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.
Taken
from Sundays
into Silence - A Pathway to Life. Copyright © 1998 by Claretian
Publications
