We can see in the teachings of Pius XII the second dimension of the principle of totality as its moral whole (society). He speaks of the essential difference between the individual (physical organism) and the society (moral organism) and also the "essential qualitative difference" that exists between the relationship of parts to the individual and relationship of members to the society.87 So the moral totality is mainly analysed by Pius XII through 1) the physical being and parts of society, 2) the well-being of the whole, 3) rights of the society and the principle of the totality.
1) The Physical Being and Parts of Society: Pius XII does not clarify the substantial nature of being in the society. However, he says that a physical being could not be "claimed for society."88 He describes at the International Congress on the Histopathology of the Nervous System (September 13, 1952): "The community, considered as a whole, is not a physical unity which subsists in itself.89 Its individual members are not integrating parts of it." But the physical organism of living beings has a unity in itself. Likewise, he says in the Sixteenth Session of the International Office for the Documentation of Military Medicine on October 19, 1953: "The political community is not a physical being as is an organic body, but a whole which possesses only a unity of purpose and action. Man does not exist for the State but the State for man."90 He repeats these ideas in the Eighth Assembly of the World Health Association, September 30, 1954, to the Promoting Committee of the Italian Association of Corneal Donors, May 14, 1956, and in the radio message to the Seventh International Congress of Catholic Doctors, September 11, 1956.91
Another argument is that "the moral whole does not embrace the physical being of the persons who compose it." This indicates that individual parts in a community have their own "individual existence," which is different from the "whole of the society."92 Pius XII argues that a society has no physical nature. But, he favours its moral nature as a totality such as "its unity of finality and action, and its functional nature."93 So society can make a request to human beings for its finality. However, it may not hinder the existence of the individuals.
2) The Well-being of the Whole: Speaking about the good of the whole with regard to the community, Pius XII states: "The community is the great medium ordained by nature and by God to regulate the exchanges by which mutual needs are met, to help each one to develop his personality according to his individual social capacity."94 The aim of community is for individuals to help each other so that each one in society may achieve the integral development of his/her personality. For instance, in the Christmas Message on December 24, 1942 he stated: In the social organization, "particular societies" and persons occupy an exalted position. And the ultimate end of all the activities of the state is the fulfilment of the "common good."95 The common good includes the development of the human person.96 As a whole, the common good is always achieved by serving the personal good of the members of society.97 This does not allow the misuse of persons for the common good of the society.
3) Rights of the Society and the Principle of Totality: There is a difference between the rights of the society and of the individual. Regarding this difference, Pius XII writes: "Quite different is the case with society, which is not a physical being, but a simple community of purpose and action. In virtue of this it can demand of those who make it up and who are called its members, all those services essential for the true common good."98 It is also said that Pius XII was interested in protecting the individual against the actual and potential abuses of State totalitarianism. For instance, in the Roman Guild of St. Luke, he explains the distinction between the physical entity and the moral entity. The principle of totality applies to the physical entity and not to the moral entity.99 For him, the moral whole (society) is the second object in the principle of totality. No type of substantial or physical being may be claimed for the society.100 It is also interesting to note the historical context in which Pius XII wrote about the principle of totality. For instance, the Nazi regime in Germany abused the rights of the individuals. Here, human beings were used by the State in their very being.101 By the power of the police and other physical force, many were forcefully sterilized against their will. Pius XII was deeply aware of these problems. Hence, he excludes all legal basis of a State to dispose directly of human beings.102
Pius XII does not favour the application of the principle of totality to society.103 However, he is clearly convinced about some positive aspects in the use of the principle of totality for the betterment of society. In his address to the Promoting Committee of the Italian Association of Corneal Donors, May 14, 1956 he says: "[Society] constitutes a whole only in regard to act and finality; individuals, insofar as they are members of this organism, are only functional parts. The "whole" can make demands on them only in what pertains to the order of action."104 There is a difference between the right of the society and the right of human persons. According to Pius XII, each person is "both anterior to society in his origin and superior to it in his destiny."105 A human person has the right to protect his/her life from serious danger. This right is from the Creator. The totality of the society cannot destroy or even stop the rights of the human person.106 As a whole, the State can resort to the principle of totality when it is needed for the common good. It cannot make beyond this limit. The society has no direct right to take away human person for the common good.107
The teaching of Pius XII on the principle of totality, according to Martin Nolan, is primarily centred around the physical whole. However the physical whole has two dimensions, viz., its relation to "social totality" and as an "ordered totality" itself. All his teachings on the principle of totality given to doctors and their professional associates mainly focused on society and medicine, and the individual and medicine.108 Finally, we can say that Pius XII draws his conclusion for the principle from a philosophical and theological point of view "on the essence of notions and things."109 Thus, G. Kelly concludes that the teaching on the principle of totality, by Pius XII, should be seen in the light of the philosophical trends he was attacking. It may be unscholarly and even opposite to the Pope's own intentions if someone makes generalisations about the Pope's particular statements without considering the historical context which prompted him to make such statements.110
Theologians interpret principle of totality from different perspective. The main types of the interpretations include physicalist and integrated concept of the principle of totality.
In the history of moral theology, one can see the concept of physicalism and ecclesiastical positivism. Physicalism means:
the modality of application of theological principles whereby the emphasis is placed on the physical finis operis, objectum, or actual physical properties, motions, and goals of the action under consideration. Within a static natural law understanding of human nature, the ethical judgements arrived at are considered to be universally applicable to all situations involving the same physical act.111
The history of Roman Catholic medical ethics discloses a gradual shift of emphasis from physicalism to ecclesiastical positivism (from about 1940 to 1960). One cannot find a definite dividing line between the time of the development of physicalism and its approval by ecclesiastical authorities in medical ethics.112 Ecclesiastical positivism is defined as a "specific kind of theological voluntarism or metaethical supernatural absolutism."113 The main point is that the divine will is presented by the revelation that is given through the interpretations and pronouncements of the Catholic Church. Hence, the rightness and the wrongness of the action is judged by the authority of the Church. As a whole, we can say that ecclesiastical positivism acted on the basis of an authoritative defence of physicalistic criteria and on the conclusions reached in accordance with it.114 Thus, the principle of totality is used only for the justification of the physical good of the person.
The physicalist concept of the principle of totality can be seen in the teachings of several moral theologians. For instance, Austin O'Malley observes that "a direct mutilation may be permitted when it is for the physical good of the patient's own body, but not for any other reason,"115 otherwise it is de-ordination. It is against the authority of God. Hence, for him, "direct mutilation is not permissible to effect immediately a spiritual good, or the good of the soul."116 Similarly, P. Finney,117 D. Prümmer,118 H. Merkelbach,119 H. Noldin,120 A. Tranquerey,121 H. Davis,122 S. A. La Rochelle and C. T. Fink,123 C. McFadden,124 J. Kenny,125 J. Paquin,126 E. Healy,127 N. Lohkamp,128 L. Bender,129 and P. Palazzini130 held more or less the same idea.
Furthermore, concept of the principle of totality can be seen in the teachings of Paul VI in Humanae Vitae (July 25, 1965). The main aim of the encyclical is the regulation of birth. Our purpose is only to show the understanding of the principle of totality in Humanae Vitae. We see that sections 3, 14, 15 (footnote 19) and 17 of Humanae Vitae deal with the principle of totality.131 Joseph Selling analyses the principle of totality as expressed in HV. The principle of totality can be seen from three perspectives, viz., arguments A, B, and C. Argument A refers to the traditional understanding of the principle of totality which is used by Pius XII: When one part of the organ is diseased, it can be removed for the good of the whole. This argument concerns only the sick organs and not the healthy organs. For instance, it cannot be applied to the cases of "direct sterilization" in which healthy sex organs are involved "or pregnancy (even if related complications may threaten the health of the mother)."132 Argument B is not based purely on the principle of totality. The reason is that "it deals neither with the health of the organism nor with the specific physical acts. Rather, this is the reasoning outlined above as found in the Commission's report that applied a principle (intrinsic orientation of sexuality to procreation) to the totality of marriage."133 Argument C states that the principle of totality should be understood on the basis of the spiritual, psychological, social, and physical perspectives of the human person.134
Another understanding of the principle of totality is that "which does not relate to any principle as such but seems to be a restatement of the 'indissoluble connection' idea."135 More clearly, applying this argument to the "act of coitus" we may say that, intercourse is an act of totality in itself. Any interference, like contraception, deprives this act of coitus of its totality and hinders it from realizing its ends, especially "the expression of love."136 Selling says that this is another argument for justifying the conclusions of HV137. He evaluates arguments A, B and C in HV as follows:
the encyclical names [argument] B (HV, 3) and rejects it (HV, 14) while restating A to be the only valid use of the principle of totality (HV, 17; it is also invoked in n. 19 to para. 15 on therapeutic means). It is unfortunate that it did not deal directly with argument C, but it would seem safe to assume that this, too, would be rejected because "an evil cannot be used to bring about a good" (HV, 14), and because the appeal to artificially ordering conception for the sake of higher values is also precluded (HV, 16).138
Janet E. Smith also observes that the footnote reference of HV no. 17139 mentions the principle by which somebody can formulate an argument against the use of the principle of totality to justify contraception.140 He writes that "those who dissent from Humanae Vitae on the basis of the principle of totality have in fact no basis for dissent...The principle of totality cannot ground the claim that singular acts which, taken as such are offensive, cease to be so when considered in the light of the moral life taken as a whole. The moral imperative is not that we should act well more often than not. Rather it is: Do good and avoid evil."141 Paul VI uses Pius XII's interpretation of the principle of totality.142 It is interesting to note that Pius XII uses the principle of totality for removal of an organ that is harmful for the healthy organs. Many authors argue that Pius XII did not condemn living organ donation, though he could have done so on several occasions. Likewise, the traditional understanding of the composition of the principle of totality makes a good deal of progress. For instance, mutilation is prohibited except in case of genuine necessity.
Louis Janssens comments on the principle of totality as given in HV. According to him, "... if the principle of totality imposes some limits on our rights over our body, it does not define "insurmountable limits (HV 17)."143 For example, living organ donation is morally justified on the basis of charity if the organ donation does not prevent the organic function of the donor. The principle of totality became an absolute principle in HV. Louis Janssens notes that the relational reality will overcome the biological principle of totality.144
In short, we argue that HV does not mention living organ donation and transplantation, it gives stress to the concept of the principle of totality in the context of sterilization and contraception. From these perspectives, we will debate the integrated approach of the principle of totality in the next section.
Next Page:
An Integrated Concept of the Principle of Totality
1, 2,
3,
4