I am constantly told by conservatives that condomistic intercourse within marriage is intrinsically wrong. So I looked up the doctrine of double effect online, which to my knowledge is endorsed by us Romans.
There are four basic rules that must be followed for something to be permissible by double effect:
- the nature of the act is itself good (e.g., its nature is to relieve someone of pain or distress);
- the intention is for the good effect and not the bad;
- the good effect outweighs the bad effect in a situation sufficiently grave to merit the risk of yielding the bad effect (e.g., risking a patient's death to stop intolerable pain);
- and the good effect (relieving pain) does not go through the bad effect (e.g., death)
The Act: Sex within Marriage with Child Spacing
- Nature of the act itself: The nature of the act itself is good in both its unitive and procreative dimensions, per the Pope's recent encyclical, (currently approved with NFP, not with Condoms).
- Intention or Aim: To bring unitive comfort to one's spouse and to align appropriate resources to each new child by allowing a certain time to elapse between each child. (resources include parental attention and financial resources).
- Ill effect: As an unforeseen consequence of spacing children while providing unitive comfort, sometimes sperm is not allowed to meet egg by the use of a condom.
- Does the good effect 'go through' the bad effect?: Condoms are only 85-99 percent effective. Therefore the couple using them must be open to the possibility of a joyous new life.
If a couple is perfectly happy to have another child, but does not wish to do a new child evil by bringing it into the world with improper resources, then it seems obvious that it is good to reduce the probability of having a new child. Now I am pro-life and I am glad we have a life community. But these are the same folks who like to insist that using a condom creates a 'contraceptive mentality' that ends in divorce and abortion.
I disagree with this assertion about the 'contraceptive mentality'. This assertion is akin to suggesting that owning a baseball bat will lead to the bludgeoning of a person. Owning an object might contribute to the temptation towards something, but that doesn't mean we should ban the object. In fact, it might be wrong and evil to ban the object. Food tempts towards gluttony, but banning food would be suicidal. Alcohol tempts towards intemperance, but banning it created a massive mafia and murder toll due to organized crime. So we should not try to ban things or say they are inherently wrong, just because they could tempt someone to ill use of an object.
In the case of a married person using a condom, one has to ask oneself if they are truly open to life. Do they already have children? Are they being unrealistic about the financial needs of a child? Does providing for a child mean that they must pay every cent of college tuition or can a kid get a student loan? Can kids of the same gender share a room, or is the parent planning an addition to their house for each kid?
I have known some pretty crazy parents who think they need to save a couple million dollars before having a kid, along with a 4000 sq ft house, and a 2 acre plot on which they will dump a ton of chemicals, mow it all the time, and have a crummy swing set that doesn't equal a typical city park's swing set. All I am saying is that there is this sort of evil scrupulosity/obsessive-compulsive disorder that plagues parents. They tend to get carried away with the perceived needs of their children, and downright fearful of having another one.
What I am getting at here is that I agree with the 'spirit of' Humanae Vitae. All those lazy French and Italian catholic parents who are pissed off that they are being over-run by north African immigrants need to get off their lazy butts and raise some children, or stop complaining. Life's not about sipping lattes and only raising kids to be rocket scientists and politicians. It is also about raising electricians, plumbers, waiters, and all other professions. It's not about handing an only child life on a silver platter.
That being said, we Romans don't have much of a logical leg to stand on by saying condoms are always evil. They are usually a side affect of the sex act. Advertising condoms might be very evil if they are made out to be a ticket to consequence free sexual fun! But the condoms themselves are not in themselves evil, nor is the use of them. The sex act itself can be evil, if misdirected or not open to accidental life.
Well, reasonable people can disagree. I know Anna feels that condoms are always wrong because man inherently is banned by God from ever interfering in the sex act, except by the timing of the sex act or by abstinence, which could be viewed as extreme timing of the sex act.
I feel that preventing a sperm from meeting an implantable egg, either by timing or by a latex bag is irrelevant. It is an argument about the means to an end, not the end itself. And the means of using a condom are no more licit than using time. That being said, there are people who swear by the Rythm Method. One must note, that purposely using the rythm method to avoid reproduction is still wrong according to the current teaching of the church. And I can only imagine that most NFP users do avoid reproduction with NFP. So we are really talking about the same thing here.
And it is one thing to talk about this in the good ol' USA or Europe, and quite another to talk about this in a truly over-populated place like Haiti. Even if you think I am dead wrong about condoms in the USA, I think that the evil of over-population in Haiti does overwhelm the evil of preventing sperm from meeting egg. The Pope ought to grant Haiti a dispensation.
21 comments:
B,
No you cannot use double effect to justify using condoms to avoid having children for even a dire cause. Yes, we Romans do allow double effect, in general. But you kept mixing your categories up.
The question isn't, can we have sex? The question is: "May we use condoms to avoid having children?"
So then you must ask:
(1) Is "using condoms to avoid having children" something that is itself evil, good, or morally neutral?
The Church says it is evil.
(2) Is the evil intended? Even in the case of a couple who is otherwise desirous of children but who desperately need to avoid having one, the fact is that if they are choosing to use condoms to avoid having children, then they are intending to use condoms to avoid having children. Any other intention - to avoid having children at all, to use condoms for some other purpose - those are all irrelevant, because it is specifically "using condoms to avoid having children" which the Church is calling intrinsically sinful.
(3) Does the good outweigh the bad? A couple cannot have legitimate reasons to outweigh something (anything) which is evil in-itself; if it doesn't fit criteria (1), then the rest of double effect doesn't really apply.
(4) You argued:
Ill effect: As an unforeseen consequence of spacing children while providing unitive comfort, sometimes sperm is not allowed to meet egg by the use of a condom.Does the good effect 'go through' the bad effect?: Condoms are only 85-99 percent effective. Therefore the couple using them must be open to the possibility of a joyous new life.
This doesn't make sense to me. Yes, sex is good. But the question isn't whether they can have sex; the question is whether they may use a condom, during that sex, for the purpose of avoiding children. Any good that comes to the couple out of not having children DOES only happen because they used a condom. The prevention of sperm meeting egg is NOT an "unforseen consequence", it is the MEANS by which the couple accomplishes whatever good may come of not having children. The effectiveness of condoms is irrelevant. The intent to contracept is still there.
I agree that it's not very logically convincing to argue that the contraceptive mentality is wrong, therefore it is a sin to use condoms. But I don't think the Church, as a whole, is really making that argument. Rather, the Church is saying that the contraceptive mentality is (1) wrong itself, and (2) a *sign* - that is, evidence - that contraception is itself innately wrong. That contraception is sinful is something the Church also teaches for itself, apart from any relation to the contraceptive mentality.
And the means of using a condom are no more licit than using time.
To be sure, many people feel the way you do. (I assume you meant "illicit" rather than "licit" here). And I agree that it is an argument about means. But sometimes the means really matters. Sometimes the means involves a whole other dimension of existence that we didn't realize was there before.
One must note, that purposely using the rythm method to avoid reproduction is still wrong according to the current teaching of the church.
Where in the world did you get that impression? The Church does not say that using the Rhythm method is a sin. Heck, NFP is taught all over the place, and NFP is basically a fancier more effective version of the Rhythm method. The Church does say that using the Rhythm method for selfish purposes is a sin, but doing anything for selfish reasons is a sin, so that's not saying much.
And, once again, the Pope cannot grant a dispensation for people to use condoms any more than he can grant them a dispensation to murder. Not without violating Church teaching, anyhow. (The Pope can, however, encourage the Haitians to practice NFP, if he wants).
Gotta love your persistence, B, but I think eventually you're going to have to face that either the Church is dead wrong about contraception being sinful, or you are. Double effect isn't going to get you out of this. :)
Hi Anna,
Most of the just war theory posts from Double Effect that I see do not ask the ill affect as the starting question. For example, strategic vs carpet bombing. They ask:
The Intent: To discourage the enemy by disabling key infrastructure by bombing
ill Affect: inadvertent killing of civillians
You (and the Vatican) are short circuiting the argument. The strategic bomber is no more trying to kill civilians then the married couple using condoms is trying to block the arrival of new life. They are not having sex in order to block the arrival of new life. They are having sex for the unitive good and taking the necessary precautions not to overpopulate Haiti or have children they are unable to care for responsibly.
The act is: Sex
The ill affect is: threat of harm to the mother, or overpopulation causing horific strife, or spacing children innappropriately so that they cannot be properly cared for.
You can phrase it either way. But it seems to me that if a couple is truly welcoming the 1-15% chance of conception then double effect will make condom use OK.
If the couple would be even remotely tempted to abort or shy away from their responsibilities than neither condoms, NFP, nor anything else is appropriate.
I hear lots of folks raving about NFP and the people who are pro condom seem to be unwilling to try NFP. Then again, I don't seem to know anyone with 1 or no kids who does NFP. Everyone who does NFP seem to have largish families. And for those that are skeptical, you must admit that NFP seems pretty scary a thing to gamble with. For such folks, it is probably more likely that they would try NFP if their pastor told them it was OK to use a condom as well until they were comfortable with it.
All the Best, B
You have attempted to make your point by erroneously stating the question. The act is not natural intercourse. The act that you seek to justify is contraceptive behavior. The double effect argument doesn't apply. Pope Pius XI declared that contraceptive marital intercourse is the grave matter of mortal sin. Pope Paul VI declared that marital contraception is "intrinsically dishonest." It would be a shame if you led anyone into such behavior by your argument that simply does not hold water.
John F. Kippley
"Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality" (Ignatius, 2005)
"Natural Family Planning: The Question-Answer Book" a short, readable, free e-book available at
www.NFPandmore.org
Hi John,
Thanks for visiting and also for sharing the orthodox view along with Anna.
The act is not copntraceptive behavior any more than strategic bombing is 'bombing behavior'. The act for the USA is strategic bombing to discourage the enemy and anhilate the enemy's resources. The side effect is civilian casualities. In a just war, (which Iraq was not), strategic bombing is OK.
A couple who uses a condom does not seek to use a condom. They seek to have sex. If you won't concede that what they seek is sex then I don't think we have much more to talk about. That much is rather obvious. I can accept 'Sex with Child Spacing'. The same is true for NFP.
Act: Sex with Child Spacing
1:Is this morally good? Answer - Yes, and everyone agrees it is good with NFP, some argue it is not, when condoms are employed.
2:Is Evil Intended? Child spacing is intended but open to new life for 1-15% failure rate
3:Does the good outweigh the bad? Local bishop shoudl decide. Obviously true in Haiti, not true in Italy
4:Does the good affect go through the ill affect? No, there is a 1-15% chance of having a baby, so you aren't automatically thwarting the procreative mission when using a condom in a marraige open to accidental birth.
Popes may have made the declaration, but they have not done so infallibly, they have not had the sense fidelis to do that. I remind you that a pope, making declarations on his own, has been wrong before and can be wrong again.
In this case the natural act is sex, and the consequences of having children without appropriate resources is a potential liability of that act. Specifically, I invoke Haiti as an example of an over-populated state, and I exclude France and Italy, which appear to be underpopulated or have negative population growth. I then appeal to the notion that the bishop ought to determine if a specific area is over-populated, in this case the Pope, and in this case, Haiti.
It really doesn't matter how you slice it.
Let's say the act is Advocating Abstinence on a mass scale. And that policy fails and you still have massive overpopulation of tree-less Haiti, and they are still war torn relative to the other side of the island, the Domincan Republic.
The act of advocating abstinence was still evil because it caused death, starvation, and ruin as a public policy. It makes catholicism look bad. It makes all of Christendom look bad.
Now perhaps you want to advocate that the bishop of Haiti advocate aggressive NFP for everyone on the island. OK. Well, over the course of a young marriage don't the statistics argue that there will be 3 or so children even with aggressive NFP? That's too many for Haiti.
The ethical argument of declaring contraceptive sex to be always evil folds in on itself by creating more evil - the hallmark of when the double effect has come into play. One cannot simply 'declare' condomistic intercourse to be wrong because 'God said so', because God didn't say so. The Pope did not say infallibly that condoms are evil, and there was no sense fidelis that would support such an infallible statement, as attested to by the Canadian Bishops who issued the Winnipeg Statement. If the sense fidelis was present to support such a position then it would be impossible for an entire nation, including revered and well regarded cardinals, to sign onto the Winnipeg Statement.
Let's make this even simpler. How can one contracept without sex? By surgically removing spem and egg and putting sperm and egg next to one another in separate containers? It is impossible.
Clearly the act is sex with child spacing. You can not have an act that is contraception from the start.
B,
No one is arguing about whether or not the contraceptive couple wants to have sex. But the *question* is whether it is acceptable for them to use a condom. Using a condom during sex to avoid having children is the specific action whose morality is being questioned, not just any sex at all.
That's why the double-effect scenario has to be *asked* the way I laid it out earlier.
The Church hasn't used extraordinary infallibility to define its teaching on contraception; but it has taught it. You disagree with what I listed in point (1) that contraception is evil in-itself. If you are right about that, then there is no need for double effect, because there is no evil that is an unintended side-effect. If you are wrong, and the Church is right that contraception is sin in-itself, then double effect can not be used to justify intentionally doing the very thing which is sinful in-itself.
That's why double effect has nothing to do with using contraception for contraceptive purposes.
Now, let's take your carpet bombing scenario. The correct question to ask there is "Is it morally permissable to carpet bomb a city?"
(1) Is carpet-bombing a city intrinsically sinful?
The Church has not explicitly taught so, although perhaps it might lean in that direction.
(2) Is the evil (civilian deaths) intended?
Generally it is accepted that they are not intended, or that it is not ok to intend them. If they are intended - for the sake of creating confusion or terror, for example, we generally call that terrorism.
(3) Does the good outweigh the bad?
This is tough. Sometimes people say that as long as you kill more bad guys than civilians, the good outweighs the bad. Personally, I would think we should consider even one civilian death as something that can only be tolerated for desperate reasons. Those who agree with me argue that carpet bombing a city is immoral because we just don't ever accomplish anything good enough to justify such a drastic evil.
(4) Is the good effect accomplished through the bad effect?
That depends on the scenario. If the good effect is really only to kill some particular bad guys, then no. If the good effect is mayhem in the city which disrupts the bad guys operations, then yes, the good effect is being accomplished through the bad effect (civilian deaths) and the action is not morally permissable.
Hi Anna,
I see that you are right that the argument must start with:
Contraceptive Marital Sex Fully Embracing a 1-15% Chance of Conception
And go from there. And then you are further correct that this boils down to whether or not one is able to assent to an ordinary teaching of the magisterium that this act is intrinsically wrong with absolutely no scripture or sense fidelis to back it up: just the magisterium in Rome and the conservative portion of the church.
Clearly the Popes have not spoken una voce on this matter or the Winnipeg Statement and Fr. Curran's letter would not exist.
Well, I wouldn't say that it's "just" the Magisterium in Rome and the conservatives. That is, I do think the vast majority of the world-wide bishops agree with the current teaching on contraception, even if the majority of American lay people don't. That may not fit the technical criteria for infallibility, but it ought to make you think twice about disagreeing. :)
I hope I'm not depressing you on this topic. I keep arguing it because you keep bringing it up, and I love a good debate. But I respect the difficulty you have with the issue; I certainly don't think it's an easy thing to see it the way the Church tells us to. And I admire your passion.
Hi Anna,
I'm not depressed on the topic... and I appreciate your willingess to express your point of view and defend the faith charitably.
But I do think that you are correct that this boils down to a 'because we said so' teaching and even then it is contestable that the 'we' who 'said so' is the sense fidelis and not just a few conservative pontiffs.
A bishop just published a dissenting book in Australia. The cardinals and bishops involved in the winnipeg statement were admirable men. Bishops only seem to speak up when they are close to retirement... Without a secret ballott I don't think we know what they really think. And judging by the way conservatives are so angry with the USCCB all the time I think that they might find that the gentle souls who've occupied the confessionals all these years might just be a bit more liberal than they think.
I certainly don't think you'd find the support to suggest that an infallible proclamation against condoms as I have prposed: within marriage to space childre; couple must be committed to the 1-15% chance birth; couple is encouraged to move from condoms to NFP as a holier alternative.
I can tolerate a lot based on tradition. But when it comes to condoms you start to get into a socially unnacceptable policy. Encouraging Haitians to unrestrained reproduction isn't just daft. It is evil-in-itself to tell a bunch of people on an overpopulated war torn island to just have big families or try to have abstinence. Heck, sex is probably one of the only joys a lot of those folks have in their lives. Saying they should abstain for life is unrealistic and probably just plain mean... If the pope thinks he can convince another nation to give them free rights to immigrate, more power to him, but the Holy See must know that is unrealistic.
Obviously the same ethics do not necessarily apply in Boston, Italy, France, et cetera, which is why I think the Bishop should be involved. But there are plenty of moms and dads out there who don't have what it takes to have 3 kids under 5 at the same time responsibly, and you and I both know they're out there. Maybe we've even seen them in the park, if not on the news.
If tribunals can be formed to handle divorce requests, why can't the faithful have tribunals for birth control requests?
The extended family structure has broken down. The're aren't maiden aunts and grandparents around so much to help anymore. Meanwhile daycare is taxed after a $3000 or so tax credit (Daycare is about $3000/month in Boston). In other words, conservatives are so bent on retaining stay-at-home moms that they are taxing child care.
The liberals who say that the way to create family values is by attacking poverty seem to me to be right. (This is coming from someone who was once a hard core conservative). The reason single girls abort babies is that they need responsible husbands to take care of them and those are in short supply. You provide socialized day care and services and they won't do that so much. So you can say that Joe C's candidate Kucinich is too soft on abortion, and I would tend to agree with that - he is too soft on abortion. But I can see where he is coming from with regard to priorities.
The reason people can't take care of 3 kids under 5 at the same time is because they're on their own to do it. Pre-school is a joke, usually offered a couple days a week a few hours per day. Not that it isn't helpful, just it's no substitute.
So listening to a celibate man who lives in a palace, who wears pink shoes, likes cats, and likes to play the piano tell me that he thinks Haitians sin to wear condoms seems loopy to me. God doesn't like condoms? Well, God doesn't like starving Haitians and civil war. God doesn't like a massive institution, the largest church in Christendom, speaking in his name in a way that engenders even more suffering and tragedy on that poor little island. God doesn't like our young people falling away from a church that seems out of touch with reality.
B,
Out of curiosity, do you read John Allen's weekly column?
No one is saying that there aren't a lot of dissenting priests. Could be the majority, for all I know. There is no “sensum fidelis” that is being claimed to make this an infallible teaching. But something doesn't have to be “sensum fidelis” to be true. And much as your experience objects, there is no “sensum fidelis” that contraception is legitimate, either. The bishops mostly teach against contraception (when it comes up), and catholics in the southern hemisphere agree with the Church on sexual ethics issues as much as catholics in the West disagree on them.
Why does the 1-15% chance of birth figure keep coming up? What is the significance of that for you? Whether the chance of conception of any method is 0% or 10% or 100%, I don't see how the percentage makes any difference to the morality of the intentions involved.
Why is Haiti such an issue for you? Has the Pope recently told Haitians not to use condoms? Have the bishops there made a point of teaching Haitians not to use condoms? Honestly, contraception use doesn't really seem to be on the top of the list of major concerns for either the bishops or the Pope, or anyone else except some American conservatives.
Do you think NFP is too hard to practice? Do you think it is ineffective? It's a lot different from complete abstinence. If the Church launched a major campaign in Haiti to teach couples how to use NFP effectively and encouraged them to limit the number of their children, would that satisfy you?
It's as unlikely for you to expect the Vatican to reverse its long-held position on contraception as it is to think that the Vatican might convince another nation to let Haitians immigrate in massive numbers. I know that angers you; you think it is unjust. But if the Vatican is correct in its position, then it is not unjust.
The question about divorce tribunals is a good one. The difference is that the tribunals are there to determine whether a sacramental marriage actually happened. If the sacrament happened, the tribunal cannot give permission for the individuals to remarry someone else. To do so would be considered sinful, regardless of how hard that would be for the couple to handle. The tribunal's job is not to decide whether to give permission for the couple to do what it wants. The tribunal's job is to decide what the truth is about the existence of a sacramental marriage. That truth will then determine whether or not that permission is there.
In the case of contraception, there is no truth that is relevant. There are no particular circumstances which, if the tribunal decided those circumstances existed, would make it ok to violate God's plan for marriage and children, no circumstances which would make it acceptable in God's eyes to take into our own hands control over the process of creating a sacred human life, an eternal soul reflecting the glory of God Himself.
Some things are just absolutes, B. Some things are just bigger than all the earthly woes and horrifying troubles that afflict us. Trying to give permissions or exceptions to the troubled Haitians to use condoms is like trying to give them permission to euthanize the elderly in order to ease the overpopulation; you can't violate an absolute even for a strong reason. It's not ok to do evil that good may come of it.
You speak of the family structure breaking down. I agree. It's horrible. We need to fix it. Now, I know there are some catholics who think that contraception is the primary obstacle to family values. Historically, they may have a point about contraception setting off the sexual revolution that led to divorce and other problems. And I have talked with at least one person who has personal experience of contraception leading to divorce. So I think I buy it that contraception is an obstacle to family values. But I don't know I'd say it's the primary obstacle.
Government-wise, I'm not really sure where all I'm at, except that I'm sure I'm against a law forbidding contraception use. (Although I'd support not forcing the taxpayers to fund contraception). I think that, as Catholics, our primary fight to build up family values needs to be social, rather than political. That is, we especially need to start with our own homes and make sure that we are teaching our children what a family ought to do and not do.
I don't think universal socialized day care is a good idea; subsidizing single mothers to stay at home with their children or subsidizing day care for the poor would be better. Even then, I would worry that that would encourage a further break down of family values because it would be replacing what ought to be family support with institutional support.
Of course, where there is no family support, institutional support is better than none at all. Which is the principle behind having welfare systems in the first place. I think that, realistically, they might contribute somewhat to the breakdown of family support. But rather than get rid of welfare completely and toss the needy to the wolves, I would have us build communities that fight for family values on the levels of family and society.
So listening to a celibate man who lives in a palace, who wears pink shoes, likes cats, and likes to play the piano tell me that he thinks Haitians sin to wear condoms seems loopy to me.
What does his celibacy or shoe color or liking cats have to do with anything? If he was barefoot, would you take his position seriously? (And when did he ever actually say anything about the Haitians using condoms anyhow?) I grant that it would be easier to take the pope seriously, in general, if he committed himself to personally working with the poor. I'm just not sure that really ought to be the role the pope takes on.
Of course God doesn't like starving Haitians and civil war! (Although I sort of thought their civil war was over and their economy was finally on the uprise, although it is still so far behind). But telling people they need to send food and supplies or even U.N. troops to Haiti to keep the peace is a far cry from suggesting that what Haitians really need is for us to go hand out a bunch of condoms and tell them to stop having kids.
The young people in America have been raised in a society that contradicts some of Church teaching. Is this the Church's fault or society's? Personally, I don't think the reason the young leave the church has anything to do with contraception, abortion, women priests, or anything like that. I think it's because most of them haven't grown up around Catholics who have deep faith. It takes a really deep conviction, in Jesus, in Scripture, in the Church, in order for someone to choose to go with the Church instead of following the easier path of pop culture. So many Catholics lack that. (Or, at best, don't reveal it).
Out of curiosity, do you read John Allen's weekly column?
No, I haven't heard of it that I recall... do you have a link?
Why does the 1-15% chance of birth figure keep coming up?
Condoms are between 99.5% (if used perfectly) and 85% effective. So I am claiming that a couple is open to life if they are full embracing that 1-15% chance. Of course in reality that is a 1-15% chance that a pregnancy will occur in one year's time using the method or something like that. Don't quote me on that because I am just recalling, possibly incorrectly. In any event, I do think that it is morally relevant that it is imperative that a couple using condoms in marriage be open to a happy accident!
On children lapsing:
It has been my experience that children do not inherit religious faith from their parents. They have free will, just like anyone else, and do not just walk away from home with a strong faith just because of the example of their parents though I am sure that helps a lot. I also know plenty of Baptists and Lutherans whose parents were very strong in the faith but whose children walked away from it; so as you note, that issue is not all about the common themes of dissent within the church.
But telling people they need to send food and supplies or even U.N. troops to Haiti to keep the peace is a far cry from suggesting that what Haitians really need is for us to go hand out a bunch of condoms and tell them to stop having kids.
The Haitian side of the island is completely deforested, denuded, and pillaged. It is radically over-populated. Sure UN help, charity, medicine and all the rest of it are important.
Have you heard of the book about the catholic Dr. Paul Farmer who devoted his life to caring for the Haitians? I think somone with a name like Tracy Kidder wrote it and its title is something like 'beyond mountains'. I recall the author mentions being astonished that every woman in Haiti seems to be pregnant.
I do think that Haitians need to be stold to stop having more than one kid. They need to radically reduce their population or no amount of aid or charity will help them. They need to reforest the island and set up renewable and reliable agriculture and economy.
I heard on NPR that gold has been discovered there. Believe it or not i think that will make everything worse. During the broadcast, a mortar went off in the background. Something tells me that those poor people are about to be exploited congo style for that gold by the next dictator.
Anyway, I think that the church needs to put together some wise heads and come up with a morally responsible plan for population control in places like Haiti. The church keeps taking options off the table, like vasectomies and condoms. The reasoning seems to be aimed more at Italy than at Haiti.
This is a link to John Allen's page at NCR. He does regular articles, plus a weekly column. You can sign up to receive (free) email notifications for the weekly column (which is itself free online). NCR is the kind of paper that conservatives condemn for being dissenting and whatnot. And I'm not terribly impressed by the quality of some of the writing I've encountered there, although some of it's good. John Allen, though, is such a neutral reporter that conservatives and liberals alike will trust his writing.
The one thing where he sometimes steps outside of his neutral box to actually advocate for a position is when he advocates that Catholics (and, to some degree, non-Catholics) listen to each other instead of walling themselves up into like-minded groups (such as conservatives and liberals only talking among themselves to reinforce their positions instead of actually dialoguing respectfully with each other). It was partly because of his advocating of that that I realized I'd been listening mostly only to conservatives. I decided I needed to hear the other side, so I typed “liberal catholic blog” into Google, and out popped Joe's blog. And that led to yours, and Jack's.
Anyhow, I'm something of a fan of Allen's writings. He does analysis like no other reporter I know.
On the effectiveness of condoms:
I agree that, if a contracepting couple or an NFP couple or any couple at all gets pregnant, then it is important for them to welcome the child wholeheartedly. But the effectiveness doesn't have anything to do with whether contraception (or NFP or anything else) is intrinsically immoral. Because the reason for the teaching on immorality isn't because it's wrong to avoid having children. The wrongness is in trying to take into our own hands control over the process of creating life, in trying to deliberately separate sex from procreation. So if a woman pees after sex because she thinks it lowers the chance of getting pregnant by only 1%, she has committed the sin of contraception in her heart.
I agree that children do not inherit their faith from their parents as an automatic rule. But I think the more faith the parents have, the more likely that their children will have faith. And when I say this, I mean “faith” in a rather stronger sense of the word that it may usually be used. Someone can be devout without having deep faith. Many in America are devout: they go to church and they genuinely strive for holiness. And that's probably the most important aspect of faith. But good heavens, B, Jesus said that if we had faith the size of a mustard seed, we could move mountains! When was the last time you saw someone move mountains. When was the last time you met someone who really, deep down in their heart, believed that Jesus meant that we could literally move mountains. When was the last time you saw a miraculous healing? Or a priest who, when preaching on one of the Bible passages that tell of miraculous healings, preached that God wants that to happen to you, and wants you to do such things? These kind of things do happen, but they're definitely not the norm for Catholics.
It's easier to believe that someone a couple thousand years ago in a place far away happened to do some really special things because he was himself someone unusually special. It's a lot harder to believe that we ourselves, as his disciples and with His Spirit, are meant to do the same things. And, when we believe that God can do miracles, in theory, but never see such miracles, it's a lot harder to have faith in his goodness, in his love for us, in his existence. So having a lack of faith the size of a mustard seed, even if there is a strongly devoted faith, can easily turn into a lack of any faith at all in the next generation.
For many generations, I think religion was propagated mostly through culture. Now our culture increasingly opposes religion. And the deepest faith that can resist culture – there is not nearly enough of that around.
On Haiti:
I haven't heard of that book you have read, but I've reserved it from the library. I wonder if you hear anything about what sort of positive moves have been made there in the last year?
I agree that the Church would do good to come up with a good plan to help Haitians. I don't know that population control ought to be the primary focus. Population reduction happens naturally as countries get richer; focusing on the reforesting and the sustainable agriculture and sustainable economy seems like the most important path to me. I also suspect that Haitians might not take kindly to people trying to tell them they need to have less kids. That might seem a perfectly acceptable thing to say in our culture, but other cultures might find that very offensive indeed.
Hi Anna,
You might enjoy Jeff's 'Clouded Sunrise' post over at his blog for a meaty review on children falling away from the church from this perspective.
All the Best, B
Isn't this whole discussion of artificial contraception among Catholic somewhat irrelevant.
The great majority of Catholics are in fact practising artificial contraception. So the "sensus fidelium," has rejected this papal teaching. Ergo it is no longer binding.
Incidentally, I am pleased you have highlighted the Winnipeg Statement on Humanae Vitae. One of my old moral professors, Father Ed Sheridan, S.J., was a key person in developing the statement.
Hope you will look me up at
neilmckenty.wordpress.com
Neil,
So the "sensus fidelium," has rejected this papal teaching.
This isn't actually true. It may be that the majority of American Catholics actually practice contraception. But for something to be "sensum fidelis", all Catholics everywhere, including the bishops and the pope have to agree on something. And we are a very very long way away from that. Even among the lay people, the largest numbers of Catholics are from the southern hemisphere, where most lay folk accept the sexual ethics of the Church.
B,
Thanks for the link. That was interesting.
I would definitely say that I think clericalism, rather than homosexuality, is the primary problem for the sex abuse scandal. And I have to say that one of the things that annoyed me most about some of the conservatives I've talked to is the way they condemned VOTF instead of joining it and making it a grounds for dialogue and progress, or at least giving it a chance to see what good it might do.
The thing about young people being able to sense inconsistency does fit in with what I was saying, I think.
Hi Anna,
I have to remind you of the point you made earlier that you didn't think that one is banned from using NFP to avoid children. According to my Daily Roman Missal from scepter publishing, it is not licit to use NFP to avoid children. It's in the 'Examination of Conscience' section. I don't have the energy to run and get it to quote it now, and i wouldn't particularly enjoy discouraging any catholics with a overt post about it any more than they are already discouraged. But it goes something like this 'Have you engaged in sexual activity at a time when you know there is little chance of coceiving a child?'.
Scepter publishing is Opus Dei, and they are pretty conservative. But I can't imagine that they would break from the church. For them to say that, must mean that some of the proclamations of the magisterium must be very confused with regard to how it is or is not appropriate to use the rythm method.
B,
Honestly, I think whoever wrote that is full of it.
From Humanae Vitae, here is a nice definitive statement:
If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.
The new U.S. Catechism says,
"Contemporary methods of natural family planning are making it possible for couples, in cases of legitimate need, to space the births of their children while remaning faithful to God's plan for marriage."
The Church is being pretty clear that using NFP is not, of itself, a sin. It *can* be a sin, if someone does it for a trivial, selfish reason. But that's a little like saying it might be a sin not to wash the dishes today, if done for selfish reasons.
I don't trust a lot of examination of consciences that I've come across. I've seen ones that say things like "Have you gotten a tattoo?". Anyone can pretty much put on there whatever their personal opinion is about what people ought not to be doing.
And a lot of the most conservative people within the Church (even among the non-schismatics) make the same sort of mistake about sex and babies that the more liberals do: they think it's all about whether you intend to have children or not. So they say you can't avoid having children at all; just like you want to say it's ok to avoid having children using whatever means you want. (Whereas the Church says you have to have a good reason for avoiding children, and you must use a means which respects God's design, but if you meet both conditions, it's ok.)
Anyhow, that's my take on things.
Hi Anna,
I seem to recall, now that you mention it, that the examination of conscience mentions:
'without grave reason'
in the condemnation of avoiding conception with NFP. The implication is that the reason had better be pretty darn grave, because you are supposed to have lots of babies.
B,
Aaaahh. Well, putting that phrase in is better than not having it at all. I think, if I was going to put a question like that in there at all, I'd have said, "Did I avoid having children for reasons that are trivial or selfish?"
The church doesn't really have any teachings about what kind of reasons are good enough to avoid having children. There are debates about just how "serious" is "serious". This longish article can give you a taste of what I mean. Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that a couple ought to decide together on how to balance generosity and prudence, on what is best for the whole family. This is an individual judgment call; no one else can really determine what the circumstances and motives are for another family.
I guess I think that, since the Church hasn't bothered to narrow down precise scenarios, no one ought to try to make someone else feel guilty for their decision to use or not use NFP, maybe unless they know that person really, really well and are seriously afraid they are doing wrong (and maybe not even then). Although I'm cool with people advocating that others be more open or less open to having children - as long as they don't cross that line into trying to pressure/guilt them into it.
Post a Comment