Reflections On The New Encyclical

The Doctrinal Argument

The Catholic case against contraception—and, remember, until about fifty years ago, all Christians held contraception to be illicit, though on different grounds—is primarily though not entirely based on natural law. Every natural proclivity, it is contended, has its natural end or goal, to which it is ordained, and to which it is to lead. Eating and drinking, for example, have as their primary natural end the sustenance of the body. (Of course, there are important secondary natural ends as well: sociability, conviviality, and the like.) Deliberately and systematically to separate the natural proclivity from its proper end or goal is contra naturam, against nature, and therefore illicit. Thus, to eat and drink, and then to induce vomiting in order to begin eating and drinking again, as was the way at many a Roman banquet (the best appointed palaces would have a special facility for this purpose, the vomitorium), strikes us not merely as aesthetically disgusting, but also as objectionable morally. Now, the primary natural end of sexuality (sexual intercourse) is procreation. Deliberately to arrange it so that systematically sexual intercourse is to take place while frustrating procreation is, on these grounds, contra naturam, and therefore illicit. This line of argument would appear to be sufficiently cogent, though I think, and as I will indicate, objection might be taken at one point.

WH

About the Author

Will Herberg

Featured Tags

The Doctrinal Argument

The Catholic case against contraception—and, remember, until about fifty years ago, all Christians held contraception to be illicit, though on different grounds—is primarily though not entirely based on natural law. Every natural proclivity, it is contended, has its natural end or goal, to which it is ordained, and to which it is to lead. Eating and drinking, for example, have as their primary natural end the sustenance of the body. (Of course, there are important secondary natural ends as well: sociability, conviviality, and the like.) Deliberately and systematically to separate the natural proclivity from its proper end or goal is contra naturam, against nature, and therefore illicit. Thus, to eat and drink, and then to induce vomiting in order to begin eating and drinking again, as was the way at many a Roman banquet (the best appointed palaces would have a special facility for this purpose, the vomitorium), strikes us not merely as aesthetically disgusting, but also as objectionable morally. Now, the primary natural end of sexuality (sexual intercourse) is procreation. Deliberately to arrange it so that systematically sexual intercourse is to take place while frustrating procreation is, on these grounds, contra naturam, and therefore illicit. This line of argument would appear to be sufficiently cogent, though I think, and as I will indicate, objection might be taken at one point.