- Discussion:
-The purpose of this article is to evaluate a contentious aspect of Roman Catholic moral theology, particularly the use of contraceptives. The merits of the stance assessed here rest on highly emotional and speculative presuppositions regarding the nature of procreation, which can truly be perplexing. Excerpts from Pope Pius XI's papal encyclical titled Casti Connubii are cited in bold and followed with critical commentary:
Note that God spoke those words to Adam and Eve, before the world was even populated. That blessing of reproduction after one's own kind has more than since been fulfilled. While large families are not a concept frowned upon in biblical contexts, those who declare such as a "principle end" of marriage do so without divine approval or commandment. Nothing in the original directive of Genesis is said to hold the same weight or necessity today.
"And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act.” (paragraph 53)
If God is as concerned with couples having children as Rome seems to be, then why did He not simply create us as hermaphrodites? Why would He create man and woman? The approach taken by the pope on this issue is woodenly rigid and short-sighted. It neglects other significant aspects of the marriage bond, which are companionship, mutual support, and love between partners.
“Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.” (paragraph 53)
“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.” (paragraph 54)
"Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.” (paragraph 55)
Citing the church fathers as evidence for a theological position is akin to using historical opinions as the ultimate source of truth, regardless of the reasoning's validity. Moreover, the Roman Catholic New American Bible Revised Edition attributes the death of Onan to disobedience to God's Law, not him using a form of contraception: "Preserve your brother’s line: lit., “raise up seed for your brother”: an allusion to the law of levirate, or “brother-in-law,” marriage; see notes on Dt 25:5; Ru 2:20. Onan’s violation of this law brought on him God’s punishment (vv. 9–10)."
"...any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” (paragraph 56)
The Roman Catholic Church would have us believe that all forms of contraception are inherently sinful, except for natural family planning. It would have us believe that divorce is not permitted by God, except when it is called an annulment. This is an absurd effort on the part of Rome to arbitrarily dictate what adherents do with their lives.
At its very best, this can be regarded as a subjective opinion stated in unusually strong terms. It is not clear how preventing the fertilization of an ovum is a crime against nature. Further, it is not enough to say that an organization believes a specific concept to be wrong. The Roman Catholic Church promotes groupthink.
Citing the church fathers as evidence for a theological position is akin to using historical opinions as the ultimate source of truth, regardless of the reasoning's validity. Moreover, the Roman Catholic New American Bible Revised Edition attributes the death of Onan to disobedience to God's Law, not him using a form of contraception: "Preserve your brother’s line: lit., “raise up seed for your brother”: an allusion to the law of levirate, or “brother-in-law,” marriage; see notes on Dt 25:5; Ru 2:20. Onan’s violation of this law brought on him God’s punishment (vv. 9–10)."
Just as God manipulates biology to create life, we manipulate chemistry to responsibly manage it. Further, Roman Catholic theologians would be taken more seriously on this issue if they stopped using deodorant. After all, that substance deliberately interferes with sweat glands.
"...Holy Mother Church very well understands and clearly appreciates all that is said regarding the health of the mother and the danger to her life. And who would not grieve to think of these things? Who is not filled with the greatest admiration when he sees a mother risking her life with heroic fortitude, that she may preserve the life of the offspring which she has conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all merciful as He is, can reward her for the fulfillment of the office allotted to her by nature, and will assuredly repay her in a measure full to overflowing.” (paragraph 58)
This is poor life counsel disguised in the language of personal piety. Allowing non-abortive contraception in high-risk situations aligns with the principle of "do no harm." By preventing a potentially dangerous pregnancy, the woman is making a morally responsible choice to protect her own health and well-being.
I don't think the natural law position (it need not be restricted to Catholics) is based on "highly emotional and speculative presuppositions regarding the nature of procreation." The natural law position is that sexual pleasure exists for the sake of getting humans to engage in sexual intercourse, so that they will procreate, and so that man and woman will unite in a loving relationship to rear children together. This loving relationship is what we (used to) call marriage. That sex is for procreation is no more speculative than saying the eyes are for seeing. Note: the position is not based on proof-texting the Bible but by an examination of human nature. Our ability to be fruitful and multiply hardly requires divine revelation to recognize.
ReplyDeleteIf we are to deny that procreation is the principle end of marriage then we remove the reason it is traditionally restricted to a man and a woman (i.e., a reproductive pair).
The prohibition of contraception is not arbitrary. To perhaps oversimplify, a key premise in natural law ethics is that you cannot use a faculty (sex) that by nature exists for the sake of some end (procreation) in a manner which of its nature tends to actively frustrate (contraception) the realization of the end (procreation). This key premise is used in the perverted faculty argument to also argue against the morality of homosexual acts and bestiality.
If you reject this premise in order to justify contraception then someone else can reject this premise to justify homosexual acts and bestiality. In other words, if straight people can have perverted sex then why not others?
"the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children,"
ReplyDeleteWhat about couples who are unable to have children? What about those who are beyond child-bearing years? I think the act is primarily about TWO things; procreation and uniting the couple as one.
Contraception allows for the second of the primary act while delaying procreation until the couple is able to provide for children. Scripture never says the sexual act without intent of procreation is a sin.
Using the example of Onan is abusing scripture. He was violating the command of levirate marriage which is why he was punished by God.
So if the woman is likely to suffer gross health problems, even death, by conceiving a child, well tough bananas--she should heroically suck it up and give her life???
By they way, the command to be "fruitful and multiply" was to Adam and Eve, not the rest of the world.
Hi Jayman,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you having taken the time to express your thoughts here. It assures me that my content has reached at least a few people, as opposed to talking to a brick wall. However, I still stand by the statements that I made in this article. I will respond to each comment that you made:
"I don't think the natural law position (it need not be restricted to Catholics) is based on "highly emotional and speculative presuppositions regarding the nature of procreation."
If the pope considers contraception a "criminal abuse" or "intrinsically vicious," then it seems fair to me to say that the traditional Catholic position is influenced at least in part by emotionalism. Further, as the article itself shows, "speculative" is an appropriate description as no objectively good reason was given to oppose contraceptives on all grounds.
"The natural law position is that sexual pleasure exists for the sake of getting humans to engage in sexual intercourse, so that they will procreate, and so that man and woman will unite in a loving relationship to rear children together."
Childbearing is certainly an aspect of marriage, but does not comprise the entirety of it. The other aspects that I pointed out above are reflected in texts like Genesis 2:18. You can abide with this "natural law" approach as a personal philosophy, but cannot rightfully go around parroting it as "God's way" of doing things unless He specifically said to do so.
"This loving relationship is what we (used to) call marriage."
The marriage relationship, as you describe it, is still wholly a "marriage" by my standards. It is not determined by how many children that a couple has, which is a foolish notion. There are people who cannot even have them!
"That sex is for procreation is no more speculative than saying the eyes are for seeing."
It is not obvious that the *one and only* purpose of sex is procreation. It can also be done for the purpose of pleasure and enjoyment. Much less is it "obvious" that God views married couples as sinful who do not want children every time they have intercourse!
"Note: the position is not based on proof-texting the Bible but by an examination of human nature."
ReplyDeletePhilosophical reasoning is vain without an objective standard to keep it in check. Sound ethics should always begin with a set criterion to evaluate said conclusions. Scripture already has teaching on matters relating to marriage, and principles for us to apply.
"Our ability to be fruitful and multiply hardly requires divine revelation to recognize."
True enough, but it still is not a proven fact that any and all forms of contraception are always wrong no matter the reason for using them!
"If we are to deny that procreation is the principle end of marriage then we remove the reason it is traditionally restricted to a man and a woman (i.e., a reproductive pair)."
This is a massive oversimplification. The essence of Christian marriage lies in the covenantal bond and commitment between partners, rather than solely in their ability to reproduce.
"The prohibition of contraception is not arbitrary."
If that word does not accurately describe the Roman Catholic Church's prohibition, then nothing else does! It gets to define all forms of contraception as somehow evil, but tells adherents they can use one form it approves of. This is inane.
"To perhaps oversimplify, a key premise in natural law ethics is that you cannot use a faculty (sex) that by nature exists for the sake of some end (procreation) in a manner which of its nature tends to actively frustrate (contraception) the realization of the end (procreation)."
People who think in this way move the goalposts to fit whatever accommodates their legalistic biases and silliness. Distinguishing different functions of a body part in various situations is not inherently a misuse or abuse of it. For example, humans use their hands for a variety of tasks, from eating to creating art, which goes beyond their primary biological function.
"If you reject this premise in order to justify contraception then someone else can reject this premise to justify homosexual acts and bestiality. In other words, if straight people can have perverted sex then why not others?"
This conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. It assumes that all non-procreative acts are morally equivalent, without considering the ethical distinctions between them. God has already delineated acts of homosexuality and bestiality to be evil.
Jesse:
ReplyDeleteBefore responding to specific comments we need to be clear that I am saying sex is for multiple things. Many of your comments attack a strawman. Also note there is a difference between saying (1) sex is for X and Y and Z and saying (2) sex is for X or Y or Z. My position corresponds to (1) rather than (2). The multiple ends of sex are interrelated and not to be isolated from each other.
"If the pope considers contraception a "criminal abuse" or "intrinsically vicious," then it seems fair to me to say that the traditional Catholic position is influenced at least in part by emotionalism."
One can speak words of condemnation without being influenced by emotionalism. On an emotional level, I think most people want contraception to be morally permissible because it is the less demanding path. Speaking of emotionalism doesn't move the discussion forward.
"Further, as the article itself shows, "speculative" is an appropriate description as no objectively good reason was given to oppose contraceptives on all grounds."
The encyclical is not a full-blown defense of natural law ethics. If we understand where it's coming from, the standard is objective in the sense that human nature and teleology exist independently of the mind. Determining whether it's a "good reason" requires deep discussions in moral philosophy related to the very nature of good and evil.
"The marriage relationship, as you describe it, is still wholly a "marriage" by my standards. It is not determined by how many children that a couple has, which is a foolish notion. There are people who cannot even have them!"
The parenthetical remark was sarcasm on my part about how society has changed the definition of marriage. Once you deny the procreative ends of marriage you clear the way for the slippery slope to same-sex marriage (SSM). This is why society went from thinking SSM is absurd (by nature a same-sex couple can't procreate) to thinking opposing SSM is absurd (same-sex couples can love each other).
"It is not obvious that the *one and only* purpose of sex is procreation. It can also be done for the purpose of pleasure and enjoyment. Much less is it "obvious" that God views married couples as sinful who do not want children every time they have intercourse!"
As already noted, you're attacking a strawman in both your first and last sentence of this quote. The natural purpose refers to how human nature is ordered, not to what is running through our minds as we have sex. The claim that sex can also be done for pleasure and enjoyment is the very argument used by those who say homosexual practice or fornication is morally permissible.
"Scripture already has teaching on matters relating to marriage, and principles for us to apply."
ReplyDeleteScripture also implies that those who do not possess the Scriptures are morally responsible for their actions. This entails that moral knowledge is possible independently from the Scriptures, for surely God would not condemn people for actions they could not possibly know are wrong.
Scripture does not provide a full-blown moral philosophy or answer every moral question that may come our way. We simply have to think about these matters ourselves to some degree.
"True enough, but it still is not a proven fact that any and all forms of contraception are always wrong no matter the reason for using them!"
Perhaps there are extreme cases where contraception is permissible (just as there are extreme cases where killing is permissible) but that doesn't seem to be the position of most people arguing for the permissibility of contraception.
"This is a massive oversimplification. The essence of Christian marriage lies in the covenantal bond and commitment between partners, rather than solely in their ability to reproduce."
Again, you're hung up on "solely" but do you notice how your definition of marriage opens the door to SSM? Same-sex couples can enter a covenant and commit to each other. How are they essentially different from an opposite-sex couple? This is where the "and" from (1) above is important. If marriage is open to procreation AND commitment then that rules out SSM. If marriage is open to procreation OR commitment then SSM is permissible.
"People who think in this way move the goalposts to fit whatever accommodates their legalistic biases and silliness."
What's the evidence for this claim? I am biased towards permitting contraception because it is less morally demanding.
"Distinguishing different functions of a body part in various situations is not inherently a misuse or abuse of it. For example, humans use their hands for a variety of tasks, from eating to creating art, which goes beyond their primary biological function."
The key premise I mentioned is the key point of disagreement here. This touches on what makes something evil. Again, it's not about different functions, it's about using a faculty in a perverted way. Hands are general purpose body parts so it's hard to think of plausible perverted uses of them. But I came across a woman who wanted to be blind so bad that she found a doctor to blind her (her eyes were healthy). Independent of any harm this caused her (for all I know she subjectively viewed the experience as a net positive), this is an inherently evil act on natural law teaching because it destroys a faculty.
"It assumes that all non-procreative acts are morally equivalent, without considering the ethical distinctions between them. God has already delineated acts of homosexuality and bestiality to be evil."
It puts the onus on you to explain the relevant ethical distinctions. What is the reason God forbids homosexual acts and bestiality? The harm principle doesn't work since these sex acts can be performed in harmless ways. Are we saying God's moral commands are arbitrary? The natural law provides a clear answer that provides a unifying reason for God's commandments on sexual ethics.
Jayman,
ReplyDelete"Before responding to specific comments we need to be clear that I am saying sex is for multiple things. Many of your comments attack a strawman."
I tried to play nice guy, but you have proven yourself to be unteachable. It is obvious that I am wasting my time.
"Also note there is a difference between saying (1) sex is for X and Y and Z and saying (2) sex is for X or Y or Z. My position corresponds to (1) rather than (2). The multiple ends of sex are interrelated and not to be isolated from each other."
You arbitrarily merge these purposes together to in an effort to salvage a fallacious argument.
"On an emotional level, I think most people want contraception to be morally permissible because it is the less demanding path. Speaking of emotionalism doesn't move the discussion forward."
You are not moving this discussion forward by making blanket generalizations about large masses of people. Unlike you, I have provided material of actual substance.
"The encyclical is not a full-blown defense of natural law ethics. If we understand where it's coming from, the standard is objective in the sense that human nature and teleology exist independently of the mind."
I did not say or think the text was that sort of work. The reasoning provided remains subjective because it is fundamentally the pope's personal interpretation of what he believes "natural law" condemns.
"Determining whether it's a "good reason" requires deep discussions in moral philosophy related to the very nature of good and evil."
On the contrary, all that has been offered is assumptions, assertions, and speculations as to what people think is moral when it comes to arguing against contraception.
"The parenthetical remark was sarcasm on my part about how society has changed the definition of marriage."
With all do respect, you have talked with a degree of length and in a pompous fashion without seriously responding to my claims.
"Once you deny the procreative ends of marriage you clear the way for the slippery slope to same-sex marriage (SSM)."
Given that your underlying premises are error-prone, so are your conclusions on this matter. This reminds me of the Church of Christ talking point that allowing musical instruments in worship is a slippery slope for the spread of liberalism in churches.
"This is why society went from thinking SSM is absurd (by nature a same-sex couple can't procreate) to thinking opposing SSM is absurd (same-sex couples can love each other)."
ReplyDeleteThat just goes to prove public opinion is not a reliable standard of determining truth.
"The natural purpose refers to how human nature is ordered, not to what is running through our minds as we have sex."
I was referring to what God considers as sinful, not what specifically goes on in our minds at any time.
"The claim that sex can also be done for pleasure and enjoyment is the very argument used by those who say homosexual practice or fornication is morally permissible."
You are basically saying that married people are not to use sex for enjoyment or they are just like homosexuals, which is just another brainless assertion on your part.
"This entails that moral knowledge is possible independently from the Scriptures, for surely God would not condemn people for actions they could not possibly know are wrong."
The problem with man is not his lack of knowledge. It is that he has sinned against God, who is holy and judges sinners.
"Scripture does not provide a full-blown moral philosophy or answer every moral question that may come our way. We simply have to think about these matters ourselves to some degree."
You claimed earlier that I made straw man arguments, but then proceed to make those against me yourself.
"Perhaps there are extreme cases where contraception is permissible (just as there are extreme cases where killing is permissible) but that doesn't seem to be the position of most people arguing for the permissibility of contraception."
Ah, so now you concede the possibility of some cases in which contraception may be permissible. You might want to check yourself at the door to make sure that you are not slowly coming to accept homosexuality as moral at an unconscious level.
"Again, you're hung up on "solely" but do you notice how your definition of marriage opens the door to SSM?"
Just because two ideas share certain similarities, does not mean that they are somehow associated with each other or one leads up to another.
"Same-sex couples can enter a covenant and commit to each other. How are they essentially different from an opposite-sex couple?"
ReplyDeleteThe difference is that God authorized heterosexual marriage and condemned homosexual couplings. All vows and commitments in the world mean nothing if God's standard is not followed.
"If marriage is open to procreation AND commitment then that rules out SSM. If marriage is open to procreation OR commitment then SSM is permissible."
Your claim is wrong. Same-sex "marriage" is condemned regardless of whether procreation happens. One can accept both non-abortive contraceptives as morally permissible and be open to having children.
"What's the evidence for this claim?"
I already pointed out what I perceived to be hypocrisy in Roman Catholic teaching on contraception. That is the original context of this article.
"Again, it's not about different functions, it's about using a faculty in a perverted way."
It has everything to do with the issue of using faculties in different ways. You are right back where you started with your unproven assumption that all forms of contraception are sinful.
"Hands are general purpose body parts so it's hard to think of plausible perverted uses of them."
I can easily think of all sorts of evil things that I can do with my own hands.
"What is the reason God forbids homosexual acts and bestiality?"
The prohibitions were essential for maintaining the integrity and cohesion of the community. By distinguishing their practices from neighboring cultures, the Jews could preserve their unique identity and values. In ancient times, certain sexual practices could pose higher risks of disease and other health issues, leading to their prohibition as a protective measure for the community's well-being. The commandments were intended to ensure religious purity and devotion to God. By adhering to specific sexual ethics, the Jews demonstrated their commitment to living in accordance with divine commandments and avoiding practices considered impure or idolatrous.
Accept that you have lost the argument and move along.