Campus Notes, the blog of the Cardinal Newman Society, reports that philosophy professor Gary Gutting of Notre Dame told a reporter from the New York Times that contraception is no longer immoral in the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church because Catholics don’t believe it is immoral.
I suppose it was appropriate to say that to a newspaper, since indeed it would be news to Catholics, including those who use contraception. Their use of contraception does not constitute, a priori, a personal belief that it’s moral. Such a view begs the question that people everywhere always do what they believe is moral and do not do what they believe is immoral. But this is only the second, and less significant, logical fallacy of Gutting’s statement.
What’s more fallacious is that Gutting uses the word “authoritative” so authoritatively. He has no authority here whatsoever. I might as well ask my Yorkshire terrier. Her authority would be as reliable (if she could communicate it). It would seem that Times reporters skipped freshman logic in school and don’t recognize the fallacy of “appeal to false authority”—except that logic has little to do with their religion.
Like Gutting, Pelossi, and other luminaries, the Times reporter is a devout believer in the god called Polls. Their faith makes them not only follow Polls, but also, like the devotees of any religion, they consult Polls as the ultimate authority on any question.
The difficulty here is that Polls is not the authority on whom the Catholic Church relies. As the writer concludes in Campus Notes: “Gutting’s argument would seem to have Jesus telling Peter, ‘upon this poll I will build my Church.’”
I regret to say it, but if one distinguishes between the formal teaching of the magisterium, and the body-language of the magisterium from Rome downwards, the body-language — and not simply opinion polls — suggests that the Church does not take a whole range of its fundamental teachings on faith and morals seriously. Deafening magisterial silences, or mere occasional disapproving mutters, in the face of highly public, vast-scale in-Church abuses and dissent regarding not merely contraception but every kind of sexual immorality, reception of the eucharist, mortal sin, conscience, and virtually every other teaching “on the books”, give the impression that the teachings are merely book-keeping formalities with which ordinary Catholics are not required or expected to bother themselves. Pelosi, Gutting, and the rest of their type, are thus interpreting the magisterial body-language in a perfectly logical fashion, regardless of their motives.
Dear Colin,
The Catholic Church has a publication, the Catechism, wherein its magisterial teaching is stated very clearly. It is accessible to all, including newspaper reporters, philosophy professors, and U.S. senators. Access also includes misbehaving priests, bishops, even cardinals–and historically–it even includes a few popes. The Catechism governs everyone–no matter who they are–in the Church, and everyone in the Church, no matter who they are, knows that.
(To my knowledge, no codified law was ever built on “body language.”)
But to put this a little differently, and perhaps more closely to the root of the problem: Truth is objective; it does not change with anyone’s subjective opinion of it, or with their relative ability to live up to it. Regardless of position within the Church, every Catholic knows that. (Conversely, worshippers of public opinion, like Gutting et al, apparently do not.)
The question is not–has never been–how do people behave. There have been worse periods, far worse, in Church history when the behavior of both the clergy and laity was much worse. But the miraculous thing is that its Truth never changed, “not one jot or tittle,” just as he promised. Regardless of the frailty of those who collectively make up the Ark, the Covenant within has remained secure–just as he promised it would. Indeed, it’s likely that the Ark will suffer even more and worse than these times have rendered to it.
Dear Colin,
The question here is one of authority, not of behavior. I agree, of course, with all you say about the scandalous behavior of some Catholics, but my point is that their behavior does not change the moral authority of the Church. Do as they say, said our Lord, not as they do. The misbehavior of others does not justify our own misbehavior. Nor does moral law somehow become invalid because we violate it.
Charles, thank you for your comment.
Dena Hunt has shared with us entertaining observations and astute criticisms. Clearly Mr Jory does not get it although he seems to feel he has some insight into a topic far beyond his grasp. Ms Hunt’s reply to Mr Jory has the sound of someone speaking WITH AUTHORITY (based on the CCC).
Dear Dena,
Every word you say is true, but irrelevant to the problem. There is such a thing as non-verbal communication; and the problem is that most of those with teaching authority in the Church, world-wide, have been tacitly communicating by their strategic silences and strategic tepidities that it is unimportant whether those in the Church believe what she formally teaches and behave accordingly — especially in matters of sexual morality — and unimportant even if they publicly scorn her teachings while still publicly professing to be authentic Catholics. (Witness for instance that appalling global scandal, the all-bells-and whistles public requiem for Senator Ted Kennedy, complete with panegyric by President Obama.) That is why it is at least prima facie reasonable for Pelosi and Gutting to infer that the Church no longer requires its formal teaching on contraception to be accepted by its members as true or binding: most of the Church’s teaching authorities have been non-verbally communicating just that message for several decades.