The Teaching of Humanae Vitae, A Defense. By John Ford, S.J., Germain Grisez, Joseph Boyle, John Finnis, William May

This book is now, in my judgment, the definitive defense, and the clearest and most thorough explanation, of the teaching of Humanae Vitae available.

In the first part the authors provide a clear explanation of why contraception is immoral, and they show that contraception is even more seriously wrong and morally harmful than most people who have agreed it is wrong have realized.

Contraception is the choice to deprive a sexual act of its potential to procreate. This choice is an interior act of will, distinct from the various external behaviors one can perform to carry it out, before, during, or after the sexual act. As its name indicates, the contraceptive choice is a choice directly against the coming to be of new life. It is the direct willing that a person not come to be. Since it is morally wrong to direct one's will against the inherent goods of persons--such goods as knowledge, friendship, or, as in this case, life itself--contraception is inherently immoral.

It is true that contraception is distinct from homicide, which involves both an injustice to an actual person and a contralife will. However, morality is primarily in the heart, and just as it is possible to direct one's will toward goods that do not yet exist, so it is possible to direct one's will against goods that do not yet exist, namely, by choosing to prevent their coming to be. Thus, so far as the interior direction of the will is concerned, contraception and homicide are similar in that both involve a contralife will.

Moreover, the authors point out, contraception does involve an injustice of a different sort. No contraceptive, including sterilization, is one hundred percent effective. When contraception fails the baby comes to be as unwanted, even if afterwards the baby is loved and accepted. "Therefore, choosing contraception is an injustice, even if it succeeds and the harm remains in one's heart."(p. 62)

The most frequent objection to the position that contraception is immoral is the claim that it is morally indistinguishable from Natural Family Planning, which the Church allows. This book has the clearest explanation I have seen of the difference between the two acts. Of course, if NFP is chosen as a means toward the end of contraception, then it is not distinguishable from NFP. But NFP itself need not be contraceptive. In both contraception and non-contraceptive NFP the end may be the same, but the means chosen will differ.

In both acts the end might be to avoid the difficulties which would accompany the conceiving, bearing and raising of a child; such an end may be perfectly morally correct. But the means chosen in contraception is the not-coming-to-be of a child. In NFP, the means chosen is the refraining from those acts which could result in the coming to be of a child. In NFP the non- being of the child is not directly willed. Rather, one chooses not to pursue the good of a new life.

The difference between contraception and NFP is similar to that between directly killing innocent presons (which is never right) and not using certain means to preserve their lives (which can be right in some cases). Just as the withholding of medical treatment to avoid the difficulties which would accompany the treatment can in some cases be morally justified, so abstinence from marital intercourse to avoid the difficulties that would accompany a conception can in some cases be justified. But just as the contralife will involved in the choice to bring about someone's death can never be justified by a further end, so the contralife will involved in the contraceptive choice to prevent another person's coming into being can never be justified by any further end.(p. 91) The distinction is not mere hair-splitting. In NFP, but not in contraception, the will remains open to new life.

Given the authors' explanation of what is involved in contraception, it follows that contracepted intercourse cannot be a marital act, i.e., cannot express and embody marital communion. Thus contracepted intercourse of itself harms marriages. For this reason, and because contraception involves an unjust will and objective injustice done to children who come to be as unwanted, it follows that pastoral practices which play down the gravity of contraception, or ignore the issue altogether-- policies that clergy who do accept that contraception is evil are tempted to follow--are seriously mistaken.

The health of family life is today in serious jeapardy. Once one sees what is involved in contraception, "one can understand why the increase in use of contraception by Catholics since 1960 has resulted neither in happier nor stabler marriages nor in more truly responsible parenthood. On the contrary, divorce has increased, the indications are that infidelity has increased," fornication and sterilization have increased, and "many Catholic couples have aborted one or more of their children."(p. 104) The teaching of Humanae Vitae is more central to moral life and the faith than most realize.

In the second part of the book, the authors establish beyond a reasonable doubt (in my judgment), that the teaching that contraception is always morally wrong has been infallibly proposed, not because it has been defined, but because it has been proclaimed by the bishops dispersed throughout the world, in agreement with the Pope, as to be held definitively. The authors show that the teaching fulfills the criteria articulated by Vatican II (Lumen Gentium #25) for the infallible exercise of the ordinary magisterium. This teaching ought to be accepted by every Catholic as a matter of faith.

This book should be studied by as many teachers and preachers as possible. Father Ford is to be thanked for a fruitful and courageous carreer of service to moral theology in the Church. Grisez, Boyle, Finnis and May should be consulted in this work, and in others they have written and will write, for sure, reliable, and lucid guidance on the great and controversial questions in moral theology today.

Patrick Lee

University of St. Thomas

Houston, Texas