Clashing Theologians

(iStock photo)

In August, the Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research, based in the United Kingdom, published a report in anticipation of the 50th anniversary of “Humanae Vitae,” the papal encyclical that upheld the ban on the use of contraceptives. The statement, signed by more than 150 Catholic scholars, argues, “The choice to use contraceptives for either family planning or prophylactic purposes can be a responsible and ethical decision and even, at times, an ethical imperative.” On Sept. 20, another group of theologians released their own statement, signed by more than 500 scholars, which was presented at a press event at The Catholic University of America. It argues that those who are pushing for the church to lift its ban on artificial contraception have failed to take into account findings from the past five decades that show contraception harms women and destabilizes relationships. “The widespread use of contraception,” it continues, “appears to have contributed greatly to the increase of sex outside of marriage, to an increase of unwed pregnancies, abortion, single parenthood, cohabitation, divorce, poverty, the exploitation of women, to declining marriage rates as well as to declining population growth in many parts of the world.”

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Richard Booth
2 years ago
I have long been concerned with Natural Law Theory, insofar as it is supposed to reflect the natural world created by God. The so-called religious liberty arguments imply, in one way or another, that homosexual relationships and contraceptive behaviors do not comply with the theory. However, even though sociological and some psychological arguments are used by certain mainstream Catholic authors when arguing against these two forbidden behaviors, I have not seen the same arguments used to argue the contrary. For instance, when was the last time you saw economic, social, and psychological factors utilized to suggest there may be exceptions to contraception? Moreover, if Natural Law is to be the norm against which Catholic behavior is to be evaluated, it is actually Nature that provides chromosomes and hormones that lead some people toward same-sex attractions. And, given that people are naturally attracted to relationships, it is not surprising that they, like their heterosexual brothers and sisters, fall in love and naturally yearn to act that love out. So, we need to look deeper into Nature, since it explains the limitations of what we now call the esteemed "Natural Law Theory." It was fine for Aquinas, but we know more today.
Henry George
2 years ago
Richard Booth, If what you seem to be arguing can be construed from Natural Law - via our "Modern Understanding" of Natural Law, is anyone guilty of anything since their genes/chromosomes/proteins drove them to do it ? So serial adulters have nothing to regret, let alone apologise for, nor those who seek whatever pleasures they so desire - for they really cannot help it. Or where do you draw the line, if any ?
Richard Booth
2 years ago
Henry...your question is well taken. First, I am not talking about our modern understanding of Natural Law: rather, the interpretation held by the Church. It is a reductionistic, mechanistic view understood without benefit of modern science. Second, yes, to some extent people are responsible for the behaviors they engage in, but all factors should be considered prior to declaring the behavior "sinful." Even the CCC now, and relatively recently, allows for some of these factors, for instance, compulsiveness when it comes to masturbation. Clerics are not mental health professionals, so they do not possess the skills to determine many of these potentially mitigating factors. Finally, many biological factors merely predispose rather than cause behavior. Some discernment is required to determine the differences and the culpability. Please remember that I did not include adultery or lecherous behavior in my original comments. I purposely limited myself to a discussion of homosexual relationships and contraception. Thanks for responding.
Luis Gutierrez
2 years ago
It is very urgent to clarify the doctrinal admixture of ancient/modern patriarchal gender theories (such as sex/gender binary, male headship, complementarian stereotypes) with revealed truth. Specifically,
  • Humanae Vitae is an unenforceable edict about a good doctrine
  • Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an enforceable edict about a bad doctrine
  • As edicts, both are contaminated with patriarchal gender ideology
When are we going to recognize the conflation of patriarchal gender ideology (and the patriarchal priesthood we inherited from the Old Law) and our sacramental theology under the New Law?

Advertisement
Advertisement

The latest from america

 10.17.2018 Pope Francis greets Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago before a session of the Synod of Bishops on young people, the faith and vocational discernment at the Vatican Oct. 16. (CNS photo/Vatican Media)
“We take people where they are, walking with them, moving forward,” Cardinal Blase Cupich said.
Michael J. O’LoughlinOctober 20, 2018
Catherine Pakaluk, who currently teaches at the Catholic University of America and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, describes her tweet to Mr. Macron as “spirited” and “playful.”
Emma Winters October 19, 2018
A new proposal from the Department of Homeland Security could make it much more difficult for legal immigrants to get green cards in the United States. But even before its implementation, the proposal has led immigrants to avoid receiving public benefits.
J.D. Long-GarcíaOctober 19, 2018
 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, then nuncio to the United States, and then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, are seen in a combination photo during the beatification Mass of Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, N.J., Oct. 4, 2014. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)
In this third letter Archbishop Viganò no longer insists, as he did so forcefully in his first letter, that the restrictions that he claimed Benedict XVI had imposed on Archbishop McCarrick—one he alleges that Pope Francis later lifted—can be understood as “sanctions.”
Gerard O’ConnellOctober 19, 2018