On the sweet insidiousness of dialogue
One of my 20 readers recently alerted me that Lisandro Claudio, a young advocate of the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill, had likened a Commentary of mine (“Those who can’t, can teach Natural Family Planning,” Inquirer 04/18/11) to sugary pork fat. This metaphor is found in a GMA News blog, “Church Progressives and Reproductive Health,” available at https://kabataangsosyalista.wordpress.com.
Claudio was referring to the “veneer of openness” to dialogue which “Church progressives”—I gather I am one—cast upon an “uncompromising institution,” the Roman Catholic Church. If, he argues, I am “unwilling to question even one aspect” of the position staked out by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) on the RH Bill, that façade of openness may “have an insidious effect, a bit like the sweetness of a fast food sundae masking that fact that you’re eating lard.”
Leaving aside the issue of my unwillingness to question even one aspect of the CBCP stance—those who have read my Commentaries carefully can discern for themselves if that is an accurate rendering of my position—let me try to answer some of his concerns, with justifiable trepidation. Claudio is, like me, a graduate of that infamous university in Loyola Heights, but with a crucial difference: he graduated valedictorian and summa cum laude in 2007; I vaguely remember making honorable mention in an earlier year that is no longer honorable to mention. Yet I hazard a response to his remarks, armed with a saccharine, sanguine, stubborn progressive Catholic impulse to dialogue.
But first a correction. Due to a frequent error in online credits to Inquirer columns from our Institute, Claudio has wrongly named as my column’s co-author our award-winning senior writer, Fr. John J. Carroll, SJ. I am gratified anyone would think what I wrote had Fr. Jack’s skillful hand in it, but must exonerate him from that accusation. I, a lowly laywoman, am entirely to blame for any theological, logical, political, grammatical or idiomatic incorrectness in that Commentary. The same goes for this piece. Fr. Jack is, however, a co-author of the “Talking Points,” a set of guidelines for Catholic dialogue with RH advocates, which Claudio also addresses. He has also authored a report, “Neither Silver Bullet nor Vatican Roulette,” which may answer Claudio’s questions as to what he has learned from promoting Natural Family Planning.
Now to my response. Claudio states: “As long as the Church maintains its unwavering stance against artificial contraception, I am not sure where dialogue will go.” Church progressives have no power immediately to alter that stance; not even the CBCP does. Whatever diverse opinions Catholics may have on the matter, “Humanae Vitae” stands until papal teaching changes. Not to say the Church’s position on contraception is immutable. Even Pope Paul VI, “Humanae Vitae’s” author, wouldn’t say that. But it won’t be overturned in the next few months.
Is there, then, nothing Church progressives can offer RH advocates? One contribution they can make, while continuing to speak with RH advocates, is to dialogue with fellow Catholics in a way secular interlocutors cannot. Unless that internal dialogue is happening, the external dialogue can only go so far.
For instance, Church progressives can use Catholic teaching to argue that Catholic teaching should not be—at least, as Catholic teaching—the basis for laws that apply to non-Catholics. Catholic morality may be used to craft laws for all only if it ceases to be purely Catholic: if it is accepted by most citizens, including non-Catholics, as a universal morality. “Dignitatis Humanae,” Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, mandates the constitutional protection of the right of every human being not to be legally coerced “to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs … within due limits.” Those limits are set, at least in part, by a generally accepted morality.
Catholic teaching on contraception is not, at the moment, generally accepted morality. While it grounds itself in natural law, which in principle is accessible to non-Catholics, theologians allow that an appreciation of natural law must sometimes be enlightened by grace. As “Dignitatis Humanae” affirms, grace must not be imposed, else it would not be grace.
Since grace cannot be legally enforced, Church progressives may ask, and have repeatedly asked, whether it is right to limit contraceptives availability even for members of faiths which do not ban them—especially if those faiths view contraception as a morally necessary way of reducing abortions. Raising the question has not persuaded most of the bishops, but that does not mean it is no use to raise it. The CBCP has not asked government to stop its ongoing distribution of contraceptives. That may indicate that the question has some impact.
RH advocates may feel such internal questioning is futile if it does not change the CBCP’s position on the RH Bill. But they would then commit the same error Claudio ascribes to the authors of the “Talking Points” in privileging the State’s role in the RH Bill at the expense of civil society groups which support it. There is a point in talking to Catholics who do not wear mitres. We are not just Catholic: we are citizens of this country. If we cannot always influence the CBCP’s positions, we can sometimes influence legislation. And if we are the only ones in the Church open to dialogue now, all the more reason to keep that dialogue going.
