EXCERPT:
Last time I clarified one problem of the current claim that opposition to contraceptives is a “basic tenet” of Catholic faith, by showing that church teaching is actually about contraception, not contraceptives--that is, it focuses on certain kinds of behavior, rather than about certain devices. People can violate this teaching by their behavior whether or not they use contraceptives--and simply having contraceptives does not constitute prohibited behavior.
But this of course begs the further question: is this actual Catholic teaching on contraception a basic tenet of our faith?
The answer is in two parts: (1) the teaching fits into a particular “niche” of Catholic moral teaching and (2) in its current form it represents the latest in a series of revisions dating back centuries. So, what is the niche that teaching occupies, and how has it evolved?
The Place of This Teaching. Consulting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, one finds the index entry on “contraception” to be empty, except for a referral to see the index listing for “matrimony: purpose.” In that listing, a subhead is “Fecundity of Marriage,” and its subhead includes “contraception.”
The relevant section on “The Fecundity of Marriage” has seven paragraphs covering two pages of text (in the Liguori edition, pages 569 – 570). The fifth paragraph cites both Pope Paul’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae and John Paul II’s encyclical Familiaris Consortio to summarize church teaching on contraception.
These pages are in Part III of the Catechism, “Life in Christ,” which treats Catholic moral teaching. Section One of Part III outlines moral teachings drawn especially from the New Testament and Catholic social doctrine; Section Two reviews the Catholic understanding of the 10 Commandments. This section comprises slightly more than 100 pages of the Catechism’s 800 pages, and the paragraph on contraception (paragraph 2370 out of 2865 in the catechism) is found, naturally enough, in the article on the Sixth Commandment, in subsection IV, “Offenses Against the Dignity of Marriage.”
In other words, an 800 page compendium on traditional Catholic teaching devotes a single paragraph out of 2865 paragraphs to contraception, deeply imbedded in a minor section on the Commandment prohibiting adultery.
If this is supposed to present a “basic tenet” of Catholic faith, one can say without irony that the Church has buried the lead here--and buried it well and deep. By contrast, Benedict XVI’s encyclical “God is Love” presents a 30 page survey of basic Catholic doctrine without even mentioning the Ten Commandments at all.
One can safely say that the niche occupied by the teaching against contraception is a minor niche in our tradition, despite the public controversy. This teaching’s evolution explains why.
(see my complete article for the history of this evolution)
…so current church teaching rejects the idea that individual sex acts can ever, under any circumstances, exclude the purpose of procreation. (Even this, of course, is not about contraceptive devices—e.g. coitus interruptus (withdrawal) violates this norm with no recourse to contraceptives.)
… so this minor component of our Catholic faith tradition continues to exert, in its current form, a disproportionate influence in the lives of Catholic families, as well as on our nation’s politics.
One result: people end up mistakenly thinking Church teaching is about devices, not behavior.
And a second result: the insistence that this teaching is a “basic tenet” of Catholicism adds fuel to the scandal-fired popular perception that the Catholic Church is an institution obsessed with sex.
I really don't think many bishops are "exploiting this issue politically." I think U.S. politics are currently driving primarily by opinions regarding economics and, with respect to economics, the rhetoric of the USCCB seems much more aligned with the Obama administration than with critics of the Obama administration. See http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/
ReplyDeleteThe Obama administrations' positions and actions with respect to the the "contraceptive" issue seem highly political and intensionally divisive. The cost of most contraceptives is not high. So why does the Obama administration insist that health insurances plans include coverage for prescription contraceptives, but not other forms of contraception, dentistry, orthodontics, or over-the-counter drugs? I think because the Obama administration wants to use the contraceptive issue as a wedge issue, ridiculing its critics as people who are so odd that they oppose contraception. If the Obama administration really wanted to, it could have easily avoided this controversy without compromising much other than its desire to highlight differences of beliefs and opinion regarding contraception.
In your writing, you focus on contraception, but USCCB seems concerned that the Obama policy also covers sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.
I fear that the "contraception" mandate may be just the beginning. If the contraception mandate sticks, perhaps in the future the Obama administration may insist that all health insurance plans cover surgical abortions without restriction, including third-trimester abortions. Perhaps the Obama administration may insist that all hospitals provide abortion services. Perhaps the Obama administration may insist that all obstetricians must demonstrate the ability to perform abortions as part of their training and offer abortions, without restriction, as part of their practice. Perhaps the Obama administration may insist that health insurance include assisted suicide. Some of this may seem a bit far-fetched, but only because popular opinion does not (yet?) view concerns about abortion and suicide as being as odd as concerns about contraception.
You argue that the contraceptive mandate is similar to a tax. Our taxes currently support policies and programs that are arguably at odds with Catholic teaching. Yet we pay our taxes. You seemed to equate opposition to the mandate with not paying taxes. I disagree. I think opposition to the mandate is comparable to opposition to the policies and programs that are arguably at odds with Catholic teaching. Refusing to obey the mandate would be more comparable to not paying taxes (though still not exactly the same, since taxes are imposed on individuals but not on churches), but merely arguing against the mandate is not.
You argue that the teaching against contraception is a minor niche. (1 paragraph out of 2865 in the Catechism.) Yet I think all of the brief "examination of conscience" aids I have seen reflect this teaching. For example, see http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/sacraments/penance/sacrament-reconciliation-married-persons-examination-of-conscience.cfm
I am not sure why you focus so much on defending the mandate. Do you think the mandate is really good policy or are you concerned that Catholic voters may decide what politicians or parties to support based on the mandate issue and may overlook much more important issues? If your concern is that the mandate issue may inappropriately overshadow other issues, I think it may be better to write about the other issues rather than spend so much time defending the mandate.
Actually, I did not mention any "mandate," and I specifically said I support court efforts to eliminate any threat to the church's religious liberty.
ReplyDeleteIf issues of sterilization, euthanasia, or abortion are involved, those are serious matters the courts can address.
My focus was on a more narrow problem: the misrepresentation of church teaching on contraceptives. If you are concern that contraception is "just the beginning," you must fear others will link contraception to abortions. My objection is that the bishops are CREATING that link by lumping contraceptives into their legal campaign, and this weakens their case. They will do much better fighting abortion coverage directly.
My clear concern, however, is not with the politics here. It is the confusion among Catholics that this focus on contraceptives causes.