Sunday October 22, 2017
Authority, Truth and Family Planning
Granny said, "Eat your chicken or Baby Jesus will be angry with you."
Pinky answered, "Granny, what has Baby Jesus got to do with eating chicken?"
It is a weak authority that has to appeal to Baby Jesus as a reason for eating chicken and doing so is giving a ridiculous education about who Jesus is. The nutritional value and delicious taste of chicken can speak for themselves! Truth itself is God-given and can defend itself. Nonsense is nonsense no matter who speaks it. Yet, in adult life we sometimes hear the Baby Jesus type of argument being used to impose views on the situations that have authority in their own reasonableness.
The present so-called battle between the Church and State (God and Caesar) on the issue of family planning is a case in point. It is unfortunate that this has become a confrontational issue between two institutions that are designed to serve the same constituents. Imagine a husband and wife who have a financial problem. They spend their time blaming one another instead of sitting down and trying to figure out a budget together. It is very clear that the government of the Philippines has gigantic problems and responsibilities arising from the fact that the population has more than doubled in thirty years. It is also very clear that the Church has a right and a duty to holler if solutions are proposed that fail to reverence the dignity of human life at all of its stages and also honor the meaning of human sexuality. Given the foregoing, both Church and State must work together to achieve the greatest possible good in the circumstances.
In 1967 the authority of the Church spoke through Pope Paul VI in the encyclical Humanae Vitae. He stated clearly that human sexuality has two purposes, the unitive and the procreative. He stated that the human sexual act should always be open to the procreation of life as well as being an expression of the union or love between husband and wife. However, he stated a little further on that if, for valid reasons, a couple wanted to avoid conceiving they may have sex during the wife's safe period. The same document recommended that confessors should act with the greatest compassion towards couples who found this teaching too hard to follow.
Humanae Vitae caused very strong reactions inside and outside the Roman Catholic Church. Its acceptance or non acceptance became a symbol of loyalty or disloyalty to the Holy Father himself. To this day it is generally believed that a priest who is critical of Humanae Vitae will never be made a Bishop. Unfortunately, the issue of authority has at times clouded the search for truth and for the welfare of couples who experience difficulty regarding the number of children that they should have. It is at this point that we hear the "this will hurt the baby Jesus" kind of argument.
Even the oldest and most traditional moral theology has held that one must follow one's conscience. Often following one's conscience will mean choosing the lesser evil amongst many evils.
For example, it is a bad thing that I should strike you and break your arm or worse. But supposing you were attacking me with a weapon. It may be necessary to strike you to save my life. It might be the best thing to do in the circumstances, and so it would be the right thing to do. So, a married couple should ideally be open to the transmission of life in their sexual relationships. If, however, for reasons of their concern for one another or their responsibility for children already born they believe that they should not conceive another child, they can avoid doing so using the least radical means. Normally, a variation of the rhythm method is the least radical as it does not interfere with the body and its systems. If for valid reasons this is not practical, then using the next least radical means may be the most responsible and loving thing for them to do.
This kind of moral reasoning, while correct, can easily be abused. The possibility of its being abused does not justify authority in denying one's use of it any more than the fact that somebody may be electrocuted would justify denying people the right of having electricity in their houses.
In the time of Jesus the issue of paying taxes to Caesar - the foreign government - was a delicate one. To pay meant submission, to not pay meant defiance. The Pharisees, more interested in law than in truth, tried to trap Jesus. But Jesus would not be caught in the dilemma. He answered "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God."
It can be very hard to find the truth when authority issues are involved. Unthinking submission can be as evil as rebellious rejection. The inner freedom to hear all sides and to recognize the truth is very necessary. Often in our traditional forms of prayer we were asking God to make our side win, to implement our solution or way of looking at the issue.
In meditation, in praying without words or images, we try to be still before God. We are not trying to influence him nor are we being intimidated by him. We just be in his presence and present to his truth. In this way we can shed off prejudice and fear and come to see the truth in a fresh way. Sometimes, however, we may prefer to live in the slavery of submission because of the challenge that truth may put before us.
