It would be good to examine this matter from the perspective of the authority of the Church. If the document is infallible and the teaching is that contraception is intrinsically evil, all your musings are irrelevant in regard to your conclusion. So those with faith and without the ability to dialogue in the metaphysical dimensions will simply out of faith reject your argument because its origin is not sacred doctrine, which is from God, but human reasoning, dissonant with infallibility.
To engage in the actual argument itself though I’d say that temporary language reminds me of an unhelpful approach to ethics as found in the fundamental option. When discerning a particular moral act, the broader context of one’s habit is unimportant in the final assessment of the objective nature of the object of the act.
The vegetative appetite of the human soul does have an end in procreation which ought to be integrated into the rational appetite and rightly ordered. The sex act has a teleology that should not be frustrated as it is, in anyway. Any frustration that is willed goes beyond intention when considering voluntary, but also applies to the circumstances and object of the act. The principle reason contraception is wrong because the object is “intrinsically wrong.” Avoiding a pregnancy by choosing a means that accepts the design of our body is not only proper in the act, but it is also a fully human acceptance of the self since the natural law appeals to a hylomorphic notion of the body-soul composite. The procreative dimensions is and integrated dimension of the person’s identity, whereby all acts that contradict this procreative dimension as-is-natural are evils. They are moral evils when chosen in object, and they are evils when considered medically as disordered.
Christopher West offers the best response to objections in favour of the use of contraception in his book: “Good News about sex and Marriage” and he anticipates common objections.
On the first point, what I appreciate most about Catholicism and Thomism is the emphasis on the natural law as available apart from special revelation - whether Bible or Church authority. If philosophical argument leads away from Church teaching, that would lead to the conclusion that the Catholic Church has erred, which would lead to Protestant (perhaps) theological results. Otherwise, you're just arguing for the "retreat to commitment," the Catholic equivalent of Protestant presuppositionalism.
You argue that "the broader context of one's habit is unimportant" in the assessment of the act. Very relevant, because I am arguing that we shouldn't analyze the fertility of a man and woman's sexual union in virtue of whether this particular sexual encounter is likely or possible to lead to conception. I am arguing for prudence in timing children (at least) in the context of a fertile marriage, open to children.
My argument however does not rest on the habitual openness to children - I would argue that even the couple who wills never to have children still has sex acts that are intrinsically ordered to procreation - by natural teleology. I don't believe that "frustrating," or I would say "obstructing," the outcome of a teleologically-ordered act undermines teleology.
Neo-Aristotelian accounts of natural teleology account for this. For example, "The mayfly breeds before dying," expresses the natural form of life of the mayfly, as well as its natural teleology. However, most mayflies die long before breeding. (The example is Michael Thompson's, "The Representation of Life.")
Likewise, heterosexual sex is ordered to reproduction is not undermined by many instances of heterosexual sex that do not lead to reproduction. You would grant that. But it follows that obstructing the outcome of conception does not affect the original point. The natural teleology is to lead to conception. So, while I won't insist that we analyze an act in the context of a habit - I *would* insist on what Elizabeth Anscombe called the wider context of an animal's form of life (something Thompson goes into significantly).
Thanks for the reply! I will say, I'm happy that West has his responses - but the fact is, there are natural law theorists advocating the pro-contraception position. Very important that it has a strong defense. In fact, I don't know of any Protestant natural law theorists arguing the point... Now there is.
Well, I"m not a Catholic so I would disagree with some of this, but this is very well put. If one's reasoning from 'natural revelation' ends up in a conclusion that contradicts 'special revelation', it is the reasoning that is at fault, not special revelation.
As a side note, I have a class every Monday and last week we examined Gender Theory accounts don’t to Aquinas distinctions on various things. I think in part this helps establish the fundamentals. The context is us going through a document from Rome on types of human dignity.
Not in this case. As I read you, you put ‘the teaching of the Catholic church’ within the realm of ‘special revelation’. I don’t do so, obviously. But if you do do so, then, in this case, your natural law argument fails the test I propose: you end up with a conclusion that is contradictory to special revelation, ergo, your conclusion is wrong.
Now, as to Scripture, I am perfectly willing to have that discussion, in long form, on dueling stacks. Any time. However you have already accepted the burden of proof: you have acknowledged that your view stands contrary to the universal teaching of all churches (Protestant and Catholic) until about 1930. This alone would lead to a huge amount of soul searching. Your view has a huge uphill climb.
This account of history seems to say that the Sexual Revolution was caused by the availability of contraception and the approval of contraceptive use by church authorities, beginning in about 1930.
But the Sexual Revolution was definitely underway in the early 1920's, due to many societal influences, without birth control pills or church approvals.
To say that contraception is moral is like saying a magic diet pill that prevents the natural outcomes of a gluttonous life is moral. Consciously preventing the "second actuality" does not make the immoral behavior that precedes it moral. The answer is fasting, be it from food or sex. Selfishness is the root problem that needs to be faced.
Thanks for chiming in, Aaron. I think that this is simply too strict. "The answer is fasting," requires more of people than God requires. "Selfishness is the root problem," attributes a wicked motive to a wide swath of people without justification. It is possible to be stricter than God: "Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism..." writes Paul. We are to watch out for those "who forbid marriage and require abstinence (from foods)" but the point can generalize. It is not obvious that all contraceptive use comes from selfishness. I am particularly wary on behalf of those who measure people's spirituality by virtue of how many children they have, which I think also extends to judging by people's form of birth control. - NFP is birth control intended to engage in sexual acts that will not bear fruit.
Does God promote gluttony or sex without regard for the natural consequences of such actions? Of course not. Sex without regard or responsibility for its natural consequences is selfish, and number of children in no way is a measure of one's spirituality. NFP does not prevent the possibility of pregnancy, nor is it's purpose precisely that. The same certainly cannot be said for contraception.
How can it be "natural" to support that which precludes what's natural, removing the possibility of sex's natural outcome?
I am Catholic, autodidact, have no background in theology. However, my personal theology, based on life experience, can be summarized so: Sin → leads to pain, injury to others, and self-loathing → leads to sincere repentance → leads to the mercy of God. As for the entire question of contraception, the answer can be arrived at by reformulating that question: For what purpose are we here in this life? For without purpose, can there be any meaning at all? If I believe the highest, the most sensible aim I can have here is to maximize my own ease, material prosperity, physical well-being, and -- above all -- pleasure, then clearly contraception can only be a good. If I believe none of those things are of primary importance, but grasp that I was put here to strive for what is eternal, for what transcends the dimension of flesh and blood, then rejecting contraception and embracing a certain degree of sacrifice need not pose insurmountable difficulty.
I love resistance of ease and prosperity - however, if we are here to strive for what transcends flesh and blood, then there are higher goods even then procreating our own flesh and blood. Christian prudence can govern use of contraception and NFP, stewarding our reproductive capacity within a whole life of obedience to God! But yes, if the motive is merely our comfort and ease, something is suspect.
I would ask, though, while Christ asks us to bear a cross, which cross does he ask us to bear? Making life harder for ourselves is not necessarily divinely-approved.
"Which cross does he ask us to bear?" This life, our lives as sinners in a fallen world. This is our cross, from birth to death. I don't believe we can make life harder for ourselves. I believe that by its very nature, this life is hard. How can it not be hard when so many suffer and live in misery every day? Would not even ignoring this, looking away, in turn make our cross heavier? Life here is supposed to be hard, by the will of God, meant to be a trial, in preparation for eternity. Thereby revisiting what I was pointing to ... that we are not here for comfort (the opposite of hardship), comfort in the broadest sense. I often think that when America's founding fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” are unalienable rights ... "rights" mind you ... that they unknowingly set the stage for the disastrous state of affirs in the United States today. Certainly they were ahead of their time ... chasing happiness sounds as if right out of an advertisement.
Random Musings - interesting question. The Catholics - for example Robert P. George in "Conjugal Marriage" - argues against all sex that is not married PIV sex. All sex - on their view - has to be such as could be, in principle, fertile. (I think their argument is undermined by their acceptance of NFP, but leave that to the side.)
I don't moralize marriage about which body part goes where - though I think there are prudential reasons against some acts, and moral reasons against anything BDSM. By my logic, all married sex is married sex, and that's all there really is to say. :)
Shouldn't be a surprise from a Christian that I would say no to all of those… from my understanding, Christianity teaches that sex is be reserved for a man and woman in marriage.
I wouldn't say chromosomes. A woman with Swyer syndrome is a woman because of her phenotype, even though her genotype is XY. But yes, Christian teaching is a man and a woman - cis man with trans man would work, ironically... :) or cis woman with trans woman ... or trans man and trans woman ... all would be legit marriages.
IVG I wouldn't be a fan of; read the opening chapter of Brave New World to understand my worries. It's all a piece with transhumanism, transcending our nature instead of accepting it. Marriage, on the other hand, accords with human nature.
I'm not opposed to all technological intervention - hence arguing for contraception - but we have to ask whether technology serves human ends or is leading us to transcend our nature and play God.
On the first point, and this is more generally about various arguments here, I think we have confused natural teleology or the purpose/design of marriage with moral requirements. In saying that marriage is (in part) for the sake of procreation, it does not follow that one is morally required to have as many children as possible; in fact, it does not follow that it is morally forbidden to forego having children. We can question people's motives, judge what constitutes psychological/physical incapacity, but even weighing those things already indicates that the action of having children is not directly a duty that permits of no exceptions. It is not a moral absolute.
Rather, marriage is a human norm. It is a natural end of human beings. Fruitfulness is a marital norm. It is a natural end of the marriage union. In fact, these kinds of arguments, more than the moral, are more attractive to people generally. I'd rather have children because its desirable to do so, or at least deeply human. To do so because I have to or it would be morally wrong to is the kind of command people like to disobey.
That's because our culture also confused teleology with morality. Disliking Christian moralizing, modern people have rejected the entire teleological view of our nature. We need to return to the teleological view of our own bodies and of marriage itself; to do so persuasively, we must resist moralizing things that don't need to be moralized. (Ha, this comment isn't so much meant for you, King Laugh, as for the whole group here - but I started typing it to you, so there you go.)
"Better Jews" arguments are what I'm trying to avoid. No doubt, Catholic teaching has been more morally counter-cultural and effective on such matters. But that might still not be the whole truth!
It would be good to examine this matter from the perspective of the authority of the Church. If the document is infallible and the teaching is that contraception is intrinsically evil, all your musings are irrelevant in regard to your conclusion. So those with faith and without the ability to dialogue in the metaphysical dimensions will simply out of faith reject your argument because its origin is not sacred doctrine, which is from God, but human reasoning, dissonant with infallibility.
To engage in the actual argument itself though I’d say that temporary language reminds me of an unhelpful approach to ethics as found in the fundamental option. When discerning a particular moral act, the broader context of one’s habit is unimportant in the final assessment of the objective nature of the object of the act.
The vegetative appetite of the human soul does have an end in procreation which ought to be integrated into the rational appetite and rightly ordered. The sex act has a teleology that should not be frustrated as it is, in anyway. Any frustration that is willed goes beyond intention when considering voluntary, but also applies to the circumstances and object of the act. The principle reason contraception is wrong because the object is “intrinsically wrong.” Avoiding a pregnancy by choosing a means that accepts the design of our body is not only proper in the act, but it is also a fully human acceptance of the self since the natural law appeals to a hylomorphic notion of the body-soul composite. The procreative dimensions is and integrated dimension of the person’s identity, whereby all acts that contradict this procreative dimension as-is-natural are evils. They are moral evils when chosen in object, and they are evils when considered medically as disordered.
Christopher West offers the best response to objections in favour of the use of contraception in his book: “Good News about sex and Marriage” and he anticipates common objections.
Thanks, Fr. Chris for this careful response.
On the first point, what I appreciate most about Catholicism and Thomism is the emphasis on the natural law as available apart from special revelation - whether Bible or Church authority. If philosophical argument leads away from Church teaching, that would lead to the conclusion that the Catholic Church has erred, which would lead to Protestant (perhaps) theological results. Otherwise, you're just arguing for the "retreat to commitment," the Catholic equivalent of Protestant presuppositionalism.
You argue that "the broader context of one's habit is unimportant" in the assessment of the act. Very relevant, because I am arguing that we shouldn't analyze the fertility of a man and woman's sexual union in virtue of whether this particular sexual encounter is likely or possible to lead to conception. I am arguing for prudence in timing children (at least) in the context of a fertile marriage, open to children.
My argument however does not rest on the habitual openness to children - I would argue that even the couple who wills never to have children still has sex acts that are intrinsically ordered to procreation - by natural teleology. I don't believe that "frustrating," or I would say "obstructing," the outcome of a teleologically-ordered act undermines teleology.
Neo-Aristotelian accounts of natural teleology account for this. For example, "The mayfly breeds before dying," expresses the natural form of life of the mayfly, as well as its natural teleology. However, most mayflies die long before breeding. (The example is Michael Thompson's, "The Representation of Life.")
Likewise, heterosexual sex is ordered to reproduction is not undermined by many instances of heterosexual sex that do not lead to reproduction. You would grant that. But it follows that obstructing the outcome of conception does not affect the original point. The natural teleology is to lead to conception. So, while I won't insist that we analyze an act in the context of a habit - I *would* insist on what Elizabeth Anscombe called the wider context of an animal's form of life (something Thompson goes into significantly).
Thanks for the reply! I will say, I'm happy that West has his responses - but the fact is, there are natural law theorists advocating the pro-contraception position. Very important that it has a strong defense. In fact, I don't know of any Protestant natural law theorists arguing the point... Now there is.
Well, I"m not a Catholic so I would disagree with some of this, but this is very well put. If one's reasoning from 'natural revelation' ends up in a conclusion that contradicts 'special revelation', it is the reasoning that is at fault, not special revelation.
Or one’s reading of Scripture is incorrect! It has happened before.
As a side note, I have a class every Monday and last week we examined Gender Theory accounts don’t to Aquinas distinctions on various things. I think in part this helps establish the fundamentals. The context is us going through a document from Rome on types of human dignity.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iN0CByVyltA
Not in this case. As I read you, you put ‘the teaching of the Catholic church’ within the realm of ‘special revelation’. I don’t do so, obviously. But if you do do so, then, in this case, your natural law argument fails the test I propose: you end up with a conclusion that is contradictory to special revelation, ergo, your conclusion is wrong.
Now, as to Scripture, I am perfectly willing to have that discussion, in long form, on dueling stacks. Any time. However you have already accepted the burden of proof: you have acknowledged that your view stands contrary to the universal teaching of all churches (Protestant and Catholic) until about 1930. This alone would lead to a huge amount of soul searching. Your view has a huge uphill climb.
https://open.substack.com/pub/vonwriting/p/contraception-is-immoral?r=6csnm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
This account of history seems to say that the Sexual Revolution was caused by the availability of contraception and the approval of contraceptive use by church authorities, beginning in about 1930.
But the Sexual Revolution was definitely underway in the early 1920's, due to many societal influences, without birth control pills or church approvals.
Excellent! God bless!
To say that contraception is moral is like saying a magic diet pill that prevents the natural outcomes of a gluttonous life is moral. Consciously preventing the "second actuality" does not make the immoral behavior that precedes it moral. The answer is fasting, be it from food or sex. Selfishness is the root problem that needs to be faced.
Thanks for chiming in, Aaron. I think that this is simply too strict. "The answer is fasting," requires more of people than God requires. "Selfishness is the root problem," attributes a wicked motive to a wide swath of people without justification. It is possible to be stricter than God: "Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism..." writes Paul. We are to watch out for those "who forbid marriage and require abstinence (from foods)" but the point can generalize. It is not obvious that all contraceptive use comes from selfishness. I am particularly wary on behalf of those who measure people's spirituality by virtue of how many children they have, which I think also extends to judging by people's form of birth control. - NFP is birth control intended to engage in sexual acts that will not bear fruit.
Does God promote gluttony or sex without regard for the natural consequences of such actions? Of course not. Sex without regard or responsibility for its natural consequences is selfish, and number of children in no way is a measure of one's spirituality. NFP does not prevent the possibility of pregnancy, nor is it's purpose precisely that. The same certainly cannot be said for contraception.
How can it be "natural" to support that which precludes what's natural, removing the possibility of sex's natural outcome?
I am Catholic, autodidact, have no background in theology. However, my personal theology, based on life experience, can be summarized so: Sin → leads to pain, injury to others, and self-loathing → leads to sincere repentance → leads to the mercy of God. As for the entire question of contraception, the answer can be arrived at by reformulating that question: For what purpose are we here in this life? For without purpose, can there be any meaning at all? If I believe the highest, the most sensible aim I can have here is to maximize my own ease, material prosperity, physical well-being, and -- above all -- pleasure, then clearly contraception can only be a good. If I believe none of those things are of primary importance, but grasp that I was put here to strive for what is eternal, for what transcends the dimension of flesh and blood, then rejecting contraception and embracing a certain degree of sacrifice need not pose insurmountable difficulty.
I love resistance of ease and prosperity - however, if we are here to strive for what transcends flesh and blood, then there are higher goods even then procreating our own flesh and blood. Christian prudence can govern use of contraception and NFP, stewarding our reproductive capacity within a whole life of obedience to God! But yes, if the motive is merely our comfort and ease, something is suspect.
I would ask, though, while Christ asks us to bear a cross, which cross does he ask us to bear? Making life harder for ourselves is not necessarily divinely-approved.
"Which cross does he ask us to bear?" This life, our lives as sinners in a fallen world. This is our cross, from birth to death. I don't believe we can make life harder for ourselves. I believe that by its very nature, this life is hard. How can it not be hard when so many suffer and live in misery every day? Would not even ignoring this, looking away, in turn make our cross heavier? Life here is supposed to be hard, by the will of God, meant to be a trial, in preparation for eternity. Thereby revisiting what I was pointing to ... that we are not here for comfort (the opposite of hardship), comfort in the broadest sense. I often think that when America's founding fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” are unalienable rights ... "rights" mind you ... that they unknowingly set the stage for the disastrous state of affirs in the United States today. Certainly they were ahead of their time ... chasing happiness sounds as if right out of an advertisement.
Random Musings - interesting question. The Catholics - for example Robert P. George in "Conjugal Marriage" - argues against all sex that is not married PIV sex. All sex - on their view - has to be such as could be, in principle, fertile. (I think their argument is undermined by their acceptance of NFP, but leave that to the side.)
I don't moralize marriage about which body part goes where - though I think there are prudential reasons against some acts, and moral reasons against anything BDSM. By my logic, all married sex is married sex, and that's all there really is to say. :)
Shouldn't be a surprise from a Christian that I would say no to all of those… from my understanding, Christianity teaches that sex is be reserved for a man and woman in marriage.
I wouldn't say chromosomes. A woman with Swyer syndrome is a woman because of her phenotype, even though her genotype is XY. But yes, Christian teaching is a man and a woman - cis man with trans man would work, ironically... :) or cis woman with trans woman ... or trans man and trans woman ... all would be legit marriages.
IVG I wouldn't be a fan of; read the opening chapter of Brave New World to understand my worries. It's all a piece with transhumanism, transcending our nature instead of accepting it. Marriage, on the other hand, accords with human nature.
I'm not opposed to all technological intervention - hence arguing for contraception - but we have to ask whether technology serves human ends or is leading us to transcend our nature and play God.
On the first point, and this is more generally about various arguments here, I think we have confused natural teleology or the purpose/design of marriage with moral requirements. In saying that marriage is (in part) for the sake of procreation, it does not follow that one is morally required to have as many children as possible; in fact, it does not follow that it is morally forbidden to forego having children. We can question people's motives, judge what constitutes psychological/physical incapacity, but even weighing those things already indicates that the action of having children is not directly a duty that permits of no exceptions. It is not a moral absolute.
Rather, marriage is a human norm. It is a natural end of human beings. Fruitfulness is a marital norm. It is a natural end of the marriage union. In fact, these kinds of arguments, more than the moral, are more attractive to people generally. I'd rather have children because its desirable to do so, or at least deeply human. To do so because I have to or it would be morally wrong to is the kind of command people like to disobey.
That's because our culture also confused teleology with morality. Disliking Christian moralizing, modern people have rejected the entire teleological view of our nature. We need to return to the teleological view of our own bodies and of marriage itself; to do so persuasively, we must resist moralizing things that don't need to be moralized. (Ha, this comment isn't so much meant for you, King Laugh, as for the whole group here - but I started typing it to you, so there you go.)
The book length case has been done several times. And I am perfectly willing to go out to whatever length is necessary here on Substack.
This is one: https://wipfandstock.com/9781608990108/the-christian-case-against-contraception/
Actually, this article probably has a pretty good list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull
"Better Jews" arguments are what I'm trying to avoid. No doubt, Catholic teaching has been more morally counter-cultural and effective on such matters. But that might still not be the whole truth!
It sounds like there’s a lot of things that we could discuss more long form.
Well, that implies that I have them out of their box. But I’ll look.