What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Bound by Disagreement?

On another thread, I had attempted to flush from hiding the Social Pathologist's moral conviction regarding the Church's teaching on artificial contraception, since he is a Catholic and a physician. So as not to fall in danger of going too far off that thread's topic, he has responded by email, and kindly granted me permission to post those remarks here. As follows:

* * * You wanted to know where I stood in regard to artificial birth control. I don't wish to give anyone the impression I'm something that I am not, but I'll briefly outline my position as follows.

1.) Sexual relationships should only occur in the context of marriage as traditionally understood: period.

2.) Directly intended abortion is wrong.

3.) Sterilization is wrong.

4.) While I am unsympathetic to the Church's position on contraception, I see that it is logically consistent and I am bound to support it.

5.) On the matter of non destructive IVF--That is, sperm fertilizing one egg outside the married couple and then transferring it to the uterus-- I disagree with the Church but am bound to support its position. Otherwise, I broadly support the Church's opposition to IVF.

6.) In the same way that charging at fair interest was once considered by the Church as usury, I believe that Pius VI prudentially erred in classifying ovulatory regulants, i.e., The Pill, as contraceptives. Therefore I feel I can prescribe these agents in some form of good conscience, though I have my moments.

7.) Saying that, I do not prescribe the low dose pill. I believe its inherent "sloppiness" in its suppression of ovulation leads to a reliance on its secondary methods of contraception--barrier to sperm and possible inhibition of implantation--and it is therefore morally unjustifiable. I rarely prescribe it for medical reasons as well.

8.) I'm not a big fan of NFP for the same reason that Zippy isn't; It makes you unhappy.

If you judge a tree by its fruit, Humanae Vitae was a dreadful document, the faithful left in droves after it and a general culture of disobedience was instituted. As I see it, there are two possible reasons:

a) The faithful were flawed: the traditionalist interpretation.

b) The Document and its reasoning were flawed. Error is just as likely to be seen in moral rigidity as it is in moral laxity. I'm generally inclined to think that the Church repeated the mistake of Galileo, confusing metaphysical truth with practical matter. The document was right in affirming contraception wrong, but it was wrong in its classification of what was contraceptive.

Anyway those are my thoughts on the matter.* * * *

[By "the mistake of Galileo" I assume he means the Church's mistake in the reasons brought to bear for its disciplining of that man.]

My initial reaction is that there is much here I ought to take strong issue with, but I'd rather hear others' reactions first. There is also much to unravel, that is, to draw him out on. But he's offering a summary of his thoughts, not a treatise, so perhaps that can happen in comments. Since we have a happy diversity (never thought I'd hear myself say that) of contributors here (and readers too), I thought their various perspectives might be of interest.

Most importantly, the Social P. is a valued commenter here, as at other places, and while rigor and some measure of passion are welcome, courtesy and respect for another's honesty are required.

Comments (44)

Why do I get the feeling that I'm going to get hammered?

"If you judge a tree by its fruit, Humanae Vitae was a dreadful document, the faithful left in droves after it and a general culture of disobedience was instituted."

That is useful, but not an argument, since it fails to prove that Humanae Vitae itself caused desertion and the 'general culture of disobedience.' Although you assume it did, judging by your disapproval of HV as 'dreadful'.

"I'm not a big fan of NFP for the same reason that Zippy isn't; It makes you unhappy."

Just curious: faced with a couple wanting to limit their offspring by NFP, would you ask them to use the Pill, since NFP will make them unhappy?

Histor

I give you credit Social Pathologist for submitting where you disagree.

In regards to IVF, my co-worker just lost a child yesterday, a few months after the procedure. I would ask those inclined to offer prayers for her and her husband.

I don't think Zippy opposes NFP because it makes one unhappy. I think he opposes it on grounds that the natural purpose of marriage is fecund, and NFP frustrates this purpose.

I'm not sure how much opposition you will find in HV for ovulatory regulants. For example, HV clearly says that use may be licit to treat some other condition even when infertility is a known effect. One must have proportionate reason however. The more conservative theorists pretty much deny any proportionate reason due to a possible abortifacient effect. It is not apparent to me that this is the view of the Church. I should note that a couple and their doctor should seek treatments without the contraceptive effect, but my understanding is that they are not restricted from treatments that have contraceptive effects.

The one thing I'll throw in here (to a debate wh. I will largely leave to the Catholics) is that I have become convinced that IVF really is intrinsically morally wrong, even when the sperm and egg are from husband and wife. I did not used to think this, though I always thought it so imprudent as probably never to be justified. But "begotten, not made" has come to have a sideways significance as I've realized that it ought always to apply to children.

It seems to me that there is a sort of post hoc ergo propter hoc argument afoot in the contention that Humanae Vitae stands in a causal relationship with a desertion of the Church and a general culture of dissent. The fortunes of the Catholic Church were hardly unique in this respect; a declension in sexual morality was observed universally among Christians of all confessions, as evidenced by, among other things, the comparable divorce rates of secularists and Christians. If anything, HV accomplished nothing more than a heightening of the contrast between the regnant immoralism of the masses and the demands of Christian faith, at a time when that tide of immoralism was sweeping most before it. The salient fact is simply the sexual revolution itself, and the want of resistance offered by a substantial plurality of Christians.

Then again, I am Orthodox, and perhaps this is not a debate which concerns me directly.

a) The faithful were flawed: the traditionalist interpretation.

b) The Document and its reasoning were flawed.

It seems to me that there is also

c) The document was a partial discourse on a large topic, and needs to be understood as standing within the framework of other moral principles.

d) Some of the above

e) All of the above

Everyman needs to either do the due diligence required to understand it, if he can, or just shut up and row. But modern people don't like to shut up and row: they think they are owed a satisfactory explanation for everything, despite their own hard hearts and other limitations. So I suppose my greatest sympathies are with (a).

I personally would not have an unequivocal grasp of Humanae Vitae if I didn't understand moral theology more generally, which I did not (not that I claim my present knowledge to be without defect) until I had done much more studying and debate than the average layman will ever do. This includes understanding human acts as object, intent, and circumstances; understanding intrinsically immoral acts as evil in their object, independent of intent and circumstances; understanding the moral object as the specific behavior chosen by the acting subject; understanding that different chosen behaviors constitute different acts; understanding that things have a telos and what that does and does not imply for their licit use; etc, etc, etc.

Histor: I do not think that I have ever been in the situation where a couple has actually asked for information on NFP in preference to other forms of birth control. The issue of NFP usually is bought up when a couple is having difficulties trying to conceive. It’s rather suprising that given all the sex ed that kids get in school, many of them have no idea on how to get pregnant! NFP is a great method for identifying times of fertility and actually helps couples get pregnant, though most of them want contraception after they have had their desired number of children. I have spoken to people about using NFP as a method of birth control, but when I mention that it has a real world failure rate of approximately 10% people aren’t that keen.


Hello Zippy : ),

I pretty much agree with most of what you say and of course (c), (d) and (e) are true. Most people who disagree with the Church’s position on sexual ethics never really bother to see why the Church has taken that position in the first place. I wouldn’t like you to think that I haven’t looked into the matter; I’ve been trying to get my head around it for the past twenty years or so. I’m still doing the due diligence. This is why I have the position I have on IVF; I haven’t as yet done enough due diligence.

I personally would not have an unequivocal grasp of Humanae Vitae if I didn't understand moral theology more generally…

I think that’s a bit of the problem with the Church’s teaching on sexuality, I mean most people instinctively understand the wrongness of murder, homosexuality, theft, lying etc. Complex arguments are usually not necessary. One of the things I feel affirms the truch of the Church is the synchronicity between its teaching and human nature: except in this area. Personally I feel there is still some residual Manichaeism in the Church.

For example: Killing is wrong except when it is in self defence, Stealing is wrong, but there may be minimal guilt if a man steals bread to feed his hungry children, mutilation of the body is wrong except when it is to save life, etc. When it comes to teaching about fertility, the Church—seems to me at least—to change the character of its thinking completely

But modern people don't like to shut up and row: they think they are owed a satisfactory explanation for everything.

To a certain degree they are. When I advise my patients of a treatment, I try to explain the risks and benefits of it to them before I get their consent. After all, they are the losers in any error of my judgment. The good old days of medicine, when a doctor could lop off a patient’s limb—on the authority of the doctor alone-- without any further explanation are gone; with good riddance. Terrible things were done to patients without explanation and in some instances without consent. People are suspicious of authority because they know it can be corrupted. When the stakes are high, they want to be absolutely sure.

Why do I get the feeling that I'm going to get hammered? As the kids like to say, LOL.

Obviously, it didn't happen, though I wish they had tried a little harder. I'll try to briefly explain my own reservations.

I got a little lost in the discussion of ovulatory regulants as non-contraceptive, for if your description of them is accurate, why would you have your "moments" of reluctance in prescribing them? I know that these pills can be used for therapeutic purposes, but if they are capable of frustrating the conceptual purpose of a sexual act, and if they are in fact used for that purpose, then this would violate the teaching against contraception, which is all I understood Humanae Vitae to be saying. If the document misidentified a particular agent as a contraceptive, then that is an error of fact, not reason or substance.

I am further puzzled by your ability to "disagree" with the Church on IVF (a particular instance of it) while feeling bound to support it. I tend to equate disagreement with doubt. I'd have chosen the word 'difficulty', for the reason that I find some teachings difficult without experiencing doubt. The fact that my feeble mind cannot of its own power make a doctrine come clear doesn't mean (for me) that that latter thing is any less true. I appreciate, and agree with, Lydia's remark about 'begotten, not made', yet remain dismayed that she'd leave the contraceptive argument to Catholics, seeing as how for most of Christian history neither Catholic nor Protestant had any truck with apologies for contraception, and that its cultural ubuiquity in modern times must have something to do with the sexual carnage all about us. This is a debate that concerns everyone. The same goes for Maximos (I had thought the Orthodox were with the Catholics on this one), although with his analysis of why Humanae Vitae was not the cause of the 'culture of disobedience' I am in perfect accord.

Neither do I understand the parallels with usury and the Galileo case. In loaning at fair interest, the loaded word is 'fair.' What seems fair in our time might not have been in another. I don't think the Church has ever surrendered the moral principle that if it is unfair, it's wrong. A particular case of charging interest might or might not be usurious, but each and every act of contracepted sex is wrong. Again, in the case of Galileo, if the Church confused "metaphysical truth with practical matter", it would have been an error of fact, not of the principle it was trying to defend. But of the moral principles which guide our sexual conduct, I don't think the Church can be allowed to get it wrong. If I believed, as you say, that "The Document and its reasoning were flawed", I'd be much inclined to doubt its conclusion as well (I speak only for my own habit of mind.) Whether an encyclical can employ false reasoning while reaching an indefectible conclusion is a matter I'd rather defer to someone who knows such subtleties - like Zippy, if he'd be so kind. I don't like the sound of it, but I can live with it if it's true.

Social P: I posted that comment while you were in the process of posting yours, so I didn't see it until too late. But there might still be something for you to respond to.

When it comes to teaching about fertility, the Church—seems to me at least—to change the character of its thinking completely

I've spent a lot of words arguing with right-liberals who want moral license to (e.g.) torture prisoners and engage in unjust wars; and a lot of words arguing with left-liberals who want license to (e.g.) contracept and abort. I've found their resistance to condemnation of their favored sins to be remarkably similar in argumentative structure; and the Church's condemnation of those various sins to be remarkably consistent.

To a certain degree they are. When I advise my patients of a treatment, I ...

Well, I don't think the doctor-patient relationship is a particularly good analogy to the Church-Faithful relationship. The latter is more like parent to child, and very many modern "men" are like petulant children whining out their incessant chains of endless "why", the answers to which they are by no means equipped to understand and accept, and to whom I say either do the diligence or not but in any case, and more importantly, shut up and row.

Yes, as indicated by Zippy's remarks, it seems to me that the crux of the disagreement here is not so much the question of whether IVF or contraception is morally wrong but the question of what Church authority should mean for Catholics. Zippy is, AFAIK, completely right in his statement that, on the Catholic view, the people are expected to "shut up and row"--and in particular, to *give the assent of the intellect* to Church teaching even when you would ordinarily be inclined to think the propositions in question false. Even when I agree with the Church, I do it in a "Protestant way," which is quite a different matter. I'm not sure it's my place to tell SP to shut up and row when I'm not in that boat at all.

Whether an encyclical can employ false reasoning while reaching an indefectible conclusion is a matter I'd rather defer to someone who knows such subtleties - like Zippy, if he'd be so kind.

As I understand it, Humanae Vitae in particular and encyclicals in general are not irreformable as expressions of doctrine. That engaging in a contracepted sex act as a chosen behavior is intrinsically evil - that is, the underlying doctrine which is expressed - is irreformable under the ordinary magisterium though; again as I understand it.

Hello All,

I've got to go to work, but I hope to be able to reply to you this evening or tomorrow,

M.Z. Forrest: thank you for your kind words.

Lydia and Maximos, please feel free to "put on the hurt", I don't mind if you criticise me from a different point of view.

it seems to me that the crux of the disagreement here is not so much the question of whether IVF or contraception is morally wrong but the question of what Church authority should mean for Catholics It's both.

I'm not sure it's my place to tell SP to shut up and row when I'm not in that boat at all.

No, but you could tell me what you think about contraception.

I am not a Catholic, but I think the Church is right in her judgment against contraception. I have long intuited a special significance in these two facts:

* The 1927 Lambeth Conference, when the Anglican Communion became the first Christian church to embrace contraception, may serve as a pretty good marker for the beginning of the end for "mainline" Protestantism.

* The 1965 Griswold ruling by the Supreme Court, which overturned every state law prohibiting contraceptives (and which also marked the beginning of the "emanations and penumbras" usurpation), may serve as a pretty good marker for the beginning of the decay of constitutional government in America.

In short, the emancipation of birth control provided the pretext for two spectacular and ruinous modern collapses.

Touchstone magazine, in the current issue, includes a very fine historical essay on the antiquity of Protestant opposition to birth control, and the astonishing novelty of its embrace:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f

"When it comes to teaching about fertility, the Church—seems to me at least—to change the character of its thinking completely"

I think it is consistent if you consider it this way: "Use of hormonal anti-ovulatory agents is wrong, except in cases of dysmenorrhea, hypermenorrhea, endometriosis....."
Likewise, we shouldn't say "Murder is wrong, except in the case of self-defense or just war." Murder is always wrong. Self-defense is not murder; Just war is not murder. They are different acts entirely, which is why you rightly use the word "killing", not "murder" which implies an intention in addition to the action.

I will second SP's contention that the teaching of HV et al is a difficult one to embrace mostly because it takes so much contortion, explaining, and analysis to convey why the Church teaches this. IOW, it is not intuitively obvious.
Is this because we are living in a time which has so deeply distorted our views of sexuality that an inordinate amount of explaining is necessary simply because we are inordinately dense in this area now? Or, is this a sign that the Church has not yet figured out why contraception is wrong?

Personally, I waffle between these two hypotheses, but from my own experience on both sides of this debate (pro- and con-contraception), I think it is irrefutable that the use and popularization of contraception is at least an occasion of sin, a grave sin at that. The cultural changes occurring after Griswold and the 1930 Lambeth conference are evidence of that.

Haven't read all the comments, so this might be repetitive, but it strikes me as premature to judge Humane Vitae by its fruits.

We recall John 6:66 and the early result of Christ's teaching about the Eucharist: "As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him."

You know, TS, that's a very fine point.

Hello Bill,

I must admit I thought I was going to draw more “heat” than I did, shows you that people spend as much time thinking about my thoughts as they do about spam.


I am further puzzled by your ability to "disagree" with the Church on IVF (a particular instance of it) while feeling bound to support it.

I would of thought that it was obvious Bill; If I believe that the Catholic Church teaches true doctrine then I have to obey it, no matter what else I think about the doctrine. It’s a bit like belonging to a football code, I might disagree with the rules and want to play the game differently, but if I want to be part of the game I have to stick to the rules. As far as I understand it, the only area in which I can legitimately disagree with the church while still remaining a member is on whether a doctrine is applicable to a particular circumstance or fact.

..why would you have your "moments" of reluctance…..

Well I’m out on a limb here. As Zippy alluded to before, people have a tendency to rationalize their favoured sins, and sometimes I wonder if I’m doing the same: People can delude themselves. Yet for the moment I can’t help thinking there is something both right and wrong about HV.

People have raised the issue of the Lambeth conference in these posts. (The following comments are made with the utmost respect to Anglicans). As I see it, Lambeth didn’t legalise contraception it legalised sexual perversion. Once you allow emission of semen from its proper designated place, well, it ends up anywhere. I think HV and CC were right in condemning these actions as contraceptive. I suppose what I’m trying to say is maybe what is objectionable about acts considered contraceptive is not whether or not the acts are fertile/infertile but more on how the acts are done.


I’m sorry I have not replied early but its been a really busy weekend. I hope to reply to your other comments in the next few days.

As I see it, Lambeth didn’t legalise contraception it legalised sexual perversion. Once you allow emission of semen from its proper designated place, well, it ends up anywhere.

A lady I much admire, Elizabeth Anscombe (rip), would mightily agree with you.

I suppose what I’m trying to say is maybe what is objectionable about acts considered contraceptive is not whether or not the acts are fertile/infertile but more on how the acts are done.

There is something to this, it seems to me, and this is why HV has to be read in the light of VS. After all, for an act to be intrinsically evil it has to be evil as a chosen behavior (that is, in its object). It has to be evil as what is actualized in the world by choice in the moment of the act: by what follows without contingency on other wills from what is done by choice with the body as intentionally prepared for the act; and particularly not because of its more remote and diffuse effects (either intended or unintended) which depend on the acts of others.

But I think it is both/and rather than either/or. A sex act is contraceptive when as a chosen (not accidental) behavior it is inherently - by the nature of the chosen act itself - infertile.

So I think your intuitions are to some extent on the right track, in focusing (as does VS) on chosen behavior. HV (and Castii Connubi before it, and the Letter to Midwives, etc) are less complete taken individually than they are taken together and under the moral theology hermeneutic of Veritatis Splendour. That doesn't banish all mystery, of course; but it gets us to a greater understanding of the nature of what it means to say that contraception is intrinsically immoral.

Wonderful discussion here!

I will limit myself to observing that I have long thought The Pill and all other forms of contraception are wrong. My reasons are more intuitive than anything, but it seems to me that:

1. It is now seen as somehow abnormal (and even perverse!) that a married woman, such as myself, should be expecting her fifth child.

2. To the best of my knowledge (please correct me if I'm wrong) in places where contraception is legalised, the abortion rate inevitably increases. Therefore, it would seem that contraception creates a greater demand for abortion.

I am very fond of saying, for these reasons, that "The Pill has wrecked the World" and so far I have not found any evidence to the contrary.

(This is all far more simple than the fine discussion you have all been having here).

Make that, "The Pill and all other forms of artificial contraception..."

Louise,

The truth can sometimes be simply stated.

If you're one of those women expecting her fifth child, you're all right with me.

Getting back to Mark's comment, he asks: Is this because we are living in a time which has so deeply distorted our views of sexuality that an inordinate amount of explaining is necessary simply because we are inordinately dense in this area now? Or, is this a sign that the Church has not yet figured out why contraception is wrong?

To answer your 2nd question first, I think the Church knows exactly why it's wrong and has from the beginning. As to your first, yes, our "views of sexuality" are "deeply distorted", but I don't think that's why we need all the explaining. The explanations are offered in the absence of a question. Humanae Vitae was not the answer to a question; it was a defense of timeless teaching. The people who rejected it were not waiting to have their question answered; they were waiting for official approval to go ahead with what they'd already decided to do anyway. I think all the distortion - i.e., people who engage in (or approve of) promiscuous and perverse sex - is the result of a conscious act of rebellion against a former way of doing things. The causes of such society-wide, moral tectonics are difficult to prove, but I suspect it has much to do with an observation Maximos made on another thread, to the effect that the modern man's understanding of 'rights' authorizes a notion of himself as some kind of autonomous, self-creating entity, upon whose sovereignty not even God (if there is one) may presume to intrude. Among Catholics this way of thinking often elicits an appeal to "privacy" and "conscience". I can't tell you how many I've heard say (something to the effect) that they're as Catholic as the Pope, but they've got to follow their conscience...where no Pope, apparently, holds sway.

Bill: I’m glad you mentioned Ms. Anscombe, as it was her writings which finally got me around to understanding the position of the Church. She was quite a remarkable lady. I should offer some prayers for her soul but I imagine she does not need them.

Hopefully in my reply to Zippy I will have answered your other questions. I apologise in advance for the long post and its repetitive nature but I wanted to make my thoughts absolutely clear on the matter.

But I think it is both/and rather than either/or.

Yeah, that’s what I used to think, but now I’m not so sure. The legitimacy of intercourse during the infertile times was premised on that fact that the infertility was unintended. Or in other words the sexual act by its nature was meant to be generative in its perfected nature. An infertile act was somehow a privated generative act. For example; sexual relations with a post menopausal wife were considered legitimate because the privation in her fertility was unintended. However is it possible that the legitimacy of the sexual act in the post menopausal woman is due to the fact that the sexual act is meant to be unitive only? Menopause is not a privation. Indeed if it was, then morally permissible treatments for the restoration of fertility in post menopausal women—say a 65 y.o woman who wants children--would be legitimate: something I’m very uncomfortable with.

Point No 2: If we consider the normal menstrual cycle, we see that fertility is only expressed for part of the cycle, the rest of the time the woman is infertile. Now if we accept that God is the designer of persons, how are we to consider the infertile times? Are they times of privation or perfection. I reckon God knew what he was doing, and therefore periods of infertility are not privations but are there by design. In other words God intended that some sexual relations to be purposefully unitive without the generative component. God may think having sex with your wife during an infertile time is good in itself: There is no unintended fertility. As I see it there appear to be two forms of perfect sexual acts: unitive only and (unitive + procreative). The unitive only act is a perfected act: it is not an unintentionally privated generative act.

Point No 3: When the mechanism of ovulation was first worked out in the late nineteenth century—something 1800+ years of tradition did not have the benefit of--it presented theologians with a problem. If sex was for children, then having sex during infertile times was contrary to Divine intent and hence sinful. This was the position that the more conservative theologians took. I must admit I have some sympathy for the logic of this line of reasoning. The workaround being that: well yes, sex was for children but since the fecundity was unintentionally privated it was ok to do it. But why not say that in light of modern discoveries, our understanding of the sexual act has changed and sex for pleasure alone is a good thing? Oh no couldn’t do that, once again that resident Manichaeism

Point No 4: Now suppose a man has sex with his wife who has had a hysterectomy. Suppose—for whatever reason--he finishes the act by practicing coitus interruptus. Clearly he has not rendered the act intentionally infertile yet he is considered to have contracepted. Whereas I would say that he has perverted the act and that perverse acts are by their nature infecund; that was my point about Lambeth.

Point 6: This is why I don’t like NFP. It requires two mutually contradictory intentions in the sexual act.

1) Having a baby at this time would pose difficulties and we are having sex at this time because we don’t want to have a baby.
2) We are happy if we get pregnant.

For the average couple this line of thinking may present them with some difficulties, it may make them unhappy.

Point 7: OK, suppose we were to admit that legitimate sexual acts can be infertile, I admit that on its own that assumption would basically allow all forms of sexual perversion, however I feel that this is where the traditionalist interpretation of scripture holds i.e. the sin of Onan. A man perverts the sexual faculty if he emits semen anywhere but the vagina. Everyone assumes that Onan’s sister in law was going to get pregnant, but what if she was infertile? I mean there was no track record of her producing children, so I think it’s a pretty reasonable assumption. God may have killed Onan because of what he did, not because the act was infecund.

Point 8: It follows then, that if legitimate sexual acts can be infertile then seeking such acts as an end themselves is not illicit; provided that the acts are not perverse. Is taking a tablet perverse in itself? No. Is regulating fertility perverse in order to ensure legitimate infertile conjugal acts? Well the Church seems quite happy with breast feeding as a method of spacing out of births. Breast feeding works by the suppression of ovulation. By now I imagine you get my drift.

Point 9: I suppose if I could summarise my points they would be as follows:

The Church may have erred not in its prohibition against sexual perversion but in its understanding of the nature of the conjugal act. The Church made a wrong interpretation of the facts of ovulation. The Church may have taken a excessively restrictive interpretation of the sexual act due to a historically negative perspective with regard to carnal pleasure; it is an error of fact. I agree HV was not the sole cause of the culture of disobedience that entered the Church, but it probably was the straw that broke the camels back.

Everyone imagines the Devil’s a libertine; no one imagines him a puritan.

SP: The distinction you seem to be excluding from your analysis is that between naturally infertile intercourse - precisely the same act as fertile intercourse but it happens to be infertile for natural or accidental reasons - and sex acts which have been modified by choice to be infertile. And that distinction is precisely what makes the moral difference - because in the latter the telos of the act is intentionally thwarted in the act itself, whereas with the former (actually fertile or not) it isn't.

Since you've read my posts on NFP you know that I agree with you about the cognitive dissonance in intention it entails. But nevertheless NFP does not involve contracepted sex. Contracepted sex is the modification of the act itself in such a way as to thwart fertility. Abstaining from sex is just abstaining from sex. As with just about anything it can be done with an evil intention and thus be evil, but there isn't anything inherent in the non-act of abstinence which makes it evil. Every evil-by-omission is the result of an evil intention, not an evil act. The absence of an act may reflect an evil intention but it isn't an act.

Is taking a tablet perverse in itself? No.

"Taking a tablet" in and of itself does not seem to be a complete moral act. Whether or not it is "perverse" (by which I assume you mean to imply immoral in some way) you wuld have to know what the tablet is (a vitamin? LSD?), the taker's knowledge of its properties, and why it is taken.

in its understanding of the nature of the conjugal act.

It seems this is where it would least err. As alluded to above, "This is a hard saying,". That is, the implications are difficult to accept because the structure of society is dead fast against having children (or at least having many), and we have been heavily marinated in these structures since birth. We are pounded from every aspect (financial, social, political) to keep the number of kids to a minimum. No doubt JPII had these in mind when he spoke of immoral structures of society.

There seems to be a huge disconnect in modern times that increase in knowledge = increase in wisdom. If anything, it seems the relationship is just as often inverse.

Good comments, fellows. SP, I'll try to get back to you tomorrow evening. I think I see a tendency in your thinking worth pointing out (Zippy's comment is in that direction), but by tomorrow there's a good chance I won't remember what I wanted to say.

I have enjoyed following the various thoughts on this thread. I hope I can add at least something new to think about. I apologize in advance for a lengthy post.

It seems inevitable that these debates come down to the question of whether this act is licit in this case given these circumstances. That is of course a fine and important question to ask, but I don’t think casuistry effectively captures the whole of Catholic moral theology - I rather think it emasculates it. What is our real end - to avoid sin, or to “be perfect as your Father is perfect”? Hopefully it is obvious that the former is subsumed in the latter, but that the latter encompasses far more than the former.

With regard to the sexual act, I think it is a poverty to simply consider whether a particular act is licit; we should rather be asking the question whether a particular act is contributing to the growth in virtue. As SP alludes to and Zippy says, there is no question that NFP can not only achieve the same end as other means of contraception (or menstrual regulation, if these are to be distinguished), but can also be initiated with the same intention. Yet NFP demands something that other forms of contraception do not - self-discipline and communication. Both persons must deny the good desire for physical intimacy, and both must agree - communicate - to deny that desire for some amount of time. These demands, over time, should have the effect - even if not intended - of helping both persons to grow in virtue: obedience, generosity, love. For this is the true vocation of marriage - not to merely avoid sexual sin - but to give oneself away in love to the other as an icon of the infinitely generous and fecund love of God.

There is a danger - most obvious in those theologians espousing some type of fundamental option - of saying that individual acts do not matter. VS is pretty clear on the error of such a claim: no sin ever helps one to grow in virtue. But if the question remains simply about the nature of the sexual act rather than the nature of marriage, it becomes very difficult to explain the Church’s prohibition against contraception.

Contraception does not just affect individual marriage acts - it affects one’s understanding of marriage. One might also use NFP because of a confusion about the nature of marriage, but NFP by its nature helps to correct the understanding of marriage. Contraception, no matter its effective mechanism - and here I'd even include NFP used with evil intentions - includes a mentality of selfishness in opposition to generosity. But only NFP by its nature leads the couple toward greater generosity, and ultimately greater holiness.

But only NFP by its nature leads the couple toward greater generosity, and ultimately greater holiness.

I have a fairly difficult time believing that this is the case compared to perfect continence for the duration of the reason for avoiding pregnancy, for reasons I've discussed at my own blog (see here, here, and here).

I think you're mostly right, James, as NFP is compared to artificial means, but doesn't the Church allow recourse to it only for "grave" reasons? As Zippy says, perfect continence is, well, perfect.

And who was engaging in casuistry? Which is not a dirty word in my book anyway.

Social P: be patient.

No problemo Bill.

My comments were generally directed to the distinction between artificial means of contraception and NFP.

On the Vatican website, the English translation of Humanae Vitae uses the language "for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts"(10) and "well-grounded reasons for spacing births"(HV 16). These are the two places that are often rendered "grave" in English. The word "grave" never appears in the Vatican translation with regard to reasons for choosing to have recourse to infertile times in the wife's cycle. Interestingly more recent teaching on this matter (Familiaris Consortio and less authoritative things like JPII's Theology of the Body) has quite strikingly avoided the word "grave". FC, while making explicit reference to HV, speaks of the good brought about through the knowledge of a woman's natural cycle (35).

"Perfect" as the scholastics used the word really has the meaning of complete, and in the term "perfect continence" it should be rendered as such. While virginity is an objectively higher calling than marriage, within the vocation of marriage, I think it is dubious at best to claim that perfect continence is objectively better than periodic (imperfect) continence. Canon 1061.1 states, "To this [conjugal] act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh". I will grant the possibility of a couple, having discerned the need to avoid pregnancy, further discerns that at this point it would be difficult to avoid sin through periodic continence. But I argue that this is the result of man's fallen condition and not the ideal toward which we are called, separate from the question of whether there is sufficient reson to avoid pregnancy. I will, of course, also grant the possibility of private revelation to certain couples that might lead them to choose a relationship of perfect continence. But the public teaching of the Church says that the marital embrace is a natural good of the married state. Anscombe says exactly this in her magnificent essay against contraception.

I did not intend to make casuistry a dirty word - it's obviously important. My point was that morally there may appear to be little difference between one sexual act frustrated by artificial contraception and one sexual act making recourse to the infertile period with a contraceptive intention. But if both acts are repeated over time, the first effects no change in the intention of the actors, while the latter at least potentially may change the intentions of the actors. This potential value of NFP over artificial contraception is hard to see in my opinion with a merely casuistic analysis.

I think it is dubious at best to claim that perfect continence is objectively better than periodic (imperfect) continence.

Well, I've already explained my reasoning - informed by the same Magisterial statements you cite - in that three-post series over at my blog. If you are interested in commenting on where you think I've gone wrong over there, I'm listening; but I don't think it makes a lot of sense for me to reproduce that three-post series (with graphical charts!) here.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying about intent, by the way. I think where we disagree is not about the nature of contraception nor its moral distinction from NFP, but more specifically about the relation between NFP and continence, and the status of NFP as praxis.

I had thought that "serious reasons" would necessarily be grave, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

SP, on re-reading, I think Zippy nailed my main difficulty, which is your reluctance to draw a distinction between accidental and purposeful infertility. I don't know how to help you see how very different they are.

A couple other things. I think you attribute a residual Manichaeism to the Church that doesn't really exist. It was the Church who had to ameliorate the sexual rigor of St. Augustine (a former Manichaean). For example, in your point number 4, I think the Church would agree with you, i.e., not that the man has contracepted but that he has perverted the act.

You seem to imply an approval of sex for pleasure alone (the "unitive-only is a perfected act",). Contrary to the common calumny, I've never gotten from Church teaching that it thought sex was dirty or held its nose against the knowledge that pleasure was involved, only that the pleasure was not to be pursued as an end in itself. (I presume because this requires using another person - her consent notwithstanding - as an object of one's desire.) If it could be pursued as an end in itself, it is a privilege we would have to extend to fornicators, homosexuals, etc. Now I know that in real life people often behave this way. They are not thinking, "Let us adjourn to the bedroom in order to fulfill the unitive and procreative purpose of our marriage." More likely they are in thrall to concupiscence, or, in the vernacular, they're horny. Many a marital sex act is surely tainted in just this way. And yet, if it's a true marriage, and no measure is taken to frustrate the possibility of conception, and in the glowing aftermath they really do think themselves to have put a physical seal to a spiritual promise, then I like to think that any 'sin' accruing has been swallowed up in love, that in the end, pleasure was not the end.

I think Zippy nailed my main difficulty, which is your reluctance to draw a distinction between accidental and purposeful infertility.

Firstly I want to reiterate that I do not condone contraception rather a specific instance of what maybe wrongly considered contraception.

Bill I understand the difference between accidental and purposeful infertility what I’m increasingly unsure about is whether or not it is relevant.

As Zippy asserted the evil lies in the frustration of the telos of the act. But what exactly is the telos of the act? The traditional teaching is that the telos is both unitive and procreative, but it increasingly doesn’t appear that way to me. If we look at a woman’s menstrual cycle we see that with the periodic ovulation the woman enters into two states: able to conceive or unable to conceive. Now the Church asserts that every sexual act must have a unitive and procreative meaning, the fact that the act may be involuntarily privated does not destroy the dignity of the act. What this implies however is that the ideal sexual act, sans privation is both unitive and procreative, this however does not square up with the facts. Assuming a regular menstrual cycle with periodic ovulation the logic of the Church’s approach leads to the following line of thinking;


1) That the woman is meant to be fertile all the time but there is a periodic unintentional privation. In other words the periods of infertility are like a recurring disease which takes away a woman’s fertility: she doesn’t have cyclical ovulation rather involuntary cyclical privation. The implication, as I see it is that God had made a mistake with regard to women. Therefore--if it were possible--it would be quite licit to induce a permanent state of fertility in a woman, this includes 80 year old grannies. If I’m wrong in my reasoning I would like you to point it out.

2) This is why I feel that the more restrictive view has some logical merit. If the sexual act is meant to be unitive and procreative why the hell are you doing it when you can’t fulfill its meaning? I mean if this is how God designed sexual acts to be, why are they being licitly performed when they can’t fulfill their purpose? A bit like hopping on a lame leg when one can hop on a good one. The argument; that you really are open to kids while deliberately having sex a time when you expect no children to be conceived, requires a certain form of mental convolution, cognitive dissonance in Zippy speak.

3) The facts on the other hand show that infertility is the norm, superimposed by regular periods of fertility. The woman is meant to be infertile at some times and fertile at the others by God’s design. It follows that sexual acts when a woman is naturally infertile are not privated in any way: Their telos is unitive only. When the woman is fertile the telos is unitive and procreative. There are two teloses—I presume that’s the plural—with regard to the sexual act. The Church may have gotten the nature of the sexual act wrong, just like it did with it understanding of the Bible in the time of Galileo and with the predictable consequences.

4) It also follows that telos of the sexual act is meant to be unitive only post menopause, therefore changing the nature of that telos—by inducing the potential of fertility—is evil. Something most of us instinctively understand.

5) Ok, if there are two teloses, it still does not infer that the telos can be altered by human will. Or Can it? Breast feeding a baby deliberately suppresses ovulation. Each woman comes effectively with her own “inbuilt” pill released by breast feeding. Now if a couple can morally encourage a baby to breast feed for the purposes of suppressing ovulation and there by deliberately rendering fecund acts infecund, it would appear that there may be some form of licit control over ovulation. In other words some form of inhibition of fertility by the suppression of ovulation may be morally permissible. God seems to have designed some form of human input into the suppression of ovulation while still insisting that the sexual act is done in a way that semen gets deposited in the vagina. In a nutshell the regulation of fertility—through suppression or facilitation-- may be licit in some circumstances depending on how it is achieved.

…I've never gotten from Church teaching that it thought sex was dirty or held its nose against the knowledge that pleasure was involved, only that the pleasure was not to be pursued as an end in itself..

…More likely they are in thrall to concupiscence, or, in the vernacular, they're horny. Many a marital sex act is surely tainted in just this way…

Huh? Why is there a sin in being horny for your partner? What is the problem with the licit pursuit of sexual pleasure? The old Church certainly had an “unusual’ relationship with the joys of the conjugal embrace. The conservative theologian John Ford, who was no proponent of contraception, admitted that the Church’s view of sex was excessively negative. Purity was associated with sexual abstinence. Augustine’s thinking may have been ameliorated but he sure had an influence.
Best regards

The traditional teaching is that the telos is both unitive and procreative, but it increasingly doesn’t appear that way to me.

I expect that we don't agree about what the term "telos" means. One thing it doesn't mean is that every single licit instance of a thing results in some specific outcome. Fecundity is an inseparable purpose of sex not because every sex act is naturally reproductive, but because natural reproduction doesn't happen at all without sexual intercourse.

It isn't rendering some particular act infecund that is evil in contraception; since, as you say, many actual acts of intercourse do happen to be infecund. What is evil is the alteration of the act: the perversion of the sexual power to use it in a way that is inherently infecund. To thwart a telos isn't merely to interfere with some proximate purpose; it is to alter a thing in such a way as to set it inherently in opposition to its teleological (not proximate) purpose.

What is the problem with the licit pursuit of sexual pleasure?

I don't think Bill said that there was. What he said was that sexual pleasure pursued as an end in itself - I take him to mean here divorced from all other considerations and ends - is wrong. It ought to be fairly obvious why if I understood his point correctly: using another person (even if that person is willing) as an object for what amounts to masturbation is clearly wrong, in my understanding. It isn't really any different from using another person as a toilet.

It isn't really any different from using another person as a toilet.

Hmm, subtlety and finesse, it certainly leaves an impression.:-)


I take him to mean here divorced from all other considerations and ends.

I must admit I did not get that impression. He did after all say that the couple were horny, both presumably wanting a bit of action from each other. Presumably the evil lay in wanting to “use each other like a toilet”, however if the couple are both in the very in the mood and are hoping for sex without a baby ,where is the sin—that is accruing-- in that? I must admit I cannot see it.

I expect that we don't agree about what the term "telos" means.

No Zippy, I feel that both of us agree on what the telos means, and I do understand operations contrary to the purpose of the thing designed, do not invalidate the concept that the thing has a purpose. Where I suppose you and I disagree is on the purpose of sex. The observation that reproduction occurs through the mechanism of sex does not necessarily teleologically translate into the proposition that sex is primarily for reproduction. There may be other design purposes for sex. Sex may be primarily for getting sperm into the vagina and that’s it. I mean a turkey baster may be sufficient for reproduction: Onan’s sin after all was keeping sperm out of the vagina.

I thought I would raise this point at your “objective puzzles’ post but since things there are a bit heated there I thought I would raise the following here.

The Church seems to consider that actions which are of a category, that voluntarily separate the unitive and procreative capacity of the sexual act intrinsically evil. These acts are evil irrespective of the circumstances. Yet breast feeding, which would fall into that category, is not considered evil. It would appear that there is some sort of contradiction: at least to me.

It would appear to me that a better categorization would be that acts which acts which actively impede the transfer of sperm to egg would be more in keeping with the scriptural prohibition and the observed facts. Anyway these are my thoughts on the matter and it is quite possible that I’m still ignorant; hopefully not culpably.

Sticking my nose in _very_ briefly: Perhaps SP should ask Zippy and/or Bill directly if they believe breast feeding with the intent of inhibiting ovulation is wrong. Is there a duty mentally to set aside as much as is psychologically possible the consideration that breast feeding inhibits ovulation in deciding whether or how long to breast feed?

Hmm, subtlety and finesse, it certainly leaves an impression.:-)

If the Catholic Blog Awards had a category for "most subtle and ecumenical commenter" I would win hands down every year.

Presumably the evil lay in wanting to “use each other like a toilet”, ...

Yes. That is a bad thing, even when all parties involved want it, as in the case of e.g. an orgy.

...however if the couple are both in the very in the mood and are hoping for sex without a baby, where is the sin—that is accruing-- in that? I must admit I cannot see it.

Perhaps if we look backward from eternity from the perspective of the child which they didn't want despite wanting the pleasure of the generative process it would help your intuitions along in seeing it as at least less than ideal. It is possible (and I daresay commonplace) to commit sins against one's future children, and more generally against future generations, even when one is locked into the concrete present and doesn't know who those future generations will be.

The Church seems to consider that actions which are of a category, that voluntarily separate the unitive and procreative capacity of the sexual act intrinsically evil.

You are moving the ball subtley here, it seems to me, and conflating two very different things. It is the actual modified sexual act itself that the Church considers (and the natural law affirms to be) intrinsically evil. It is certainly possible to do evil in other ways by intention; but it isn't taking-the-pill as an act which is sinful, it is engaging in the sex act with bodily preparations made to modify it from a natural act to make it infertile.

Lydia: it seems to me that it is possible to sin in that way through an intention, as it is possible to sin through many morally neutral acts through intention. But in any case it is a different subject entirely from the case of intrinsically evil acts of contraception. Most of SP's commentary, as far as I can tell, involves refusing to make a distinction between intrinsically evil acts of contraception (actual modified fertility-thwarted sex acts) and the intentions and preparations which lead up to and proceed from the act itself.

Why is there a sin in being horny for your partner?

Zippy read me right. All I meant is that your wife should not be an object of lust. Obviously, I know that it happens and, as one who finds purity difficult, I am indulgent of it in others, as long whatever vent is given to it is protected by that larger framework of love that refuses to violate a promise of fidelity, nor seeks to frustrate the conception of children.

I've never thought about using breastfeeding as a means of contraception, but, now that I have, I haven't anything to add to what Zippy said. I don't know how long a period of breastfeeding is considered appropriate. I've seen mothers pulling their 3 year olds onto their laps to have a go, but the women I've known seem to do this out of some sort of cultish devotion to the benefits of breastfeeding (which I'm not saying is right or wrong because I know when a man should shut up). If they had any other intentions, they didn't share them with me.

if the couple are both in the mood and are hoping for sex without a baby, where is the sin—that is accruing-- in that? I must admit I cannot see it.

This may lie at the core of our difference, though I'm not sure any more.

it is engaging in the sex act with bodily preparations made to modify it from a natural act to make it infertile.

So I presume deliberately breastfeeding for the purposes of contraception is wrong. Never mind the fact the faculty was inbuilt by the Creator and considered by the Church to be a legitimate use of the faculty.

…involves refusing to make a distinction between intrinsically evil acts of contraception (actual modified fertility-thwarted sex acts) and the intentions and preparations which lead up to and proceed from the act itself.


I’m not refusing anything. If we strip intention and preparation from the act then your assertion; that an a straightforward sexual act—penis depositing sperm in the vagina—has the moral character of the act changed, when it is performed in a woman who is deliberately rendered infertile, seems to be at odds with the observed facts. Breast feeding deliberately switches off ovulation. It’s not my opinion, they are the facts.

Now it is a different question as to whether or not we can tamper with ovulation. But independent of the intentions of the agents the Church considers that when ovulation is deliberately suppressed by the pill, a sexual act is evil: when ovulation is suppressed by breast feeding the sexual act is good. If you can’t see the problem here then I’m afraid we just have to disagree on the matter. Maybe I'm blind.

Bill: I’m no paragon of virtue when it comes to matters of purity, however the desire to have some lusty rumpy pumpy, knowing full well that fertility is impossible, I think is a good: no evil attached. I think that’s what the unitive bit of the act is about: the desire to be together but obviously it has to occur within the appropriate context.

Once again, I am not arguing that contraception is a good: rather a specific instance of what is considered contraceptive may not be.

So I presume deliberately breastfeeding for the purposes of contraception is wrong.

How does breastfeeding modify a natural act and make it an unnatural act? (Mind you, I've already said that it is possible to have evil intentions with respect to virtually any otherwise morally neutral act; just that this is a separate kind of case from a species of act which is evil in itself as a chosen behavior).

But independent of the intentions of the agents the Church considers that when ovulation is deliberately suppressed by the pill, a sexual act is evil: when ovulation is suppressed by breast feeding the sexual act is good. If you can’t see the problem here then I’m afraid we just have to disagree on the matter. Maybe I'm blind.

You certainly seem to be blind to the difference between natural acts and unnatural ones; though I can't really tell if you are blind to the distinction or just hell-bent on treating it as morally irrelevant.

the desire to have some lusty rumpy pumpy, knowing full well that fertility is impossible, I think is a good: no evil attached.

If your intention is to give the go-ahead to lust, I don't see why marriage is necessary to the relationship thus described. This outlook on the unitive "bit", as you put it, I suspect flatly contradicts Church teaching on the nature of sexual purity in general and the evil of lust in particular. But I'm not in the business of trying to convert someone to a faith he supposedly already holds.

You will have to admit, however, that I found a subject that interests you.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.