The Vatican and Reproductive Rights
I'm irritated that the news media, in discussing Pope Benedict XVI, keep calling him a "staunch opponent of abortion," "unlikely to give ground on abortion," and the like. Abortion is the frontline of the reproductive choice battle in US law. It is not the frontline in Catholic doctrine. Roman Catholics are still forbidden to use any form of contraception.
Boston College History professor Stephen Schloesser wrote:
Between the years of approximately 1948 to 1963, the Catholic bishops of New England lobbied furiously against the legalization of contraception. This story is told in John McGreevy's brilliant new Catholicism and American Freedom, and if I could recommend one book to every Massachusetts Catholic senator / representative, this would be it. McGreevy's survey of the archives has found letters and memos in which the bishops acknowledged that they had to throw in the towel; they simply couldn't find Catholic legislators willing to go back into the ring and fight anymore.
John Ford, a Jesuit moral theologian who was the most aggressive proponent of the anticontraception stance (and taught in Weston, Mass.) admitted letter that the "natural law" argument had failed; if the point of "natural law" arguments was to convince any "rational person" (unlike, e.g., Scripture, which would convince only a religious believer), and if all these rational persons were rejecting the Catholic position, then what did that say about the law's "natural" aspect? Eventually, the bishops abandoned this fight and made a distinction between public policy and personal religious practice. While Catholics themselves might be forbidden to use contraception, it was not necessary that this be imposed on public policy in a democracy. The implications for current events of this distinction made by the New England bishops in the early 1960s are instructive. In the end, Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) rendered the point moot and established the principle of a "right to privacy." As McGreevy points out, the New England bishops' intransigence on the contraception issue led, unexpectedly, to the establishment of the principle by which Roe v. Wade would legalize abortion. Once again, the episode proves that there is only one law of history: the law of unintended consequences."
Benedict, in defending the Church's teaching on contraception, has explained that famine and poverty are caused by single-parent households, which is why those problems didn't exist in the past. Words fail me.
Anyway, my point is that discussing the Church's opposition to abortion while excluding mention of its ongoing resistance to condoms and other forms of contraception makes the institution seem a whole lot less kooky than it actually is.
comment by i o n:
It's kooky perhaps by our standards, but at least it's a position that's well-thought out and consistent. It may be based on evidence and texts that you or I do not take as authoritative, but the arguments that follow from those positions are ones that can be understood. The Catholic Church doesn't change their opinions willy-nilly according to the whims of the age. The opposition to contraception is rooted in very old arguments that they do not abandon easily. There is a virtue in this mode of thought, though you and I might find the conclusions unacceptable. I certainly understand why reasonable people might not want to cast aside the Church's thinking on these issues lightly.
This is not a defense of their position, only of their methodology. You can legitimately argue that an inability to grow with the times is a weakness and that consistency is overrated. Certainly none of it outweighs (for me) the practical damage that is both individually and socially by people not being able to control when they have children. But I wanted to note that it is at least not illogical. I find it less kooky (and certainly less hypocritical) than the form the "culture of life" takes in the U.S., where "life" is defined so loosely as to be almost meaningless.
comment by Andre:
Catherine Pepinster wrote in The Independent
I've been wondering if that was because he thought the teaching had a problem, or to avoid the whole infallibility mess.
The whims of the age by Sebastian:
My working definition: A relativist is someone who recognizes that moral standards vary by time and place. An absolutist is someone who tries to pretend that they don't.
I used to find the argument that the church transcends moral fashion appealing. Lately, it's been fashionable for anti-reproductive-choice forces to compare abortion with the Nazi Holocaust or American slavery. This may not be a wise choice for Catholics: The Church's tepid response to slavery,the Church's tepid response to Nazism.
The organizing principle here seems to be that the Church is happy to vigoriously condemn acts of wickedness, so long as they are not performed by the rich, the powerful, or members of the Church hierarchy.
As for the arguments against contraception that the Church uses, they do have the virtue of constency here that they have so often lacked. However, the arguments they use to support their ruling strike me as forced and dishonest. I don't see how using a jimmy hat is any more "unnatural" than eating olestra, having your appendix out, or carrying an umbrella if it might rain. I suspect that what's really at work here is nothing more noble than a group of life-long celibates' visceral horror of the flesh.
A clarification by Sebbo:
I am open to the idea that that there are eternal moral verities--inherently better and worse ways for humans to treat each other. What I see the absolutist camp doing, and what I recoil at, is claiming for themselves a transcendence of historical circumstance that the facts do not support. Such absolutist end up either whitewashing and distorting the past or claiming a historical process from past error to current perfection such that further self-examination has become unnecessary.
comment by i o n:
: so long as they are not performed by the rich, the : powerful, or members of the Church hierarchy.
That may be. In my opinion almost certainly, given that power corrupts in most institutions. However the venality of leaders does not in and of itself diminish the arguments the institution espouses. It may be that wiser or more enlightened leaders would allow Catholics to come to different conclusions over time -- but it may not.
: I suspect that what's really at work here is nothing more : noble than a group of life-long celibates' visceral horror : of the flesh.
That may be also. Personally I don't see how they can make such judgments when they explicitly deny the opinions of anyone who has experience with the flesh -- or with birth. What I am trying to argue though is that we avoid jumping to the conclusion that reasonable people would of course see things the way we do. While I think denying the practical and macroscopic consequences of unchecked reproduction is immoral, I do not know enough about Catholicism to know whether there is a way that one can reach that conclusion while believing in its tenets. There is a lot more to the world's largest religion than what the people at the top of it's hierarchy espouse.
Again this is not a defense of conservative Catholicism. Only that there are a lot of Catholics out there, and they may disagree both with the cardinals -and- with us.
comment by i o n:
"What I see the absolutist camp doing, and what I recoil at, is claiming for themselves a transcendence of historical circumstance that the facts do not support."
There you have no argument from me. A little humility, a little doubt, would go a long long way. I am not inclined to trust people who are certain they understand the mind of God.
In particular I think they should put their house in order. Before casting the mote out of their brother's eye, perhaps they should consider to what depths of moral depravity one must sink before being willing to conceal sexual abuse for decades at a time.
comment by Ellen:
"Roman Catholics are still forbidden to use any form of contraception."
Not quite -- natural family planning (combining what used to be called the "rhythm method" with awareness of fertility signals such as cervical mucus) is considered AOK. Go figure.
Natural Family Planning by Sebbo:
I confess, I was aware that a Catholic would dispute my characterization, but I couldn't bring myself to open the can of worms contained in the phrase "natural family planning." And now, a joke:
Q: Didja hear about the couple that used the Rhythm Method?
A: All twelve of their children were excellent musicians.
Thank you, thank you. You're too kind.