 |
Louise Brown, the world's first "test tube
baby" with her parents and her child.
|
This
questionnaire (which my pastor says he as not yet received as our Archbishop
seems tied up with other things right now) has generated a fascinating and
contradictory set of responses. The
Neo-trads are waving their hands and saying—“nothing new, nothing new; been
done before. Keep moving, nothing to
look at. Nothing happening here. Keep moving along….” The Vatican II types are all enthused saying
that “finally we are back on track with the Council—yeah, Francis.”
The
neo-trads have a point. This is not the
first time that the Holy See sent out questionnaires to ascertain the sensus fidelium. Previous synods were often preceded by questionnaires
sent to the bishops to help prepare the lineamenta (agenda or working
document). Pope Pius XII wrote the
world’s bishops before defining the dogma of the Assumption in 1950. What is different this time, however, is that
the bishops are to pass the questionnaires on to the parishes. In other words the fidelium are going to get to have some consensus in the consensus
fidelium. Don’t get me wrong—nobody
should expect that we are going to have magisterium by democratic vote. Don’t expect any radical change in Church
teaching. When the dust settles, I don’t
expect much to be different, but that isn’t important. What is important is the process. Change process will produce—in time—changed
product.
Blessed
John Henry Newman pointed out that in the ancient Church there were three
requirements for a doctrine to be established. Doctrine took the reflection and
study of the theologians; pronouncement of the bishops, and the consensus fidelium. Consensus
fidelium might best be translated as the “harmony of God’s Faithful
People.” It doesn’t mean everyone agrees
or that the majority agree—it only means that the People of God, the priests,
deacons, and laity (as differentiated from the magisterium: the bishops and
from the theologians) have come to hold this doctrine in their collective
heart.
Right
now we as a Church are faced with the tremendous moral complexities of living
in the twenty-first century. Scientific,
Sociological, Medical, Anthropological, Psychological developments—note, I
hesitate to say “advances” because—as a historian I believe the jury is still
out on how “good” some of these developments are—have changed the ground rules
of possibilities. At the same, the
virtual disappearance of philosophy and theology from our educational systems
has left most in our society unable to critically reflect on the moral implications of the choices facing
us today.
Case
in point. It is only in the last
generation that it has been possible for a child to be conceived in vitro. Louise Brown, the first child so conceived
was born in 1978. The various givers of the Law in Deuteronomy or Leviticus
could not have imagined such a thing; nor could Saint Paul—or even Jesus. Neither Augustine nor Aquinas—or Bellarmine
for that matter—could have imagined it.
The understanding of embryology—or even a scientific appreciation of
conception—was not in the realm of their intellectual universe. The “Tradition” doesn’t supply easy answers
to this dilemma as it is beyond the minds of those whose writings convey our
historic faith. This is not to say that
there are not principles we can find in the scriptures or in the authors that
can’t be applied to a solution, but it would be misleading to say that the
Tradition supplies a moral resolution without a careful reexamination of
precisely what the Tradition was meant to say and a dialogue of that Tradition
with the insights of modern science. So
here is the case. Martin and Susan,
devout Catholics who attend Mass every Sunday in their parish—he being an
extraordinary minister of the Eucharist and she teaching third-grade CCD—find
themselves unable to have children. They
married fairly late, tried Natural Family Planning for two years to conceive,
and finally went to a fertility clinic where they were told in vitro was their only hope. Now despite their being good Catholics, the
Church’s problems with in vitro is
not on their radar screen. Sure they
heard it in Pre-Cana, but it didn’t register—they never expected to have this
problem. If they attended some adult
education program they may have heard it, but even in the best parishes
relatively few attend adult ed—especially when it is on reproductive morality. No, Father doesn’t preach against in vitro from the pulpit any more than
he mentions masturbation, oral sex, or contraception from the pulpit. “Our commission for the pulpit is to preach
the Gospel, not teach sex-ed” one priest said to me. Martin and Susan could have checked the
catechism of the Catholic Church—but they never even suspected that something
was wrong here. They wanted a
child. They would love to have several
children. There was nothing selfish in
their decision—which is not to say that it was right, but their motives were
generous. “I only heard about it after
the course was chosen” said a priest friend of their families. “I suppose I would have said something if
they had asked me beforehand, but frankly I knew their intentions were good and
I wasn’t about to take away their happiness when they told me they were
expecting. I think we need to find ways
to raise this question in people’s consciences, but I honestly find that most
people can’t grasp the problem and just saying that such and such is a sin
doesn’t hold water anymore. You have to
be able to explain to people just why it is morally wrong.”
Pope
Francis’ inventory is going to discover that there is a wide breach between
theory and practice, but it will also show us that we cannot rely on old
answers to new questions. We need to
restore philosophy to the academic curriculum—and not just some vague survey of
thought but applied philosophy: ethics.
We need to teach people to think critically and to anchor their thought
in intellectual discipline. Science does
not provide the ultimate answers to human existence. At the same time, moral theology requires a
strong dialogue with science—and dialogue implies an equality of parties in the
discussion—so that the moral conclusions are consistent with the scientific
knowledge to which they are meant to respond.
And in the meantime, we need to remember our task is not to judge but to
absolve.
No comments:
Post a Comment