« Real Bishops | Main | Biblical Gas »
August 31, 2007
Good Guys Winning, Liberals Losing
In Reform rollback or emerging ‘sane modernity’ – Evangelical Catholicism triumphant, John Allen, the National Catholic Reporter's Vatican correspondent, declares that
a profound shift in the [Catholic] church’s geological plates, and perhaps the best way of describing the resulting earthquake is as the triumph of evangelical Catholicism.
. . . Liberal Catholicism enjoyed a heyday from the late 1960s to the mid-1980s, and it’s not about to die off, overeager prophecies in some circles notwithstanding. During the last quarter-century, however, the evangelicals have won most of the fights in terms of official Catholic policy. Whether that’s a rollback on reform or the emergence of a “new, sane modernity,” as Pope Benedict XVI claims, is a matter for debate, but there’s no mistaking which way the winds are blowing.
Posted by David Mills at 10:16 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00e54ee9ee858834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Good Guys Winning, Liberals Losing:
Comments
The wind may be blowing in the direction the "evangelical" Catholics prefer in the sense that those Catholics who are most active in the life of the Church are more conservative and serious about the Magisterium. But when we count self-declared Catholics in America (all those who might want a priest at their funeral), they are nowhere close to a majority. Not only that, but the "progressives" still have a large group of elitist intellectuals to give them aid and comfort. On the Commonweal blog just now, they're cackling about how unlikely it is that Roe v. Wade will be undone.
Posted by: ron chandonia | Aug 31, 2007 2:55:46 PM
What I found interesting was the reporter's take on Benedict XVI rejecting the title of Patriarch of the West. While it is true that there never was such a formal dignity, from a functional perspective in the first millennium, the Bishop of Rome was indeed a Patriarch in that he had direct jurisdiction over more than one metropolitan province. Rejecting the title, therefore, is something of an attempt at revisionist history, directed towards two purposes: first, to reinforce the notion of the Pope having "immediate, ordinary and universal jurisdiction", which claim was never made in the first millennium; and second, to rationalize the Pope's power to appoint Eastern bishops outside the territory of the Eastern Patriarchates and Latin bishops withiin those same territories.
That previous Popes had claimed this right on the one hand as universal Pontiff and on the other as head of a supraterritorial patriarchate created canonical and logical difficulties. Rejecting the title of Patriarch begs the question then of whether the Latin Church HAS a canonical territory, or is merely the default position for all Catholics. Vatican II, the Code of Canons for the Oriental Churches and a host of ecumenical documetns endorsed by the last four Popes says no; this would seem to disagree.
Which puts Benedict XVI at odds with Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who famously claimed in 1976 (and reiterated in writing in 1985) that the Church of Rome could demand nothing more from the Orthodox regarding the Primacy than was professed and lived by the undivided Church. Well, the record is pretty clear--the Pope of Rome exercised patriarchical authority over the Western Church, while also serving as Archbishop of Rome endowed with the dignity of Pope. This is hard to explain away, and it seems clear, in light of the increasing assertiveness of the Eastern Catholic patriarchs, that we have not heard the last of this one.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 31, 2007 7:11:20 PM
As you know, Stuart, several excellent popes lived somewhat dissolute lives before their election. You can't be holding B16 to a throwaway remark of J. Card. Ratzinger :)
Posted by: bonobo | Sep 1, 2007 12:46:46 PM
>>>As you know, Stuart, several excellent popes lived somewhat dissolute lives before their election. You can't be holding B16 to a throwaway remark of J. Card. Ratzinger :)<<<
It was harly a "throwaway" remark, it was a seminal statement of the ecumenical dialogue, which which Ratzinger thought significant enough to include (in enlarged form) in his 1985 book, "Elements of Catholic Theology" (available in English through Ignatius Press. The principles he enunciated in the Graz speech became an integral part of the Catholic position in the Joint International Theological Dialogue, and were incorporated into a number of agreed statements.
Moreover, restoration of the office of the patriarch, with all of its rights, authority and perquisites, was carefully enunciated in the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches, and the importance of the patriarchate to the Eastern Churches acknowledged in a variety of pontifical and curial documents. Attempts to remove the Latin Church from the patriarchical structure, therefore, have been greeted with grave concern within the Eastern Catholic Churches, and has serious implications for future Catholic-Orthodox discussions.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 1, 2007 1:03:30 PM
Stuart,
How the patriarchal question pans out is a relatively minor question to me. I fully supported JPTG's suggestion of discussing with the ecclesial communities how the Petrine charism might work best in the service of the Church.
I see your position regarding the ECC as anomalous however, when it allows you to "differ" on the contraceptive issue. Papal authority to teach must have some teeth in the context of the Universal Church: otherwise Catholicity is a bad joke.
Posted by: bonobo | Sep 1, 2007 1:09:17 PM
>>>I see your position regarding the ECC as anomalous however, when it allows you to "differ" on the contraceptive issue. Papal authority to teach must have some teeth in the context of the Universal Church: otherwise Catholicity is a bad joke.<<<
It is one thing to lay out broad principles; it is quite another to become prescriptive through the imposition of the theological and doctrinal categories of one particular Church on other particular Churches. How, for instance, would the Latin Church feel if the Eastern Churches attempted to impose their theology of marriage upon them?
I also remind you that moral teachings for the most part never entered into disputes between Rome and the Eastern Churches, except when those impinged upon more important theological issues. Thus, the dispute with between Rome and Constantinople over the fourth marriage of Leo the Wise was not really about marriage or sexual morality, but about the sacramental meaning of marriage. Note, also, that once this issue was resolved (Leo gets to marry, but Rome concedes that henceforth marriage is an internal disciplinary issue), remarriage NEVER became an issue in the Catholic-Orthodox dispute (interesting, when so many other trivial issues did). In fact, until the issuance of a "universal" Code of Canons in 1917, Eastern Catholic marriage regulations were identical to those of the Orthodox Church; i.e., one sacramental marriage in a lifetime, non-sacramental remarriage permitted after divorce or widowhood.
So, would you extend this requirement for "universality" (not the real meaning of catholicity in any case) to the theology of marriage, and all of its repercussions, or not? And if you do, explain why the Latin usage should be considered normative.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 1, 2007 1:47:19 PM
Latin non-usage was normative until the late 1800s. Who changed?
Posted by: bonobo | Sep 1, 2007 2:00:52 PM
>>>Latin non-usage was normative until the late 1800s. Who changed?<<<
That sounds clever. What does it mean?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 1, 2007 2:38:32 PM
It means that the ordinary Joe used to be told by all Churchmen that using a johnnie was wrong.
Posted by: bonobo | Sep 1, 2007 3:01:34 PM
My slang is too local and to some extent anachronistic. I mean contraceptive device.
Posted by: bonobo | Sep 1, 2007 3:04:31 PM
>>>It means that the ordinary Joe used to be told by all Churchmen that using a johnnie was wrong.<<<
There was a more profound change than that, actually. Traditional Church teaching, particularly in the West, opposed ANY attempt to control conception, whether natural or "artificial". To abstain from sex for the purpose of avoiding conception, or to only engage in sex when conception was improbable, indicated an intent to avoid conception, which was considered sinful (particularly in light of the Western proclivity to see sex as licit only for procreation--that dual-functionality stuff is something of an innovation, you know).
The East never thought that way, and for the most part, what Catholic apologists put forward as "anti-contraceptive" statements by the Greek Fathers are nothing of the sort, but rather injunctions against abortion (the only kind of contraception of which the ancients knew). But of the notion that sex was only licit within marriage for the purpose of procreation, we do not find a word (as opposed to reams of paper coming out of Augustine and the Western Fathers.
As an example, Chrysostom, in his commentary on Gen 1:28, wrote that the purpose of marriage was neither procreation nor pleasure, but rather the sacramental union of man and woman:
"What then? When there is no child, will they not be two? Nay, for their coming together hath this effect it diffuses and commingles the bodies of both. And as on who hat cast ointment into oil, hath made the whole one; so the truth is it also here. . . Why art thou ashamed of the honorable, why blushest thou at the undefiled?"
And recognizing that the command of Genesis to be fruitful and multiply has largely been fulfilled (seeing that mankind has grown to fill the whole world), Chrysostom wrote:
"Marriage does not always lead to child-bearing, although there is the word of God which says, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth". We have as witnesses all those who are married but childless. So the purpose of chastity takes precedence, especially now, when the world is filled with our kind. At the beginning, the procreation of children was desirable, so that person might leave a memorial of his life. But now that resurrection is at our gates, and we do not speak of death, but advance toward another life better than he present, the desire for posterity is superfluous".
This mirrors directly the statement of John Meyendorff (go find the thread, it's here somewhere) that Christian marriage has no worldly purpose, but is a true sacrament that points to the Kingdom. Procreation is not the purpose of marriage, but a seal of its fruitfulness.
In any case, let us not get distracted on this subject, again, but focus on the issue at hand: are you saying that Latin expression and Latin usage is normative for all Catholics? Because that is not what the Catholic Church's own documents say. Nowhere is there any indication that the Church's desire for the Eastern Catholics to reclaim the fullness of their Tradition stops when that Tradition differs from the Tradition of Rome.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 1, 2007 3:54:06 PM
I think the key to our disagreement is here, where you comment that:
(the only kind of contraception of which the ancients knew)
Augustine practised contraception with his common-law wife, and repented of it. Onan's sin was contraceptive and was condemned. Had the ancients been privy to the controversy over NFP and artificial contraception, I doubt I'd be surprised by their reaction.
Chrysostom seems to be defending the childless couple from the charge that their marriage is not sacramental or that their sexual relations are illicit. To use this statement otherwise appears to me a red herring.
Therefore, I deny that the teachings exemplified by Humanae Vitae are a mere "Latin usage". The issue has been brought into sharper focus by the general degradation of sexual ethics, which the contraceptive mentality has greatly facilitated. The Church's response, building on its traditional teachings, is entirely appropriate.
Posted by: bonobo | Sep 1, 2007 4:05:53 PM
>>>Onan's sin was contraceptive and was condemned.<<<
Onan's sin was violating the Levirate. We've been over this before, I have no desire to revisit it.
>>>Chrysostom seems to be defending the childless couple from the charge that their marriage is not sacramental or that their sexual relations are illicit. To use this statement otherwise appears to me a red herring.<<<
Chrysostom is not defending anything, but making a positive statement regarding the purpose of Christian marriage.
>>>Therefore, I deny that the teachings exemplified by Humanae Vitae are a mere "Latin usage". The issue has been brought into sharper focus by the general degradation of sexual ethics, which the contraceptive mentality has greatly facilitated. The Church's response, building on its traditional teachings, is entirely appropriate.<<<
It is actually departing from its traditional teaching, at least within the Latin Church, since prior to the middle of the 20th century, the Latin Church had opposed ANY attempts to limit the conception of children. No exceptions.
But that is neitner here nor there--it's an evasion of the basic issue: to what extent must the Eastern Catholic Churches conform to Latin theological norms?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 1, 2007 4:17:04 PM
It is actually departing from its traditional teaching, at least within the Latin Church, since prior to the middle of the 20th century, the Latin Church had opposed ANY attempts to limit the conception of children. No exceptions.
Interesting. When I read this in casti connubii:
27. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.
28. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact .
...I don't see anything in conflict with P6's clarification re NFP. Where is the admonition to pump out as many kids as possible?
Where is the eastern Church's careful nuancing of this point in opposition to the supposed RCC injunction never to limit family size?
What theological norm are you talking about which the Greeks don't recognize?
Posted by: bonobo | Sep 1, 2007 4:40:29 PM
Here's another gem from that 1930 document:
53. 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.
Posted by: bonobo | Sep 1, 2007 4:52:56 PM
Reading comp time: Casti connubi is itself a departure from the teaching and practice of the Latin Church--a mid-20th century document.
But I come not to discuss contraception, but you own conception of the degree to which Latin beliefs are normative.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 1, 2007 4:57:56 PM
Casti connubi is itself a departure.
I'll buy that when you quote me something.
But I come not to discuss contraception
"I came that they may have life and have it to the full" (Jn 10:10). Abundance of life...is that in material terms only, then?
Posted by: bonobo | Sep 1, 2007 5:07:52 PM
A "more-non-mid 20th century" example:
The first time Rome spoke on the matter was as long ago as 1853, when the Sacred Penitentiary answered a dubium (a formal request for an official clarification) submitted by the Bishop of Amiens, France. He asked, "Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?" The Vatican reply was, "After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation"
Posted by: bonobo | Sep 1, 2007 5:31:40 PM
Quoted in J. Montánchez, Teología Moral [Buenos Aires, 1946], p. 654.
Posted by: bonobo | Sep 1, 2007 5:32:51 PM
Onan's sin was violating the Levirate. We've been over this before, I have no desire to revisit it.
I'm not going to jump back in except to note that I believe there are problems with the view that he was put to death for violating what was then a mere custom and was not even punished by death once it became part of the Law more than 400 years later and it ignores those commentators (who I have cited elsewhere on this blog site) who held the sin *for which he was put to death* was using coitus interruptus for purposes of contraception.
Posted by: GL | Sep 1, 2007 5:49:06 PM
GL, we know that the Levirate law had a deep exposition of a theology of the body that was greatly at variance with JPTG's. That's why the latter really needn't have bothered exercising his teaching office. Eh, Staurt? Game, set, match?
Posted by: bonobo | Sep 1, 2007 5:52:51 PM
Stuart, not Staurt. I'm being combative, but not deliberately offensive.
Posted by: bonobo | Sep 1, 2007 6:03:14 PM
"The East never thought that way, and for the most part, what Catholic apologists put forward as "anti-contraceptive" statements by the Greek Fathers are nothing of the sort, but rather injunctions against abortion (the only kind of contraception of which the ancients knew)."
Sorry, Stuart, this is wrong. From literature and excavations we know that the ancient Egyptians had condoms made of linen sheaths before 1,000 B.C., and (despite the Hippocratic Oath) several surviving documents of anicent Greek and Roman medical literature detail both contraceptives and abortifacients. And the ancient Chinese and Indian cultures had counterparts to these as well.
And I trust that Prof. Tighe will not mind me quoting him that Meyendorff is a "curate's egg" -- better as a historian than a theologian, with his writings in the latter category often departing from rather than typical exemplifying EO theology. After the last big debate on contraception I borrowed and read Meyendorff's book on marriage. It was very poorly reasoned and a huge disappointment, and the EO clergy I know have recommended other alternatives that Stuart never, ever mentions:
Marriage as a Path to Holiness: Lives of Married Saints
David and Mary Ford
Vested in Grace: Priesthood and Marriage in the Christian East
Joseph Allen, Editor
Love, Sexuality, and the Sacrament of Marriage
John Chryssavgis
Christianity and Eros: Essays on the Theme of Sexual Love
Philip Sherrard
The Sacrament of Love
Paul Evdokimov
On Marriage and Family Life
St. John Chrysostom
Posted by: James A. Altena | Sep 3, 2007 5:59:05 AM
Those who don't wish to accept the RCC's teaching on contraception while claiming to be Catholics often tend to describe NFP as a change in the Church's irreformable teaching on basic morality.
The conclusion drawn is that the ban on artificial birth control is reformable and therefore (in another breathless leap of presumption) may be safely ignored.
To quote Churchill's take on generative organs: "round objects".
Posted by: bonobo | Sep 3, 2007 7:27:38 PM
>>>Marriage as a Path to Holiness: Lives of Married Saints
David and Mary Ford
Vested in Grace: Priesthood and Marriage in the Christian East
Joseph Allen, Editor
Love, Sexuality, and the Sacrament of Marriage
John Chryssavgis
Christianity and Eros: Essays on the Theme of Sexual Love
Philip Sherrard
The Sacrament of Love
Paul Evdokimov
On Marriage and Family Life
St. John Chrysostom<<<
I actually own ALL of these. What I find interesting, though, is that nobody can ever manage to find a quotation from any of the Fathers that explicitly mentions contraception--though many mention abortion. Was this just reticence on their part, or are we perhaps dealing with two separate matters?
Moreover, I fail to see how this addresses the entire issue of oikonomia as a means of dealing with a problem that is too complex for simple black and white approaches.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 3, 2007 7:51:14 PM
"The East never thought that way, and for the most part, what Catholic apologists put forward as "anti-contraceptive" statements by the Greek Fathers are nothing of the sort, but rather injunctions against abortion (the only kind of contraception of which the ancients knew)."
This is one of Stuart's earlier remarks with which I do not agree. Some clearly were equating contraception and abortion, but that does not mean that they did not understand that contraception and abortion were different acts. Indeed, they were treated different so they must have understood that there was some difference.
I do agree that the Fathers did not discuss hard cases, however, but were directing their comments at people who clearly had no justification to restrict fertility: Gnostics, fornicators, husbands who viewed their wives as simply objects of lust, etc. I am unaware of any writings which addressed the hard cases. I am persuaded, therefore, that we cannot know how those early Fathers would have treated such cases. (Which, as I have said on numerous occasions, I view as justification to use AC and why I cannot accept in its entirety the RCC position.)
bonobo,
As I recall, St. Augustine did in fact say things that would seem to condemn what is now called NFP (of course it was not nearly as scientifically based) as much as he did other methods designed to limit fertility. I cannot say that I am aware of any others that would go that far. I am ambivalent on NFP. In some sense, the RCC position on this makes sense, yet I cannot avoid the conclusion that if NFP is as effective as AC then it is as much a contraceptive behavior as wearing a condom. The former is a time barrier; the latter a space barrier.
On all of this, I am open to persuasion. What I am firm on is that absent exigent circumstances, it is sinful to use contraception.
Posted by: GL | Sep 3, 2007 7:53:43 PM
Stuart,
The following are quotes that make no reference to abortion:
Clement of Alexandria
"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).
"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid., 2:10:95:3).
Lactantius
"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).
"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (ibid., 6:23:18).
Epiphanius of Salamis
"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).
Augustine
"This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion" (The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 [A.D. 388]).
"You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1–4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps" (Against Faustus 15:7 [A.D. 400]).
"For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny" (ibid., 22:30).
"For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage . . . to yield it to the partner lest by fornication the other sin damnably [through adultery]. . . . [T]hey [must] not turn away from them the mercy of God . . . by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting [children], is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of a harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of creation, that . . . when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose [orally or anally consummated sex], the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman" (The Good of Marriage 11–12 [A.D. 401]).
...
"I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility. . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 [A.D. 419]).
Jerome
"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).
Caesarius of Arles
"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman" (Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]).
---------------------------------------------------
Where you have persuaded me is in that there must be a place for mercy in hard cases. You have said elsewhere that contraception is a sin, but that there are cases when it should be permitted. I would say it is no sin when some exigent circumstance justifies it, but otherwise in. That leaves open the question of when contraception should be permitted.
Posted by: GL | Sep 3, 2007 8:10:29 PM
I cannot avoid the conclusion that if NFP is as effective as AC then it is as much a contraceptive behavior as wearing a condom
The distinction was IMHO clearly indicated by PXI in the 1930 encyclical referred to above, where NFP is mentioned as "virtuous continence". AC methods are a direct interference with the natural act.
GL, this business about time and space barriers makes no sense to me. If one could equivocate like this, could one not then equivocate about "temporarily withdrawing" food from a comatose patient. Say, until she was dead?
I think not. If it is moral or immoral to abstain, then interposing some other method does not change the morality of the former act. The second method must be evaluated on its own merits. AC has certainly, universally and always been condemned.
Posted by: bonobo | Sep 3, 2007 10:12:58 PM
>>>"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).<<<
Best not to use Jerome, who came very close to heresy in his advocacy of celibacy over marriage. Note that he specifically states that sex is illicit (even in marriage) EXCEPT for the procreation of children. That had been the default position of the Western Church since Tertullian.
Simiilarly with Lactantius--whose words, by the way, show that the true "traditional" attitude of the Church was against family planning of any sort--at least in the West.
>>>"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).<<<
Clement sounds very much like he is railing against masturbation. He also reflects the belief common in antiquity that sperm in fact contained a whole human being, and thus to "spill one's seed" was equivalent to abortion.
Augustines many citations are all over the map, but most seem opposed (a) to the idea of abortion; and (b) to the idea of sex for any reason other than procreation--which would, or course, include natural family planning, when sex for procreation is avoided.
>>>Caesarius of Arles
"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? <<<
Abortifactants, yet again.
>>>Where you have persuaded me is in that there must be a place for mercy in hard cases. You have said elsewhere that contraception is a sin, but that there are cases when it should be permitted. I would say it is no sin when some exigent circumstance justifies it, but otherwise in. That leaves open the question of when contraception should be permitted.<<<
Indeed, contraception is a sin, one that does require mercy in hard cases. The reason this is possible is the emergence of a variety of means that permit such choices to be made. Most of these were not widely available in the ancient world. The Fathers knew about abortifactant means (the condom, while known in primitive form, was not widely available on account of cost and was not particularly reiliable because of manufacturing problems).
Recourse to the Fathers in this area, therefore, is not that helpful because they don't really address the issue, while many of their assumptions about human reproduction were incorrect. It becomes necessary, therefore, to argue from first principles, beginning with the role of human sexuality and marriage.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 4, 2007 3:07:35 AM
bonobo,
I'm going to stay on the other side of this for a change. How do you reconcile the Father's who say that sexual intercourse is only licit for procreation (and now that I have quoted from some of them, it is clear that this was not just St. Augustine) with the use of NFP to avoid conception? Also, why doesn't mercy permit the use of artificial means in hard cases? (Assuming that NFP is 95% effective, that means a 1/20 chance that it will fail, leaving a woman whose life is at risk due to a pregnancy with the awful choice of abortion or risking her life to bring the baby to term.) Finally, may NFP be used merely to limit family size or does it require an independent justification (life of mother, etc.)?
Posted by: GL | Sep 4, 2007 6:43:23 AM
Heh, heh.... Geez Louise. This is the Never-Ending Topic. Contraception has taken over the threads of "Fish Riding Bicycles", "Good Guys Winning, Liberals Losing", and "Real Bishops." Any more?
This is the #1 Moral Problem in America. Ooops wrong. Make that the #1 Moral Problem in the World. Eliminate, or at least greatly reduce this evil and much of the ills of modern society will likewise be reduced.
This should be one of the first questions asked of Presidential Candidates in their debate formats: "Do you think contraception is a wrongful sin? Have you used it? Do you now regret it? If so, don't you think much of our societal ills are caused by the use of contraception? If elected President, will you appoint a Presidential Commission to study this foundational problem? Don't you think that our good ol boys in Iraq are dying for nothing unless we do something about the great domestic evil of our time, contraception? Pledge to do something about contraception. If you do, many Bible-thumping, finger-pointing, right-wing fundamentalists will vote for you!"
Heh, heh... please forgive me. I've been temporarily gripped by the Spirit of Monty Python to make parody.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Sep 4, 2007 6:48:32 AM
This is the #1 Moral Problem in America
IMO, it led directly to the sexual revolution and the demand to legalise abortion. It's a "root cause" thing.
GL, if there's good reason to limit family size, there's a good reason to use NFP. As for the fathers: I'm a Catholic, so in the end of the day the Church's answer is definitive. Stuart has put it better in this regard than me:
Recourse to the Fathers in this area, therefore, is not that helpful because they don't really address the issue, while many of their assumptions about human reproduction were incorrect
Now that the knowledge is out there, adequate moral judgments can be made. This is what the Church did in 1853 (if not earlier) and definitively in 1930 and 1968.
Stuart, I had missed where you agreed that contraception was sinful (I miss a lot of things). This is heartening. Of course there's room for mercy: recall in RCC theology (and elsewhere?) the 3 conditions for the imputation of mortal sin are that an act be objectively gravely sinful, be done in the knowledge of this, and freely.
GL, the "freely" here is important when considering hard cases. Which, after all, make bad law.
Posted by: bonobo | Sep 4, 2007 9:07:08 AM
I know what you mean, TUAD. We have several of these "Never-Ending Topic." I mean, how many times have we gone over and over abortion. Geez Louise, give it a break. So a mother wants her Downs twin aborted and the one without Downs is killed instead. Those things happen. Get over it. And this constant fascination with buggery. I mean, who cares? So what if pastors, priests and bishops like a little you know what. And the effort to tie it all together . . . come on. The only folks who see that are just a bunch of fundamentalist wackos. Let me give a few examples which illustrate the point:
Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon had the audacity to connect contraception and abortion in his The Roots of Roe v. Wade, published in that fundy rag, Touchstone, in January/February, 2003, available at http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-01-003-e.
And then there is the Archbishop of Canterbury, a well-known reactionary, who was silly enough to say the following:
In a church that accepts the legitimacy of contraception, the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous biblical texts, or on a problematic and nonscriptural theory about natural complementarity, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation without regard to psychological structures.I mean, really, contraception and same-sex relationships are related. And if they are, who cares? Its no skin off our nose, right?
Then there is those fuddy-duddies, like H. L. Goudge, Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford, who, in response to the 1930 Lambeth resolution permitting contraception, wrote in December of that year, inter alia, the following:
How far will the argument for contraceptives logically carry us? Is the limitation of their use to married people logically justifiable? Let us take the case of a girl strongly tempted to sin with her betrothed lover. Her mother, let us say, dissuades her. The daughter replies: "You use contraceptives; why should not I?" "Because you are not married," says her mother, "and that makes all the difference." "Why should it?" says the daughter. "Will you give me a single argument for your own use of contraceptives which does not hold for mine? You say that the marriage act has other purposes than childbearing, and that these are sufficient to justify it in your case. It relieves a serious strain which would exist without it; it guards against the temptation to unfaithfulness by one partner to the other; it fosters and deepens love. Well! my lover and I cannot marry yet; we cannot find a house for one thing; and we could hardly manage with children yet, even if we were married. But we are together almost every day; and we find the strain unbearable. I, like you, want to keep the one whom I love faithful to me, and to foster and deepen our love. Why should not we do as you do?" What would the mother say? Perhaps Dr. Selwyn might help her. He finds the argument we are employing "truly astonishing"; he says that "the sexual impulse lies so close to the inmost springs of human personality that its exercise apart from the context of the permanent and public-social relationship of marriage is wrong," and speaks also of "an open, legal and binding moral contract consecrated by religion." But we fear that, if the revolting daughter were sufficiently intelligent to understand all this, she might be sufficiently intelligent to knock the bottom out of it. She would say: "My boy and I intend nothing less than a permanent union. But why in the world, when we are not setting up house or having children, should our union, unless we wish, be "public" or "legal?" Of course, when children may be born, the State recognition of the marriage union is of importance: the State may be called upon to enforce the duty of the father to his wife and children. But such recognition is unnecessary where there is no relationship with which the State is concerned, or the duties of which it could enforce. Again, if I were to have children, it would be my duty to provide for their being born in "lawful wedlock"; but in the present case I have no such duty to hold me back. The consecration of religion we hope to seek later on, but the essential thing is the promise of mutual faithfulness. No, my dear mother, what is right for you must be right for me. Unless the prevention of conception is wrong in itself, I see no reason to think that I shall be doing wrong in the course which I propose to take. What have 'the inmost springs of human personality,' whatever they may be, to do with it"? It would be an injustice to our opponents to say that their teaching is fatal to morality all along the line. That is not so. They have a strong case still against promiscuous immorality as destroying the very power of truly loving. But what have they to say in the case described above?This bloke really thought that there was a connection between permitting contraception and fornication. If only he were alive today, he could see that the wide availability of contraceptives has had no effect on teenagers doing it.
I could go on, but I think the point is obvious: had these men only understood what a silly, irrelevant matter this was, they too could share in a good Monty Python ditty belittling their concerns and the teachings of such small-minded men as Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and Wesley. Thanks for your thoughtful contribution, TUAD, setting us all straight by giving the proper weight (that is, none) to this irrelevant issue. It is really hard to believe that for the first 19 centuries of our faith that the shepherds appointed by God to guard His flock, including the founders of your own tradition, had such silly ideas.
Posted by: GL | Sep 4, 2007 9:15:40 AM
bonobo,
Thanks for actually answering my irrelevant question on this irrelevant topic.
I have to continue my pondering on NFP and hard cases. We agree on everything else, including the importance of the matter.
Posted by: GL | Sep 4, 2007 9:29:49 AM
>>>IMO, it led directly to the sexual revolution and the demand to legalise abortion. It's a "root cause" thing.<<<
Been there, done this discussion before. All evidence points to the Pill NOT being the root cause of the sexual revolution, which in fact was well underway before it was widely available. There were many causes of the sexual revolution, and the Pill, while it may have been accelerated the trend, did not create it. But it is good to have a reductionist cause, isn't it?
>>>GL, if there's good reason to limit family size, there's a good reason to use NFP.<<<
And if it isn't appropriate for a particular couple, whether for physical or spiritual reasons, what then?
Finally, how do you deal with the use of contraceptives for non-contraceptive purposes. Specifically, I am thinking about the AIDS epidemic, and cases where one partner in a marriage is infected (for whatever reason, it doesn't matter) and the other isn't. The rather rigid Vatican stance against the use of condoms to prevent infection, even for married couples, seems ill advised on its face, since it leaves husband and wife only two options: to remain continent for the rest of their lives (not a gift given to all, and something against which St. Paul advises), or to engage in sex without any form of protection, and risk the infection of the other partner. As I said, an attempt to force heroism, or at best, provision of Hobson's Choice.
>>>Stuart, I had missed where you agreed that contraception was sinful (I miss a lot of things). This is heartening. Of course there's room for mercy: recall in RCC theology (and elsewhere?) the 3 conditions for the imputation of mortal sin are that an act be objectively gravely sinful, be done in the knowledge of this, and freely.<<<
I've never denied it. It falls in the same category as remarriage, whether after the death of a spouse or divorce. The Eastern Churches admit of only one sacramental marriage, but allow remarriage as a concession to human weakness. The second marriage is a sin, which is why the remarriage service is penitential, and why those who remarry must abstain from communion for a period of two years (or whatever is determined by their spiritual father). The Western Church, on the other hand, did not limit sacramental marriages, but held that marriage was an indissoluable life contract. So, in the Latin Church today, one is free to remarry as many times as one wants, as long as one has no living spouse. To marry again while one's spouse still lives incurs excommunication. But in contrast to the Eastern practice, this excommunication is indeterminate (at least so long as the first spouse survives).
So, with contraception, the decision to limit the number of children in and of itself, is a sin in the true Eastern sense of "hamartia"--a failure to hit the mark or live up to the Christian ideal. The next step is to determine whether one is doing so for good or false reasons, and having determined that one is doing so for a good reason, how to attain the objective in a manner LEAST spiritually damaging. The Church should (and does) encourage the use of NFP, but it should also be aware of compelling reasons why this may not be appropriate for some couples, and be willing to make concessions on their behalf.
Regarding the distinction between mortal and venial sins, these are not categories that we use in the Eastern Churches. Instead, we speak of sin proper, of transgression, and of "foibles". Sins are wrongs committed voluntarily in full knowledge of being wrong. A transgression, on the other hand, is a wrong commited by accident or in ignorance. A foible is a wrong resulting from weaknesses of human nature, which are involuntary in nature. This seems to me a more useful categorization of sin, as is the Eastern approach of treating sin as a spiritual illness, to be treated through spiritual medicine, as opposed to the Western paradigm of sin as a violation of divine law incurring some sort of penalty.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 4, 2007 9:53:07 AM
I haven't had time to read everything above. one point: Stuart, the contraceptive mentality was in place long before the pill. Why do you think Casti Connubii was published? In direct response to the Anglican desertion of traditional Church sexual ethics.
Posted by: bonobo | Sep 4, 2007 10:21:00 AM
"Thanks for actually answering my irrelevant question on this irrelevant topic."
GL, you misunderstand. I'm not saying that contraception is an irrelevant topic. Not at all.
What I'm puzzled and curious about is the pre-eminent prominence given to this not-irrelevant topic. If it truly is a foundational root-cause issue for much of societal ills, then I can certainly understand your angst. And I'll also understand why this topic should be enduring and impregnating other threads.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Sep 4, 2007 10:36:54 AM
Actually, TUAD, I somewhat agree with Stuart: the acceptance of contraception is not the root cause of all subsequent sexually related developments. It is a consequence of pre-existing forces which have also contributed to the other developments. It is, however, itself a contributing factor in subsequent developments, by making fornication and adultery *seem* less risky and by undermining it users' ability to effectively address these other issues because of the log in the eye problem and the charges of hypocrisy which have ring of truth to them. But I am through discussing it for now. Just keep your mind open on the issue and begin to study it yourself. If you want some references to sources, email me and I'll send you a list.
Posted by: GL | Sep 4, 2007 10:45:32 AM
>>>In direct response to the Anglican desertion of traditional Church sexual ethics.<<<
The contraceptive mentality must have existed long before Lambeth. All you need do is look at birth rates for the industrialized and industrializing countries of Europe from the middle of the 19th century onward. Unless you have another explanation for the rapid reduction in family size?
The sexual revolution is decoupled from contraception. If you want to look for its roots, I suggest that you go back to the Second World War and its disruption of traditional mores. Every war overturns the moral applecart, but what made World War II different was the degree of economic independence women had acquired since the war, which tended to sever their dependence on men for security, This happened even before the Pill, even before contraceptives were legal in all fifty states. It's convenient to blame it on contraception, but it doesn't explain the phenomena, only why it moved so fast.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 4, 2007 11:19:57 AM
Can anyone here recommend a good cultural history/analysis of WWII and after? It would be a tremendous help to me to understand the cultural forces that were in play during that period. (It can't be too technical in nature; I'm neither a philosopher nor a professional historian!)
Thanks.
Posted by: Beth | Sep 4, 2007 11:53:35 AM
The contraceptive mentality must have existed long before Lambeth.
...If you want to look for its roots, I suggest that you go back to the Second World War
I agree with the parts I've quoted above. What Lambeth did was give the contraceptive mentality ecclesial backing. This had significant repercussions in the culture. The "every sperm is sacred" skit in Monty Python involved a childless Anglican couple in which the husband presented (somewhat smugly) the innovative Anglican view. Not that the average viewer in the 1970s would have been aware of the innovation.
Posted by: bonobo | Sep 4, 2007 12:51:19 PM
>>>What Lambeth did was give the contraceptive mentality ecclesial backing.<<<
Like it really needed it?
>>>The "every sperm is sacred" skit in Monty Python involved a childless Anglican couple in which the husband presented (somewhat smugly) the innovative Anglican view. Not that the average viewer in the 1970s would have been aware of the innovation.<<<
Actually, he bragged that while the Catholics couldn't use them, and thus had millions of kids (whom they could not feed, hence had to sell to medical labs), good English Protestants COULD use them any time they wanted, but needn't bother, since they NEVER HAVE SEX..
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 4, 2007 1:56:09 PM
And his wife was amazed to learn that they actually could have sex again, implying that they had had it one time to have their one child.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Sep 4, 2007 2:14:50 PM
>>>And his wife was amazed to learn that they actually could have sex again, implying that they had had it one time to have their one child.<<<
I'm always amazed that, despite the Catholic Church's reputation for sexual repression, individual Roman Catholics are always depicted as perpetually horny. Whereas nobody thinks of loosey-goosey Episcopalians or Methodists as sex fiends. Why is that?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 4, 2007 2:38:17 PM
"Whereas nobody thinks of loosey-goosey Episcopalians or Methodists as sex fiends."
I don't about the Methodists.
But I've read anecdotally that in the British West Indies, the term "Anglican" is code word for gay.
Like in: "Is the guy an Anglican, mahn?"
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Sep 4, 2007 2:55:07 PM
That should be, "I don't know about the Methodists."
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Sep 4, 2007 2:56:08 PM
>>"Whereas nobody thinks of loosey-goosey Episcopalians or Methodists as sex fiends."<<
Yes they do, just not the straight ones.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Sep 4, 2007 2:58:31 PM
"I'm always amazed that, despite the Catholic Church's reputation for sexual repression, individual Roman Catholics are always depicted as perpetually horny."
Very unfortunately, the Catholic priest pedophile scandal only exacerbated the secular public's perception that Roman Catholics are repressed, and therefore perpetually horny as a result of being sexually frustrated.
I wouldn't worry about Hollywood being anti-Catholic. What can you do about it? Really. All you can do is just make sure that movies like The Passion are enormously successful.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Sep 4, 2007 3:08:42 PM
>>>Yes they do, just not the straight ones.<<<
There are straight ones?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 4, 2007 3:52:37 PM
>>There are straight ones?<<
At least two. :)
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Sep 4, 2007 3:54:30 PM
