Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, September 10, 1994 TAG: 9409210035
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By JEFFREY S. LEHMANN
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The editorial also expressed concern about the influence that Pope John Paul II might have on the conference. Roman Catholicism teaches that contraception is immoral, but the editorial writer apparently fears that the pope will thwart this potential solution to population problems.
The central problem with the editorial is that it never explained why the pope believes that contraception is wrong.
Catholicism bases this teaching on two ideas. First, we ought to act in ways that are consistent with and develop our human nature. Second, one purpose of human sexuality is to have children. Procreation is part of the nature of human sexuality.
The editorial never mentioned these reasons. It did not challenge the pope on the nature of human sexuality. It did not explain why it is morally acceptable to ignore that nature in our sexual behavior. The editorial did not give Catholics the courtesy of a fair and complete presentation of its teachings.
The editorial cited two arguments why contraception is moral, arguments raised by people who also derive their views from moral considerations and religious faith.
The first argument is: ``It is moral to ensure reproductive rights and to empower women to gain control over decisions crucial to their own and their families' well-being - decisions as basic as family size.'' The key idea is that women have the right to control what happens to their bodies. The suggestion is that Catholics and the pope do not believe that women have this right.
Catholics and the pope, however, do believe that women have this right. They also believe that it is not an absolute right.
Sometimes several nonabsolute rights or moral values apply to one situation. When this happens, one decides which is the most important, and then acts in harmony with it. In Catholic morality, the right to control what happens to one's body is not as important as acting in harmony with the nature of human sexuality.
The first argument is a pro-choice argument, like its famous cousin in the abortion debate. Like all Americans, Catholics value freedom, choice and control. In fact, Catholics are pro-choice - as long as one is not considering doing something immoral. One must be careful not to justify immorality in the name of freedom. Being free to do the wrong thing does not make it right.
The editorial noted a second argument of religious thinkers who believe Catholic teaching is wrong on contraception:
``God gave men and women responsibility for stewardship of the Earth ... [and] proper stewardship - reflecting a spiritual affection for creation - requires a balancing of population and resources.''
The suggestion is that it would be improper stewardship to forbid the use of contraception. Catholics agree that humanity is responsible for taking care of the Earth, for using its resources wisely, and for balancing population and resources.
Catholics also believe, however, that morality limits how we can do that balancing act. Stewardship does not give us permission to do immoral actions as means to achieve that end.
Morality puts limits on us in performing that stewardship. No reasonable person, for example, thinks it would be all right to kill people randomly to control population growth. By saying that good stewardship includes using contraception, the editorial writer assumed that it is moral to use contraception. It is poor logic, however, to assume what you are trying to prove.
The editorial says that moral and religious people disagree in good faith with the Catholic teaching on contraceptives. This is true. I wish the editorial itself had shown good faith, and been more fair in its presentation.
Jeffrey S. Lehmann of Roanoke is a computer consultant and holds a doctoral degree in philosophy.
by CNB