The Church and Ethics: A Catholic Christian approach to ethics assumes a “natural law” philosophy because … o it’s the philosophy assumed in the Bible: “What can be known about God is perfectly plain … since God himself has made it plain. Ever since God created the world his everlasting power and deity – however invisible – have been there for the mind to see in the things he has made” (Romans 1: 19 – 20) o it’s a philosophy that trusts the capacity of human reason, an image of divine reason, to grasp real truth This has consequences for our moral teachings o And, since “natural law” philosophy is out-of-favour in society generally, it puts us rather out-of-step with the surrounding culture, which is increasingly hostile to orthodox Christian belief in 2004, Italian philosopher and cabinet minister Rocco Buttiglione, a devout Catholic intellectual whose thinking is shaped by natural law reasoning and Catholic moral theology, was denied the post of European Minister of Justice because his convictions on sexual ethics and marriage were “unacceptable” – others have faced similar pressure/discrimination Church teaching vs. artificial contraception is a good example for illustrative purposes – even Catholics largely ignore the teaching Birth Control: intercourse clearly has two essential purposes in a marriage relationship: o to give life to children (the procreative dimension) o to express love with one’s spouse (the unitive dimension) in the early years of the church, only the first of these was really recognized important o perhaps in part due to the influence of Cynic/Stoic philosophies at the time, and the emphasis placed on chastity in religious life o the second was reduced to a mere “remedy” for sexual sins, and not of equal value o this led to the conclusion that regulating births was sinful, since it frustrated the primary end of marriage Catholics were not alone in this: every Christian church until the 1930’s held this position over time, the love of the couple came to be recognized as something more noble o we came to speak of the primary and secondary goods of marriage, with children being the first, and love the second o this language lasted through the 1950’s, as did the teaching against contraception it was recognized, however, that planning a family by taking advantage of natural periods of infertility was acceptable, and that couples who were infertile were still validly married Vatican II (1963-65) recognized both of the “goods” of marriage, but did not rank them; they were seen to be equally important in a Christian marriage o It is for parents to decide when to have children, and how many o The question whether artificial contraceptives might be used was deferred to a special committee Pope Paul VI sided with the minority report of the commission which reaffirmed the traditional teaching that both the unitive and procreative dimensions of intercourse must always be present to preserve the essential meaning of the act, for various reasons o He was concerned with a “contraceptive mentality” which would lead to: A general lowering of morality An assault on the dignity of women Governments coercing people to plan families Promotion of a “mechanized” view of the human body Many would argue that history has proven the Pope’s concerns were not unfounded This teaching has consequences: o Only natural methods of family planning are considered morally acceptable by the Church, since they preserve the connection between both essential dimensions of intercourse (Billings, Sympto-thermal, Serena, etc.) o Artificial contraception is not accepted except in unusual circumstances (condoms, diaphragms + spermicides, “The Pill”, etc.) o IUD’s & RU486 (“morning-after pill”) induce abortion, and fall into another class altogether Other areas of morality: Given the above, what do you think the Church would say about these? (Discuss) o In-vitro fertilization o Artificial insemination o Homosexual activity