**5. Vatican II**

The Second Vatican Council is justly famous for its shift in style. It made no normative changes to official teaching on particular sexual practices. Rather it offered a strongly positive affirmation of both marriage and sexuality. Whereas, in the popular Catholic mind, the Church taught that sexuality was the locus of sin, now it became a locus of grace. The Council demonstrated this change of attitude when it wrote that sexual actions within marriage are "noble and worthy ones.. .. These actions signify and promote that mutual self-giving by which spouses enrich each other." Shifting the emphasis from procreation, *Gaudium et spes* describes marriage as "the primary form of interpersonal communion," a "community of love," a "conjugal covenant," and an "intimate partnership of married life and love" [1965: 12, 47, 48, 49] [7]. This married sexual love is affirmed as eminently human, involves the good of the whole person, and, most remarkably, merges the human with the divine. In this context, children are described as the "ultimate crown" of this married love and the "supreme gift of marriage" [1965: 48–50].

For most of its history, the Church did not understand sexual activity in terms of love. Now, without giving any explanation for the change, the Church insisted that sexual activity both expresses and perfects love [1965: 49]. To use colloquial language, spouses "make love." Even more, this love is now described as a "total love" [1965: 49]. One might best appreciate the exuberance of these descriptions by contrasting them with that of Augustine, who encouraged spouses to give up sexual activity as soon as they were able, because sexual activity usually involves sin.26 That advice makes little sense if sexual intercourse is "love-making." In contrast, the Council said that sexual activity signifies and promotes mutual self-giving [1965: 49].

It is well known that Vatican Council II did not reaffirm the past teaching of primary and secondary ends. The Council fathers assert that the "other purposes of matrimony" should not be made "of less account." Like previous popes, the Council insisted that both marriage and marital love are ordained toward children. It now elevates this role by proclaiming that through procreation parents participate in

**349**

I-II.154.12.

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

God's own creative work; they cooperate with God's own love in enlarging God's

The Council fathers then took up the contentious question of "harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life." The underlying challenge was that of birth control. The phrase "transmission of life," referring to the life of the species, reflects a biological perspective. The challenge was that many people had the experience that methods of birth control seemed to help spouses grow in conjugal love. As is well known, Paul VI decided that all the Council fathers, meeting in solemn assembly, along with their expert theologians, were not qualified to make a decision on this topic. So constrained, the Council members simply recognized that there are difficulties in the present era that make this harmony difficult. In an irenic, if naïve, fashion, they asserted that there cannot be any contradiction between these two natural inclinations, since God created both [1965: 51]. Breaking with a past attitude that encouraged large families, they recognized that there may be strong reasons to limit family size. They encouraged prospective parents to take into account a host of personal, social and historical factors in deciding the number of children [1965: 50]. The Council importantly affirms that it is the right of the parents to make this decision. However, these "responsible parenthood" decisions must include more than good intentions and should refer objectively to the "nature of the human person and his acts," in the context of love [1965: 50]. Then, in a restrictive clause, it tells "sons of the Church"--thus not making a natural law claim--to avoid what the teaching authority might eventually determine to be

The encyclical *Humanae vitae* by Paul VI summarized, solidified, and somewhat extended points that had been made earlier in more informal "addresses" by Pius XII and by Vatican II. In that sense, the teaching was not particularly new. Paul VI tried to preserve the same norms, while also honoring the more positive theology of Vatican II. Thus, he affirms, "husband and wife tend toward the mutual communion of their beings in view of personal perfection, to collaborate with God in the generation and education of new lives" [1968a: 8] [8]. Paul VI points out that, even if not fertile, sexual acts always remain "ordained to expressing and consolidating

The pope then addressed the central question of the encyclical: whether there is a moral difference between natural family planning methods and other methods such as the "pill." *Humanae vitae* masterfully acknowledges almost all the arguments made in favor of these other methods of birth control and against the old restrictions. Then he rejects these arguments on two grounds: the intrinsic evil criteria and the inseparability principle. The first subtly appeals to a sacrosanct character of sex, whose violation Aquinas thought was worse than sacrilege.27 The second appeals to the laudable goal of a fully integrated life. Both grounds deserve consideration. First, it bears repeating that an intrinsically evil act is said to be wrong, no matter how much evil would be avoided or how much good would be achieved [1968a: 14]. Thus, on the one hand, any positive reason for using contraception is immediately cast into the framework of doing evil (sin) to bring about good. On the other hand, any suggestion that using contraception might avoid evil is shunted off and directed to spirituality considerations: it is better to suffer evil or death (with

<sup>27</sup> *The Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas Aquinas* [Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1948],

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

family [1965: 50].

blameworthy [1965:51].

their union" [1968a: 11].

**6. Paul VI**

<sup>26</sup> Augustine, *The Good of Marriage*, in *Fathers of the Church* [New York: Fathers of the Church, 1955], 3.3.

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

God's own creative work; they cooperate with God's own love in enlarging God's family [1965: 50].

The Council fathers then took up the contentious question of "harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life." The underlying challenge was that of birth control. The phrase "transmission of life," referring to the life of the species, reflects a biological perspective. The challenge was that many people had the experience that methods of birth control seemed to help spouses grow in conjugal love. As is well known, Paul VI decided that all the Council fathers, meeting in solemn assembly, along with their expert theologians, were not qualified to make a decision on this topic. So constrained, the Council members simply recognized that there are difficulties in the present era that make this harmony difficult. In an irenic, if naïve, fashion, they asserted that there cannot be any contradiction between these two natural inclinations, since God created both [1965: 51]. Breaking with a past attitude that encouraged large families, they recognized that there may be strong reasons to limit family size. They encouraged prospective parents to take into account a host of personal, social and historical factors in deciding the number of children [1965: 50]. The Council importantly affirms that it is the right of the parents to make this decision. However, these "responsible parenthood" decisions must include more than good intentions and should refer objectively to the "nature of the human person and his acts," in the context of love [1965: 50]. Then, in a restrictive clause, it tells "sons of the Church"--thus not making a natural law claim--to avoid what the teaching authority might eventually determine to be blameworthy [1965:51].

## **6. Paul VI**

The encyclical *Humanae vitae* by Paul VI summarized, solidified, and somewhat extended points that had been made earlier in more informal "addresses" by Pius XII and by Vatican II. In that sense, the teaching was not particularly new. Paul VI tried to preserve the same norms, while also honoring the more positive theology of Vatican II. Thus, he affirms, "husband and wife tend toward the mutual communion of their beings in view of personal perfection, to collaborate with God in the generation and education of new lives" [1968a: 8] [8]. Paul VI points out that, even if not fertile, sexual acts always remain "ordained to expressing and consolidating their union" [1968a: 11].

The pope then addressed the central question of the encyclical: whether there is a moral difference between natural family planning methods and other methods such as the "pill." *Humanae vitae* masterfully acknowledges almost all the arguments made in favor of these other methods of birth control and against the old restrictions. Then he rejects these arguments on two grounds: the intrinsic evil criteria and the inseparability principle. The first subtly appeals to a sacrosanct character of sex, whose violation Aquinas thought was worse than sacrilege.27 The second appeals to the laudable goal of a fully integrated life. Both grounds deserve consideration.

First, it bears repeating that an intrinsically evil act is said to be wrong, no matter how much evil would be avoided or how much good would be achieved [1968a: 14]. Thus, on the one hand, any positive reason for using contraception is immediately cast into the framework of doing evil (sin) to bring about good. On the other hand, any suggestion that using contraception might avoid evil is shunted off and directed to spirituality considerations: it is better to suffer evil or death (with

<sup>27</sup> *The Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas Aquinas* [Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1948], I-II.154.12.

Christ) than to do something wrong. In short, although Paul VI blesses human intelligence, which makes humans similar to God, he holds that this intelligence cannot be used to intervene to alter the biological sexual order established by God [1968a: 16]. Thus, even though "God has wisely disposed natural laws. .. which, of themselves, cause a separation" between sexual activity and procreation, that is, during most of the menstrual cycle, humans may not use their intelligence to do the same. Rather, "each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life" [1968a: 11]. As is well known, such a claim was not widely persuasive. Taking a pill did not seem intrinsically evil to most people. In fact, it seemed prudent and loving. They agreed with Vatican II that sexual activity is holy in the sense that it cooperates with God, but they did not agree that it is sacred in the sense that it is off limits to human intervention.

Second, Paul VI reasserted the inseparability principle [1968a: 12]. Shifting from the teleological language of "purposes" or "ends," he uses the word "meanings" (or "significations"), which point to an essential "nature." The point is that sexual activity, abstractly, is the "kind" of activity that has a procreative "meaning." This reference to kind of activity allows the procreative "meaning" to be honored even when no procreation is possible, that is, when the body itself is not "open to the transmission of life." Contrary to at least one strand in John Paul II's theology of the body, Paul VI does not demand that spouses be psychologically open to children. For Paul VI, there is no sin when spouses agree "in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive" [1968a: 16]. Rather "inseparability" forbids only actively doing something to cause infertility. Again, what God does (namely, separate fertility and union), humans may take advantage of; but humans may not actively do what God does [1968a: 11].

Paul VI nicely finessed the traditional teaching that husbands and wives have the right to use the body of their partners. He says that having rights over the body of another for sexual acts does not mean that one can impose a conjugal act on one's partner. The Pope does not argue that marital rape would be a violation of rights (marriage remained a contract that gives to another rights over one's own body); rather it is a violation of love, which is the new personalist criterion shaping the Church's sexual and marital ethics [1968a: 13].

The Pontiff extended the Council's teaching on love by describing it as a "special form of personal friendship, in which husband and wife generously share everything without undue reservation" [1968a: 8]. This is an important addition, since previous teaching tended to treat love in a generic way, sometimes describing it simply as "spiritual and disinterested." Because marriage is a special form of friendship which is both bodily and interested, spousal love can allow or expect certain expressions of this love that are not permissible in other forms of friendship. Thus, the Church now offered a personalist argument for sexual exclusivity.

A week after *Humanae vitae*, Paul VI further embraced the "personalist conception" of married love [1968b; L: 1238]. Such love is "preeminent" in the subjective dimensions of marriage [1968b; L: 1238]. Paul describes it somewhat more carefully than his predecessors. It is "not a total fusion. Each personality remains distinct" [1970; L: 1235] [9]. This point balances out the frequent Church assertion, citing Genesis, that the two become one flesh. The latter assertion had been used as a basis for denying the independence of women within marriage. More expansively, Paul VI writes, "There is no married love that is not, in its exultation, an impulse toward the infinite, and that does not wish to be, in the impulse, total, faithful, exclusive and fecund" [1970; L: 1345; 1968a: 9]. As will be seen below, John Paul II will drop the qualifiers of "in its exultation," "wish to be," and "in the impulse." For him, married love must be total, or else it is wrong. For Paul VI, conjugal chastity is a step by step process. He rebuffs the commonplace assumption that, after the marriage

**351**

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

insist, with the idea of total love, that love must always be complete.

ceremony, any sexual desire or practice is chaste. Rather, marital chastity is a lifelong process of integrating "manifold tendencies" [1970; L: 1362]. John Paul II will

Not surprisingly, the new theology of marriage as a personal covenant created problems with the contract notion enshrined in the 1917 Code. Paul VI himself underscored the disjunction: "conjugal love" plays a "lofty and necessary role in marriage," but it plays no role in the canonical law about marriage [1976; L: 1609] [10]. He spoke against those newcomers who make the "validity" of marriage dependent on the presence of love [1976; L: 1603]. Any lack of love among married persons affects not in the least the traditional teaching of the absolute impossibility of divorce. Hence, Paul VI insists, all that is needed for a valid marriage is the "indivisible moment" of consent [1976; L: 1606]. After saying "I do," no other decision of the will or any absence of love can make the slightest difference in the validity of marriage [1976: L: 1606]. This legal logic hardly matched the messiness and the narrative character of married life. The cognitive dissonance between official Church teaching and people's experience of loveless marriages as well as life-giving second

The ecclesial consequences of *Humanae vitae* were enormous. They spring from two of the concerns that Haidt argues, as we saw, distinguish political and religious conservatives, namely, authority and loyalty. Coming at the time of an array of cultural world revolutions, *Humanae vitae* fractured the back of Church authority and divided Catholics. While Paul VI reaffirmed the tradition in order not to undermine Church authority, the result was the opposite. Many of the liberated Catholics insisted that they had to "follow their own conscience," a teaching that had received some support in Vatican II but that also fed upon an expanding individualism. Mostly in vain, the defenders of Paul's document pointed out that Vatican II's affirmation of conscience was accompanied by restrictions such as the demand to be "submissive to Church's teaching office," the assertion of "objective standards," the rejection of relying on sincere intentions, and the proscription of any "methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church" [1965: 51]. Disagreement was often characterized as "dissent," a term that unfortunately recast any debate from being a disagreement over truth to being disobedience to authority and a lack of loyalty to the Church. For many, the

During Paul VI's tenure, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), in its succinct "Declaration on Sexual Ethics," charted new territory in understanding the fundamental topic of sexuality itself, even as it resisted any changes in the norms for specific sexual behaviors that might flow from that understanding. Following developments in psychology, the Vatican asserts that sexuality "so profoundly" affects the human person that it is one of "the principal traits that distinguish" an individual's life [1975: 1] [11]. Where the tradition had primarily focused sexuality on prolonging the human race, here sexuality is considered to be

This acknowledgment brought new challenges because many people were engaging in expressing their sexual identity in ways that the Church disapproved. Hence, the CDF decried "erroneous opinions" and a "growing permissiveness" that contradicted the traditional norms. In spite of evidence of widespread uncertainty and disagreement throughout much of the West, the Church declared that it "knows with certainty" that its own norms "are in complete harmony with the

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

marriages led many people to abandon the Church.

**7. Congregation for the doctrine of the faith**

disjunction was cataclysmic.

central to a person's identity.

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

ceremony, any sexual desire or practice is chaste. Rather, marital chastity is a lifelong process of integrating "manifold tendencies" [1970; L: 1362]. John Paul II will insist, with the idea of total love, that love must always be complete.

Not surprisingly, the new theology of marriage as a personal covenant created problems with the contract notion enshrined in the 1917 Code. Paul VI himself underscored the disjunction: "conjugal love" plays a "lofty and necessary role in marriage," but it plays no role in the canonical law about marriage [1976; L: 1609] [10]. He spoke against those newcomers who make the "validity" of marriage dependent on the presence of love [1976; L: 1603]. Any lack of love among married persons affects not in the least the traditional teaching of the absolute impossibility of divorce. Hence, Paul VI insists, all that is needed for a valid marriage is the "indivisible moment" of consent [1976; L: 1606]. After saying "I do," no other decision of the will or any absence of love can make the slightest difference in the validity of marriage [1976: L: 1606]. This legal logic hardly matched the messiness and the narrative character of married life. The cognitive dissonance between official Church teaching and people's experience of loveless marriages as well as life-giving second marriages led many people to abandon the Church.

The ecclesial consequences of *Humanae vitae* were enormous. They spring from two of the concerns that Haidt argues, as we saw, distinguish political and religious conservatives, namely, authority and loyalty. Coming at the time of an array of cultural world revolutions, *Humanae vitae* fractured the back of Church authority and divided Catholics. While Paul VI reaffirmed the tradition in order not to undermine Church authority, the result was the opposite. Many of the liberated Catholics insisted that they had to "follow their own conscience," a teaching that had received some support in Vatican II but that also fed upon an expanding individualism. Mostly in vain, the defenders of Paul's document pointed out that Vatican II's affirmation of conscience was accompanied by restrictions such as the demand to be "submissive to Church's teaching office," the assertion of "objective standards," the rejection of relying on sincere intentions, and the proscription of any "methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church" [1965: 51]. Disagreement was often characterized as "dissent," a term that unfortunately recast any debate from being a disagreement over truth to being disobedience to authority and a lack of loyalty to the Church. For many, the disjunction was cataclysmic.
