Contraception and Conjugal Love

Abstract

Few arguments in the domain of morality seem as unpersuasive to the great majority of Americans as the customary natural-law arguments against contraception as a frustration of the generative act. Even when, in addition, the individual's lack of total dominion over his species-directed functions is pointed out, most people remain unconvinced. Yet, when there is question of grave and absolute precepts of natural law, one would expect, if not that men would spontaneously recognize their obligations, at least that the well-disposed should acknowledge them when clearly presented. On the other hand, while well aware of this unsatisfactory situation, theologians seem certain of the validity of their arguments. This article is presented in the conviction that the theologians are right, but that the laymen are not wrong: those elements of the argument from natural law most capable of producing strong intellectual and emotional impact would seem, for the most part, to have been left only implicit in the more common presentations. The purpose of this study is to seek out in detail such elements and to render them explicit. It seeks to explore a bit further than usual into that concrete human nature which founds the natural law and to stimulate discussion which may ultimately lead, in more competent hands, to a psychologically more effective position than is now available, a position which will confront men's consciences with both perception and feeling of the evil of contraception. In Part 1 certain relations between man's psychology and the natural law are stressed. Part 2 analyzes human sexual activity in terms of natural law, and the relations of sex to the total person, to other men, and to God are discussed. Part 3 applies the principles developed in Part 2 to the matter of contraception. The basic argumentation is philosophical. But when theology provides an additional insight or useful analogy, we have not hesitated to use it.