I can recall taking a canon law class for my Masters degree in Theological Studies (Ave Maria University’s Institute For Pastoral Theology). It was a lot of case studies of people doing less-than-ideal things, and us figuring out which part of canon law would apply. I had a great instructor who made canon law fun, which is an odd sentence to write. Moral theology inevitably is a part of those discussions. The study basically of what to do or not to do in particular situations, and also oftentimes the analysis of how morally culpable a person is or is not, based upon their knowledge and actions, is another aspect of moral theology.
Professor Benedict Nguyen is a great teacher, and a great mind in the Catholic Church today. We got to talking in class, and analyzing a difficult situation, he brought this out as a principle: “When in doubt, do not act.” We weren’t talking about a more obvious situation where failing to act is a sin of omission. We weren’t dealing with anything that is evil in its very object, and therefore intrinsically evil. We were talking about pretty much everything else. A situation where you ought to act brings about moral blame when you don’t do it; a sin of omission. Things that are always wrong remain wrong, regardless of intention and circumstances.
Well, I have gotten myself into an argument over contraception with John and Tom Darrow, probably spanning four years now. Those dudes are part of Reformational ecclesial communities. We are in agreement that killing the products of conception in abortion is perhaps the gravest evil in the world today. I don’t know what they think about reproductive technologies that are procreative but not unitive, that is, separating the creation of life from the sexual union of the spouses, like IVF (also forbidden by the Catholic Church). It would still be prohibited, even if it didn’t often involve the death of human life.
So the substance of their question/our disagreement is about “barrier” methods of contraception. How is that practice any different from the recourse to infertile times by couples who don’t want to have a child right now, and are using some form of Natural Family Planning (NFP)?
As I understand the argument the Church makes, everything that a man and woman have to do to engage in sex that is procreative and unitive is a process. The gift of the whole self, including one’s procreative and generative capacity is part of it. I made the argument to John Darrow that drawing an equivalence between abstinence during fertile periods and barrier contraception would make sex obligatory. The Church doesn’t even say that a married couple has to have sex at all! That would be uncommon, and a very unique conversation for young lovers especially, but a man and woman are not required to have sex at all. If the man cannot perform the act, and it’s known, he cannot marry in the Church. But that’s a different discussion. The Church could have said that couples ought to have coitus only during the fertile period, but she didn’t. The Scriptures say that man and wife should only refrain from sex for long periods by mutual consent. St. Paul is quite aware that too much temptation comes besides.
As a sidebar, I am wondering if all these liberal evangelical women I picked fights with were always the lower libido partner, and/or married to a man who was radically unchaste. Why is it even out there that men ALWAYS want sex more? ADHD and a few other illnesses can cause hypersexuality in people, but that could be either spouse.
The Blessed Mother and St. Joseph were married, and never had sexual relations. She’s ever-virgin. I know Protestants don’t believe that, but it’s true. How much doubt about that dogma comes from unchastity?
Anyway, anything done to intentionally thwart the procreative process is going to be wrong. Placing a barrier in order to contracept is distinct from not having relations at all. The Church doesn’t tell infertile couples to divorce. It doesn’t tell elderly people who previously had spouses that died that they can’t marry again, or have sex, even if we know that they’re unlikely to have a child. But an 85-year-old guy wearing a condom during sex would be sinning. The teaching is not rooted in crass natalism; The Church could endorse IVF, if so.
Not to go all Janet Smith on everyone, but I can remember when a wise older woman told me, “The Church doesn’t oppose birth control; she opposes contraception.” The distinction matters. It doesn’t persuade everyone, but as Bryan Cross has often reminded me, just because someone doesn’t agree with something true doesn’t make it false.
Comments