**3. Pius XI**

The winds of the twentieth century were pushing against the wall of tradition. In response, Pius XI devoted an important encyclical, *Casti connubii*, to the topic of marriage. He resists some changes but welcomes others. Along with his predecessor Leo XIII, he still holds that, in things like marriage and sex, it is "more useful and salutary" that they "remain in their natural state, unimpaired and unchanged." God knows best, and only the wickedness of men would try to change this natural order [1930: 95; 1880: 25] [2]. Crucially, the pope holds that this order "is entirely independent of the free will of man" [1930: 6]. In this view, marriage is not an institution that humans through "trial and error" devised to meet certain needs and that might change when those needs change. The underlying image of marriage is that of entering an institution that has established rules and purposes. One cannot change these rules and purposes. And, once inside the institution, one cannot choose to leave.

Pius XI upholds the absolute sexual prohibitions that have been the hard core of Church teachings in the area of sexuality: "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" [1930: 54]. The probable background for these claims is, on the one hand, "sanctity" concerns surrounding sexuality and, on the other, the historical connection often made between contraception and murder, since both are understood to be against "life." The Church does not explain why sexual aberrances are "intrinsically vicious" or "intrinsically evil." In Church teaching few acts other than genital acts are placed in this category. For example, inspite of Genesis 3:16, there has been no prohibition of anesthesia during childbirth, Caesarian sections, or subsequent wet-nursing. To say that some acts are intrinsically evil is to say there are no exceptions. It renders needless any consideration of the particulars of real situations. That is, some acts are wrong, no matter how much good they might bring about or how much evil, for example, the death of a wife, they might prevent [1930: 61].

Nevertheless, contrary to this absolutism, the pope makes two strange concessions. Pastorally, he proposes that when one spouse is practicing contraception, the other spouse is guiltless as long as that spouse does not formally consent to the sin [1930: 59].19 For moral theologians, this should be an astounding claim. In no other area of life is such immediate and indispensable cooperating in serious sin allowed. In allowing this exception, which goes back to Augustine,20 the rights and duties of marriage override the strictness of moral theory.

Pius XI makes a second adaptation that had implications that occupied theologians through much of the rest of the twentieth century. Augustine held that sexual intercourse when procreation could not happen was sinful.21 Instead, Pius XI wrote that, although the "conjugal act is destined primarily by nature" for begetting children, it is not against this nature to engage in sexual intercourse when, due to "natural reasons either of time or certain defects," no children can be begotten [1930: 59]. Around the time of this encyclical, the menstrual cycle of women was being better understood. That new understanding laid the biological basis for the rhythm method and later for natural family planning. Pius proposed that, even

<sup>19</sup> The concession is repeated in the Pastoral Council for Families document, "Vademecum for Confessors," [1997: III.13].

<sup>20</sup> Augustine, *Letters*, vol. 5 [New York: Fathers of the Church, 1956], #262.

<sup>21</sup> Augustine, *Catholic and Manichaean Ways of Life* [Washington: Catholic University of America, 1966], 2.18.65.

though sexual activity cannot achieve its reason for existing, it is permissible. Thus, an opening was made that there is no necessary moral connection between marriage, sex, and procreation. As a result of this concession, countless trees have been felled for books and articles debating the issues that opened up. More importantly, countless lives have been thrown into religious and moral turmoil.

Pius XI points to the secondary ends of sexual intercourse as justification for engaging in sex when it cannot achieve its primary end. When he does so, however, he adds a new secondary end: the "cultivating of mutual love," which, he says, goes beyond "mutual help." He then draws a revolutionary implication: the "mutual inward molding of husband and wife. .. can in a very real sense. .. be said to be the chief reason and purpose of marriage" [1930: 23–24]. He says that the traditional view that marriage is primarily for procreation is itself only a restricted sense of marriage. In its fuller sense, marriage is for "mutual interchange and sharing" [1930: 24]. Then, perhaps for the first time in official Catholic teaching, he describes sexual intercourse as "the cultivating of mutual love" [1930: 59].

When describing this love, however, Pius XI reverts back to that strand of the tradition that insists that such love includes no seeking of one's own advantage but only the good of the other, much as Christ loves the Church [1930: 23]. Throughout much of the century, Church descriptions of love tend to use terms such as selfsacrifice or self-gift. That people get married and engage in sexual activity also as a form of self-love or to receive love has only gradually been admitted. Fulfilling a basic human drive has usually been described negatively as concupiscence and lust. Church teaching during the early part of the century offered little affirmation that seeking pleasure can be healthy and normal. More importantly, there was little awareness that sexual intercourse is a "pleasure-bond" that contributes greatly to holding loving marriages together.22 Western culture has come to affirm openly that marriage is a central locus of *eros* and *philia* or mutual love.23 Gradually, without denying the place of self-sacrifice and the importance of *agape*, the Church has accepted this view of marriage.

### **4. Pius XII**

The enormous cultural changes of the twentieth century in the Western world made more urgent the question why people should simply follow nature. Developments in biology and medicine changed the so-called natural order and enhanced human life. The control made possible by science abetted the Enlightenment's emphasis on human freedom. A growing sense of personal dignity made it unseemly to describe marriage as an agreement to use another's body as a means to make babies and to temper lust. Similarly, it seemed dualistic to speak of "using" one's own body. Reacting against these and other challenges, Pius XII reasserted a natural law foundation for marriage and devised new characteristics to proscribe recent medical possibilities. According to the pope,

"In forming man, God regulated each of his functions, assigning them to the various organs.. .. God fixed, prescribed, and limited the use of each organ. He cannot allow man now to arrange his life and the functions of his organs according to his own taste, in a manner contrary to the intrinsic and immanent function assigned them. Man, in truth, is not the owner of his body nor its absolute lord,

**347**

doctrine" *Acta Apostolicae Sedis* 36 [1944], 103.

*Evolution of Catholic Marriage Morality in the Twentieth Century from a Baby-Making...*

but only its user. A whole series of principles and norms derives from this fact"

This text again sets down biological nature as the basis for the Church's teaching in sexual morality. By identifying the work of God and the work of nature, the Pope implied that any direct interference with or alteration of our bodily nature is in fact a direct rejection of God's work. But, since the Church allowed such interference in all of the rest of creation, even though God is also the "owner" of such creatures, it became clear that the only area off-limits to human intervention was human nature. Again, since the Church came to allow considerable interference in all the organs of the human body, except the sexual organs, it became clear that the ban on changing nature was restricted solely to human sexual organs. For example, while artificial insemination is permissible in other animals, for human beings "In the case of artificial insemination one should not only keep a very cautious reserve," but also one "must exclude it altogether." This is so, even though it would enable the couple to achieve the primary end of their sexual organs and of marriage [1949; L: 256;

Pius XII uses the same biologistic argument against contraception. He repeats his predecessor's claim that, no matter how grave the consequences, it is wrong to "deprive this [marital] act of its inherent force or to impede the procreation of new life" [1951; L: 288, 291]. Thus, direct sterilization, even when the removal of a woman's ovaries might protect her from a life-killing pregnancy, was completely forbidden. Her sexual organs do not exist for her good but "for the conservation of the human race" [1951; L: 300]. She is not allowed to change the function of her organs "in a manner contrary to the intrinsic and immanent function assigned them." Still, indirect sterilization, such as in the removal of cancerous ovaries, was

Like his predecessor, Pius XII held that it is permissible for spouses to restrict sexual activity to infertile periods. Remarkably, he added that for good reasons, such as eugenics or health, spouses may choose to avoid procreation for the entire duration of their marriage, even though, again, this practice seems to undermine the primary purpose of marriage. He holds that persons can make the decision not to procreate even in advance of getting married [1951; L: 296, 298]. One could surmise that it was becoming clearer that marriage was a great good, quite apart from procreation. Catholic authors explain this seeming exception by insisting on an "inprinciple" view of marriage and sexual activity.24 Both are essentially procreative,

Other authors, embracing personalist philosophy, pressed the Church to include a greater emphasis on the person in its sexual teaching. They argued that sexual intimacy, "the expression and actuation of the personal and affection union," is equal to procreation or independent of it [1951; L: 310–314].25 Against that view, Pius XII insists that marriage "is not ordered by the will of the Creator towards the personal perfection of the husband and wife as its primary end, but to the procreation and education of a new life.. .. This principle holds good for all marriages, even if they are unfruitful" [1951; L: 312]. He holds that all that is profound in married love should be at the service of the children, such that complete self-sacrifice of their own needs is demanded of the spouses [1951; L: 314, 316]. The Pope cryptically

<sup>24</sup> Dennis Hollinger, "Good Sex: Its Meaning and Morals," in *Moral Issues and Christian Reponses*, 8th edition, ed. Patricia Beattie Jung and L. Shannon Jung [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013], 122–26. <sup>25</sup> In 1944, the Roman Rota had taken up a new theological challenge from personalism, namely, that "the evolution and perfection" of the husband and wife is not secondary but a primary end of matrimony." In response, it said: "These newcomers to matrimonial matters stray from true and certain

permitted to save her life [1951: 45]. Here compassion wins out.

even when they actually cannot or morally ought not be procreative.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95101*

[1944; L: 204] [3].

1951: 318] [4, 5].

<sup>22</sup> William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson, *The Pleasure Bond* [New York: Bantam, 1974].

<sup>23</sup> For the development of these three distinct types of love, see Edward C. Vacek, S.J., *Love, Human and Divine: The Heart of Christian Ethics* [Washington, DC: Georgetown University, 1994].

*Evolution of Catholic Marriage Morality in the Twentieth Century from a Baby-Making... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95101*

but only its user. A whole series of principles and norms derives from this fact" [1944; L: 204] [3].

This text again sets down biological nature as the basis for the Church's teaching in sexual morality. By identifying the work of God and the work of nature, the Pope implied that any direct interference with or alteration of our bodily nature is in fact a direct rejection of God's work. But, since the Church allowed such interference in all of the rest of creation, even though God is also the "owner" of such creatures, it became clear that the only area off-limits to human intervention was human nature. Again, since the Church came to allow considerable interference in all the organs of the human body, except the sexual organs, it became clear that the ban on changing nature was restricted solely to human sexual organs. For example, while artificial insemination is permissible in other animals, for human beings "In the case of artificial insemination one should not only keep a very cautious reserve," but also one "must exclude it altogether." This is so, even though it would enable the couple to achieve the primary end of their sexual organs and of marriage [1949; L: 256; 1951: 318] [4, 5].

Pius XII uses the same biologistic argument against contraception. He repeats his predecessor's claim that, no matter how grave the consequences, it is wrong to "deprive this [marital] act of its inherent force or to impede the procreation of new life" [1951; L: 288, 291]. Thus, direct sterilization, even when the removal of a woman's ovaries might protect her from a life-killing pregnancy, was completely forbidden. Her sexual organs do not exist for her good but "for the conservation of the human race" [1951; L: 300]. She is not allowed to change the function of her organs "in a manner contrary to the intrinsic and immanent function assigned them." Still, indirect sterilization, such as in the removal of cancerous ovaries, was permitted to save her life [1951: 45]. Here compassion wins out.

Like his predecessor, Pius XII held that it is permissible for spouses to restrict sexual activity to infertile periods. Remarkably, he added that for good reasons, such as eugenics or health, spouses may choose to avoid procreation for the entire duration of their marriage, even though, again, this practice seems to undermine the primary purpose of marriage. He holds that persons can make the decision not to procreate even in advance of getting married [1951; L: 296, 298]. One could surmise that it was becoming clearer that marriage was a great good, quite apart from procreation. Catholic authors explain this seeming exception by insisting on an "inprinciple" view of marriage and sexual activity.24 Both are essentially procreative, even when they actually cannot or morally ought not be procreative.

Other authors, embracing personalist philosophy, pressed the Church to include a greater emphasis on the person in its sexual teaching. They argued that sexual intimacy, "the expression and actuation of the personal and affection union," is equal to procreation or independent of it [1951; L: 310–314].25 Against that view, Pius XII insists that marriage "is not ordered by the will of the Creator towards the personal perfection of the husband and wife as its primary end, but to the procreation and education of a new life.. .. This principle holds good for all marriages, even if they are unfruitful" [1951; L: 312]. He holds that all that is profound in married love should be at the service of the children, such that complete self-sacrifice of their own needs is demanded of the spouses [1951; L: 314, 316]. The Pope cryptically

<sup>24</sup> Dennis Hollinger, "Good Sex: Its Meaning and Morals," in *Moral Issues and Christian Reponses*, 8th edition, ed. Patricia Beattie Jung and L. Shannon Jung [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013], 122–26. <sup>25</sup> In 1944, the Roman Rota had taken up a new theological challenge from personalism, namely, that "the evolution and perfection" of the husband and wife is not secondary but a primary end of matrimony." In response, it said: "These newcomers to matrimonial matters stray from true and certain doctrine" *Acta Apostolicae Sedis* 36 [1944], 103.

added that if God had wanted sex to be primarily about mutual love, God would not have designed the sexual act the way God created it [1951; L: 328].

Nevertheless, Pius XII introduced somewhat of a personalist argument in response to those who were arguing that artificial insemination would in fact enable some spouses to fulfill the procreative purpose of marriage. Pius argued that if all God desired was the "union of two life-germs," God would not have devised nature so that procreation requires the "personal cooperation" of the husband and wife [1951; L: 318]. Indeed, Pius's theology gradually shifted to allow personalist concerns to play a greater role in the Church's theology of marriage. For example, he describes a child as "the true and complete expression of [spouses'] reciprocal love" [1956; L: 500]. Then, making a novel addition to the tradition, he set out the precursor to what became for Paul VI the inseparability principle: "Never is it permitted to separate these various aspects to the positive exclusion either of the procreative intention or of the conjugal relationship" [1956; L: 503] [6]. It is this "never" that increasingly split the official Church teaching from the intuitions and practice of so many of the people of God.
