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

[SonCatcher]

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.

I much prefer that I can be confident they are right because they have infallible authority.

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).

In other words, you deny infallibility of any teaching other than what you directly hear from the lips of Jesus himself.

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.

Contraception is a moral issue, not merely a “health” or “convenience” one.

I’ll be out for a couple of days but hopefully you can keep out of trouble 'til then.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Magisterium teaches infallibly in any of three ways:

1. papal infallibility
2. ecumenical councils
3. the universal magisterium (UM)

A teaching falls under the infallibility of the UM when the Pope and the Bishops teach one and the same doctrine and definitive and irreformable.

Lumen Gentium, n. 25: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.”

The CCC, Humanae Vitae, Familiaris Consortio, and many other documents all teach the same doctrine against contraception. The Pope and all the Bishops are in agreement that this teaching is definitively to be held.

Pontifical Council for the Family: “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 [Go with me] for Confessors concerning some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life, n. 2-4.)

Germain Grisez has stated that, in his theological opinion, the teaching that contraception is always immoral was infallible under the UM even before Humanae Vitae, before John Paul II, before the CCC. So by now it is all the more clear that this doctrine against contraception is infallible.

Grisez: “With “Humanae Vitae,” Paul VI reaffirmed the constant and very firm teaching of the Church excluding contraception. I believe and have argued that teaching had already been proposed infallibly by the ordinary magisterium – that is, by the morally unanimous agreement of the bishops of the whole world in communion with the popes. Together, they had taught for many centuries that using contraceptives always is grave matter. Their manner of teaching implied that what they taught was a truth to be held definitively. Thus, the teaching on contraception met the conditions for infallible teaching, without a solemn definition, articulated by Vatican II in “Lumen Gentium,” 25.”
zenit.org/article-7791?l=english

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

The Magisterium teaches infallibly in any of three ways:

1. papal infallibility
2. ecumenical councils
3. the universal magisterium (UM)

Though it is possible that there is this third method for establishing infallible teaching, it is difficult (1) to establish that it really belongs on this list (it is possible for something to be part of teaching, and not be infallible, in two ways, as discussed below), and and (2) what falls under that third method.

There are two ways a teaching may be considered potentially in error. First, it may not be on that list you provided above (I would argue that the third method isn’t really applicable in any uniform way). Second, it may not be on faith and morals. I think the teaching against contraception is neither about faith or morals, and that it does not qualify by the first two methods you list, and not indeterminably by the third method.

For every method of infallible magisterial teaching, there is a claimed-infallible source establishing that teaching. The method of conciliar declarations to establish infallible teaching was declared infallibly within the Ecumenical Councils (for example, Canon 1 of the Second Council of Nice). Papal infalliblity was declared in a council infallibly as well.

Your argument for method three rests in the Second Vatican Council.

Lumen Gentium, n. 25: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.”

A strong argument could be made for your third method from this statement. However, the Second Vatican Council was prefaced as a “pastoral council”, in the preface, suggesting that even Lumen Gentium, referred to as a “Dogmatic Constitution”, revisited old dogma, and did not introduce any new infallible teaching (as the preface to the council suggests). So then the question is, which infallible teaching from the Pope or previous council (not Vatican II) establishes your third method? It’s possible some council does teach this third method strongly. I’d be interested to know.

Secondly, as explained in my first few posts, I don’t think the teaching on contraception is a teaching on faith and morals, but on a discipline of the Church, and so the Church herself, even by a Roman understanding, has not the power to declare the historical teaching on contraception infallibly. It’s just not of the proper realm.

 

[mark_a]

bump

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Is there no good objection to my argument?

If not, I’ll take it on the proverbial road.

 

[pataburd]

P_R,
Have you read Humane Vitae? What about Love and Responsibility? Theology of the Body? If so, then it’s difficult for me to understand your assertion that this teaching be relegated to a matter of “discipline” only by the Church.
PAB

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

P_R,
Have you read Humane Vitae? What about Love and Responsibility? Theology of the Body? If so, then it’s difficult for me to understand your assertion that this teaching be relegated to a matter of “discipline” only by the Church.
PAB

I have read all three. I see nothing to suggest that Humanae Vitae or Theology of the Body is infallible. Love and Responsibility certainly isn’t.

Also, I think matters of discipline are matters of discipline. They can’t be “declared into” matters of faith and morals. Not even by Popes.

 

[pataburd]

Please clarify your assertion that Humane Vitae and Theology of the Body address only discipline, and not faith and morals. What about Evangelium Vitae; here John Paul II is certainly developing and strengthening the teaching of HV along lines which are firmly grounded in Catholic faith and morals, is he not?

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Please clarify your assertion that Humane Vitae and Theology of the Body address only discipline, and not faith and morals.

I do not think that they necessarily address only discipline,.I think that the teaching on contraception is discipline and so when they discuss this specifically, they discuss only discipline.

The reason I think the Roman teaching on contraception is disciplinary, and must be disciplinary, is discussed in some detail in the first four posts of this forum. Please let me know if you have specific questions or objections about those posts.

What about Evangelium Vitae; here John Paul II is certainly developing and strengthening the teaching of HV along lines which are firmly grounded in Catholic faith and morals, is he not?

I have not read that document. I am unaware of any statement in that document that has the character of being an infallible statement, and it would and could not change the fact that any teaching on contraception would be one of discipline, and not of faith and morals.

 

[RMW]

May I suggest you read the highly regarded G. E. M. Anscombe’s Contraception and Chastity?

For starters, you’ll see how the Church’s view of sex is not Manichean, as you suggest, but in fact opposed to Manichean dualism.

 

[SonCatcher]

I’m back

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.

I only see doublespeak here. I don’t see the distinction you suggest between the original quote and your alternatives. Indeed, the original is stronger than your alternatives.

“The teaching is to be held…” is a directive. It is an instruction to future generations in addition to the current one. Your alternatives are limited in scope to the past and/or present. Therefore, HV, as written, carries its full weight today and until the end of time.

 

[SonCatcher]

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.

I don’t know whether you’re noticed, but this is a Catholic discussion board. We don’t exactly hold to Jewish Tradition. I would guess that you are misrepresenting it somehow, but even if you are accurate, it is irrelevant.

Just about every time I am aware of that someone quoted scripture in connection to contraception, they have included the account of Onan. It is to the degree that contraception is known as Onanism.

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.

Ecumenical Councils and Ex Cathedra statements are generally held/made when there is serious questioning or heresy within the Church on a matter. This has not been the case with contraception through history even to Vatican II. HV was written when it became a matter of noticeable concern. The next council may deal with the matter more fully. I expect, if so, it will codify HV more fully.

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.

The Church is primarily concerned with the salvation of souls. It is illumined by Jesus Christ to discern that which is good for our souls and warn against that which will drag souls to hell. The Church is not a sophist organization that takes preconceived ideas which it then seeks to justify.

 

[pataburd]

Dr. Janet E. Smith compiled an excellent collection of essays in Why Humanae Vitae was Right.

As long as a person deliberately remains outside the Church, or purposely resists the Faith, then a discussion like this will continue to be fruitless.

Resistance to the binding character [and, it is binding to Catholic conscience–which excludes P_R by the poster’s own admission] of Pope Paul’s teaching on artificial contraception was seminal, I think, to the practical schism evident in the Church today, evidenced by many in ecclesiastical authority [read “bishops and priests”] who nevertheless deny papal (and magisterial) authority.

This focal and essential teaching authority is THE caveat for many who remain outside the Church and marks the delineation between the two ways given a man when confronted with the Catholic truth, to quote John Henry Cardinal Newman: “The Roman Church or atheism”.

 

[SonCatcher]

Is there no good objection to my argument?

If not, I’ll take it on the proverbial road.

You got way ahead of yourself. I have since presented sound objections.

 

[SonCatcher]

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.

okay

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.”

I don’t see a huge leap from “contraception is immoral” and “immorality is detrimental to the soul” to “contraception is detrimental to the soul”

Please explain.

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.

How is the teaching on contraception not simple? The simple teaching is "contraception is immoral - don’t contracept"

The long, reasoned arguments are only necessary to counter long arguments in its favor. It seems to me that your own argument took 4 posts to get into this forum.

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.

okay

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).

er - “any disordered act is immoral” is more of a definition here so one could equally say “any act which does not tend toward its natural purpose is immoral”

At any rate, I don’t see any practical difference between the syllogism on abortion and the one on contraception.

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.

nonsense. you are merely attempting to place yourself as a higher authority on the issue than the Church.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

“The teaching is to be held…” is a directive. It is an instruction to future generations in addition to the current one. Your alternatives are limited in scope to the past and/or present. Therefore, HV, as written, carries its full weight today and until the end of time.

In your opinion. I don’t see any infallible statement that it should be held to be so, even by Roman Catholics.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Suncatcher,

You have written a few responses to my long initial posts. Give me some time to read through them and consider them carefully, so that I can give you an educated response, and revise or abandon my articles as necessary.

Thank you,

Paul Rimmer

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

May I suggest you read the highly regarded G. E. M. Anscombe’s Contraception and Chastity?

For starters, you’ll see how the Church’s view of sex is not Manichean, as you suggest, but in fact opposed to Manichean dualism.

I do have high respect for her, and her perspective on this situation. I’ve never read this essay before.

I also have great respect for Jacques Maritain, who seems to have taken the opposite position on contraception, and answers some of her issues, maybe incidentally.

I will read her statement carefully, and see if there’s anything I need to incorporate into my articles from what she has said.

 

[SonCatcher]

In your opinion. I don’t see any infallible statement that it should be held to be so, even by Roman Catholics.

That’s not an opinion. It is a recognition of the language used in HV. One doesn’t have to have an opinion to recognize that “The teaching is to be held…” is a directive.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I don’t know whether you’re noticed, but this is a Catholic discussion board. We don’t exactly hold to Jewish Tradition. I would guess that you are misrepresenting it somehow, but even if you are accurate, it is irrelevant.

My point in quoting Jewish scholarship here is not to provide a robust argument, but simply to answer the objection to which the quotations were addressed. The purpose is, namely, that to those who are best equipped to interpret the Old Testament, the Jews, the Sin of Onan is not seen by some of their greatest commentators and Torah scholars to refer to contraception, but only to the act of spilling seed (seen by some to say that other forms of contraception are not against God’s law). Because of this ambiguity in the Bible, there would need to be an official Roman interpretation of that passage in order to resolve the issue. There is no such official interpretation, as far as I’m aware, and so even the most stringent Roman Catholic, who holds to the contraceptive teaching, may also conclude that the Sin of Onan has nothing to do with contraception.

The reply to the objection refers only to the objection itself, which is an interpretation of a passage of Scripture, and not the entire argument.

Ecumenical Councils and Ex Cathedra statements are generally held/made when there is serious questioning or heresy within the Church on a matter. This has not been the case with contraception through history even to Vatican II. HV was written when it became a matter of noticeable concern. The next council may deal with the matter more fully. I expect, if so, it will codify HV more fully.

And at such time, if this happens, then my academic argument would have to be mostly abandoned. I think an argument could be made (and I’ve attempted in part to make it, in the articles above) that since the teaching on contraception is disciplinary in nature, no official declaration from Rome in any capacity would be infallible. This is the weaker part of the argument against there being an infallible teaching. The stronger argument is that, as far as I can see, there really has been no attempt at infallibly defining Rome’s position in this matter.

The Church is primarily concerned with the salvation of souls. It is illumined by Jesus Christ to discern that which is good for our souls and warn against that which will drag souls to hell. The Church is not a sophist organization that takes preconceived ideas which it then seeks to justify.

I accept that contraception is morally neutral because of these arguments I have here. In fact, when I converted to the Roman Catholic Church, and before I left (for other reasons), I presented an argument similar to this one to my sponsor, who was trying to convince me to abandon my resistance to Rome’s teaching. Ultimately, we both concluded that I was right on three points: (1) that there is no infallible declaration about contraception. (2) that the teaching on contraception is one of discipline, and (3) that natural law arguments against use of contraception do not work. However, we also concluded, at that time, that since this is still a teaching from Rome, I should still obey it, and refrain from presenting these arguments, because doing so is schismatic.

Later, I left the authority of the Pope, though I remain Catholic, and united myself visibly with an Anglican community. From this vantage, my arguments are less relevant for my position, and more an academic exercise. The only arguments here I still hold to are the natural law arguments (since I still accept the truth and use of a modified version of St. Thomas’s formulation of Natural Law).

I need not hold to the infallibility or discipline arguments any longer, since I reject the authority of the Pope outright.