Why Contraception Isn't About Babies
If we look at contraception and Catholicism from a wider perspective. it seems that the debate is over, and has been for some time. The fact is, Catholics have voted with their feet (or, more accurately, with other body parts): it is well-documented that an overwhelming majority of Catholics, regardless of nationality, neither agree with Church teaching on contraception nor follow its practice.
Nevertheless, there are those (including the last Pope, and probably the current one) who will claim that all of those Catholics have thereby excommunicated themselves. Technically, they're right: use of contraception, as well as premarital sex, homosexual sex, and masturbation, is a mortal sin, and those who continue to do such things in spite of Church teaching are thereby removing themselves from the Church. This means that about 80% of the world's Catholics are not truly Catholic.
Okay, so why doesn't the Church budge on this issue? There are other areas where Catholics disagree with Church teaching (it's a mortal sin not to attend Mass), or even dogma (think of Mary), but very little has been made of such issues. On the other hand, contraception (and homosexuality, and divorce) remains a hot button issue, even if everyone's made up their mind. While there are certainly those who believe wholeheartedly in the Natural Law argument on which Church teaching rests (I think I went to school with most of them), allow me to suggest that the real issue has more to do with questions of Church authority than with a "Culture of Death."
Consider Humanae Vitae, the 1968 document that lies at the heart of the argument. Humanae Vitae mentions that John XXIII had gathered a commission of clerical and lay advisors to discuss the ban on contraception. What it doesn't mention is that the committee came out against the ban, and Paul ignored their advice.
But Humanae Vitae was more than a reiteration of the ban. It was also a demand for obedience: "if men's peace of soul and the unity of the Christian people are to be preserved, then it is of the utmost importance that in moral as well as in dogmatic theology all should obey the magisterium of the Church and should speak as with one voice." In other words, "stop talking about it, and obey." Thereafter, when a member of the clergy or laity spoke in opposition to the ban, the full weight and fury of the CDF came down upon him or her. In fact, two-thirds of the aforementioned council criticized Humanae Vitae after its release, and a majority (forty-some out of sixty) either left the Church or were subsequently excommunicated.
Paul's successor, John Paul II, made contraception even more of an issue, and tied it inextricably to Papal authority. During his reign, Ratzinger's CDF came down hard on clergy and theologians who criticized Humanae Vitae; the most prominent example is Father Charles Curran, whose license was withdrawn by the CDF in 1986. Not long afterwards, the Vatican issued Ex Corde Ecclesiae, which requires all Catholic theologians to take an oath swearing their orthodoxy.
Curran claims that his criticism of Humanae Vitae is a dissent from a teaching (i.e., not infallible), not a dissent from dogma (i.e. infallible). Technically, he's right. Catholics have the right to question Church teaching (indeed, Vatican II encourages it) so long as it is not dogmatic: Humanae Vitae does not fulfill the requirements of infallible teaching.
Nevertheless, John Paul wanted to make it clear that he considered the ban to be infallible. In 1993, his encyclical Veritatis Splendor reiterated that contraception was wrong in all circumstances. Moreover, he claims that "Opposition to the teaching of the Church's Pastors cannot be seen as a legitimate expression either of Christian freedom or of the diversity of the Spirit's gifts," and that "Moral theologians are to set forth the Church's teaching and to give, in the exercise of their ministry, the example of a loyal assent, both internal and external, to the Magisterium's teaching in the areas of both dogma and morality." The case of Father Curran serves as an example for those who dare disagree.
In summary, Church teaching on sexuality has been linked to Papal authority to the extent that one cannot question one without doubting the other, and as a result, John Paul II painted himself and his successors into a corner.
Nevertheless, there are those (including the last Pope, and probably the current one) who will claim that all of those Catholics have thereby excommunicated themselves. Technically, they're right: use of contraception, as well as premarital sex, homosexual sex, and masturbation, is a mortal sin, and those who continue to do such things in spite of Church teaching are thereby removing themselves from the Church. This means that about 80% of the world's Catholics are not truly Catholic.
Okay, so why doesn't the Church budge on this issue? There are other areas where Catholics disagree with Church teaching (it's a mortal sin not to attend Mass), or even dogma (think of Mary), but very little has been made of such issues. On the other hand, contraception (and homosexuality, and divorce) remains a hot button issue, even if everyone's made up their mind. While there are certainly those who believe wholeheartedly in the Natural Law argument on which Church teaching rests (I think I went to school with most of them), allow me to suggest that the real issue has more to do with questions of Church authority than with a "Culture of Death."
Consider Humanae Vitae, the 1968 document that lies at the heart of the argument. Humanae Vitae mentions that John XXIII had gathered a commission of clerical and lay advisors to discuss the ban on contraception. What it doesn't mention is that the committee came out against the ban, and Paul ignored their advice.
But Humanae Vitae was more than a reiteration of the ban. It was also a demand for obedience: "if men's peace of soul and the unity of the Christian people are to be preserved, then it is of the utmost importance that in moral as well as in dogmatic theology all should obey the magisterium of the Church and should speak as with one voice." In other words, "stop talking about it, and obey." Thereafter, when a member of the clergy or laity spoke in opposition to the ban, the full weight and fury of the CDF came down upon him or her. In fact, two-thirds of the aforementioned council criticized Humanae Vitae after its release, and a majority (forty-some out of sixty) either left the Church or were subsequently excommunicated.
Paul's successor, John Paul II, made contraception even more of an issue, and tied it inextricably to Papal authority. During his reign, Ratzinger's CDF came down hard on clergy and theologians who criticized Humanae Vitae; the most prominent example is Father Charles Curran, whose license was withdrawn by the CDF in 1986. Not long afterwards, the Vatican issued Ex Corde Ecclesiae, which requires all Catholic theologians to take an oath swearing their orthodoxy.
Curran claims that his criticism of Humanae Vitae is a dissent from a teaching (i.e., not infallible), not a dissent from dogma (i.e. infallible). Technically, he's right. Catholics have the right to question Church teaching (indeed, Vatican II encourages it) so long as it is not dogmatic: Humanae Vitae does not fulfill the requirements of infallible teaching.
Nevertheless, John Paul wanted to make it clear that he considered the ban to be infallible. In 1993, his encyclical Veritatis Splendor reiterated that contraception was wrong in all circumstances. Moreover, he claims that "Opposition to the teaching of the Church's Pastors cannot be seen as a legitimate expression either of Christian freedom or of the diversity of the Spirit's gifts," and that "Moral theologians are to set forth the Church's teaching and to give, in the exercise of their ministry, the example of a loyal assent, both internal and external, to the Magisterium's teaching in the areas of both dogma and morality." The case of Father Curran serves as an example for those who dare disagree.
In summary, Church teaching on sexuality has been linked to Papal authority to the extent that one cannot question one without doubting the other, and as a result, John Paul II painted himself and his successors into a corner.
posted by j at 10:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home