Ross Douthat faces a fascinating (to me) dilemma: the Vatican officially says one thing about the morning-after pill, but Ross believes that the Vatican has reached an incorrect conclusion based on a misunderstanding of reproductive science.
Ross is a Catholic. If a friend said to him that she wants to take the morning-after pill, but is concerned that it might be the moral equivalent of an abortion, so she wanted his recommendation -- what would he be morally obliged to advise?
It seems to me from the Church's perspective, if he advised his friend to take the pill, he would be committing a sin. But what if you, like Ross, honestly believe the Church has erred on the facts? Is an orthodox Catholic -- that is, a Catholic who actually believes that his conscience is bound by the teachings of the Church -- therefore required to counsel what the Church counsels, even if he thinks in good faith that the Church has fundamentally erred? Isn't an orthodox Catholic required, moreover, to believe that the Church teaches truth in matters of faith and morals, and that despite the appearance of error, the individual Catholic is, in fact, wrong?
I'm not asking to start an argument, or to put Ross in the crosshairs. This is a question that haunted me as I was struggling with my own orthodox Catholicism -- not the morning-after pill question, but the obligations of a faithful Catholic vis-a-vis Church authority. Or is my concern nothing more than Mottramism (defined below the jump for ye who know the term not)?
The term "Mottramism" was coined by the Canadian Catholic Mark Cameron, who once wrote on his dearly departed blog:
I would like to propose a name for this phenomenon of inveterate support for any and all Papal actions, imputing to him wisdom and spiritual insight beyond all the Saints and Popes of past ages: Mottramism.This takes its name, of course, from Rex Mottram, Julia Flyte's husband in Brideshead Revisited. At one point, Rex decides to convert to Catholicism in order to have a proper Church wedding with Julia. But the sincerity of his conversion becomes suspect when he is willing to agree with any absurdity proposed in the name of Catholic authority, and shows no intellectual curiosity into its truth or falsehood. As his Jesuit instructor, Father Mowbray describes his catechetical progress:
"Yesterday I asked him whether Our Lord had more than one nature. He said: 'Just as many as you say, Father.' Then again I asked him: 'Supposing the Pope looked up and saw a cloud and said 'It's going to rain', would that be bound to happen?' 'Oh, yes, Father.' 'But supposing it didn't?' He thought a moment and said, "I suppose it would be sort of raining spiritually, only we were too sinful to see it.'"
I don't think the issue I raise is Mottramism, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway, if only because it's such a great term. Anyway, let's keep this discussion high-minded, and avoid cheap shots. I didn't bring this up to be provocative; I really want to know what the right answer is.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Generally, if I have fifteen different arguments for X which need "further development", it is less effective than one really good argument. Given its changing teachings on sexual morality and, frankly, the outright denigration of even marital sexuality that prevailed in its circles until the middle of the last century, I think the Church better do a lot better job of developing arguments (especially ones it changes again and again) if it expects to be taken seriously.
This is a bit unfair. The need to develop a robust teaching regarding artificial contraception doesn't become necessary until the invention of effective artificial contraception. It's possible that prior to the introduction of the pill a husband and wife could abuse the marital act, and there exists dicta from numerous saints on that subject. But the pill, with alarming effectiveness, eliminates the procreative aspect of an otherwise normal looking sex act. The invention of the technology requires a more detailed analysis of the teaching in this area. John Paul II's theology of the body provides a very sophisticated start to this development, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that it might take some time to determine how best to explain the established principle.
As to comparisons with alcohol, it depends on whether an unnatural sex act is more akin to an unnatural sex act or gluttony. I suspect that, although the desire to engage in an unnatural sex act may be a species of gluttony, an unnatural sex act is most akin to an unnatural sex act. Hence the alcohol analogy is inapplicable. Comparing an unnatural sex act to drunkness is closer, but still, it's probably best to analyze an unnatural sex act as an unnatural sex act.
As to the quality of NFP or contraceptive marriages, I would reserve judgment until I saw third-party, neutral, longitudinal studies. Anything short is anecdotal.
Thankfully we have the Church to provide guidance regarding these issues. Otherwise we might endanger our families (and our souls) awaiting the opinion of social scientists.
Is a fertilised egg human?
And, like a California Condor egg, is it deserving of our protection?
Or not?
Trumerion--I think you've misunderstood one of your own quotes.
"For, whereas that natural use [sexual intercourse], when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting [children], is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot...." (Note carefully--sex for procreation is pardonable for a wife!)"
A couple of things--I haven't looked at the whole context for this quote, but are you sure that "natural use" stands in for "sexual intercouse" as opposed to the "procreative act"? Or "sexual intercourse which includes openness to procreation"?
It seems to me your gloss (as indicated by the parenthetical) is not accurate. It seems to me the quote intends to say that sex-during-infertile-periods for wives is "pardonable" while for those outside marriage it is "damnable." I don't see how the passage indicates that the procreative act is a "sin" within the context of marriage.
And while the Church has refined her statements on these matters over time, I don't think this necessarily indicates a change in doctrine--the Church has always understood her own understanding of God's will in terms of the "three-legged stool"--i.e. the (official) Magesterial Teaching authority of the Church, Scripture, and the tradition (i.e., the ways in which Catholics have lived out their faith for millenia. It is this third leg, of course, where most of the grayness in the interpretation of Church "teaching" and practice exists.
I meant Turmarion. My apologies.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.