The comparison between the concept of sexual and reproductive rights and the idea of gender and the Christian culture of the body with its personalist anthropology reveals their essential differences. The concept of reproductive rights is permeated with individualism, where sex identity can be freely defined, and sexual activities of individuals—provided that they stay within the boundaries of law—are not subjected to any moral norms. The main point of the disagreement between the concept of reproductive rights and the Christian culture of the body concerns the meaning of human corporeality. For the former, human body is, in a certain way, an ‘outside’ of the self-determining subject. According to the latter view, human body participates in man’s dignity as his constituent dimension. Another difference revolves around the meaning of sexual activity. Efforts to force implementation of sexual and reproductive rights, along with gender informed law and culture, are dangerous to the fundamental group unit of society—the family—based on the marriage between man and woman.

The content of Humanae Vitae (1968) caused an ongoing debate all over the world. It has also stirred up factual crisis of moral theology. The crisis has caused subjectivity of morality and this has caused further crisis. The most serious feature of the crisis seems to be an effort to accept moral pluralism inside the Catholic Church. The renewal of moral theology the Second Vatican Council talked about has been left blocked. A couple of years after the Second Vatican Council, but before publishing Humanae Vitae, warning of St. Paul VI calls for continuity with moral tradition as a criterion for the autonomy of Catholic moral theology. In spite of much opposition of some bishops, theologians, and laypeople, the teaching of the encyclical letter has priceless value. The truth about marital love and value of life is in its center. It is proclaimed in an overview of the teaching of the Catholic Church from Humanae Vitae to Evangelium Vitae. In its nature, family is invited to fullness of love and, at the same time, it is the heart of civilization of love. Unfortunately, current family has found itself between the two civilizations—civilization of love on the one hand and civilization of death and uncontrolled pleasure on the other. The teaching of the encyclical Humanae Vitae is a constant guide when protecting true marital love and family in the course of time.

We examine how John Paul II’s lifelong work on the issues surrounding family and human life as expressed in Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae (1968) are an exemplification of his principles for cultural renewal as stated in Redemptor Hominis (1979). The triad of principles, the primacy of persons over things, the priority of ethics over technology, and the superiority of spirit over matter provide a set of interlocking principles for discerning the true progress of modern culture. Contrary to the dominant view that artificial contraception represents an opportunity for great progress for women and for society, we argue that the ambivalent character of modern technology as established by Yves René Simon and Clive Staples Lewis points to a large downside of artificial contraception, namely, a real opportunity for the degradation of the marriage bond and the full flourishing of the human person. The substitution of technology as a way to regulate birth for personal choice and habit or virtue inverts the principle of ethics over technology and opens the door for the manipulation of women as predicted by Pope Paul VI which is a clear failure to place the primacy of the person over things. The fundamental error lies in the materialistic philosophy of life which refuses to acknowledge the superiority of spirit over matter. The battle over the issues at the heart of Humane Vitae constitutes a battle over the ultimate meaning of human existence as theistic or anti-theistic, Gospel or anti-Gospel, and thus it will always stand as a “sign of contradiction.”

The purpose of the article is to analyze the arguments present in Humanae Vitae which found positive resonance in the writings of women adopting the papal teaching on the nature of human sexuality and sexual ethics. According to some women, in particular the new feminists, the logic of the papal teaching concerning contraception contributes to promoting the dignity and rights of women as well as responsible parenthood. In their view, contraception does not contribute to women’s rights. Instead, it rather exacerbates the imbalance between men and women as well as sanctions the man’s irresponsible and hedonistic attitude towards a woman. Using contraception is in a deep sense anti-ecological. It is both disrespectful of the nature of woman’s fertility and destructive of relations within the family. The responsible parenthood defined by the papal teaching and by his commentators (both men and women quoted in the article) means taking responsibility for one’s sexual acts and their possible effects. The analyzed authors claim that by defending the nature of love, the nature of human beings, and the nature of the objective moral order, the encyclical Humanae Vitae defends women by defending their nature against the arbitrariness of men or society.

The article is devoted to the issue of responsible parenthood, which was formulated in the encyclical Humane Vitae by Paul VI in 1968. The content of the encyclical referred primarily to the issue of responsibility arising from fertilization. The author of the article relates the issue of parental responsibility to the care of a child with mild mental disability. Parental childcare is a consequence of calling the child to live. The author of the article analyses the issue of responsible parenting from the philosophical perspective and thus focuses on the recognition of the world of values by the parent-guardian of a person with intellectual disability. Close relationships with such a person require special spiritual, moral, and axiological sensitivity. The author of the article, in addition to the encyclical Humane Vitae, has been inspired by the reflections of Jean Vanier and Julia Kristeva on disability, resulting from two religious and secular perspectives.

The author extracts from the Humanae Vitae encylical the thread of responsible parenthood. He asks about the situation of a child in family half a century after the publication of the papal document. He points towards a number of threats and disruptions in the adult-child relations, which result from an improper understanding of who a child is from the philosophical perspective. He opts for a development of philosophical reflection on a child and enriching it with new aspects. He reaches out for inspiration to the works by Janusz Korczak, which present an outline of the original philosophy of a child. What deserves particular recognition is the perception of a child as a “a project of a future man,” and not as a full-valued person who deserves appreciation of the contemporary ontic and social status. In the conclusion the author develops and clarifies Korczak’s controversial postulate of the “children’s right to death,” giving it a contemporary interpretation.

John C. Gallagher, A New Dawn, or the Fading of the Light? Culture and Evangelization Today - review.

Maciej Woźniczka, Marek Perek, Toposy (w) filozofii. Filozofia i jej miejsce w doświadczeniu kulturowym - review.

Maciej Woźniczka, Marek Perek, Apokryficzność (w) filozofii. Nie/anty/pozaortodoksyjne dyskursy filozoficzne - review.

Notes on Contributors.

Philosophy and Canon Law
Vol. 5 (2019)
Between the Culture of the Right to Responsible Parenthood and the Culture of the “New” Human Rights: Reproductive and Sexual (I)