or, “No, the Pope has not changed Catholic teaching”
[See UPDATE at end of article.]
The ignoramuses at the mainstream media are at it again. Pope Benedict XVI, we are told by the UK Telegraph, will soon “end the Catholic Church’s absolute ban on the use of condoms,” this after “decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception.” “Until now,” according to the folks at the AFP, “the Vatican had prohibited the use of any form of contraception — other than abstinence — even as a guard against sexually transmitted disease.”
I call these people ignoramuses not because they are ignorant of Catholic theology, but because their ignorance is willful. Any one of the journalists employed by the aforementioned media outlets could have consulted with any Catholic theologian, and been provided with the information and the documentation I’m about to present to the readers of this column, to wit: Notwithstanding consistent misrepresentation by mainstream media outlets, and even some sectors of the Catholic right, it has never been the position of the Catholic magisterium, nor Catholic theologians generally, that the use of contraception is intrinsically immoral.
No, yours truly is not “coming out” as a leftist dissenter from two millennia of orthodox Christian teaching on the general immorality of contraception. Again contrary to the paradigms presupposed by the secular press, Catholic Christian teaching on artificial birth control is not “the Vatican’s position” on the subject, as if Catholics believed that the Pope of Rome was a privileged recipient of divine revelation, receiving new doctrines and communicating them accordingly. Believing as we do that divine revelation ended with the death of Christ’s Apostles, Catholicism is an inherently conservative religious system. Any new doctrine that contradicts established teaching is heretical ipso facto, no matter how creative a contrary doctrine one can derive from any and all manner of rationalization and Biblical kama sutra. Apart from the obvious natural law arguments, Catholics believe contraception to be immoral because their Jewish predecessors believed God’s Word precluded it, and this was a doctrine presupposed and reaffirmed by every serious Christian (even Protestants) before 1930, when the Anglican Communion kicked-off Christianity’s sexual revolution by its “discovery” that perverting the sexual faculty was Biblical after all. Catholics oppose contraception because they believe it to be contrary to God’s Word (i.e., Scripture in Tradition), not because this is “Vatican policy.”
This having been said, what exactly do I mean when I say contraception is not always and everywhere sinful? Did not Pope Paul VI solemnly teach, in his encyclical Humane Vitae: On the Regulation of Birth, that
[T]he 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 [coniugale commercium], is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. {Humane Vitae 14}
Of course he did. But any theologian worth his two cents will tell you that the expression commonly translated “sexual intercourse” from the Latin coniugale commercium never refers to a sexual relationship between fornicators, but always and everywhere to relations between married persons. Don’t believe me? Look up the word “conjugal” for yourselves in a dictionary.
This is precisely what every pronouncement by the Catholic magisterium on this subject presupposes, and it is also the rationale behind the Church’s traditional approval for consecrated nuns and sisters to avail themselves of birth control pills in mission territories where persecutory rape is a real danger, and more recent approvals by the Catholic hierarchy for rape victims to avail themselves of “morning after” medications when this can be taken in a manner that is non-abortificient.
In 2004, the UK Tablet, a leftist Catholic publication beloved by Catholic dissidents, proved that even a broken clock is right twice-a-day when it published two articles (one an editorial) challenging continued misrepresentation by some Catholic conservatives of their Church’s teaching. Both are worth a serious read. Contrary to popular belief, the Church does not teach that a rapist compounds his immorality by wearing a condom while he abuses his victim; for the Catholic, rape and fornication are already per se unnatural, because they are immoral exercises of the sexual faculty outside the one institution that is best conducive to the procreation and rearing of children: the natural family built upon the conjugal (i.e., marital) union.
When it comes to combatting AIDS, the Church does not oppose any and all incorporation of condom-promotion into an otherwise comprehensive approach to addressing the epidemic. This is another myth promoted by both the leftist press and certain zealots on the Catholic right overreacting to a culture of sexual license. What the Church opposes are AIDS prevention programs that are condom-centric. The very same conservatives who rightfully highlight the singular success of Uganda in alleviating the AIDS epidemic by the employment of Church-endorsed programs focusing on sexual abstinence and marital fidelity tend to forget, rather conveniently, that these are just the first two, albeit the most emphasized, prongs of a three-tier strategy, called ABC: “abstinence, be faithful, and use condoms.” The use of contraceptives by the infected married and by extra-marital fornicators is not the chief focus of Uganda’s successful program, but it is a factor.
And this leads to another myth that needs shattering: that the Church teaches that AIDS-afflicted married couples have no moral choice but to abstain from conjugal relations indefinitely, or risk passing the fatal disease in the course of unprotected marital lovemaking. Many Catholics are shocked to hear this, but perfectly orthodox moral theologians are heavily divided on this question, and the Church has never pronounced on this contentious issue. There is a perfectly valid argument to be made that an AIDS victim who makes love to his wife while wearing a prophylactic is morally justified in doing so by virtue of the principle of double effect: the morally laudable object of employing the prophylactic is to block the transmission of the AIDS virus between spouses; contraception is an unintended side effect, the gravity of which is met or outweighed by the equally serious good of maintaining an important means of maintaining marital intimacy and relieving the sexual impulse. (The principle of double-effect, it should be remembered, is also the means by which the Church herself even justifies the carrying out of an indirect abortion to save the endangered life of a pregnant mother.)
To be sure, not every theologian subscribes to this moral logic. Some argue that a condom is intrinsically and not incidentally contraceptive, that the unintended contraceptive effect in any case outweighs in gravity the other two ends of marital relations, and that even with condoms the risk (no matter how small) of transmitting the deadly virus to one’s spouse is enough to render the act morally reckless.
A Catholic may fall on whichever side he wishes to in this debate; what he may not do (as far as his Church is concerned) is assert his opinion dogmatically and unlawfully burden the consciences of fellow Catholics who disagree with him. The Pope himself for years has maintained a prudent silence on the question personally, and his personal thoughts on the matter, soon to be published in a book-length interview by Peter Seewald, are perfectly in line with the findings of a 200-page study conducted in 2006 by the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry, which “included ‘an enormous rainbow’ of theological and moral positions, from theologians who expressed ‘very rigorous’ opinions against condom use even when used as a disease-preventing measure to those who held a ‘very understanding’ perspective.” According to the official new service of the United States Catholic Bishops,
after looking more closely at the question, the church experts decided it was premature for the Vatican to make a comprehensive statement on the theological and pastoral aspects of condom use, in part because there was not unanimity of opinion, and in part because many believed that discussion of the theological nuances would only invite confusion in the media and among Catholics.
Today these concerns have been vindicated, and the Catholic right and the pro-life movement have much to answer for such confusion. For years, my sometime-editors at a very prominent pro-life news service have castigated bishops and theologians who publicized these nuances, and accused them of being leftist heretics.
What is ironic is that over the last several years, it is the otherwise-dissident Catholic left that has more accurately represented Catholic orthodoxy on these very difficult questions, while the self-styled vanguard of conservative orthodoxy continues to distort the Church’s official teaching, subject her to much unnecessary ridicule, and offended against Christian charity by causing scandal to untold numbers of Catholic couples who find themselves in difficult conjugal situations.
We should continue to urge the mainstream media to get its reporting right in these matters. If they were writing on any religion other than Catholicism, they would surely seek the counsel of religious specialists and peruse appropriate documentation. That they won’t extend the same courtesies toward Catholics and other Christians is both patronizing and bigoted. But before we can expect them to clean up their act, the Catholic right needs to get its theological house in order, repent of its past misrepresentations, and do so publicly. If after the Pope’s own informal articulation of these nuances these misstatements continue to be made, the pro-life and conservative cause will have ceased to retain the orthodox high ground.
UPDATE:
America magazine has published three blog entries that further document the fact that the long-held theological consensus is not what the mainstream press and some of my fellow conservatives has let on. See:
“Pope on Condoms and AIDS: The Background”
“The Pope and Martin Rhonheimer”
“The Pope and Martin Rhonheimer, Part II”
And this article by L’espresso:
“‘Light of the World’: A Papal First”
Mr. Giunta, it looks as if you are not allowing comments – I can imagine why – but I just have to point out to you the dubious nature of this assertion, which you regard as probable:
“contraception is an unintended side effect, the gravity of which is met or outweighed by the equally serious good of maintaining an important means of maintaining marital intimacy and relieving the sexual impulse.”
Sorry – but I do not remember seeing the “relieving [of] the sexual impulse” listed among the proper ends of the conjugal act.
As for the rest of your argument, I can’t claim to be knowledgeable about the current debate on the issue among moral theologians. What I do know is that Humanae Vitae clearly teaches that the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal acts are inseperable and frustrating either one or the other renders the conjugal act disordered. However it also says that this does not (necessarily) apply if the frustrating of the procreative aspect is not directly willed. HV 15 states: “On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result therefrom—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.” As such, the taking of oral contraceptives to combat severe endometriosis may be justified even if the woman is engaging in conjugal acts because the intended end (relief from debilitating pain) is a proportionate enough good to justify the non-intended end (non-conception of children).
The problem with applying this exception in this case is that using a condom to prevent HIV transmission is not a “therapeutic means.” No-one dies or is physically injured if a couple where one partner is a person living with HIV decides not to have sex at all. On the other hand their marriage might suffer and the non-infected partner might be tempted to commit adultery etc.
HV 15 does not claim to limit possible exceptions to legitimate contraceptive use to the consideration of drugs working against bodily diseases alone. A case could be made that, by extension, it is always acceptable to use contraception to achieve a proportionately greater end if the contraception is not directly willed, and that thus it would be justifiable to engage in conjugal acts while using condoms to prevent HIV transmission because not doing so could cause one’s marriage to suffer damage. Personally I am not convinced by this line of reasoning because it cannot be maintained that living in perfect continence as a married couple is necessarily or even probably harmful.
At any rate, one needs to tread veeery carefully here. We have been down this road before. In the 1960′s it was claimed that the invention of the Pill presented a ‘new’ situation that was hitherto unaccounted for by Church teaching. There was lots of legitimate debate for and against on the subject. The majority of a Papal commission, including not a few Bishops, recommended that the Church accept birth control by Pill for ‘proportionate reasons’ or at least as a ‘lesser evil’. Confessors the world over started advising penitents that they could use the Pill in good conscience. We all know what happened then: the Pope, after a long and tense wait, issued a clarification – and the whole edifice of Catholic morality was blown to pieces overnight. We really don’t want that to happen again.
Gideon:
Of course I allow comments!
One of the three ends of marriage is traditionally referred to as the “relief of concupiscence,” which is a fancy way of saying sexual relief. This is common sense, and if we need divine-revelatory confirmation look no further than I Corinthians 7.
Certainly there is a need to be careful, and to weigh one’s informed conscience accordingly, but care also needs to be taken by armchair “theologians” in the pro-life movement who do inestimable harm to the Church by their dogmatic assertiveness on questions the Church herself hasn’t pronounced on. They scandalize untold numbers of Catholics and non-Catholics, and that scandal may well be multiplied if/when the Church *does* pronounce in favor of condom-usage by AIDS-afflicted married couples, exposing her to the charge of “changing her doctrine.”
I personally sympathize with the theologians who say the use of a contraceptive for non-contraceptive purposes does not come under the traditional Christian prohibitions on using contraceptives. Even today, no Catholic authority denies that it is legitimate for a woman to avail herself of hormonal contraceptives if she does so for non-contraceptive purposes – to the extent this is morally problematic, it’s only because the Pill can act as an unintended abortificient (by preventing implantation).
Lex,
1. I’m not one of those convinced by the argument that the term “coniugale commercium” restricts the ratio dicendi of HV to acts of intercourse between married couples. I submit that, in essence, the term does not go so far as to canvass the status of the parties performing the act: it’s restricted to the act the couple are performing considered apart from the status of the couple themselves. HV limits itself to the “perfect case” scenario – that of married couples. It does this not because it believes the evils of contraceptive proposals only crystallise in the context of sex between married couples. It does so, rather, so as to eliminate ambiguities and get to the heart of the matter: a ceteris paribus argument, if you will.
Rather than read “coniugale commercium” as “the sexual act as and only performed by married couples”, I would read it as something like: “the act, which, if performed by couples whose marriage is already ratified, would consummate their marriage.” This would mean that, if the act is performed by unmarried (e.g. fornicating) couples, then if accompanied by contraceptive maneouvres the evils such as described in HV, would still exist.
There are several arguments which I believe back up this interpretation.
Consider, for one, a married couple who choose to engage in coitus interruptus. Now, regardless of their intentions, this is clearly not a marital act – the “coniugale commercium”, on either contested description. But suppose they choose also to contracept that act by, for example, using the pill. Regardless of the purpose of that non-marital act of coitus interruptus, (contraception, curiosity, etc) we could conclude from the “non-conjugal,therefore- HV-doesn’t-apply” theory that the use of the pill in that context wouldn’t compound the evil of the original act, simply because the original act wasn’t a “coniugale commercium”! In other words, married couples who engage in nonconjugal sexual acts do not in any way aggravate the evil of these acts if they take additional contraceptive measures ensuring these acts don’t result in conception, whereas it is a grave evil for them to protect their conjugal acts from issuing in conception!! Can it be seriously maintained that this is what HV intended?
Another argument : try to make sense of the first half of HV para 17 if the ruling against contraception in HV is restricted to married couples engaged in the conjugal act.
One would have to invoke a rather tortured from of reasoning.
That para. reads:
“Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.”
Now, what could Paul VI possibly be thinking of here?
If he is thinking of artificial birth control as impermissible for both married couples and anyone else (eg fornicating or adulterous couples) then the meaning is clear: married men (eg) who understood that contraception was legitimate and who were tempted to marital infidelity would be given an extra temptation by the fact that they knew they could cover up their infidelity by contraception. The course of “morally acceptable” artificial contraception for both married couples and fornicators/adulterers opens the path to marital infidelity in an obvious way.
But if Paul VI is intending to say that artificial birth is forbidden between married couples precisely in their conjugal acts alone, but does not aggravate the evil of any nonconjugal acts they might perform, with their spouses or anyone else then how, pray, would opposition to that teaching encourage marital infidelity in a way that adherence to it wouldn’t? If this were the teaching, the male (eg) who is tempted to infidelity would surely be just as tempted to cover up his infidelity by contraception as in the above case, since the male in both cases believes that contraception extramarital sex is, 1.) contra Humanae Vitae, OK or 2.) does not come within the proscription of contraception of Humanae Vitae !!
In other words, it’s all too plausible to consider a male tempted to infidelity saying “I disagree with the Pope that contraception is immoral for nonmarried couples. So I can use it.” and going on to commit extramarital infidelities.
But can we seriously posit a married male who says “I disagree with the Pope that married couples but not others commit sin when they artifically contraceive. Gee, this makes me MORE tempted to commit extramarital acts with Shirley, even though any contraception I introduce with my sex with her is not, according to the Church, a moral issue.” ??
I defy anyone to interpret para. 17 in a way that straightforwardly is consistent with the notion that HV restricts its ruling on contraception to acts between married couples only. I’ve not seen any yet.
2. Your contention that many theologians accept that the Double Effect Principle allows for condomitic intercourse for health reasons needs qualification. Many of these theologians actually dissent on the principle teaching in Humanae Vitae. I can think of only two or three prominent theologians who positively assent to Humanae Vitae yet have allowed for the use of condoms to protect against HIV (etc). The most famous is Fr Rhonheimer. However, when he advanced his case in the allegedly important Tablet article you link to, he did not consider that condomitic intercourse might not be a conjugal act. Fr Rhonheimer has, to his credit, since acknowledged that there are good arguments for the latter position which he did not consider. (Ironically, the writer he was responding to was writing from precisely this basis.) Fr Rhonheimer has now seen the force of these arguments (without necessarily agreeing with them), has withdrawn from debate, and is awaiting the Holy See’s decision on this specific matter, which, of course, is crucial to the debate. So it is not possible to say that Fr Rhonheimer is in the same position as he was when he wrote his article in the Tablet.
I’m aware that Fr Brian Johnstone, CSSR, of the Alphonsionum, has also advanced the argument that condomitic intercourse is acceptable under the “Double Effect” principle. However, to the best of my knowledge, he has not canvassed the argument that Fr Rhonheimer has candidly faced, acknowledged, and that, if valid, would prove an insuperable objection to his position.
Beyond that, there is a distinct lack of theologians arguing both for the rule in Humanae Vitae and for an in prinicple approval of condomitic intercourse as a prophylactic against HIV/AIDS. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Like you, I await a ruling from the Holy See, and will not classify my opponents as heretics or in error on this matter. Nevertheless I will not hesitate to say that their arguments are appallingly bad.
So, let me get this straight: assuming that two men are in the exact same spiritual condition, both have accrued an equal number of merits and demerits in their moral life, before God. Both men are rapists. One rapist never bothers to wear a condom, while the other rapist chooses to wear prophylactics every time he thrusts himself into one of his victims.
Both are struck by lightening after committing one of their respective rapes. Both die unrepentant.
According to you, Nick, the rapist who wears the condom is actually suffering greater torment in the afterlife, because he aggravated his rape by wearing a prophylactic?
I’ll let my readers judge whose logic is more appalling.
Lex,
with respect: could you answer my specific objections to the specific points you made, pointing out the “appalling” logic?
Theologically speaking, you’re interpreting the Church’s teach in a manner clearly foreign to her tradition: never has the Church ever suggested (please correct me if I’m wrong) that fornicators aggravate their sins by fornicating, such that spiritually they are better off fornicating and raping “in the raw.” Just to say it is appalling.
I do not possess a list of theologians who both agree with Humane Vitae (HV) and accept the moral licitness of condom use for HIV-afflicted couples. I always assume that any given Catholic theologian is orthodox (i.e., assents to HV), and assume that those surveyed in the Vatican’s report (I don’t know who or how many) are just as orthodox. I don’t know whom he surveyed, but Dr Damian Thompson of the UK Telegraph tells me he showed my article to a moral theologian he knows and he said my analysis “was exactly right.” I know Dr Thompson is no dissenter.
I also remain most unpersuaded by your seeming implication (it’s difficult for me to make out, the way you worded it), that a potential adulterer or fornicator is somehow discouraged from committing his sin by the thought that contraception might be sinful. I agree that the availability of contraception makes such sins easier to commit, but I don’t think would-be fornicators could care less whether their already mortal sin is accentuated by condom-use.
Thanks.
1. I think what you might be saying in para. 1 is that the Church has never suggested that fornicators who don’t contracept don’t aggravate their sin by contraception. But this is assuming what has to be proved. The contrary is precisely what I AM proposing in the first half of my response. And, rather than merely asserting, I give you two ways of interpreting Humanae Vitae along those lines, and I challenge you to refute these interpretations. You don’t. You just throw up your hands, my friend, and ask me to correct you if you’re wrong, as if I hadn’t already done so! Can’t you do something better than that?
2. With respect, Dr Thompson might well be (and is in my opinion) unreliable on this precise issue, though he is fantastic on many others. Now: it may turn out that he may be right in his “dissension” and I am wrong. I’m prepared to wear that. I certainly don’t question his bona fides – he’s taken a lot of flak for sticking up on issues with no popularity interest, so I respect him immensely.
So Dr Thompson showed your article to a theologian, who approved of your thoughts. Hearsay. Could we have a link please to arguments? Meantime, I’ll refer readers to the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly (US) for useful contributions (either way – let the reader decide) on this issue.
3. “I agree that the availability of contraception makes such sins easier to commit, but I don’t think would-be fornicators could care less whether their already mortal sin is accentuated by condom-use.”
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood. I’m at a loss to know what you mean by this: surely the first half of the sentence is contradicted by the latter. Surely the moral availability of contraception – as well as the mere physical availability – makes such sins easier to commit. And the moral availability is increased when those contemplating fornication come to the view that contraception – which might conceal their acts – is morally OK. (I’m a man. I know what I would be tempted to think.)
Conversely, Pope Paul is saying that knowing your sin of fornication is accentuated by condom-use (or other forms of contraception) may well be a stigma to your committing that sin.
To give a rough analogy. Suppose I lived in circumstances where ordinarily abortion was the only form of contraception, and I, a pro-lifer, was sorely tempted to adultery/fornication with someone. I might well be further tempted if I learned that non-abortifacient contraception was easily available.
In any case…
Note: The argument I’m making overall is one of interpretation. It’s not whether you agree with him or not on this precise point. It’s how the rule in Humanae Vitae is to be rightly interpreted.
In that light, the argument I raise re. Para 17 is: What possible construction could you put on his words here and consistent with the rest of the document to the effect that – as you claim – the rule against contraception applies only to conjugal acts between married couples?
You’ve confidently asserted that the rule in HV applies only to married couples engaged in the conjugal act. I’ve raised objections to that which you’ve not addressed. The ball is in your court.
First sentence is better phrased:
1. I think what you might be saying in para. 1 is that the Church has never suggested that fornicators who contracept aggravate their sin by contraception.
Note also you’re eliding two morally very diverse acts: fornication/adultery and rape. Fornication/adultery is sexual intercourse between two humans who are capable of legal consent and who do so consent. Rape is not sexual intercourse as such, since it is not undertaken by two qualified consenters. “Intercourse” in the case of rape is rather a species of invasion, and the effects of that invasion, short of abortion, can be repelled. Fornication and adultery are in a different moral category. This is a longstanding teaching of the church.
Nick:
You really didn’t offer me any independent evidence, other than your saying-so, that Paul VI had anything other than conjugal sexual relations in mind when he penned Humane Vitae, and that he intended to speak to contraceptive use by fornicating couples.
As I understand Catholic teaching, fornication and marital love-making are two different species of act altogether, morally speaking. One cannot give oneself completely to another in an act of fornication; one is already holding oneself back (i.e., not truly committing oneself to the other), and when he contracepts is not withholding from the other what he himself is supposed to (life-giving potential). When we being sacramental theology into the picture, we just aggravate the difficulties: what on earth is the theo-logic of morally requiring fornicating couples to be “fruitful” in their fornication? Or, for that matter, the *natural* logic? Nature intends that children be brought into existence out of wedlock?
This is something so absurd only a philosopher could think it up. The same goes for your bewilderment as to why a potential fornicator might be encouraged by the physical availability of a condom but not its moral availability. I know this to be the case because I am a flesh-and-blog 26 year-old male who lives in the real world and knows real people. I’m willing to entertain the possibility that my personal intuitions, experiences, and acquaintances are not representative of the human race, but in all my reading on this controversy, I’ve never seen so much as a single iota of testimony from any adulterer or fornicator to the effect that “Catholic guilt” kept him from wearing a condom while engaging in polygamy, fornication, or adultery. Maybe you know differently.
Finally, I’m well aware that rape is in a different moral category from fornication. This just highlights the flaws of an exagerratedly biological understanding of natural law. I don’t think it’s right to assert that fornication and marital conjugation are essentially act of total self-donation, just because the two both involve genital stimulation. I just can’t imagine the good God watching fornication from His Heavenly throne, and being pleased when, just at the moment of climax, the fornicator/adulterer rips off his condom and satisfies himself in his woman. “Well done, good and faithful servant – at lest you transmitted life to your mistress!” C’mon!
Lex,
“You really didn’t offer me any independent evidence, other than your saying-so, that Paul VI had anything other than conjugal sexual relations in mind when he penned Humane Vitae, and that he intended to speak to contraceptive use by fornicating couples.”
Neither did you offer any independent evidence for your position! All you relied on was an interpretation of “conjugal act”, which I pointed out can be interpreted in a way which favours my position. This you have not challenged. Where is your independent evidence? Moreover, I pointed out that if HV is to be interpreted as you do so, Para 17 is very mysterious indeed. What could His Holiness be referring to? You have not provided a plausible interpretation of this para. I have.
“As I understand Catholic teaching, fornication and marital love-making are two different species of act altogether, morally speaking. One cannot give oneself completely to another in an act of fornication; one is already holding oneself back (i.e., not truly committing oneself to the other), and when he contracepts is not withholding from the other what he himself is supposed to (life-giving potential). ”
The assumption here is that in fornication, due to the non-marital commitment, one is not “supposed” to give the partner of one’s life-giving potential.
This is, with respect, a simplistic and inaccurate characterization of the true Catholic position. It almost suggests that it is more virtuous (or at least less vicious) for a fornicating couple to contraceive than to refrain from contraception! More generally, it suggests that in a couple that are not fully, maritally, committed to each other, the less their completed sexual acts bear any unitive or procreative significance that are fully manifested in the marital act, the less vicious they are.
There is simply nothing the tradition which supports this. According to traditional Catholic moral theology, in engaging in sex at all, one is bound to to ensure that the sex is with one’s spousal partner, is chaste, and is open to life. Everyone is bound to respect the unitive and procreative goods/meanings in all genital sexual acts they perform, and so (obviously) everyone is bound to ensure that those sexual acts are with one’s spouse. It’s all or nothing. So fornicating couples are failing to meet obligations. They are failing to give their sexual activity its appropriate context by 1. committing maritally to each other, or 2. respecting their current non commitment by totally withdrawing from genital sexual activity.
If for whatever reason, one is directly closing off the unitive or procreative meanings of one’s sexual act, whether it’s with one’s spouse or anyone else, one is gravely sinning. The more, and more directly, one fails to respect those meanings, the more aggravated the evil of the act becomes.
So fornicating couples face this situation: they are bound as everyone else is, to give respect to both the full unitive and procreative meanings of their sex. In acts of simple (non-contracepted) fornication they are violating that precept gravely. In acts of directly contracepted fornication (eg the pill) they are violating it more gravely. In acts of unnatural sex (coitus interruptus, oral sex) especially when carried out for contraceptive reasons, the violations are even more grave, since they are even more distant from the marital act both in its unitive and procreative dimensions.
This is in line with traditional Catholic moral theology, which holds that acts of sexual vice are, other things being equal, worse the more distant they are from the truly marital type of act: (Aquinas in IV Sent. d. 41 a. 4 sol. 3c; see also De Malo q. 15 a. 1c.) This seems to be directly at odds with what you’re suggesting, at least in the case of fornicating couples.
“This is something so absurd only a philosopher could think it up. …. Maybe you know differently.”
Well, I do know differently but it’s not to the point.
I do because I know both personally and anecdotally of several Catholic girls who, tempted into sexual sin, have fallen pregnant because they could not, in cool moments between such temptations, countenance the idea of getting a prescription for the pill, or buying condoms, etc. Not just because that would mean coolly countenancing fornication. But also coolly countenancing contraceptive fornication. That is to their credit. And, equally to their immense credit, is that they refused to use “back-up” contraception (douching, etc) and/or abortion, to conceal their acts, because of their ongoing commitment to pro-life principles. I also know personally some males in the same position. (It’s easier to know about the girls, since pregnancy and motherhood are obvious, but fatherhood is not.) Had these girls thought that contraceptive manipulations of sex did not aggravate the evil of their acts of passion, because these acts were extra-marital, I’ve no doubt they would have been more open to attempting in-the-moment contraceptive measures. Not being a totally ivory-towered stone-frigid philosopher myself, I can well imagine myself taking analogous steps in the situation.
But in the end, this is not to the point. The point is that, whether you agree with him (and me) or not, in Para 17 Pope Paul VI seems to be suggesting that if the rule in HV is not adhered to and artificial contraception is available, people will be more tempted to adultery and other forms of sexual immorality. The blindingly obvious interpretation of this is that if people don’t have any moral qualms about contraception, they will be all the more tempted to adultery and fornication – since (as again seems obvious) it’s more hassle-free. If you think the Pope is not saying this, but saying something in accord with your “contraception is morally sinful within marriage but morally insignificant in extra-marital sex” interpretation, PLEASE PROVIDE A STRAIGHTFORWARD INTERPRETATION OF HV PARA 17. I apologise for the caps, but this is a crucial point about the hermeneutics of Humanae Vitae which you don’t seem to grasp, yet which is relevant to the central point of your thesis.
“I just can’t imagine the good God watching fornication from His Heavenly throne, and being pleased when, just at the moment of climax, the fornicator/adulterer rips off his condom and satisfies himself in his woman. “Well done, good and faithful servant – at lest you transmitted life to your mistress!” C’mon!”
And, with St Thomas and the whole tradition, equally I can’t imagine Him saying “Well done, good and faithful servant – at least you have chosen an act which is yet more distant from the beautiful, incredible marital act I have gifted mankind with than some other perversions.”
Nick:
It seems very obvious to me that HV 17 is referring to how easier fornication and extramarital infidelity are when one has physical access to contraception.
I also don’t think you’ve made the counterintuitive case that the Church has ever taught that fornication and adultery need to be “life-giving” as if these acts by their very nature are intended to be. Of course they aren’t, since they are per se unnatural.
“This is in line with traditional Catholic moral theology, which holds that acts of sexual vice are, other things being equal, worse the more distant they are from the truly marital type of act: (Aquinas in IV Sent. d. 41 a. 4 sol. 3c; see also De Malo q. 15 a. 1c.) This seems to be directly at odds with what you’re suggesting, at least in the case of fornicating couples.”
Don’t confuse “what Aquinas says” with “the traditional teaching of the Church.” Aquinas has (and rightly, IMO) been accused of sometimes degenerating in an overly biological understanding of natural law, and I know it is very common to interpret him as teaching, for example, that masturbation is a graver sin than either incest or rape (and, presumably, pedophilia and sodomy–even beastiality?), since masturbation bears less physical resemblance to these types of acts.
I don’t know that “the Church” has endorsed this understanding of natural law, and don’t think Paul VI has it in mind.
“It seems very obvious to me that HV 17 is referring to how easier fornication and extramarital infidelity are when one has physical access to contraception.”
No doubt they are, but that’s not what HV 17 is on about: it’s considering, in the light of the Church teaching, the consequences of the methods of contraception and the reasons given for them. If the Church’s teaching were, as you maintain, that contraception is forbidden in marriage but does not aggravate the evil of extra marital acts, doesn’t this already tempt one toward marital infidelity and extra-marital acts?
X is a husband who believes contraception to be immoral for married couples but doesn’t aggravate the evil of adulterous acts. X and his wife practice periodic continence, but X finds this difficult and is tempted to infidelity. How does the Church’s (supposed) teaching help X to maintain fidelity, given that he can cover up his infidelity with contraception and not feel added guilt about that?
Y is a young unmarried person who is tempted to pre-marital sex. How does the purported teaching encourage him to resist that temptation, when it doesn’t even apply to his situation?
On the other hand if the Church’s teaching is that direct contraception is always wrong it’s clearly a bulwark for believing though struggling Catholics such as X and Y in times when they’re tempted to adultery or fornication. Rejection of that teaching would ease the way for infidelity and temptations for young people.
“I also don’t think you’ve made the counterintuitive case that the Church has ever taught that fornication and adultery need to be “life-giving” as if these acts by their very nature are intended to be. Of course they aren’t, since they are per se unnatural.”
Well, of course you can’t directly quote me saying that “fornication and adultery need to be “lifegiving”. It’s not that I “need” to make my fornication “life-giving”. My point, as ever, is that if I make my fornication also anti-procreative-because-contraceptive, it aggravates the evil of the act. I never have an obligation or need to commit less vicious acts rather than more vicious ones. I have an obligation to cease them altogether and replace them with virtuous acts. This in no way is incompatible an objective classification of some acts as more or less vicious than others, something that Aquinas and the whole tradition has understood.
You might like to consider in this vein Persona Humana’s (1975) argument against the morality of sex before marriage, compared with marriage and conjugal love:
“Most often, in fact, premarital relations exclude the possibility of children. What is represented to be conjugal love is not able, as it absolutely should be, to develop into paternal and maternal love. Or, if it does happen to do so, this will be to the detriment of the children, who will be deprived of the stable environment in which they ought to develop in order to find in it the way and the means of their insertion into society as a whole.”
Clearly there are two evil possibilities being listed. 1. Exclusion by the fornicators of the possibility of children (by contraception, the implication being.) in the acts they are “representing” as conjugal love. 2. The intent to have children through their act, but outside the stable environment of marriage.
PH clearly considers the first to be the greater evil of the two, since paternal and maternal love are not able at all (because of contraception) to develop. If the fornicators have children – the second option – the children will nevertheless suffer insofar as they lack the required marital framework in which to live and flourish. There is less evil in this fornication-open-to-life, since that evil consists of merely depriving the issue of what is due to them, rather than precluding their possibility of existence.
In no way is Persona Humana implying that fornicators have an obligation or need to commit what it clearly sees as the lesser of two evil acts: non-contraceptive fornication. But this doesn’t stop it from implying that the intention to exclude the possibility of children by fornicators is more gravely evil than the having children outside of marriage.
Incidentally, if you are after some confirmation, independent of what I think is a direct corollary of Humanae Vitae, that the exclusion of the possibility of children in extra-marital relations via contraception (what else could it be?) is an evil because (among other things) of its failure to respect the procreative good, then I offer here this passage (above cited) from PH.
“Don’t confuse “what Aquinas says” with “the traditional teaching of the Church.” Aquinas has (and rightly, IMO) been accused of sometimes degenerating in an overly biological understanding of natural law, and I know it is very common to interpret him as teaching, for example, that masturbation is a graver sin than either incest or rape (and, presumably, pedophilia and sodomy–even bestiality?), since masturbation bears less physical resemblance to these types of acts.”
1. Most of those I’m aware of who have made this accusation of Aquinas’ “biologism” – Curran, Keenan, O’Connell, Fuchs, dissent from Church teaching on contraception, abortion, etc, anyway. I don’t place much store by their words, frankly.
2. Aquinas lists masturbation as one of the unnatural vices. (S Th II II Q 154 Art 12). In fact it’s the “lightest” of them. Bestiality is the gravest.
As a group he rates these vices as graver than incest and in fact all other vices of lust. He states they are more grave than the act of rape (of a woman) as they involve a direct offence against God. But by his own reasoning homosexual rape would be graver than any of the unnatural vices simply considered. Moreover, the more violent a rape of whatever species, the more seriously wrong it is.
***
I invite you to consider the case I offered above of a man committing coitus interruptus (clearly not a conjugal act) with his wife and using back-up contraception. On my interpretation of HV, their back-up contraception aggravates the evil of the act. On yours it doesn’t, since it’s not a conjugal act and HV is only referring to contraception in the context of the conjugal act. This seems a bizarre result.
PH does not imply that fornication is a lesser sin when it is “open to life.” You really haven’t addressed my substantive points, you’re simply retreating into mindless biologism without considering the moral nature of fornication itself, nor the grave evil that is committed in bringing children into existence outside the marital bond, which is the only proper context for procreation.
I encourage you to consider the moral logic of the things you’re saying. Aquinas is simply wrong in his implication that masturbation is a worse sin than heterosexual rape, heterosexual fornication, or heterosexual incest. You try telling THAT to a man who is tempted to fornicate with his girlfriend!
You need to take more seriously the points I raised earlier: Fornication by its very nature is *not* oriented to the procreation and rearing of children, so how on earth is a couple “frustrating God’s design” when employing contraception in an action that is *not* by its very nature oriented to the rearing of children. One might as well argue that a man who has begin masturbating is better off “finishing up” inside his girlfriend, as, I suppose, should a couple that is “grinding”. You don’t see the absurdity in this?! A non-married couple is “grinding,” one or both partners in the middle of it begin to repent — I guess what they ought to do is get naked and “finish” inside each other! That’s the lesser of the two mortal sins, no?
As to your final scenario, we need to stop treating moral behaviors as if they are algebraic equations, so that employing two methods of contraception in an act is more evil than employing one. A fornicating couple is no better off in God’s eyes employing a condom, than they are employing a condom *and* a disaphragm. Contraceptive sex is contraceptive sex, and fornicators are under no obligation to keep their fornication “open to life.” Such an assertion goes beyond what either reason or revelation tells us.
Also, according to *Aquinas’s* same reasoning (Aquinas’s, not the Church’s) contraception is a greater sin than rape . . .
1. You’ve got to be joking. Does PH imply fornication excluding children is wrong? Yes. It says “Most often premarital relations exclude the possibility of children.” Do you think it’s saying this is a good thing? Of course not. It says it is a bad thing: “What is represented to be conjugal love is not able, AS IT ABSOLUTELY SHOULD BE, to develop into paternal and maternal love.” Then it goes on to say: OR IF IT HAPPENS TO DO SO – ie develop into maternal and paternal love (as it absolutely SHOULD) there is still grave moral evil, since even if children are not excluded, they’re not brought up in the appropriate environment. This is patently saying that one situation is less gravely evil than the other.
Besides, without even considering the relative gravity of the evils of contracepted versus uncontracepted fornication, there is this point: HP certainly considers contracepted fornication as gravely evil qua contraception to SOME degree. “Most often premarital relations exclude the possibility of children”. This in itself completely refutes your thesis that the rule against contraception applies only to the conjugal act between married couples.
“I guess what they ought to do is get naked and “finish” inside each other! That’s the lesser of the two mortal sins, no?”
I wonder why you are struggling to hear what I’ve been saying here.
From your persistent propensity to impute propositions to me which I insist are not mine, you seem to have a mental block at accepting the idea that to say one sin is graver than another in a species is not to say or imply that if X is doing the graver, then he’s obligated to stop doing that and start committing the less grave sin. There is no logical, metaphysical or theological justification for this elision. X carrying on with an unnatural completed sexual act with his girlfriend is committing a graver sin than X having natural sex with his girlfriend. But what X is required to do is not commit the grave (though less grave) sin of simple fornication. X is solemnly obligated to stop committing any vicious act altogether. Is it that hard to understand?
“As to your final scenario”…
No, you haven’t grasped it, so let’s do it again. You insisted in your original post that HV applies only to the conjugal act. Coitus Interruptus even between husband and wife is not the conjugal act (neither is condom use, say I, but let’s stick with one all theologians agree with). So, on your thesis, the rule against contraception doesn’t apply to this situation even it’s between spouses. So either you come up with an account that says that HV applies to a broader category of acts than simply instances of the conjugal act. Or you concede that the rule doesn’t apply and that husband and wife can back-up contracept this act with out aggravating the vice therein – which I say is bizarre.
Or you continue to play the man and not the ball and go on about “biologism” …
The problem, Nick, is that you’re imputing the present debate onto a non-existing context. PH does not concern itself with comparing, in gravity, contraceptive fornication with non-contraceptive fornication. It’s point is simply that fornication tends not to be open to the transmission of life, and sexual acts that are not open to the transmission of life are per se disordered; and when it *is* non-contraceptive this is harmful to the conceived children. It doesn’t weigh–much less “clearly”–one against the other.
If Paul VI wanted to apply the doctrine of Humane Vitae to fornicating couples, he would have done so, and not used the very clear wording he did. “Conjugal” never refers to the merely “sexual.”
I’ve also updated the article to reflect some developments documented by America magazine. A convincing case is made that the Church’s traditional teaching is not understood by most bishops or theologians–and not by the Holy Father–to apply to rape, adultery, fornication, or the the use of prophylactics for non-contraceptive purposes.
Lex in original post:
“It has never been the position of the Catholic magisterium, nor Catholic theologians generally, that the use of contraception is intrinsically immoral.”
But Lex on PH ( a document of the magisterium ):
“It’s point is simply that fornication tends not to be open to the transmission of life, and sexual acts that are not open to the transmission of life are per se disordered.”
Welcome aboard!
P.S. and it does weigh the two.
P.S. 2. PH came out with the approval of Paul VI
P.S. 3. What “conjugal” means has never been in dispute.
Nick:
You misunderstand my point: it does not stand to reason that the Church prefers that fornicators not use contraception, or that they aggravate their sin by doing so. Fornication is *not* the proper context for the generation of new human life, so a condom in that context (at least arguably) isn’t frustrating anything.
For the fourth time ( I think ); to say that fornication with contraception is a more grave sin than fornication without contraception is not to say that the Church “prefers” fornicators not to use contraception. The Church requires, not just prefers, that no vice is committed at all.
“So a condom [eg] in that context (at least arguably) isn’t frustrating anything.”
??
Um, why is it there? It’s (usually) to stop/frustrate the transmission of new life. As you rightly say, well paraphrasing PH on why fornication is wrong: “It’s point is simply that fornication tends not to be open to the transmission of life, and sexual acts that are not open to the transmission of life are per se disordered.”
… Or is there some part of this last proposition you want now to retract?
Interestingly I’ve had an email. Here’s the German from the book (via Sandro Magister – assuming he’s correct) of the most bowdlerised part:
Ich würde sagen, wenn ein Prostituierter ein Kondom verwendet, kann das ein erster Akt zu einer Moralisierung sein, ein erstes Stück Verantwortung, um wieder ein Bewusstsein dafür zu entwickeln, dass nicht alles gestattet ist und man nicht alles tun kann, was man will. Aber es ist nicht die eigentliche Art, dem Übel beizukommen.
Here’s a literal translation (via a German-speaking friend) :
“I would say, (Ich würde sagen) if a (male) prostitute uses a condom, that can be the first act towards a moralisation, a first step to responsibility, toward developing a consciousness that not everything is permitted and that one cannot simply do what one wants, when one wants it. But this does not get to the root of the evil. That must really lie in humanising sexuality.”
Here’s the BBC’s translation:
“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals” … !!!
And here’s Sandro Magister’s translation:
“There can be individual cases that are justified”… !!!
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1345667?eng=y
Assuming this is all accurate, I’m starting to feel rather relieved – though still puzzled and highly annoyed that HH would say something so subtle and poorly contextualised, even if true, when he must understand the self-willed obtuseness of the liberal media (including above all, the liberal Catholic media).
Nick:
If you are going to assert that fornicators and rapists aggravate their sins by wearing condoms, then by implication the Church does prefer that rapists not wear them while doing so.
“Um, why is it there? It’s (usually) to stop/frustrate the transmission of new life.”
It’s frustrating a biological consequence, but not necessarily a “natural” one, since the overall act, in its overall context, is not naturally oriented to anything, as fornication is itself unnatural.
“Or is there some part of this last proposition you want now to retract?”
You continue to read way too much into PH that’s there. Fornication is never oriented, certainly not “naturally,” to the generation of new life; contraception just highlights and accentuates the fact, it doesn’t make the act more sinful.
[...] When Contraception Isn’t a Sin « Confessions of a Liberal Traditionalist [...]
Lex,
There are many issues to take up, but I’ll try to stick with one at a time:
“Fornication is never oriented, certainly not “naturally,” to the generation of new life; contraception … it doesn’t make the act more sinful.”
Regardless of whether contraception makes fornication more sinful or not, how, on your account, is fornication sinful in this regard in the first place? I thought your thesis was that, fornication not being a conjugal act, then, according to HV, there are no obligations of the parties involved to respect procreative significances (so it’s not sinful for them to, eg, contraceive) ?
Against the proposition that in fornication (or other non-conjugal acts) it’s not possible to attack procreative goods/disrespect procreative significances, see John Finnis:
“The Christian weighting of the value of procreation, as the value of procreation and education within a *communio personarum*, means that fornication, in which procreation may follow but not within an assured *communio personarum*, involves an inadequate openness to procreation (so understood). Nor can this conclusion be avoided by pointing to the fact that it is easy to exclude the possibility of procreation from fornication. For the choice to exclude the possibility of procreation while engaging in intercourse is always, and in an obvious and unambiguous way (which it requires no Christian weighting of the value of procreation to see), a choice directly and immediately against a basic value.”
John Finnis, “Natural Law and Unnatural Acts”. Heythrop Journal, 4/11, 1970, p. 384.
… A formulation which seems perfectly in line with my reading of PH and also with the principles of (and occasional propositions in) HV, even if, unfortunately, they are not explicated in the latter.
… and just to anticipate any query re rape arising from this argument: rape is not a voluntary engagement in sexual intercourse. Prophylactic measures (except the abortifacient ) are in this circumstance properly construed as defences against, or the removal of the effects of, an invasion.
The Rhonheimer references you link to above do not support your thesis that direct contraception is not an evil outside of conjugal acts. Fr Rhonheimer’s point is that use of a condom during intercourse to prevent the transmission of disease is not an act of direct contraception at all, and that’s why the rule in HV against direct contraception doesn’t apply.
As stated above, Fr R has since acknowledged that he may have been in error in supposing that condomitic intercourse between married couples amounts to a marital act. I and many others think he is. Only a magisterial ruling which stated or implied that that spouses may use condoms during sex for the purpose avoid transmitting disease would vindicate Fr Rhonheimer’s position as stated in your references. The Pope’s recent statement is a million miles from this (notwithstanding some tabloid headlines.)
From Fr R:
“But what of promiscuous people, sexually active homosexuals, and prostitutes? What the Catholic Church teaches them is simply that they should not be promiscuous, but faithful to one single sexual partner; that prostitution is a behaviour which gravely violates human dignity, mainly the dignity of the woman, and therefore should not be engaged in; and that homosexuals, as all other people, are children of God and loved by him as everybody else is, but that they should live in continence like any other unmarried person.
“But if they ignore this teaching, and are at risk from HIV, should they use condoms to prevent infection? The moral norm condemning contraception as intrinsically evil does not apply to these cases. Nor can there be church teaching about this; it would be simply nonsensical to establish moral norms for intrinsically immoral types of behaviour. Should the Church teach that a rapist must never use a condom because otherwise he would additionally to the sin of rape fail to respect ‘mutual and complete personal self-giving and thus violate the Sixth Commandment’? Of course not.”
And again:
“I published my article in The Tablet in Summer 2004 when Cardinal Ratzinger was still the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. As such, he has certainly come to know about my article. Subsequently, I have published several articles on this issue in specialized journals. I suppose that in Rome my publications and the connected discussions have been followed.
“About how the Holy Father came to address this topic and why he did it only now, I do not know. But as has been plausibly argued, the reactions to his remarks on AIDS and condoms during his last Africa trip might have convinced him that things must be clarified, that is, that the Church’s teaching on contraception does not imply a ‘prohibition’ of condom use by people engaged in immoral and high-risk life styles—as e.g. prostitutes—but that such a use might be at least a sign of some responsibility.
“I think what the Pope said is clear and nothing can deduced from it which goes in the direction of weakening Paul VI.’s teaching, in ‘Humanae vitae,’ concerning contraception, or in the direction of advocating the systematic use of condoms as a means for fighting against the AIDS epidemic.”
Doesn’t seem to me either he or the Church consider the use of contraception an mortally aggravating element of rape, fornication, or prostitution.
Fr Rhonheimer:
“The moral norm condemning contraception as intrinsically evil does not apply to these cases.”
Lex:
“Doesn’t seem to me either he or the Church consider the use of contraception an mortally aggravating element of rape, fornication, or prostitution.”
Fr Rhonheimer’s point is that use of condoms to prevent disease doesn’t amount to contraception. That’s why it doesn’t (in his view) apply. As far as I’m aware Fr Rhonheimer has made no statement about contraceptive intentions vis a vis the aggravation of rape, fornication or prostitution. If you can find some, I’d be grateful for references. (Not that it would necessarily alter my opinion. And rape is not voluntary intercourse, so contraception – voluntarily having sex and impeding its procreative significances – is not involved on that account.)
To reiterate: Fr R. may well be right about the use of condoms not amounting to direct contraception. I’ve thought this for many years. What many of us dispute – and what he has since acknowledged is a relevant discussion point – is whether this is the only question to be asked about the morality of condomitic acts of sex.
BTW; prescinding from all other debates: this statement of Fr R’s is patently untrue:
“What the Catholic Church teaches them [promiscuous people, sexually active homosexuals, and prostitutes. Nick] is simply that they should not be promiscuous, but faithful to one single sexual partner.”
There is simply no Church teaching that fornicators or adulterers should not be promiscuous, but faithful to one single sexual partner.
And, bizarrely, it directly contradicts what Fr R himself says within a few lines: “Nor can there be Church teaching about this; it would be simply nonsensical to establish moral norms for intrinsically immoral types of behaviour.” !!
Please correct me if I’ve got this wrong.
He’s only referring to “promiscuous people” in that sentence (not sodomites and prostitutes, as is apparent in the next two sentences which do apply to the latter, and it seems fairly obvious that he has in mind (when writing that sentence) adulterers, and is reiterating the Church’s teaching that they be faithful to their wives. He could have been clearer on that, but given the man’s orthodox credentials it’s certainly what he meant.
An heroic defense, Lex, given that it’s sufficient for an adulterer to have only one “sexual partner”: that being his mistress, not his wife.
But in any case, it’s not at all obvious Fr R is referring to adulterers only when he uses the term “promiscuous people”, since in close context he says “Of course, this last argument does not apply to promiscuous people, because even if condoms do not always work, their use will help to reduce the evil consequences of morally evil behaviour.” – which statement equally applies to the condomitic acts of both adulterers and fornicators.
**********
Can I take this opportunity to note that, on my reading, Fr R. doesn’t understand the rule against contraception in HV to apply only to conjugal acts of intercourse:
“What the Catholic Church has clearly taught to be “intrinsically evil” is a specific kind of human act, defined by Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae, and later included in No. 2370 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as an “action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible”.
“Contraception, as a specific kind of human act, includes two elements: the will to engage in sexual acts and the intention of rendering procreation impossible. A contraceptive act therefore embodies a contraceptive choice. As I put it in an article in the Linacre Quarterly in 1989, “a contraceptive choice is the choice of an act that prevents freely consented performances of sexual intercourse, which are foreseen to have procreative consequences, from having these consequences, and which is a choice made just for this reason.”
Nothing limiting those acts of sexual intercourse to those only which are “conjugal acts” there.
Nick:
Context is always important, including in this case the identity of the speaker. Father R’s point remains valid, even if he defended it awkwardly by an inconsistent use of the phrase “promiscuous people.”
That he understands HV to only apply to conjugal intercourse seems rather obvious from when he says: “Nor can there be Church teaching about this; it would be simply nonsensical to establish moral norms for intrinsically immoral types of behaviour.”
I disagree, Lex, both about the interpretation of Fr R (at least on what is available here) and (if you are correct about his philosophy) about the notion that the absurdness of establishing moral norms for intrinsically immoral types of behaviour precludes categorising intrinsically evil acts as more or less evil:
Fr Rhonheimer’s statement re. intrinsically evil acts is perfectly acceptable if one interprets it along the lines I have in posts above.
A vicious act is, ex hypothesi, one which can never be recommended: it is always to be deplored. The Church would be contradicting herself if she recommended one never-to-be-done act over another.
So, as Fr R says, it’s absurd to require/recommend one intrinsically evil act over another.
But this doesn’t entail that some intrinsically wrong acts aren’t more gravely wrong than others and “ought” to be performed in preference.
Murder with pain may aggravate the evil of simple murder. This doesn’t entail the moral norm/obligation: murder “ought” to be painless.
Contraception may aggravate the evil of fornication. But this doesn’t entail that acts of fornication “ought” to be non-contraceptive.
You disagree because you’re playing the game of “Gotcha!” and are willing to do it even when it makes an otherwise brilliant man patently inconsistent with his own words and beliefs and would impugn his orthodoxy. You’re grasping at straws, Nick.
Also, I don’t deny that there are obviously gradations of evil when it comes to moral acts. I do deny that contracepting while raping a woman aggravates the sin of rape; I can find no logical rationale for thinking such, except for a very vulgar biologism that pays no attention to the real and morally disastrous consequences of one’s acts, focusing solely on the physical similarity between a sin and its virtuous opposite.
Lex,
either Fr R means that the rule against contraception applies outside of conjugal acts, or he doesn’t. I think he doesn’t, and I’ve offered an argument, based on his statements, and logical inferences therefrom. To your replies, I’ve offered rebuttals, based on logic.
You need to attempt to refute my arguments, either with respect to premises or reasoning, not psychologize as to why I might come up with them. I too think Fr R is brilliant. And I certainly don’t doubt his willingness to submit to the magisterium. I just think he’s rather erratic, inconsistent, and sometimes non-intuitive in his thoughts. (Like, er, myself.) Far from impugning his orthodoxy, I’ve credited him for acknowledging he’s prepared to rethink, and submit to the magisterium on contested points. As I said in my very first post: “Fr Rhonheimer has now seen the force of these arguments (without necessarily agreeing with them), has withdrawn from debate, and is awaiting the Holy See’s decision on this specific matter, which, of course, is crucial to the debate.”
Neither do I doubt the orthodoxy of John Finnis. Or yourself, for that matter.
Nick:
Your interpretation of Father R’s words make him inconsistent with himself, and also heterodox. This is absurd, given what is known of the man. That’s all there is to it.
“Also, I don’t deny that there are obviously gradations of evil when it comes to moral acts.”
Well, that’s a start, but what I’m really interested in is this: act X is more evil than act Y. Do you say that it follows that one is morally obligated to perform act Y in preference to act X?
Let’s assume we’re talking about intrinsically evil acts here.
FWIW, I certainly don’t think it follows.
“Your interpretation of Father R’s words make him inconsistent with himself, and also heterodox.”
Nup. Just inconsistent. [The Church, as you've said, hasn't pronounced definitively on the condoms/AIDS issue. So he can't be heterodox.]
It’s happened before.
“Nup. Just inconsistent. It’s happened before.”
In the same freakin’ short essay? C’mon!
And yes, you do make him out to be heterodox, since as you yourself note, it’s “patently untrue” that “what the Catholic Church teaches promiscuous people, sexually active homosexuals, and prostitutes is simply that they should not be promiscuous, but faithful to one single sexual partner.”
“In the same freakin’ short essay?”
No – in the course of human history.
“And yes, you do make him out to be heterodox”
No – just innocently in error as to what the Church teaches, but perfectly willing to bow to Her command, as far as I know.
Not heterodox because heterodoxy normally refers to propositions opposed to promulgated Church teaching. The Church hasn’t pronounced in this area, whereas Fr R. says : the Church teaches …”
If you want to make a distinction between material and formal heterodoxy, then OK I’ll be prepared to say he’s mistakenly ascribing to the Church a teaching She doesn’t hold/hasn’t yet made (“the promiscuous should stick to one sexual partner”), so perhaps materially heterodox, very broadly interpreted. But certainly not formally so.
You have no evidence for your assertion Nick, and it is all the more moronic given that it contradicts what the man says in the very same article. You are in effect accusing the man of heresy, and I won’t tolerate it until you produce corroborating documentation to that effect. You seem to think you know so much about Catholic theology (enough to know that every critic of St Thomas’s biologism is a dissenter), it shouldn’t be too hard for you to track down the man’s email address and ask him for clarification.
Lex – clarification request: which “assertion” are you referring to?
If it’s the assertion beginning “it’s “patently untrue” that “what the Catholic Church teaches promiscuous people “… well, where in the history of Catholic Church teaching is there anything approaching this? (ie. “What the Catholic Church teaches promiscuous people….”). The burden is surely on those who say the Church teaches this to supply the evidence, rather than on those who say the Church hasn’t taught it. Or do I have to produce the whole corpus of Catholic teaching to show it’s not present?
In any case, this is a diversion from the more important issues we’re discussing. Even though it strikes me as a weird kind of terminological lapse in one normally so careful as the brilliant Fr R, I’m prepared to concede, for argument’s sake, that Fr R meant precisely “adulterers” when he said “promiscuous people”, and, ergo, that by being faithful, he meant: being faithful to one’s wife, even if for many adulterers that means, not being faithful to your current sexual partner, but actually dropping one sexual partner and taking up with another.
So, where does that leave things?
It leaves Fr R saying something I totally accept: “It would be simply nonsensical to establish moral norms for intrinsically immoral types of behaviour.” Do you understand why this is so? It’s because it’s opposite involves a contradiction. An intrinsically immoral type of behaviour is: something that is never morally permissible. So for the Church to say “Those engaged in non-marital sex should do so in a way that prevents the spread of STDs” is to prescribe: “Those who engage in non-marital sex should engage in such and such an act, which is never morally permissible.” Fr R, to his credit, perceives the nonsense of that kind of reasoning.
I’m with Fr R there. But of course, I’m not with the proposition that for Fr R to say this is to imply that as you say Lex – clarification request: which “assertion” are you referring to?
If it’s the assertion beginning “it’s “patently untrue” that “what the Catholic Church teaches promiscuous people “… well, where in the history of Catholic Church teaching is there anything approaching this? (ie. “What the Catholic Church teaches promiscuous people….”). The burden is surely on those who say the Church teaches this to supply the evidence, rather than on those who say the Church hasn’t taught it. Or do I have to produce the whole corpus of Catholic teaching to show it’s not present?
In any case, this is a diversion from the more important issues we’re discussing. Even though it strikes me as a weird kind of terminological lapse in one normally so careful as the brilliant Fr R, I’m prepared to concede, for argument’s sake, that Fr R meant precisely “adulterers” when he said “promiscuous people”, and, ergo, that by “being faithful”, he meant: being faithful to one’s wife, even if for many adulterers that means, not being faithful to your current sexual partner (your mistress), but actually dropping one sexual partner (your mistress) and taking up with another (your wife).
So, where does that leave things?
It leaves Fr R saying something I totally accept: “It would be simply nonsensical to establish moral norms for intrinsically immoral types of behaviour.” Do you understand why this is so? Your previous statements insisting that I’m recommending vicious acts impell me to spell it out more clearly.
It’s because its opposite involves a contradiction. An intrinsically immoral type of behaviour is: something that is never morally permissible. So, for the Church to say “Those engaged in non-marital sex should do so in a way that prevents the spread of STDs” is to prescribe: “Those who engage in non-marital sex SHOULD engage in such and such an act, WHICH IS NEVER MORALLY PERMISSIBLE.”
Fr R, to his credit, perceives the nonsense of that kind of reasoning.
I’m with Fr R there. But of course, I’m not with the proposition that for Fr R to say this is to imply, as you say (@ 7:24:09: “That he understands HV to only apply to conjugal intercourse seems rather obvious from when he says: “Nor can there be Church teaching about this; it would be simply nonsensical to establish moral norms for intrinsically immoral types of behaviour.” To reiterate what I’ve said in the previous para. above: all he’s saying there—as far as I can tell—is something that applies to ALL intrinsically moral acts : namely, that even though vicious act A be more gravely so than vicious act B, the Church doesn’t and can’t sensibly establish a “MORAL NORM” here: eg, something like : “Act B SHOULD be performed in preference to act A.” That doesn’t mean that one can’t say: that act B is more gravely vicious than act A (which proposition you agree with in principle @ 8:09:22).
I have an important disagreement with Fr. R’s 2004 Tablet article. He has in there failed to address the question as to whether, regardless of whether there is contraceptive intent or not, a condomistic act can be a marital act. As I say, he now acknowledges this to be an important question.
But with regards to your original post: Fr R’s position (2004 Tablet article) is irrelevant.
Your contention is, crudely, that the rule in HV does not apply outside marriage, so that’s why it’s OK to use condoms outside marriage to prevent the transmission of STDs.
Fr R’s thesis is that, notwithstanding the rule in HV on contraception (however widely it applies), the use of condoms during intercourse precisely for the purpose of preventing STD transmission is justifiable on the Principle of Double Effect as not directly contraceptive. These are fundamentally different platforms of justification: even if, contra you, Fr R were to hold (and I’ve never seen that he doesn’t) that the rule in HV applies beyond conjugal acts, his justification for condom use, if valid, would still hold. So why you seem to be citing Fr R’s thesis in support of your own position is a total mystery to me.
Apologies for mispost, Lex, et al (?!) this is the definitive edition of my last post:
****************
Lex – clarification request: which “assertion” are you referring to?
If it’s the assertion beginning “it’s “patently untrue” that “what the Catholic Church teaches promiscuous people “… well, where in the history of Catholic Church teaching is there anything approaching this? (ie. “What the Catholic Church teaches promiscuous people….”). The burden is surely on those who say the Church teaches this to supply the evidence, rather than on those who say the Church hasn’t taught it. Or do I have to produce the whole corpus of Catholic teaching to show it’s not present?
In any case, this is a diversion from the more important issues we’re discussing. Even though it strikes me as a weird kind of terminological lapse in one normally so careful as the brilliant Fr R, I’m prepared to concede, for argument’s sake, that Fr R meant precisely “adulterers” when he said “promiscuous people”, and, ergo, that by “being faithful”, he meant: being faithful to one’s wife, even if for many adulterers that means, not being faithful to your current sexual partner (your mistress), but actually dropping one sexual partner (your mistress) and taking up with another (your wife).
So, where does that leave things?
It leaves Fr R saying something I totally accept: “It would be simply nonsensical to establish moral norms for intrinsically immoral types of behaviour.” Do you understand why this is so? Your previous statements insisting that I’m recommending vicious acts impell me to spell it out more clearly.
It’s because its opposite involves a contradiction. An intrinsically immoral type of behaviour is: something that is never morally permissible. So, for the Church to say “Those engaged in non-marital sex should do so in a way that prevents the spread of STDs” is to prescribe: “Those who engage in non-marital sex SHOULD engage in such and such an act, WHICH IS NEVER MORALLY PERMISSIBLE.”
Fr R, to his credit, perceives the nonsense of that kind of reasoning.
I’m with Fr R there. But of course, I’m not with the proposition that for Fr R to say this is to imply, as you say (@ 7:24:09: “That he understands HV to only apply to conjugal intercourse seems rather obvious from when he says: “Nor can there be Church teaching about this; it would be simply nonsensical to establish moral norms for intrinsically immoral types of behaviour.” To reiterate what I’ve said in the previous para. above: all he’s saying there—as far as I can tell—is something that applies to ALL intrinsically moral acts : namely, that even though vicious act A be more gravely so than vicious act B, the Church doesn’t and can’t sensibly establish a “MORAL NORM” here: eg, something like : “Act B SHOULD be performed in preference to act A.” That doesn’t mean that one can’t say: that act B is more gravely vicious than act A (which proposition you agree with in principle @ 8:09:22).
I have an important disagreement with Fr. R’s 2004 Tablet article. He has in there failed to address the question as to whether, regardless of whether there is contraceptive intent or not, a condomistic act can be a marital act. As I say, he now acknowledges this to be an important question.
But with regards to your original post: Fr R’s position is irrelevant. Your contention is that the rule in HV does not apply outside marriage, so that’s why it’s OK to use condoms outside marriage to prevent the transmission of STDs. Fr R’s thesis is that use of condoms during intercourse precisely for the purpose of preventing STD transmission is justifiable on the Principle of Double Effect. These are fundamentally different platforms of justification. So why you seem to be citing Fr R’s thesis in support of your own position is a total mystery to me.
Actually, I would be grateful if both posts were left, as there are additions/ qualifications in the former toward the end which clarify my thoughts in the latter post.
Cheers.
In Casti Connubii (n. 55), Pope Pius XI quotes Saint Augustine’s work “De Conjugiis Adulterinis” which is often translated as “On Adulterous Unions.” So here is an example of a use of the word conjugale (in one of its many forms) to refer to sexual intercourse other than in marriage, as is necessarily implied by the term “adulterous”.
And the quote has Saint Augustine condemning contraception, even within marriage: “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented.” This implies that contraception is immoral outside of marriage as well.
I’m not sure how you derive that interpretation, Ronconte. Saint Augustine is simply saying that sexual intercourse with one’s wife is sinful when it is deliberately contraceptive.
You are ignoring my first point, that the word conjugiis is used with a meaning other than marital intercourse. This usage refutes your claim that the word refers “always and everywhere to relations between married persons”. The root of the word means to join, and the ‘con’ prefix gives it the meaning of joining together. The term is a discrete way of referring to sexual union, often used of marital sexual union, but not exclusively so. And the Vatican translators of HV obviously disagree with you, since they did not translate that word always and everywhere as marital relations.
Augustine says ‘even’ with one’s wife, thereby implying that it is immoral to use contraception with sexual relations in general, and even in the specific case of marriage. The phrasing ‘even with one’s legitimate wife’ cannot possibly mean ‘only’ with one’s wife. And Pope Pius quotes Augustine on this point without disagreement, correction, or qualification.
This issue is a murky one in Catholic theology. Even those on the right concede that the Church has not officially ruled on the question of contraceptive use outside of marriage (adultery/fornication). However common sense will say that fornicators should take some precautions during their sin to ensure that a future child does not come to fruition because of their lust.
The traditional view is that contraception makes the sexual act unnatural & the sins against nature go to the top of the list in the species of lust. However the overall sin of fornication has other factors besides lust to take into account.
St Thomas Aquinas saw fornication as the third worst sin because of the harm (out of wedlock birth) that could come to the future child. When fornicators use contraception, they at least try to mitigate the evil of transmitting life outside of marriage. In the Creator’s design life should only be transmitted in marriage.
Hence fornicators who use contraception are less culpable in terms of mortal sin then fornicators who do not since they try to mitigate the very evil assigned to the sin of fornication by the Angelic Doctor.
[...] When Contraception Isn’t a Sin November 2010 48 comments and 1 Like on WordPress.com, 5 [...]