Is it true that the Church does not teach that contraception is always wrong? I thought it might be useful to offer the two points of view.
First, we’re defining contraception as any medication or device that is used with the purpose of rendering infertile a potentially fertile act of sex. This definition deliberately excludes the uses of contraceptives for purposes other than rendering the sex act infertile – such as the use of a hormone contraceptive pill to regulate menstruation, or the use of condoms as water balloons. Any other definition introduces irrelevancies.
Here, once again, is the link to Bishop Cullinane’s article claiming that the Church does not have a teaching on contraception outside of marriage (pdf alert).
The Church’s teaching that contraception is wrong concerns sexual intercourse freely entered into between husband and wife. That is the context in which sexual activity finds its meaning, and in which every intended contraceptive action is wrong.
The Church’s teaching on contraception never was about sexual activity outside of marriage. One only has to read Humanae Vitae properly to see that. The Church has no official teaching about contraception outside the context that gives sexual intercourse its meaning. Sexual intercourse outside that context is wrong for other reasons.
In some of those situations, contraception is not necessarily wrong at all; e.g. when contraceptive medication is taken by people in danger of being raped. In such cases, we are not dealing with exceptions to the Church’s teaching, but with situations that fall outside the Church’s teaching on contraception. Those who think this is wrong might ask themselves: how did the Holy Office, under Cardinal Ottaviani in the time of Pope Pius XII, get it so wrong when he confirmed that it was ethical for nuns living in fear of being raped (in the Congo) to take contraceptive measures.
In the case of consensual intercourse outside of marriage (for which the use of condoms is sometimes advocated), the ethical question is not about contraception but about whether the easier availability of condoms will result in greater promiscuity and greater risk of infection. That calls for a prudential judgement, which can vary from one situation to another. It has nothing to do with exceptions to the Church’s teaching; once again it falls outside the context in which contraception is wrong.
And here is a claim that the Church does, indeed, have such a teaching, from E. Christian Brugger, a professor in Ethics at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary.
…whenever a man or woman, married or unmarried, engaging in sexual intercourse, believe they will or might bring into existence a new human life, and consequently adopt any action—before, during, or after intercourse—specifically intended as an end or means to prevent procreation, they violate the procreative significance of sexual intercourse. They contracept. And contraceptive acts in Catholic tradition have always been judged to be intrinsically evil. (The method adopted to render sex sterile is incidental to the application of the norm.)
If contraceptive acts were wrong for married persons, but legitimate for unmarried persons, they would not be wrong per se, would not be intrinsically evil, but circumstantially evil. Although some Catholics hold this, the view seems clearly to be inconsistent with both the Church’s theological and doctrinal traditions.
Doctrinally speaking, John Paul II taught in Veritatis Splendor (1993) that “contraceptive practices” are intrinsically evil, by which he meant that “the choice of this kind of behavior [by which “the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile”] is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the acting person, with his vocation to life with God and to communion with his neighbor” (nos. 52, 80).
He was teaching no more than his predecessor Pope Pius XI taught in Casti Connubii (1930):“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious” (no. 54).
It is true that when Pius XII in his Address to Italian Midwives (1951), Paul VI in Humanae Vitae (no. 12, 14; 1968),and John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio (no. 32; 1981) reformulate the negative norm against contraceptive acts, they do so in the context of discussions of conjugal chastity in marriage. But this is, as I have said, because the Catholic teaching on contraception cannot possibly be understood without an understanding of the nature and goods of marriage. Its consideration therefore should always take place—whether for academic or pastoral purposes—within a wider consideration of marriage.
But not one of their teachings is formulated in such a way as to exclude the application of the norm to non-married couples. Pius XII for example teaches: “Every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral.” But since he is addressing a gathering of Italian midwives, who are delivering babies for married couples, his reference to “husband or wife” makes perfect sense. His statements should not be interpreted as absolutely circumscribing the scope of the negative norm to married persons.
Similarly, when John Paul II teaches in Familiaris Consortio (FC) that the “language” of contraceptive acts between married persons objectively contradicts the language of marital self-giving, he intends to single out the objective harm that these acts do within marriage and to spouses. But since he taught later in Veritatis Splendor that contraceptive acts are intrinsically evil, semper et pro semper, we know he did not intend his teaching in FC to specifically settle the wider question of whether contraceptive acts are legitimate for non-married persons.
If however doubt still lingers as to the scope of the authoritative Catholic teaching on contraception, an appeal to older formulations should dispel it…
Jerry will have a field day with the first paragraph quoted by Brugger, which unfortunately would also condemn periodic abstinence 🙂
One has to smile when Brugger quotes two papal statements explicitly citing “married persons” only to twist them into applying to non married persons.
And Veritatis Splendor does not teach that contraceptive acts are intrinsically evil – it teaches that such acts are evil in marriage. Brugger doesn’t seem to understand that the word conjugal means married.
Brugger’s appeal to “older formulations” misses an important point our hostess recently made – that of the development of Catholic teaching on contraception. For example, prior to Casti Connubi even the rhythm method was widely considered against Catholic teaching.
As the Church explores this issue more deeply, good Bishops like Bp Cullinane are developing the doctrine and applying it more precisely. That’s an important and very welcome improvement.
God Bless
U stole my darn thunder!!
whenever a man or woman, married or unmarried, engaging in sexual intercourse, believe they will or might bring into existence a new human life, and consequently adopt any action—before, during, or after intercourse—specifically intended as an end or means to prevent procreation, they violate the procreative significance of sexual intercourse. They contracept.
So JP…….
I think JP made a convincing case that NFP is not contraception when we argued over it. But Bruggers definition includes NFP*. So his view is problematic from the get-go.
*Yes, yes it does, whether he wants it to or not. Studying the calendar before deciding it is ok to have sex because the wife won’t conceive today comes under the section I put in bold above.
Here’s another example of the development of Catholic teaching on the ends of the marriage act:
Brugger quotes Pope Pius XI who in Casti Connubi taught
But Vatican II changed this, teaching that the marriage act is BOTH for procreation AND for unity and love of the spouses.
This is a sea change in the understanding of marital sexuality which has huge implications for the understanding of contraception which I don’t think the Church has yet grasped. Chris hadn’t, anyway.
God Bless
Yes, I didn’t have that first paragraph in, at first, but I thought it was needed for a full consideration of Brugger’s position. The definition is flawed, in my view. I don’t suppose the Brugger intends to include NFP, so he needs to look at his definition again.
On the other hand, Chris’ dismissal of the broader context of references to contraception is also problematic, I think.
Brugger seems to give little attention to the fact that how we assess an intrinsically wrong act must take into account the context in which it occurs. The example from the Congo cited by Cullinane is a case in point.
And Chris is right to remind us of development in this area. Take a pamphlet about NFP such as are given out at pre-marriage courses and get any Pope prior to the mid 20th century to read it. Many of them would be apoplectic
Yes. I am constitutionally inclined to think the truth is somewhere between the two positions.
What does the Church teach about killing people? (Rhetorical question). No one would seriously argue that the Church doesn’t clearly state that violently ending human life is intrisically evil. But Catholic thought allows for the fact that there are circumstances under which it is licit. — Much the same should be the case with contraception I think. (Though I think hydrogen bombs are worse Andrei). Bp Cullinane gives a good example with his Congo case. I daresday there are valid and less extreme cases, that theologians should explore.
So for my money the answer to your post title question is no — and that within the catholic framework. Chris will agree with at least six corrections, andrei will mention the devil. 😉
I’ll seriously argue. I think you’ve left a word out. The Church clearly states that taking an innocent life is always intrinsically evil. Taking a non-innocent life is sometimes licit (I know Chris will disagree).
But I agree with you regarding contraception; the definition needs to be refined (as I did with the addition of ‘innocent’) to clarify the cases that are covered and the cases that are not.
Chris agrees with Bp Cullinane and the NZ Catholic bishops who teach that contraception is not always wrong.
The moral object of contracepting a genuinely consenting and loving act of marriage is different to the moral object of contracepting fornication, or prostitution, or rape.
Anyone want to argue that fornication, or prostitution, or rape is actually the same as lovemaking in marriage ?
God Bless
This illustrates an important aspect of Catholic moral theology.
The moral object chosen is not fully specified by only considering the mechanics of the act. One also has to consider the relationship of the parties (which is why sex is good in marriage and bad outside marriage) and the proximate intent.
God Bless
Good point
From JP’s definition
Which does not include acts like coitus interruptus. [Interestingly even coitus interruptus was OK in the old moral manuals if done out of modesty when a third party entered the marital bedroom].
A more accurate definition would be Pius XI’s
Or Paul VI’s
Although we would need to exclude actions before like NFP’s timing of intercourse.
The difficulty of even defining what we mean underscores the complexity here.
God Bless
JP’s definition includes
Does that hint that it would be OK to contracept an act at a time when it ought to be infertile but one can’t tell very well because of medical irregularities leading to the difficulty of discerning infertile times ?
I wonder if there could be a development in the teaching this area ?
God Bless
Isn’t all of this just sophistry?
Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Sin1, say
Contraception is a sin – this teaching predates Humanae Vitae and the great schizm by centuries. Sin2 say.
Sin1 + Sin2 ≠ sanctification and/or blessing.
Isn’t the Catholic Churches theology completely academic to you anyway?
I believe in the Church Jerry, Catholic Bishops are, for the most part, Bishops of the Church as are Orthodox and Coptic Bishops.
The difference between your outlook and mine is that Catholicism is far more legalistic and thus gets itself tangled in these webs of sophistry over whether or not contraception is legitimate in some circumstances whereas an Eastern viewpoint might be it isn’t ever not sinful but in the real world people are sinners and fall short of ideals and that that has to be treated by an individual’s confessor on its merits.
I think Andrei makes 4 excellent points about the Church, the Bishops, latin legalism and pastoral solicitude.
God Bless
Jesuitry, perhaps. 🙂
The use of contraception for non-contraceptive purposes is not a sin. We could argue that the use of contraception by nuns in the Congo in case they are raped is non-contraceptive – they do not intend to be raped, and therefore they do not intend to contracept.
If the hormones in contraceptives serve a therapeutic purpose for a given medical condition then taking them as indicated for that condition is clearly not a sin and the contraceptive element is a side effect of a medication.
It does justify your “Congo Nuns”, a story which has an urban legend sense about it i.e. I doubt it actually happened
I meant – It does not justify your “Congo Nuns”, a story which has an urban legend sense about it i.e. I doubt it actually happened.
But even if it did we are all sinners and even Bishops can make mistakes
Jerry, this might interest you: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/01/what-if-catholic-bishops-arent-bluffing/
Well if they did do that: after the whole tussle has come to its conclusion — and I think it overwhelmingly likely that an accomodation will be reached, even if not straight away and in this highly charged political environment, what then?? They would have thrown to wind (counting colonial times) several hundred years of good work built up by American Catholics, wrecked a network of schools and hospitals that would take generations to rebuild.
And when the regulations are changed a couple of electoral cycles down the track… surely they wouldn’t be so stupid.
If they make the choice to do this, it won’t be because of stupidity or obstinancy, but because they sincerely believe that they cannot both comply with the law and save their souls.
Andrei could be right about the Congolese nuns; it has the whiff of an urban legend. If it did happen, it wasn’t Cardinal Olivani, but Cardinal Pietro Palazzini. Without documentary evidence that it really happened, though, we’re free to doubt it.
When looking into this, I found a post by Jimmy Akin that covers some of the same ground we have. http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/05/contraception_e.html
I liked this comment:
1. Sex outside of marriage is forbidden and is sinful.
2. Use of contraception before, during, or after the marital act between married couples is forbidden and is sinful.
3. In regards to use of contraception outside of marriage, see rule number 1.
Ottaviani not Olivani
Why not just ask the man if he frivolously passed on an urban legend, despite presenting as something he knew the holy office in fact expressed an opinion on?
His email address is here:
http://www.pn.catholic.org.nz/?sid=246
You know why I am skeptical Jerry.
There is only a three year window this could have possibly occurred 1961-1964 and at that time, unlike today, “the Pill” was a rare beast and unavailable in many European countries – it is a bit of a stretch, but not impossible, to think it was available in the Belgium Congo, when it might not have even been available in Belgium itself (it wasn’t in France in those years I know but I don’t know about Belgium).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/vatican-acts-overbosnian-rapes-birth-control-ban-eased-for-women-at-risk-1485928.html
1993
THE VATICAN has responded to mass rapes in Bosnia by reviving a decision that women in danger of rape may use contraceptives, even though its ban on contraception in normal circumstances remains.
The ban on abortion remains absolute, although the Roman Catholic bishops of England and Wales have decided that the so-called morning-after pill may also be used by rape victims in certain circumstances.
An article in the Jesuit magazine Civillta Catolica, which is approved before publication by the Vatican, argues that contraception is a legitimate form of self-defence for a rape victim. The author, Fr Giacomo Perico, says that rape is an act of violence, to which the rules applying to an act within marriage cannot apply.
Redemptorist Fr. Brian Johnstone, an expert in moral theology at Rome’s prestigious Alphonsiana Academy, told NCR that in the early 1960s, the Vatican gave permission for religious women in the Belgian Congo to use contraceptives as a defense against rape.
“It was seen as a protection against pregnancy arising from unwanted, unfree sexual intercourse,” Johnstone said.
Referring to Humanae Vitae, the 1968 document of Pope Paul VI that reiterated the church ban on birth control, Johnstone said the document “prohibits the inhibition of procreation in the context of free sexual intercourse.”
“What happens in rape is not free,” Johnstone said, explaining the logic of the 1960s-era Vatican statement. “It can be regarded as an unjust attack, and thus the woman is justified in using chemical means in repelling the effects of the attack.”
THE TELEGRAPH – Sunday, 28 April 1996
Nuns at risk of rape can take the Pill, says Rome
NUNS working in dangerous areas and mentally handicapped women may be given the contraceptive Pill as a defence against rape, a leading Vatican theologian has said.
Father Gonzalo Miranda, who lectures at the Pontifical Academy of the Regina Apostolorum, and is Secretary of the Institute of Bioethics at Rome’s Catholic University, said that the use of the Pill is sanctioned in such cases if the women ran “a serious and imminent risk of rape”.
In an interview published by the Italian Bishops’ Conference official news agency, SIR, which lends his views extra weight, the theologian said: “Contraception is morally illicit when it accompanies a desired sexual act, but when a sexual act is imposed, and not wanted, then contraception represents the only form of protection.”
He added: “In such cases the act of taking the Pill . . . is not a true act of contraception from the moral point of view, but only an act of defence.”
The question of nuns taking the Pill as a defence in trouble spots around the world was openly authorised long ago in the case of the Congo by Cardinal Pietro Palazzini – even if the Pope’s authorisation of the prelate himself was never publicised.
The Pope side-stepped the question and, in a letter to the Bishop of Sarajevo, effectively left the decision up to the conscience of the individual
Three years ago, the question was raised again in the case of nuns working in Bosnia. The Pope side-stepped the question and, in a letter to the Bishop of Sarajevo, effectively left the decision up to the conscience of the individual.
Cardinal Palazzini, who is now retired, was quoted yesterday as saying that in the case of nuns, or any other women, the important factor at stake was the right of self-defence.
However, the case of the mentally handicapped was a different matter.
There, he said: “It is no longer the interested party who decides to defend herself, but it is someone else who decides for her.
“And that, from the morally theological point of view, complicates the issue.” Sister Mariangela, of the Colombiane Missionary sisters, said: “It is a problem over which we would have to reflect, even if, as far as I know, this has never been used.”
Nina Daita, head of the section of CGIL – Italy’s largest trade union – that deals with the handicapped, said that she agreed with Fr Miranda in the case of mentally handicapped women.
You left a lot of the story you are quoting out. Here is a salient section
Obviously Andrei, it was not a standing policy for nuns, it was a response to a particular circumstance. There is not blanket “official dispensation” for nuns. Of course
The question at issue is whether or not we are dealing with an “urban legend”, as you think, and as JP apparently detects a whiff of. So this is (inconclusive) material of interest
Jerry every single one of those articles you have quoted boldly claims The Vatican has ….. and yet the person who is quoted is some clergyman without official status in each case.
These stories are nothing but Priests expressing their viewpoint and are only reported by the media because they fit a left wing secular narrative.
They carry no weight theologically
Who cares, what I’ve been digging through this stuff for is to test your claim that the theological opinion issued in the early 60’s re the Congo is an urban legend. We can worry about its theological status later
It wasn’t “a claim” it was merely my expression of doubts that this is true.
Andrei, at least we can both agree about what we think of this piece of stupidity….. (material for your blog?)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/9140869/Dantes-Divine-Comedy-offensive-and-should-be-banned.html
1. Sex outside of marriage is forbidden and is sinful.
2. Use of contraception before, during, or after the marital act between married couples is forbidden and is sinful.
3. In regards to use of contraception outside of marriage, see rule number 1.
Well if that kind of gimmick is what you wanted, why bother posing it as a serious question to begin with?
An appropriately snippy response to a flippant remark
sorry about that
I did say ‘appropriately’. The apologies should be mine – and are.
Further to the Dante (this thread is very oddly designed, but no matter) – that daftness shows only that literary philistinism is not the preseve of Christian fundamenalists alone.
The comments thread is not so much designed as it is an organically growing vine 🙂
re Dante I agree, and they don’t just want to stop school children being taught it, they want it out of the universities!! The mind boggles.
“You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Ray Bradbury
Quoted by the DT in a post by Jerry, above:
““Contraception is morally illicit when it accompanies a desired sexual act, but when a sexual act is imposed, and not wanted, then contraception represents the only form of protection.”
He added: “In such cases the act of taking the Pill . . . is not a true act of contraception from the moral point of view, but only an act of defence.””
## So why the hell do these theologians not give us the whole teaching from the outset, instead of serving it up piecemeal ? If that quotation is in accord with Catholic treaching, it is cruel & tyrannical to publicise only that part of the teaching that will crucify people’s consciences by making them think they have sinned, when they have not. Maybe these people just do not care whom they hurt , or how badly 😦
Still, now we know that sometimes it can be entirely OK to use contraception – no thanks to the Popes, who have kept that little detail *very* well-hidden. What else are they keeping mum about – and why ?
It’s a bit more complicated than that. They aren’t quoting from “the great big book of Church teaching”, they are developing theology and expressing opinions. Although what you quoted seems perfectly reasonable to me, it isn’t a definitive statement of Church teaching.
The mandates issued by the US and Australian Catholic bishops to their hospitals explicitly allow the use of contraception after rape. If contraception is officially OK after rape, it’s hard to see how it could possibly be wrong before rape.
The Congo teaching still stands – it’s OK to take contraceptives in case of rape.
A moment’s thought makes perfectly clear that rape is a completely different kind of act to marital lovemaking by mutual consent.
The same would apply to coerced sex in marriage (contra Grisez), intellectually handicapped women, etc.
God Bless
So why is that not made absolutely clear ? Ask a thousand would-be orthodox Catholics whether the Church allows contraception, at all – & how many of the thousand would say that it does ? Not many, one suspects.
And if the US bishops say that – why the huge kerfuffle in the US ?
Because Chris’s and Jim Akins’ interpretation of Catholic teaching is not official Church teaching, Kerberos.
Though – let’s face it – ask a thousand would-be orthodox Catholics about almost any point of Catholic teaching, and you’re likely to get an answer that has been filtered through the secular media.
Jimmy Akin’s piece about “coniugale commercium” meaning “an act of marriage” in HV is fascinating and backs up what Bp Cullinane and the NZ Catholic bishops (the good guys) teach.
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/05/contraception_e.html
God Bless
The relevant theologians were:
Mgr Ferdinand Lambruschini, of the Lateran University
Professor franz Huth of the Gregorian University
Mgr Pietro Pallazino
The opinions date from 1962, and were prompted by enquiries from the Church leadership in Congo-Kinshasa.
Obviously they are not definitive teaching, nor are they urban legend
Actually they were reprinted in 62 but are slightly earlier
Were not we told that it was one Cardinal Ottaviani who made this concession?
Now you are saying without providing a source that it was three Theologians from a variety of Universities that professed an opinion – without providing a source I might add.
This is exactly how urban legends develop and how those with agendas promote their growth.
Were not we told that it was one Cardinal Ottaviani who made this concession?
No. Cullinane didn’t say it was the Cardinal who gave the opinion.
Natural law and practical reason: a Thomist view of moral autonomy
By Martin Rhonheimer, cites the opinions on page 489, see google books
That is in the post.
Now as a matter of historical record “the Pill” was first marketed in the United States, and nowhere else, in 1960. It slowly became available in other markets from 1961.
Now the Belgium Congo is far from the beaten track and even to this very day things we take for granted are not readily available in its successor state – so it boggles the mind that a very new medication was able to be supplied to nuns circa 1961-62.
Have you ever been in the Third world – it can be hard to find things like aspirin and toilet paper in many places even to this very day if you are off the beaten track.
It refers to the holy office under said Cardinal.
Though it doesn’t actually seem the opinion can be ascribed to the Office itself.
I doubt it was ever a practical proposition yes, though I don’t know exactly what contraception was available
Thanks, that’s excellent. My own (swift) research didn’t dig nearly that deep.
Even on the most generous reading… they are tellingly hard to dig up, don’t appear to have set a lasting precedent, and don’t appear to be an opinion “of the Holy office”, so I think Cullinane over-reached a bit
Here’s Jimmy Akin’s explanation (although not his opinion):
If you look at the translation of Humanae Vitae on the Vatican web site, it clearly says:
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 (HV 14).
This is very blunt. It precludes doing anything before, during, or after sexual intercourse that would thwart procreation. No exceptions are made for whether the act of sexual intercourse is willed by both parties or whether it is an act of rape.
Unfortunately, this passage contains a mistranslation.
Here’s the Latin original:
Item quivis respuendus est actus, qui, cum coniugale commercium vel praevidetur vel efficitur vel ad suos naturales exitus ducit, id tamquam finem obtinendum aut viam adhibendam intendat, ut procreatio impediatur.
I’ve highlighted the words that the English translation gives as “sexual intercourse.” Even if you don’t have a background in Latin, the meaning of these words is pretty clear via their cognates in English. They literally mean “conjugal commerce” or–to make them slightly more idiomatic–“marital exchange.”
In any event, they don’t mean simply “sexual intercourse.” They mean a specific kind of sexual intercourse: Sexual intercourse which is conjugal or between married persons.
This understanding of the Latin is reflected in the English translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (also on the Vatican’s web site), which quotes this same passage from Humanae Vitae and renders the (highlighted) Latin phrase more accurately:
CCC 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “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 an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.
Now, it’s easy to gloss over the word “conjugal” and interpret it as simply meaning “sexual,” but that is not its meaning. It really does mean “marital.”
And that sheds light on some of the mystifying statements that get made by churchmen and theologians that seem soft on the use of contraception.
In the case of the Congo nuns, for example, they weren’t married to the people who were likely to rape them and so for them using contraception would not be an “action which . . . in anticipation of the conjugal act . . . proposes . . . to render procreation impossible.” There could be no conjugal act for these nuns because they were not married.
It’s kind of eye-opening when you realize that, as Humanae Vitae 14 is worded, it is condemning the use of contraception within marriage and not really going into its use outside of marriage, but the entire framework to which Paul VI is addressing himself is to “the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage,” and he does not address the question of whether the principles he is articulating also apply to sexual relations outside of marriage.
The same tends to be true of other Church documents. The framework in which contraception is addressed tends to be marital: If you look in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example, the discussion of contraception occurs under the major subhead “The Love of Husband and Wife” and under the minor subhead “The fecundity of marriage.”
Contraception is not mentioned at all in the sections on adultery and fornication and other forms of extra-marital sexuality.
This is the pattern in Church documents: They tend to condemn contraception in connection with marital sex, but they don’t mention it when it comes to extra-marital sex.
The reason for this, I assume, is that the folks at the Vatican are waiting for doctrinal development to occur on this point, and so they’re staying closed-mouth about how contraception relates to extra-marital sex. Either that or they (some of them) don’t want to appear to be saying, “If you’re going to fornicate, at least take precautions,” which would have the effect of encouraging fornication.
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/05/contraception_e.html
God Bless
It is beyond bad that so significant a mistranslation should have been allowed to have so great an effect for so long. I’ve heard that other teaching documents contain mistranslations. To call this incompetent is far too mild. For how is the man in the street to know ? (The inability of people to be shocked by what is shocking is also pretty depressing.)
What is the wrong with the Church, that it tolerates blunders that would make a schoolboy blush ? There is not a shadow of excuse for this 😦
Katie Grimes has posted an excellent series about couple’s negative experiences with NFP (there are some real horror stories). The latest is here and it has links back to previous stories:
I think that the lived experience of couples is something that needs to be factored into the question.
God Bless
“If however doubt still lingers as to the scope of the authoritative Catholic teaching on contraception, an appeal to older formulations should dispel it…”
## That depends how old they are. If they are soold that they can take no account of what is now known about human embryology, they will not be dealing with the state of the question as it stands today. Which would be as useful as recommending an atlas from 1600 as a guide to what is now known of the geography of the seas south of Japan. Older formulations are a safe guide to what is to be believed today, only if the formulations were addressing the same issues as arise today, leaving nothing out – condemning contraception because (say) it doesn’t allow the homunculus in the male seed to enter the womb, condemns contraception for a reason that no longer convinces anyone, because the biology that is the reason for the condemnation is not true to the facts.
If we go back far enough, we will find Papal defences of the burning of heretics and the removal of Jewish children from their parents – that something was taught in the past, does not guarantee that it is still taught. Great harm has been done by the unquestioned assumption that Church teaching is unaffected by time & history. This static immobilism may be very Platonic, but it totally ignores the Incarnation & its consequences.
Is dancing sinful ? Is it sinful for women to wear trousers ? Is slave-holding wrong ? Is taking interest permissible ? Can non-Catholics be saved without entering the CC ? Can unbaptised infants be saved? Must Gentile Christians be circumcised ? All these have changed – go back early enough, and the texts that give the modern positions give way to texts of great authority that give a different reply.
The presumption remains that each individual Catholic has a certain duty to obey Church teaching at the time in which they live. Of course certain things develop over time, but its no good saying “in 1000 years I bet the Church will realise X. So I’m going to assert X right now”.
All developments in Catholic doctrince claim to be the result of deepening understanding of certain core facts which do not change, such as the goodness of God for example, — our understanding of what that entails and how it must condition our teaching develops over time
doctrince , says Jerry, coining a word 🙂
That was quick 🙂 I like your new word 🙂 – is it doctrine that’s been rinsed ?
I take the point in your first paragraph, but I think you’ve mistaken the foce of my objection. I’m complaining about the immobilist ap;roach to doctrine that ignores the fact that issue X does always appear in the same form – which is why one cannot take for granted that something changeable by historical processes – such as the extent of geographical knowledge – will stay the same.
For example:
If the Church made no provision for the pastoral needs of Australians, because the Church of 1600 got on very well, thank you, without imagining there was an Australia, it would rightly be criticised as utterly idiotic. It could howwever point out in reply that the Bible, the Councils, the approived authors, the Fathers, the Popes, the Doctors of the Church, the canonists, & the Saints have almost nothing to say about Australia – the very few who do, are plainly either mistaken,or were giving their opinion, or their silliness about an Australia should be interpreted in the light of their more solid utterances. In view of its very late date, the Australia myth is almost certainly a Protestant invention. If God had made an Australia, this would lead to the intolerable conclusion that part of the human race had not been evangelised. Therefore, they would be damned for not entering into the Church. Besides, the teaching of the Council of Florence, that the whole Church is subject to the Roman Pontiff, would be falsified – for one cannot be in the Church, and not be subject to the RP. To think otherwise, is to fall into Protestantism – and the Church has condemned iot as a heresy. So to say there is an Australia, is oppossed to all those authorities; implies that the Council of Florence was in error; alternatively, it favours the idea that God creates the reprobate and does not permit them the opportunity to be saved – & that verges on Calvinism.
The error of Australianism is one that all Catholics must avoid like the plague. If it is not rejected, Catholics will start believing in such impious nonsense as that man can fly – something so foolish that even the heathen condemned it.
By the static method, that ignores changes & can think only metaphysically, while forgetting that the Church exists within history & cannot escape history as long as the Church is still in this world, the hypothetical heresy just outlined would still be a heresy even though Australia has by now been very fully mapped, surveyed, described, & experienced in a thousand different ways. After all, says the static method, truth is eternal & unchanging, & cannot possibly change – so Australia, which was a myth in 1600, is still a myth in 2012. All appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. One theological explaation of the phenomena might be, that the alleged Australia is a floating island, and is actually a piece of Mesopotamia. This could explain where Enoch & Elijah vanished to – they were taken to the eartly Paradise, as tradition says: in Australia.
Traditional methods of finding theological knowledge can become useless, making the past a very poor guide to the present.
the static method, that ignores changes & can think only metaphysically, while forgetting that the Church exists within history & cannot escape history as long as the Church is still in this world, the hypothetical heresy just outlined would still be a heresy even though Australia has by now been very fully mapped, surveyed, described, & experienced in a thousand different ways.
Good point and very well put!
I dare say that the church has (to some extent) learned its lesson a bit. — You will note that senior people in the Vatican have pointed out on various occasions that nothing about the existence of intelligent alien life contradicts the faith.
Taking your point as a whole, I think that the Church has had to learn three very painful lessons in her history. 1) The Church over-steps her bounds when she tries to make prior rulings with respect to the result of scientific observations. 2) Christianity must be voluntary, the Church must work as a leaven within society, not attempt to dominate or coerce it. 3) The Church must hold onto its belief that it is the Body of Christ, but recognise that visible membership will never be universal within history, and salvation through the Church does not always occur within the visible church.
By and large these lessons have been learned I think.
Does anyone want to add any more than those three??
That reminds me of the assertion of one pre-conciliar theologian who wrote that it was evil for a wife to contracept because that denied her husband his patriarchal right to “master her” !
God Bless
How awful!! What reminded you of that?
Yes, ghastly. Which theologian was that, Chris?
It seems to me that the basic impulse of Christianity has been to equality between the sexes, but it has had an uphill struggle at times against some Christians!
JP what is your opinion with respect to the situation described in the “Congo case” — forgetting the contingent historical details.
the static method, that ignores changes & can think only metaphysically, while forgetting that the Church exists within history & cannot escape history as long as the Church is still in this world, the hypothetical heresy just outlined would still be a heresy even though Australia has by now been very fully mapped, surveyed, described, & experienced in a thousand different ways.
Good point and very well put!
I dare say that the church has (to some extent) learned its lesson a bit. — You will note that senior people in the Vatican have pointed out on various occasions that nothing about the existence of intelligent alien life contradicts the faith.
Taking your point as a whole, I think that the Church has had to learn three very painful lessons in her history. 1) The Church over-steps her bounds when she tries to make prior rulings with respect to the result of scientific observations. 2) Christianity must be voluntary, the Church must work as a leaven within society, not attempt to dominate or coerce it. 3) The Church must hold onto its belief that it is the Body of Christ, but recognise that visible membership will never be universal within history, and salvation through the Church does not always occur within the visible church.
By and large these lessons have been learned I think.
Does anyone want to add any more than those three??.
I think the theologians in question make a good case. Even leaving aside the marital / non-marital question, we need to look at the definition of contraception.
I think we’ve just about got to a rephrase that says: its purpose is to allow a couple to share a sexual act that is potentially fertile without conceiving a child, by rendering the act infertile. This seems to allow for contraception in the case of rape. The person who may be or who has been raped did not share a sexual act, but had one forced upon them.
Taking contraceptive devices when you have no intention of having sex would seem to be in a morality-free zone. You are not, in fact, contracepting (since taking action to avoid conception requires you first to take – or to intend to take – action that could lead to conception. That someone else has the intention of raping you is not your moral responsibility.
By the way, I’ve been reading a paper on how medieval theologians interpreted what the author quaintly calls (following the theologians she writes about) ‘rendering the conjugal debt’. Consent has been a key feature of marriage since the inception of the Church, and the idea that procreation is the only reason for sex is a relatively new – and arguably heretical – direction. Interesting. http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/The-Conjugal-Debt-and-Medieval-Canon-Law.pdf
conjugal debt
I was reading the Pius X soc. website… don’t ask…. and found a rather charming essay entitled “is it a mortal sin for a wife to with-hold the conjugal gift?”. Yes, apparently. and our friendly schismatic wasn’t buying any nonsense about headaches etc being a good excuse. probably best that you didn’t get married Father, though you’d be a humbler man if you had, I thought
In medieval times, according the essay I’ve posted above, both men and women (of all walks of life) could apply to the Courts for restoration of their conjugal rights. And a man could be hauled back from pilgrimage or the Crusades, or out of a monastery, if he had gone off without the consent of his wife to the loss of his marital services. (And likewise a woman, of course, but women were less mobile.)
Still can in France or could until really recently – a woman a few years ago took her husband to court over this very matter.
Found its way to the “Odd News” sections of most Newspapers
Here is a reportage of said case
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033972/Jean-Louis-B-pays-9-000-damages-lack-sex-marriage.html
The ancients thought that the sperm was literally seed, a potential human being which needed to be planted in the womb to grow and develop. Therefore, acts like contraception, masturbation, sodomy, spilling seed on the ground etc were considered great moral evils somewhat akin to aborting a newly conceived embryo.
This changed circa 1820 when the nature of conception by union of sperm and egg was discovered.
I think theology has been somewhat on the back foot ever since, trying to develop more convincing arguments. Personalism and the wisdom tradition seem to me to be among the promising theological approaches.
God Bless
No conception; no need for abortion. Seems pretty simple to me, however I guess an unmarried, celibate priest would know better:)