Section — Clark, New Questions, Old Answers
Early Sources
The investigation into magisterial texts on NFP begins with the famous list of laxist propositions condemned by Innocent XI on March 2, 1679, in the bull Sanctissimus Dominus.72 The bull includes one opinion seemingly addressing what I have called “sexual recreation.” The bull condemned a list of theses, especially associated with the Jesuits, as “at least scandalous and pernicious in practice,” attaching an automatic excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See to the propagation or defense of the condemned items. 72 Of course, there are earlier magisterial treatments of marriage and the 6th Commandment with indirect bearing on the topic, but the place to start very much seems to be with Innocent XI.
It is the 9th proposition which we must consider. It reads: “The conjugal act exercised only for pleasure (solam voluptatem) is completely devoid of all fault and venial defect.”73 This significantly tracks the treatment of the topic by St. Thomas. A conjugal act undertaken not for procreation or not to pay the debt but simply because it is enjoyable does not fit into either of their systems. 73 Denzinger-H. 2109 (quoted in Robert Fastiggi, Catholic Sexual Morality, Wipf and Stock (2018), 40). Original: “Opus Conjugii ob solam voluptatem exercitum omni penitùs caret culpa, ac defectu veniali.” (The previous proposition also regards “pleasure alone,” in eating and drinking: “Comedere, et bibere usque ad satietatem ob solam voluptatem non est peccatum, modò non obsit valetudini, quia licitè potest apptitus naturalis suis actibus frui.”)
Despite attempts to read into Innocent XI (and St. Thomas) a subtle teaching that acts which are altogether void of procreative intent (or the intention to pay of the debt when requested, at least by signs) can still be good if the pleasure desired is for the sake of a social or psychological good, there is a serious dearth of evidence for that position. To suggest that the idea of pursuing “affection” or “bonding” or any similar good is a justification for the act on their account, as if this was distinct from “pleasure” in the context of the teaching of the Angelic Doctor or Innocent XI is simply eisegetical.74 While it is clear that for St. Thomas there are only two licit motivations for the use of marriage (procreation and to pay the debt), it is less clear that Innocent XI excludes other motivations, as the interpretive tradition of Innocent XI shows, wherein many authors have tried to understand “pleasure alone” as something much narrower, thus allowing for motivations which include pleasure and other goods, or to drive a wedge between pleasure itself and affective goods which in some way depend upon pleasure. We will examine the solam voluptatem debate in Chapter Three. Here we simply note that this condemned proposition exists and is in the background as a kind of anchor or boundary. 74 See, for example, the undefended assertion made by Dr. Robert Fastiggi in his otherwise generally excellent book Catholic Sexual Morality, Wipf and Stock (2018), emphasis original: “On the other hand, he [St. Thomas Aquinas] believed marital intercourse would be sinful if pursued only for the purpose of pleasure and not for other goods such as procreation, fidelity, or spousal friendship. In this, he was expressing the common teaching of the Church, which reappears in Pope Innocent XI’s 1679 censure of the following laxist thesis: The conjugal act exercised only for pleasure is completely devoid of all fault and venial defect.” (Robert Fastiggi, Catholic Sexual Morality, 40) If Dr. Fastiggi has positive evidence that the pursuit of “spousal friendship” absent both procreative intent and the obligation to pay the debt is the true thought of St. Thomas or Innocent XI, despite neither saying as much, he does not share it. It evidently rests on St. Thomas’s allusion to spousal friendship in the SCG, which we have already noted, and which does not say what Dr. Fastiggi seems to imply it says. The first time that “fostering affection” is given as legitimate motive for the use of marriage by a notable moralist comes with Fr. Jean-Pierre Gury, SJ’s Compendium Theologiae Moralis (second edition, appearing in 1852), no. 933-934. (See Jordan Olver, “Love and the Sexual Sphere: A Study of the Relationship Between Love and Sexuality in Karol Wojtyła’s Love and Responsibility,” University of Saskatchewan, 2006.) Gury tries to avoid the scope of Innocent XI’s censure, viz., solam voluptatem, by allowing for a motive such as the expression of affection to modify the act, for then the act is no longer done for “pleasure alone” but for pleasure and for another motive, namely, expressing affection. However, it is not clear that the plenary sense of St. Alphonsus’s teaching on the matter, whom he cites in support of his position, would allow for “pleasure and another good” (in this sense) to excuse the marriage act, though this would be a plausible reading of Sánchez, one of St. Alphonsus’s chief authorities on marriage. Furthermore, and perhaps notably, Gury does not discuss the use of marriage in the context of periodic continence used to avoid procreation.
The 19th century saw a burst of interest in questions related to the use of marriage and to bioethical questions related to pregnancy, following or concomitant with notable advances in gynecology.75 It seems France was an epicenter for these concerns, including those related to abortion. The first time Rome spoke on the matter of NFP as such was in 1853 through the Sacred Penitentiary, which has historically dealt with certain questions of how to minister within the sacrament of confession.76 The Bishop of Amiens asked, “Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?” The response, from the Sacred Penitentiary: “After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation.”77 While this is not a positive endorsement, it does show an openness to the practice of NFP by telling confessors not to correct spouses who are taking recourse exclusively to naturally infertile periods to make use of their marital rights in order to obtain sexual goods without the realistic possibility of procreation as long as they are not practicing unnatural vice. 75 Most significantly for the present book, scientific theorizing about when conception is and is not possible began in earnest in 1845. See Fehring, Richard J. “A Brief History of Natural Family Planning,” Natural Family Planning: Current Medical Research, v. 25, Summer/Fall, 2014. 76 See Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S., “Is Natural Family Planning a Heresy?” This Rock (Catholic Answers, Inc.: El Cajon, California, February 2005), 12-16. 77 Sacred Penitentiary, March 2, 1853 (quoted in Brian Harrison, “Is Natural Family Planning a Heresy?”).
The second source is also from the Sacred Penitentiary. Three questions were submitted by a priest from Angers, which we find in the notes of the theological consultant, Fr. Andreas Steinhuber, S.J., dated March 17, 1874:
Is it permissible for married couples to avoid procreation only at the time when, due to the amount of time away from menstruation, they assume that conception will not follow, apart from all onanistic practice? What is to be thought of the practice of the confessors who, with spouses making confession, counsel the above-mentioned course of action in marriage, lest they slip into onanism? Is it allowed for the confessor to permit positively if he is asked, or to tolerate negatively by keeping silent about whether married couples should act in this way if he does not otherwise hope to withdraw them from onanism?78 78 Sacred Penitentiary, Archivio del Teologo, 23, Y.5, p. 24r. March 17, 1874. (Trans. Anne Stephens). Fr. Steinhuber frequently cites St. Alphonsus and Sánchez; his comments are subsequently reflected in the 1880 judgment.
Thus, it is first asked if the use of marriage during infertility is ever licit without regard to intention/exclusivity, second if it is licit for confessors to counsel couples to use marriage only during such times from fear of onanism (contraception, specifically by withdrawal), and finally whether this latter method may be passively tolerated or positively suggested to stop onanism.
Despite the intricacies of these dubia, the question as formulated in the 1880 responsum reads, “Whether it is licit to make use of marriage only on those days when it is more difficult for conception to take occur?” The reply from the Sacred Penitentiary was this time even more “progressive” in its response: “Married couples who use their marriage right in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously, however, to those married people whom he has tried in vain by other means to dissuade from the detestable crime of onanism.”79 Here, we see that not only are couples not to be disturbed when using NFP, but they can even be cautiously encouraged to use NFP, albeit only as a solution to onanism. That it is allowed for confessors to encourage this practice means that in the judgment of the Sacred Penitentiary, it does not constitute an evil in itself, even though the permission for such encouragement is here tied to a particular intention, namely, preventing onanism.80 79 Sacred Penitentiary, June 16, 1880 (quoted in Brian Harrison, “Is Natural Family Planning a Heresy?”). It is to be noted that the publicly available information I have been able to find from the records Apostolic Penitentiary does not include the dubium or responsum of 1880 itself or other related materials except Steinhuber’s 1874 notes. More information certainly exists in the archives but is presently not available for consultation. 80 The conversation about a confessor suggesting a lesser evil exceeds the scope of the book, and it does not seem to be the case here as to the intrinsic nature of the practice, rather only potentially according to the practice as it would actually be used (that is, excessively). Griese has some discussion of this on a theoretical and practical level. See Rhythm in Marriage and Christian Morality, p. 99-111.
There is a glaring absence on the part of the Sacred Penitentiary’s response to address the point in the question about either spouse shrinking from having a large family. It is altogether ignored.
Yet in 1932, two years after the infamous 1930 Lambeth Conference (where the Anglican Communion decided to declare the liceity of contraception) and very shortly after the promulgation of Casti Connubii (to be examined shortly), the Sacred Penitentiary somewhat clarified its position on this point in response to a dubium which read: “Whether the practice is licit in itself by which spouses who, for just and grave causes, wish to avoid offspring in a morally upright way, abstain from the use of marriage – by mutual consent and with upright motives – except on those days when, according to certain recent [medical] theories, conception is impossible for natural reasons.” The answer came back simply: “Provided for by the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary of June 16, 1880.”81 With this responsum, the Sacred Penitentiary taught that it is licit to space births by recourse to natural periods of infertility, provided that there are just and grave causes to avoid children and the spouses possess upright motives. The distinction between these “upright motives” and the “grave and just causes” is unclear on the part of the dubium. However, as we will see, there can indeed be other considerations which would make use of this distinction. What remains unclear on the part of the Sacred Penitentiary is whether avoiding procreation is an item for the confessor to tolerate or to suggest cautiously. 81 Sacred Penitentiary, July 20, 1932 (quoted in Brian Harrison, “Is Natural Family Planning a Heresy?”).
These three interventions of the Sacred Penitentiary can be summarized as follows. Confessors are instructed: first, to tolerate the practice by not correcting it; second, to tolerate the practice and that they may positively suggest it to help recidivistic onanists; third, to allow or even possibly to encourage the use of periodic continence with upright motives to avoid conception for grave reasons.