CO teen pregancy and abortion rate down 50%... Republicans upset

[TJ in Oregon]

I'm not sure I'm following you here. On the end of the Catholic policymaker, enacting a program that provides free contraception on the basis that, in the aggregate, when people have access to free contraception, the number of abortions decreases dramatically, would surely constitute material cooperation, wouldn't it? Of course, this policy will inevitably have the side effect of providing contraception to women who would never have aborted regardless, and the Catholic policymaker is aware of that. But just because she/he is aware of it and still knowingly chooses to enact such a program doesn't mean that she/he shares in the intent of the sin. Policies are always highly complex objects, and almost every policy has both positive and nefarious outcomes. Just because someone chooses to enact a policy knowing that it has a specific nefarious outcome, doesn't mean that they are intentionally causing this outcome. As I've pointed out above, a cost-benefit analysis is absolutely inevitable in this realm, and refusing to engage in it is, I've argued, is morally problematic on its own.

Here I was a little ambiguous in my initial response. I think that the situation as we’ve discussed is a prudential matter, meaning that there can be legitimate disagreement between faithful Catholics on how the principles involving cooperation with evil can be applied. I would not condemn a lawmaker for coming to either conclusion. Thus I tried the Lord of the Rings elvish approach wherein Frodo responds with “Never ask the elves for the advice for they will tell you both yes and no”. In my personal opinion, I think it would probably be a better course of action for a Catholic to reject the free contraception program. Again, I understand that others may disagree. This is a situation where a rational application of principle is insufficient to select the course of action and we must engage in speculation about how people will react to various policies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course it's not coincidental, but surely you're well aware that just because one event precedes another doesn't necessarily mean the former caused the latter. I highly doubt that the spread of contraception was what causally triggered the loosening of abortion laws. This isn't a case where X caused Y, but rather one where Z caused both X and Y. The common underlying variable behind both occurrences is a long-term shift in values throughout the West, one that preceded any change in legislation and unfolded even in countries where legislation opposed a fierce resistance. Legislative changes favorable to contraception may have, at most, accelerated the trend slightly (although even that is a claim that lacks empirical verification), but surely they haven't triggered it. Furthermore, Catholics, even if they seek to spread alternative values, must acknowledge the reality that, in the foreseeable future, these values are here to stay. One of the implications to draw from this is that policies widening the availability of contraception are one of the very few policies that remain effective at reducing the prevalence of abortions.

Here I think we’re close to agreement on our assessment of the situation. However, I would make the contention that the increased use of contraceptives is part of the long-term shift of values in the West rather than merely a byproduct of it. To speak of one without the other is very difficult. It is this shift that is the underlying root of the problem. It is exactly this shift that Catholics must combat! And contraception is part of it. That’s why I’m so hesitant to simply sit back on the licit material cooperation argument and call it a day.

I must concede that this is a logically unimpeachable argument. My problem with it is that it rests on a theological premise that, to be frank, I find horrifying. I realize that this is an entirely subjective perspective, but I hope you don't mind if I develop my thoughts a bit. Simply put, the single issue most crucial to me in my relationship to Christian thought is the question of the universality of salvation. There are many Christian values and principles that I personally hold very dear and that I believe can have a wonderful impact on the moral growth of society, but to me these values and principles only ring true if they are associated to the promise of universal salvation. Without this promise, without the certainty that God's grace will ultimately vanquish every sin, I think Christianity loses its compass and risks wandering in some very dangerous directions. I cannot accept that some sins, no matter how heinous, could be beyond redemption - that some people, no matter how wicked, could be beyond saving. I don't want to believe that about a fellow human being. I don't think this diminishes the severity of God's justice (He has, after all, the eternity to work on purifying a sinner). To the contrary, I think that believing in eternal damnation could lead confirmed sinners to believe that they have "gone too far" and that it's too late for them to change their ways. I realize that universal salvation is somewhat at odds with the Catholic mainstream but, from what I've been told, it is not explicitly condemned. I dearly wish the Church (and all Christians everywhere) would embrace this doctrine. Then, to come back to our point, if universal salvation is taken as a premise, there is no such thing as a "mortal sin" per se (some sins would still warrant damnation, but damnation would always be temporary, and the time it takes to cleanse one of their sins would depend on their number and gravity) and it makes sense to try to minimize sin rather than take an "all or nothing" approach.

Here I think we’re very close to the heart of the issue. I would say that of the two statements I bolded, the latter does not require the former. The latter is why I am not a Calvinist. I do believe that no one is beyond redemption as long as they walk this earth. However, that does necessarily mean that the person does not need to repent. The prodigal son did return home to his father to be welcomed. In general, the belief in a guarantee of universal salvation has never made much sense to me. If God’s just going to tell us it’s all okay anyway regardless of what we do, then we have no ability to choose to follow him or not. In his love, He gives us the choice to accept or reject him. I do not claim to know whether any individual person will ultimately be saved. In fact, I would consider it dangerous to speculate that anybody is or is not saved. Thus, we ought to have a care when we make decisions, both for our own sake and that of others!


I know I've rambled on a lot here and the discussion has brought up a few important tangents that volumes can be written on just themselves, but I hope this has provided some degree of explanation for Catholic thought on the issue, my speculation about it, and why anyone might oppose providing contraceptives to reduce the number of abortions.

Again thanks for taking the time to respond and write all of this! I understand just how busy a person can be and how long it takes to make lucid posts on a difficult subject

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's my turn to apologize for an even longer delay. I can't say I was truly busy (as my posting rate attests!), but I've had several concerns in mind lately that have made it difficult for me to concentrate on this discussion. I'm again really thankful for your willingness to respond to my arguments and explain your rationale in such detail. If you wish to continue this conversation further, here are a few points that I think can be expanded further.


Regarding your first paragraph, I think we agree entirely. My main point there was to caution against worldviews and ideologies that explicitly claim to be preoccupied only with material welfare or only with moral growth. Admittedly, the former are a lot more common than the latter in this day and age, but I'd argue that the latter can be just as dangerous.


Thanks for the clarification regarding the case of the pharmacist. The "prevention of a worse evil" rationale that you put forward as a basis for material cooperation strikes me as very sound, and I think that it's highly relevant to our main discussion on contraception policy. To be clear, I brought up Eichmann as a reductio ad absurdum to encourage this clarification - I wasn't actually arguing that his situation and that of the pharmacist were reasonably comparable (personally I find it plausible that his cooperation in the Holocaust was material, along the lines of how Arendt described it, but of course for evils of this magnitude the distinction loses its moral relevance).

I was again a little sloppy here in my initial response when I said ”Catholicism views the government as a natural extension of society” I meant that Catholic thinkers have traditionally conceived it beginning (both historically and ontologically) as such. The purpose of the state is to protect the natural rights of its subjects and to work for the common good. This occurs in the society from which the government emerges. Its exact structure is of lesser importance to Catholics in principle. As such democracy vs. monarchism vs. a republic vs. etc. is a sort of question that Catholicism is agnostic about it. Catholic individuals may, of course, have a range of views on the subject (obviously most with want something like a democratic republic in 2016). So a disagreement between the government and the majority of the members of a society is not an area where traditional Catholic thought has a principled description of who ought to be listened it. What is important is what is decided. I would also argue that there is no such thing as a truly neutral government decision. Every decision, unless it is completely inconsequential, is some type of moral statement. The reason is because an “ought” type of statement regarding society is a moral statement. Now, that does not mean the government must dictate every moral action that occurs within society. Nor does it mean the Church should control the government. Both are institutions with largely overlapping goals, though not quite identical goals. The state’s role is to protect the natural rights of its citizens and to work for their common good. Of note here is that it is a natural right to, in earnest, seek the truth. (Indeed it is part of our very humanity.) As such the state is not simply a tool for the enforcement of doctrine. So what I favor is a distinction between Church and State but not a true separation as typically defined in the US. In the US that phrase has come to imply bizarre ideas like “the government cannot legislate morality”, which have no real meaning. The government is always legislating morality. There is very little it can legislate that isn’t morality (or a mistaken notion of morality).

To be clear, the latter is absolutely not what I meant by separation of Church and State. The idea that "government should not legislate morality" is inherently absurd for all the reasons you mention, and I personally loathe this talking point. We are in full agreement here, and I hope I haven't given the impression of arguing otherwise.

What I mean by separation of Church and State is that I believe that religious bodies should not maintain organic ties with wielders of political authority or attempt to sway their decisions through means other than public advocacy (I'm not against Churches taking stances on political issues or even endorsing a party/candidate in elections, though I'd prefer if they refrained from engaging in the latter too overtly). This might get us a bit sidetracked, but if you're interested, I'd be willing to argue that this separation is beneficial to both State and Church. It is beneficial to the State because it preserves the purity of the democratic principle, while direct Church interference would essentially mean that political leaders "serve two masters" rather than being only accountable to their constituents (which is the same reason why I support a ban on all private contributions to political campaigns). And it's beneficial to the Church because its collusion with State power invariably degrades it morally, encouraging Church authorities to seek power for themselves and making the Church more sensitive to the interest of the powerful while it should be on the side of the weak and powerless. I think the reason why there is so much corruption withing the Catholic Church (a point I'm sure you won't dispute) is because it has partaken in these arrangements more than any other Church.

I am not fond of the concept of natural rights in general, but many of the problems I have with it is that it's hard to reconcile with a secular philosophical framework. In a religious perspective ("natural" thus meaning "ordained by God"), it actually makes a lot more sense. In this context, I would hope that modern Catholics would view the right to equal participation in the political process (ie, democracy) as one of the right the State must preserve.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is a situation where a rational application of principle is insufficient to select the course of action and we must engage in speculation about how people will react to various policies.

I admit that there is some degree of uncertainty in this respect, and that this might lead people to have legitimate disagreements. However, how people will react to various policies is also, in good part, an empirical question. It's a question that can be investigated by observing what has been done elsewhere or, if you're really breaking new ground, through partial experimental implementation. In this case, at least, the impact of contraception access on the prevalence of abortion is well-documented, and I don't think you have disputed it. Thus, the only issue that remains to be resolved when it comes to policy outcomes is the one below.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I must admit the question of whether wider access to contraception contributes to spreading these values is not one that can be resolved as easily as the one above. Fear that making contraception available would ultimately induce people who otherwise wouldn't to view abortion as permissible would certainly be a valid argument against such policy from a Catholic standpoint. Personally, however, I think that this fear is highly unreasonable. Whatever damage that contraception may have done to the traditional view of sexuality (and I again dispute that there was any), I think it's fair to assume that it has run its course. Almost everybody, in the US and elsewhere, is aware of the existence of contraception and abortion, and of the debate that surrounds them. Making the former more widely available shouldn't much change how it is perceived, let alone how the latter is perceived. Still, I realize that this is not a question that can be answered empirically.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Based on the exchange I've had with Nathan and the readings he's pointed me towards, I think the main issue I would like to take with this view is the "as long as they walk this earth" qualification that you add at the end of the fifth sentence. I might certainly be missing something, but I really cannot see any compelling theological imperative why repentance should be impossible in the afterlife, and I'm extremely saddened that the Catholic Church has established this view as dogma. Personally, I find it profoundly immoral for a variety of reasons, the most glaring of which being that many people are simply never given a chance to repent during their lives (heck, millions of people have lived and died without even knowing that Christianity existed - do they deserve damnation for their ignorance?). This might actually be the single biggest problem I have with Catholicism, even surpassing my distaste for its top-down power structure.

Universal salvation is absolutely not the view that everyone "goes straight to heaven" upon death. That would be a ridiculous idea, and frankly I'm a bit surprised that you thought so poorly of the respected theologians who embrace this view (actually, I'd also like to argue that no one goes straight to heaven, but that's besides the point). If one accepts the premise that repentance is possible at any point in the afterlife, however, then universal salvation makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? If you have an eternity to meditate on your own life and actions in a state of at least partial awareness of God, then I don't find it hard to believe that everyone will sooner or later realize their mistakes and misdeeds, and sincerely turn to God for mercy. For the most wicked souls, this might take billions upon billions of years (and  billions upon billions of years of damnation is not something anyone would be looking forward to!), but it must, I think, eventually happen.