Order of Nature–Order of Love: Arguments against a Naturalistic (Mis-)Interpretation of Humanae Vitae

Abstract

Order of Nature–Order of Love:Arguments against a Naturalistic (Mis-)Interpretation of Humanae Vitae Andrzej Kuciński The Problem: Naturalistic (Mis-)Interpretation On May 13, 2010, during the second Ecumenical Church Convention in Munich, Margot Käßmann, the former Chair of the Protestant Church in Germany, praised the "birth control pill" as a "gift from God" while speaking at the Catholic Cathedral of Our Lady in Munich. Her rationale was that "it is about the preservation of life, of freedom, which doesn't have to immediately degenerate into pornography, as much as the sexualization of our society is, of course, a problem."1 In contrast, the encyclical letter Humanae Vitae, authored by Paul VI, states: "Similarly excluded is any action which, either before, or at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means."2 This conclusion is based on the natural law and the Church's teaching that "each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life."3 These positions represent two contradictory views: On the one hand "life and freedom," which claims to reflect the attitude toward life of today's European mainstream, and on the other hand, supposedly restrictive and moralizing rules and judgments, which appear out of step with reality. The serious challenge the encyclical letter was to the mainstream attitude [End Page 21] toward life, was demonstrated by the sharp protests which followed with unprecedented vehemence the publication of the papal letter, particularly in northern European countries. The encyclical letter became a genuine symbol of contradiction. One allegation that stood out among the various points of criticism was that of naturalism or biologism, according to which the Pope had translated biological laws into moral imperatives. In German-language literature, the opposition to the encyclical letter was seen as, among other things, a symptom of a departure from the neo-Scholastic approach to natural law theory with its focus on objective beings. The precepts of natural law in matters relating to contraception were criticized for defending a reactionary concept of nature, which had allegedly been adopted from times gone by, irrespective of later developments in science and society.4 In addition, general doubts were expressed with regard to the competence of the magisterium in matters relating to sexual morality. It was therefore argued that: "The encyclical Humanae vitae, which is based on a crude, to some extent virtually biologistic concept of nature, has contributed to discrediting the precepts of natural law in the Catholic sphere, as well."5 The Pope's reference to the physiological processes relating to the transmission of human life led to the fixation on the biological perspective: "If reference is made to the 'laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman' (Paragraph 12) and to something 'repugnant to the nature of man and of woman' (Paragraph 13) or to the 'natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system' (Paragraph 16), this is clearly of a biological [End Page 22] nature; on this basis, birth control through artificial means is condemned as an intrinsically immoral act."6 However, if a conclusion deduced from biology is applied to ethics, the encyclical letter can be criticized for using the naturalistic fallacy that an "is" necessarily leads directly to an "ought." However, suggestions that the content of the encyclical is naturalistic, which consequently leads to a rejection of the precepts of natural law on which the encyclical hinges, must be emphatically rejected in the name of common sense (and all the more if the Church's teachings are to be dealt with in good faith). If something which had previously been incorrectly defined is later rejected, then this is an inevitable consequence of this erroneous premise. This would mean attributing an interpretation to the positions of the Church's teachings that the Church itself, in fact, does not advocate, simply for the sake of questioning said positions and eliminating them as legitimate courses of action. The fallacy of biologism, I would argue, results from a flawed analysis of the concept of nature on which Humanae Vitae is based. This essay...