Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2024
John Noonan’s long history of contraceptive practice and prohibition demands and merits a second reading—a cautious one. For all the intelligence and careful research that has obviously gone into it, still it has its gaps and misreadings, some of them by no means peripheral to the author’s overall picture of an ‘evolving’, ‘developing’ ecclesiastical doctrine of love and marriage and the Church’s consequent attitudes toward contraception. One of the wider gaps is the failure to consider a man named Nicole Oresme; and one of the more serious misreadings is of St Thomas Aquinas.
Noonan proposes that Martin le Maistre—a late fifteenth-century layman of considerable standing and reputation in the University of Paris—was the first theologian to make the ‘modern’ breakthrough. Prior to him the Augustinian insistence, found also in St Thomas, on procreative purpose as the only justifying motive for conjugal intercourse held all but exclusive sway. Marriage was rarely or only secondarily thought of in terms of love, and where love happened to be encouraged it was not the kind that had to do with sex. Sex as a biological function productive of the child, well and good (for the most part); but as an expression of love, as an experience of joy and pleasure, no—on pain of at least venial sin. But with le Maistre we have ‘the beginning of a new stage in the Catholic approach to marriage’. His ethics offer reasons justifying conjugal intercourse other than procreation and even suggests (though hesitantly) venereal pleasure as a licit motive.
page 599 note 1 Contraception: A History of its Treatment by Catholic Theologians and Canonists, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1965Google Scholar. Newly published by Mentor‐Omega Books, New York and Toronto, 1967.
page 599 note 2 Mentor edition, p. 372.
page 600 note 1 Le Livre de Yconomique d'Aristote, critical edition of French text with English translation and introduction by Albert Douglas Menut, in Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, vol. 47, part 5 (Philadelphia, 1957), p. 796.
page 601 note 1 It is evident from the context throughout that ‘friendship’ (amisté) is very much a matter of love. This is true generally in medieval theology and literature. So T. Dunning, for instance, warns that to translate the Latin amicitia simply as friendship is to mistranslate it.
page 601 note 2 Menut's translation of the French text. Other translations throughout this paper are my own.
page 604 note 1 History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages, London, 1955, p. 327Google Scholar.