Catholicism and contraception
The number of Catholic blogs linking to my post on Dan Brown's errors in Angels and Demons has surprised me a bit. I shouldn't be too shocked, I suppose, since many of Brown's critics are defenders of the Catholic Church against Brown's slanders. I must admit that I don't fall into that camp. I'm not entirely convinced that Brown is particularly anti-Catholic; his sins are of the literary and factual sort, not the heretical kind. My guess is that if Brown were to write about some other religion, say Methodism or Reform Judaism, its adherents would take arms, too.
But all that's beside the point. As a result of all the links, I've read lots of blogs that I never would have stumbled on by myself, blogs like The Shrine of Holy Whapping and Catholicae Testudines. I've found lots I don't agree with, and plenty that just doesn't make sense. Some of that disagreement can undoubtedly be attributed to dissimilar worldviews. But I'm not such a relativist that I'm willing to cast disagreement aside and accept the validity of beliefs that strike me as decidedly wrong-headed and narrow-minded.
Take this post from Catholicae Testudines. The writer, Thomas A., opens his essay by warning "these people" not to get their hopes up about Vatican thelogian George Cottier telling an Italian news agency that there were circumstances in which the use of condoms might be justified.
First of all, Thomas A. fails to make clear just who "these people" are. The staff at the Guardian who wrote about the story? The article he linked to is straightforward news; I can't find anyone getting their hopes up in it. People in general? Maybe, but then why make it "these people"? As best I can figure out, Thomas A. is writing against critics of the Church's position on contraception. Fine, then, let's see what he has to say.
Until they understand that Catholicism is a deontological religion, not a consequentialist one, they will not understand why the Church cannot approve of contraceptive sexual activity for any reason. Perhaps they do not realize that the Church condemns as sin all genital activity that because of its nature (and not because of accidental circumstances such as the woman being out of a fertile period) is closed off to the generation of life. And that she does this because such is contrary to human nature and displeasing to God, and not because it might in some circumstances have harmful effects on bodily health.
Let's be clear here. According to Thomas, the Church disapproves of "all genital activity that ... is closed off to the generation of life." He inserts a little disclaimer in there, and that's what I want to examine more closely. What are these "accidental" circumstances in which "genital activity" that can't lead to procreation is not a sin? His example is a woman "out of a fertile period." I'm not sure whether he means post-menopausal women or women who aren't ovulating. But both seem like reasonable readings, so that's two scenarios.
Here's my question: how is either one of these circumstances in any way "accidental"? Is it an accident that post-menopausal women are infertile? Sex between a man and a post-menopausal woman will not, by its very nature, generate life. There's no accident involved here. According to Thomas's description, the Church condemns this sort of sexual activity. Now maybe this is true, maybe the Church does, in fact, prohibit post-menopausal women from having sex. If that's the case, well, the Catholic Church is even more repressive than I thought.
But maybe I'm being too harsh here. Maybe Thomas really was restricting his women "out of a fertile period" to post-pubescent, pre-menopausal females who don't happen to be ovulating at the time of intercourse. But again, where's the accident here? It's not as if menstrual cycles are random phenomena. Ovulation and fertility can be predicted and tracked with a great deal of precision. When a woman who isn't ovulating has sex and doesn't conceive, there's nothing accidental about it; that's just how it works.
The obvious counterargument here is that there's nothing about the nature of sexual intercourse between a man and a non-ovulating woman that makes conception impossible. Women can conceive when they're not ovulating, it's just not very likely. As far as I can tell this argument says that sexual intercourse with a non-ovulating women is acceptable because there's still a chance that life could be generated.
UPDATE (6 February 2005): See SRC's comment below for more precise discussion of ovulation and conception.
To this, I hasten to point out that there's nothing about the nature of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman using a condom that makes conception impossible. Women can conceive when their partner uses a condom, it's just not very likely. Condomns do, after all, fail.
It seems, then, that the Catholic Church, at least according to Thomas A.'s description, isn't terribly consistent in its condemnation of "genital activity that ... is closed off to the generation of life." Condoms are out but sex with a non-ovulating woman is in? Okay then.
Then there's the bit about such activity being "contrary to human nature and displeasing to God". Now, I don't know about the second part. Maybe God doesn't like sex that doesn't generate life. But who's to say, really? But as for the first part, that non-life-generating genital activity is contrary to human nature? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's wrong. Now I have some doubts about the existence of "human nature" but I'm certain that it's impossible to describe it. Can you point to some human behavior or activity that has characterized all societies? Even more obviously, if all this genital activity were contrary to human nature, why has it been so common throughout history? It's not as if masturbation or oral sex are new things. Besides, don't Catholics believe that man is inherently sinful? Wouldn't it be human nature to sin?
You know, as fascinating as I find Catholicism, some of it doesn't make much sense...
I could go on, but I'm already feeling like John Holbo. Besides, my knowledge of Catholic theology is minimal; I don't want to get in over my head.
posted by Danny @ 11:22 AM
5 Comments
5 Comments:
women can't conceive when they're not ovulating. yes, ovulation does not necesarily occur at the same time in the menstrual cycle (thus you could think that you weren't ovulating) each cycle, but you need that little egg to pop out. of course, sperm can live in a nice warm place like a uterus or fallopian tube for up to 5 or six days, i think, but they're unlikely to get there unless a woman is near ovulation (when hormones change and the mucus membrane at the cervix changes). i guess the statement is true that conception does not necessarily occur at the exact time that a woman ovulates, but it ain't gonna happen unless the ovulation has just happened or is about to happen...anyway.
your email is on the way. eventually.
src
Thanks for the comment. Like I said, my knowledge of Catholic theology is fairly limited, and this post was based just on Thomas's post, without any further reading. It may be that more precise understanding of a few terms clears up some stuff. I've gotta say, though, a prescriptive definition of human nature sounds pretty goofy to me.
It's still not clear to me, however, the grounds on which the Catholic Church justifies the validity of the rhythm method of contraception but condemns all other forms of contraception. The intent of having sex when a woman is not ovulating and abstaining she is is contraception, isn't it? Like using a condom, "the couple is still actively seeking means to prevent conception."
Thanks again for your comment. I'm genuinely curious about this stuff.
Ah, now it seems that you're the one who wants to have his cake and eat it, too. On the one hand, you privilege "nature" as the was things have been in the past "the rules as we've found them", arguing that contraception is bad because it's contrary to the "course of nature." On the other hand, you view human nature prescriptively, as a means of regulating human behavior. You can't have it both ways. Either nature is a goal we strive to attain (which is what seems so unusual to me) or nature is "the way things have always been."
I have to admit, I'm a bit skeptical of the whole notion of human nature. Attributing behavior to human nature ignores the complex and multiple influences on our actions. It's a bit of an explanatory cop-out. Put another way, how do we know that a given behavior is the result of human nature and not, say, how one was raised? This complaint has more to do with descriptive definitions of human nature, obviously.
There's certainly prescriptive attitudes involved when you judge someone's actions, but I'm not sure how human nature is relevant here. About every dictionary definition I can find defines human nature alongs these lines: "The basic character or disposition of mankind", "The sum of qualities and traits shared by all humans". Ther's nothing wrong with setting out ideal behavior, but it's counter-intuitive to describe that behavior as "human nature." If it were natural for people to act that way, why wouldn't we all be doing it? Again, I think that we're talking past each other a bit when it comes to terminology, but I just can't see how a prescriptive definition of human nature is at all sensible.
As for contraception, I think you're missing the fact that there are inconveniences associated with use of contraceptive methods like condoms or the pill. Maybe not sacrifices along the lines of abstinence, but it's not as if sex while using contraceptives is a utopia where there is endless cake for both having and eating. There's a continuum of sacrifices and inconveniences here. There are definite similarities between natural family planning and using condoms, most notably sexual intercourse with the intent of avoiding conception. And since there's a continuum of related activities it just seems rather arbitrary to declare that certain behaviors are permissible and others are absolutely forbidden. Why draw the line where it is?
I wasn't suggesting equivalence between the two behaviors, just similarities (hence the idea of a continuum). There's a fine line, as you yourself admit. I don't see why activities on one side of that fine line are categorically condemned while the ones just on this side of that line are acceptable.
You're contradicting yourself. Above you wrote that we have to consider intent when deciding whether an action is sinful. Now you're saying actions are inherently good or evil, regardless of intent. Which is it?
I put abstinence during fertile periods and condom use on a continuum not because the consequences are the same, but rather that the intent is similar - the ability to have sex without risk of conception. Go read what I wrote again. I'm not adopting a consequentialist approach here; I'm trying to stay within the bounds that you and Thomas have defined. I'm genuinely curious about how the Church justifies and rationalizes its norms of behavior. But as it stands, I remain unconvinced.
My guess is that coitus interruptus is condemned because it goes against the "nature" of sexual intercourse, the nature of sex being the conception of human life (let's ignore the fact that it's possible to conceive even if the guy "pulls out" before ejaculating). Yet by allowing natural family planning, the Catholic Church admits that sexual intercourse without the possibility of conception is acceptable. Once this admission is made, I simply don't see how there's a principled way of categorically condemning other forms of contraception, for the reasons I've outlined above.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home