When Pope Benedict in 2009 flew to Africa, he was asked about his views on HIV/Aids. He outlined the Church’s concern for those infected by the disease and affected by it. He pointed out the great work Catholic institutions and agencies are doing worldwide in addressing the myriad problems created by HIV/Aids.
We echo the Holy Father’s sentiments this week when we look at four different Catholic organisations engaged in HIV/Aids-related initiatives. These organisations are representative of all the remarkable contributions by Catholic bodies in areas such as palliative care, social upliftment, home-care, administration of medicines, protection and care of Aids orphan, research and advocacy, and so on.
When the pope had outlined that great work, he raised the thorny subject of condoms, presumably in acknowledgement of the fact that no survey of HIV/Aids is complete without discussing the means of prevention. While the Church has yet to arrive at a teaching governing the use of condoms as a means of preventing infection, Pope Benedict stated his view that the distribution of prophylactics can be counterproductive in restricting the spread of HIV, because their use encourages irresponsible sexual behaviour. The criticism he received for that was as excessive as the pope’s response was too brief.
When Catholics are calling for a modification of sexual behaviour, they are offering the best solution to the HIV problem. Those most at risk of spreading the virus must change their behaviour, and those not yet at risk must not adopt dangerous practices. This requires a social and cultural shift that redefines attitudes towards sexuality and gender.
That transformation must also include the social, economic and sexual empowerment of women, who in most of Africa are most at risk of infection, but often not due to their free decisions. The notion that HIV/Aids is invariably a consequence of immoral conduct must be robustly challenged. Sexual activity is not always a question of choice.
Our sexual culture, in which even rape is trivialised and in which many women have no autonomy over their own sexuality, will not conquer the virus. Sexuality in South Africa is not always well understood, partly because the subject is not talked about openly enough.
For example, many young South Africans believe that only vaginal intercourse constitutes sex. So when they are asked whether they abstain from sex, they might well say that they do, even if they engage in other dangerous sexual practices.
The Church’s message must be shaped to address people in the realities they live in. It cannot be conveyed in generalities (never mind platitudes), and it must not patronise.
In terms of prevention, behavioural modification is a long-term project. Individuals may well take heed of the imperative of sexual responsibility now, but they are the pioneers. The task of cultural modification must be taken seriously now, and a determined effort be made to make sexual responsibility a prevailing cultural trait in all of our diverse societies. But we must acknowledge that this will take time.
The more immediate challenges concern the elimination of the stigma of Aids and the associated reluctance to be tested for HIV. Destigmatisation of Aids will diminish resistance to HIV-testing and the often attendant denial of a distressing result. With greater openness to testing and acceptance of HIV-positive results, sexual behaviour should be more widely amended to prevent the spread of the virus.
But there is another danger South Africa faces: a rising indifference towards Aids-related discourse. Much as the subject is unpleasant, frustrating and even unexciting, we must not allow ourselves to be overcome by Aids-fatigue.
Aids will define the future of Southern Africa, our continent and much of the world. Aids is everybody’s business. We must talk about it.
“While the Church has yet to arrive at a teaching governing the use of condoms as a means of preventing infection…” – this is a false statement. The Church has always taught that artificial contraception is wrong. It is wrong because it violates the Divinely ordained purpose of sex. The Church’s moral teaching is based on the natural Law, knowable to all people through the light of reason. Short of the natural Law changing (which is impossible, since human nature does not change), the Church’s teaching likewise will not change.
Deneys, moral theology teaches us that the condom ceases to be an instrument of contraception when being employed as means towards another, unrelated outcome. It can be compared to the pencil, which is a writing instrument when I use it to write something on a piece of paper, but is a weapon when I use it to stab you.
Accordingly, invoking the ban on condoms as a contraceptive device when discussing the prevention of transmission of a lethal virus is entirely besides the point.
Pope Benedict has just confirmed that, in his view, there are certain circumstances where condoms might be employed to prevent the transmission of AIDS. He certainly would not agree with your view that my observation is a “false statement”. But, of course, you are free, in this instance, to disagree with the pope (as one of my learned friends probably is preparing to as we speak).
Dear Mr Simmermacher
I don’t know what moral theology you refer to, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as and end or as a means, to render procreation impossible, is intrinsically evil” (2370) Since condoms always render procreation impossible, their use is intrinsically evil, regardless of any other consequences the may have, good or not, such as preventing the transmission of diseases.
Lastly, lest you fall into the same trap as the secular media have, please be aware that Pope Benedict also said that condoms are “neither a moral nor real solution”. If condoms are not a real solution, what kind of solution could they ever be?
Without in any way presuming to elucidate the Holy Father’s thinking or to exhaust a complex subject, I would like to pick up what Günther has said in his response to Deneys.
In words (and circumstances) which are not an expression of the Magisterium, the Holy Father, while re-affirming that the use of condoms is neither a real nor a moral solution to the problems thrown up by HIV/AIDS, said (inter alia):-
“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute* uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.” (chapter 11 of the English-language edition of “Light of the World”, published yesterday)
*The authoritative German text has “ein Prostituierter”, but the Vatican Press Office has now reported that the individual’s sex is not material in the Holy Father’s thinking.
***
The Church has no “teaching” on condoms as such. What she has is a fully-developed doctrine of marriage and of the correct use of human sexuality – none of which has been disturbed or modified by the Holy Father.
Deneys’ assertion that “artificial contraception is wrong” mis-states the Church’s teaching in, for example, “Humanae vitae” n.15 where “therapeutic means considered necessary to cure organic diseases” are permitted even where they have a foreseeable contraceptive effect, “provided that this contraceptive effect is not directly intended . . “.
Whether this double-effect principle does or can apply to the use of condoms by married couples one of whom is HIV positive, is not the subject of the Holy Father’s recent remarks. All he has drawn attention to is a scenario in which someone with HIV and indulging in disordered sexual behaviour might (praise be to God) begin to recognise that it has moral implications and take at least the first steps towards accommodating that fact.
The publication of these remarks in the form in which they have been published constitutes an innovative and courageous way of unblocking (at least in part) the unfortunate stale-mate within Catholic moral/ pastoral theology that seemed to have become entrenched as a result of the inconclusive report lodged in 2006 by the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care on the use of condoms in the context of the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
Media reaction to the Holy Father’s remarks has been unhelpful – not to say chaotic – so far. We must be patient while the implications of the Holy Father’s remarks are studied by pastors and theologians. Meanwhile, there is an entire book now available which gives an exceptional opportunity for us to discover the warmth, humility, pastoral sensitivity and generosity of heart which humanise the towering intellect of this successor of Peter.
Dear Mr Keenan
Humane Vitae no. 15 is referring to medical procedures that might cause the unintended effect of rendering a person incapable of procreating, not to artificial contraception used in sexual relations. That is why Catechism, quoting Humane Vitae, says “Every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as and end or as a means, to render procreation impossible, is intrinsically evil”.
God Bless
Whatever the merits and problems of Humanae vitae, the fact that pope Paul VI only spoke about the conjugal act should make it clear that what falls outside of this scope is not covered by Humanae vitae. Therefore, the alleged morality or immorality of whatever (contra-ceptive or contra-infective) sex outside of marriage cannot be decided by referring to Humanae vitae and the claim it introduced on the connection willed by God between the two significances of the conjugal act, unity and procreation.
Also pope Benedict XVI – for better or for worse – as many other people in the Church have done before him, uses the room left open by Humanae vitae to voice his opinion on the gradations according to circumstances and intentions of im/morality with regard to non-marital sex. Given the reality of this kind of sex and the directly related risks of sexually transmitted infections, it is really worthwhile to employ enlighted reason (which IS natural law) to unpack the issues at stake, including those related to gender and power.
Unfortunately, this turns out to be a long and winding road, because once invoked, the light of reason cannot be kept away from illuminating the underlying questions on the humane width of sexuality and our responsible freedom (according to Vatican II the very definition of human dignity) to learn how to set out for its flourishing, deal with its growth and object to its commodification and abuse.
Deneys, I am not a medical man, but, as I understand it, birth control pills (since they regulate hormonal activity) are sometimes prescribed to correct, for example, dysfunction of the ovaries. Such a treatment, although foreseeably preventing conception, would be within HV n.15 if the contraceptive effect was not directly intended and if there was no equivalent alternative treatment available.
CCC 2360-2379 deals with conjugal love in general and does not discuss the manifest exception identified in HV n.15. It might help to compare the official English translation of that part of HV. n.14 which is quoted at CCC 2370:-
“Similarly excluded is any action, which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation – whether as an end or as a means.”
Emphasis on “specifically intended” (the verb in the normative Latin text is “intendat”). If it is specifically intended for medical purposes, and not for the contraceptive effect, it falls within the principle of double effect.
But don’t take my word for it. On 12 September 1958, Venerable Pius XII delivered an address to the 7th Congress of the International Haematological Society. In a passage cited in the notes to HV n. 14 as well as n.15, he first discusses the difference between direct sterilisation (which is prohibited) and indirect sterilisation (which is permitted) and then turns to the question whether birth control pills can be licitly used as treatment for some uterine or ovarian condition. He says the answer depends on the intention of the person:-
“If the woman takes the medication, not with the intention of impeding conception, but exclusively as indicated by medical advice as a necessary remedy for a diseased uterus or other organ, she provokes an indirect sterilisation which can be permitted according to the general principle of actions with a double effect” [my translation from the Spanish text, which is the only version available on the Vatican website]
If there had been any doubt, that quotation comprehensively covers the point.
Dear Martin
Thank you for your research and comments. As you say, this clarifies the situation. I should have been more precise in my wording: contraception directly willed is always wrong. And despite what some may say, the use of condoms always aims directly at the prevention of the transmission of life. Since there is no necessity for two people to have sexual relations, it is impossible to use the principle of double effect if they do have sexual relations. For in order to prevent the transmission of a deadly disease, they only have to abstain. But for the advocates of contraception, this is unthinkable, for to them sex ought to be liberated from the moral order. And although this position is usually hidden behind a multitude of words, it is their true goal
Thank you, Deneys. I just picked up the reference in the footnotes to the passages in HV that we had been commenting on.
If I may say so, your statement about condoms is insufficiently precise. In the case of sex between men (the very situation envisaged by the Holy Father) the use of a condom has no reference to procreation. In that case culpability is not increased if a condom is used, and it is perfectly valid to observe (as the Holy Father does) that the use of a condom there might be viewed in an optimistic way – as indicating some tentative advance in moral awareness.
For my part (like you, and on similar grounds) I cannot see that the principle of double effect applies in the case of a married couple one of whom is infected with HIV/AIDS, but it is clear that the Holy Father has not, in these interviews, disturbed the Church’s teaching on conjugal relations in any way.
Deneys quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as and end or as a means, to render procreation impossible, is intrinsically evil” (2370)
I wonder how this applies to “natural” contraception, an aspect of Natural Family Planning endorsed, I think, by Humanae Vitae. If a sacramentally married heterosexual couple scientifically measure the woman’s ovulation cycle, and use the gathered data to time their sex to coincide with the woman’s peak fertility, the couple’s intention being to have sex which is both unitive and procreative, then all is well and good in fulfilling CCC 2370.
But what of the sacramentally married couple who have 15 children, and for reasons of their own (perhaps matters fiscal, or the health of the mother) decide to use the scientifically gathered ovulation-cycle data to limit their sex only to periods when the woman is infertile (the NFP “pro-life” lobby assures us that the success rate of avoiding conception using this technique is in excess of 99.9%, better even than the use of condoms alone!) … i.e. their intention is to have sex purely for the unitive purpose, and not for the procreative purpose. Is their intention not of paramount import! Is not their intention undeniably to have contraceptive sex … i.e. to separate the unitive from the procreative!
Is not their action (carefully analyzing cervical mucus, etc, to chart the fertility cycle of the woman) taken in anticipation of the conjugal act (when to time it to ensure it is non-procreative). Is not their act an intentional, directly-willed means and an end to render procreation impossible. And is not their “act” therefore, in the considered opinion of the authors of the CCC, “intrinsically evil”?
Should they not instead be asked to remain celibate for the rest of their married lives … much as is currently expected by our Magisterium of our gay brothers and sisters in Christ. Sex is, after all, only permitted (by the Divine and Natural Law) when it is fully open to the transmission of human life. Or so we are told by our Magisterium.
An alternative might be that enlightened reason – another label for Natural Law (thanks for that beautiful illumination, Jan Jans) – could instead assist the Magisterium in evolving its teaching on human sexuality so that the burden is lightened, the yoke made easier.
“Is their intention not of paramount import!”
No. Intention is of paramount importance in discerning double effect, but not in assessing the comparative morality of artificial birth control vs. NFP.
” . . when there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love . . [etc.]“, Gaudium et spes, n.51 quoted and expanded upon by Ven. John Paul II in Familiaris consortio (1981) 32.
I never yet heard it said that it is either wrong, improper, or immoral for married couples to abstain from sex from time to time. Indeed, periodic continence is encouraged (HV, n.21).
Nor is there any ground for saying that a couple who deliberately abstain from conjugal relations when they know the woman is infertile are performing an “action . . specifically intended to prevent procreation” (HV, n.14). This is a matter of plain language. Marital relations during, and with knowledge of, the infertile period do not “prevent” conception or “obstruct the natural development of the generative process” (see next quote).
“Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception . .. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process.” (HV, n.16; cf Fam. Cons. 28-35 passim, and CCC 2370).
My apologies: the first sentence in the penultimate para. should read:-
“Nor is there any ground for saying that a couple who periodically confine conjugal relations to a time or times when they know the woman is infertile are performing an “action . . specifically intended to prevent procreation” (HV, n.14).”
I might add that knowing (or believing) something will not happen is not equivalent (morally or otherwise) to preventing it from happening.
Thanks for the clarity Martin, it is greatly appreciated!!!
Unfortunately, however, I have to reiterate my questions, for I’m afraid I still see this teaching as through a glass darkly … .
How is taking every precaution to ensure the woman is infertile, and limiting sex to those periods, not actively preventing conception from happening? How is utilizing a highly scientific method, requiring empirical measurements reminiscent of what is conducted in a scientific laboratory, not performing an “action . . specifically intended to prevent procreation”?
How is having sex only during the infertile periods not violating the Divine and Natural Law precepts that every sex act must be fully open to the transmission of human life? (See HV 11: Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.)
And how is the intention to separate the procreative from the unitive aspect of lovemaking not making one culpable of contravening the Divine and Natural Law precepts that the unitive and the procreative aspects of sex may never be separated? (See HV no 12: That teaching, often set forth by the magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.)
I await your elucidation, Martin. For the clarity is, in truth, that of particularly soiled ditchwater at the present moment!
Drop the pose, Vincent. You are not a dispassionate seeker after elucidation.
The only precaution taken is to discover a fact . . acquiring information is not an “action” that “prevents” procreation from taking place. I made that point already. Nor does knowledge of the infertile period, and sexual intercourse during it, “separate” or “break” anything. Contrast the insertion of a diaphragm, the use of a condom, severing the vas deferens, tying up the ovaries or interfering with the woman’s hormones.
Sexual intercourse during the infertile period is expressly conceded in HV n.11 in a passage suppressed from the quotation made from it in the previous post. Recourse to NFP (I use this as shorthand) is permitted precisely because it does nothing to impair or obstruct the natural physiology. Even if the woman is infertile, the sex act remains open to the transmission of life, allowing God to intervene should He wish – as He miraculously did in the case of Sarah and Elizabeth.
For morality as a human enterprise to make any sense, intention is paramount (cf. the role it plays in pope Benedict’s assessment of condoms). Gaudium es spes in nr. 51 very wisely connected the importance of intention with what is also factually done; “not solely” does not exclude intentions or motives but links these to “the nature of the human person and his acts”. In classical language: morality deals with “actus compositus” and the component parts are the formal object (the intention), the material object (what is actually done) and the circumstances and consequences. If there is a proper relation between all of these, we are in the presence of morality. Put in another way: the means must share in the meaning, including how the means are situated in time and space and what they bring about.
When pope Pius XII approved of periodic continence – even for the whole duration of a married life – he did so on the basis of a married couple having serious reasons for not having children. Again the morality is the combination of intention (to remain childless for the serious reasons) and a factual behaviour situated in time and space choosen exactly to realise this intention. At the background lies the definition of contraception given by pope Pius XI: “vitiatur naturae actus” – to vitiate the nature of the act, understood as ejaculation happening in the place provided by nature (this nature itself understood as the result of God’s creative order). Periodic continence did not go against this rule as did the then know methods for spacing births or avoiding conception. When a couple of years later, a method became available that did not rely on tampering with the ‘nature of the act’, some dubbed it “the catholic method”, and on the basis of the position of popes Pius XI and XII, it might have become so. However, since this step could also be constructed as meaning that the Anglicans in 1930 were somehow ‘right’, a new position was forwarded by Humanae vitae: the spouses are not allowed to break on their own initiative the connection between the unitive and proceative significance of intercourse. This position, for which no sources are given, allows at the same time to maintain the permissability of periodic continence, no longer on the basis of it doing nothing against the nature of the act, but because the connection between the two claimed significances is not broken by initiative of the spouses, but by nature, this being again as such designed by God. At the end of the day, the intention of married couples looking for a way to have intercourse without this leading to conception is or can be the same. However, what has happened and still goes on in order to support the claimed moral difference between a method deemed ‘natural’ and the rest, is to induce an ‘anti-life’ intention in those not employing the ‘natural’ method. This then allows of doing away with the need for the light of reason which is trumped by claimed authority and imposed obedience.
At the level of the papal magisterium, intention is not paramount in any recognisable sense of the word “paramount”. Nor is it the case that intention plus awareness of the consequences are sufficient for assessing the morality of any given act (or omission). Ven. John Paiul II deals with precisely this issue in Veritatis splendor (1993) at 77:-
” . . the consideration of these consequences, and also of intentions, is not sufficient for judging the moral quality of a concrete choice. The weighing of the goods and evils foreseeable as the consequence of an action is not an adequate method for determining whether the choice of that concrete kind of behaviour is “according to its species”, or “in itself”, morally good or bad, licit or illicit. The foreseeable consequences are part of those circumstances of the act, which, while capable of lessening the gravity of an evil act, nonetheless cannot alter its moral species.
“Moreover, everyone recognizes the difficulty, or rather the impossibility, of evaluating all the good and evil consequences and effects — defined as pre-moral — of one’s own acts: an exhaustive rational calculation is not possible. How then can one go about establishing proportions which depend on a measuring, the criteria of which remain obscure? How could an absolute obligation be justified on the basis of such debatable calculations?”
In the next paragraph he explains what is required (and why “intention” is not paramount):-
“The morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the “object” rationally chosen by the deliberate will . . The object of the act of willing is in fact a freely chosen kind of behaviour. To the extent that it is in conformity with the order of reason, it is the cause of the goodness of the will; it perfects us morally, and disposes us to recognize our ultimate end in the perfect good, primordial love. By the object of a given moral act, then, one cannot mean a process or an event of the merely physical order, to be assessed on the basis of its ability to bring about a given state of affairs in the outside world . . The reason why a good intention is not itself sufficient, but a correct choice of actions is also needed, is that the human act depends on its object, [i.e.] whether that object is capable or not of being ordered to God, to the One who “alone is good”, and thus brings about the perfection of the person . . As the Patron of moral theologians and confessors teaches [St. Alphonsus Liguori]: ‘It is not enough to do good works; they need to be done well. For our works to be good and perfect, they must be done for the sole purpose of pleasing God’.”
A morality which ignores God’s will is no morality (CCC 1949-1960). HV is grounded in this same principle, the very principle which IS paramount:-
“Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.
“From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator.” (HV 10)
In addition, I had never understood that Casti connubii (1930) prohibited only the sin of Onan, and that Humanae vitae (1968) unilaterally extended the prohibition to all artificial means of contraception.
According to Jan Jans, Pius XI defined contraception in Casti connubii as anything which “vitiated the nature of the act” (apparently taken to mean a physical obstruction or diversion of the proper flow of seminal fluid through the cervix).
There are two problems with this interpretation. In the first place, the Latin phrase “vitiatur naturae actus” does not occur in the passage which contains the basic doctrinal principle enunciated by Pius XI and is, in any event, incorrectly translated by Jan Jans as “vitiate the nature of the act” (the precise phrase is “vitiando naturae actum” which means “frustrating the act of nature” – a euphemism for sexual intercourse).
In the second place, a serene and not a prejudiced reading of Casti connubii (54-56) and Humanae vitae (11, 12) will disclose that they enunciate the same fundamental principle – even down to verbal similarities.
***
The fundamental hostility of Jan Jans to the papal magisterium is manifest in the unjust and baseless claim that Humanae vitae was primarily motivated by a reluctance to admit that the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930 had been prioritised by the Holy Spirit.
It is also manifested in the cheap Parthian shot that the Church’s teaching is irrational and rests on “claimed authority” and “imposed obedience”.
The relevant authority was rightly claimed by Our Lord and deputed to the Apostles under the headship of Peter (Mt.10:40, 28:18-20; Lk.10:22; Jn.16:12-15, 21:15-17, etc.). The relevant obedience is the obedience we owe to God.
If Jan Jans wants to use a Catholic website to disparage the claims of the Catholic Church, it would be more frank to make this animosity clear at the outset.
Your professional insights are most intriguing, Jan Jans. I had a look at the CCC to see what it says about the morality of human acts, and was delighted (but hardly surprised) to find that the morality of human acts is said to depend on the object chosen, the end in view (also called the intention), and the circumstances of the action – exactly as you have explained!
This causes me to wonder about what CCC 2370 is really saying: “every action which … proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible, is intrinsically evil”. Is the “end” spoken of here not precisely the intention? Is 2370 not saying that what is intrinsically evil is precisely every action which has as its intention the rendering of procreation impossible! This would be consistent with Martin’s quote from HV no 14, which speaks of performing an “action … specifically intended to prevent procreation”. Here, the intention of the action seems to be what is of paramount import. And we should recall what Pope John Paul the Lesser said in Veritatis Splendor no 80, where he spoke of the intrinsic evil of “contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile”. So I have little doubt, in spite of Martin’s protestations, that for the official teaching of the Magisterium, intention lies at the heart of the matter.
Now Martin tries to squirm his way out of the NFP-as-intrinsically-evil-contraceptive conundrum by saying that knowledge is not equivalent to action. I hardly think that anyone would disagree with him – I certainly don’t. I think that I am correct in saying that knowledge is morally neutral – what one’s free will intends or chooses in light of that knowledge is, of course, another matter entirely. I can know that nuclear fission or fusion releases a great deal of energy – but it is only when I use that knowledge with the intention of generating electricity for a city, or with the intention of building a nuclear bomb to destroy a city, that questions of morality (in all their gradations) appear to enter the picture. It is human acts (through the object chosen, the intention behind the action, and the circumstances of the action) that are moral or otherwise, rather than human knowledge.
Martin says that the only precaution taken in the NFP method of contraception is to discover a fact. Of course, this is not true at all. Once the morally-neutral knowledge of when the woman is fertile and when she is infertile (and of when it is difficult to say one way or the other) has been ascertained, the pattern of sexual activity for practitioners of this contraceptive technique is precisely timed to avoid any possibility of procreation … this is the deliberate and calculated action which prevents, and is fully intended to prevent, procreation! Just as it is said that there are many ways to skin a cat, so there are many ways to have sex while intentionally avoiding the possibility of procreation, thereby intentionally separating the unitive dimension of the conjugal act from the procreative … and the NFP contraceptive technique is undoubtedly and undeniably one of them. Here would be an apposite moment to recall that HV no 14 condemns any action “specifically intended to prevent procreation”. As Martin has pointed out, this is a matter of plain language.
To extrapolate further, once precise knowledge of infertile periods is ascertained, there is no longer any excuse for having sex at these infertile times, since such a sex act is knowingly closed to the transmission of human life – anyone who chooses to have sex at such a time is knowingly culpable of violating the stricture heavily imposed in HV no 11: “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life”. There can be no purpose or intention in having sex at such a juncture other than for the unitive aspect alone. One can do the reductio ad absurdum thing and say that for those (foolish?) couples who diligently chart the woman’s fertility cycle, and who (equally-foolishly?) want only two children, they could, if they are particularly scrupulous, time their sex for the most fertile period, and get away with having nasty old sex only twice during their entire marriage! What a stoic possibility!
Martin’s quote from Familiaris Consortio no 32 is completely inappropriate to his argument. What is apparently being said here is that good intentions cannot make an intrinsically evil act (i.e. an act intended to separate the unitive from the procreative) good. What no 32 is not saying is that a bad intention is of no, or minor, relevance to the morality of an act. (Was Martin hoping for this corollary … bad intentions cannot make an intrinsically good act bad? And if so, to what avail? This “corollary” appears to be false … see CCC 1753: “an added bad intention makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good”.)
Martin accuses me of suppressing the endorsement of NFP as a permissible contraceptive as contained in HV. Nothing could be further from the truth – surely Martin is aware that in my first post on this thread I made specific mention of this fact. The very thing that perturbs me is the inconsistency in this encyclical letter, where all actions “specifically intended to prevent procreation” are condemned, but where one of these is suddenly, and irrationally, allowed – an anomaly of monumental proportion!
In summary, the Magisterium currently condemns as intrinsically evil all actions (in the context of sexual intercourse between human beings) specifically intended to prevent procreation. Choosing to chart the woman’s fertility cycle, and then using that knowledge to time one’s sexual activity with the intention of avoiding conception, is undeniably an action intended to prevent procreation. And then we have this extraordinary and irrational volte-face, with the Magisterium anomalously permitting the NFP contraceptive technique. Something appears to be rotten in the state of Denmark!
I was delighted by Martin’s tortuous and decidedly spurious explanation as to how sex even where the woman is infertile (her womb and ovaries being missing thanks to a hysterectomy required to excise cancer, say) remains open to the transmission of life, for in one fell swoop he solves many a conundrum! God can “intervene should he wish – as He miraculously did in the case of Sarah and Elizabeth”! It’s decidedly funny how the possibility of a miracle can be invoked to get those who espouse doctrinal orthodoxy out of a very tight spot. But if Martin is allowed the possibility of a miracle, then so are many others. Well, then, insertion of a diaphragm, the use of a condom, severing the vas deferens, tying up the ovaries or interfering with the woman’s hormones do not close the sex act to the transmission of human life. Neither does sex between two men or two women. For Yahweh just might work a miracle! Thanks be to God.
Nowhere have I suggested that intention is irrelevant. I objected to the idea that it (with or without consequences) is paramount. God’s will is paramount – especially in the area of sexual morality. That is very clear from the passages quoted in my posts. Man is not a social or personal construct, free to shape moral behaviour according to his own lights. He is a creature of God who endowed him with a specific destiny, and no authentic account of morality can be given which omits God’s plan from the calculus.
” . . in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel. That divine law reveals and protects the integral meaning of conjugal love, and impels it toward a truly human fulfillment.” (Gaudium et spes, n.50)
Finally (to draw a line under this unedifying and tedious squabble) at issue is not my alleged (and possibly actual) defects of argumentation. The issue is squarely the coherence of the Church’s teaching on marriage and human sexuality.
There is no internal inconsistency and it is pointless to argue the toss with Dr. Couling on what does or does not constitute an action to prevent (as opposed to “avoid”) conception. He refuses to accept the difference and repudiates the papal magisterium. It is on his own head.
Needless to say, the tired and ideologically-driven attack on HV has nothing do with the editorial and must be considered off-topic.
If you don’t mind me saying so, Martin, you do have a way of veering off-topic yourself on occasion.
Martin, I agree with you that what is at issue is the “coherence of the Church’s teaching on marriage and human sexuality.” Indeed, it is precisely the incoherence in HV that concerns me.
We might do well to remember these words of Pope John XXIII, uttered during his opening address for Vatican II: “The Church considers that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations.”
How has the Magisterium demonstrated the validity of its teaching as presented in HV? We all know what was the majority opinion of the special commission established to perform a thorough review of the issue of birth control in light of contemporary knowledge. Unfortunately, Pope Paul VI ultimately went along with the minority report of his manualist theologians who sat on the commission. And what was the gist of their minority report? Was it a positive and compelling demonstration of the validity of their teaching? Quite the contrary: its primary concern seems to have been with preserving the standing of the Magisterium: “If the Church could err [on this issue], the authority of the ordinary magisterium in moral matters would be thrown into question. The faithful could not put their trust in the magisterium’s presentation of moral teaching, especially in sexual matters.” Perhaps Martin finds the following argument of the minority commission to be compelling: “If we could bring forward arguments which are clear and cogent based on reason alone, it would not be necessary for our commission to exist, nor would the present state of affairs exist in the Church as it is.”
I shall continue to wait in patient expectation for a coherent teaching on marriage and human sexuality.
Veering off-topic, Günther? Blown off-course, more like, when the anti-Humanae Vitae posse start their usual huffing and puffing. I know, I know, I should haul down my topsail and head for harbour, but can I really leave the channel infested by pirates?
Before we get to a more coherent teaching with regard to the bandwith of humane sexuality – which would be a formidable contribution – it might be of some help to know that within the guild of moral theologians, excellent research is going on and being published. Two recent examples: Margaret Farley, Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics (2006) and Todd Salzman and Michael Lawler, The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology (2008). As scholarly books, they require study, not the easy flak “they come to different conclusions compared with what I think church teaching is saying, so they must be wrong, wrong, wrong”. In addition, what makes these books an intellectual and spiritual joy to read is the attitude of self-criticism by which one is challenged not just to read in order to be informed but to acquire knowledge.
A remark with regard to an ongoing misunderstanding on the so-called majority / minority commission & reports. The papal commission in 1966 submitted one final report to pope Paul VI, approved by the vast majority of the members (including some of those who initially were brought in to defend the manualist approach). After this report was made public, another text also appeared which got dubbed in the media as ‘the minority report’. As a matter of fact, it wasn’t the text of a report, but a position paper by a few members arguing in favour of the impossibility to change the Casti Connubii teaching against contraception because this might be explained in such a way that the Spirit was with the Lambeth Conference in 1930, etc. Now, most interestingly, the authors of Humanae vitae did not follow the reasoning of this position paper, but in nr. 12 which is the foundational core of the text, they came with new teaching (and hence there is no footnote to the sources): “This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act” (text from Vatican website). Unfortunately, instead of allowing or even inviting the light of reason to unpack this statement (which could for example lead to the insight that both significances are inherent to marriage as the committed covenant of life and love, and/but that concrete personal intentions and circumstances of the spouses have their impact on how the unitive and the procreative significance are present in discrete sexual acts of marriage), pope Paul VI tried to close a debate by his reference in nr. 28 to the assistance of the Spirit which leads to his claimed imposition of obedience (which, by the way, he himself did not insist upon, just as he clarified that Humanae vitae was not infallible teaching).
Thank you, Professor Jans, for your enlightening clarifications.
Something that would probably be appreciated by most lay Catholics, who like myself are probably mostly too busy with other occupations to take formal courses in Catholic moral theology (how I wish I had the time to squeeze such courses in!) would be some plain talk about contemporary sexual moral issues from our bishops (in their role as pastoral shepherds). A snippet about condoms in the Seewald book causes an international media flurry (and by now such a flurry should be expected by the Vatican media officials), with everyone trying to work out exactly what has been said, and what it means in concrete terms – especially on a continent like ours, where so many people are infected with HIV, and are often infecting others at an alarming rate. What is a married couple to do where one partner is infected? Do our bishops expect them to abstain completely from sex?
Of course, if the HV teaching on the inseparability of the procreative and the unitive in each and every sex act could be made to come down like a badly-built house of cards, then this question probably wouldn’t even be necessary in the first place! Where does this axiom come from? Stoic ideas about every pleasurable act being legitimate only if there is a worthy end? Flawed Aristotelian ideas about the male seed possessing the “form” (the female the “matter”), so that even male masturbation, with the spilling of the seed and the destruction of it’s potentiality for life, is an evil act? This axiom certainly doesn’t seem to come from scripture, or from a rational examination of reproductive biology as understood today.
I have a copy of Salzman & Lawler’s “The sexual person”, and found it very useful in making sense of my own situation – I am a gay Catholic, and probably do make more of a fuss about the official Catholic teaching in this area than is polite, and probably can be accused of having a bit of an “agenda” as regards my efforts to point out perceived incoherence in HV. For where there is incoherence, there remains the possibility of new insights, and an evolution in teaching. I suppose it has to do with loving the Church, feeling a deep sense of belonging to it, of really needing the sacraments, and yet of feeling suspicious of and unconvinced by teachings which declare an objective disorder and which demand a celibate life when the celibate life is not what is discerned as Yahweh’s call. But I also recognize that evolution in moral teaching will necessarily take time, and that lively debate (epsecially among professional theologians, who have the necessary insights to really thrash these issues out) is probably a necessary means of synthesizing the inevitable tensions between thesis and antithesis.
So yes, the Salzman and Lawler book really gave me hope … and then there was the somewhat disappointing but unsurprising move by the doctrine committee of the US Catholic bishops’ conference, who recently “rebuked” Salzman and Lawler for their ideas ( http://ncronline.org/news/us-bishops-rebuke-creighton-theologians ) … same old, same old. And so the roller-coaster ride continues … at one moment feeling enlivened by hope, and then, at the next, finding one’s self feeling overwhelmed by despair. (Actually, I do exaggerate a little, especially about the despair bit … but then I’m not a teenager anymore: I can clearly remember my utter despair when, as a teenager, I first read the CDF’s 1986 “pastoral” letter on the gay thing. It’s funny how that document precipitated a crisis within me, a crisis which eventually resolved itself when, in my 26th year, I had a mystical experience (during a eucharistic prayer, nogal), and discovered my “inner authority”, and entered into a phase of what Fr Charles Curran would probably call “loyal dissent”.)
The topic is vexed enough without new complications arising from a cavalier attitude to the facts.
[1] The “study commission on the problems of population, the family and birth” was advisory, and the Holy Father (who had reserved the issue to himself) was entitled to reject its conclusions. The papal magisterium is exercised by him alone. No doubt many take a hand in preparing texts which the popes sign, but there is one author of Humanae Vitae, and it was Pope Paul VI. It is for that reason alone that it forms part of the papal magisterium.
[2] What about the “vast majority” opposed by “a few members” which forms part of the myth propagated by Jan Jans? The commission comprised 15 members of the hierarchy – of whom perhaps 3 were theologians. These voted 9 to 6 for change. There were 16 “periti” (theologians, all of whom were priests); these voted 12 to 4 for change. Thus far (and ignoring any technical distinction between “members”, “experts” and others), the pastoral and theological component of the commission split 21 to 10 in favour of change.
Since the issue was fundamentally doctrinal (HV 4), the vote of the lay component (30 to 5 for change) was less than compelling.
[Voting figures taken from p. 5 of "Truth and Consequence" issued in 2008 by Catholics for Choice (who oppose Humanae Vitae), as adjusted by reference to wikipedia article "Pontifical Commission on Birth Control"]
[3] In his post of 27 Nov., Jan Jans made it appear that HV was motivated by reluctance to concede that the 1930 Lambeth Conference had beaten the Catholic Church to “the truth” by a generation. Now (post of 29 Nov.) the so-called minority report is said to have relied on this dog-in-a-manger attitude “etc.”. In fact the “minority report” places no substantial reliance on it (although it does feature in the secondary argumentation).
The “minority report” states:- “the truth of this teaching [that artificial contraception is always intrinsically evil] stems from the fact that it has been proposed with such constancy, with such universality, with such obligatory force, always and everywhere, as something to be held and followed by the faithful.” Elsewhere we read:- “The teaching of the Church in this matter is absolutely constant. Until the present century this teaching was peacefully possessed by all other Christians, whether Orthodox or Anglican or Protestant. The Orthodox retain this as common teaching today.”
HV follows the “constant doctrine” of the Church (HV 11, citing Casti connubii and the Allocution to Midwives of 1951) “often expounded by the magisterium of the Church” (HV 12) etc.
Just an invitation to look again and ponder the lack of documentation with regard to the unique ‘teaching’ of HV 12: Scripture, Tradition, Constant Teaching?
No, I don’t get it. What is the problem? The crux is the requirement that every marriage act be open to the transmission of life – or, put negatively, that the capability for the transmission of life be not impaired by the deliberate act of the spouses. That is the doctrine asserted at HV 11. We know that that was, and remains, the constant teaching of the Church. If we didn’t, Casti connubii and the Address to Midwives of 29 October 1951 (cited at footnote 12 to HV 11) show that it was, at least, not “unique” to Pope Paul VI.
In HV 12 Pope Paul develops the reasoning on which that doctrine is based. It may or may not be compelling (and it has the air of a circular argument), but the additional requirement mentioned there (that every marriage act be carried out in furtherance of the union between the spouses) stands to reason, doesn’t it? That’s the precise point Pope Paul VI makes at the start of HV 13.
Doctrinal statements are free-standing, and the supporting argumentation may evolve and change over time. It is the specific vocation of Catholic theologians (not of laymen such as myself) to work out the theoretical underpinning of doctrine. The energies of dissenting theologians had been more usefully employed doing their proper work than in fomenting that spirit of rebellion and resentment which infests some quarters of the Church, as to which the CDF Instruction Donum veritatis (1990) is eloquent.
N.B. There is a discrepancy in the online secondary sources I used for information about the composition of the papal study commission. Some say it was composed of 15 members of the hierarchy, others say 16. The explanation seems to be confusion over whether to include Cardinal Karol Woltyla, Archbishop of Crakow, who was appointed to the commission but did not attend any of its meetings (there may have been a problem in his obtaining permission from the Polish authorities to leave Poland). He was famously opposed to any change in the Church’s teaching and communicated the fact to Pope Paul VI by letter.
If Woltyla is to be included, the split on the commission itself would, therefore, have been 9 in favour of change versus 7 (split between 3 abstentions and 4 opposing).
N.B. There is a discrepancy in the online secondary sources I used for information about the composition of the papal study commission. Some say it was composed of 15 members of the hierarchy, others say 16. The explanation seems to be confusion over whether to include Cardinal Karol Woltyla, Archbishop of Krakow, who was appointed to the commission but did not attend any of its meetings (there may have been a problem in his obtaining permission from the Polish authorities to leave Poland). He was famously opposed to any change in the Church’s teaching and communicated the fact to Pope Paul VI by letter.
If Woltyla is to be included, the split on the commission itself would, therefore, have been 9 in favour of change versus 7 (split between 3 abstentions and 4 opposing).
!!!
As a layman and not really conversant with any pontifications at any point or time, and perhaps I do not know my Bible as well as I should, I would be very interested to see what the Bible, and Jesus specifically, on the subject of human sexuality and the ‘intention’ of the parties to the act of sex. To me, that seems the starting point and, if the teachings there are vague, or open to another interpretation, or even non-presciptive (!) then perhaps the Church finds itself painted into corner after many centuries of antipathy and seemingly downright aggression to this whole idea of the sexual act.
We face a huge social and medical problem in HIV (AIDS), it is mankind’s moral obligation to ensure we act with humanity at all times (surely a core part of Jesus’s message and own acts). Ditch the pride and the arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin I say. Future generations will look at us and rightfully weep.
blush: Wojtyła