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

[Paul_Rimmer]

I’ve chosen to skip over two sections of your remarks on this post. First, any remark that says “ok” means, in my mind, that you understand my argument at at least agree that it follows, even if you don’t agree with its content. So I ignore these.

I also ignore most remarks you make to my objections. These objections are not things I agree with, but the best arguments I have heard thus far against my position. I already admit that they are flawed. I am grateful, however, for your remarks on one of them, which I don’t list here, as they provide a better response to one of the objections than I previously had. Thank you.

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

It’s not simple, in the philosophical sense, because it’s composite. It’s not simply: “God commands: don’t contracept” or “the Church commands: don’t contracept” but a more complex argument involving concepts of the type: “contraception interferes with procreation” “procreation is commanded by God”. However, just as the prohibition of the marriage of priests is composite, and disciplinary, so the prohibition of contraception in every single sexual act is composite and so disciplinary. Most humans would have many children if they contracepted every other time they participated in the marital act. Forbidding it every time is a disciplinary rule, and so forbidding it at all is a disciplinary rule.

Clearly, the statement of faith and morals, that we are commanded by God to be fruitful and multiply, applying to married adults, means every family should try to have many children (understood differently for different families). Planning never to have children in a marriage is in clear violation to the moral aspect of this disciplinary teaching and is always wrong.

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’m not sure what you mean by this statement.

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”

I’d agree. And, since it’s impossible (in normal circumstances) that every marital act lead to the production of children, that can’t be the right end of every single act, but of the acts taken together. So we have that it would be wrong, by natural law, to prevent the natural end of this group, or series of acts. The purpose of some of the individual acts will naturally be children. The purpose for all of them, taken individually, would be an expression of unity and of love.

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

Abortion involves the killing of an innocent human life. This is wrong in every case, by natural law. Contraception can be used to cause a spacing between children. This is not clearly wrong in natural law.

However, the material point is that you object to the argument. If the argument can be used to defend abortion, then it is wrong. How is it wrong?

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

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.

I hope we can agree to disagree on this point.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

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

Many of the objections found in her writings were simplified and presented as a couple of the objections in my article.

Resistance to the binding character [and, it is binding to Catholic conscience–which excludes P_R by the poster’s own admission]…

I am Catholic, so I have that Catholic conscience, though I may mean something different by it than you do.

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”.

If those are the only two ways Newman could find, in his conscience, then I’m glad he chose Rome. I’ve found a third way.

 

[Spirithound]

Question 1: Concerning Contraception

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

On the Contrary… …
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.

This is a red herring. First of all, no document is ex cathedra. Only particular teachings can be ex cathedra.

Secondly, VC is quite unnecessary for the infallibility of a statement in HV. If it were necessary, we would need another document to claim infallibility for VC, and the sequence could never end, thus rendering the Pope’s charism of infallibility impotent. Rather, a teaching in HV is protected under the Papal charism of infallibility by the nature of the teaching itself, namely, whether it conforms to the definition of infallibility from Vatican I.

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 can accept that Onan might not have been killed specifically because he contracepted, however I do hold that he sinned when he contracepted. If he did not intend to further his brother’s line, then there is in fact no unselfish reason for him to lay with his brother’s wife, and selfishness is the root of the sin of contraception.

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.

My reply to your “On the Contrary” should be sufficient to show that the Magesterium has indeed offered a definitive definition, in the person of His Holiness Paul VI, in Humanae Vitae.

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.

My reply to your “On the Contrary” should be sufficient to show that the Catholic Church, does indeed possess infallible truth regarding this matter, from Sacred Doctrine, as expressed in Humanae Vitae.

 

[SonCatcher]

I hope we can agree to disagree on this point.

I don’t care if you disagree with me, but you are ignoring Noah Webster, the Merriam brothers, et al.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

This is a red herring. First of all, no document is ex cathedra. Only particular teachings can be ex cathedra.

You are correct, though this is unintentional. I should have stated that there’s no ex cathedra pronouncement within Humanae Vitae, that I am aware of.

Secondly, VC is quite unnecessary for the infallibility of a statement in HV. If it were necessary, we would need another document to claim infallibility for VC, and the sequence could never end, thus rendering the Pope’s charism of infallibility impotent. Rather, a teaching in HV is protected under the Papal charism of infallibility by the nature of the teaching itself, namely, whether it conforms to the definition of infallibility from Vatican I.

VC?

I think I see what you are saying, though, and it seems to be addressed by analogy in my “Objection 4” and its response (I will have to work it out, though). The best answer I can give for this is that, to me, and to many Church scholars, no statement in Humanae Vitae appears to have the strength of an infallible declaration. People may disagree on this point, but that’s the way I (and many others more capable in these things than myself) read it.

My reply to your “On the Contrary” should be sufficient to show that the Magesterium has indeed offered a definitive definition, in the person of His Holiness Paul VI, in Humanae Vitae.

It is not at this time. I will, however, compose a better response to why this is so.

By the way, and this would be helpful for that formulation, what specific statement in Humanae Vitae do you hold to be infallibly declared?

---

Thank you. It is clear from your comments that my articles need some serious editing. I will begin work on that.

 

[SonCatcher]

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.

So he wasn’t a very good apologist and probably shouldn’t have been your sponsor (indeed, he should have alerted the priest to your obstinate refusal to accept Church teaching).

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I don’t care if you disagree with me, but you are ignoring Noah Webster, the Merriam brothers, et al.

I wouldn’t say I’m ignoring them. But to say that my argument is a “minority view” among skilled Church theologians would be charitable.

(if there are specific arguments you’d like me to address of theirs, I’d like to look into it)

 

[SonCatcher]

Many of the objections found in her writings were simplified and presented as a couple of the objections in my article.

You mean you took them out of context so as to weaken them?

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

So he wasn’t a very good apologist and probably shouldn’t have been your sponsor (indeed, he should have alerted the priest to your obstinate refusal to accept Church teaching).

Well, I don’t think he was ever an apologist, and he did and does agree with Rome’s teaching, though for different reasons. For one, he doesn’t put much stock in natural law. He has a sacramental argument against contraception. It’s very strong, but has a few weaknesses and unfortunate implications, one being that NFP, in the argument, is morally unacceptable. The argument probably could be modified to correspond perfectly to Roman theology of the body.

He supported Rome. He just thought (a) that Rome’s teaching on contraception, though absolutely right, was not infallibly declared (as do many Roman Catholics), and (b) that the natural law argument didn’t work. He disagreed with my argument about contraception teaching being disciplinary, but admitted he did not have a strong argument at the time against it.

Oh, and on the last point, that he should have alerted the Priest, both he and the Priest knew my struggles with that teaching. At the time, I was willing to submit to Rome’s teaching, in spite of my disagreement, with the promise that I would look further into the issue, and pray for my heart to be changed, and that I would refrain from use of contraception. All these things I did, until more fundamental issues about Roman theology arose, and I could not in good conscience remain.

At that point, I decided to return to this issue.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

You mean you took them out of context so as to weaken them?

I tried to give them as strongly as I could (even you said “ok” about most of them). You’ve helped already to strengthen the expression of one of them. If you have any further suggestions about ways to strengthen the objections in my articles, I’d love to know. I want the objections I address to be the strongest possible.

 

[SonCatcher]

I don’t care if you disagree with me, but you are ignoring Noah Webster, the Merriam brothers, et al.

That is most certainly true, but I was referring to these fellows

As I said, you ignored grammatical rules in interpreting “This teaching is to be
held as definitive and irreformable.”

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

That is most certainly true, but I was referring to these fellows

As I said, you ignored grammatical rules in interpreting “This teaching is to be
held as definitive and irreformable.”

Oh, I see what you’re saying.

Actually, I think I’m abiding by basic logic.

Rephrased:

Let’s say that there’s a type of teaching called “Type 1 Teaching.” Only Type 1 declaration can establish Type 1 teaching.

There are three cases to consider for teachings of an unknown type:

“It is Type 2 declared that this Teaching is a Type 1 Teaching.” But because of the rule, this would simply be an opinion about a Teaching being Type 1, and would not establish it as Type 1. Some other statement would have to establish the unknown Teaching as a Type 1 Teaching.

“It is Type 1 declared that this Teaching is a Type 1 Teaching.” This establishes a teaching of unknown type is Type 1.

“It is declared that this Teaching is a Type 1 Teaching.” This only establishes that the teaching is Type 1 if the declaration is also Type 1, but there would need to be a third establishment for that, if you want to be certain about it. Otherwise, the declaration could be Type 1, or an opinion of the nature of a teaching of unknown type. This is what I think has been done here.

 

[mark_a]

Gosh Paul,

Do you hate kids that much?

Unlike most Protestants, you acknowledge that there is a Catholic elephant in the room.

Since you understand and reject Catholic teaching, I’m curious as to why you are here.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Gosh Paul,

Do you hate kids that much?

I love kids. I have one of my own and hope to have many more.

Unlike most Protestants, you acknowledge that there is a Catholic elephant in the room.

I don’t know what you mean.

Since you understand and reject Catholic teaching, I’m curious as to why you are here.

Because I’m interested in the truth, and I want to make sure I have a good defensible argument. This issue is uncertain, even to me, and I admit that I might be wrong on it. Right or wrong, there are other issues about which I am far more confident that prevent me from being under the authority of Rome. So, I want to make sure I’m right about this one.

If I am right, I want an argument that I can present to other Catholics (Roman, Greek, English, and the rest), to convince them also. I’d ultimately want to publish the refined version of these arguments.

 

[SonCatcher]

Well, I don’t think he was ever an apologist, and he did and does agree with Rome’s teaching, though for different reasons. For one, he doesn’t put much stock in natural law. He has a sacramental argument against contraception. It’s very strong, but has a few weaknesses and unfortunate implications, one being that NFP, in the argument, is morally unacceptable. The argument probably could be modified to correspond perfectly to Roman theology of the body.

Can you cite or highlight what his sacramental argument is? I am mainly familiar with the Natural Law argument but may be able to shore it up somewhat.

He supported Rome. He just thought (a) that Rome’s teaching on contraception, though absolutely right, was not infallibly declared (as do many Roman Catholics), and (b) that the natural law argument didn’t work. He disagreed with my argument about contraception teaching being disciplinary, but admitted he did not have a strong argument at the time against it.

Properly presented, the Natural Law argument is actually quite strong. By it, I came to the conclusion that contraception is unacceptable even before learning the explicit teaching of the Church.

Oh, and on the last point, that he should have alerted the Priest, both he and the Priest knew my struggles with that teaching. At the time, I was willing to submit to Rome’s teaching, in spite of my disagreement, with the promise that I would look further into the issue, and pray for my heart to be changed, and that I would refrain from use of contraception.

Thanks for explaining that. I was rather disappointed in them for a moment. In the ancient Church, you would likely have had to resolve that issue prior to being admitted.

All these things I did, until more fundamental issues about Roman theology arose, and I could not in good conscience remain.

At that point, I decided to return to this issue.

Now it comes out. You had some other issue over which you committed schism. Now you wish to justify yourself on this issue. Do you have another thread someplace that discusses your other problem?

 

[SonCatcher]

I tried to give them as strongly as I could (even you said “ok” about most of them). You’ve helped already to strengthen the expression of one of them. If you have any further suggestions about ways to strengthen the objections in my articles, I’d love to know. I want the objections I address to be the strongest possible.

I said “okay” because I could follow them, not because I thought they were that good

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I said “okay” because I could follow them, not because I thought they were that good

Then please, if you have time, suggest improvements. I’d like the objections to be as strong as possible, and so would be very grateful.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Can you cite or highlight what his sacramental argument is? I am mainly familiar with the Natural Law argument but may be able to shore it up somewhat.

Definitely. I will ask him if he can send me the article he’s written on it. It would be better to come from him than from me, to prevent errors.

Do you have another thread someplace that discusses your other problem?

I do now. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=479567

 

[Spirithound]

“It is Type 1 declared that this Teaching is a Type 1 Teaching.” This establishes a teaching of unknown type is Type 1.

Does not compute. If Teaching A cannot be established as a Type 1 Teaching independently of a subsequent Teaching B, then Teaching B cannot identify Teaching A as Type 1 without it first being established, by Teaching C, that Teaching B is Type 1. This necessitates an endless chain of teachings, each one affirming the authority of the previous one, but only after receiving its authority from the subsequent one.