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 [huh? - says who?].
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 ‘directly seen’?], this teaching must be a matter of faith, as Hebrews states “faith is the evidence of unseen things.”
[non sequitur]
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…
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 non sequitur].
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**…what?]**. 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.
- what’s your point supposed to be here?] 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 [discipline?? - false - this describes the necessity of phronesis to the making of sound moral judgments]. So not all
actions ?] that deal with virtue are of themselves moral principles, but can be composites of said principles
[this is sheer nonsense - how can an action be a composite of principles? - and regardless, what is your point?].
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,
[neither can the natural law be directly seen in the relevant sense - which would obviously be a lot more relevant to mention here! - unless you’re just trying to beg the whole question here? - very unclear] but it is not properly a matter of faith. So the Church’s teaching on contraception may be a teaching based in discipline
[or morals!] 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.”
[so you are presuming that the purpose of the marital act is the begetting of children is an indemonstrable first principle?? - why would you (anyone) think that?] 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. [so, “if a matter of prudence, then merely disciplinary (not a matter of morals)”?? - non sequitur - to act against prudence (imprudently) is to act against reason is to act against the moral law]
). How could you possibly deny this?