Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live." View all posts by Jimmy Akin
HIV, condoms and gays. Oh my!
HIV, condoms and gays. Oh my!
HiV, condoms and gays. Oh my!
Thank you Pope Bennie.
I have a dream… a dream that someday one of the major media outlets will employ people who are not utterly incompetent to report on matters of religion.
As was mentioned in some other recent comments, infallibility is not proclaimed through encyclicals. For that matter, majority of Church documents issued by higher ranks are not infallible, but should be obeyed on the grounds of respect.
However, claiming that bishops of the world agreed on this topic, and through centuries, is not backed up by more systematical analysis (thus, there are no terms for claiming it universally accepted- no matter what Grisez claims). For details, check the comments on “The meaning of marital intercourse” post.
For refutation of the above, see Inocencio’s comments on “The Meaning of Marital Intercourse” post.
There was no constructive refutation, but visitors are welcome to read Inocencio’s posts as well.
Sash,
I have not read all of your posts so I may be incorrect, but you seem to be of the opinion that the Church teaching on contraception is not an infallible teaching of the Church’s ordinary universal episcopal Magisterium either because it is not universally accepted by all bishops everywhere, or that such universal acceptance is not “backed up by more systematical analysis.” Help me out if I’m not understanding or re-stating your position correctly.
You may disagree with Grisez, but I don’t believe he was doing anything more than agreeing with Pope Paul VI on this point, who stated in Humanae Vitae that the commission instituted by Pope John XIII to study the regulation of births was “at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church” (HV, 6).
And again:
“This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based upon the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act” (HV, 12).
Of course, both Grisez and Pope Paul VI were drawing on Pope Pius XI, who in 1930 cited to “uninterrupted Christian tradition” in definitively proclaiming that “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.”
Brother Cadfael,
You are halfway there to understand my opinion. 🙂
My opinion is that more systematical analysis reveals extremely problematic background on what Catholic Church teached in the past regarding marital intercourse. Once you accept certain facts , it is difficult to believe that doctrine is not “uninterrupted”, or even constant.
Embracing the teachings as they are, that is what an objective, God-fearing, searcher for truth will strive for. Those who run from facts will be runned over by them. Not only on a pecky internet discussion.
Read more of my posts, to get the picture.
Sash,
I understand that you don’t believe that the teaching of the ordinary universal episcopal magisterium is sufficiently universal or constant to qualify for infallibility.
I assume that you agree, nonetheless, that your opinion is not shared by Popes Pius XI and Paul VI, at least. Is that correct?
Brother Cadfael,
Who agrees on the subject is irrelevant, as long as every side involved doesn’t approach the topic in objective manner. Indeed, these popes would probably disagree with me, but they would also disagree with almost 90% Popes, saints and theologians of the past regarding reasons why contraception is sinful (or why NFP is not). For most concrete example, compare Casti Conubii with Regula Pastoralis of Pope Gregory the Great.
If you allow for more “open” discussion, I claim that Pius XI and Paul VI have no foundation to claim their teaching is based on actual and original tradition. This is not my personal lack of faith, it is matter of fact. It is true that Church was more-or-less against contraception, but for reasons so bizzare that they had to be, well… “hidden”. (this is why Humanae Vitae, when speaking of long tradition, footnotes only sources from 19th Century, besides Trent).
Sash,
Whether or not the teaching is or has been sufficiently constant or universal to qualify as infallible is a matter better decided by the Vicar of Christ than by you or me. As such, whether or not they agree is not “irrelvant” — it is the crux of the matter.
You may have desired more objective data of agreement (exactly what kind of data or agreement I am not certain), but the Church in exercising the providential wisdom granted to her by God did not and does not.
That the Church has always regarded contraception as gravely sinful is perhaps more important in this regard than whether the rationale has remained constant. Indeed, that earlier statements about contraception may not have been as complete or fully developed as twentieth century pronouncements is not surprising at all. That is precisely what one would expect if one appreciates how doctrine develops.
Infallible teachings do not spring out of nowhere, but that does not mean it is a simple matter to trace the oak tree back to the acorn.
Sash,
As to NFP and its place vis-a-vis contraception, there are legitimate disagreements among orthodox Catholic natural law scholars about how to classify it. For new natural law (NNL) scholars such as Grisez, contraception is intrinsically evil because it always involves the setting of one’s will directly against the universally binding procreative good. NFP is not necessarily (but may be) intrinsically evil for Grisez because it does not necessarily involve a directly willed intention to act against the procreative good. As he explains in Contraception and the Natural Law, however, where with NFP “merely a negative will with respect to procreation is present, then conception-prevention is directly willed” and NFP has the same intrinsic evil as contraception (see pp. 161-62 in particular).
Proponents of what is often termed traditional natural law (TNL) — think Ralph McInerny, Russel Hittinger, Janet Smith — would approach NFP differently. Under TNL principles, the contraceptive act itself is intrinsically evil, and because NFP does not involve a contraceptive act it is never intrinsically evil. However, even under TNL, if performed with a bad intent, NFP (like any other morally good or neutral act) can be rendered evil, even if it is not intrinsically so.
Ronconte,
Augustine taught that marital relation is lawful only when couple engages for the sake of begetting the child. Sexuality was not considered as sign of love. Of course, such intercourse can’t be of contraceptive nature. It would be illogical.
This teaching by Augustine — a Bishop, Saint, and Doctor of the Church — is quoted by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii, without disagreement, correction, or qualification: “As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse [the general term: concumbitur] 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.’ ” (Casti Connubii, n. 55)
True, but not complete. If there is no diagreement, correction or qualification, then how to explain Doctor Augustine’s stance on NFP: “Is it not you who hold that begetting children, by which souls are confined in flesh, is a greater sin than cohabitation? Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion.(Augustine: The Writings Against the Manichaeans and Against the Donatists”)
This sphere of teaching has completely been ignored both by Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae. And it simply can’t be avoided if we are to form a complete and functional moral theology.
Brother Cadfael,
Whether or not the teaching is or has been sufficiently constant or universal to qualify as infallible is a matter better decided by the Vicar of Christ than by you or me. As such, whether or not they agree is not “irrelvant” — it is the crux of the matter.
Crux of the matter is that layman can’t choose between Catholic Pope and Catholic Tradition. We know the terms on which infallibility is formed- and if they are not satisfied- there is no infallibility.
That the Church has always regarded contraception as gravely sinful is perhaps more important in this regard than whether the rationale has remained constant. Indeed, that earlier statements about contraception may not have been as complete or fully developed as twentieth century pronouncements is not surprising at all. That is precisely what one would expect if one appreciates how doctrine develops.
Doctrine can’t develop in such way. It would mean that Church, during doctrinal development, can and has teached moral error. You can’t teach for centuries that sex has only procreative nature, to conclude it has unitive as well.
This would make Church open to modernism and evolutionism. It would mean that current stances are possible errors which will, in few centuries, develop in truth.
Regarding NNL/TNL
Since I am neither “new” nor “traditional”, I can’t defend the teachings of respected theologians you mentioned. As a matter of fact, I stand firm on the idea that no Pope or theologian (until 19th Century) observed natural law in the way these two approaches do.
Sash,
You have a strange concept of what it means to teach moral error. To teach that sex has procreative value, or even that its primary purpose is procreative, without mentioning, recognizing and/or appreciating its unitive value, is not the same thing as teaching that it does not have unitive value. Minimizing, or not fully appreciating, the unitive value of the marriage act is a far cry from “teaching moral error”. (Small nit, but the past tense of “teach” is “taught” not “teached”.)
That preventing procreation was sinful and contrary to the natural law has always been recognized, acknowledged and taught. A cogent explanation of why contraception is sinful may have taken centuries to develop, and will likely continue to develop for some time. (That a doctrine is infallibly taught does not mean that it is exhaustive or immune from further development — it does mean that what is taught is fully accurate and irreversible as far as it goes.)
The distinction between the TNL/NNL approaches to NFP is instructive. (I’m not asking you to defend either TNL or NNL, but both legitimately trace their roots through Aquinas.) Both groups hold that NFP practiced with bad intent is sinful, but for entirely different reasons. One of them may prove “wrong” in the future as both the doctrine and our understanding of natural law develops, but it would be nonsensical to say on that basis that one or the other of them is “teaching moral error” today.
And, in any event, Church teaching on matters that are not infallibly taught can change. (It seems a matter of common sense that teachings which are, by definition, fallible, may be wrong and therefore corrected.) There is no basis for your charge that such would constitute “modernism” and “evolutionism”. And (as has been noted frequently here before) Catholics are not simply free to reject fallible teachings, even on the firmly held belief that they may change in the future. While infallible teachings must generally be held with the “assent of divine and catholic faith” (if the teaching is held to be divinely revealed) or “firmly accepted and held” (for definitive teachings that are not themselves divinely revealed but are intimately connected with divine revelation), ordinary (non-infallible) teachings of the magisterium on matters of faith and morals require religious submission of the intellect and will on the part of the faithful. As was cogently explained by then-Cardinal Ratzinger in Donum Veritatis, “[t]his kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary, but must be understood with the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.”
Brother Cadfael,
The Church taught (thanks for correction- English is not my primary language) that sexuality has only procreative nature, and only for this reason pair could engage in intercourse. This was based on, now completely abolished, idea of St. Augustine that before the fall, genital erection was under control of rational mind (Adam and Eve didn’t have sexual urge, they simply engaged in intercourse when they wanted Cain and Abel to be conceived). You could not have relations for the sake of marital love. You were supposed to love your spouse without carnal communication.
Needless to say, Catholic layman showed universal revolt and dissent on this teachings, claiming that sexuality had unitive nature as well. At the end- they were right. Today Magisterium acknowledged that sexuality has unitive nature, but no sooner then Casti Connubii. This is the first document in the History of the Church which claimed sex is not only for procreation. Unfortunately, it did not recognize that this was not the teaching of the past centuries.
And the teaching was indeed, a moral error. At least from today’s point of view. An error which was not part of some process to establish a doctrine. Or are we to say “Yes, we forbade our layman for 19 centuries to have relations to show their love and happiness. This was needed because doctrine was developing.” I mean, come on- do you really think God needed all this time to reveal to bishops that sexuality is not only for procreation?
Ordinary Magisterium has not reached the state under which contraception ban can be called infallible. Bishops of the past forbade it under one logic (together with NFP), today bishops forbade it under other (allowing NFP). You can disagree with Gregory the Great, but you can’t say he represents foundations on which Humanae Vitae is formed.
Donum Veritas is right. Faith asks for logic, and obedience. This is the main reason why faithful are not following the teaching. It is illogical to be obedient to something that clearly lacks the reality of faith one belongs to.
Sash,
You write well given that English is not your primary language.
Perhaps it is the meaning of “unitive love” which needs clarification.
Augustine and other Church Fathers do condemn sex within marriage for the sole purpose of gratification of passion. Properly understood, these are denunciations of lust, not rejections of the unitive nature of love. Lust in any form, within or without a marriage, is gravely sinful. Recent magisterial expressions about the unitive nature of the marital act are closely tied to a rejection of lust.
Augustine and Gregory the Great (your assertion that I disagree with him is unfounded) may not expressly speak about the unitive nature of the marital act (I assume this for purposes of our discussion; I have not scoured the works of either for such pronouncements), but their strong refusal to afford lust any legitimate place within a marriage does indeed provide an essential seed from which more recent magisterial expressions have developed.
Regarding the infallibility of the magisterium’s proscription of artificial contraception, I’ll stand securely with then-Archbishop Wotyla, who wrote in 1969: “The teaching of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae regarding the essential principles of an ethical regulation of births is marked by all the characteristics of the infallible ordinary teaching of the Church. This means that one is dealing with a teaching based upon the authority of God and imparted in His name.”
Thank you for your praise of my English (insert shy smiley here).
As for the rest, I have already expressed that certain topics, and arguments, should not be pushed too far in the public discussion (for the sake of Church, both it’s progessive and traditional wing). I can only say that Augustine and Gregory, when properly understood, teach that each intercourse without intent of begetting a child is intercourse done for lust. As such, their ban of contraception is not backed up by moral theology formed on encyclicals such as Casti Connubii or Humanae Vitae. This goes backwards as well. Encyclicals are not formed on the writings of these theological giants. They simply imitate former system’s prohibitions in practice, apart from NFP. No matter what one says, even if one is Karol Wotyla. Remember Didahe: “When seeking justice, don’t look who is who, but judge according to righteousness”.
To conclude, I wish to repeat once again to everyone reading this- I am not a modernist. But I also take my religion seriously. You can’t ask of layman today to choose between reality of tradition and authority of the hierarchy. If layman comes to this position, this means something went wrong on the way to him. And he is not to blame for confusion.
One thing is certain: in this situation, nobody wants to end up in hell.
Sash,
I’m not saying you are a modernist, but for a Catholic to take their faith seriously, they have to be in communion with the Pope. That means more than simple obedience. It means striving to see things the way he sees them, the way the Church sees them. It means that when the Vicar of Christ interprets tradition differently than we might have, we don’t scream as loud as we can, “he’s wrong, he’s wrong, he’s wrong — he doesn’t understand what the Church has been teaching for 2000 years!” The impulse for a serious Catholic should be, must be, “maybe I’ve misunderstood what the Church has taught, perhaps I’ve relied on misguided sources, perhaps I’ve mistaken non-essential points for essential points, perhaps I’ve taken the wrong message away from what the early Church Fathers said…”
You don’t have to check your brain at the door. By all means, study the Church Fathers, study the Scripture, learn the faith — that is all great! But do it to learn what the Church teaches, not to have a weapon to use against the Holy Father. The choice between “reality of tradition and authority of hierarchy” is a false choice, one that you are never truly called to make.
It is much better to humbly say, “I do not understand how this can be so” and to strive to reconcile what you cannot understaind than to boldly proclaim that the Holy Father and the magisterium do not understand what they are doing.
Brother Cadfael,
As I have said, I don’t wish to put the discussion too far. I can only repeat what I already stated before-without shouting who is wrong, and what are we to do with it.
Maybe I have misunderstood the teachings. Perhaps I relied on misguided resources. But what if I have not? Would that mean that Pope is not the rock on which Church is formed? Or that Catholicism is not the true religion? I don’t believe so. There are millions of other possibilities, and each of them would hold water at least as good as the current state of affairs.
True Catholic seeks communion with the Pope not for the peace of mind, but for the common approach to truths which are relieved to all of us. These truths include obedience to clergy, but also to reality of the Church. If reality is blurred- everything can happen- including clash of tradition and authority.
Layman have, for decades now, underlining that they don’t understand “how can this be so”. And they wait for constructive answer. Obedience to hierarchy is a virtue, but not a substitute for other virtues- such as loyalty to Tradition and Church history.
God will, of course, have the final word.
Ronconte,
The problem is that pope Pius XI did not underline that Church Father(s) have erred regarding contraception. We usually read of “constant teaching” and “unbroken tradition”, bringing us to conclusion that Church today is the same as yesterday.
Reality is that Augustine (and other saints) knew about NFP, and concluded it is a moral evil since sexuality is only for procreation. This teaching is shared by literally all Church Fathers, and it was the teaching of the clerics up to 19th Century. All this was, it seems, too much for Pius XI. He had to stress certain parts of tradition in order to make his own system, but the final result is…well, not really fair. This is why Casti Conubii, Humanae Vitae and Theology of the Body are so problematic when compared to the writings of the saints.
Marriage has three goods, but we are not talking about marriage. We are talking about marital sexuality. And it was allowed only for begetting the child. This is where Augustine and Aquinas putted it in PROLES, FIDES and SACRAMENTUM.
Saints, thus, have not taught that marriage is only for procreation. Marital intercourse in the marriage, is only for procreation.