´óÏó´«Ã½

Wow! Doublespeak is alive and well!
He should follow up with "Whatever happened to Truth?", and then argue it's arrogant to believe you know it. Priceless stuff!

gveale I have no idea what you are talking about. Fagan obviously believes in the existence of sin. he just disagrees with some people about what counts as a sin. He doesn't believe masturbation is a sin. Or that its a sin for catholic couples to use artificial contraception. Or that it's a sin for a a couple who remarry after a divorce to receive communion. I applaud him for standing up and being counted on these issues. Most catholics would agree with him. the church, unfortunately, has been teaching that these are sins, when they are not. The church is losing credibility every time it shouts 'sin' at ordinary sexual life.

Where do you disagree with this brave and honest man of God gveale?

GVeale I too have no idea what you're talking about. The above stands as a beautiful oasis in a desert of archaic theology: some sensible views on sexuality for a change. From what I've just read, I'd say the church of the future may look to Fagan's work on human sexuality as definitive of modern theology!

Fr Fagan-what a refreshing change! unfortunately I cannot see him going far.

NOW I know what I want for Christmas!

Those who wonder if Fagan will go far ... he's already been the worldwide head of his own religious order for more than a decade, he's been a professor of theology, and he's now retired. I'd say he's done alright!

I have rarely read a posting, William, which was so mistaken and just plain wrong in every aspect.

And to describe this chancer as "brave and honest"! If he were "brave and honest" he wouldn't go around describing himself as a "Catholic theologian", something he is clearly not.

Himself and Curran are part of a generation of theologians who did their best to destroy the Church. They orchestrated dissent from Humanae Vitae - in most cases without ever having read it, since the dissent began before the English language text was even available.

The whole teaching of Pope John Paul in the Theology of the Body is person centred. Fagan either doesn't understand it, or worse he is resisting the known truth.

Smasher- Have you considered the possibility that Fagan has studied and completely understands the Humanae Vitae but simply disagrees with it? It scares me to hear someone describe the words of a mere man as the "known truth" from which the speaker is unwilling to hear dissent.

smasherlagru:

1. When you say the posting is mistaken, I assume you are responding to Sean Fagan's book, rather than my summary of its main points. I think my summary is pretty accurate.

2. On whether Charles Curran had read Humanae vitae before responding to it: I put that question to Fr Curran during an interview marking the 40th anniversary of the encyclical and he made it clear that he and others certainly had read the document in full before deciding what response they would make to it.

3. On Pope John Paul II's the Theology of the Body: Sean Fagan discusses this text in detail in his book. I think it is clear that he has read it.

Has smasher read Fr Sean Fagan's book? If not, how can he criticise it?

LOL

A few points
1) If you continually revise what counts as sin in the face of Science and cultural relevance, you end up with cultural relativism. Terms like sin become meaningless - they die the death of a thousand qualifications. I could use arguments similar to Fagan's justify fornication and adultery. Or consumerism. Or whatever.
2) In Smasher's defence, I was a little unsure if William was summarising Fagan or outlining some of his own views, or a little of both. So I was glad to see this cleared up.
3) Furthermore, although I agree with some of Fagan's conclusions, I'm bewildered by the arguments that have been presented here. (Perhaps the book does better, but I don't have one to hand). What I am reading is a gross caricature of Roman Catholic moral thinking. We can set up straw men all day and knock them down. But, on the evidence presented here, Fagan has not engaged the best Roman Catholic arguments for the truth of "Humane Vitae" etc. He is debating what a secular culture would like the best RC apologists to say.

John Finnis, Alexander Pruss, Germain Grisez, Robert P George and J Budzisewski all advance arguments that cannot be reduced to "physicalism". I don't agree with a lot of their conclusions, but you can't ignore or misrepresent solid scholarship









G Veale

To be clear,(a) I am only responding to the evidence presented on this post and (b) I agree with all of Fagan's conclusions on Birth Control, Divorce, Masturbation, Excommunication, the Magisterium, and I agree that condoms are not intrinsically evil (who does?). I just don't see any arguments that I could use against Pruss et al.
The discussion on the unitive and procreative aspects of sex is atrocious. Sexual organs are reproductive organs. That's how biologists would describe them. Now more than biology is at work in human sexuality, but not less. As Pruss points out, when humans have sexual intercourse their bodies are striving to procreate. The reproductive systems follow their design plans, whatever the intentions of the humans.
A woman's fertile period is never predictable - so NFP is rarely reliable. Ask the Blairs. And some people might think that lactation might be connected to reproduction. The "one-flesh" relationship is scripturally, traditionally obviously connected to reproduction.
Unless you want to suppose that nature does not carry an intrinsic meaning, or that whatever meaning it has can be rewritten by human culture and technology. But if you believe that you don't believe in Sin, any more than Napoleon and Squealer believe that all animals are equal.

GV

gveale - sean fagan is certainly not dealing with straw man arguments. His book explores the views on sexual ethics of the leading catholic theologians and Vatican documents. You ask 'who does?' about the claim that condoms are intrinsically evil. On fact it is the vatican's actual stance that artifical means of contractpyion are intrinsically evil. Sean fagan has correctly described his own church's theology on this. It's pretty arrogant of gveale to try to challenge him when he hasn't read this mans book. After fifty years as a moral thrologidn in the catholic church I'd trust Seans summary rather than gveale's.

Oh dear, we're back to the personal attacks again. I'd hoped we'd moved beyond that.
Augustine, I made it very clear that I was only responding to the arguments presented on this thread, which several posters have found appealing. Perhaps the book does deal with Finnis, Grisez and Pruss, who are all leading Catholic philosophers and ethicists. Not one would follow "personalism", nor could one be described as a "physicalist."
If the book deals with them, great. If it doesn't, there's a pretty big hole in the conversation. There is also an irritating tendency among theologians to use "sin", "God", "redemption" or "atonement" to mean something utterly opposed to the common meaning. It's one thing to clear up common misperceptions, or to clearly define a term to aid discussion. To redefine words to mean pretty much the opposite to what they once meant is Double-Speak. .
As for Mr Fagan himself, he may very well be courageous and kind. There are atheists on this blog that I admire. PK and Helio's scientific ability, Brians breadth of reading etc. etc. That doesn't mean that I'll find every argument they make admirable.
You seem to know Mr Fagan, and from what I remember of Will, he doesn't get impressed easily. So if you're both impressed by this guy, I'll take your word for it. And if he has paid a price for his convictions, as it seems he has, then he is indeed a remarkable (and rare) character.
But if I feel that a position doesn't hold water then I'll say so. It's only a blog. I've taken far worse stick, and seen writers I admire take far worse stick, on this blog without taking it to heart.
Finnis and Grisez have spent some time in the Catholic Church as well. Some people even think they're quite bright. So should I ditch everything I've read by these experts because one other expert has a different take? How on earth is that arrogance? But suggesting that Orthodox Catholic teaching is scientifically illiterate and naive and pastorally harmful isn't arrogant? (I don't think it is, but what's sauce for the goose...)
And to be frank, Augustine, I'm a little bored taking this sort of abuse from a pseudonym. Just deal with my arguments, or poke fun at me. I don't mind a bit of humour at my own expense.

GVeale

Soley on the basis of what I have read above, for I haven't read much Roman Catholic theology, I would respond by saying that some Roman Catholics I have known might call these views 'Protestant'.

GVeale- I think you may have misunderstood Fagan's point on procreation, so let me explain it to you as I understand it. One way the Church has traditionally sought to justify its moral positions on sex is by appealing to sex solely as the act of procreation to the exclusion of sex for other reasons: in other words, they've sought to make sins out of things like masturbation, contraception, homosexuality, anal sex, casual sex, polyamory, etc. by arguing that the reason those things should be regarded sinful is that sex is for procreation and not for pleasure. So no matter what the sexual activity, the Church would regard it as sinful if it wasn't strictly between a married man and woman by saying that the purpose of sex is procreation. Fagan deconstructs this argument by saying that even normal marital sex is not always happening for procreation.

gveale ... there's nothing personal. I'm just pointing out that regarding condoms as intrinsically evil is the official Catholic theological position. You asked, essentially, who believes that sort of thing? That's Sean fagan's point. He's offering a critique of the official Magisterial teaching on sexual ethics. In catholic theology, the magisterium (or official teaching) is contained in the documents recognised by the vatican as having authority. These include papal encyclicals, declarations of the church, constitutions, creeds, etc. The magisterium does NOT include the books of Finnis, Grisez, Pruss (or Sean Fagan for that matter!). You are criticising Sean Fagan for not considering the writings of Finnis, when Sean's book is a critique of the magisterium, not a general theological book dealing with a spectrum of view 'out there'. For all I know, Sean may even agree with the scholars you mention on key points. This is neither here nor there. The point of this book by Fagan is to summarise and critique the OFFICIAL teaching of his own church. He has done that in What Happened to Sin?

My My what erudition – but what is sin – am I a sinner because a female naturist taking a walk in her garden a long time ago was conned by a walking talking snake into eating the fruit of some particular tree and then sharing same fruit with her partner. Is a sin just breaking one of the 10 commandments. I don’t remember seeing thou shalt not masturbate or thou shalt not shag unless thou wants a sprog. Strikes me that sin was a very convenient philosophical concept developed by some some priestly elite to get them the power to make you feel guilty all the time and thus gain control over your over your thought processes and purse strings.

William - my comments referred both to Fagan's utterances and your supporting post. You did not introduce this man with any sense of impartial perspective - you clearly agree with him. And that's fine - it's your blog - but don't pretend.

I heard the interview with Curran and Prof Twomey in which he was unable to explain how so many "theologians" were able to respond to a text they hadn't read - remember this was before the internet or even the fax. These guys had not read the text, nor indeed have the "80% of Catholics" who reject it. You cannot say someone has rejected an argument if they haven't read nor understood the argument.

To describe his "new" book as a "devastating critique" is nonsense - old 1970s moral theology reheated, Fagan doing his best to justify himself before he meets his maker.

Augustine
Apologies if I misread you.

If there are important arguments in support of Magisterial teaching, I don't think that it is safe to criticise magisterial teaching without reference to the apologetics.
Another glaring ommission would be Nobel Laureate George Akerlof's research, which lend some credence to Paul VI predictions in Humane Vitae.

John
Traditional Catholic teaching views marriage as a good in itself, and marriage only occurs once there is consummation. A couple consummating their marriage need not intend to have a child every time they make love, but they should not do anything to impede the possiblilty of procreation on any occassion they make love. I think it's a coherent position, but it doesn't convince me - it reads a little too much off nature.
So Humanae Vitae would be one good reason why I am not a Catholic. A Christian Teacher (the Pope is at least that on a Catholic defintion, although he is much more) clearly exceeded his authority.

Smasher
I agree that there is no evidence of a "devastating critique" on display on this thread. The book may be better, (but having looked at "Does Morality Change?" I'd be surprised).
At the same time I don't think you help your case by attacking the man and not the ball. People of good conscience can disagree on fundamental issues. Kick the arguments for all their worth and see what's left standing afterward.
As for Will, given post 9, he just seems to be recommending a book, just as he did with Malachi ODoherty's. I imagine that he expects us to disagree with Fagan's arguments - otherwise it wouldn't prompt a lot of discussion.

G Veale

gveale we really ar arguing at cross-purposes. Sean Fagan does not argue that everything in Humanae vitae is wrong, he argues that the document is wrong in claiming that artificial contraception (e.g., birth control pill, condoms, etc) is 'intrinsically evil'. Fagan argues that this ban on contraception is now ignored by 80 % of Catholics, that the church has lost a great deal of credibility because of its stance on this, and that the use of condoms in regulating family growth is no sin.

Perhaps you disagree with fagan on this point, in which case please say so. Otherwise, I am guessing that you are a Protestant and have no moral objection to the use of artificial contraception within a married relationship. If so, Fagan agrees with you.

gveal references the Nobel laureate George Akerlof. Akerlof is an economist at Berkeley. He argues that some 'technological shifts have proven to be culture-changing. For instance, the
automobile, the telephone and the computer have all had a profound impact on the way we think, feel and behave. We no longer approach time, distance or information—just to mention three things—in the same way. Likewise, contraception has altered the way most men and women view sexuality. With contraception, sex and baby-making have become separated. And with baby-making out of the way temporarily or permanently, the meaning and purpose of sex have been re-assigned in the culture.'

Note here that he is not making a moral judgement. He is not engaged in theology or ethics. Instead, he simply observes a phenomenon we already know about: when people are given new freedoms they sometimes make moral choices that differ from their parents (who did not have those freedoms).

I think it's undeniable that the development of artificial contraception changed the way people viewed sex. Paul VI was certainly right in believing this too. This is not at issue in Fagan's book.

One can accept that the new technologies of artificial contraception have changed society without accepting Paul VI's claim that artificial contraception is therefore 'intrinsically evil'. Those bishops and cardinals at the time who tried to persuade Paul VI on this pointed out that the church was not being asked to sanction extramarital relations, but merely that catholic married couples could use contraception without being called sinners. In other words, whether sex is deemed moral or immoral is not determined by the presence of a condom, but the nature of the relationship between the couple. Paul VI disagreed and the world got Humanae vitae.

Augustine;

" think it's undeniable that the development of artificial contraception changed the way people viewed sex. Paul VI was certainly right in believing this too"

Yes, of course.

The question is whether it has changed for the better.

do people have a healthier, more moral view of sex now than they did in the past?

In some ways we do. We understand sexuality better than we did (though in my view, we understand it nowhere near enough to be really able to make jumoral judgments on many occassions).

In many ways, however, the prevalent view of sexual morality today is a deeply unhealthy one...I'm not sure whether you would allagree, but I suspect many of you will.

"In other words, whether sex is deemed moral or immoral is not determined by the presence of a condom, but the nature of the relationship between the couple"

Yes, but, as you've already asserted, the widespread availability of contraception does have an immense effect on our attitudes and behaviours.

So, in a way, it actually is determined by contraception. That is not to say that, on every occassion in which contraception is used it is used for an evil purpose...

it is to say that the widespread availability and use of contraception profoundly changes the way we deal with issues of sexual morality. In many ways for the worse.

So, in that sense, it could be described as "intrinsically evil"

Thanks Bernards_Insight ...

I think you are arguing that contraception can be 'consequentially' evil rather than 'intrinsically' evil.

I see no argument still for the claim that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil in respect of family planning within a marriage.

No, i think you're right.

But i may have been unclear about the point I was making.

When I say "intrinsically evil" I mean that its widespread use necessarily leads to a change in sexual attitudes for the worse.

I don't think there's anything wrong with contraception within the scope of marriage, but the point is that IT CANNOT BE CONFINED TO THAT.

It is intrinsically evil in that, once it is available, it changes attitudes beyond those limits.

When Akerlof argues that contraception "contraception has altered the way most men and women view sexuality" he doesn't mean that married people are now more responsible family planners.

the availability of contraception has altered the general view of sexuality, and, in my opinion, has made sex a much more flippant and cheapened thing than it has been previously.

Once it was widely available, there is no way in which it could fail to alter such human emotional reactions.

In that way it is not just consequentially evil...it is not simply evil in those circumstances when it is misused.

It is intrinsically eveil in that it cannot fqail to have the result of cheapening sexuality, even if married people also use it responsibly.

If I can paraphrase...I am not sure that "intrinsically evil" means "evil in every conceivable circumstance"

"Intrinsically evil" could also mean "cannot fail to have evil results, even if used responsibly some, or even most of the time."

Even if most contraception was used by responsibly family planners within the confines of marriage, it cannot fail to have other consequences on the general value of sexual fidelity and surrender.

Augustine
I agree with some of Mr Fagan's conclusions. So do Portwyne and John Wright; we all came to those conclusions from different premises. And those premises would take us all in very different directions on other moral and spiritual issues.
My concern with the type of argument outlined on this post is that it could imply, or at least lead to cultural relativism, and empty the term "sin" of all meaning. The danger is that we see nature (including sexuality) as a blank slate that we should write our own meaning onto. In an era of technological advance and rapid cultural change there are practical worries with this worldview (which is quite consistent with philosophical theism).
I think that there is an undeniable link between sexuality and procreation. Furthermore there is an undeniable link between procreation and family (wit. I believe that nature has an inherent "meaning", but that this is often hidden from us (ie we ain't smart enough or good enough to get at it without help).
Up to this point I'm with the Magisterium. God gave us the gift of marriage and sex is part of that gift. Marriages are about creating and sustaining new life.
This explains why Scripture cannot affirm extra-marital heterosexual relationships and homosexual acts.
However, it does not follow that a married couple cannot use contraceptives to have some control over when to have children. As long as the marriage "hopes" to have children I can't see the problem. I can't see why each sexual act in a marriage should be judged in isolation. A marriage is a sexual relationship and the whole relationship should be judged, not the parts.
Furthermore, a couple could have overriding reasons (AIDS, Huntingtons)to remain childless. These would take precedence over the desire to create new life.
As I've said, I believe that a couple could refrain from birth-control as a moral (and not a "lifestyle") choice. They could even rationally and in good conscience believe that every other Christian should likewise refrain. But they do not have an argument clear enough or compelling enough to *rule* that birth control be forbidden to other Christian couples. There are ocassions when even Popes should mind their own business.

GV

Bernard
Another interesting argument in defence of Humanae Vitae, and one I hadn't encountered before. It's worth noting that you make no reference to Natural Law, and that your argument cannot be described as physicalist.
I used Akerloff (fully aware that he was not an RC apologist thanks to good old wikipedia, God bless it) just to draw attention to the consequentialist arguments used by W Bradford Wilcox and Robert P George among others. Akerloff showed that there may be some substance to these consequentialist arguments.


Back to Natural Law - if sexuality is not linked to the generation of new life, why the incest taboo? The "yuk" factor aside, what is the problem with sexual relations between siblings as long as both are consenting and one is sterile?

GV

Graham;

I pretty much agree with you.

I'm not sure that this "intrinsic evil" means that every circumstance in which contraception is used is wrong.

After all, couples can use natural contraception, and have sex without procreation as often as they like.

The point that I've tried to make about artificial contraception is that its widespread use and availability is BOUND to lead to a profound change in our view of sexuality, and that this is BOUND to lead to a cheapening of sexual relations.

I think you would agree that that HAS occured. Perhaps we could argue about how much that is solely due to the availability of artifical contraception, but there can surely be no doubt that it has had an effect...I think it seems likely that it has had the most profound effect.

Natural contraception does not cheapen and casualise sexual relationships in the same way.

Natural contraception isn't much good for one-night stands, for example...and of course it remains natural enough in that there is always a risk...as there is in nature.

"if sexuality is not linked to the generation of new life, why the incest taboo? The "yuk" factor aside, what is the problem with sexual relations between siblings as long as both are consenting and one is sterile"

I would imagine because it horrifically distorts the natural relationships within a family.

That's just a first thought...it's not something I've given much prior thought to.

Bernard
(i)The assumption is that there are "natural" relationships.(ii)The taboo surely takes part of it's force from the fact that reproduction between siblings is not the best start for their offspring.

I didn't give it much thought until OT mentioned someone debated the topic this blog.
If someone were to defend incest, for whatever whacked out reason, I can't see how a rational response could be given without mentioning reproduction.

I don't know if that was worth mentioning, or if it runs the danger of taking us off on a very weird trail.

G Veale

Graham;

"The assumption is that there are "natural" relationships"

yes...

I agree with you about nature having an inherent meaning, and that this is not restricted to procreation...which means nothing on its own.

I think the "natural" family is not simply a unit of procreation, but a complex set of relationships that constitute a unit of love and stability.

Incest would completely distort that, procreation or not.

I would imagine

Bernard-

Are you kidding? Let me see if I understand you correctly. You're making an argument from nature against incest?

An interesting discussion. Everytime a theologian suggests that science and culture play a role in ethical evsluations, he is accused if 'cultural relativism'. Cultural relativism suggests that morality is entirely relative to particular cultures. Fagan, curran and others are opposed to the central tenets of CR and have expressed that opposition in many books.

In fact, as far as contraception is concerned, Fagan is following in the footsteps of John Calvin. Calvin argued that procreation was not the only moral justification for sex in a marriage.

gveale ... you say you don't see a problem with contraception within a marriage as long as the marriage 'hopes' to have children. I'm taking this to mean that you believe a couple in a marriage who have taken a decision not to have children, for whatever reason, are sinning every time they have sex using a condom?

One thing that should be said is that Paul VI did not do something new - he didn't on his own authority bring in a new teaching so it is bizarre for Graham to suggest he exceeded his authority. In Humanae Vitae he simply maintained the teaching of Christianity for 2,000 years (broken by Anglicanism in the 1930s). What was new was his correctly identifying what would happen with the widespread use of contraception - divorce, adultery, abortion, single parents. Contraception is to sex what bulemia is to eating. Natural family planning is to sex what dieting is to eating. The difference is fairly obvious.

Augustine
No. I said they could have reasons that take precedence over the command to "bear fruit and multiply".
If the reasons are selfish, then the decision not to have children is selfish, and therefore sinful.
But only the couple, and ultimately God, knows if the reasons are selfish. So the decision to have or not to have children should be a private one and not be open to Church scrutiny.
GVeale

John
Be fair to Bernard. I asked a very, very odd question -aside from "yuk" whats wrong with incest?
It's not the sort of question that keeps people up at night, and any answer to an odd question will produce an odd-sounding answer (I mean, what's your response? As long as the man is sterile and they are both consenting adults?)
My fault for asking the question, apologies to all.

GV

Augustine
Re CR.
(i) It may not be the intention, but it is difficult to see how it does not result.
(ii) I did not say that science should not play any role. But once you start counting sperm wastage, you've gone over the top.

GV

That is to say, Science and Culture should play an informative but not a noramtive role. If you give them a normative role, I think you're on a slippery slope.

GV

What is truly, deeply sinful, what is a grotesque monstrous evil, is the writing, promulgating and teaching of a document like Humanae Vitae.

The application of the intellect to the emotions is one of the most dangerous things we can do and this encyclical is a prime example of that error.

In modern society the prime and often exclusive purpose of sex is fun, enjoyment, pleasure. That is absolutely OK - what is sinful is to bring guilt and pain into the lives of those very people who, by virtue of their receptiveness to those feelings, are probably responsible and considerate individuals.

Morality is not about what we do with our bodies, it is about what we do with our lives.

Did you hear that man John Murray speaking on Sunday Sequence yesterday? He defended humanae vitae and was asked about a Catholic married couple who discover that one partner is HIV positive. Murray said he believed they should not use contraception and they should remain a celibate couple because there was no justification for the use of condoms in a marriage.

One of the other guests noted that the Vatican gave permission to nuns who had faced being raped to use artificial contraception to avoid becoming. Murray defended that case and said this was about 'self-defence'.

I was amazed. Protecting yourself from infection to HIV is surely also an act of self-defence isn't it?

This is exactly where this kind of abusive moral teaching leads to.

As I am mentioned in the introduction of this book I hope everyone will forgive me for drawing attention to what Fr. Sean and I have in common, namely to have studied Noonan's Contraception and to believe the whole reason for the current problems with the theology of marriage in the Church is that it is NOT based on the teaching of Christ in Scripture in Mt 19 4-6 which I paraphrase as this:
When God made man and woman He made them male and female, this difference in gender impels young adults to leave the parental home, go out courting and find a spouse to whom they will cleave for llife. They consummate that relationship in sexual intercourse. Christ then adds that sexual intercourse changes the couple from two seperate individuals into two halves of a mysterious whole, which since it is made by God Himself, no man has the right to put asunder.
The tragedy is that St. Augustine, undoubtedly one of the best theologians the world has ever seen, had lived in sin with a slave girl. He saw the interpersonal sexual magnetism between husband and wife which is essential to their being one flesh as the pull of lust resultant upon the Fall.
This misapprehension has been totally catastrophic because Augustine misunderstood frequent marital intercourse as lustful seeking of the physical pleasure put in the act for the good of the race (procreation). He stated that ALL forms of intercourse which are not procreative in intention or form were mortal or venial sin. The most obvious one of these is intercourse in pregnancy. No farmer seeds a field twice!
It took until a Parisian theologian Martin Le Maistre (1432-1481) to revise this. He said, emphasing the effect the old doctrine had on the married life of Christian couples; the view that copulation for the sake of pleasure may be mortal sin- is he believed "much more dangerous for human morals" given this doctrine a simple man will readily have intercourse with any woman as with his wife when he feels the impulse for pleasure. The difficulties caused by the old theory are particularly striking when pregnancy has occured. "I ask to how many dangers do they (my opponents) expose the consciences of scupulous spouses to, for there is many a one whose wife is immediately made pregnant, and after this happened, they expose to the danger of mortal sin whoever seeks the debt unless it is certain he does this to avoid fornication"
I hope people will see here the appalling convoluted theology Augustine's error led to... the idea that the initial and continuous purpose of intercourse, that the couple be one together simply is not there.
Augustine's flawed psychology is to be found still in the teaching of Pius Xi, XI XII Paul VI and John Paul II.
I believe contraception is legitimate in marriage because it allows the couple to have freedom to be 'one flesh' at such times as there is a need to reinforce and strengthen the marriage bond. The iniquity of NFP is that it divorces intercourse from the moment of need for this purpose and limits it to the infertile period of couples who should not at that time risk conception of another child.
Pius XI did NOT see contraception in this light. He saw it instead in terms of Augustine's lustful abuse of physical pleasure. He said
"This criminal abuse is claimed as a right by some on the ground that they cannot endure children but want to satisfy their carnal desire without incurring any responsibility" (Casti Connubii)
Pius XII in Midwives argues that midwives should encourage couples to practice heroic abstinence in circumstances when conception should not be risked.. What is of prime importance to remember is that it was only some thirty years before he wrote that the first MARRIED theologian, Von Hildebrand had written, he was the very first one to connect intercourse with love in theology! Herbert Doms OSB (whom Fr. Sean mentions) followed his teaching and had his books put on the Index of Forbidden Books for his pains.
It may be of these two that Pius XII wrote
"Personal values and the need to respect them is a subject that for the past twenty years has kept writers busily employed. In many of their elaborate works, the specifically sexual act too has a position allotted to it in the service of the married state. The peculiar and deeper meaning of the act should consist in this (they say) that the bodily union is the expression and actuation of the personal and affective union" (para 43)
I beg my readers to look at those words very carefully. I think that what (they say) is a paraphrase of Christ's words in Mt. 19 4-6 "They are no longer emotionally two, but bonded together as one".
Sadly with what some of us call "creeping infallibility" all papal utterances are treated like revelation. However I believe that like the rest of us popes have finite brains and can make mistakes due to flawed and inadequate knowledge such as Augustine's error which dwelt in all the theology books of marriage upon which they were reared.
Vatican II CONTRADICTED Pius XII, as Fr. Sean points out, and said for the first time in magisterial theology that intercourse had not only procreation as a purpose but had a unitve purpose as well.
However in Paul VI, although he was the first pope to accept this, yet he clung onto old ideas.. this is illustrated by this quote
"In relation to the tendences of instinct and passion, responsible parenthood means the necessary domination which reason and will must have over them" (para 12)
Then he says "It is true that both in NFP and contraception the married couple are concordance in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking with certainty that they will not arrive, but it is only in the former case that they are able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods, when just motives procreation is not desirable, whilst making use of the intertile period to manifect their mutual affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity" (para 16) What they are to do in the fertile period to do this he does not divulge. Nor does he realize in Christ's terms that he is telling a couple they may not be one flesh. I ask what right he has to do this?
Another group who had absolutely no clue about the meaning of Christ's words are the four Minority Theologians on the Pontifical Commission. Deriding married people's submission that fequent intercourse in marriage was due to marital love not hedonism and selfishness these men said
"That psychological good (of intercourse) can be obtained in some other way which is something the contraceptive theory is always silent about, for conjugal love is above all spiritual (if the love is genuine) and requries no carnal gestures, much less in some determined fequency, for if we look at the intimate love of the whole person between a father and a daughter and a brother and sister we see no need of carnal gestures"
I ask all fair minded people reading this to wonder what moral right such ignorant people have to sit in judgment on the behaviour of married people! Yet these are the people Paul Vi headed rather than the married people on the Commission.
Do people know that 16 bsihops were added to that Commission, and of then 9 voted that contraception was not intrinsically evil, 3 abstained, and only the 3 curial bishops voted to keep the status quo.
I can only say that as a mother who breast fed five children, there could be no more carnal gesture than that in the relationship between a mother and child, and the loving response to the hunger of my babies is somewhat similar in its self giving to sexual intercourse in marriage... indeed the love from that overflows into love for children born of such loving intercourse.
John Paul II is considered an authority on married love... bearing in mind that the word 'intercourse' above all means communication of loving oneness, and not physical seeking of lustful pleasure, I beg every one to concentrate on the last of my papal quote showing the error of their understanding!!!
"This is from Love and Responsibility written by Karol Wojtyla in 1956 and revised by him in 1981 when he was speaking as pope
"It is in the very nature of the act that the man plays the active role and takes the initiative, whilst the woman is the a comparatively passive partner, whose function it is to accept and experience. For the purpose of the sexual act itself it is enough for her to be passive and unresisting, so much so that it can even take place in a state where she has no awareness at all of what is happening - for instance when she is asleep or unconscious" (p271)
The realization that the zenith of intercourse is that sense of utter joyous mutual self giving of the couple, is totally lacking to this so called infallible oracle.. or how could he make such an utterly gross insult to suggest that any loving husband could behave in such a way, and that a woman is a supine puppet with a relevant oriface!
It is a source of great sadness to Fr. Sean and myself that this piece is not quoted in this book to reinforce the certainty that popes can err, and it is the duty of the whole People of God to cry out at injustice when such errors are made...one of the purposes of his book is to do just this.
But will the 'arrogance' of their own belief that the pope and his small group of Vatican followers are the only people in the Catholic Church who are party to real truth, and the rest of us must mutely obey, prevent these terrible men from seeing the truth of what he is saying?
Let everyone be comforted in spite of them by the wonderful dedication at the beginning of his book
"Dedicated to all the married people of God who have suffered down the ages from the flawed teaching of Augustine which usurped the teach of Christ"
I pray that all those who feel guilty at using contraception will know that the fault does not lie with them but with the ignorant intransigence of those who continue to accuse of sin where that sin cannot be proven.
Anyone wishing to read more of my work it can be found in a pamphlet Seeing Sin Where None Is , obtainable from Catholics for a Changing Church 1 Carysfort House, 14 West Halkin Street, London SW1Z 8JS. Or it is on line on www.womenpriests.org
and more on CCC's website

Unfortunately I do not see that any of this challenges the arguments that Bernard and I have drawn attention to. The argument seems to be of the type - (a) Augustine was psychologically flawed, therefore Church teaching is flawed, and (b) Karol Wojtyla's teaching was flawed, therefore Church teaching is flawed.

Yet Alexander Pruss begins his defence of Humanae Vitae by *criticising* Wojtyla's defence. For Pruss is a good philosopher and will not commit the Genetic Fallacy.
And again, let me be clear. I do not hold to Papal Infallibility. I do not agree with the Catholic churches stance on contraception.
But I will not make Science and Culture theologically normative, and I do expect my criticisms to go deeper than those I have encountered *on this thread*
I would love to read your pamphlets, Elizabeth, as I gain a lot by debating/discussing with Augustine, and would probably gain by reading your perspective. However the School system (C2K, same for all schools in NI) will not let me through to your site. It is not listed as banned, but I would appreciate it if you could let me know if the problem is with your site or the school system. If it is the latter, I will grow suspicious. I'm a little concerned about the sites I cannot see.

Graham Veale

If anyone wants to read an article celebrating the theology of Augustine, they might look at one published in a journal of spiritual theological by catholic Dominicans order. Guess who the theologian was who wrote the article? A clue ... he now works for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ as a journalist and presenter!

Dear gveale,
I'm so sorry I dont know enough about IT to answer your problem with the sites I gave!
In saying that I believe Augustine made a huge mistake in his understanding I did it to stress that what is called the 'constant teaching of the Church in banning contraception' is not true simply because of this constancy, it has to be looked at in the context of the wider understanding of the physiology and psychology of sexuality at the time it was writen and by whom it was written.
Alas none of that old theology was written with the sacramental insight of marriage, sadly denied to our clergy.
If people say that contraception per se trivializes intercourse and is therefore instrinsically evil, how about alcohol? The Muslims and Methodists have some good reasons for saying that is intrinsically evil, and I believe some Catholics are so keen on blaming all promiscuity on contraception as a means to say Humanae Vitae was right, that they refuse to see there are other very valid causes for modern day moral laxity.
I for one believe lack of the teaching of Christianity is one... what reason or help have I to be moral if I do not believe there is a God who loves me and is there to help me in my weakness?
This is another reason why I grieve over this teaching. NONE of the Pontifical Commission could see why contraception in marriage is wrong, so how on earth can ordinary people see a wrong where they could not?
I believe it is thoroughly unjust to condemn where no sin can be proven simply because the Church as always taught it. This because they saw intercourse as only having one just reason - procreaction, and did not understand that it is as important in bird terms in building the nest (the relationship of marriage) as laying and hatching the eggs therein!
Love to you all, please dont think I am a lax Catholic I am a very serious one!
Elizabeth