Rarely do I delve into these issues over Facebook, but the severity of this attack caused me to do so last week. I happened to see a comment on somebody else's Facebook wall defending the Obama administration's decision, and, without knowing the person making these comments, I decided to engage him in conversation. Now, engaging another human being in conversation is always interesting. You're bound to learn a number of things that you did not previously know, and you are also required to take a look at yourself so as to determine what to say. Nowhere is this more true then when conversing with someone previously unknown who disagrees with you on matters of utmost importance.
Now don't get me wrong; this wasn't my first encounter with someone who disagreed with me. However, it was my first encounter with someone who took all their thoughts to their logical conclusions and were willing to espouse those conclusions. For instance, he believed that rights were simply determined by the general will of the people, not by anything intrinsic in the nature of the thing. Thus, since the majority of people today have access to contraception, and view this as a good, it is necessary that everyone should have access to contraception. And, by access, he meant affordable access, because again, most insurance plans cover contraceptives. He also recognized that this requirement was indeed a violation of Catholics, religious liberties, but the rights established by a majority opinion trumped those religious liberties. This was also acceptable to him because the Catholic Church has done so many bad things throughout history that it deserves to have its religious liberties taken away. Further, the Catholic Church's teaching is just backwards.
Finding someone who actually believes all of these things at the same time was quite astonishing to me. Normally, someone only believes one or maybe two of these arguments, but to consciously acknowledge all of them at the same time quite astounded me. I did not know someone could so thoroughly adhere to error. Indeed, in one sense it was frightening to realize how comfortable this person was at being anti-Catholic. He was totally comfortable trampling on the freedom of Catholics for seemingly three main reasons: 1) because women have a right to contraception due to the view of a majority of people, 2) this right of women trumps the right of religions that oppose contraception, and 3) it especially trumps the rights of a corrupt Catholic Church.
Now, what interests me the most are the first two arguments since I feel like they strike at the heart of this debate. The third point, while surprising, comes from a rather common misunderstanding of the nature of the Church. For instance, his third argument seems to imply that the Church is wrong and bad because it has wrong and bad people in some leadership positions. Indeed, he pointed to the usual accusations in this matter: the Inquisition, Pius XII, and the recent priest abuse scandals. He should have pointed to more, like the fact that over 90% of the first bishops of the Church abandoned Christ on the cross. His thesis seems to have been that due to the sins of the leaders, the religion is false. He didn't seem to understand that the Church exists for their salvation too, and that if it exists for their salvation they are indeed in need of salvation.
The first two points of his, though, I have seen repeated over and over again throughout the internet. They seem to me to be the main arguments for the opposition. Now, one can argue each point separately, or he can make one argument that negates both points. In the first instance he would argue that rights are determined by the nature of things, and the nature of man implies a right to the free practice of religion and not the right to contraception. And, indeed, it seems that many Catholics have taken to making this argument, in essence simply arguing that the right to religious freedom would trump any so-called right to contraception (if such a thing existed).
However, I honestly find this argument weak. It simply leads in a circle, because it pits right against right, and nobody will really ever be able to win this battle. Those who believe in a right to contraception often believe in religious freedom as well, just not when that religion is wrong. Similarly, those who are fighingt for religious liberty believe in the right of women to have healthcare, they just don't believe that contraception is healthcare. And this is where the real sticking point is: contraception. This debate centers around the issue of contraception. Indeed, religious liberty is a key issue, but the other side will never believe they are trampling on religious liberty when they view that religion to be wrong. Like the inquisition, they believe that heresy, or error, does not deserve to be welcomed into society.
Thus, if we're ultimately going to win the culture wars, we can't just try to hold on to our ability to speak freely. We must do this, of course, but then we must actually speak. We must ask the questions nobody wants to hear: how is contraception healthy for women? How is it healthy to suppress a natural function of the body? Why must sex be only about pleasure, and not about creation and unity? Is casual sex really good for society, or does it cause untold emotional and physical damage? These issues are at the heart of the matter, and these are the issues we should be talking about. What is sex? What is man? What is society and the family? The answers to these issues will determine what is contraception, and these are the issues we need to be fighting. We need to be able to speak and practice our beliefs freely, but then we actually need to speak and practice them. Let's take this opportunity to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment