REPORTS OF THE PAPAL COMMISSION

The Birth Control Report

I: The Majority View

The following is the full text of the first of three of the major documents making up the report on birth control presented to the Pope by the special commission he set up to study this subject: this, the majority report, was signed by nineteen of the theologians on the commission as well as experts in other fields, and represents the view of a substantial majority of the commission.

The pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world (Gaudium et Spes) has not explained the question of responsible parenthood under all its aspects. To those problems as yet unresolved, a response is to be given in what follows. This response, however, can only be understood if it is grasped in an integrated way within the universal concept of salvation history.

In creating the world God gave man the power and the duty to form the world in spirit and freedom and, through his creative capacity, to actuate his own personal nature. In his Word, God himself, as the first efficient cause of the whole evolution of the world and of man, is present and active in history. The story of God and of man, therefore, should be seen as a shared work. And it should be seen that man’s tremendous progress in control of matter by technical means, and the universal and total ‘intercommunication’ that has been achieved, correspond perfectly to the divine decrees (cf. Gaudium et Spes [GS], I. c. 3).

In the fullness of time the Word of the eternal Father entered into history and took his place within it, so that by his work humanity and the world might become sharers in salvation. After his ascension to the Father, the Lord continues to accomplish his work through the Church. As God became man, so his Church is really incarnate in the world. But because the world, to which the Church ought to represent the mystery of

Christ, always undergoes changes, the church itself necessarily and continually is in pilgrimage. Its essence and fundamental structures remain immutable always; and yet no one can say of the Church that at any time it is sufficiently understood or bounded by definition (cf Paul VI Ecclesiam Suam and in his opening speech to the second session of Vatican Council II).

The Church was constituted in the course of time by Christ, its principle of origin is the Word of creation and salvation. For this reason the Church draws understanding of its own mystery not only from the past, but standing in the present time and looking to the future, assumes within itself the whole progress of the human race. The Church is always being made more sure of this. What John XXIII wished to express by the word ‘aggiornamento’, Paul VI took up, using the phrase ‘dialogue with the world’, and in his encyclical Ecclesiam Suam has the following: ‘The world cannot be saved from the outside. As the Word of God became man, so must a man to a certain degree identify with the forms of life of those to whom he wishes to bring the message of Christ. Without invoking privileges which would but widen the separation, without employing unintelligible terminology, he must share the common way of life—provided that. it is human and honourable— especially of the most humble, if he wishes to be listened to and understood’ (par. 87).

In response to the many problems posed by the changes occurring today in almost every field, the Church in Vatican Council II has entered into the way of dialogue. ‘The Church guards the heritage of God’s Word and draws from it religious and moral principles, without always having at hand the solution to particular problems. She desires thereby to add the light of revealed truth to mankind’s store of experience, so that the path which humanity has taken in recent times will not be a dark one’ (GS, I, c. 3, § 33).

In fulfilment of its mission the Church must propose obligatory norms of human and Christian life from the deposit of faith in an open dialogue with the world. But since moral obligations can never be detailed in all their concrete particularities, the personal responsibility of each individual must always be called into play. This is even clearer today because of the complexity of modern life: the concrete moral norms to be followed must not be pushed to an extreme.

In the present study, dealing with problems relating to responsible parenthood, the Holy Father through his ready willingness to enter into dialogue has given it an importance

unprecedented in history. After several years of study, a Commission of experts called together by him, made up for the most part of laymen from various fields of competency, has prepared material for him, which was lastly examined by a special group of bishops.

Part I: Fundamental principles

Chapter I: The fundamental values of marriage

‘The well-being of the individual person and of human and Christian society is intimately linked with the healthy condition of that community produced by marriage and the family. Hence Christians and all men who hold this community in high esteem sincerely rejoice in the various ways by which men today find help in fostering this community of love and perfecting its life, and by which spouses and parents are assisted in their lofty calling. Those who rejoice in such aid look for additional benefits from them and labour to bring them about.’ (GS, II, c. 1, § 47).

Over the course of centuries the Church, with the authority conferred it by Christ our Lord, has constantly protected the dignity and essential values of this institution whose author is God himself, who has made man to his image and raised him to share in his love. It has always taught this to its faithful and to all men. In our day it again intends to propose to those many families who are seeking a right way how they are able in the conditions of our times to live and develop fully the higher gifts of this community.

A couple (unio conjugum) ought to be considered above all a community of persons which has in itself the beginning of new human life. Therefore those things which strengthen and make more profound the union of persons within this community must never be separated from the procreative finality which specifies the conjugal community. Pius XI, in Casti Connubii already, referring to the tradition expressed in the Roman Catechism, said: ‘This mutual inward moulding of a husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof’ (AAS., XXII, 1930, page 547).

But conjugal love, without which marriage would not be a true union of persons, is not exhausted in the simple mutual giving in which one party seeks only the other. Married people know well that they are only able to perfect each other and establish a true community if their love does not end in a merely egotistic union but according to the condition of each is made truly fruitful in the creation of new life. Nor on the other hand can the procreation and education of a child be considered a truly human fruitfulness unless it is the result of a love existing in a family community. Conjugal love and fecundity are in no way opposed, but complement one another in such a way that they constitute an almost indivisible unity.

Unfolding the natural and divine law, the Church urges all men to be true dispensers of the divine gifts, to act in conformity with their own personal nature and to shape their married life according to the dictates of the natural and divine law. God created man male and female so that, joined together in the bonds of love, they might perfect one another through a mutual, corporal and spiritual giving and that they might carefully prepare their children, the fruit of this love, for a truly human life. Let them regard one another always as persons and not as mere objects. Therefore everything should be done in marriage so that the goods conferred on this institution can be attained as perfectly as possible and so that fidelity and moral rightness can be served.

Chapter II: Responsible parenthood and the regulation of conception

To cultivate and realize all the essential values of marriage, married people should become ever more deeply aware of the profundity of their vocation and the breadth of their responsibilities. In this spirit and with this awareness let married people seek how they might better be ‘cooperators with the love of God and Creator and be, so to speak, the interpreters of that love’ for the task of procreation and education (GS, II, c. 1, § 50).

1. Responsible parenthood (that is, generous and prudent parenthood) is a fundamental requirement of a married couple’s true mission. Illumined by faith, the spouses understand the scope of their whole task; helped by divine grace, they try to fulfil it as a true service, carried out in the name of God and Christ, oriented to the temporal and eternal good of men. To save, protect and promote the good of the offspring, and thus of the family community and of human society, the married couple will take care to consider all values and seek to realize

them harmoniously in the best way they can, with proper reverence towards each other as persons and according to the concrete circumstances of their life. They will make a judgement in conscience before God about the number of children to have and educate according to the objective criteria indicated by Vatican Council II (GS, II, c. 1, § 50 and c. 5, § 80).

This responsible, generous and prudent parenthood always carries with it new demands. In today’s situation both because of new difficulties and because of new possibilities for the education of children, couples are hardly able to meet such demands unless with generosity and sincere deliberation.

With a view to the education of children let couples more and more build the community of their whole life on a true and magnanimous love, under the guidance of the spirit of Christ (1 Cor. 12, 31—13, 13). For this stable community between man and woman, shaped by conjugal love, is the true foundation of human fruitfulness. This community between married people through which an individual finds himself by opening himself to another, constitutes the optimum situation in which children can be educated in an integrated way. Through developing their communion and intimacy in all its aspects, a married couple is able to provide that environment of love, mutual understanding and humble acceptance which is the necessary condition of authentic human education and maturation.

Responsible parenthood—through which married persons intend to observe and cultivate the essential values of matrimony with a view to the good of persons (the good of the child to be educated, of the couples themselves and of the whole of human society)—is one of the conditions and expressions of a true conjugal chastity. For genuine love, rooted in faith, hope and charity, ought to inform the whole life and every action of a couple. By the strength of this chastity the couple tend to the actuation of that true love precisely inasmuch as it is conjugal and fruitful. They accept generously and prudently their task with all its values, combining them in the best way possible according to the particular circumstances of their life and in spite of difficulties.

Married people know well that very often they are invited to keep abstinence, and sometimes not just for a brief time, because of the habitual conditions of their life, for example, the good of one of the spouses (physical or psychic well-being), or because of what are called professional necessities. This abstinence a chaste couple know and accept as a condition of progress into a deeper mutual love, fully conscious that the grace of Christ will sustain and strengthen them for this.

Seeing their vocation in all its depth and breadth and accepting it, the couple follows Christ and tries to imitate Him in a true evangelical spirit (Mt. 5, 1 - 12). Comforted by the spirit of Christ according to the inner man and rooted in faith and charity (Eph. 3, 16 - 17), they try to build up a total life community, ‘bearing with one another charitably, in complete selflessness, gentleness and patience’ (Eph. 4, 2 - 3, cf. Col. 3, 12-17). They will have the peace of Christ in their hearts and give thanks to God the Father as his holy and elected sons.

A couple then is able to ask and expect that they will be helped by all in such a way that they are progressively able to approach more and more responsible parenthood. They need the help of all in order that they can fulfil their responsibilities with full liberty and in the most favourable material, psychological, cultural and spiritual conditions. By the development of the family, then, the whole society is built up with regard to the good of all men in the whole world.

2. The regulation of conception appears necessary for many couples who wish to achieve a responsible, open and reasonable parenthood in today’s circumstances. If they are to observe and cultivate all the essential values of marriage, married people need decent and human means for the regulation of conception. They should be able to expect the collaboration of all, especially from men of learning and science, in order that they can have at their disposal means agreeable and worthy of man in the fulfilling of his responsible parenthood.

It is proper to man, created to the image of God, to use what is given in physical nature in a way that he may develop it to its full significance with a view to the good of the whole person. This is the cultural mission which the Creator has commissioned to men, whom he has made his cooperators. According to the exigencies of human nature and with the progress of the sciences, men should discover means more and more apt and adequate so that the ‘ministry which must be fulfilled in a manner which is worthy of man’ (GS, II, c. 1, § 51) can be fulfilled by married people.

This intervention of man in physiological processes, an intervention ordained to the essential values of marriage and first of all to the good of children, is to be judged according to the fundamental principles and objective criteria of morality, which will be treated below (in Chap. IV).

‘Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained towards the begetting and educating of children’ (GS II, c. 1, § 50). A right ordering towards the good of the child within the conjugal and familial community pertains to the essence of human sexuality. Therefore the morality of sexual acts between married people takes its meaning first of all and specifically from the ordering of their actions in a fruitful married life, that is one which is practised with responsible, generous and prudent parenthood. It does not then depend upon the direct fecundity of each and every particular act. Moreover the morality of every marital act depends upon the requirements of mutual love in all its aspects. In a word, the morality of sexual actions is thus to be judged by the true exigencies of the nature of human sexuality, whose meaning is maintained and promoted especially by conjugal chastity, as we have said above.

More and more clearly, for a conscience correctly formed, a willingness to raise a family with full acceptance of the various human and Christian responsibilities is altogether distinguished from a mentality and way of married life which in its totality is egoistically and irrationally opposed to fruitfulness. This truly ‘contraceptive’ mentality and practice has been condemned by the traditional doctrine of the Church and will always be condemned as gravely sinful.

Chapter III: On the continuity of doctrine and its deeper understanding

The tradition of the Church which is concerned with the morality of conjugal relations began with the beginning of the Church. It should be observed, however, that the tradition developed in the argument and conflict with heretics such as the Gnostics, the Manichaeans and later the Cathari, all of whom condemned procreation or the transmission of life as something evil, and none the less indulged in moral vices. Consequently this tradition always, albeit with various words, intended to protect two fundamental values: the good of procreation and the rectitude of marital intercourse. Moreover, the Church always taught another truth equally fundamental, although hidden in a mystery, namely original sin. This had wounded man in his various faculties, including sexuality. Man could only be healed of this wound by the grace of a Saviour. This is one of the reasons why Christ took marriage and raised it to a sacrament of the New Law.

It is not surprising that in the course of centuries this tradition was always interpreted in expressions and formulas proper to the times and that the words with which it was expressed and the reasons on which it was based were changed by knowledge which is now obsolete. Nor was there maintained always a right equilibrium of all the elements. Some authors even used expressions which depreciated the matrimonial state. But what is of real importance is that the same values were again and again reaffirmed. Consequently an egotistical, hedonistic and contraceptive way which turns the practice of married life in an arbitrary fashion from its ordination to a human, generous and prudent fecundity is always against the nature of man and can never be justified.

The large amount of knowledge and facts which throw light on today’s world suggest that it is not to contradict the genuine sense of this tradition and the purpose of the previous doctrinal condemnations if we speak of the regulation of conception by using means, human and decent, ordered to favouring fecundity in the totality of married life and towards the realization of the authentic values of a fruitful matrimonial community.

The reasons in favour of this affirmation are of several kinds: social changes in matrimony and the family, especially in the role of the woman; lowering of the infant mortality rate; new bodies of knowledge in biology, psychology, sexuality and demography; a changed estimation of the value and meaning of human sexuality and of conjugal relations; most of all, a better grasp of the duty of man to humanize and to bring to greater perfection for the life of man what is given in nature. Then must be considered the sense of the faithful: according to it, condemnation of a couple to a long and often heroic abstinence as the means to regulate conception, cannot be founded on the truth.

A further step in the doctrinal evolution, which it seems now should be developed, is founded less on these facts than on a better, deeper and more correct understanding of conjugal life and of the conjugal act when these other changes occur. The doctrine on marriage and its essential values remains the same and whole, but it is now applied differently out of a deeper understanding.

This maturation has been prepared and has already begun. The magisterium itself is in evolution. Leo XIII spoke less explicitly in his encyclical Arcanum than did Pius XI in his wonderful doctrinal synthesis of Casti Connubii of 1930 which gave a fresh start to so many beginnings in a living conjugal spirituality. He proclaimed, using the very words of the Roman Catechism, the importance, in a true sense the primary importance, of true conjugal love for the community of matrimony. The notion of responsible parenthood which is implied in the notion of a prudent and generous regulation of conception, advanced in Vatican Council II, had already been prepared by Pius XII. The acceptance of a lawful application of the calculated sterile periods of the woman—that the application is legitimate presupposes right motives—makes a separation between the sexual act which is explicitly intended and its reproductive effect which is intentionally excluded.

The tradition has always rejected seeking this separation with a contraceptive intention for motives spoiled by egoism and hedonism, and such seeking can never be admitted. The true opposition is not sought between some material conformity to the physiological processes of nature and some artificial intervention. For it is natural to man to put under human control what is given by physical nature. The opposition is really to be sought between one way of acting which is contraceptive and opposed to a prudent and generous fruitfulness, and another way which is in an ordered relationship to responsible fruitfulness and which has a concern for education and all the essential, human and Christian values.

In such a conception the substance of tradition stands in continuity and is respected. The new elements which today are discerned in tradition under the influence of new knowledge and facts were found in it before; they were undifferentiated but not denied; so that the problem in today’s terms is new and has not been proposed before in this way. In light of the new data these elements are being explained and made more precise. The moral obligation of following fundamental norms and fostering all the essential values in a balanced fashion is strengthened not weakened. The virtue of chastity by which a couple positively regulates the practice of sexual relations is all the more demanded. The criteria of morality therefore which are human and Christian demand and at the same time foster a spirituality which is more profound in married life, with faith, hope and charity informed according to the spirit of the gospel.

Chapter IV: The objective criteria of morality

The question comes up which many men rightly think to be of great importance, at least practically: what are the objective criteria by which to choose a method of reconciling the needs of marital life with a right ordering of this life to fruitfulness in the procreation and education of offspring?

It is obvious that the method is not to be left to purely arbitrary decision.

1. In resolving the similar problem of responsible parenthood and the appropriate determination of the size of the family, Vatican Council II has shown the way. The objective criteria are the various values and needs duly and harmoniously evaluated. These objective criteria are to be applied by the couples, acting from a rightly formed conscience and according to their concrete situation. In the words of the Council: ‘Thus they will fulfil their task with human and Christian responsibility. With docile reverence towards God, they will come to the right decision by common counsel and effort. They will thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which may be foreseen. For this accounting they will reckon with both the material and spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally they will consult the interests of the family community, of temporal society, and of the Church herself.... But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily. They must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the Divine Law itself, and should be submissive towards the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the gospel’ (GS II, c. 1, § 50; cf. c. 5, § 87).

In other questions of conjugal life, one should proceed in the same way. There are various objective criteria which are concretely applied by couples themselves acting with a rightly formed conscience. All, for example, know that the objective criteria prohibit that the intimate acts of conjugal life, even if carried out in a way which could be called ‘natural’, be practised if there is a loss of physical or psychic health or if there is neglect of. the personal dignity of the spouses or if they are carried out in an egoistic or hedonistic way. These objective criteria are the couples’, to be applied by them to their concrete situation, avoiding pure arbitrariness in forming their judgement. It is impossible to determine exhaustively by a general judgement and ahead of time for each individual case what these objective criteria will demand in the concrete situation of a couple.

2. Likewise, there are objective criteria as to the means to be chosen for responsibly determining the size of the family: if they are rightly applied, the couples themselves will find and determine the way of proceeding.

In grave language, Vatican Council II has reaffirmed that abortion is altogether to be excluded from the means of responsibly preventing birth. Indeed, abortion is not a method of preventing conception but of eliminating offspring already conceived. This affirmation about acts which do not spare an offspring already conceived is to be repeated in regard to those interventions as to which there is serious grounds to suspect that they are abortive.

Sterilization, since it is a drastic and irreversible intervention in a matter of great importance, is generally to be excluded as a means of responsibly avoiding conceptions.

Moreover, the natural law and reason illuminated by Christian faith dictate that a couple proceed in choosing means not arbitrarily but according to objective criteria. These objective criteria for the right choice of methods are the conditions for keeping and fostering the essential values of marriage as a community of fruitful love. If these criteria are observed, then a right ordering of the human act according to its object, end and circumstances is maintained.

Among these criteria, this must be put first: the action must correspond to the nature of the person and of his acts so that the whole meaning of the mutual giving and of human procreation is kept in a context of true love (cf. GS II, c. 1, § 51). Secondly, the means which are chosen should have an effectiveness proportionate to the degree of right or necessity of averting a new conception temporarily or permanently. Thirdly, every method of preventing conception—not excluding either periodic or absolute abstinence—carries with it some negative element of physical evil which the couple more or less seriously feels. This negative element or physical evil can arise under different aspects: account must be taken of the biological, hygienic and psychological aspects, and personal dignity of the spouses, and the possibility of expressing sufficiently and aptly the interpersonal relation or conjugal love. The means to be chosen, where several are possible, is that which carries with it the least possible negative element, according to the concrete situation of the couple. Fourthly, then, in choosing concretely among means, much depends on what means may be available in a certain region or at a certain time or for a certain couple; and this may depend on the economic situation.

Therefore not arbitrarily, but as the law of nature and of God commands, let couples form a judgement which is objectively founded, with all the criteria considered. This they may do without major difficulty, and with peace of mind, if they take common and prudent counsel before God. They should, however, to the extent possible, be instructed about the criteria by competent persons and be educated as to the right application of the criteria. Well instructed, and prudently educated as Christians, they will prudently and serenely decide what is truly for the good of the couple and of the children, and does not neglect their own personal Christian perfection, and is, therefore, what God revealing himself through the natural law and Christian revelation, sets before them to do.

Part II: Pastoral necessities

Chapter 1: The task and fundamental conditions of educational renewal

When sometimes a new aspect of human life obtains a special place in the area of man’s responsibility, a task of educational renewal is imposed in a seriously binding way.

In order that spouses may take up the duty of responsible parenthood, they must grasp, more than in the past, the meaning of fruitfulness and experience a desire for it. In order that they may give to married life its unitive value, and do so in service of its procreative function, they must develop an increasingly purer respect for their mutual needs, the sense of community and the acceptance of their common Christian vocation.

It will not be a surprise that this conviction of a greater responsibility will come about as the effect and crown of a gradual development of the meaning of marriage and conjugal spirituality. For several generations, in an always increasing number, couples have sought to live their proper married vocation in a more profound and more conscientious way. The doctrine of the magisterium and especially the encyclical Casti Connubii notably contributed and strengthened this formation of conscience by giving to it its full meaning.

The more urgent the appeal is made to observe mutual love and charity in every expression of married life, the more urgent is the necessity of forming consciences, of educating spouses to a sense of responsibility and of awakening a right sense of values. This new step in the development of conjugal life cannot bear all its fruits, unless it is accompanied by an immense educational activity. No one will regret that these new demands stirred by the Holy Spirit call the entire human race to this profound moral maturity.

Couples who might think they find in the doctrine as it has just been proposed an open door to laxism or easy solutions make a grave mistake, of which they will be the first victims. The conscientious decision to be made by spouses about the number of children is not a matter of small importance. On the contrary it imposes a more conscientious fulfilling of their vocation to fruitfulness in the consideration of a whole complex of values which are involved here. The same is true of the responsibility of the spouses for the development of their common life in such a way that it will be a source of continual progress and perfection.

The God who created man male and female, in order that they might be two in one flesh, in order that they might bring the world under their control, in order that they might increase and multiply (Gen. 1 - 2), is the God who has elevated their union to the dignity of a sacrament and so disposed that in this world it is a special sign of His own love for His people. He Himself will gird the spouses with His strength, His light, His love and His joy in the strength of the spirit of Christ. Who then would doubt that couples, all couples, will not be able to respond to the demands of their vocation?

Chapter II: Further consideration; application of the doctrine of matrimony to different parts of the world

1. It seems very necessary to establish some pontifical institute or secretariat for the study of the sciences connected with married life. In this commission there could be continual collaboration in open dialogue among experts competent in various areas. The aim of this institute (or secretariat) would be, among other duties, to carry further the research and reflection begun by the commission. The various studies which the commission has already done could be made public. It would be in a special way for this institute to study how the doctrine of matrimony should be applied to different parts of the world and to contribute to the formation of priests and married couples dedicated to the family apostolate by sending experts to them (cf, GS II, c. 1, § 52).

2. Universal principles and the essential values of matrimony and married life become actual in ways which partially differ according to different cultures and different mentalities. Consequently there is a special task for episcopal conferences to institute organizations for investigation and dialogue between families, between representatives of the different sciences and pastors of souls. They would also have the task of judging which may be in practice the more apt pastoral means in each region to promote the healthy formation of consciences and education to a sense of responsibility.

Episcopal conferences should be particularly concerned that priests and married lay persons be adequately formed in a more spiritual and moral understanding of Christian matrimony. Thus they will be prepared to extend pastoral action to the renewal of families in the spirit of ‘aggiornamento’ initiated by the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World.

Under their guidance there should also be action to start in each region the genuine fostering of all families in a context of social evolution which should be truly human. The fostering of the role of woman is of special importance here.

There are many reforms and initiatives which are needed to open the way to decent and joyful living for all families. Together with all men of good will, Christians must approach this great work of human development, without which the elevation of families can never become actual. Christianity does not teach some ideal for a small number of elect, but the vocation of all to the essential values of human life. It cannot be that anyone would wish to elevate his own family without at the same time actively dedicating himself to opening a way for similar elevation for all families in all parts of the world.

Chapter III: Demographic fact and policy

The increase of inhabitants cannot in any way be said to be something evil or calamitous for the human race. As children are ‘the most excellent gift of matrimony’ (GS II, c. 1, § 50) and the object of the loving care of the parents, which demands from them many sacrifices, so the great number of men pertaining to a certain nation and constituting the whole human race spread over the globe is the foundation of all social sharing and cultural progress. Thus there should be afforded to it all those things which according to social justice are due to men as persons.

The Church is not ignorant of the immense difficulties and profound transformations which have arisen from the conditions of contemporary life throughout the world and especially in certain regions where there has been a rapid rise in population. That is why she again and again raises her voice to urge various nations and the whole human family to help one another in truly human progress, united in true solidarity and excluding every intention of domination. Then they might avoid all those things both in the political and in the social order which restrict or dissipate in an egotistical way the full utilization of the goods of the earth which are destined for all men.

The Church by her doctrine and by her supernatural aids intends to help all families so that they might find the right way in undertaking their generous and prudent responsibility. Governments which have the care of the common good should look with great concern on sub-human conditions of families and ‘beware of solutions contradicting the moral law, solutions which have been promoted publicly or privately, and sometimes actually imposed’ (Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, II, c. 5, § 87). These solutions have contradicted the moral law in particular by propagating abortion or sterilization. Political demography can be called human only if the rights of parents with regard to the procreation and education of children are respected and conditions of life are fostered with all vigour so that parents are enabled to exercise their responsibilities before God and society.

Chapter IV: The inauguration and further development of means for education of couples and youth

1. Couples are burdened by multiple responsibilities throughout the whole of life; they seek light and aid. With the favour of God there will develop in many regions what has already been initiated often by the married couples themselves, to sustain families in their building and continual development.

Maximum help is to be given to parents in their educational task. They strongly desire to provide the best for their children. The more parents are conscious of their office of fruitfulness, which is extended over the whole time in which the education of their children is accomplished, so much the more do they seek a way of acquiring better preparation to carry out this responsibility. Moreover, in exercising this educational office, the spouses mature more deeply in it themselves, create a unity, become rich in love, and apply themselves with the high task of giving themselves with united energies to the high task of giving life and education.

2. The building up of the conjugal and family community does not happen without thought. Therefore it is fitting everywhere to set up and work out many better means of remote and immediate preparation of youth for marriage. This requires the collaboration of everyone. Married people who .are already well educated will have a great and indispensable part in this work. In these tasks of providing help to spouses and to the young who are preparing to build and develop a conjugal and family community, priests and religious will cooperate closely with the families. Without this cooperation, in which each one has his own indispensable part, there will never be apt methods of education to those responsibilities of the vocation which places the Sacrament in clear light so that its full and profound meaning shines forth.

The Church, which holds the deposit of the gospel, has to bring this noble message to all men in the entire world. This announcing of the gospel, grounded in love, illumines every aspect of married and family life. Every aspect, every task and responsibility of the conjugal and family community shines with a clear light, in love towards one’s neighbour—a love which is rich with human values and is formed by the divine interpersonal love of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. May the spirit of Christ’s love more and more penetrate families everywhere so that together with John, the beloved disciple of Jesus, married couples, parents and children may always understand more deeply the wonderful relation between love of God and love of one another (1 John 4, 7 - 5, 4).

---

The Birth Control Report:

II: The Conservative Case

The following is the full text of the ‘minority report’, signed by four theologians: Fr John Ford, S.J., of the Catholic University, Washington; Fr Jan Visser, C.SS.R., of the Urban University, Rome; Fr Marcelino Zalba, S.J., of the Gregorian University, Rome; and Fr Stanislas de Lestapis, S.J.

I: The strength of the tradition

A. The state of the question

The central question to which the Church must now respond is this: Is contraception always seriously evil? All other questions discussed are reduced in the final analysis to this simple and central question. If a clear answer is given to this question, other questions can be solved without great theological difficulty. The whole world, the faithful as well as the non-believers, wish to know what the Church will now have to say on this question.

Contraception is understood by the Church as any use of the marriage right in the exercise of which the act is deprived of its natural power for the procreation of life through human intervention. Contraceptive sterilization is related to the definition of contraception just given. It may be defined theologically as any physical intervention in the generative process (opus naturae) which, before or after the proper placing of generative acts (opus hominis), causes these acts to be deprived of their natural power for the procreation of life by human intervention.

Always evil. Something which can never be justified by any motive or any circumstance is always evil because it is intrinsically evil. It is wrong not because of a precept of positive law, but of reason of the natural law. It is not evil because it is prohibited, but it is prohibited because it is evil. Homicide may be used as an example, inasmuch as the direct killing of an innocent person can be justified by no motive and no circumstance whatsoever. Understanding ‘something which is always evil’ in this sense, the faithful are now asking the Church: is contraception always seriously evil?

B. What answer has the Church given to this question up to now?

A constant and perennial affirmative answer is found. in the documents of the magisterium and in the whole history of teaching on the question.

1. First of all, some more recent documents of the pontifical teaching authority may be cited, namely, the encyclical Casti Connubii of Pius XI (1930); the Allocution to Midwives of Pius XII (1951); the encyclical Mater et Magistra of John XXIII (1961).

Pius XI, Casti Connubii (§§ 54, 56, 57): ‘But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against, nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious...

‘Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defence of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin

‘If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, leads the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: "They are blind and leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit."’

Pius XII, Allocution to Midwives, 1951: ‘In his encyclical Casti Connubii of 31 December 1930, our predecessor, Pius XII, of happy memory, solemnly restated the basic law of the conjugal act and conjugal relations: "Every attempt on the part of the married couple during the conjugal act or during the development of its natural consequences, to deprive it of its inherent power and to hinder the procreation of a new life is immoral. No ‘indication’ or need can change an action that is intrinsically immoral into an action that is moral and lawful."

‘This prescription holds good today just as much as it did yesterday. It will hold tomorrow and always, for it is not a mere precept of human right but the expression of a natural and Divine Law...

‘Let our words be for you equivalent to a sure norm in all those things in which your profession and apostolic task demands that you work with a certain and firm opinion...

‘Direct sterilization, that which aims at making procreation impossible as both means and end, is a grave violation of the moral law, and therefore illicit. Even public authority has no right to permit it under the pretext of any "indication" whatsoever, and still less to prescribe it or to have it carried out to the harm of the innocent...’

Other addresses of Pius XII should be noted in which till the end of his life he explicitly and implicitly reiterated that contraception was always gravely evil. Note, for example, his address to the Roman Rota (1941); to Catholic doctors (1949); to families (1951); to histopathologists (1952); to the Society of Urologists (1953); to a symposium of geneticists (1953); to the Congress for Fertility and Sterility (1956); to the Society of Haematologists (1958).

John XIII, Mater et Magistra, 1961, writes as follows: ‘Hence, the real solution of the problem (over-population) is not to be found in expedients which offend against the divinely established moral order or which attack human life at its very source, but in a renewed, scientific and technical effort on man’s part to deepen and extend his dominion over nature.. The transmission of human life is the result of a personal and conscious act, and, as such, is subject to the all-holy, inviolable and immutable laws of God, which no man may ignore or disobey. He is not therefore, permitted to use certain ways and means which are allowable in the propagation of plant and animal life. Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact. From its inception it reveals the creating hand of God. Those who violate his laws not only offend the Divine Majesty and degrade themselves and humanity, they also sap the vitality of the political community of which they are the members’ (§§ 189, 193, 194).

2. The answer of the Church in the present century is also illustrated by declarations of the bishops either (a) collectively speaking in a particular region or (b) speaking individually in their own diocese.

(a) The German bishops, 1913 (and from this followed their ‘Instruction for Confessors’ several years later); the French bishops, 1919; the bishops of the United States of America, 1920; the Belgian bishops, 1920; the bishops of India, 1960; the bishops of the United States of America, 1959; the bishops of England, 1964; the bishops of Honduras, 1966. In Spain (1919) there were eight dioceses in which conjugal onanism was a reserved sin.

(b) Here are several examples of pastoral letters of this century; Rutten, Liege, 1907; Mercier, Malines, 1909; Cologne, 1913; Cardinal Bourne, Westminster, 1930; Cardinal Montini, Milan, 1960; Cardinal Gracias, Bombay, 1961. More notable was the declaration of Cardinal Bourne, immediately after the Lambeth Conference of 1930, because of the fact that he publicly denounced the (Anglican) bishops of the Lambeth Conference as if they had abdicated all title whereby they could pretend to be ‘authoritative interpreters of Christian morality’.

It must be noted that the Holy See between 1816 and 1929, through the Roman curia, answered questions in this matter 19 times. Since then it has spoken almost as many times. In the responses given, it was at least implicitly supposed that contraception was always seriously evil.

3. History provides fullest evidence (cf. especially the excellent work of Professor John T. Noonan, Contraception, Harvard University Press, 1965) that the answer of the Church has always and everywhere been the same, from the beginning up to the present decade. One can find no period of history, no document of the Church, no theological school, scarcely one Catholic theologian, who ever denied that contraception was always seriously evil. The teaching of the Church in this matter is absolutely constant. Until the present century this teaching was peacefully possessed by all other Christians, whether Orthodox or Anglican or Protestant. The Orthodox retain this as common teaching today.

The theological history of the use of matrimony is very complicated. It evolved very much in the course of the centuries up to the Second Vatican Council. Teachings which have slowly evolved this way are especially: concerning the nature of sexual concupiscence; the teaching of the malice (venial) of the use of matrimony without the procreative intention or from motives of concupiscence; the teaching about the positive value of the sexual element in the use of matrimony, and as it involves conjugal love. Then, too, human sexuality and its genuine value is now being treated more positively. The history of this evolution is by no means simple.

On the contrary, the theological history of contraception, comparatively speaking, is sufficiently simple, at least with regard to the central question: is contraception always seriously evil? For in answer to this question there has never been any variation and scarcely any evolution in the teaching. The ways of formulating and explaining this teaching have evolved, but not the doctrine itself.

Therefore it is not a question of a teaching proposed in 1930 which because of new physiological facts and new theological perspectives ought to be changed. It is a question rather of a teaching which until the present decade was constantly and authentically taught by the Church.

C. Unsatisfactory explanations of the origin and evolution of the Church’s teaching

Among those who wish to change the doctrine (or who declare that it has already evolved) are those who appeal to various past circumstances, as if the malice of contraception was rooted in these circumstances and was to be explained by them. Further, they argue that since these circumstances have entirely changed, the teaching itself can legitimately be changed. Examples of this kind of argumentation follow.

I. Some say that the foundation of this teaching was the following biblical text: ‘Increase and multiply.’ The malice of contraception would then be in the violation of this affirmative percept. But theologians and the Church have considered contraception as a violation not of an affirmative precept, but of a negative precept which obliges always and everywhere:

‘Let no one impede human life in its proximate causes,’ or: ‘Let no one violate the ordination of this act and processes to the good of the species.’

Theologians have never said: ‘Homicide is always evil because God said, "Increase and multiply"; but because He has said, "You may not kill the innocent".’ Similarly they have not said that contraception is evil because God has said, ‘Increase and multiply’; but because they have considered it in some way analogous to homicide. This analogy was constant in tradition up until the eighteenth century and still more recently it was invoked by the hierarchy of Germany (1913) and India (1960). Through the course of the centuries the malice of contraception has lain in the violation of the essential ordination of the generative faculty to the good of the species. It has been expressed in various formulations. But in every age it is clearly evident that contraception essentially offends against the negative precept: ‘One may not deprive the conjugal act of its natural power for the procreation of new life.’

2. Some say that the Church condemned contraception because of demographic needs, the necessity among rural people for larger families, the high mortality rate among the newborn, etc. So they argue: since these situations no longer exist, the foundation of the teaching has been removed and the teaching itself ought to be set aside.

As an answer to this, it must be said that both St Augustine and St Thomas taught that our earth was already sufficiently populated. There is no proof that such considerations as those cited in this paragraph have had any effect on the teaching of the Fathers, or theologians, or the magisterium.

3. Some say that older theologians had prohibited contraception because they falsely supposed that the procreative intention is always required in order that the use of matrimonial rights might not be considered sinful. In answer, clearly the necessity of procreative intention was regularly insisted upon, lest there be committed a venial sin of sexual concupiscence, · and without a doubt this teaching confirmed the condemnation of contraception. But it is impossible to understand how the serious evil of contraception could then be cited as an insignificant failure in the matter of chastity. Among theologians contraception was a damnable vice, an anticipated homicide, a serious and unnatural sin. Now to explain its malice by appealing to a defect in the procreative intention would be as inept as to say that a murderer merits capital punishment because he used another’s instrument without permission in committing the homicide. It is not the teaching concerning the malice of contraception which has evolved now but rather the teaching of sexual concupiscence in the use of matrimony.

4. Some say that the teaching of the Church was founded on the false supposition that all conjugal acts are procreative by their very nature, whereas the facts of physiology show that very few of them are actually fertile or productive of new life. In answer to this, it must be said that the older thinkers knew that many conjugal acts are actually sterile, e.g., during pregnancy and old age. Moreover, a legitimate conclusion from the facts now known would be this: there are fewer acts which are as a matter of fact capable of producing new life; therefore, there are fewer acts against which a person in acting contraceptively would incur the specific malice of contraception. But the facts do not invite us to intervene contraceptively, now that we have a more accurate knowledge about fertility; rather they invite us to have a greater respect for them.

5. Others say that the teaching of the Church is based on an obsolete medieval notion of ‘nature’, according to which nature would order its own processes to its own natural ends, fixed by the ‘intention of nature’, and of God. Contraception, as something going against the order established by nature, would be considered intrinsically evil because it is ‘contrary to nature’.

In answer to this: the teaching of the Church was first fully formulated and handed down constantly for several centuries before scholastic philosophy was refined. Secondly, in no way does it derive from any philosophy of nature (of the scholastics, Stoics or others) in which the natural physical order is the general criterion of morality for man. Thirdly, theology (just as scholastic philosophy) does not say that the physical ordering of things to their natural end is inviolable with respect to being ‘natural’. It does attribute a special inviolability to this act and to the generative process precisely because they are generative of new human life, and life is not under man’s dominion. It is not because of some philosophy which would make the physical order of nature as such the criterion of the morality of human acts.

D. Why does the Church teach that contraception is always seriously evil?

If we could bring forward arguments which are clear and cogent based on reason alone, it would not be necessary for our commission to exist, nor would the present state of affairs exist in the Church as it is.

1. The Fathers, theologians, and the Church herself has always taught that certain acts and the generative processes are in some way specially inviolable precisely because they are generative. This inviolability is always attributed to the act and to the process, which are biological; not inasmuch as they are biological, but inasmuch as they are human, namely inasmuch as they are the object of human acts and are destined by their nature to the good of the human species.

2. This inviolability was explained for many centuries by the Fathers, the theologians and in canon law as analogous to the inviolability of human life itself. This analogy is not merely rhetorical or metaphorical, but it expressed a fundamental moral truth. Human life already existing (in facto esse) is inviolable. Likewise, it is also in some sense inviolable in its proximate causes (vita in fieri). To put it in another way; just as already existing human life is removed from the dominion of man, so also in some similar way is human life as it comes to be; that is, the act and the generative process, inasmuch as they are generative, are removed from his dominion. In the course of centuries, scholastic philosophy explained this inviolability further and grounded it in the essential ordination of the act and the generative process to the good of the species.

3. The substratum of this teaching would seem to presuppose various Christian conceptions concerning the nature of God and of man, the union of the soul and the body which creates one human person, God as the Supreme Lord of human life, the special creation of each individual human soul. Moreover, the value of human life is presupposed as a fundamental good, which has in itself the reason for its inviolability, not because it is of man but because it is of God. This quasi-sacredness of natural human life (recall the quotation from John XXIII) is extended in the teaching of the Church to the acts and generative processes in as much as they are such. At least this is the way the matter must be conceived if we wish to understand the ancient traditional analogy to homicide and the severity with which the Fathers, the theologians and all faithful Christians have constantly rejected contraception.

Nor should one exclude from this view that malice in contraception which is derived precisely from violated chastity:

first, because chastity is understood as regulating the total generative process; and secondly, because (especially in antiquity) the conjugal act which proceeded from unexcused concupiscence was considered for this reason to be venially sinful.

4. The philosophical arguments by which the teaching of the Church is attacked are diversely proposed by diverse people. Some see the malice principally in the fact that procreation itself (that is, the act and the generative process) is a certain fundamental human good (as truth, as life itself is such a good). To destroy it voluntarily is therefore evidently evil. For to have an intention, directly and actively contrary to a fundamental human good, is something intrinsically evil. St Thomas spoke of this good, in discussing the matter, referring to ‘man in his proximate potency’.

Others derive its malice also from the disorientation whereby the act and the process, which are destined for the good of the species, are essentially deprived of their relation to this good of the species, and are subordinated to the good of the individual. Pius XII developed this argument.

5. But note: First, the question is not merely or principally philosophical. It depends on the nature of human life and human sexuality, as understood theologically by the Church. Secondly, in this matter men need the help of the teaching of the Church, explained and applied under the leadership of the magisterium, so that they can with certitude and security embrace the way, the truth and the life.

Pius XI spoke to the point in Casti Connubii: ‘But everyone can see to how many fallacies an avenue would be opened up and how many errors would become mixed with the truth, if it were left solely to the light of reason of each to find it out, or if it were to be discovered by the private interpretation of the truth which is revealed. And if this is applicable to many other truths of moral order, we must all the more pay attention to those things which appertain to marriage where the inordinate desire for pleasure can attack frail human nature and easily deceive it and lead it astray .

‘For Christ Himself made the Church the teacher of truth in those things also which concern the right regulation of moral conduct, even though some knowledge of the same is not beyond human reason.

E. Why cannot the Church change her answer to this central question?

1. The Church cannot change her answer because this answer is true. Whatever may pertain to a more perfect formulation of the teaching or its possible genuine development, the teaching itself cannot not be substantially true. It is true because the Catholic Church, instituted by Christ to show men a secure way to eternal life, could not have so wrongly erred during all those centuries of its history. The Church cannot substantially err in teaching doctrine which is most serious in its import for faith and morals, throughout all centuries or even one century, if it has been constantly and forcefully proposed as necessarily to be followed in order to obtain eternal salvation. The Church could not have erred through so many centuries, even through one century, by imposing under serious obligation very grave burdens in the name of Jesus Christ, if Jesus Christ did not actually impose these burdens. The Catholic Church could not have furnished in the name of Jesus Christ to so many of the faithful everywhere in the world, through so many centuries, the occasion for formal sin and spiritual ruin, because of a false doctrine promulgated in the name of Jesus Christ.

If the Church could err in such a way, the authority of the ordinary magisterium in moral matters would be thrown into question. The faithful could not put their trust in the magisterium’s presentation of moral teaching, especially in sexual matters.

2. Our question is not about the irreformability of Casti Connubii. The teaching of the Church did not have its beginning in Casti Connubii, nor does it depend on the precise degree of authority with which Pius XI wished to teach the Church in that document. The teaching of the Church in this matter would have its own validity and truth even if Casti Connubii had never been written. (When it was published, all saw in it not something new but the true teaching of the Church.) Our question is a question of the truth of this proposition:

contraception is always seriously evil. The truth of this teaching stems from the fact that it has been proposed with such constancy, with such universality, with such obligatory force, always and everywhere, as something to be held and followed by the faithful. Technical and juridical investigation into the irreformability and infallibility of Casti Connubii (as if once this obstacle had been removed, the true doctrine could be found and taught) distracts from the central question and even prejudices the question.

3. One can subtly dispute about many questions: e.g., whether the teaching is infallible by reason of the wording of Casti Connubii; whether the Church can teach something infallibly or define what is not formally revealed; whether the Church can teach authoritatively and in an obligatory fashion the principles of the natural law, whether infallible or not; But after all this, in practice we know what the Church can do from the things which she has always done, either implicitly by some action, or explicitly by invoking her power, derived from Christ Himself, of teaching the faithful in moral matters.

In dealing with this question, to dispute in a subtle way whether the teaching is technically ‘infallible by a judgement of the magisterium’ is empty-headed (super-vacaneum). For if this doctrine is not substantially true, the magisterium itself will seem to be empty and useless in any moral matter.

F. New notions of the Magisterium and its authority

1. What has been commonly held and handed down concerning the nature, function and authority of the magisterium does not seem to be accepted by everyone today. For among those who say that the teaching of Casti Connubii is reformable and who say that contraception is not always intrinsically evil, some seem to have a concept which is radically different about the nature and function of the magisterium, especially in moral matters. Thus, in the report of our commissions’ general session (plenary), 25 - 28 March 1965, pages 52 - 53, we read the following presentation of certain members’ opinions:

‘I. Nature is not something totally complete, but is in some sense making itself". We cannot attain it except by taking an overall view, because a fixed concept of nature does not exist...

‘II. The principle of continuity does not refer to precise judgements about the manner of acting ("comportements") as if they were once and for all determined for everyone. Rather it refers to the permanent values which must be protected, discovered and realized. Consequently, continuity refers neither to the formulations nor to concrete solutions. It suffices in a particular moment if the judgement on a moral matter is true "for the moment" (geschichtsgerecht, historically valid)...

‘IV. The function of the magisterium, therefore, does not consist in defining ways of acting ("comportements") in moral matters, unless one is speaking of prudential guidance. For its proper role, as for the gospel, is to provide those broader clarifications which are needed. But it could not publish edicts of such. a nature that they would bind consciences to precise ways of acting; that would be to proceed against that respect for life which is an absolute value...'

It is no surprise, then, if some theologians in the contemporary Church have no difficulty either in acknowledging the Church to have erred or in explaining what now they call erroneous as something historically true and valid for the time in which it took place, or even in denying to the magisterium of the Church the power of binding the consciences of the faithful in current concrete cases, especially touching on the question of natural law.

2. Those who proceed along the more traditional way in this matter cite various documents of the Holy See. Here are a few examples:

(a) Pius XII in his address Magnificate Dominum (1954):

‘The power of the Church is never limited to matters of "strictly religious concern", as they say. Rather the entire matter of the natural law, its institutions, interpretation, application, inasmuch as it is a question of moral concern, are in her power. For the observance of the natural law out of respect for the ordination of God looks to the way by which man must move along to his final supernatural end. The Church is already in this way the guardian and leader of men towards this end which is above nature. The Church, from the Apostles down to our times, has always maintained this manner of acting and will today, not just by way of guide and private council, but by the mandate and authority of the Lord.’

(b) John XIII, in his encyclical Pacem in Terris (1963), where he is speaking of social matters and the authority of the Church to apply the principles of the natural law: ‘Let no one object to the fact that it is the right and duty of the Church, not only to safeguard the teaching of faith and morals, but also to interpose her authority among her sons in the area of external affairs, when it is necessary to determine how that teaching may be made effective.’

(c) The Second Vatican Council, in the constitution on the Church, § 25, reaffirms the obligatory character of the teaching authority of the Supreme Pontiff when he teaches authentically, even if not infallibly.

Furthermore, among those who think that the Church today can now say ‘contraception is not seriously evil’, there seem to be some who conceive human nature as something continually and essentially evolving. There are some who will admit no intrinsic evil as necessarily connected with any external human action. There are some who permit suicide, abortion, fornication and even adultery. in certain circumstances. There are some who, equivalently at least in these matters, defend the principle that the end justifies the means. There are some who promote situation morality, and a morality of relativism, or the ‘new morality’. There are some who deny or doubt that the teaching authority of the Church can teach moral truths of the natural law infallibly. There are some who seem to deny that the teaching authority of the Church can oblige the consciences of the faithful in a concrete and individual case in any moral matter. The conclusions in our area of interest, derived from such principles, must be examined accurately, so that we may see to what further conclusions they will finally push us.

G. A brief summary of recent doctrinal development

1. With regard to sexual acts and their natural consequences, it is possible to do the following:

(a) practice continence;

(b) an imperfect or incomplete act, including amplexus reservatus;

(c) intervene in the operation of nature without a mutilation, for example, by using the pill for contraception;

(d) intervene in the operation of nature by an irreversible surgery, for instance, through sterilization;

(e) intervene in man’s operation (opus hominis,) by depriving the act itself of procreative power, as through onanism;

(f) intervene against the embryo considering it not yet animated by a rational soul;

(g) intervene against the foetus, animated by a rational soul, by abortion properly so-called;

(h) intervene against a newly born deformed child.

2. Interventions (a) to (d) do not corrupt the act in itself; (c) and (d) intervene in the natural operation (opus naturae), but before the beginning of any kind of new life. Intervention (e) has to do with man’s operation (opus hominis), namely, through onanism which is against the operation of the spermata. Interventions (f) and (g) touch on the fertilized ovum. The medieval doubt now reappears when a person asks whether it is animated by a rational soul at the moment of fertilization or later; or perhaps when the differentiation of the placenta and the embryo begins after nidation.

3. Until now the Church has condemned human interventions in genital activity from (c) on, whether it was a question of impeding or frustrating the natural power of conjugal intercourse. After a few years, some theologians allowed intervention (c). Then some allowed (d) for special cases. Many with ease allow even (e) at least when it is not a question of a condom impeding intimate union. Some seem prepared to admit (f) if it can be established with certainty that the rational soul does not come into existence at the moment of fertilization. Further it would seem that (g) is not absolutely excluded by all. And indeed, this seems logical. On that account there should be a careful indication of the previous steps just described.

II: Philosophical foundations and arguments of others and critique

(Not all approved everything, or proposed things in the same way.)

A. Synthetic presentation

1. The immutable principles of the natural law seem to come down to:

(a) subjection to God;

(b) reverence for the human person—often only in its spiritual element, and in a partial fashion;

(c) the duty of promoting earthly culture by humanizing nature.

When these values are preserved, man’s intervention in nature is not limited a priori by any absolute boundaries. This holds for one’s own organism, when all superstitious reverence for biological integrity has been eliminated. Parts, organs, functions of man are conceived as contra-distinct from him. They are subordinated to him because of cultural values, almost as are plants and animals. So now they approve masturbation as being useful therapeutically; sterilization to avoid danger to life from use of the genital function in marriage; and action taken against the foetus so that at least the one giving birth will live. Their basic reasoning: in the complexity of these interventions, true existential values are sought through the best method available at the time.

2. Human nature and the particular norms of morality are conceived of as adaptable and perfectible historically, so that they admit of true changes. They do not mean merely new applications and new modes of proceeding where the natural quality of such actions may depend on extrinsic conditions. Then, when man’s fecundity and mortality have been modified, his sexual activity ought not to be changed, but rather the moral norm laid down for it in Casti Connubii, by taking away natural procreativity from generative acts. To the extent that this frustration affords personal utility, it bestows value and is considered rightly ordered.

3. The teaching authority of the Church ought not to impede the development of culture by limiting the control of nature or by defining methods of action. Experience will show what is good, or what is evil, in the concrete situations, as the experiencing subject here and now discovers. So then (a) the magisterium, taught by the experience of past errors, may not propose as infallible whatever is not clearly in revelation; (b) conscious of its limitations, it will not impose as the norm of the natural law what the greater number of the faithful sense as uncertain but it will dictate reasonable criteria for a given time (this is the way to interpret the declaration of Casti Connubii). These criteria are changeable and should be changed according to the progress of culture; (c) in the study of nature the magisterium will leave methods of action up to the discretion and responsibility of scientists, by not impeding the investigation of Catholics as it has often done in the past, with the loss of some influence in the world. (‘Methods’ they understand not merely in their technical aspect, but inasmuch as science show them to be more apt for humanitarian ends, and thus moralizes them through the intention, for example, as it moralizes conception by ordering it to the regulation of births.)

4. As moral criteria of the methods for exploring nature, for bettering them and making them more humane, the following should be considered:

(a) the basic intention of the person acting, which must be worthy of man and enriching his values. This is to be considered in the total complex of his action—not necessarily in single action, standing by themselves, but subordinated to a higher finality.

(b) The means to accomplish this are not to harm immediately the dignity or the rights of others, that is, they are not to use others as a means to bring about what they value. Otherwise means are morally indifferent and are to be specified by the intention of the person acting.

(c) Damage which might be caused by physical necessity in interventions whose effects can be known and decided in advance should be as minimal as possible.

(d) That method of action should be used which is the more humanitarian for a given situation.

5. The significance and morality of sexuality in marriage.

I. The following points, acknowledged by everyone, do not enter into the present discussion:

(a) The importance of sexuality for the perfecting and ordering of human existence, inasmuch as it is sexual;

(b) the dignity of conjugal love and its beneficial influence on the procreative society;

(c) the fittingness and definite moral necessity of more frequent carnal acts for couples to keep up their conjugal harmony and enthusiasm for having and educating offspring;

(d) the nobility of this act, holding a mean between its contemporary exaltation and the pessimistic evaluation of it in the past;

(e) the obligation of responsible paternity, attentive to the future education of children according to the condition of the family and of society;

(f) any judgement about the number of children to be made personally by the spouses themselves.

II. The question is whether frequent copulation in marriage is necessary, even obligatory, to bring about and maintain the maximum values of the couple, the children and the family—not out of any egoistic hedonism, nor from a lack of moral generosity or continence, but from an incompatibility between their duty and need of expressing conjugal love and at the same time of avoiding children in that very expression. The existence of sterile days does not afford a sufficient solution for modern society—because of the conditions of life, biological anomalies, psychological disturbances, the repression of spontaneity, the dangers to fidelity, etc. Recourse must be had to artificial ways of frustrating the natural generative power, by limiting its specific natural power, even if, normally and deliberately, it is ordered to the species and granted in marriage for the species-. Therefore the use of contraceptives in marriage for the purpose of regulating children is presumed to be moral because it is specified by an honest intention, harmonizes the psychosomatic relationships between the spouses, is beneficial for their moral life and is of service to the procreative society. Some think it is evil, because it detracts something from the powers of nature, but it is a lesser evil, to be accepted humbly by fallen man rising with difficulty towards perfection. Others think it simply is good, indeed the optimum existential good possible for the present, fully legitimate because of the values and complex intention indicated above.

6. The concrete application to contraception is made in this manner. Considered in itself contraception does not attain the ideal fullness of values. But it is not intrinsically evil. (Intrinsic evils are denied to creatures in man’s horizontal plane.) In the concrete it is commonly licit and obligatory in marriage where the necessity of regulating children exists. No means and methods of obtaining this regulation are a priori immoral. In practice those are to be preferred which here and now better respect the complex finality of the action in humanitarian and existential values (the expression of love, the service to the procreative society, the more secure exclusion of undesired children, the intimacy and spontaneity of carnal gestures, the liberation of one’s self or one’s spouse’s from distress, tension, etc.).

7. The principal arguments to legitimize contraception. These vary from one to another whenever something new is proposed.

(a) In order to supersede the traditional teaching, they say that the traditional teaching, from an ignorance of biology, supposed that each individual conjugal act was by its nature ordained to children, and therefore erroneously thought that the order of nature was violated through use of an artificial means. They argue that Pius XI would not condemn such resort to artifice except when used for an arbitrary, egoistic-hedonistic reason vitiating the acts of nature; not when used for legitimate motives of expressing conjugal love in union, which contemporary investigations reveal prevails. They argue that this same Pontiff was not dealing with individual actions destined to the service of biological life of a future offspring but with the whole complex of conjugal life. About this, what he said is most rightly affirmed. They argue that the traditional teaching concerning contraception, since it was never defined (and cannot be defined because it is not a revelation), must be reformed, once the falsity has been demonstrated of its foundation with regard to children, as to the primary end of marriage (one out of every two hundred acts can be said to be generative) and with regard to false interpretation of Genesis 38, 8—10, and once its pessimism, stemming from an ignorance or a poor interpretation of sexual values, has been overcome.

(b) On the level of experience, they argue that, by the testimony of the best doctors and married couples in modern life, periodic continence has been demonstrated to be impossible in itself, uncertain of biological regulation, harmful for the psychological life of the spouses, dangerous for conjugal fidelity and for the efficient regulation of offspring.

(c) In the order of arguments from reason, some insist on a dispensation from the principle of the lesser evil which often permits man in his fallen condition not only to consider but even to choose the lesser evil, even without physical necessity but with great moral fittingness. Others reject this prior consideration as injurious to the generosity of many couples and

speak rather of the perplexity which persuades many to save the greater conjugal-family good, by sacrificing the lesser good of the psychological integrity of the act, as often and as easily as this can be repeated. Others, more generally, apply the principle of totality which permits the renunciation even of members and functions of organic life (a fortiori, therefore of their particular acts), not only for the health of the body or its functions, but even for the greater good of the person, both in the physical order and in the psychic order (cf. lobotomy). It follows that in conjugal life, through the physical evil of contraception, a psychic good may be obtained—the good of eliminating anxiety over a dangerous maternity, various obsessions, the inhibition of spontaneous love, etc. Some think that this principle probably applies also to the quasi-personal husband-wife union, so that the husband for the good of the wife, may impede the natural generative power of free genital action—for example, if she might conceive when she is weak or sick. And vice versa, the wife may do so, lest her husband suffer tension by reason of conjugal continence, etc.

B. A critique of this position

1. The notion of the natural law remains uncertain, changeable, withdrawn from the magisterium. For some, it may never be revealed; for others, only for a very special reason, in the rarest of cases, it proposes some relationship of man to God or to other men in acceptable arguments as definitive. (It is asserted that this never happened in history, certainly not in the solemn declaration of Casti Connubii.) This view does not do justice to or protect either the competence which the Church has so many times vindicated for herself for the interpretation of the natural law, nor the Church’s effective capacity of discerning the moral order established by God, which is so often obscure to fallen man.

2. Nature seems to be understood as a complex of physical and psychic powers in the world, granted to the dominion of man, so that he can experience them, foster change, or frustrate them for his own earthly convenience. Numbered among these are the organs, powers, acts of man himself, without excepting such ‘super-personal’ functions as the specifically genital actions ordered to the species. All these things, and in particular man’s own psycho-physical parts, are conceived of as having been entrusted to the ‘embodied spirit’ which is man, so that he may humanize them through his culture in a given set of physical possibilities. Therefore he can frustrate his own biological, sexual function, even when voluntarily aroused, because it is subject to reason for the bettering of the human condition. Such earthly, cultural naturalism and utilitarian, exceedingly humanistic altruism, seem to allow insufficient place in human life for the action of the Holy Spirit and for his mission of healing sin. Neither is it evident what are the great demands on virtue which are often affirmed in this new tendency.

3. Many things seem to be mixed up and confused when there is affirmed the mutability of nature in the human person according to the evolution of history. The essential distinction between mutations which are dependent on extrinsic conditions and the stability of principles deduced by right reason is ignored. Changes which are dependent on extrinsic conditions may permit or require contradictory moral actions in diverse situations, though under the same moral principle. One may cite, for example, heart surgery, which is now licit, but which once amounted to homicide. But the principles of right reason are deduced from a consideration of the essential relations of human nature, which constitute the norm of morality. For example, the different and complementary genitality of the sexes determines the right use of the generative function in Adam and Eve as in Titus and Sempronia. Many of the alleged changes in human nature are brought out by false reasoning and false interpretations of history, we can show, for example, that slavery became intrinsically evil or usury was permitted.

4. The authenticity of the magisterium seems to be substantially violated:

(a) By restricting its mission and power beyond the limits vindicated by the Church for herself through the actions of several Pontiffs and through the First and Second Vatican Councils; and by reducing her competence so that she is deprived of her necessary authority to remain a light to the nations, teaching effectively the moral order established by God even when this is not clearly shown in Sacred Scripture and in apostolic tradition. Such is now claimed about onanism. Why should their contemporary solution be admitted any more than the statements of Pius XI or XII?

(b) By confusing the consensus of the faithful (of the Universal Church), of all who profess the common faith existing in all people of God, with the belief of the faithful (Ecclesia discens, the Church learning) which works together to illumine the hierarchy (Ecclesia docens, the Church teaching) in the quest for religious truths and in judging obscure and uncertain matters.

(c) By taking away from the magisterium the authority to discern the requirements of the natural law and to teach authoritatively when a large part of the faithful are in doubt. In this they approach the mentality of other Christian Churches and offend against the genuine hierarchical constitution of the Church of Christ.

(d) By not recognizing the differences among the assents (to be given to truth) other than the difference between the infallible faith concerning things which have been revealed, and the assent of prudence concerning declarations reformable according to the developments of time, as is often the case in social matters. Thereby they ignore Catholic doctrines in the area of human actions which are plainly certain and morally irreformable, not to speak of theological conclusions constantly proved valid and of those things which some call ‘ecclesiastical faith’. If contraception were declared not intrinsically evil, in honesty it would have to be acknowledged that the Holy Spirit in 1930, in 1951 and 1958, assisted Protestant Churches, and that for half a century Pius XI, Pius XII and a great part of the Catholic hierarchy did not protest against a very serious error, one most pernicious to souls; for it would thus be suggested that they condemned most imprudently, under the pain of eternal punishment, thousands upon thousands of human acts which are now approved. Indeed, it must be neither denied nor ignored that these acts would be approved for the same fundamental reasons which Protestantism alleged and which they (Catholics) condemned or at least did not recognize. Therefore one must very cautiously inquire whether the change which is proposed would not bring along with it a definitive depreciation of the teaching of the moral direction of the hierarchy of the Church and whether several very grave doubts would not be opened up about the very history of Christianity.

5. As for the reasoning used to justify contraception, among other things it seems: (a) To lack the fundamental distinction between the sexual condition of man and the free and voluntary use of the genital faculty. This latter is a particular aspect of man’s sexual condition, about which in marriage a determined right is obtained. In theological tradition, this right is limited according to the natural ends of the generative faculties.

(b) If the specific use of this faculty can be turned aside in marriage from the generative finality, in the service of either the individual spouses, or of the family itself, or of a consort, why not outside of marriage? More of this later.

(c) Biology is said to have revealed both the falsity of the ordering of each and every conjugal act towards generation, and the constant natural unitive quality of this act (which from the very beginning has been clear enough!), so that one might conclude that it is licit to contradict the generative power in order to satisfy the unitive tendency.

But (I) this conclusion is not at all apparent. For if an act is rarely generative, then one must exert care that it might produce its effect, while the expression of union which is constantly present could be more easily omitted in particular cases (for example, to procure fecundation artificially if it could not otherwise be obtained). There is a confusion between inchoate procreativity, which man actuates through a deliberative act, and effective procreation, which depends upon nature and has been removed from human deliberation by the Creator.

(II) There can be no contradiction between what Catholic teaching wished to signify through the term ‘procreation education’ which from the sixteenth century was commonly designated as a primary end of marriage, and the biology and physiology of the sexual act freely exercised. Any other finality, legitimately determining its use, must observe that integrity.

(III) Finally, it is not apparent how a freely placed act can be perfective of human nature, but at the same time be voluntarily mutilated and changed in its natural power, even if that frustration be for another good end. Indeed, that good can be obtained in another way—this is something which the contraceptive theory is always silent about—for conjugal love is above all spiritual (if the love is genuine) and it requires no specific carnal gesture, much less its repetition in some determined frequency. Consequently, the affirmed sense of generosity and the absence of hedonism are suspect, when we find the intimate love of the whole person between a father and daughter, a brother and sister, without the necessity of carnal gestures.

One final question might be asked: are not these men essentially limited by the influence of their time and culture and region and by organized propaganda so that they bring to the problem only a partial, transitory and vitiated vision, one that even now is not a fair response to the mind of very many people?

III: Consequences if the teaching of the Church is changed

A. As it would pertain to moral teaching in sexual matters

The great majority of theologians who argue that contraception is not absolutely illicit in individual conjugal acts posit the principle of totality as the basis for this opinion. This means that every partial good must be ordered to the good of the whole, and in a case of a conflict of interest a partial good must be sacrificed for the good of the whole. However, this principle is applied to the case differently by different people.

1. A great number seem to admit that each and every sexual act is ordered by nature and ought to be ordered by man to procreation in its total complexity, i.e. understood as to include education. But education, in order that this might take place in a human way, requires a harmonious and balanced way of life by the parents and the whole family. This, in turn, requires an undisturbed and spontaneous sexual life between the spouses. Therefore, individual conjugal acts ought to be ordered to this whole complex. A partial good, namely, the ordering of individual acts to procreation, can be sacrificed for the good of the whole, even if this does positively remove their procreative force.

Traditional teaching obviously admits the principle of totality and demands that the sexual act not take place except in relation to the whole reality of procreation and education. However, it maintains that each and every conjugal act of its very nature has a certain specific, intrinsic, proper order, inasmuch as by its nature it is both ordered to the whole reality of procreation, and in that way is ordered as an act of bestowing life (a creative action in the strict sense). To place an action which removes this specific ordination, intrinsically proper to it, even for the sake of a higher good, is to act contrary to the nature of things.

Once one has set aside this traditional principle, one would also be setting aside a fundamental criterion, up until the present time unshaken in its application to many acts which have always been considered by the Church to be serious sins against chastity.

(a) The case of extra-marital sexual relationships of those whose living together is ordered to the good of procreation understood as a total complex. So demanding might be those who are close to marriage but could not contract it at the moment because of difficulties, yet nevertheless feel bound to foster and make as secure as possible their future harmonious conjugal life together. Similarly demanding might be those who wish to test their mutual adaptability and their sexual compatibility for the good of the family. So also might be
those in concubinage who can neither marry nor be separated from one another because of the children to be educated. This education also demands the harmonious home life of the parents and, of course, a peaceful sexual life.

It should be noted that these consequences are not imaginary, but actually are being defended by some Catholics in speech and in writing. It would seem that they are not illogical, once one abandons the principle of the specific ordering of each free, generative action to procreation in the strict sense.

(b) The case of sexual acts in marriage, for example, oral and anal copulation. They object that such acts as these will remain evil because they do not observe the intrinsic ordination of the conjugal act to a loving union. It could be answered, first of all, that it is not apparent why an ordination to procreation in the strict sense would not be required in every act, but nevertheless there would be required an ordination to loving union, as a good never to be sacrificed in single acts for the good of the whole. Then too, it stands to reason that some spouses experience the above described forms of intercourse as true amorous union. Nor is it apparent in this opinion why a loving union must be realized uniquely through the sexual organs of each. The same ought to be applied to mutual masturbation between the spouses, at least in the case where they cannot have intercourse. Or to the solitary masturbation of one spouse in the absence of the other, yet done with a certain marital affection or as a means of releasing nervous pressure because of a long imposed abstinence with possible damage to the peace and education of the family (for example in the case of the illness of one spouse).

(c) Even further the door is opened easily to the licitness of masturbation among youths on the ground that it could be a remote preparation for realizing a harmonious sexual life in marriage. Many psychologists judge this to be a normal phase in adolescence for sound sexual formation and maintain that its forced suppression could cause much wrong in such formation.

(d) It is equally logical that direct sterilization would be permitted as well. For although sterilization in the strict sense is commonly judged as a more serious intervention than the use of certain preventive means, nevertheless several newer theologians (and it seems quite logical) already admit the licitness even of this kind of intervention for a contraceptive end, in the case where the definitive removal of the fecundity of conjugal acts through the use of merely contraceptive media would not allow the couple to have sufficient security and tranquillity.

We admit that the illicity of several of the abuses mentioned above is evident from Sacred Scriptures (as also for several of those to be spoken of later). However, the exegetes generally agree that in those places there is not being stated the positive law for Christians, but simply the restatement of precepts of the natural law. Therefore we return to the same question: on what kind of basis does the prohibition of the natural law rest? In other words, by the law set forth in Sacred Scripture, is not a general prohibition for acting sexually against the good of procreation included?

2. However, many theologians, who maintain that contraception is not intrinsically evil, seem to come to this conclusion from a more general principle: that, namely, which denies all absolute intrinsic morality to external human acts, in such a way that there is no human act which is so intrinsically evil that it cannot be justified because of a higher good of man. In stating this, they apply the principle that ‘the end specifies the means’ and that ‘between two evils the lesser is to be chosen’. They say that this specification and choice also include those things which are commonly called intrinsically evil.

If this principle is admitted, it would seem that more serious evils can yet be expected. Perhaps the promoters of the principle do not intend this. Nevertheless, these conclusions are actually drawn by others. Thus, for example, it could be concluded that masturbation is for the good of personal equilibrium, or homosexuality good for those who are affected with abnormal inclinations and seek only friendship with the same sex for their balance. The same could be done for the use of abortives or of abortion directly induced to save the life of the mother.

B. The value and dignity of the Church’s teaching authority

If the Church should now admit that the teaching passed on is no longer of value, teaching which has been preached and stated with ever more insistent solemnity until very recent years, it must be feared greatly that its authority in almost all moral and dogmatic matters will be seriously harmed. For there are few moral truths so constantly, solemnly and, as it has appeared, definitively stated as this one for which it is now so quickly proposed that it be changed to the contrary.

What is more, however, this change would inflict a grave blow on the teaching about the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to the Church to lead the faithful on the right way towards their salvation. For, as a matter of fact, the teaching of Casti Connubii was solemnly proposed in opposition to the doctrine of the Lambeth Conference of 1930, by the Church ‘to whom God has entrusted the defence of the integrity and purity of morals... in token of her divine ambassadorship... and through Our mouth’. Is it nevertheless now to be admitted that the Church erred in this her work, and that the Holy Spirit rather assists the Anglican Church?

Some who fight for a change say that the teaching of the Church was not false for those times. Now, however, it must be changed because of changed historical conditions. But this seems to be something that one cannot propose, for the Anglican Church was teaching precisely that and for the very reasons which the Catholic Church solemnly denied, but which it would now admit. Certainly such a manner of speaking would be unintelligible to the people and would seem to be a specious pretext.

Others claim that the Church would be better off to admit her error, just as recently she has done in other circumstances. But this is no question of peripheral matters (as, for example, the case of Galileo), or of an excess in the way a thing is done (the excommunication of Photius). This is a most significant question which profoundly enters into the practical lives of Christians in such a way that innumerable faithful would have been thrown by the magisterium into formal sin without material sin. But let there be consulted the serious words of Pius XI in his ‘Directive to priests who are confessors and who have the care of souls’ (1930). Also let there be consulted the words of Pius XII in his ‘Address to the cardinals and bishops on the occasion of the definition of the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary’ (1950):

‘This way (namely, of liberation from the law of God) can never be taken because it is hurtful and harmful even when it is a question of someone who wishes to bring help to men in difficult situations of conjugal life. Therefore it would be pernicious to the Church and to civil society, if those who had care of souls, in teaching and in their way of life, would knowingly remain silent when the laws of God are violated in marriage. These laws always flourish whatsoever the case may be.’

For the Church to have erred so gravely in its grave responsibility of leading souls would be tantamount to seriously suggesting that the assistance of the Holy Spirit was lacking to her.

---

The Birth Control Report

III: The argument for reform

The following is the full text of the ‘position paper’ setting out the arguments in favour of reform in the Church’s teaching: it was signed by Fr Joseph Fuchs, S.J., of the Gregorian, Canon Philippe Delhaye, of the Catholic University of Lille, and Fr Raymond Sigmond, O.P., of the Angelicum, Rome, and it was approved by a majority of the theologians on the commission.

I. The past teaching of the Church is not decisive

1: The importance of the encyclical ‘Casti Connubii’

The encyclical Casti Connubii has special importance in solving the question of the reasonable regulation of births precisely because of its solemn condemnation of every contraceptive intervention in the conjugal act. But the encyclical did nothing other than reaffirm the common teaching at that time. The solemnity of the condemnation of every contraceptive intervention is especially understandable as a reaction to the declaration of the Lambeth Conference. But to this must be added the fear prevalent at that time among many peoples that contraceptive practice could lead to an undesired reduction of (the world) population.

Today no one holds that the solemn declaration of the encyclical Casti Connubii constitutes a true doctrinal definition. Nor does the reference of the encyclical to Genesis chapter 38 (concerning the sin of Onan) prove that the teaching of the encyclical is divinely revealed. For the reference is made only incidentally and only because of the well-known exegesis of St Augustine. Augustine, with only one or two other Fathers, saw in the scriptural text a condemnation of onanism, whereas contemporary exegetes, Protestant and Catholic, are rather inclined to another interpretation, or, at least, are uncertain. The encyclical offers no other text from the Old or New Testament which condemns contraceptive intervention, nor can one be found. Finally, the reference of the encyclical to an uninterrupted tradition does not make its teaching infallible, since the assertion of the encyclical of such an existent tradition is not infallible.

The reference of the encyclical to the argument from reason or the natural law is vague and imprecise, especially since this argument does not consider sufficiently man, God’s creature, as the prudent administrator and steward of the gifts of nature.

2. The tradition to which ‘Casti Connubii’ refers

Casti Connubii is of greater importance if it is considered as a particular and even solemn part of the total tradition, including the explicit teaching of the past two centuries. For in this tradition contraceptive intervention is never approved, but when the question arises it is condemned. This has occurred many times in the last few centuries. However, this is by no means an apostolic tradition or an attestation of faith but merely the tradition of a teaching formulated in diverse ways at diverse times.

In this tradition there is a constant concern for protecting the goodness of procreation, especially in opposition to the Gnostics, Manichees and, later, the Cathari. But the necessity of multiplying the human race and therefore of increasing the number of children in families was denied through the centuries on theological grounds. The protection of the goodness of procreation as such through the prohibition of contraceptive intervention is more rarely proved from Scripture (Gen. 38) than from reason or natural law and not without the influence of philosophies and medical science of the three prior centuries. But the reasons alleged are generally quite vague and lack precision, nor do they always refer to the avoidance of children in marriage specifically, but from adulterous unions and fornication. Likewise today many of the best theologians who defend the illicitness of every contraceptive intervention because of the past teaching of the Church, concede that they do not have a convincing argument based on reason or natural law.

For the rest, the concept of the natural law, as it is found in traditional discussion of this question, is insufficient; for the gifts of nature are considered to be immediately the expression of the will of God, preventing man, also a creature of God, from being understood as called to receive material nature and to perfect its potentiality. Churchmen have been slower than the rest of the world in clearly seeing this as man’s vocation.

3. The official teaching is in evolution

Little by little, however, the Church has freed herself from this inadequate concept of nature and the natural law. A first intimation of this is already found in the notion of conjugal love expressed in reference to the physical act of marriage. Thus stated, it is found both in the writings of Pius XI (Casti Connubii) and more frequently in the writings of Pius XII. The teaching of Pius XII on the regulation of birth through rhythm follows this direction even more (1951). Finally the teaching of the Second Vatican Council affirmed the great importance of the expression of conjugal love through intercourse and especially the virtuous exercise of responsibility in determining the number of children. And this teaching was felt at that time by certain Fathers of the Council to be ‘pregnant’ in terms of the licitness of diverse contraceptive interventions. They showed this by pointing out the difficulty in arriving at a conciliar consensus on the former position. Hence the council proceeded very cautiously in simply reaffirming the traditional teaching on this matter. It is easily understood, then, why a widely felt doubt on the truth of the teaching of the encyclical Casti Connubii in the matter of contraceptive intervention could have arisen, notwithstanding the teaching of the ordinary magisterium.

This issue is a matter of real concern not only among husbands and wives but also among priests and the hierarchy itself. With all this in mind it becomes evident that the official teaching with regard to the manner of protecting the good of procreation has been evolving in recent decades, and that the position stated in the text of the encyclical Casti Connubii has not yet been found to be definitive.

4. Reasons for this evolution

The reason—or, if you will, the forceful occasion - for seriously rethinking the traditional teaching on the illicit
contraceptive intervention as regards each and every conjugal act is based on various things: the social change in marriage, in the family, in the position of woman: the diminution of infant mortality; advances in physiological, biological, psychological and sexological knowledge; a changed estimation of the meaning of sexuality and of conjugal relations; but especially a better perception of the responsibility of man for humanizing the gifts of nature and using them to bring the life of man to greater perfection. Finally, one must consider the consensus of the faithful, according to which a condemnation of spouses to a prolonged and heroic abstinence from the helpful and appropriate expressions of conjugal life must be erroneous. A later development of such a position (which seems to be prevalent) is based less on these changes than on a better, more profound and more correct perspective on married life and intercourse which the changes have brought about.

5. The importance of the developing official teaching

Not a few theologians and faithful fear that a change in the official teaching could damage the confidence of Catholics in the teaching authority of the Church. For they ask how the assistance of the Holy Spirit could permit such an error for so many centuries, and one that has had so many consequences, especially in recent centuries. But the criteria for discerning what the Spirit could or could not permit in the Church can scarcely be determined a priori. In point of fact, we know that there have been errors in the teaching of the magisterium and of tradition. With regard to intercourse one should note that for so many centuries in the Church, with the active concurrence of the Popes, it was all but unanimously taught that marital intercourse was illicit unless accompanied by the intention to procreate—or at least (because of the words of I Cor. 7) to offer an outlet for the other partner; and yet no theologians hold to this teaching today, nor is it the official position. In recent decades there has been an increasing tendency to consider the authentic non-infallible magisterium infallible in practice, whereas in reality it must be expected that the non-infallible magisterium is sometimes mistaken; There is, then, no sound basis for fearing that a change in this particular point would cause a loss of trust in the Church’s teaching authority or would make it possible to raise doubts on every other doctrine. Such a change is to be seen rather as a step towards a more mature comprehension of the whole doctrine of the Church. For doubt and reconsideration are quite reasonable when proper reasons for doubt and reconsideration occur with regard to some specific question. This is part and parcel of the accepted teaching of fundamental theology.

II. A systematic examination of the arguments from the law of nature

(1) The arguments based on the law of nature are not persuasive. The principal argument is founded on the inviolability of the sources of life; like human life itself, it is said, they do not fall under the dominion of man but pertain to the dominion of God.

But an unconditional respect for nature as it is in itself (as if nature in its physical existence were the expression of the will of God) pertains to a vision of man which sees something mysterious and sacred in nature, and because of this fears that any human intervention tends to destroy rather than perfect this very nature. In past centuries, because of this mentality, many interventions of the art of medicine were prohibited, and only little by little, with the progress of medicine and science, have the possibilities of intervention for the good of the person and sometimes even for the good of the community been acknowledged.

The sources of life, just as existent life itself, are not more of God than is the totality of created nature, of which he is the Creator. The very dignity of man created to the image of God consists in this: that God wished man to share in his dominion. God has left man in the hands of his own counsel. To take his own or another’s life is a sin not because life is under the exclusive dominion of God but because it is contrary to right reason unless there is question of a good or a higher order. It is licit to sacrifice a life for the good of the community. It is licit to take a life in capital punishment for the sake of the community, and therefore from a motive of charity for others. Suicide is a sin because it is contrary to right reason and opposed to man’s destiny.

In the course of his life man must attain his perfection in difficult and adverse conditions, he must accept the consequences of his responsibility, etc. Therefore the dominion of God is exercised through man, who can use nature for his own perfection according to the dictates of right reason.

In the matter at hand, then, there is a certain change in the mind of contemporary man. He feels that he is more conformed to his rational nature, created by God with liberty and responsibility, when he uses his skill to intervene in the biological processes of nature so that he can achieve the ends of the institution of matrimony in the conditions of actual life, than if he would abandon himself to chance.

(2) The principle of moral criterion for his action remains the same: it is conformity to his own rational nature created by God and redeemed by Christ, even in those matters which pertain to Christian matrimony. The order impressed on things by the Creator is preserved; Christian matrimony is fashioned according to the teaching of the New Testament. However (since at this point we are speaking of matrimony as a natural institution), man too belongs to created nature, just as subhuman nature and man’s relationship to it. The order of creation does not require that all things be left untouchable just as they are, but that they reach the ends to which they have been ordered. Nature is understood by St Thomas from the finalities which make up the dynamic element of nature. The decision about the manner of intervention therefore must be formulated according to the finalities which can be discovered from human nature.

(3) The sources of life are persons in and through their voluntary and responsible conjugal acts. The pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes recognizes that the decision about the number of children rests ultimately with the parents and is their exclusive right. The parents must be guided in this decision by objective criteria, or, to say it in another way, by the objective finality of the institution of matrimony. But it is up to them to determine, in view of their personal and social situation, how to achieve this purpose of marriage, as one essential element among diverse goods, and how to bring about a perfect balance between conjugal love and harmonious fecundity. In virtue of this decision they use the sexual organs to gain the predetermined goal, but the organs themselves are not per se the sources of life. The biological process in man is not some separated part (animality) but is integrated into the total personality of man.

(4) It is more and more evident today that in man sexual relations in marriage are raised to the expression of a mutual personal giving (herein lies the change of object). Intercourse materially considered carries with it some orientation towards fecundation, but this finality must be rationally directed by man according to the measure and conditions of human love, size of the family, educational need, etc. The mutual giving of self perdures throughout the entire life; biological fecundity is not continuous and is subject to many irregularities and therefore ought to be assumed into the human sphere and be regulated within it. Finalization towards fecundity can formally come only from man, though this finality is found materially in the organs. Fecundation must be a personal human act (deliberate, responsible for its effects, etc.). With the progress of knowledge, man can exercise this dominion and ought to exercise it with responsibility.

(5) From this point of view there is no difference between acts which happen in a fertile or infertile period. For either it is permissible for man to use his sexual organs both to foster love and to achieve fertilization (with the result that the conjugal community is filled with the goods of matrimony and then it makes no difference whether the intervention of man happens in a fertile or infertile period); or it is permissible to use his organs for fostering love in infertile periods, but in fertile periods he is given no alternative other than fertilization or abstinence. This, however, seems to have no foundation in the law of nature.

III. Intervention is well explained within the limits of the classic doctrine

What are the limits of the dominion of man with regard to the rational determination of his fecundity?

The general principle can be formulated in this manner. It is the duty of man to perfect nature (or to order it to the human good expressed in matrimony) but not to destroy it. Even if the absolute untouchability of the fertile period cannot be maintained, neither can complete dominion be affirmed. Besides, when man intervenes in the procreative process, he does this with the intention of regulating and not excluding fertility. Then he unites the material finality towards fecundity which exists in intercourse with the formal finality of the person and renders the entire process ‘human’. Conjugal acts which by intentions are infertile (or which are rendered infertile) are ordered to the expression of the union of love; that love, however, reaches its culmination in fertility responsibly accepted. For that reason other acts of union in a certain sense are incomplete and they receive their full moral quality with ordination towards the fertile act. If this act is deliberately and, without sufficient reason excluded, then these ‘incomplete’ acts receive their proper moral specification from some other end (which is outside the order of the goods of matrimony) and then it is a question of an intervention which is illicitly ‘anti-conceptional’. Infertile conjugal acts constitute a totality with fertile acts and have a single moral specification.

Explanatory Note: Not every act which proceeds from man is a complete human act. The subject of morality for St Thomas is always the human act whose master is man (determined from a knowledge of the object or end). But this human act which has one moral specification can be composed of several particular acts if these partial acts do not have some object in itself already morally specified. And this is the case for matrimonial acts which are composed of several fertile and infertile acts; they constitute one totality because they are referred to one deliberate choice.

IV. Moral Criteria with regard to human intervention in conception

1. General remarks

Up to this time the simple biological conformity of the acts has been adhered to as the determining criterion or morality in this matter. A renunciation of this (Gaudium et Spes, § 51) does not abandon Christians to subjectivism or laxism. There are other criteria, more strict from one point of view, concerned no longer with the materiality of the acts but pertaining to the meaning of the action. Christian ethics confirms this in many other areas—for example, in the use of arms which are good when used in defence but evil when used to take away life unjustly or to steal.

What are these objective criteria?

Gaudium et Spes § 51 treats of these: ‘Therefore when there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspect of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practised. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.’

2. Explanation and synthesis of these objective criteria

(a) The meaning of sexuality in marriage. ‘The responsible procreative community’ is always ordered towards procreation; this is the objective and authentic meaning of sexuality and of those things which refer to sexuality (affectivity, unity, the ability to educate). So we can speak of the ‘procreative end’ as the essential end of sexuality and of conjugal life.

But this procreative end does not have to be realized by a fertile act when, for instance, parents already have children to educate or they are not prepared to have a child. This obligation of conscience for not generating springs from the rights of the already existing child or the rights of a future child. A child has a right to a ‘community of life and unity’ so that it can be formed and educated. Therefore the procreative end is substantially and really preserved even when here and now a fertile act is excluded; for infecundity is ordered to a new life well and humanly possessed. Man is the administrator of life and consequently of his own fecundity.

(b) The meaning of mutual giving. On the other hand, sexuality is not ordered only to procreation. Sacred Scripture says not only ‘increase and multiply’ but ‘they shall be two in one flesh’, and it shows the partner as another helpful self. In some cases intercourse can be required as a manifestation of self-giving love, directed to the good of the other person or of the community, while at the same time a new life cannot be received. This is neither egocentricity nor hedonism but a legitimate communication of persons through gestures proper to beings composed of body and soul with sexual powers. Here intervention is a material privation since love in this case cannot be fertile; but it receives its moral specification from the other finality, which is good in itself, and from the fertility of the whole conjugal life.

3. Objective criteria for the moral decision concerning methods

Now if we come more precisely to a decision as to methods, it helps to recall these principles which must simultaneously be considered.

(1) Infecundity of the act, when this is required by right reason, should be accomplished by an intervention with lesser inconveniences to the subject. Man can use his body in such a way as to render it more apt to attain its proper ends but he cannot manipulate his body and organs In an arbitrary fashion.

(2) If nature ought to be perfected, then it should be perfected in the manner more fitting and connatural.

(3) On the other hand, this intervention ought to be done in a way more conformed to the expression of love and to respect for the dignity of the partner.

(4) Finally, efficacity should also be considered. If there is a privation of conception for the sake of procuring other goods, these must be sought in a more secure and apt manner.

In this matter the rhythm method is very deficient. Besides, only 60 per cent -of women have a regular cycle.

4. Concerning the alleged relation between intervention in conception and other sins

Some argue that to legitimize contraception will prepare, the way for indulgence with regard to certain sins such as abortion, fellation, anal intercourse, fornication, adultery and masturbation. How far this is from the truth is clearly evident from the following remarks.

(a) Abortion is entirely different from contraception because it concerns human life already in existence. Thousands upon thousands of male sperm become useless and are lost in every act of intercourse; from approximately 200 ova present in a woman, perhaps 15 can be raised to the dignity of human life while the others are eliminated during menstrual periods. The right of an offspring already conceived and living is absolute and must be regarded with the same respect as every human life. From a sociological point of view it is interesting to note that abortions are more numerous in areas where contraception is neglected.

(b) The so-called new theory is extremely strict, as is that of the casuists, with regards to oral and anal copulation, since it does not permit them. For in these acts there is preserved neither the dignity of love nor the dignity of the spouses as human persons created according to the image of God.

(c) Human intervention in the process of conception is not permitted, as we have said, unless it favours the stability of the family. Therefore there is no parity with the question of extramarital relations. These relations lack the sense of complete and irrevocable giving and the possibility of normally accepting and educating children. These extra-marital relations contradict the norms already given concerning the habitual ordination of the institution of marriage towards offspring and love.

(d) The affirmation of the permissibility of intervention does not lead to an indulgent attitude towards masturbation since intervention preserves the intersubjectivity of sexuality (‘they shall be two in one flesh’). Masturbation rather negates that intersubjectivity. Masturbation in as much as it turns the individual on himself and seeks mere egocentric satisfaction, totally perverts the essential intentionality of sexuality whereby man is directed out of himself towards another. For intercourse even with intervention is self-offering and heterosexual. If a question is to be raised about masturbation, this should be done independently of the question of the regulation of birth, even should the classic teaching on this matter remain in force.

---