The Papal Encyclicals 1958-1981 (ed.) Claudia Carlen Ihm (McGrath Pub. Co., 1981); hereafter referred to as HV.
2.
LawlerRonaldO.F.M., BoyleJosephJr., and MayWilliam E., Catholic Sexual Ethics: A Summary, Explanation, and Defense (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Press, 1985), p. 123.
3.
SellingJoseph A., “Moral Teaching, Traditional Teaching, and Humanae Vitae,”Louvain Studies7 (1978), p. 28. For a history of physicalism see Brian Johnstone's informative “From Physicalism to Personalism.” Studia Moralia 30 (1992), pp. 71-96.
4.
Documents of Vatican II (ed.) Walter Abbot (N.Y.: American Press, 1966); hereafter referred to as GS.
5.
Selling, The Reaction to Humanae Vitae; A Study in Special and Fundamental Theology (S.T.D. diss., Catholic University of Louvain, 1977), p. 372.
6.
Selling, The Reaction to Humanae Vitae; A Study in Special and Fundamental Theology (S.T.D. diss., Catholic University of Louvain, 1977), p. 372.
7.
Selling, “Moral Teaching,” p. 43.
8.
Selling, “Moral Teaching,”, p. 44.
9.
For views along similar lines see the article by Selling's dissertation director, the retired Louvain University theologian Louis Janssens, “Reflections on Humanae Vitae, “Louvain Studies 2 (1969), pp. 231-253. Janssens wrote that HV stressed the “biological notions of human sexual relations” rather than (as the Council did) their “personal” meaning, p. 248. See also Richard McCormick's favorable evaluation of Selling's thesis in his Notes on Moral Theology: 1965-1980 (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1981), pp. 775–776.
10.
Selling, “Moral Teaching,” p. 27. “What is meant by coitus being ‘destined of itself to the propagation of life’ [=] The physiological structure of intercourse, the process of insemination, [which] is the normative quality applied to the moral judgment.” See also Richard McCormick's favorable evaluation of Selling's thesis in his Notes on Moral Theology, The Reaction to Humanae Vitae, p. 192.
11.
Selling, “Moral Teaching,” p. 27, note 10.
12.
Selling, note omitted.
13.
Where GS,51 has: “ex personae eiusdemque actuum natura,” HV, 10 has “ipsa matrimonii eiusque actuum natura.” I respond to this point in part two.
14.
Selling, “Moral Teaching,” p. 27.
15.
Selling, “Moral Teaching,” p. 27.
16.
Selling, The Reaction to Humanae Vitae, p. 194. On p. 210 Selling writes: “What is meant by ‘procreative meaning’ … could be nothing more than the (normative) integrity of the physiological process.” It is the structure of this biological activity that is identified with a “moral principle.” The Reaction to Humanae Vitae, p. 203. Furthermore, this principal applies to every act of sexual intercourse. The Reaction to Humanae Vitae, p. 343.
17.
Selling, The Reaction to Humanae Vitae, p. 205.
18.
Selling, The Reaction to Humanae Vitae, p. 210.
19.
Selling, The Reaction to Humanae Vitae, “Moral Teaching,” p. 29.
20.
Selling, The Reaction to Humanae Vitae, “Moral Teaching,”, p. 41.
21.
Joseph Seifert details several of the “different and partly conflicting views on the ethical basis of Humanae Vitae” in his essay, “The Problem of the Moral Significance of Human Fertility and Birth Control Methods: Philosophical Arguments against Contraception?” in the volume Humanae Vitae: 20 Anni Dopo, (Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Teologia Morale, Rome, 9-12, November 1988, Milano: Edizioni Ares, 1989), pp. 661 -672, at p. 661. See also the treatment of the various arguments in Janet Smith, Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1991), pp. 86-89; 98-118; and Kevin FlanneryS.J., “Philosophical Arguments Against and ForHumanae Vitae,” Anthropotes10(1994), pp. 189–204.
22.
“The magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church does not propose a particular moral theory … Yet it does, in carrying out its proper mission of proclaiming the gospel of Christ, make some claims about what human beings are to do … These claims the magisterium holds to be true, and they include both general and specific propositions [of which one asserts] that there are several principles, universally binding of the ‘natural law.’ Since the magisterium of the Church does not pretend to do the work proper to moral philosophers and theologians … it would be foolish to expect to find in its teachings any effort rigorously to articulate a taxonomic list of such principles. Yet one does find in its teachings appeals to universal normative principles and goods of human existence.” William E. May, “Roman Catholic Ethics and Beneficience,” in Beneficence and Health Care (ed.) Earl E. Shelp (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Pub. Co., 1982), pp. 129-130. See also Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, n. 29.
23.
This integral vision is a result of what Dionigi Tettamanzi has called an “integral anthropology,” where man is viewed as “a unitarian whole, a unitotality of body and spirit.” In this view, sexuality is not reducible to the body but involves the “human body, that is, as the person itself in its giving of itself.“ Thus the conjugal act is never merely natural but is also (at the same time) personal because it is “an expression and actualization of man in his unitotality of body and spirit.” Tettamanzi, “Spouses as Ministers of God's Design,” in the volume Natural Family Planning: Nature's Way — God's Way (general ed.) Anthony Zimmerman (Milwaukee: De Ranee, Inc., 1980), p. 146.
24.
For an excellent commentary on the Church's understanding of marriage see Smith, op. cit., pp. 36–67.
25.
Contrary to Selling (“Moral Teaching,” p. 26), this passage does not show that the Pope was “reinstating” procreation as the primary end of marriage. Here the Pope is simply describing the nature of this act as created by God: a bodily act which is capable of expressing love and procreating new human life. He is not implying any particular moral norm or hierarchy of ends. Nor is he implying that a couple must intend to procreate every time they engage in marital intercourse. I deal with this issue in Chapter 2 of my Is Teaching of Humanae Vitae Physicalist? Toward a Personalistic Understanding: A Critique of the View of Joseph A. Selling (S.T.L. diss, The Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, 1990).
26.
In addition to Smith's study see also the analysis by Benedict AshleyO.P. and O'RourkeKevin, Healthcare Ethics: A Theological Analysis, 3rd ed. (St. Louis: Catholic Health Assoc., 1989), p. 252 on Paul VI's synthesis of these features.
27.
Cf. GS,49-50. Selling states that the Pope inaccurately ascribes all four characteristics of marital love to GS,50, when it reality only the first three are taken from GS,49 and the latter from GS,50. Thus, according to Selling, we do not find fecundity among the features included in the Council Fathers’ treatment of married love in GS,49. Selling, “Twenty Significant Points in the Theology of Marriage and Family Present in Gaudium et Spes,”Bijdragen43 (1982), pp. 424–425. I respond to this in Chapter 2 of my S.T.L. dissertation.
28.
RhonheimerMartin, “Contraception, Sexual Behavior, and Natural Law: Philosophical Foundation of the Norm of Humanae Vitae,”Linacre Quarterly56 (1989), p. 21.
29.
MayWilliam E., “The Moral Methodology of Vatican Council II and the Teaching of Humanae Vitae and Persona Humanae,”Anthropotes5 (1989), p. 39. Consult also GS,51.
30.
MayWilliam E., “The Moral Methodology of Vatican Council II and the Teaching of Humanae Vitae and Persona Humanae,”Anthropotes5 (1989), p. 39. Consult also GS,51.
31.
MayWilliam E. The Thomistic text is from the Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 94, a. 2.
32.
MayWilliam E., p. 40.
33.
PaulPope JohnII, Familiaris Consortio, n. 11. See also Ashley and O'Rourke, op. cit., pp. 244-253 on “personalized sexuality.”
34.
The Pope attaches a note which refers to the teaching of GS,50-51. A reading of these sections makes it clear that the Pope is of the same mind as the Council on this matter. For example, in GS,50 we read that parents, in decisions of responsible parenthood, “cannot proceed arbitrarily. They must always be governed according to conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church's teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the gospel.”
35.
Rhonheimer, op. cit., p. 21.
36.
Rhonheimer, op. cit., p. 21.
37.
ThereonStephen, “Natural Law in Humanae Vitae,” in the volume Humanae Vitae, p. 488.
38.
Rhonheimer, op. cit., p. 26.
39.
Rhonheimer, op. cit., p. 22.
40.
GrisezGermain, BoyleJoseph, FinnisJohn, and MayWilliam E., The Teaching of Humanae Vitae: A Defense (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 36. In this book the authors attempt to philosophically establish the argument that contraception always involves “a ‘no’ to human life, an anti-life mentality which goes against the first basic human good: human life. Such a ‘no’ to human life implies an intrinsic moral evil and — because the separation of the conjugal union from conception always implies such a ‘no’ — it would always be wrong.” Seifert, op. cit., p. 668. See also Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus (Vol. 2): Living a Christian Life (Franciscan Press, 1993), pp. 506-516.
41.
Grisez, op. cit., p. 36. The authors hold that the affirmative formulation indicates a crucial distinction which is not brought out clearly enough by the negative norm.” ‘Contraception’ signifies only the prevention of conception, but the contraceptive act seeks to impede the beginning of the life of a possible person.” This shows that “contraception is a contralife act.” The Way of the Lord Jesus (Vol. 2): Living a Christian Life. Though I am in overall agreement with the Grisez, et al. thesis, I would express some of the same reservations that have been stated by Seifert (who agrees with the argument), op. cit., pp. 669-670. Here Seifert states that the authors seem to go too far in speaking of “a ‘will against life’ and even of a ‘real hatred … against a possible child.'” The Way of the Lord Jesus (Vol. 2): Living a Christian Life, p. 669, note omitted. In an appendix to her book, Janet Smith is critical of the Grisez, et al. thesis. William E. May responds to her criticisms in his review of her book in The Thomist 57 (1993); pp. 155-161. I agree with May in holding that Smith has “seriously misconstrued” their argument.
42.
Selling, The Reaction to Humanae Vitae, p. 193.
43.
Selling(The Reaction to Humanae Vitae, p. 192) claims that while GS linked these meanings to conjugal love, HV links them to the marital act. Not only is Selling wrong in his interpretation of GS, but by opposing the reality of love to the act he is de- valuing the marital act and distorting both realities.
44.
Seifert, op. cit., p. 664.
45.
Selling, The Reaction to Humanae Vitae, p. 194.
46.
Lawler, op. cit., p. 161 (emphasis added).
47.
Seifert, op. cit., p. 668. The internal quote is from Grisez, et. al.
48.
May, “Sexual Ethics and Human Dignity,” in Persona Verita E Morale (Atti del Congresso Internazionale di Teologia Morale, Rome: Citta Nuova Editrice, 1986), p. 490. For a brief account of the basic goods and the requirements of practical reasonableness, see May, “Sexual Ethics and Human Dignity,”, An Introduction to Moral Theology, revised ed. (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1994), pp. 68-72; 77-79.
49.
HaasJohn M., “The Inseparability of the Two Meanings of the Marriage Act,” in Technologies, Marriage, and the Church (Braintree, MA: The Pope John XXIII Medical-Moral Research and Education Center, 1988), p. 96.
50.
MayWilliam E., “Selected Notes on Contemporary Books and Articles” (Review of Selling's “Moral Teaching”), Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Newsletter1 (1978), no page reference given.
51.
MayWilliam E., “Selected Notes on Contemporary Books and Articles” (Review of Selling's “Moral Teaching”), Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Newsletter1 (1978), no page reference given.
52.
When Selling writes that “HV demands the realization of this value [procreation] in each and every act (of coitus),” it is difficult to conceive how he could claim this. The Reaction to Humanae Vitae, p. 206.
53.
When Selling writes that “HV demands the realization of this value [procreation] in each and every act (of coitus),” it is difficult to conceive how he could claim this. The Reaction to Humanae Vitae, p. 209, note 71.
54.
FinnisJohn, “Personal Integrity, Sexual Morality and Responsible Parenthood,”Anthropos1 (1985), p. 53. This journal is now called Anthropotes.
55.
FinnisJohn, “Personal Integrity, Sexual Morality and Responsible Parenthood,”Anthropos, emphasis added on “rationale.”
56.
FinnisJohn, “Personal Integrity, Sexual Morality and Responsible Parenthood,”Anthropos, p. 51.
57.
See also the argument developed by Rhonheimer, op. cit., pp. 20–57.
58.
On the good of personal integrity and its violation see May, “Sexual Ethics,”485.
59.
Haas, op. cit., p. 102.
60.
Selling, “Moral Teaching,” p. 28.
61.
McInernyRalph, “Humanae Vitae and the Principle of Totality,”Linacre Quarterly56 (1989), pp. 58–67. For Pope Paul's rejection of this argument see HV,14.
62.
Selling, “Moral Teaching,” p. 28.
63.
See Selling's, “The Development of Proportionalist Thinking,”Chicago Studies25 (1986), pp. 165–175. For a study favorable to proportionalism see Bernard Hoose, Proportionalism: The American Debate and its European Roots (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1987).
64.
Two helpful works are: GrisezGermain, The Way of the Lord Jesus (vol 1): Christian Moral Principles, pp. 141–171, and William E. May, Moral Absolutes: Catholic Tradition Current Trends and the Truth (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1989). Chapter 2 of Veritatis Splendor contains John Paul II's negative assessment of the theory.
65.
However, in responding to the physicalist charge, one must be careful not to denigrate the role of the body. Human beings are body persons. For a good discussion of this point see PaulPope JohnII, Veritatis Splendor, nn. 46-50.
66.
In addition to Selling's “Moral Teaching” (esp. pp. 37-40) and The Reaction to Humanae Vitae, see also his “Twenty Significant Points in the Theology of Marriage and the Family Present in the Teaching Gaudium et Spes,”Bijdragen43 (1982), pp. 412–441. We take our points for discussion from the latter article as they are worded by Selling.
67.
I refer to only what I think are the most significant points he raises for our discussion. Again, I have responded to all of the points listed in my S.T.L. dissertation. The numbers in parentheses refer to Selling's original ordering in his “Twenty Significant Points.”
68.
Selling, “Twenty Significant Points,” p. 435.
69.
Tettamanzi, “Responsible Parenthood and the Morality of Birth Control Methods,” in Natural Family Planning, p. 177.
70.
See Selling's discussion on p. 434 of “Twenty Significant Points.”
71.
Selling, “Moral Teaching,” p. 38
72.
Selling, “Moral Teaching,” p. 38.
73.
On the constancy of this teaching see NoonanJohn T.Jr., Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists (enlarged edition) (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press, 1986). See also John C. Ford and Germain Grisez, “Contraception and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium,” Theological Studies 39 (1978), pp. 258-312.
74.
Grisez, Christian Moral Principles, p. 892.
75.
Selling, “Twenty Significant Points,” p. 436. For an analysis of the conciliar text and of its many different successive interpretations see M. Zalba, “Ex personae eiusdemque actuum natura” (GS,51,3), Periodica de re Morali, Canonica, Liturgica 68 (1979), pp. 201-232. Zalba sees no contradiction between GS and HV in their moral methodology.
76.
Selling, “Twenty Significant Points,” p. 436. For an analysis of the conciliar text and of its many different successive interpretations see M. Zalba, “Ex personae eiusdemque actuum natura” (GS,51,3), Periodica de re Morali, Canonica, Liturgica 68 (1979), pp. 201-232. Zalba sees no contradiction between GS and HV in their moral methodology.
77.
Selling, “Moral Teaching,” p. 40, note 47.
78.
Selling, “Moral Teaching,”, p. 39.
79.
May, Moral Absolutes, pp. 56–57.
80.
May, Moral Absolutes, pp. 57–58, note omitted.
81.
May, Moral Absolutes, pp. 41–42, notes omitted.
82.
Selling, “Twenty Significant Points,” p. 436, emphasis added.
83.
Finnis, op. cit., p. 43. This approach goes back to Aristotle and was later picked up by St. Thomas.
84.
Finnis, “The Natural Law, Objective Morality, and Vatican II,” in Principles of Catholic Moral Life (ed.) MayWilliam E. (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1981), p. 121.
85.
This article is an excellent treatment of Vatican II's (including GS) use of natural law. See also May, “The Moral Methodology of Vatican Council II” esp. pp. 31–37 for the Council's understanding of natural law. Both of these works provide masterful refutation of Selling's characterization of the natural law and its alleged absence in GS, 47-52. On this see his “Twenty Significant Points,” pp. 421–422, n. 5.
86.
Selling writes: “From the beginning the concept of natural law is intentionally avoided.” “Twenty Significant Points,”, p. 421. Surely the language of natural law is avoided in GS, 47-52, but the concept or teaching is not!
87.
“The contraceptive act” however, “is not congruent with human nature because it is not congruent with reason; but reason does not judge it congruent with itself because it does not perceive it congruent with human nature. Recognizing as incompatible with itself this incongruence with human nature, reason transforms it and turns it into moral incongruence: the infra-moral good (or natural good …) enters with the aid of reason into the sphere of morality and becomes endowed with absoluteness because it is a good of the person as such. This is the teaching of Gaudium Et Spes (51, 3: ‘from the nature of the human person and human action’ (ex personae eiusdemque actuum natura).” CaffarraCarlo, “The Moral Disorder of Contraception,” in Natural Family Planning, p. 193.
88.
HellinFrancisco GilMsgr., “Union and Procreation in Marriage and Conjugal Life,”Marriage and Family: Experiencing the Church's Teaching in Married Life, a collection of essays assembled by the Pontifical Council for the Family (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), p. 40.
89.
The words of John T. Noonan, Jr. are instructive. In an essay appended to his volume Contraception, he wrote: “Gaudium et spes and Humanae vitae must be read together … Humanae Vitae builds upon the conciliar foundation; the Pope speaks out of the conciliar context. It has been asserted that the two documents are discordant. But this assertion has been sustained principally by contrasting a draft version of Gaudium et spes with Humanae Vitae. The final text of Gaudium et spes, modified as it had been at the insistence of Paul VI, is, after all, the only authentic voice of the Council … To set Pope against Council, document against document, is a sure way to polemical misunderstanding of both. They stand together.” Noonan, pp. 535-536, note omitted. Noonan however goes on to misinterpret HV in this essay.
90.
Selling, “Twenty Significant Points,” pp. 432–433.
91.
Selling, “Twenty Significant Points,”, p. 433.
92.
“You Can Have Sex Without Children,” in Anscombe, Ethics, Religion and Politics: Collected Philosophical Papers (Vol. 3) (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1981), p. 96.
93.
Selling has argued: “Intentionally, there was little if any difference between contraception and an efficient program of periodic continence,”“Moral Teaching,” p. 39. See also The Reaction to Humanae Vitae, p. 356. I respond to this claim in Chapter 3 of my S.T.L. dissertation, relying on the argument developed by Grisez, et al., op cit. See also Grisez, Living a Christian Life, pp. 510-512. See n. 16 of HV for its approval of periodic abstinence.
