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

[Paul_Rimmer]

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.

Not at all. You are presuming a mechanism that isn’t present.

 

[pataburd]

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.

LOL!

Then is it time for us to “advance your cause”, Paul, as the new-and-improved St. Thomas and John Henry Cardinal Newman?

That’s funny!

: ) : ) : )

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Then is it time for us to “advance your cause”, Paul, as the new-and-improved St. Thomas and John Henry Cardinal Newman?

I wouldn’t say that. I think my cause is just, and that many very capable theologians and philosophers through the ages, including Aquinas and Newman, have defended essentially this position.

My expression of it is unique and, I think, very apt for the time we are in. It is, I hope, an improvement. If it is not, hopefully I will discover why it is not.

You can find the expression of my position (and, essentially, the position of many Catholics through the ages, and maybe the majority of Catholics, even Catholics nominally UAR, Under the Authority of Rome, now). It’s in the link above.

 

[Spirithound]

VC?

VC = Vademecum for Confessors

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)…

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

I look forward to your revisions.

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

I hold article 14 to contain infallible teaching. Abortion, sterilization, and any action which is specifically intended to prevent procreation, are prohibited.

14. We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.

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.

In addition to this use of papal infallibility, Pope Paul VI repeatedly makes reference to the continuous teaching of the Church, particularly the VII document Gaudium et Spes, and Pope Pius XI’s Casti Conubii. If this is indeed contant teaching of the Church, that also is infallible.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

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

Is it really true that contraceptive hasn’t been condemn ex-cathedra?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I hold article 14 to contain infallible teaching. Abortion, sterilization, and any action which is specifically intended to prevent procreation, are prohibited.

Please forgive me for any ignorance.

Doesn’t natural family planning not reveal the intention of a married couple not to get pregnant until a desired time? Isn’t it therefore not possible that contraception is not a sin if the family only intend to use the condom responsibly for a temporary amount of time until they feel ready to have a child?

It seems in each case the intention exists to prevent pregnancy until a practical time that suits the married couple.

I agree that condoms are associated with a hedonistic way of life, and thus i am reluctant to justify condom usage. But if there is no obvious explicit condemnation ex-cathedra of condom usage, it would seem that while it could be argued that NFP is a better way forward, there would be no necessary objection to condom usage so long as it was used in compliance with the principles of a responsible marriage. Than again there probably is an ex-cathedra ban.

 

[SonCatcher]

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

wow - looks like you’ve kicked a hornet’s nest over there

I’ve bookmarked it so I can read your thoughts but will focus over here. Someone over there has probably already used up my talking points anyway.

 

[Spirithound]

Please forgive me for any ignorance. I hold no grudges

Doesn’t natural family planning not reveal the intention of a married couple not to get pregnant until a desired time? Isn’t it therefore not possible that contraception is not a sin if the family only intend to use the condom responsibly for a temporary amount of time until they feel ready to have a child?

It seems in each case the intention exists to prevent pregnancy until a practical time that suits the married couple.

I agree that condoms are associated with a hedonistic way of life, and thus i am reluctant to justify condom usage. But if there is no obvious explicit condemnation ex-cathedra of condom usage, it would seem that while it could be argued that NFP is a better way forward, there would be no necessary objection to condom usage so long as it was used in compliance with the principles of a responsible marriage. Than again there probably is an ex-cathedra ban.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

I would refer you to Article 16 of HV, entitled “Recourse to Infertile Periods”, and I would encourage you to search the topic of NFP on this forum for good discussions. It is a common opinion that while NFP is often licit, it can also be used in a sinful way.

 

[pataburd]

Please forgive me for any ignorance.

Doesn’t natural family planning not reveal the intention of a married couple not to get pregnant until a desired time? Isn’t it therefore not possible that contraception is not a sin if the family only intend to use the condom responsibly for a temporary amount of time until they feel ready to have a child?

It seems in each case the intention exists to prevent pregnancy until a practical time that suits the married couple.

I agree that condoms are associated with a hedonistic way of life, and thus i am reluctant to justify condom usage. But if there is no obvious explicit condemnation ex-cathedra of condom usage, it would seem that while it could be argued that NFP is a better way forward, there would be no necessary objection to condom usage so long as it was used in compliance with the principles of a responsible marriage. Than again there probably is an ex-cathedra ban.

Artificial contraception (AC) is condemned. The “clincher” in the method of Natural Family Planning is the period of a couple’s mutual submission to God, and to each other, when they abstain during the anticipated periods of fertility. Sexual acts outside that period still remain open to God’s life-giving prerogative.

If NFP and condom usage were truly “interchangeable”, which they are not in principle [a point that Paul VI discusses in HV], then just try to get a couple to enact abstinence in lieu of condom usage(!).

Responsible marriage, according to Paul VI and John Paul II, always leaves the sexual act open to Life, which is its proper end. Therefore, condom usage [and other means of AC] are unequivocally proscribed.

John Paul II also discusses the correlation between AC and abortion [in Evangelium Vitae]. Statistically, this is borne out: the vast majority of abortions are performed in this country, for example, due to “failed” contraception [either the contraceptive devices themselves fail, or the couple fails to use contraceptive device properly]. When you start to see the evil company to which AC usage enjoins itself and its subscribers, then you also begin to see the reasonableness of the Church’s teaching on AC, and that it is wise and faithful teaching soundly addressing Catholic faith and morals.

P_R, who freely touts his nominal–at best–Catholicism [which, strictly speaking, is NOT Catholicism at all], and his open dissidence to papal infallibility as solemnly pronounced during Vatican Council I, is certainly not the “go-to” guy for this topic matter, since his aim seems to be to ensure that this argument remains just that, irresolvable and fruitless from a genuinely Catholic perspective. Here, I follow St. Paul’s direction, “from such, turn away”.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

To Spirithound:

You claim that Article 14 of Humanae Vitae is an infallible declaration: “We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.”

Let’s compare this to what almost every Catholic Theologian (UAR) thinks is an infallible declaration, the statement on the Immaculate Conception:

“We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.” - Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus,

The difference between these two declarations is substantial.

The Ineffabilis Deus Statement defines as well as declares, clarifies that it is a matter of faith (‘doctrine’), joins it to revelation (‘has been revealed by God’) and proclaims it as universal (‘should be firmly and consistently believed by all the faithful.’).

The Humanae Vitae Statement does not define (the use of the word ‘definition’ is not present), does not clarify whether it is a matter of faith, morals, both, or neither, does not join itself to revelation, and does not universalize the statement.

Though there are interesting arguments, some potentially workable, that the Humanae Vitae statement is infallible (see Fr. Ermenegildo Lio, O.F.M., “Humanae Vitae e Infallibilita” (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1986)), it is clear to me that the two statements do not have equal weight, but that the Ineffabilis Deus statement is far stronger. Because of this, I think it clearly casts doubt as to the infallibility of the Humanae Vitae statement. And a statement that is of dubious infallibility might as well not be considered infallible.

It appears even weaker than the statement from Pope Leo X’s Papal Bull " Let all this holy Church of God, I say, arise, and with the blessed apostles intercede with almighty God to purge the errors of His sheep, to banish all heresies from the lands of the faithful, and be pleased to maintain the peace and unity of His holy Church. … that heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit." (Exsurge Domine) which no good Catholic theologian holds to be infallible.

Leo X’s statement even claims to be universal, “let all this holy Church of God”.

No, I think it’s only a certain relatively small group of Catholics who hold that Humanae Vitae contains any infallible teaching whatsoever. This by itself of course wouldn’t mean that it is wrong.

 

[SonCatcher]

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.”

You claim this is a presentation of the argument against contraception, yet you state it in such a way as to support your thesis by inserting your critique within that statement. You should treat the Objections more respectfully.

Also, your particular criticism, that detriment to the soul “cannot be proved by any amount of evidence from nature” is only correct in that the soul itself cannot be proved by any amount of evidence from nature.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

You are correct. My point is that it’s not empirical by nature, and so lends itself well to being a matter of faith. That is, at least, my understanding of what the argument “that the teaching of contraception is a matter of faith” would be.

You claim this is a presentation of the argument against contraception, yet you state it in such a way as to support your thesis by inserting your critique within that statement. You should treat the Objections more respectfully.

Also, your particular criticism, that detriment to the soul “cannot be proved by any amount of evidence from nature” is only correct in that the soul itself cannot be proved by any amount of evidence from nature.

 

[Betterave]

And a statement that is of dubious infallibility might as well not be considered infallible.

There’s a statement that doesn’t make sense and speaks spiritual volumes (‘NUAR’ indeed). Sounds like an argument the serpent might have used when tempting Eve to disobey God.

I should think that Paul VI’s reference to the fact that the teaching against contraception belongs to the ordinary universal magisterium of the Church explains why he would find it unnecessary and inappropriate to make a formal pronouncement mirroring the language found in Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissimus Deus.

 

[Betterave]

You claim this is a presentation of the argument against contraception, yet you state it in such a way as to support your thesis by inserting your critique within that statement. You should treat the Objections more respectfully.

Also, your particular criticism, that detriment to the soul “cannot be proved by any amount of evidence from nature” is only correct in that the soul itself cannot be proved by any amount of evidence from nature.

From which it does not follow that the soul cannot be proved… And do you really want to affirm that “the soul cannot be proved by any amount of evidence from nature”? I would not want to affirm either that or the subsequent claim about “detriment to the soul.”

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I should think that Paul VI’s reference to the fact that the teaching against contraception belongs to the ordinary universal magisterium of the Church explains why he would find it unnecessary and inappropriate to make a formal pronouncement mirroring the language found in Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissimus Deus.

I would agree, for the most part, with your statement.

First, it’s pretty clear that the language in that section in Humanae Vitae is weaker than the language in the definition of the Immaculate Conception in Ineffabilis Deus. Following from that, I come to the conclusion that the statement in Humanae Vitae is not likely ex cathedra infallible; if it is, it might as well not be, because it isn’t clearly so.

Second, just because it isn’t ex cathedra doesn’t mean that the teaching contained isn’t infallible. However, the argument that it’s infallible because it “belongs to the ordinary universal magisterium” would require for me, to start with, a clearly infallible teaching that all that belongs to the ordinary universal magisterium is indeed infallible. Otherwise, how would we know this is?

Third, even if this statement is not infallible at all, that doesn’t mean that the principle behind it is wrong. There was a time in which the Immaculate Conception was not infallibly defined, and St. Mary was still immaculately conceived. If a clearly infallible statement from the Pope on contraception, as well as a solution to the problem of its seeming not to be part of faith or morals, both came about, I would accept that, for Catholics UAR, the teaching would be absolutely binding. Further, I would want to reconsider very carefully my reasons for rejecting such an historical moral or de fide teaching.

 

[Betterave]

I would agree, for the most part, with your statement.

First, it’s pretty clear that the language in that section in Humanae Vitae is weaker than the language in the definition of the Immaculate Conception in Ineffabilis Deus. Following from that, I come to the conclusion that the statement in Humanae Vitae is not likely ex cathedra infallible; if it is, it might as well not be, because it isn’t clearly so.

Again, that doesn’t make sense. “If it isn’t clearly so, then it might as well not be”? Why not: if it isn’t clearly not so, then it might as well be? Do you really think that the appropriate response to the message of a prophet of God, of the steward over God’s household, is to split hairs so as to controvert the plain meaning of what he is saying? Can you try to consider the possibility that that may be what you’re doing here?

Second, just because it isn’t ex cathedra doesn’t mean that the teaching contained isn’t infallible. However, the argument that it’s infallible because it “belongs to the ordinary universal magisterium” would require for me, to start with, a clearly infallible teaching that all that belongs to the ordinary universal magisterium is indeed infallible. Otherwise, how would we know this is?

It strikes me and my spiritual sensibilities (yes, UAR) as being something of a matter of common sense for any true son or daughter of the Church. Why would one deny this, except in an attempt to preserve his own false liberty of conscience over against the teaching of the Church? (Maybe there are other reasons, but I’d wager that’s the most common one.)

Third, even if this statement is not infallible at all, that doesn’t mean that the principle behind it is wrong. There was a time in which the Immaculate Conception was not infallibly defined, and St. Mary was still immaculately conceived. If a clearly infallible statement from the Pope on contraception, as well as a solution to the problem of its seeming not to be part of faith or morals, both came about, I would accept that, for Catholics UAR, the teaching would be absolutely binding. Further, I would want to reconsider very carefully my reasons for rejecting such an historical moral or de fide teaching.

Even if the teaching weren’t infallible, it would still be absolutely binding for Catholics UAR. For you to suggest otherwise to Catholics UAR is again an instance of what seems like diabolical reasoning.

 

[Spirithound]

You claim that Article 14 of Humanae Vitae is an infallible declaration: “We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.”

Let’s compare this to what almost every Catholic Theologian (UAR) thinks is an infallible declaration, the statement on the Immaculate Conception:

“We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.” - Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus,

The difference between these two declarations is substantial.

The Ineffabilis Deus Statement defines as well as declares, clarifies that it is a matter of faith (‘doctrine’), joins it to revelation (‘has been revealed by God’) and proclaims it as universal (‘should be firmly and consistently believed by all the faithful.’).

The Humanae Vitae Statement does not define (the use of the word ‘definition’ is not present), does not clarify whether it is a matter of faith, morals, both, or neither, does not join itself to revelation, and does not universalize the statement.

Ineffabilis Deus certainly gives a very forceful statement, and it is well within the goalposts, so to speak, which is why almost every Catholic theologian (UAR) holds it to be infallible. That does not, however, mean that it is the threshold to be met for an infallible statement.

I would like to explore that further, but more pressing to me, is analyzing your Article 2, since that deals with whether the Church’s position on ABC is a discipline.

Of course, I must entertain the idea that HV does not indeed make an infallible statement. This stance could be supported by the Pope’s words “We are obliged once more…” which indicates a teaching which may not require a further infallible statement.

 

[Betterave]

I too am interested in an elaboration of ‘Article 2.’ As it stands it seems like a hodge-podge of non sequiturs, like a crude satire of St. Thomas rather than ‘in the spirit of’ St. Thomas.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Again, that doesn’t make sense. If it isn’t clearly so, then it might as well not be? Why not: if it isn’t clearly not so, then it might as well be?

Because if it’s not infallible then it could be wrong. The whole purpose of infallible declarations, as far as I can see (and maybe others have a different perspective) is to provide absolute certainty about a particular teaching, so that people in the Church know where the are to stand. If it isn’t clear that a particular statement is infallible, then we certainly don’t have the absolute certainty purposed by such teachings.

It strikes me and my spiritual sensibilities (yes, UAR) as being something of a matter of common sense for any true son or daughter of the Church. Why would one deny this, except in an attempt to preserve his own false liberty of conscience over against the teaching of the Church? (Maybe there are other reasons, but I’d wager that’s the most common one.)

No reasonable person would. That’s why any Catholic under the authority of the Bishop of Rome should submit to the teaching on contraception, even if he or she thinks that teaching might change. Even if the teaching is disciplinary, or worse, even if the teaching is wrong, obedience to God’s appointed supreme head of the Church and Vicar of Christ is a great virtue, and rejecting God’s appointed is a great vice.

For a Catholic UAR this argument is mostly intellectual because even if it proves its point, it still shouldn’t change the way a Catholic UAR would teach or live, until the Pope and Bishops would change their teaching. If true, it would do two things. First, in the rare instances where charity rules the law, it would encourage Catholics UAR to consider the use of contraception, and would assuage their guilt. Second, it may give intellectual teeth to the arguments of the majority of lay Catholics nominally UAR who want this teaching changed, and may allow a door for them to return to the authority of Rome.

For a Catholic NUAR, the argument is purely intellectual (save for the charitable desire to help those who are discouraged by Catholic teaching, and want to see a way it might change in the future). After all, if I don’t accept the Pope’s absolute authority (though I do respect his primacy, and as such read everything I can that he’s written, especially the encyclicals and pronouncements, and try to accept them where I find it reasonably possible), I need not go through any arguments about what’s “ex cathedra” and what’s not. I might as well assert simply that the Pope made a mistake, and if he made a mistake with an ex cathedra pronouncement on faith and morals, so much the worse for the doctrine on ex cathedra pronouncements.

If if the teaching weren’t infallible, it would still be absolutely binding for Catholics UAR.

True. Except, of course, where charity may trump the law.

Just as abstaining from meat on Fridays was at one time absolutely binding for Catholics UAR, and still many dietary disciplines are binding for Byzantine Catholics, these rules, being discipline, being not certain or moral or de fide, may be suspended for the sake of charity. For example, it would have been good, even when it was against established discipline, to eat meat on a Friday if your mother made it for you and would be very disappointed if you didn’t eat with the rest of the family. This sort of suspension of non-absolute or uncertain rules for the sake of charity has been well in use since the time of the early Church Fathers.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I would like to explore that further, but more pressing to me, is analyzing your Article 2, since that deals with whether the Church’s position on ABC is a discipline.

As often happens with me and first drafts, these articles are in places poorly written and argued, so the revisions have taken longer than I’d have liked (and I also have real work to do, so this gets about an hour a day). I will get an updated version of article two onto this thread hopefully by end of day. It may not be until tomorrow morning, though.

Thank you for your patience and your help.