In an
attempt to argue against natural family planning (or at least, demonstrate that
the Early Church Fathers would not approve of it), non-Catholics have utilized
several quotes in support of their view. These consist of:
1. "To indulge in intercourse
without intending children is to outrage nature."
(Clement
of Alexandria, The Instructor, Chapter 10)
2. "Does he imagine that we
approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?"
(St.
Jerome, Against Jovinian, 19)
3. “Is it not you who used to
counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her
purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at
that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh?”
(St.
Augustine, On the Morals of the Manichaeans, Chapter 18)
4. “It is, however, one thing for
married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which
is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in
cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin. For although
propagation of offspring is not the motive of the intercourse, there is still
no attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil
appliance.”
(St.
Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscience, Chapter 17)
5. “If a women 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.” (Caesarius of Arles,
Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522])
6. Pope Innocent XI in a decree
condemning various errors on moral subjects condemned the opinion that:
"The act of marriage exercised for pleasure only is entirely free of all
fault and venial defect."
Reply to #1:
The
translated citation of Clement of Alexandria seems to be based on this Latin:
Sola
enimvoluptas, siquiseaetiamutatur in conjugio, estpræterleges, et injusta, et
rationealiena. (Paedagogus, II, 10) [PG, VIII, 507]
"Solely
for pleasure, even if it is used by someone in marriage, it is outside the law,
and unjust, and inimical to reason/nature."
The
Greek similarly reads:
Psile
gar hedonekanengamoiparalephthei, paranomosesti, kai adikos, kai alogos. [PG,
VIII, 508]
"For
bare pleasure, even if received in marriage, it is unlawful, and unjust, and irrational/unnatural."
This
is consistent with later Catholic teaching summarized by St. AlphonsusLiguori,
which holds that the use of marriage solely for pleasure is sinful.
Even
St. Augustine, however, acknowledged that the intent to procreate need not be
present during the act; a prior intent suffices. His analogy: one may decide to
sleep for good health, though one does not think of health while sleeping.
(Contra Iulianum, V, x, 42)
The
same chapter from Clement of Alexandria mentions a series of perverse
practices, all of which are oriented toward passionate desires for pleasure
while rendering the act infertile. Without giving needless detail, these
include variations of sodomy and onanism. Also condemned is the use of marriage
during menstruation and pregnancy, on the grounds that this would cause the
offspring to degenerate.
It is
likely that St. Augustine similarly had in mind such perverse acts and their
associated evil desires when speaking so severely. His vague wording is typical
of the reticence that chastity demands; refraining from giving more detail than
necessary to edify or instruct.
Reply to #2:
The
quotation from St. Jerome reads in Latin:
Miroraut
cur Iudamet Thamar nobisproposuerit in exemplum, nisi forte et
meretricibusdelectatur; autoccisum Onam, quod fratri semen inviderit: quasi
nosqualemcumqueseminisfluxumabsqueliberorumoperecomprobemus. (Contra
Jovinianum, I, 20 [11])
"I
am surprised that he proposed to us Judah and Tamar as an example, unless
perhaps even harlots are pleasing to him; or Onan who was slain, because he
begrudged his brother's seed: as if we approve whatsoever flow of seed apart
from the making of children."
In
context, St. Jerome is objecting to Jovinian's use of Old Testament figures
(e.g. Abraham) as examples of sexual morality for Christians. He wonders why
Jovinian uses Judah and Tamar as an example, since no one thought of them as a
model to follow, unless you're advocating prostitution. Much less should we
follow the example of Onan, unless you approve of any flow of seed even apart
from childbearing.
This
passage is just reiterating the standard condemnation of onanism, in the
context of countering Jovinian's more general argument that chastity is not
required of Christians. It would be a mistake to draw any more out of it than
that, though the translation by Fremantle et al. can give a different
impression.
It is
not necessary to insist that all the Fathers gave strictly compatible teachings
on moral theology. The manual tradition makes clear that there were differences
of opinion on the line between sin and liceity, and between mortal and venial
sin. It's generally recognized that the moral theology of St. Augustine, St.
Jerome and some other Fathers were more rigorous in sexual matters than what
the Church has generally required of Catholics. No individual Father, however
esteemed, enjoyed an infallible teaching authority. Their more rigorous
disciplines may be commendable ideals, but Catholics who fall short of such
perfection are not necessarily guilty of sin, or at least not mortal sin.
Nonetheless, a well-oriented Christian will take care to shun even venial sin
and moral imperfection as much as possible.
Reply to #3:
In
full context, quoted below,
St.
Augustine is showing that the Manichaeans are inconsistent. They pretend that
they have superior chastity, but they allow their second-grade followers to
marry as long as they try to minimize the possibility of procreation. They act
as though the biggest sin of marriage is procreation, when in fact this is the
one thing that exonerates it. By making procreation a sin, they forbid what is
essential to marriage, effectively forbidding marriage, making a lie of their
supposed tolerance, and actually making them less chaste than Christians.
In
support of this general point, he mentions that the Manichaeans enjoin their
followers to abstain when most likely to conceive (i.e., the second week after
menstruation). St. Augustine condemns this practice, judging not its
effectiveness but its intent, namely that procreation is a sin to be avoided.
This
has bearing on NFP insofar as that may reflect an intent absolutely opposed to
procreation. Catholics are not given a blanket permission for NFP, but are
allowed such selective abstinence only for limited periods if there is grave
cause. This often gets lost in modern teaching, giving the understandable
impression that it is just an acceptable form of contraception, but the
teaching of St. Augustine, among others, makes clear that there can be no such
thing.
I do
not know that this quotation can be used to prove that St. Augustine would
demand an absolute prohibition of selective abstinence to reduce fertility.
Given his general attitude, it is reasonable to think that he would, but this
opinion would not be binding on the Church. Still, it seems clear that any use
of NFP that would completely eliminate the procreative intent falls under at
least the condemnation due to the use of marriage solely for pleasure.
This
is a separate question from whether Catholics are required to abstain from the
use of marriage during infertile periods. Given the narrowness of the window
for conception now known, that would be a much more rigorous discipline than
even St. Augustine envisioned demanding of lay Catholics.
----
“For though
you do not forbid sexual intercourse, you, as the apostle long ago said, forbid
marriage in the proper sense, although this is the only good excuse for such
intercourse. No doubt you will exclaim
against this, and will make it a reproach against us that you highly esteem and
approve perfect chastity, but do not forbid marriage, because your
followers-—that is, those in the second grade among you-—are allowed to have
wives. After you have said this with
great noise and heat, I will quietly ask, Is it not you who hold that begetting
children, by which souls are confined in flesh, is a greater sin than
cohabitation? Is it not you who used to
counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her
purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at
that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a
wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion.
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. Where there is a wife there must be
marriage. But there is no marriage where
motherhood is not in view; therefore neither is there a wife. In this way you forbid marriage. Nor can you defend yourselves successfully
from this charge, long ago brought against you prophetically by the Holy
Spirit.”
N.B.: The phrase “confined in flesh”
is an argument ad hominem. St. Augustine is merely asserting the views of the Manicheans.
Reply to #4:
The
Latin reads:
Sedtamenaliudest
non concumbere nisi sola voluntategenerandi, quod non habetculpam,
aliudcarnisconcumbendoadpeterevoluptatem, sed non praeterconiugem, quod
venialemhabetculpam, quia, etsi non causa propagandaeprolisconcumbitur, non
tamenhuiuslibidinis causa
propagationiprolisobsistitursivevotomalosiveoperemalo.
Some
have attempted to use the phrase “wrong desire” as means to argue against the
practice of Natural Family Planning. However, the phrase "wrong
desire"1 in this case was a common euphemism for sodomistic and other
unnatural desires. If you want to find fault with NFP on an Augustinian basis,
you would have to take the view that natural conjugal desire is sinful when not
accompanied by a positive intent to procreate with each act. That would make it
at least venially sinful. Of course, with such rigor, not only NFP, but any use
of marriage during known infertile periods would be sinful, even if the fertile
periods are also used.
Fr.
Brian Harrison has shown that the Church only condemned frustrating the natural
power of the act, and has never imposed an absolute prohibition of selective
abstinence during fertile periods: www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6452
Still,
it should be noted that this permission is not absolute, as it requires
"just and grave causes," and should only be allowed for a finite
period. It is possible to sin mortally by abusing NFP, as with anything else
licit in itself (food, drink, etc.).
1 In
Latin, it reads "sivevotomalosiveoperemalo," literally: "either
through bad desire or through bad works."
The
"votummalum" in question cannot be mere concupiscence, i.e., the
spouses' desire for carnal pleasure. In the preceding sentence, St. Augustine
said that acting on such desire is only a venial sin, in contrast with this
votummalum and opere mala. Besides, his preferred term for concupiscence as
desire is "desiderium," not votum. The Latin votum connotes intention
(as in voto, vow), so the desire in question is a bad intention, i.e., a desire
for a bad object. We are not talking about the mere absence of a desire for
procreation, nor about the ordinary concupiscence between spouses.
We see
this in another rare Augustinian use of votomalo, discussing the command not to
return evil for evil:
Si
enim pro malo no estcuiquam reddendum,; no solum factum malum pro facto malo,
sednecvotummalum reddendum est pro facto velvotomalo. (Enarratio in Psalmum
LXXVIII)
Here
"votomalo" clearly means evil desire in the sense of evil intention,
i.e., desiring an evil object, even if an evil act is not accomplished.
In the
context of sexuality, desiring an evil or morally wrong object is what the Scholastics
would later call "sins against nature" or sins of impurity, i.e,
desiring the wrong sex, the wrong organ, or the wrong mode of copulation. These
perverse desires are all intrinsically contraceptive.
The
English translator appears to agree that St. Augustine is referring to
perversions, when he translates "bad works" as "evil
appliances." "Wrong desire," by analogy, refers to any perverse
desires that would prevent procreation. They are "wrong" because they
are directed to the wrong object. The notion of perversion or unnaturality is
further implied in St. Augustine's subsequent severe comment that such people
are not really spouses at all, but are behaving criminally. Unnatural acts were
widely known to be criminal in his time; if he was referring to the mere use of
marriage during natural infertility, this would have been lost on his readers.
In St.
Augustine's time, the only known way a "wrong desire" could prevent
propagation was by leading one to a sodomistic or onanistic act. He cannot have
intended what could not have occurred to him, i.e., that "wrong
desire" may include choice of "infertile periods," which were
unknown at the time. You can apply St. Augustine's principles and make an
inference about whether partial or exclusive use of "infertile
periods" might be considered a "wrong desire," but you cannot
make him pronounce on a question that did not occur to him (or anyone else
before the 19th century). This quotation does not prove that he intended to
condemn the use of infertile periods, since "wrong desire" has an
alternative, more obvious referent understood in his time. St. Thomas and other
Scholastics who allowed the liceity of marital acts during accidental
infertility (i.e., due to age or health) showed no awareness that they were contradicting
St. Augustine, though De nuptiisetconcupiscentia was widely cited.
Ever
since the ovulatory cycle was discovered, the Magisterium has clearly allowed
the liceity of selective abstinence for just and grave causes. All such
judgments are summarized in this article: http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html
Reply to #5:
The
quote, when taken in context, is clearly condemning the use of “potions” (i.e.
sterility drugs) to prevent conception or kill what has already been conceived.
In either case, periodic continence is not in view.
“No
woman should take potions for purposes of abortion, because she should not
doubt that before the tribunal of Christ she will have to plead as many cases
as the number of those she killed when already born or still conceived. Is
anyone unable to warn that no woman should accept a portion to prevent
conception or to condemn within herself the nature which God wanted to be
fruitful? Indeed, she will be held guilty of as many murders as the number of
those she might have conceived or borne, and unless suitable penance saves her
she will be condemned to eternal death in hell. If a woman does not want to
bear children she should enter upon a pious agreement with her husband, for
only the abstinence of a Christian woman is chastity.”
This
quotation, when taken in context, does not prove that he intended to condemn
the use of infertile periods, since the only alternative to
contraception/sterility drugs during Caesarius’ time was indeed abstinence. You
cannot make him pronounce on a question that did not occur to him (or anyone
else before the 19th century).
Reply to #6:
This
is actually a decree of the Holy Office (March 4, 1679), so papal infallibility
cannot apply. Nonetheless, the content is uncontroversial:
"The
act of marriage exercised for pleasure only is entirely free of all fault and
venial defect."
Opus
coniugiiobsolamvoluptatemexercitumomnipenitus caret culpa ac defectuveniali.
(Denzinger 1159 [2109]
(The
translation is fine as is, although I would prefer "thoroughly" for
penitus, which denotes depth rather than breadth.)
A
consensus of theologians consistently held that a marital act exercised solely
for pleasure is at least a venial sin.
No comments:
Post a Comment