) does not fail as a moral doctrine in either case. The Church acknowledges the sinfulness of the act. However, that wrong does not then permit another wrong which is to artificially separate the procreative and the unitive purposes.
Joe:
Thanks for the traditionist counter-argument. However, I think you missed by poiint.
My point is that if we take L&R, HV and TOB to it natural end point, God forbids changing 5 fertile days per month into infertile days. If God wants couples to practice conjugal abstinence as the means to limit the number of children in marriage, then is asks nor more than required. If your argument is that science does not permit couples to precisely determine these 5 days, so 12 days must be practice to ensure security of outcomes, then why did God wait until 1930 to inform man of the human fertilty process? Before 1930, couples had no clue about fertilty. Every act was rolling the dice. Coitus interuptus and condoms were forbidden. Thus, large families were the norm. In 1960 we got the pill, but this was ruled to be contraception and intrinsically evil, despite 75% of the members of the Birth Control Commission who concluded that procreation was an end of marriage, not an end of every single martial act. The Spirit was not working in this Commission or in other Christian Churches since they reached the same conclusions. You can disagree Joseph and still be a faithful Catholic.
Chastitly/ Temperence is a virtue of self-control and self-sacrifice for mastering the sexual appetite. According to JP II and Paul VI, this sexual appetite will lead to excessvie consupiscence in marriage if not controlled by virtue. But if God intended married couples to practice chastity/ temperance, then 5 days per month is sufficent control and not more than that.
If the argument is that 5 days is sufficient but 12 days are better because virtuous perfection is directly related to the number of days of conjugal abstinence; then 20 days are better than 12.
At what point does prudent responsible parenthood end and the malice of irresponsible behavior begin?
Your argument that 12 days are reasonable because the actual number of acts of sexual intercourse during 12 days is not excessive. Consider this. On a practical level, the frequency of sexual intercourse for young married couples average between 2-3 times per week. This would mean abstaining from 4-5 acts of sexual intercourse each month during a 12 consecutive day period (100% of the average number of marital acts normally performed by young adults). Most couples work long hours, come home, eat, give time to children, unwind, read or watch TV, then go to bed. The routine is exhausting and challenges the human sexual appetite.
The male and female sexual inclination is not perfectly coordinated, far from it. Abstaining from sexual intercourse for 12 consecutive days per month frustrates marital harmony.
Let’s consider two examples to illustrate the point.
Example # 1: One married couple has sexual intercourse 1-2 times per day; the other married couple has sexual relations 2-3 times per week. The frequency of sexual intercourse for both couples is normal for them.
Example #2: One married couple has sexual intercourse 3-4 times per week; the other couple has sexual relations 3-4 times per month. The frequency of sexual intercourse for both couples is also perfectly normal for them.
Examples # 1 and # 2: The universal requirement of 12 consecutive days per month applies to each couple in both examples, without prejudice. Yet, the burden is disproportionate and unreasonable.
If procreative responsibility is precisely 12 consecutive days of conjugal abstinence per month, then we are saying that a biological factor solely determines the prudent application of temperance, ipso facto, regardless if this causes an unreasonable burden, potential negative consequences or is overkill in terms of mastering the sexual appetite.
In the end, it is not about “bitting the bullet” or “stepping up to the plate” in terms of what God wants. It is not the issue of Fallen-Redeemed man weakened by sin. It is about prudence, wisdom and right reason.
Natural Law is right reason participating in divine reason, where mankind is lead to the truth and the good. This issue is about Authority versus an informed and correct conscience. Once the Church declares that contraception is intrinsically evil as an absolute moral norm, game over. There is no debate regradless of it unintelligibility or incoherancy.
The papal utterence on this subject is definitive and irrformable. Game over. There is no room for the fact that history has taught us that our understanding of the truth is progressive.
Lastly, I think the kitchen table argument is still sound: If God told the pope that contraception is interinsically evil, why did he make it so profoundly difficult for 98% of Catholics to understand it?
Joe:
The two examples were chosen to illustrate that HV causes a conflict in the duties of responsible parenthood. It is double effect. The argument I am making is in the form of a question: Are there circumstances that would render the violation of HV morally permissible? If so, HV needs to be modified.
In the first example, the husband has truly violated his parental and procreative responsiblities. The question is: Does the spouse morally violate HV? She is conflicted between violating HV or violating her duties as a responsible parent. She is poor with 7 children. Her husband is unemployed and an alcoholic.
In the second example, the husband travels frequently and is home only for 10 days at a times each month. Most of those times fall into the 12 day abstinence period. They have 3 children and want no more for good reasons. Does the spouse violated HV because she occassionally takes the pill so that she and her husband can express their love for each other in conjugal communion?
In the third example, the serodiscordant husband uses a condom to prevent the transmisson of this deadly disease to his wife. Both spouses are in their mid to late 20s and have 2 childen and want no more for good reasons. Does the serodiscordant spouse violate HV? Does he have to practice celibacy for the rest of his married life and subject the wife to the same marital horror?
Mike –
Thanks for your response.
I think I did miss the point of your argument. And frankly, I have no idea what the traditionalist response would be. I can only point to the response I gave. And it goes over the usual arguments of the inseparability of the unitive and procreative functions and the consequences that accompany the artificial separation (I am still lost as to the moral significances of the openness to unmolested biological functions, but oh well. perhaps it contains ontological significance) and point to anecdotal and statistical evidence to support the efficacy of NFP. But they would not consider the question of temperance as you frame it. Temperance exists and its practice is not necessary to question. The idea that one could practice excessive temperance would be, I suspect, difficult to comprehend. Certainly the placement of temperance in opposition to other virtues would not be thinkable. Perhaps, implicitly, because temperance a higher virtue than the others. It would be reducible to mastering the appetite. Without consideration of individual experience.
I look forward to reading your articles when you have the opportunity to send them. I suspect and hope for the dialog to continue and grow.
Joe:
Prudence is the measurement of Temperance! Read Josef Pieper.
Also, Acquinas said that the realization of temperance varies too much according to individuals to establish hard and fast, universal vaild commandments on temperance.
Aristotle said temperance requires common sense, not extreme intelligence to find its golden mean.
JP II and orthodox theologians et al, never considered the measurement of temperance or the right positioning of prudence. Prudence is the virtue of discernment and the measurment of temperance. However, for the celibate pope and clergy, 12, 15 or 18 days per month of conjugal abstinence is not a big deal. Once you attach HV, they run for cover under the absolute moral norm….contraception is intrinsically evil, game over.
The current pope believes in “re-thinking”. “This re-thinking is what Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believes is necessary to uncover and recognize the memory of the good, a moral message implanted in the ontological level of our conscience by divine wisdom….Therefore a re-thinking is required because the moral message today is almost incomprehensible due to a concept of nature that is no longer metaphysical but only empirical….It creates a sense of disorientation that renders the choice of daily life precarious and uncertain.”
Let’s everyone apply this re-thinking to HV. Of does it only apply to Catholics who disagree with this doctrine?
As for an ontological argument, I was only applying the logic of JP II to the real fact that the natural fertility nexus is 5 days per month. If that is God’s will, why abstain for more than that?
Try to answering the 3 case examples. You will find that your initial attempt did not work because you did not understand the questions.
Mike
“Natural rhythms” and “cycles” are sometimes discussed theoretically as if they refer to mechanical regularities. In numerical considerations, it’s worth keeping in mind that numbers used for discussion are symbolic. They represent wide ranges found in healthy women in nature As an example, “28 days” stands for roughly a range of 20 to 45 days or longer. “3 days ” stand for 2 to 7, etc. Women differ from one another. An individual healthy woman may experience wide variation due to stress, travel, exercise, weight change, and various other factors. This explains why “natural” methods require quasi-scientific observations of physical properties such as viscosity (4 characteristics) and temperature and then analysis of the resulting data.
A few samples of natural variability are given by NFP advocate HLI at http://www.hli.org/index.php/activism/587?task=view Note the use of qualifiers like “often”, “usually”, “typically”, “seldom” — hardly grounds for moral certitude if a couple is making major decisions related to something as important as having children. These variations and uncertainties relate to the procreative function. The unitive function has its own variations. (Michael suggests this in his examples at 6:48P, 2/24) I hope John Paul II incorporated all this in his linguistic endeavors.
Thank you Jack:
You are correct that the average fertility cycle does vary from about 24-32 days, depending on what source you choose. The other fact that is seldom discussed is that about 30% of women have irregular mentrual cycles. Jack’s range of 20-45 days is indeed indicative of the full range if we include all women.
Instead of arguing that HV constructed a moral ought from a biological is (the langugage of the body), I wanted to show that if we indeed believe that the language of the body is God’s procreative plan, and one must not go against this plan, then one must never turn 4-5 fertile days into infertile days. Forget about the fact that science cannot precisely determine these days with confidence, yet. Forget about the fact that the fertility cycle changes due to a number of factors. The real language of the body is what is precisely happening. Once ovulation ocurrs, the egg lasts only 48 hours. However the sperm can live 48-72 hours. Thus, we have to take into account the fact that the sperm can be delivered into the vagina before or after ovulation, where the “body” can be in a state of fertility. Hence, the 5 fertile days.
Therefore, 12 days of conjugal abstinence is excessive compared to 5. Some say, so what? That is what is required and many people do it. True, but the 25% failure rate of PC programs is either reflective of Fallen-Redeemed man and his sinful nature and imperfection or 12 days is overkill in terms of mastering the sexual appetite.
Further, what evidence did the pope rely on when he said that chastity/ temperance in marriage (e.g. 12 days per month):
1. Leads to a happier marriage, a stronger spiritual union and marital love.
2. Controls the sexual appetite, and
3. Is truly a solution to carnal concuspiscence.
Perhaps the pope did not rely on any scientific evidence (because they are none) and based his theory on onotological speculation or did not truly think about the “measurement” of chastity/ temperance. In other words, 10, 12, 14, or 17 days per month did not matter.