Vy 4: The Development of Sexual Ethics in Contemporary Roman Catholicism Sexuality is a very significant aspect of human existence, and all human eultures have tried to discover its meaning and the values and norms that should govern sexuality. Sexual morality and sexual ethics have always been significant issues in the Christian tradition. Within the Roman Catholic Church today sexual questions and ethics have become one ofthe most vital areas of debate and concern ‘The official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in sexual matters is widely known. But equally well known is that the majority of Catholic believers disagree with the off- cial hierarchical teaching on such issues asthe absolute con: ddemnation of masturbation, contraception, sterilization, and divorce. There is also a strong questioning of the teaching ‘on homosexuality and some disagreement on premarital ex: uality. This general attitude has been documented in many ‘pinion polls. Ar the Synod of Bishops in Rome in 1980 Arch: bishop John R. Quinn cited a Princeton University study showing that 76.5 percent of American Catholic married women of child-bearing age used some form of contracep- ‘ion, and 9¢ percent of them used a means condemned by the pope." Many married couples who use artificial contraception have continued to participate in the total life ofthe church. The same is true for some divorced and remarried Catholics as well as for some gays. From my perspective such reactions ” The Development of Serual Ethics 75 ‘can be very good and indicate the legitimacy of practical dis sent within the church despite some attempts to prevent it However, the present situation of great discrepancy between Catholic teaching and Catholic practice in sexual morality also has significant negative effects, The eredibilty ofthe hier. archical teaching office is called into question. Asa result of ‘many of these sexual teachings a good number of Roman Catholies have become disillusioned and left the church, Andrew Greeley and his associates on the bass of their socio logical findings and analysis have come tothe conclusion that Humanae Viae, the 1968 encyclical condemning atificial con- traception, “seems to have been the reason for massive apos- tasy and for a notable decline in religious devotion and belief."® Greeley has admitted that he first thought that the deterioration of American Catholic belief and practice would hhave occurred even without the encyclical, but his research ‘made him change his rind, (On the more theoretical and ethical levels the vast majority of Catholic theologians writing inthis area have challenged the basis for the official Catholic teaching. The very nature of official Catholic teaching on sexual ethics occasioned this type of challenge. The Roman Catholic Church and it hier- archical teaching authority have maintained that its teaching js based on the natueal law and hence in principe is open to rational acceptance by all human beings. The church does recognize that reason is illumined by faith in these matters, bbut nonetheless the natural-law methodology claims that the teaching is based on human reason reflecting on human na- ture and not directly on faith o revelation. ‘The majority of Catholic ethicists as well as practically all ‘non-Catholic theologians have found the present hierarchical teaching and its theoretical bass to be wanting. The official teaching still rests on the innate purpose and finality of the sexual faculty. The faculty has a twofold purpose— procreation and love union, Every sexual actor actuation must express this twofold finality. This understanding ofthe sexual faculty land the sexual act forms the basis for the condemnations of ‘masturbation, contraception, sterilization, and homosexual acts, Note that such an understanding also grounds the com:76 The Development of Sevual Ethics dempation of artificial insemination even with the husband's Semen (ATH), The next chapter will discuss in greater detail the methodology used in official Catholic sexual teaching, Many people in the past mistakenly though that the core of the Roman Catholic postion was its pronatalist emphasis Such isnot the case. The ultimate basis ofthe Catholic teach ing is the need for and the inviolability ofa sextal act which "must be open to procreation and expressive of love. Contra ception is wrong because the act is not open to procreation; AIH is wrong because the act of insemination is not the natural act which by its very nature is expressive of love, In this light I have pointed out that the primary problem with the official hierarchical teaching is its physicalism oF biolo- gism, The physical act must always be present, and no one can interfere with the physical oF biological aspect for any reason whatsoever. The physical becomes absolitized. Most revisionist Catholic theologians today will argue that for the sod ofthe person or for the good of the marriage itis legiti= ‘ate at times to interfere with the physical structure of the act. Note that itis precisely in questions of sexual morality ‘that Catholic teaching has absolutized the physical and iden: tified the physical with the truly human or moral aspect. For ‘example, there has always existed an important distinction between killing and murder, since murder isthe morally con- ddemned act, whereas killing is the physical act which is not always wrong. However, artificial contraception understood sa physical act is said to be always and everywhere wrong, In the area of sexual cthies church authorities have taken action against some theologians who have dissented on mat- ters of sexual morality. My case is by no means the only ex ample, Stephan Pfirtner in Switzerland, the late Ambrogio \Valsecchi in Italy, and Anthony Kosnik in the United States ‘have all lost their teaching positions because of their writings fon sexuality, Some Catholic theologians continue to defend the hierarchical teaching ofthe Catholic Church in sexual mat~ ters, but the vast majority of theologians express significant disagreement from this teaching. ‘This overview and analysis ofthe sexual teaching and SeX- ‘ual ethics in the contemporary Roman Catholic Church in ‘The Development of Sexual Ethics 77 dicates thatthe primary question or problem in developing & sonal ethie today isnot the ethical question tel tthe tcclsiological question of dissent and authoritative church teaching The oficial hirarchial teaching ofc ofthe church Sppearsdetrmined to maintain its preset teaching and even toediscipline some ofthe theologians who propose athe pos tions. Anyone interested in changing the oa Mera ewual teaching and sexialethies must frst deal with the ccclesiological question. Can and should the official hie trchical teaching allow theological and practical dissent n these areat? Can and should the hirarcial ofc change it teaching in there areas? have ktdded some of my colleagues in ecclesiology by sy ing thatthe real eelsiolgialinses today, expecially thve involving the teaching authority the churey are beng faced bby moral theologians particultlyin the are of sexeal moral ity and sexual eis, Why is this the case? Many reason help 10 explain this reality. Obviously sexuality ia very sign cat matter which personaly affects everyone, When you put sexuality and authory together, you are Bound to have a volatile situation, The ofc hirarchial caching in sexual tatters has long history, and this caching has been ine Cated at al level education, Ths bth history and the very hature ofthe sexual question show how much the teaching alice of the church hasbeen involved in thi mater much ‘more so than in mot other areas = loweve, a contemporary reson alo exists why the area otsentl ic wo ruben toy and nied with eclesilogieal concerns, All mst amit that the Seon ‘Vascan Counel ought abot great changes te beolgy and ie of the Roman Catholic Church There can apd el bedebates about the extent and depth ofthese changes, To day most cormmentacors and thedlogians recognize the com: promise nature of most ofthe conllar dacuments. Newer {pects and approaches ae defintely proposed, bu oie some athe older sspets and approaches ae tastlned. How ver all must dt hat he coniar process definitly Brought about real change inthe ie ofthe church, Many af the documents prepared by the peconeiar commissions18 The Development of Secual Ethics ‘were rejected in toto by the council. These preliminary docu: ents expressed the neo-Scholastic manualistic theology of | the times, Such an approach no longer reigned supreme after the council. Inthe areas of ecumenism, the church, religious liberty, faith, and revelation very significant developments ‘occurred in and through the conciliar process However, sexual morality and sexual ethies went through no such development at Vatican Il. The most important issue ‘of the time was that of artificial contraception, But Pope Paul, VI took this issue out of the council's hands and reserved it to himself.) Finally in 1968 Paul VI issued his encyclical Humanae Vitae condemning artificial contraception for mar- ried couples as intrinsically evil It should be noted that Pope Paul VI never issued another encydical in the remaining years, of his pontificate. Sexual morality and sexual ethics, under- stood as the more systematic, coherent, consistent, theoretical explanation of sextial morality, went through no change or development at Vatican II. Consequently this area of moral ity is sill based on the neo-Scholastic understanding of the manuals of moral theology which were in existence before the Second Vatican Council ‘This reality was brought home to me again as a result of| some of my reading in March 1987. Herbert Vorgrimler’s Understanding Rohner gives some biographical information on Rahner based especially on his correspondence. Frequently in the preparatory and early phases of the Second Vatican Council Rahner spoke ofthe original drafts and the continual strugeles against the manualistic theology of the time in these commission meetings. He mentions in this connection on ‘many occasions the theology of Sebastian Tromp and also the work of Franz Hurth.« T was somewhat interested because both of these Jesuit theologians had been my professors at the Gregorian University in the 1950s. In fact T would occa’ sionally have long Latin conversations with Hirth, who was always cordial and seemed to enjoy such meetings, In my later years I changed my thinking quite abit, but I remember with fondness my occasional conversations with Hiirth At the same time in early March the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued its “Instruction on Respect for The Development of Srual Ethics 79 Human Life in Its Origin and onthe Dignity of Procreatin * “The isaue that drew the mox disagreement within the Reson Catholic community was the rejection of este teriisaton tang the husband’ seed on the grounds that artical nsene nation even with the husband seed was always morally srrong. The footnote tothe condemnation af homologs trill insemination (AIH) referred to Pope Pius XITs-Dis: Course to Those Taking Partin the Fourth International Com tress of Catholie Doctor, September 29,1949" Tn ths a res the pope condemned ALF a violating the divine pan tecause the natural conjugal act lf was not preset ‘There are two intersting comments that mus be made about the 1949 papal addres, Fist, before the address umber of Cathole morals held tht in practice atl insemination between husband and wife could be permited provided the husband's sperm was obtained in some legitimate Wray. This condition refered to the fact that those authors thought masturbation was intrinsically eil and could never be the means of obtaining the semen. Even as conservative 2 Catholic moral theologian as Thomas J ODonnell admits that ATE was an open question in theory andin pacts be- fore 1949.¢ Thus iis hard to speak abou a traditional each ing ofthe Roman Cathoie Church inthis regard “A second note about this document i mos facinating. A commentary on the September 29 papal addres writen by Franz Hirth appeared in the September 15, 1949, issue of Padi Te wae well own that Hirth wrote mox of Pius Xi addresses on moral eues, One Roman wag commented that in this ease they had to bold back the publication of the commentary unt the address itself was given! Tethe light ofthe Rahner history andthe new document af the Gongregation forthe Doctine af the Fit I became Cxintentially very aware that Catholic moral teaching in 1987 seas all based on the neo-Scholastism ofthe pre-Vatican Tans of moral theology. If this sae reality were true in other areas such as revelation, the church, ecumenism, fd religious berg, the Roman Cathie Church woud lok Site diferent tod What would have happened if Vaican II had dicused80 The Development of Serual Ethics and decided the issue of artificial contraception? Pethaps the teaching would have been changed especially in the light of the other changes which occurred at that time. Undoubtedly. ‘the major issue would have been how can the church now ac- ‘cept something which it had earlier condemned. How could there be such a change oF development in the offical teaching of the church? The best illustration of change at Vatican II was the teaching on religious freedom. Here John Courtney Murray and others proposed a theory of development based. fon changing historical circumstances. In the nineteenth cen= tury the church rightly condemned the understanding of re~ ligious freedom based on Continental liberalism, but in the twentieth century religious liberty, understood asa civil right, of immunity ina limited constitutional government structure, could be accepted.* This theory of development downplayed the discontinuity factor and employed the changing historical circumstances to justly the change. It is easy in retrospect 10 criticize this theory for failing to recognize that somewhere along the line the teaching ofthe church was wrong or should hhave been changed sooner. In the area of contraception it probably would have been necessary to face head-on the ise of the existence of erzor in the official eaching of the hier- archical magisterium. It is impossible for anyone to know what would have hap- pened if Vatican II had debated the questions of artificial con- traception and of sexual morality. Two things are certain to- day. First, in the area of sexual morality and ethics there has ‘been no development within the church's teaching as there hhas been in many other areas debated at Vatican II, How ‘often in other areas of teaching in theology would a 1949 papal address on a specific issue be totally normative? Second, the primary issue today in the hierarchical Catholic sexual teach ing remains the issue of change in the teaching and the eccle- sial question of the nature ofthe hierarchical teaching office. Many reasons help to explain the reluctance on the part ‘of people in authority to change the official church teaching in this matter or to allow the possibility of dissent. The patti~ archal nature ofthe church and of its teaching on human sex- uality cannot be denied. The Catholic Church has excluded The Development of Sexual Ethics 81 women from any kind of significant decision-making role in the life of the church. Iam sure that the desire for control of others and a celibate fear of sexuality have also contributed to the present hierarchical teaching and to the reluctance to change it. However, those of us working for such changes ‘must address the most significant isues raised by the defenders of the present teaching even though we recognize there are other factors that also support this teaching, “The strongest reason for maintaining the present teaching in the eyes of its defenders is one’s understanding of the teaching function of the church, The hierarchical teaching function of the church is believed to be under the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Could the Holy Spirit ever per: ‘mit the hierarchical teaching office to he wrong in a matter fof such great import in the lives of so many Christian peo ple? The church and the officially commissioned leaders of the church have their role as mediating the salvific word and work of Jesus through the presence of the Spirit. Could the hierarchical teaching role actually hinder and hurt the peo ple it was supposed to help? Such questions cannot be easily dismissed. One must at Teast fel the force of such questions for those who are posing, them. The only adequate response to these questions is the recognition thatthe hierarchical teaching office ise has failed to recognize and teach the proper nature and binding force of such teaching as well as the assent due to such teaching, By its very nature this teaching on these specific and com plex questions of the norms governing sexuality involves what has recently been called the authoritative noninfallble hier~ archical teaching office. Such teaching according to a 1967 document of the West German bishops has a certain degree ‘of binding force, and yet, since it is not a de fide definition, it invalves a certain element of the provisional even to the point of being capable of including error? ‘The ultimate epistemological reason why this teaching can- not claim an absolute certitude comes from the very nature ‘of moral truth, Thomas Aquinas pointed out the difference between speculative and practical or moral truth, In the area ‘of morality with its complexities and many circumstances the82 The Drcelopmont of Secu Eth secondary principles of the natural law genevally oblige bu in some cases they do not hold, Thomas uses as an exannple the natural-law principle that deposits should be returned. An bbligation exists to return to the owner what has been given fone to care for and keep safe. Such a principle usually obliges but not always. I someone has lft you a sword for safekerp: ing and now wants it back but is drunk and threatening to Kill people, you have an obligation not to return the sword In their two pastoral letters on peace and the economy the United States bishops have recognized the same reality. On the level of complex and specific judgments one cannot claim ‘certitude that excludes the possibility of error. Thus, for ‘example, the bishops maintain that the first use of counter: force nuclear weapons is always wrong, but they recognize that others within the church community might come to a different conclusion." Within the traditional understanding of the teaching func tion af the hierarchical magisterium ic is possible for authori- tative noninfallible hierarchical teaching on specific moral issues to be wrong, Church authority has added to the exist- ing problem by its failure to recognize explicitly the some ‘what provisional nature ofits teaching in these areas. In this, light one can understand the charge of creeping infallibilism that has been made, Noninfallble teaching is thought to be as certain and absolute as infallible teaching. Ifthe very nature nd limitation of such authoritative noninfalible teaching were better understood, the fat of erroneous church teaching would not be as great a problem as one might think. In addition, such a recognition could serve as a very good way of indi- cating the role of all the baptized contributing in different ‘ways tothe teaching of the church and also be a salutary re ‘minder that the hierarchical teaching authority has not car~ ried out its own learning and teaching function in the most suitable way. For any of us to admit we have made mistakes is very dif ficult. tis obviously very difficult for the hierarchical teaching office with its understanding of having the assistance of the Holy Spirit to recognize that its teachings might be wrong. However, history docs record the existence of such errors it The Development of Serual Ethics 83 the past, and Catholic self-understanding acknowledges the theoretical possibility of such errors. A recognition of mis takes by church authority would not be unprecedented. The Decree on Ecumenism (n. 7) of Vatican Council I! humbly recognizes there has been sin on all sides in the work for Church unity and begs pardon of God and our separated brothers and sisters just as we forgive those who have tres passed against us. In the present situation the first step that ‘an and should be made isthe offical recognition ofthe some= ‘what provisional character ofthe authoritative noninfllible hierarchical teaching in these areas. From this there follows the possibility and perhaps at times even the legitimacy of dissent both in theory and in practice. ‘What about the credibility of the hierarchical teaching office if it explicitly recognizes the legitimacy of dissent or feven changes its teaching? How can anyone ever again put trust and confidence in such a teaching office? It must be pointed out that there already exists a very great problem of credibility for the hierarchical teaching office in sexual m: ters, When the vast majority of the members ofthe church disagree with the official hierarchical teaching on issues such ‘as contraception, there truly exists a problem of confidence jn that authority. The case can be made that the hierarchical teaching office would gain credibility ifit recognizes the possi- bility of dissent and even changes its teaching in this area, In my view dissent from the authoritative noninfllible hier= arehieal teaching ofthe Roman Catholic Church tries to sup: port and not destroy the credibility of this teaching office. ‘The hierarchical teaching office in general would be more credible fit is clear to all thatthe critical interpretative func- tion of Catholic theologians at times might call for dissent from the teaching ofthe hierarchical magisterium. Here the theological community ean play the critical role of the loyal ‘opposition and thus enhance inthe long run the hierarchical teaching role in the church "To carry out its teaching role properly the hierarchical ‘magiaterium must be in dialogue withthe whole church, The primary teacher in the church remains the Holy Spirit, and 1no one has a monopoly on the Holy Spirit. Wide consultaBE The Development of Sevnal Ethie 1 the lunetion of the tion and dialogue are a necessary pa hierarchical teaching office, Unfortunately such dialogue and consultation have not accurred in the area of sexual moral: ity, and the credibility of the hierarchical teaching office has suffered Compare, far example, the proces involved in writing the pastoral letters of the United States bishops and the process involved in writing the recent Roman documents such as the instruction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on bioethics The American bishops engaged in a broad con sultation process and shared their dralts withthe whole wend in a very public dialogue. Also the bishops recognized dif ferent levels of teaching and the diflerent responses duc 0 the various levels. The pastoral letters distinguish the levels of principle and universal teaching on the one hand froma that of specific judgments and conclusions. Legitimate diversity can exist within the church in the realm of specific judgments dnd even complex specific norms. I agree very much with this basic approach, which recognizes thatthe possibility of cer titude decreases as the matter under consideration becomes more specific and complex. However, even here there is a tendency in the pastoral letters to claim too much agreement and certitude on the level of principle. The pastoral leter on peace maintains that the independent principe of dscrimina: tion ot noncombatant immunity is something that must be held by all people within the church. However, the West Ger- ‘man bishops in their pastoral letter on war do not accept tis independent principle as an absolute norm. Chapter eight will discuss in greater detail the West German and United States pastoral letters on peace. However, the process involved in the writing of the United States pastoral letters has enhanced their credibility. Documents emanating from Rome would have a greater credibility if such a process and approach were employed in 'A final objection asks where all his is going to end. Per~ haps dissent on one or another issue might be acceptable but not across such a broad spectrura. Is everything up for grabs? ‘Are there no limits? It is incumbent on those of us within the Roman Catholic The Development of Sexual Ethics 85 Church who call for a broader area of dissent ro address this {question and to talk about limits. One must recognize that dissent or, more positively, pluralis exists within a broader area of unity, assent, and agreement, In the Christian faith community not everything is up for grabs. The church is called to creative fidelity with regard to the word and work of Jesus. It is important to recognize the distinction between ‘what is core and central tothe faith and what is more remote and peripheral. Today the emphasis on praxis in contem- porary theology reminds us that morality and what we do are integral parts of our faith community and our faith commit- ment. However, specific issues and concrete norm in com= plex cases require room for more diversity and disagreement, ‘The church must always teach and live the values oflove and fidelity in marriage, but it does not follow that divorce and remarriage are wrong in all circumstances. Doubtless there will be greater areas of dissent and pluralism than there were in the past. Also there will be more grey areas than ever before. The methodological understanding of contemporary theology points in this direction. However, these realities of sreater pluralism and greater dissent on specific issues stil exist side by side with the unity of the church and with a credible hierarchical teaching office in the church. In fact, ‘one could make the case that atthe present time such dissent and unity are already existing in practice in the Roman Cath- lie Church ‘There is much disagreement within the Roman Catholic Church today about sexual morality. Church authorities are taking disciplinary action against some theologians writing in these areas and thus preventing the development of a con- temporary sexual ethic within Roman Catholicism, There are significant practical and theoretical factors calling for a different understanding of sexual morality and of sexual ethics. However, the biggest obstacle to such developments comes from the practical ecclesiological issue of the hierarchical {caching office. We who are calling lor a changed theory and practice of sexuality in the Roman Catholic Church will be successful only if we can convince the church of the need to change some ofits current ecclesiological understandings of|