Natural-Law Defense of the Moral Neutrality of Contraception, in the Spirit of St. Thomas Aquinas

[Paul_Rimmer]

Please read through this and tell me what you think! After it is properly challenged by both those for and against contraception, and edited, I will be happy to submit a final form for reading, so that people can answer the objections raised by the so-called traditional Catholic.

---

Question 1: Concerning Contraception

Article 1: Whether the Church’s Teaching on Contraception is Infallibly Stated

Obj. 1: It would seem as though the Church’s teaching on contraception
is infallible, for it is a matter taught by the Magisterium of the
Church within the realm of faith and morals, and anything within the
realm of faith and morals taught by the Magisterium is infallible, and
this by a matter of tradition.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the Scriptures themselves speak against
contraception with respect to Onan, “Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to
your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her,
and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the
offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife
he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to
his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord,
and he slew him also” (Gen. 38:8–10).

Obj. 3: And Tradition can be discerned from the agreement from the
Church Fathers, and the Church Fathers were opposed to contraception,
“I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for
the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust
obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those
who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor
do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name
cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to
this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral
contraceptives]” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).

Obj. 4: Furthermore, anything contrary to nature cannot be true, and
contraception is against nature, as it attempts to separate the
efficient cause from its intended final cause, which is the definition
of action leading to vice, as the Philosopher would declare (Nich.
Eth.) So the Church, teaching from obvious nature, must be teaching
infallibly.

On the Contrary, the Church finds inerrancy in Her Scriptures, Her
Traditions, Her Councils, and the Ex-Cathedra teachings of the Vicar
of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff, as they concern faith and morals. The
Church, however, concerning these four realms, has been absolutely
silent about contraception, so Her teaching on contraception cannot be
considered infallible.

I answer that, what is meant by “contraception” is a method invented
by man in order to reduce the chances of pregnancy. It is agreed, and
could not be denied, that the Church has taught infallibly that sexual
acts are intended for the sake of producing children, and that an act
divorced from its end is immoral, but though these principles have
been established infallibly, the intended conclusion has not. As is
shown later, this is because contraception is a matter of discipline.
But if it were a matter of faith and morals, it would be considered
infallible if declared as such.

The closest any two Church authorities come to declare such
infallibility are the Council of Nicea and the document Humanae Vitae.
Though the document Humanae Vitae is not an ex-cathedra teaching, its
strongest statement concerning inerrancy does not actually make the
direct claim that this church teaching is inerrant. “The Church has
always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every
marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be
held as definitive and irreformable.” (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4,
Feb. 12, 1997). Yet this passage does not say “This teaching is
definitively or irreformably held to be definitive and irreformable”,
or, more succinctly, “This teaching is definitively and irreformably
held”. As such, Humanae Vitae is not claiming an inerrant teaching,
but rather claiming the Pontiff’s believe that there exists an
inerrant teaching; a belief that should be respected, but is in no
wise definitive, or irreformable.

Secondly, we consider the Nicean council’s statement: “If anyone in
sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if
enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that
from henceforth no such person should be promoted.” (Canon 1, Nicea).
This is speaking about permanent castration, which would be a clear
defilement of the body, and though this is still a disciplinary
teaching, as will be shown below, it is in no wise an inescapable
teaching. However, as this only touches tangentially, to show that
contraception as above defined can be used in an immoral way, it has
no bearing on the argument.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Reply Obj. 1 has been addressed sufficiently in the answer.

Reply Obj. 2 is ambiguous, as there are different scholars all the way
back to Rashi, and the Talmud itself declares that “a man may do with
his wife as he wishes” (Nedarim 20a; Pesachim 112b), so long as he
fulfills the marriage contract and does not spill his sperm outside
the woman’s body. Also, halakhah holds that any sexual act that does
not involve sh’chatat zerah (spilling sperm outside the body),
including birth control, is permissible. As there are open
interpretations of this scripture, and the magesterium has not
definitively declared, as a matter of faith, what this scripture is
supposed to indicate, it cannot be considered an infallible teaching.

Reply Obj. 3 All teachings of the Church Fathers that are considered
definitive within Sacred Tradition are supported by the Magesterium,
the supreme authority in interpreting Sacred Tradition. As the Church
has not offered a definitive interpretation of this within an
Ecumenical Council, or an ex-cathedra statement, we cannot yet
completely (infallibly) agree as to what has been shown by Sacred
Tradition, concerning the Church Fathers, and dealing with
contraception above defined.

Reply Obj. 4 Human reason, however, can at times be true, and at other
times untrue, as it depends primarily on the senses. The case of
contraception is even more ambiguous, as the physical effects entail
effects on the soul. Such an ambiguity involves abstraction, and if
such abstraction within reason does not rest on divinely revealed and
infallible truths from the Sacred Doctrine, they can only be argued to
be likely, and so cannot be considered infallible themselves.

Article 2: Whether the Church’s Teaching on Contraception is a matter
of Discipline

Obj. 1 It seems as though the Church’s Teaching on contraception is
not a matter of discipline, but of faith and morals, first because the
Church has declared it to be so, as a matter of faith.

Obj. 2 Secondly, any statement about contraception necessarily
involves seeking out happiness through virtue. So it must be, by its
nature, a moral argument.

Obj. 3 Finally, the Church’s Teaching on contraception involves
accepting something that cannot be proved by any amount of evidence
from nature, namely that the soul finds detriment in its practice. But
this is a statement of faith, as Hebrews states “faith is the evidence
of unseen things.”

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. iv. 6, 7) God is truly and
absolutely simple, but the teaching on contraception is not simple, so
it cannot be a matter revealed directly by God to His Church through
Sacred Tradition. So it cannot be a teaching of faith and morals.

I answer that, within every teaching concerning discipline, there is
both a moral teaching, and a circumstance declared by faith. For
example, in the disciplinary declaration “aborting this fetus is
wrong”, there is a moral declaration “killing innocent humans is
wrong”, and a declaration of faith “a fetus is an innocent human”.
Both of these are infallibly declared by the Church, and so the
discipline of not aborting is absolutely true, though it is still a
statement of discipline. As the moral declaration and the declaration
of faith are presented infallibly by the Church, and lead by necessary
logic to the immorality of abortion, this disciplinary teaching cannot
be refuted.

We again take the moral statement, “any act which does not tend toward
its natural purpose is disordered” and “any disordered act is immoral”
and the statement of faith “the purpose of sex is for children”, from
this progression, we can conclude that contraception is an immoral
discipline. However, as contraception can be derived from a series of
two or more propositions about faith and morals, it is not itself a
statement about faith and morals, but a conclusion based on such
statements (and, as is argued below, it is an unnecessary conclusion).

Obj. 4 It still seems as though this division between faith and
morals, and discipline, is fabricated, for we can take any statement,
and make it a composite of any other statement, ad infinitum. As such
no statement would be a statement of faith and morals, and the Church
could declare nothing as infallible. But this clearly cannot be so.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Reply Obj. 1 Any declaration of a composite statement is itself a
composite statement, and so cannot be considered a statement of faith
and morals. So a statement by the Church that its teaching on
contraception is a moral teaching cannot be a teaching based on faith,
directly because of the simplicity of God.

Reply Obj. 2 The Philosopher has indeed considered virtue such, but
virtue as doing the right thing (moral principle) in the right way for
the right reasons to the right person with the right method, and this
is discipline. So not all actions that deal with virtue are of
themselves moral principles, but can be composites of said principles.

Reply Obj. 3 As has been shown above, not all statements that cannot
be evidenced are statements of faith, but can be a composite of a
statement of faith, and of morals, et. cet. This is so, as we have
shown with contraception, so the Church’s teaching on contraception is
a teaching based in discipline.

Reply Obj. 4 There are three ways that division can be considered.
Firstly, it can be thought of as an arbitrary division, as when one
cuts a log in half. Secondly, it can be a division by abstraction, as
one can take the idea of a rectangle from looking at a book, and
divide these ideas mentally. Thirdly, it can be a division by nature,
where a thing is truly a composite of two forms, or in the case of
ideas, an idea is a composite of two or more distinct ideas. The
divisions being made are divisions by nature, as the principles can
exist apart from the conclusion, and can themselves even be used to
lead to other conclusions.

Article 3: Whether Contraception is Morally Neutral

Obj. 1 It would seem as though contraception is not morally neutral,
for anything taught as a discipline by the Church, such as former
dietary restrictions, were teachings of discipline, but carried with
them a grave matter. So contraception must involve a grave matter as
well.

Obj. 2 No action can be morally neutral which leads to evil acts, as
contraception leads to justify homosexuality and abortion. So
contraception cannot be morally neutral.

Obj. 3 Further any action that would cause harm to the body could not
be moral, but contraception carries with it side-effects, and these
can and do cause harm to men. So contraception cannot be morally
neutral.

Obj. 4 Contraception is a medical tool. Medical tools are used to cure
a so-called “malady”. But contraception “cures” fertility. yet
fertility is a moral good, as has been declared in Scripture “They
shall be fruitful…”, and a cure of a good is itself an evil, so
contraception is evil.

Obj. 5 Contraception involves the protection of the wife from the
damage to her body in bearing too many children, and from the children
in being placed in a state of financial hardship against their will.
As such, it is a morally positive, or good act, and cannot be
considered as morally neutral.

On the Contrary, says the Apostle Paul, in enumerating the cardinal
virtues in his letter to the Corinthians, “Faith hope and love, and
the greatest of these is love.” And contraception can be used
lovingly, it cannot be evil, but must be morally neutral.

I argue that, as the teaching about contraception is a teaching
concerning discipline, the absolute virtue of charity, both for a
potential child and for a man’s wife, would necessitate there being a
case for ethical use of contraceptives. Since this case is not too
extremely unusual, one must posit contraceptive use as morally
neutral.

Contraception is a human invention that can add convenience to
ourselves, but also to others. When a man thinks only of himself while
contracepting, he is committing an evil, for he does not want children
even in the future for his selfishness. If a man thinks of God and his
wife both, he may still contracept, as it may be a tool to respect his
wife’s pain at further children, the child’s frustration at financial
destitution and lack of time spent caring for it. If a man and his
wife contracept with the goal of having children to further the growth
of the Church, but the growth of a healthy Church, they are acting
toward a moral good. Though this may not be the common case, it is not
overly rare, and so must be considered morally neutral.

Furthermore, as contraception is not completely effective, the
contraceptive act, if informed, must be an act open to life, since
life is a possible effect from such an action.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Reply Obj. 1 Contraception is always intrinsically evil and a grave matter,
as a matter of discipline. As discipline, charity rules over the law.
For if a man were to, during the time of necessary dietary
restrictions on Fridays, eat meat with his family, for the sake of
staving away offense and hurt feelings, this exception would be
justified. Also, if having a child at a certain time would go against
charity toward the child or toward a man’s wife, it would be morally
justified to reduce the chances of having that child at that time.

Reply Obj. 2 Homosexual acts cannot be justified using this argument because
such acts involve violation of a simple moral statement “marriage is
only between a man and a woman”. Also, homosexuality absolutely
separates act from purpose entirely, as there is no potential in any
such homosexual “union” that could, even by miracle, produce life.
Contraception, though it can increase the accidental death of the
child, as with many medicines used to protect the mother during
pregnancy, does not justify purposefully ending the life of a human
being for any reason, during any time of its life. So contraception
being morally neutral would not allow one to justify abortion.

Reply Obj. 3 There are two types of harm that must be considered, purposeful
harm and accidental harm. As the purpose of contraception is, as has
been shown above, morally neutral, responsible use of this
preventative measure, aside from being entirely open to life, would
entirely support protection of the one practicing contraception. As
another example, all medicines have side effects, but the occupation
of the doctor is not immoral.

Reply Obj. 4 The purpose of contraception is not to cure fertility, but to
protect from over-active fertility. Just as the immune system is a
good, but must be debilitated for the purpose of transplant, though it
is working perfectly naturally, so fertility can be debilitated for
the sake of a healthy but regular production of children.

Reply Obj. 5 Contraception is most often used for grave evils, for
preventing children not for the financially destitute, but for those
who find inconvenience in bearing children. Much of contraception is
done without love for anyone but oneself, and this is no love at all.
A selfish contraception is against the disciplinary declaration of the
Church and is undeniably a grave matter. Given such considerations
toward contraception, and their similarity to other prohibited things
that are not harmful in themselves, contraception must be morally
neutral.

 

[mark_a]

The
Church, however, concerning these four realms, has been absolutely
silent about contraception.

Really?

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Really?

There is no definitive answer in the Bible, as was covered in the objections. There also has been no definitive answer in Apostolic Tradition; though consensus was pretty-much that contraception was wrong, the reasons why are unclear, and it is unclear whether these reasons would apply to the contraceptives of today. The Magisterium has taught about this subject, but not yet infallibly, as has also been argued in these Articles.

 

[SonCatcher]

There is no definitive answer in the Bible, as was covered in the objections. There also has been no definitive answer in Apostolic Tradition; though consensus was pretty-much that contraception was wrong, the reasons why are unclear, and it is unclear whether these reasons would apply to the contraceptives of today. The Magisterium has taught about this subject, but not yet infallibly, as has also been argued in these Articles.

You want Pope Benedict XVI to make an ex cathedra proclamation that the constant teaching of the Church for 2000 years is correct?

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

You want Pope Benedict XVI to make an ex cathedra proclamation that the constant teaching of the Church for 2000 years is correct?

Well, this is all pretty academic, since I don’t accept Papal infallibility as framed in the First Vatican Council.

Nevertheless, I don’t really want him to make an ex cathedra statement that contraceptive practice is always wrong since I think it is morally neutral (and that this position can be defended by the most traditional Roman Catholic). If the Pope did make such a statement, I would understand the fervor these Traditional Roman Catholics would have in following it. It would be established for all time.

As it is now, I think the Roman Catholic Heirarchy can, and likely will, change its teaching on this issue. It will be interesting to see how apologists react to that.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

Personally I prefer what St. Thomas Aquinas says:

"I answer that, A sin, in human acts, is that which is against the order of reason. Now the order of reason consists in its ordering everything to its end in a fitting manner. Wherefore it is no sin if one, by the dictate of reason, makes use of certain things in a fitting manner and order for the end to which they are adapted, provided this end be something truly good. Now just as the preservation of the bodily nature of one individual is a true good, so, too, is the preservation of the nature of the human species a very great good. And just as the use of food is directed to the preservation of life in the individual, so is the use of venereal acts directed to the preservation of the whole human race. Hence Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xvi): “What food is to a man’s well being, such is sexual intercourse to the welfare of the whole human race.” Wherefore just as the use of food can be without sin, if it be taken in due manner and order, as required for the welfare of the body, so also the use of venereal acts can be without sin, provided they be performed in due manner and order, in keeping with the end of human procreation. " Summa Theologica II-II Q. 153 Art. 2

"As stated above (Question 153, Article 3), the sin of lust consists in seeking venereal pleasure not in accordance with right reason. This may happen in two ways. First, in respect of the matter wherein this pleasure is sought; secondly, when, whereas there is due matter, other due circumstances are not observed. And since a circumstance, as such, does not specify a moral act, whose species is derived from its object which is also its matter, it follows that the species of lust must be assigned with respect to its matter or object.

“Now this same matter may be discordant with right reason in two ways. First, because it is inconsistent with the end of the venereal act. On this way, as hindering the begetting of children, there is the “vice against nature,” which attaches to every venereal act from which generation cannot follow; and, as hindering the due upbringing and advancement of the child when born, there is “simple fornication,” which is the union of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman.” Summa Theologica II-II Q. 154 Art. 1

 

[SonCatcher]

Well, this is all pretty academic, since I don’t accept Papal infallibility as framed in the First Vatican Council.

Nevertheless, I don’t really want him to make an ex cathedra statement that contraceptive practice is always wrong since I think it is morally neutral (and that this position can be defended by the most traditional Roman Catholic). If the Pope did make such a statement, I would understand the fervor these Traditional Roman Catholics would have in following it. It would be established for all time.

As it is now, I think the Roman Catholic Heirarchy can, and likely will, change its teaching on this issue. It will be interesting to see how apologists react to that.

Please, explain very briefly how you think the Magisterium has not taught infallibly on the matter. I understand that any teaching concerning morals that has remained the same since the beginning carries the weight of infallibility.
Advocatus Fidei:

Personally I prefer what St. Thomas Aquinas says

Bravo! As long as we are to discuss an issue “in the spirit of St Thomas Aquinas” we might as well lend credence to what he himself taught. :clapping:

 

[Joe_Kelley]

There is a strong argument that Humanae Vitae is an infallible statement condemning contraception. It appears that Pope John Paul did not declare it an infallible papal statement, he considered it an infallible teaching of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church. As I recall Cardinal Ratzinger [now Pope Benedict] stated this at that time.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Please, explain very briefly how you think the Magisterium has not taught infallibly on the matter. I understand that any teaching concerning morals that has remained the same since the beginning carries the weight of infallibility.

How do you know that this is true, and how do you apply it to specific teachings?

My explanation is stated above.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Personally I prefer what St. Thomas Aquinas says:

I know that St. Thomas Aquinas and I would disagree about this issue (though, maybe, not anymore). I think he gets the wrong answer on this, because of a mis-application of Natural Law, because of this Manichean superstition about marital acts that has been hanging on the Roman Catholic Church, or at least on some of its members, since the time of St. Augustine.

The right end of the marital act is children. Purposefully avoiding children over all marital acts is wrong. Avoiding God’s purpose in each marital act is wrong. Using contraception to balance a family, out of charity both for one’s spouse and one’s future child, is where charity trumps discipline, and is justified quite simply in the Natural Law. Contraceptive acts are more open to life within this context alone.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

There is a strong argument that Humanae Vitae is an infallible statement condemning contraception. It appears that Pope John Paul did not declare it an infallible papal statement, he considered it an infallible teaching of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church. As I recall Cardinal Ratzinger [now Pope Benedict] stated this at that time.

I understand that I disagree with Pope Benedict and the CDF, which considers the statement in Humanae Vitae infallible. However, since the CDF cannot declare infallibly on faith and morals, we are still left uncertain about the status of this particular teaching on contraception.

 

[SonCatcher]

Let me get this straight. You consider yourself a greater expert in determining whether a constant teaching is infallible than the whole Catholic Church, Magesterium and Popes?

Do you believe that any teaching can be infallible? (one word answer, please)

 

[davidv]

I understand that I disagree with Pope Benedict and the CDF, which considers the statement in Humanae Vitae infallible. However, since the CDF cannot declare infallibly on faith and morals, we are still left uncertain about the status of this particular teaching on contraception.

Since Humanae Vitae was issued by the Pope and not the CDF the basis for your claim appears to be false.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Let me get this straight. You consider yourself a greater expert in determining whether a constant teaching is infallible than the whole Catholic Church, Magesterium and Popes?

First of all, it’s not the whole Catholic Church. It’s just a few members of that Church, and a great deal of its leadership.

Secondly, no. Pope Benedict is a far more capable theologian than I am. I just think that the Popes and certain current theologians may have made a mistake about this (earlier theologians don’t seem to spend time worrying about whether or not this teaching is infallible), and am going to hold to that view until I am shown to be wrong. I’m quite possibly wrong (about whether the teaching is infallible). But I’d like to see a solid objection to my argument, that cannot be answered by application to the argument.

Do you believe that any teaching can be infallible? (one word answer, please)

I would want “infallible” defined in this context.

My likely one-word answer is “yes”. But I don’t know if we can be sure which teachings are infallible and which are not.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Since Humanae Vitae was issued by the Pope and not the CDF the basis for your claim appears to be false.

Except that I’m not aware of any theologian who thinks that Humanae Vitae itself contains an ex-cathedra pronouncement. Rather, people tend to argue that, since this has always been a teaching of the Church, it is infallible on that merit. But that position itself is not certain; it has never been infallibly declared.

 

[SonCatcher]

First of all, it’s not the whole Catholic Church. It’s just a few members of that Church, and a great deal of its leadership.

It is the whole church, though a few members dissent

Secondly, no. Pope Benedict is a far more capable theologian than I am. I just think that the Popes and certain current theologians may have made a mistake about this (earlier theologians don’t seem to spend time worrying about whether or not this teaching is infallible), and am going to hold to that view until I am shown to be wrong. I’m quite possibly wrong (about whether the teaching is infallible). But I’d like to see a solid objection to my argument, that cannot be answered by application to the argument.

Earlier theologians (including St Thomas Aquinas) lived in a situation where the constant Christian teaching on contraception and abortion was accepted my all Christians and not seriously challenged by any of them. They took it for granted that the Church teaching against contraception was infallible without the need to discuss that fact. Today’s world is full of moral relativists who have infiltrated the Church and sow their dissension from within.

I would want “infallible” defined in this context.

Who are you, Bill Clinton?

“Infallible,” as always, means incapable of error. When speaking on matters of faith and morality, it is absolutely impossible for the Church to be wrong. This is a special grace granted by Jesus Christ to the Church.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

They took it for granted that the Church teaching against contraception was infallible without the need to discuss that fact.

Or they knew it wasn’t infallible, but didn’t think it needed to be. If you are confident that you are right about something, you don’t need an infallible authority.

“Infallible,” as always, means incapable of error.

I think that the only human capable of this is Jesus Christ. Anyone else, even his Vicar, even his Church, does not have that ability. The Church speaks without error only when it repeats His exact words. Any gloss, any interpretation, any dogmatic declaration upon what Christ Jesus said can be in error (though I think there are certain inerrant strains throughout).

However, even if you accept that the Church, when speaking on faith and morals, is infallible, I don’t think contraception would qualify, since the Church, in her teaching authority, has not proclaimed the historical teaching on contraception to be so.