Maggie writes:
I would reiterate my belief that the Catholic Church has the right to teach anything, as does any other religion, and that the Church also has the right to demand obedience, period. At least in the Western world, people are free to join, or leave, any denomination or any faith. The fact that so many Catholics choose to dissent from the Church's teaching on contraception doesn't change the right of the Church to demand their obedience.
One of the things that engages me about this particular question is that, in my experience, those who support the Church's teaching generally start their defense not with a call to obedience, but with a call to the teaching's supposedly self-evident truth. It is only when that line of reasoning fails that the Church's authourity is brought up, almost, one might say, as a "trump card". And the "self-evident truth" part is what I question. If it really is self-evident, why should any appeal to authourity be required?
It's difficult to be brief, but I'll try to do so in outlining my thought processes.
1) The Catholic Church defines something known as "mortal sin". Most of these sins reference behaviours that have been condemned in pretty much every society of which we have records: killing, stealing, adultery are several that come to mind. One doesn't need to be Catholic, or Christian, to understand why these behaviours are problematic and harm society. Taking it to an extreme, one can be a complete atheist and still agree that these things are wrong, even if one doesn't accept the use of the actual word "sin".
2) At the same time, the Church also teaches that it is a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. This teaching is not rooted in universal behaviours - it is specific to the Church and members are expected to obey. I am sure there are theological underpinnings (I've never really investigated), but for my point it's not necessary to understand what they might be. Catholics are expected to attend Mass, period.
3) The Church recognises that individual circumstances sometimes mitigate the mortal sinfulness of a given action. Killing in self defense is not murder. Stealing from someone who hoards all available food is not necessarily stealing in a sinful sense. The obligation to attend Mass is suspended in circumstances of illness, age, dangerous weather conditions, general infirmity and probably some other conditions of which I am unaware. The main point is that the action taken, in and of itself, is not a mortal sin if mitigating circumstances apply.
And then I look at the teaching on contraception, and the argument that the use of any "artificial" means to avoid conception is "intrinsically evil" and a mortal sin, regardless of pretty much any mitigating circumstances one can think of, and I try to find the self-evident, underlying, universal reason why this is so. In other words, I try to find a reason that does not require a belief in God. Because, it seems to me, if something is that terrible ("intrinsically evil" is a pretty strong statement), the reasons why should be obvious across all belief systems and societal structures. They should be convincing to an atheist. And THAT is the argument that I have yet to find.
For example, contraception is often linked with abortion, as though they are two sides of a single evil coin. And yet there are many people who argue against abortion based on the simple belief that once an egg and sperm unite, a new life begins and abortion is murder. This argument is made with no reference to God or ensoulment or any other religious concept - it simply stands on the objective facts. Unlike, in my experience so far, the arguments against contraception.
So, ultimately I have a great deal of trouble fitting the Church's teaching on contraception into my understanding of the Catholic framework. The use of contraception is a mortal sin but there is no easily understood, universal, non-theistic rationale for why, as there is for most sins that deal with human behaviour. At the same time, if at heart the teaching is based on obedience, rather than on an objective truth, it's far more onerous than other teachings based on obedience.
Please note that to this point I am not actually arguing against the Church's teaching as much as noting where its general outline doesn't make sense to me. I'm not sure if that's at all "debate worthy".
However, personally, I have yet to hear an attempt to argue, objectively, against the use of contraception that doesn't ultimately break down and resort to obedience, and therefore remains unconvincing. Still less have I encountered good arguments to defend the Church's internal inconsistencies with respect to this teaching. Doubtless my own experiences colour my reactions. But I don't think it's appropriate to go into a detailed analysis of all that, or at least not right now. That would involve many pages for perhaps no good reason. Although I am open to further dialogue should you wish to reply.
I reply:
Maggie, I'm honored that you took up my invitation so of course I wish to reply.
First, I'm rather surprised you have found people who claim that the Church's teaching on contraception ('CTC' for short) is self-evidently true. Self-evident truths are those like '2 +2=4' and 'Good is to be done and evil avoided'; but if CTC is true, its truth is not evident in that sort of way, nor does the Church say it is. People who say otherwise either misunderstand what 'self-evident' means or are just plain wrong. On the whole question of reason and morality, I suggest you read J. Budziszewski's What We Can't Not Know.
Perhaps all such people mean is that the teaching is reasonable inasmuch as one can adduce rational grounds for it other than appeal to authority. In his encyclical Humanae Vitae (esp. §17 ff), Pope Paul VI himself does just that. His predictions about the social consequences of widespread contraception have proven to be chillingly accurate, which is as good evidence as any that CTC is true, if that's the sort of evidence one requires. But before we can fruitfully discuss the various grounds for CTC further, we need to be clear about what that teaching is and what the grounds for it could be in principle. I don't think you're quite there yet.
I say that because I think you're really mischaracterizing what is at issue. You say: "I look at the teaching on contraception, and the argument that the use of any "artificial" means to avoid conception is "intrinsically evil" and a mortal sin, regardless of pretty much any mitigating circumstances one can think of, and I try to find the self-evident, underlying, universal reason why this is so. In other words, I try to find a reason that does not require a belief in God. Because, it seems to me, if something is that terrible ("intrinsically evil" is a pretty strong statement), the reasons why should be obvious across all belief systems and societal structures. They should be convincing to an atheist. And THAT is the argument that I have yet to find." Well, you're not going to find any such argument, because the claim for which you think there needs to be such an argument is not CTC.
In moral theology, to say that such-and-such is "intrinsically evil" means that it's the sort of act that is objectively wrong irrespective of motive or circumstance. However, it does not follow that the agent is always subjectively culpable for doing it. There are factors that can and do diminish an agent's moral responsibility and thus their culpability. Given as much, an act is a "mortal sin" if, in addition to being intrinsically wrong, the agent knows it's wrong and does it freely, without inner or outer compulsion. (There's also the case where the agent is culpable even if they didn't "know" the act was wrong because there is no excuse for their having been ignorant. But that brings us to murky waters we need't navigate here.) But all that is different from what you seem to mean by 'mitigating circumstances'. By that you seem to mean 'non-standard circumstances', or something like that. But citing such circumstances only enables us to determine what sort of act in question; thus, two acts of killing that are physically identical can be morally different depending on the intentions of the agent and the victim. But all that tells us is that intent makes a difference to determining what sort of act is in question; it doesn't help us identify which sorts of act, if any, are always "intrinsically evil" and which are not. That depends on other considerations.
Now in the case of CTC, the Church says that contraception is intrinsically wrong. That does not mean that anybody who goes in for it commits a mortal sin; for many such people either don't know it's wrong or are party to it only involuntarily. It does mean, however, that if one directly interrupts the generative process at any stage, one is doing something objectively wrong.
For that claim, you seem to want an argument that makes no reference whatever to God. I don't think that's a reasonable requirement. Here's why.
First, and as a reading of Humanae Vitae shows, CTC is of a piece with, indeed logically depends on, Church teaching about marriage. The latter includes the claim that marriage and its nature were instituted by God. We did not invent it; rather, the institution of marriage is something given that we more or less conform ourselves to. Knowing as much doesn't necessarily require any appeal to divine revelation; it is discoverable by reason as a precept of the natural law. But that doesn't mean God should or even can be left out of the picture. The U.S. Declaration of Independence, for example, makes reference to "the laws of nature and of nature's God." Some signatories of that document were deists, not Christians; some of the Christians did not believe that the Bible is, in toto, a true record of divine revelation. But they all agreed that the moral law, whatever its content, requires a transcendent source, a Higher Power as lawgiver, in order to have the force of prescription rather than just that of description. Call that "theism" if you like; but it is wholly in keeping with what most people of every culture have believed and continue to believe. The notion that either the content or the practice of morality should be ultimately sustainable without God is just one philosophical view among others. It is not my view, it is not the consensus of the human race, and it is certainly not a teaching of the Church.
Second, the epistemic status of CTC is really no different from that of abortion. The Church's teaching against abortion is easier for some people to understand and accept than is CTC because, as you correctly note, one doesn't need theistic premises in order to establish that the embryo is a human person. And if one also assumes that it's intrinsically evil to kill innocent human persons directly and voluntarily, then one has got an argument that abortion is an instance of such killing and is therefore intrinsically evil. But whence comes the assumption? It isn't evident to everybody, let alone self-evident; some women will admit that fetus is a human being but still think the quality of the woman's life trumps continuation of the fetus's. And in World War II, most Christians thought it perfectly acceptable for the Allies to bomb civilian targets for strategic purposes, thus killing countless innocent people.
True, the Church condemns such actions; in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (§57 ff), John Paul the Great even says:
[b]y the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in
communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and
voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds
in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. (Emphasis added.)
But what does that tell us? Let's face it: we live in a fallen world, in which human beings can too easily dull their consciences by rationalizations based on expediency. So, what's based on "the unwritten law" accessible to human reason just does need constant clarification and reinforcement by divinely instituted authority. And that's all that Paul VI did in Humanae Vitae with CTC.
You do make reference to the "internal inconsistencies" in CTC, but at this point I'm not sure what you think they are. I believe I already rebutted the most plausible version of that claim in my above-referenced Pontifications post. So if you wish to reply, please focus on that.
Best,
Mike
I'm a haphazard amateur ethicist and theologian, so have random thoughts.
ReplyDeleteThere's Kant's Categorical Imperative: What if everyone decided to do it? Applied to theft, one theft won't sink the civilization. Theft by everyone would. So no one has a right to steal (with ethical exceptions that are effectively not-theft). And no one has a right to lazily or greedily opt out of the procession of life, except as part of a vocation.
As a woman who came to the Catholic tradition too late to have children, I will say from this perspective that the violation is subtle but horrible in a choice to contracept, especially routinely. It is a stance toward Life/sexuality that is basically solipsistic and applies a selfish scalpel. I'll take this and excise that. I'll take the pleasure and manipulated attention via God-given vitality and bloom, but not the embedded consequences. I'll gas up the vehicle, but not take the ride. I'll let others continue life, I will only consume it. I will eat the fruit that others grow, without apology.
Looked at systematically, this is about as monstrous as "hath God said?"; or keeping a living person merely as an organ donor, though at such a deep level it is not as obvious. The rest of my life is a penance, not for childlessness, but for such acquisitive heedlessness and impiety toward the very basis of existence.
And God will redeem it all. I just wish I didn't have to ask Him to.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteAs promised, some thoughts on your reply to my earlier email about contraception. You requested that if I wanted to talk about inconsistencies, that I focus on your earlier Pontifications posting, and your arguments there, which I interpret to mean the arrogation thesis.
That thesis is, and I quote, “contraception, unlike NFP, makes man not God the ‘master of the sources of life’ ". This is based on Paul VI’s comments in HV, which you quote.
However, I would argue that ANY method that a couple uses to avoid pregnancy attempts to “make man not God the master of the sources of life”. A couple with no knowledge of fertility cycles and no use of contraception will presumable make love according to some natural timing that depends on the individual marriage. One could argue what the “natural timing” is, but for the sake of argument let us assume that it at least roughly corresponds to times when three key conditions are simultaneously present: desire, energy and sufficient privacy/opportunity. Especially given (some) women’s increased desire during ovulation, some number of pregnancies will be the result, but not due to any conscious control by the couple.
A couple using NFP, and trying to avoid conception, will avoid making love when they know the woman is fertile, or potentially fertile, even if all three of the above conditions are met. They will deliberately choose to NOT take the opportunity to create new life. A couple using contraception will either rely on the anovulant nature of the Pill, or use some kind of barrier method, hoping that even though there is a chance they could be creating new life, the technology behind the method will prevent that from happening. Neither NFP nor the artificial methods are 100% effective at preventing pregnancy but, somewhat ironically, NFP is often claimed to be the most effective. Assuming that both couples would not consider aborting an unplanned pregnancy, the couple using a barrier method is actually more “open to life” – or at least taking a greater risk – than the couple using NFP.
So, in this analysis, contraception is no more “making man not God the master of the sources of life” than is NFP. Or, conversely, NFP "makes man not God the master of the sources of life" to the same degree as contraception. The key difference is that contraception attempts to use technology to prevent an egg and sperm from meeting at the time they are most likely to be simultaneously present, rather than relying on the passage of time to ensure that only sperm are present. And so therefore we must argue that the technology itself – not the intention behind its use – is the “intrinsically evil” aspect of contraception. Which is a different argument from the arrogation thesis and which is why I find the arrogation thesis unconvincing. And inconsistent in that it ascribes to contraception a particular quality that supporters of NFP actually attribute to NFP; i.e.: greater effectiveness at preventing conception.
Of course, I expect that we will remain in disagreement on this, and although we could go back and forth, and hash out myriad details, it probably wouldn’t be much fun for either side as I expect you’ve been down that road before, and so have I. At the most basic of levels, we disagree on whether the fundamental principles underlying this teaching are in themselves correct and compelling. If one accepts them, then the rest of the teaching follows pretty logically, although even then it is somewhat inconsistent. If one doesn’t accept them, i.e.: if one doesn’t believe, ipso facto, that attempting to use artificial methods to prevent conception is wrong, then no amount of logical reasoning based on that assumption will be convincing.
Regards,
Maggie
Mike,
ReplyDeleteRather than have one monster reply, I thought I would address a different line of thought in a separate post. Namely, let us start with the things we agree on:
1) the Catholic Church teaches that the use of artificial contraception is wrong, and it has the right to teach this
2) the Catholic Church is not likely to change this teaching, at least not in the near term
3) most Catholics don’t follow this teaching
4) most Catholics who don’t follow this teaching dissent with little or no sense of guilt or sin
So, doing our best to put personal beliefs aside, and looking at this as objectively as possible, can we discuss what options the Church has, and what is likely to be the long-term result of the existing situation? This isn't meant as a starting point for debate - but I'm sure you have strong feelings on the issue and I'm curious to hear what they are.
In previous posts you have mentioned your belief that the current pope should make it clear that the teaching is not optional. Indeed, that is one option. But (and I admit this sounds snarky, although it’s not intentional) how much effect would such a statement have? In broad terms, I would guess that those likely to be swayed by a papal statement already don’t use contraception. Those who do use it haven’t been much affected by the almost 40 years of papal statements since HV.
The current pope could demand that priests and bishops address the subject in their Sunday homilies, maybe even to the point of saying that a given number per year must address the fact the use of contraception is forbidden. Certainly that would do more to get the message out. Some poorly catechized Catholics might hear the truth for the first time, and that might result in them switching from contraception to NFP. Of course, the homilies would have to include the reasons why contraception is forbidden, which leads to my next point.
The Church could make an effort to present this teaching in such a way that people would listen and take it seriously. A tall order, I know. But I think we can agree that whatever has been done to this point hasn’t succeeded – if it had, the majority of Catholics either wouldn’t use contraception, or would feel some sense of sin/guilt over the fact that they do. Do I know what this alternative presentation could or should be? Not really. If I did, I would have already been convinced by it. But there are those who are convinced by the existing arguments, and doubtless others could be convinced by new ones.
The Church could start formally excommunicating people who dissent from the teaching. How this would work, I don’t know, since people would have to admit that they dissent and then take such excommunication seriously. Regardless, it would send a message. Of course, that could also result in a much smaller body of the faithful, and I wonder to what degree the Vatican is willing to deliberately court such an outcome.
Of course, there is the possibility of a sea change within Western society, one in which the wide acceptance of contraception became a wide non-acceptance. During my lifetime, I have seen that happen in regards to both smoking and drunk driving, so such a change is not unprecedented. In both cases, it was motivated by health and life issues, and in the case of drunk driving by stern legal consequences. Indeed, I think that there could very soon be a backlash against the Pill and other hormonal methods, based on its potential adverse health effects. However, I’m not at all sure that there would be a similar backlash against barrier methods and sterilization, absent a reason that would strongly appeal to individuals' self interest. But I could be wrong.
And we could continue with the status quo.
What are your thoughts? Where do you see the Church going, and what do you think it will look like, say, 50 years from now?
Best,
Maggie
Maggie:
ReplyDeleteThanks for separating your reply into two posts, which do indeed address different issues. Even so, I think I can address both in one post.
1. Your first post reasserts, and presents a slightly different argument for, the one thesis I thought worth rebutting, and did rebut, in my Pontifications post on contraception: that there is no morally significant difference between NFP and contraception. Note that you disagree not only with me but with Paul VI and John Paul II too. Why did they, in keeping with immemorial Church teaching, maintain there is such a difference? If your critique is correct, that would seem very hard to explain.
But it isn't that hard to explain. Let me quote HV §13:
...an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator.
As you know,that is meant to explain why NFP is licit but contraception is not.
Your counter-argument premises that what's "natural" in this context is simply to allow sexual intercourse to occur without calculation or knowledge of the woman's fertility cycle, and that any action or omission beyond that is not natural. If that were correct, then you would be right to deny any morally significant difference between NFP and contraception. And I agree that what you're calling natural here is natural in one sense of that term. But it doesn't follow that only that is natural in the sense of conforming with God's designs. If, as Paul VI also said, it is sometimes a duty of responsible parenthood to regulate conception, then it is natural to do so because doing so is a exercise of our God-given faculties of reason and will for the sake of an important and legitimate end. That follows from the fact that marital sex is a choice, not just a drive as it is with animals, who "mate" but don't make love in the sense entailed by what the Church means by 'marriage'. Yet all that still leaves open the question whether any and all means of forestalling conception are themselves "natural" in the relevant sense, the sense being invoked in Church teaching. Paul VI explains why the answer is no and what the difference is. Your disagreement with that, it seems to me, rests on too narrow a conception of what 'natural' means. You're using the term in a sense different from the Magisterium's, which has you arguing against something that has never been asserted.
2. For reasons that would be obvious to you if you read my stuff on Pontifications regularly, I'm quite interested in your second post. Even so, I have time and space for only a few comments.
A. The reason why most Catholics ignore the teaching on contraception is that the clergy, usually by omission, have led them to believe they can and may do so with spiritual impunity. That is a direct result of the "Truce of 1968," in which Paul VI refused to discipline clerics and theologians who rejected HV because he feared a massive schism if he did. The truce has never been called off by Rome. I don't believe that the attitude of most laity about contraception has anything to do with having been exposed to the teaching and its rationale and then rejecting them in conscience. The majority have never had these matters explained to them by anybody knowledgeable. So their ignorance and indifference, by and large, are inculpable.
B. While it would be nice if all Catholics had the interest, the ability, and the opportunity to plumb these matters theologically, most don't and never will. That's as big a reason as any why they need to rely on authority in controversial matters.
C. For a good overview of such matters, I strongly recommend that you do as I have and acquire Fr. Richard John Neuhaus' new book Catholic Matters. Once you've read it, I think we can have quite a productive conversation.
Best,
Mike
Argghhh...I had started a reply and then clicked on the wrong button and lost it. Darn...!
ReplyDeleteIn any event, thanks for your very rapid response to my last two posts. I will refrain from commenting on the first part, although of course there is much I could say in return! At this point we are probably best to agree to disagree and to devote our respective energies to other matters.
To the second part, I had not heard of the Neuhaus book, but will make an effort to examine it next time I am in a book store. My reading list - both sacred and secular - is already long and growing daily so I will not lie and commit to reading something that may languish in the pile for a year or more. But I thank you for the recommendation.
You mention the need for the laity to rely on Church authourity in controversial matters. At the same time, I think that we are equally aware that by and large the laity don't do this, nor is there much reason to believe that they will do so any time soon. Perhaps even if I were not a 45 year old lapsed/relapsed Catholic, I would find this fascinating, because I think this degree of open dissent, coupled with continued involvement in the Church and Catholic identity, is unprecedented. In my daily life I am fortunate to have many opportunities to discuss religion, and Catholicism, and have gathered a variety of reactions and responses in regard to the current state of affairs.
As a final point, re: why the majority of the laity don't follow the teaching on contraception, I think it is more complex than poor catechesis and ignorance. Every Catholic I know, even those who don't practise, if we have discussed the subject, has known that the Church forbids the use of contraception. Even when they haven't known (or cared) why. And every one has given me his/her own reasons for dissenting. So perhaps we talk to different subsets of people and thereby gain different impressions of what "the laity" are thinking and doing. Certainly very few people of my acquaintance, whom I know to dissent, are doing so out of true ignorance.
This is already long and tomorrow is the start of another very busy and challenging week at work. It has been a pleasure to engage in this dialogue with you, but clearly I need to devote some time to getting ready for rendering Caesar's due unto him. Not to mention devoting the last part of the weekend to spending some time with my husband :)
Best,
Maggie