In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

APPENDIX FOUR A Critique of the Work of Germain Grisez, Joseph Boyle, John Finnis, and William May The work in ethics of Germain Grisez and that of his associates, Joseph Boyle, John Finnis, and William May, especially their critique of consequentialism and proportionalism, has made an enormous contribution to contemporary Catholic moral thought. 1 They rightly deserve the title as foremost defenders of the Church's teaching on contraception and have I. Their most recent work is a joint one: John C. Ford, S.J., Germain Grisez, Joseph Boyle, Jr., John Finnis, and William E. May, The Teaching of Humanae Vitae: A Defense (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988); hereafter I will refer to this book as TOHV. (John Ford did not participate in the writing of the portion of this book that offers a new defense of Humanae Vitae.) These ethicists have a distinguished history of writing in defense of Humanae Vitae. I would like to reproduce here the list of their writings on contraception and related questions that is given in footnote 4 in their text (39): Germain Grisez, Contraception and the Natural Law (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1964) [hereafter, I will refer to this book as CNL]; "Marriage: Reflections Based on St. Thomas and Vatican Council II," Catholic Mind 64 (June 1966): 419 ; "Contraception and Reality," Triumph, in 3 parts: Feb. 1ยข8, 21-24; Mar. 1968, 18-21; Apr. 1968, 27-30; The Way of the Lord Jesus, vol. I, Christian Moral Principles (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1983), chaps. 35 and 36; Joseph M. Boyle, Jr., "Human Action, Natural Rhythms, and Contraception: A Response to Noonan," AmericanJournal ofJurisprudence 26 (1981): 32-46; John Finnis, "Natural Law and Unnatural Acts", Heythrop Journal 2 (1970): 365-87; "Humanae Vitae: Its Background and Aftennath," International Review of Natural Family Planning 4 (1980): 141-53; "Personal Integrity, Sexual Morality and Responsible Parenthood," Rivista di Studi sulla Persona e Ia Famiglia: Anthropos 1 (1985); William E. May, Sex, Marriage, and Chastity: Reflections ofaCatholic wyman, Spouse, and Parent (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1981); Contraception and Catholicism Common Faith Tract NO.5 (Front Royal, Va.: Christendom Publications, 1983); Contraception, "Humanae Vitae," and Catholic Moral Thought (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1984); Ronald Lawler, O.F.M. Cap., Joseph M. Boyle, Jr., William E. May, Catholic Sexual Ethics: A Summary, Explanation, and Defense (Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 1985). An important article by Grisez is omitted from this list: "A New Formulation of a Natural Law Argument against Contraception," Thomist 30 (1966) 343-61. For some important more recent articles, see William E. May, "The Sanctity of Human Life, Marriage and the Family in the Thought of Pope John Paul II," Annales Theologici 2:1 (1988) 83-97, and "The Moral Methodology ofVatican Council II and the Teaching of Humanae Vitae and Persona Humana, " Anthropotes 5:1 (1989) 29-45. 340 Grisez, Boyle, Finnis, and May 341 written many articles and books directed specifically against contraception, most recently The Teaching of Humanae Vitae: A Defense. These ethicists, particularly on the issue ofcontraception, in spite oftheir strong affirmation of Church teaching, repudiate traditional means of defending it. Their new book is not a defense of the encyclical, for it does not attempt to root its arguments in it, except in the most minimal way.2 Rather, they provide a new and provocative argument against contraception. The seeds for their most recent argument were present in Grisez's 1964 work, Contraception and the Natural Law, written before Humanae Vitae (1968). It grew out of a dissatisfaction with the traditional arguments against contraception. One purpose ofthis appendix is to show that Grisez, in his critique of traditional natural law arguments, misconstrued these arguments or, at least, did not see the potential for the legitimate development that was within them. It is my contention that the traditional arguments (and their legitimate successors) are stronger than Grisez envisioned . And it is my contention that Grisez's new arguments in particular have weaknesses not shared by the traditional arguments. A review of Grisez's early work will show the links with the current work and help us pinpoint the difficulties in the new defense. This appendix has several parts: Parts one and two consider Grisez's early rejection of traditional natural law arguments against contraception and attempt to show that he did not consider what are the strongest formulations of these arguments. Part three examines Grisez's own early attempt to construct an argument against contraception. And part four responds to the new arguments...

Share