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

[Betterave]

I think that your reasoning is again full of holes, but I will make a quick comment and then declare myself unavailable for further comment for the next week.

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.

There are no such instances. The reasons for charitable use of contraception are based on the false premise that contraception is required in order to meet the demands of charitably managing the phenomenon of ‘over-fertility’ (as if you had never heard of NFP). Your argument encourages rationalization of guilt, not its true assuagement.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Revised Article 2:

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 of the soul, namely that the soul finds detriment in its practice. But as the soul and its detriment cannot be directly seen, this teaching must be a matter 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 the Church means three things when she defines discipline. First, she considers dogmatic discipline, or the discipline of assenting to matters of faith. Secondly, she considers moral discipline, or obedience to matters that are part of the Natural Law. Thirdly, she considers ecclesiastical discipline, which is a part of positive law that also has spiritual consequences because the maker of the law, the Church, has been given spiritual authority. It is the third of these that we consider, and the third of these that is mutable and over which charity rules, for “Whoever has the least idea of ecclesiastical laws, those that concern government as well as those that regulate morals, knows well that they are of two kinds. Some represent immutable rules of eternal truth, itself the fundamental law, the source and origin of these laws from the observance of which there is no dispensation, against which no prescription obtains, and which are not modified either by diversity of custom or vicissitudes of time. Other ecclesiastical rules and customs are by nature temporary, indifferent in themselves, more or less authoritative, useful, or necessary according to circumstances of time and place, having been established only to facilitate the observance of the fundamental and eternal law.” (Thomassin, Vetus et nova Ecclesiæ disciplina (ed. Lyons, 1706), preface, n. xvii).

Questions of faith concern assent and belief directly, but not action, which may however follow from that belief. Since contraception deals so directly with action, it is not a matter of dogmatic discipline, but either of moral discipline or of ecclesiastic discipline. Moral discipline concerns assent to aspects of the Natural Law, and Ecclesiastic Discipline to the manner in which moral discipline can best be followed in this day and age. Teaching on contraception, however, is not a fundamental teaching, but rests on a more basic principle, that the purpose of the sacrament of marriage and for the marital act is first for the procreation of children. The application of this principle to every sexual act has been to prohibit contraception. However, since this is an application of a basic principle to our day and age, even if it were for all ages, it would still be a matter of Ecclesiastic Discipline, and not a matter of faith or morals.

Obj. 4 It still seems as though this division between faith and morals, and discipline, is fabricated, for we can take any statement, and find for it a more basic theological or moral statement, and so on, until we come to a singular natural law. As such only one or very few statements would be statements of faith and morals, and the Church could declare nothing as infallible, for she cannot create something more fundamental than what is. But this clearly cannot be so. As such, the teaching on contraception may still be a matter of morals.

Reply Obj. 1 Any declaration of a matter of discipline includes a matter of discipline, and so is itself disciplinary. So statements that try to bind ecclesiastical discipline as a matter of faith or morals cannot be considered a statement of faith and morals. A statement by the Church that its teaching on
contraception is a moral teaching cannot be a teaching based on faith.

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 involve what cannot be seen are statements of faith. The positive law, properly, cannot be directly seen, but it is not properly a matter of faith. So the Church’s teaching on contraception may be a teaching based in discipline and still may not be seen.

Reply Obj. 4 Firstly, as St. Thomas Aquinas states in the Summa Theologica, Prima Secundae Partis, Q.94, Art.2 “The precepts of the natural law in man stand in relation to practical matters, as the first principles to matters of demonstration. But there are several first indemonstrable principles. Therefore there are also several precepts of the natural law.” These indemonstrable principles are the province of moral teaching. What follows from them in their particular application is a matter of prudence, and so is disciplinary.

 

[Spirithound]

As a matter of form, why does your “On the contrary” and “I answer” come before Objection 4?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Reply Obj. 1 Any declaration of a matter of discipline includes a matter of discipline, and so is itself disciplinary. So statements that try to bind ecclesiastical discipline as a matter of faith or morals cannot be considered a statement of faith and morals. A statement by the Church that its teaching on contraception is a moral teaching cannot be a teaching based on faith.

It could be that I am missing something, but this seems to be rather circular. That is, you say that a declaration on a matter of discipline is always a matter of discipline, but even if this were true (which I am not entirely convinced is the case), it would only apply in this case if the teaching on contraception was merely disciplinary. To clarify further: you cannot say that a statement on the teaching on contraception can at most be disciplinary because the teaching on contraception is only disciplinary when we are in fact discussing whether or not the teaching on contraception is merely disciplinary.

Since in this case the statement is that the teaching on contraception isn’t merely disciplinary, one can assume that the Church isn’t merely trying to put a faith and morals veneer on a discipline, but simply pointing out the nature of the teaching to those who didn’t get the message when the teaching was presented in the first place.

Questions of faith concern assent and belief directly, but not action, which may however follow from that belief.

I think you need to examine the “which may however follow from that belief” part.

If we take the quote at face value, then the faith/moral teaching is simply “the creation of new life or the lack thereof is the domain of God and God alone. [The statement might need a bit of polishing, but I’m sure it’s written better in one of the books mentioned earlier]”. The idea that the action of contraception (taken to mean an action which has as its goal interfering with the creation of new life, specifically in the sex act) is wrong would be an extremely basic application of this principal.

So basically, if the Church can and does make infallible moral statements, then it already has made infallible statements about actions, because the statements about the actions follow logically and directly from the statements about morals. IE “women can’t be priests” and some basic principles of honesty etc imply directly that it is wrong to [try to] ordain women priests.

To say the first is to say the second; whatever level of authority is present in the first is inherited by the second simply by the nature of logical implication.

 

[SonCatcher]

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.”

Don’t worry. I’m not done with this line, yet.

Paul_Rimmer:

Obj. 3 Finally, the Church’s Teaching on contraception involves accepting something of the soul, namely that the soul finds detriment in its practice. But as the soul and its detriment cannot be directly seen, this teaching must be a matter of faith, as Hebrews states “faith is the evidence of unseen things.”

Even revised, this statement is problematic.

First, as a matter of order, objections should be simply stated as they would be given without commentary (“involves accepting,” “cannot be directly seen”). These are better left in your responses.

Second, the non-provability of detriment is wholly contingent on non-provability of the soul. Detriments to the soul can be proved even if the soul itself is merely hypothesis.

An example from modern science: Currently, there is a high profile science experiment looking for the Higgs Boson (aka ‘God Particle’). Nobody knows if such a thing exists at this time, as it has never been observed. If it exists, however, there is already a long list of traits this particle is supposed to have. Thus, it is possible to determine properties of something science has not observed, including souls.

As Catholics, however, we are required to believe souls exist. Consequently, it is to our benefit that we avoid that which has been proved detrimental to souls.

I actually have more on this line, but it’s from another angle, the hour is late, etc.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

As a matter of form, why does your “On the contrary” and “I answer” come before Objection 4?

Because Objection 4 deals with the “I answer” directly. This happens, though not very often, in the Summa Theologica.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

It could be that I am missing something, but this seems to be rather circular. That is, you say that a declaration on a matter of discipline is always a matter of discipline, but even if this were true (which I am not entirely convinced is the case), it would only apply in this case if the teaching on contraception was merely disciplinary. To clarify further: you cannot say that a statement on the teaching on contraception can at most be disciplinary because the teaching on contraception is only disciplinary when we are in fact discussing whether or not the teaching on contraception is merely disciplinary.

I am using what follows from the answer, namely that ecclesiastical discipline is always mutable. As such, a de fide declaration that a particular ecclesiastical discipline is not mutable contradicts with the answer and, if the answer is to be believed, would be wrong. Because of this, any ex-cathedra pronouncement about ecclesiastical discipline cannot be a statement on faith and morals, even if it calls itself one. Because, if it were, it would be a wrong ex-cathedra pronouncement on faith and morals, and this is dogmatically impossible.

I think you need to examine the “which may however follow from that belief” part.

If we take the quote at face value, then the faith/moral teaching is simply “the creation of new life or the lack thereof is the domain of God and God alone. [The statement might need a bit of polishing, but I’m sure it’s written better in one of the books mentioned earlier]”. The idea that the action of contraception (taken to mean an action which has as its goal interfering with the creation of new life, specifically in the sex act) is wrong would be an extremely basic application of this principal.

I think I may alter one of the objections to more reflect this line of argument (since it doesn’t deal directly with ‘act’ and ‘end’ in it’s language, it’s not quite along the lines of the “Natural Law” argument I want to pursue later; it is, though, related, I agree). My intuition for an answer would be, if we accept that the creation of new life or lack thereof is the domain of God, we would be joining that to the fact that every end joined to act is the domain of God and God alone. The time we die is the domain of God. So our attempts to prolong life, natural as they are, will not affect God’s appointed time. Nor would our attempts to affect the point of birth, natural as they may be, affect God’s appointed time for birth. In this, contraception would seem to me morally neutral, as it cannot properly interfere with God’s plan, at that level.

Next, we could imagine that God himself would declare in the Torah that he wills every sexual act to be open to life (the particular statement). But this particular statement would provoke the question of “why every one?” Since the condition cannot be defended on itself, and must be qualified, being a way to implement a more fundamental moral principle, we would conclude that God is declaring a discipline as law. He does this very often, and Christians follow most disciplinary declarations in the Torah (i.e. dietary restrictions) with the same disregard.

IE “women can’t be priests” and some basic principles of honesty etc imply directly that it is wrong to [try to] ordain women priests.

Though this is very tangential, I don’t agree that that statement is either infallible or what Rome said. Rome simply said that it has not the power to make women priests, which follows directly from two faith-positions, about how priests are made, and about the differences between men and women. Even the most traditional Catholic UAR (as far as I know) would agree that women could be priests, if Christ directly made them so.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

You will forgive me passing by your analogy from science. It is deeply flawed, and addressing the flaws would potentially derail this conversation. If you wish to start another thread on how science can establish properties for things we don’t know exist, and how this knowledge can be used, I will be happy to participate in it. It is an interesting topic.

But let’s simply cut through this objection that you find problematic, and that I now find less so.

What is your best argument that the teaching on contraception is a faith teaching, that it should be a religious dogma? If we can agree it’s better than the objection I present here, I’ll throw out the objection, and include yours, and work out a good response to it.

I think that’s the best solution.

Don’t worry. I’m not done with this line, yet.

Even revised, this statement is problematic.

First, as a matter of order, objections should be simply stated as they would be given without commentary (“involves accepting,” “cannot be directly seen”). These are better left in your responses.

Second, the non-provability of detriment is wholly contingent on non-provability of the soul. Detriments to the soul can be proved even if the soul itself is merely hypothesis.

An example from modern science: Currently, there is a high profile science experiment looking for the Higgs Boson (aka ‘God Particle’). Nobody knows if such a thing exists at this time, as it has never been observed. If it exists, however, there is already a long list of traits this particle is supposed to have. Thus, it is possible to determine properties of something science has not observed, including souls.

As Catholics, however, we are required to believe souls exist. Consequently, it is to our benefit that we avoid that which has been proved detrimental to souls.

I actually have more on this line, but it’s from another angle, the hour is late, etc.

 

[SonCatcher]

You will forgive me passing by your analogy from science. It is deeply flawed, and addressing the flaws would potentially derail this conversation. If you wish to start another thread on how science can establish properties for things we don’t know exist, and how this knowledge can be used, I will be happy to participate in it. It is an interesting topic.

But let’s simply cut through this objection that you find problematic, and that I now find less so.

What is your best argument that the teaching on contraception is a faith teaching, that it should be a religious dogma? If we can agree it’s better than the objection I present here, I’ll throw out the objection, and include yours, and work out a good response to it.

I think that’s the best solution.

Ignoring the example is okay but ignoring the assertion (that we can know definitively know properties of a soul not observed) is more tenuous.

Before continuing, a brief reminder of what the body and soul are and their relationship to each other:

II. “BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE”

362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person. But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming. The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul. “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.

368 The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one’s being, where the person decides for or against God.

Since our body and soul together constitute a single substance, it follows that whatever happens to the body affects to the soul and vice versa.

to be continued…

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Suncatcher,

I eagerly await the continuation. So far so good.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Since our body and soul together constitute a single substance, it follows that whatever happens to the body affects to the soul and vice versa.

to be continued…

Be sure to be careful of the context in which the soul and body is spoken of as one. This can easily be perceived as not only contradictory but purely materialistic or idealistic. The Church rejects a very specific form of dualism; mainly that form which implies that the soul is the whole person, and the body is merely the vehicle. But this is not a rejection of dualism in general. The Thomist conception of the relationship between body and soul is a kind of dualism; it does not say that the body and the soul are identical in nature. It would be nonsensical to speak of the body and the soul if it were in fact the case that we were only speaking about one kind of thing rather than the complimentary unity of two things.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

Be sure to be careful of the context in which the soul and body is spoken of as one. This can easily be perceived as not only contradictory but purely materialistic or idealistic.

Indeed.

This is most easily avoided by St. Thomas Aquinas’s formulation, that “the soul is the form of the body.”

 

[SonCatcher]

Be sure to be careful of the context in which the soul and body is spoken of as one. This can easily be perceived as not only contradictory but purely materialistic or idealistic. The Church rejects a very specific form of dualism; mainly that form which implies that the soul is the whole person, and the body is merely the vehicle. But this is not a rejection of dualism in general. The Thomist conception of the relationship between body and soul is a kind of dualism; it does not say that the body and the soul are identical in nature. It would be nonsensical to speak of the body and the soul if it were in fact the case that we were only speaking about one kind of thing rather than the complimentary unity of two things.

Understood. My point is that as human persons, our spiritual soul and physical body are so profoundly connected that we cannot rightly make a distinction between them when discussing moral issues.

Sorry for being so slow with responses. I have been rather busy lately and this thread requires more than the usual amount of thought. Here’s a citation for you to ponder in the meantime.

[BIBLEDRB]Mark 7:20-23[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[SonCatcher]

That word “fornications” in verse 21 is porneiai. It is a rather broad term that is often alternately translated “adultery” or “sexual immorality.”

Similarly, “lasciviousness” in verse 22 is aselgeia. It also is a broad term alternately translated “lewdness,” “debauchery” or “lust.” Particularly, this is a self-indulgent variation.

Combined with the explicit reference to adultery (moicheiai for those now expecting Greek), Jesus warns against sexual sin 3 times in a list of only 12 terms that he calls “evil thoughts”.

 

[SonCatcher]

Okay, now let’s have a look at contraception (there is no direct translation into Koine Greek for that word that I am aware of).

Way back in post #1, you define contraception:

Paul_Rimmer:

I answer that, what is meant by “contraception” is a method invented by man in order to reduce the chances of pregnancy.

Unfortunately, this definition is incomplete. NFP is also a method invented by man in order to reduce the chance of pregnancy. Yet, NFP is fully endorsed and supported by the Church.

Let us therefore distinguish. Contraception allows a couple to seek sexual gratification while avoiding pregnancy. NFP allows a couple to avoid pregnancy by periodically abstaining.

Since actions come from the soul, a couple who choose contraception are choosing their pleasure above the personal issues that would preclude pregnancy. The action is objectively lascivious even if their reason for avoiding pregnancy is just.

Contrarily, a couple who practice NFP are choosing concern for the issues that preclude pregnancy above their pleasure. There is nothing objectively wrong with the inaction so long as the couple are in agreement (1 Corinthians 7:5).

 

[pataburd]

Artificial contraception (AC) is condemned. Again, what differentiates AC from NFP is the couple’s mutual consent to ABSTINENCE from the sexual act during predetermined periods of fertility. Outside those cycles, their sexual act fulfills its unitive aspect, plus it still remains open to life, should God elect to give it…

Paul VI teaches that both the unitive and the procreative dimensions of the sexual act must remain replete in it. John Paul II, and those following in the wake of his landmark Theology of the Body, further clarify that neither the procreative nor the unitive aspects of the sexual act are done justice by practicing AC. The unitive and procreative principles constitute an inviolable unity within the sexual act, between one man and one woman joined in a lifelong marital commitment, as intended by God

When a couple practices AC, they subvert the sexual act by exchanging its proper, life-giving ends for pleasurable “ends” only–pleasurable “ends” that are neither unitive nor procreative. Here, we may infer that “life-giving” ends are commensurate with both the unitive and procreative designs of the sexual act, properly understood and licitly practiced.

Anything less than that effectively denies the sanctity if human life, with its origins in the Life of the Blessed Trinity, and ultimately robs man of the intended blessings that crown his acts of obedience done in accord with his nature, which in turn bespeak faith in and gratitude to his Creator.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I do not think Artificial Contraception and Natural Family Planning are necessarily linked. I only include both of them in the same group because both of them are morally neutral. It is possible that Artificial Contraception would be disordered and that Natural Family Planning would remain morally neutral.

However, because it is clear that both artificial contraception and NFP can be used to virtually prevent all procreation in the context of a marriage, neither can be considered a moral good.

 

[SonCatcher]

I do not think Artificial Contraception and Natural Family Planning are necessarily linked. I only include both of them in the same group because both of them are morally neutral. It is possible that Artificial Contraception would be disordered and that Natural Family Planning would remain morally neutral.

However, because it is clear that both artificial contraception and NFP can be used to virtually prevent all procreation in the context of a marriage, neither can be considered a moral good.

I think I have, in my last few posts, demonstrated that (Artificial) Contraception is morally repugnant because it comes from a defiled heart. I endeavored to completely do this through definition as opposed to interpretation. Thus, it is not a matter of physical discipline.

I also did not call NFP a moral “good.” I merely stated it as supported by the Church, which it is as being a neutral alternative to contraception. Certainly, NFP can be misused and any couple who misuses it is answerable to God.

 

[Paul_Rimmer]

I think I have, in my last few posts, demonstrated that (Artificial) Contraception is morally repugnant because it comes from a defiled heart. I endeavored to completely do this through definition as opposed to interpretation. Thus, it is not a matter of physical discipline.

We could debate the merits of your demonstration, if you wish. They don’t directly reflect upon my own.

Contraception, by natural or artificial means, so long as it does not involve some intended disorder is morally neutral. The difference between my conclusion on this and yours rests ultimately in this: that I think a married couple must be open to life, not in every sexual act, but in all the sexual acts taken together. If contraception were used to prevent all childbirth, or to violate God’s command to be fruitful and multiply, contraception would be disordered and so unacceptable. If contraception is used to prevent new life in select acts, for the sake of distributing the life that does occur naturally over a longer period of time, this I see as keeping with the proper purpose of the marital act.

You see that every marital act must be ordered to the potential of new life. I would argue that, because contraception is not totally successful in preventing new life for any single act, it still does not qualify. Nevertheless, because contraception can be used for a moral good over the group of acts, its use in individual acts to reduce chances of pregnancy cannot, as far as I see, be immoral. I do understand your reasoning, as applied to every individual act. I disagree with that step in your argument.

I also did not call NFP a moral “good.” I merely stated it as supported by the Church, which it is as being a neutral alternative to contraception. Certainly, NFP can be misused and any couple who misuses it is answerable to God.

There we agree. I was not trying to imply you did so. I just wanted to clarify for the sake of other readers.

 

[davidv]

We could debate the merits of your demonstration, if you wish. They don’t directly reflect upon my own.

Contraception, by natural or artificial means, so long as it does not involve some intended disorder is morally neutral.

Therein lies your difference from Church teaching. Wearing a condum or taking a chemical for the direct intent to render the marital act infertile is in fact an intended disorder.

The difference between my conclusion on this and yours rests ultimately in this: that I think a married couple must be open to life, not in every sexual act, but in all the sexual acts taken together. If contraception were used to prevent all childbirth, or to violate God’s command to be fruitful and multiply, contraception would be disordered and so unacceptable. If contraception is used to prevent new life in select acts, for the sake of distributing the life that does occur naturally over a longer period of time, this I see as keeping with the proper purpose of the marital act.

You see that every marital act must be ordered to the potential of new life. I would argue that, because contraception is not totally successful in preventing new life for any single act, it still does not qualify. Nevertheless, because contraception can be used for a moral good over the group of acts, its use in individual acts to reduce chances of pregnancy cannot, as far as I see, be immoral. I do understand your reasoning, as applied to every individual act. I disagree with that step in your argument.

There we agree. I was not trying to imply you did so. I just wanted to clarify for the sake of other readers.

The difference in your conclusion is based on a false premise as noted above.