Catholic Aid getting Its Priorities Straight: Typhoones, Rosaries and the Message of Love

Connecting to my former post re. certain gaps in human moral psychology made visible by the global aid response to the typhoon Hayian (also known as Yolanda), it is not exactly uplifting to be forced to share this evidence of morally adequate compassion being most seriously lacking where one would perhaps expect it the most: from aid organisations working from a christian ethical basis, with the message of love at the core of its mission – or not?


Have a look at this admirable crock of /%&€ of an initiative of a Catholic aid organization at providing the homeless, starving and plagued by social unrest and disease of Manilla with what they allegedly really need the most: rosaries to pray effectively (not made clear for what of all those thing said organization has chosen not to provide instead).

It is not revealed exactly how many people that "Rosaries for Life" or the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines view it fit to leave dying or suffering serious injury of lack of resources that could have been provided instead of these no doubt cute little gadgets for securing the obviously very important "spiritual needs" hereby attended to. Christian ethics in practice, indeed!

Reminds me of this early post of this blog, by the way: Message of Love: If Only You Could Eat It.

New Catholic ruling on condoms? Maybe, and maybe some ethics news as well!

Today, it was made public that the current Pope in an interview has announced what looks like a change of official Roman Catholic Church teaching on the morality of using condoms, e.g., here, here, here, here. Nothing has been posted at the Vatican website yet, but the reports cite the German journalist Peter Seewald, who has been interviewing the Pope for a new book, as the source. So, maybe, maybe not, but interesting enough to have a closer look at. This is what the BBC relates (with my own emphasis added):


When asked whether the Catholic Church was not opposed in principle to the use of condoms, the Pope replied: "She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality."

The Pope gives the example of the use of condoms by male prostitutes as "a first step towards moralisation", even though condoms are "not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection".

He says that the "sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalisation of sexuality" where sexuality is no longer an expression of love, "but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves".

Catholic commentator Austen Ivereigh interprets this for the BBC as meaning:

"The prevalence of HIV raised the question of whether condoms could be used to prevent the transmission of the virus.

"If the intention is to prevent transmission of the virus, rather than prevent contraception [I'm sure this should be "conception" and will assume so in the following], moral theologians would say that was of a different moral order."

Now, part of this argument is very familiar territory in Catholic ethics, namely the reference to the need for a proper intention. I will not rant on the outdated view of what human sexuality may properly be used for here, so let's just concentrate on the idea that preventing the HIV virus to spread would be a good thing and grant, solely for the sake of analysis, that using condoms for any other purpose would be wrong. What Mr. Ivereigh is referring to then seems to be the application of the so-called doctrine or principle of the double effect, a theoretical device conceived within the Thomistic part of Catholic philosophical tradition for dealing with problems of apparently conflicting moral duties that are a necessary part of the sort of rigid absolutist ethical system that the Catholic reading of Christian ethics results in. Take, for instance, the idea of the sanctity of human life, normally understood to be expressed by an absolute moral ban on homicide. What does this idea tell us to do in situations where the consequence of abstaining from homicide will be the death of one or more human being(s)? Strictly read, of course, the fifth commandment still forbids killing, but already medieval Catholic scholars realised that such an interpretation is both inhuman and very difficult to reconcile with many things in the Bible, such as the message of love. Therefore the idea was gradually conceived that in situations where avoiding an act that would otherwise be forbidden would lead to a sufficiently evil effect, it may be permissible to perform this act. There's quite a lot of fine print around this, but the most important condition is that the intention or motive be the right one. If your intention is merely to avoid the bad side-effect of avoiding the otherwise wrongful act, this act is in fact not wrongful. This principle has been used for justifying war, capital punishment and abortion, to give a few examples. In effect, if a side-effect of the act of having unprotected sex is an elevated risk of transmitting the HIV virus, then having protected sex with the intention of preventing such a transmission is permissible. This becomes even more significant on a societal policy scale: if the political motive behind a policy of, e.g., handing out free condoms, provide sexual education, and launching propaganda campaigns for safe sex, is to prevent the public health menace of HIV, then this is OK!

The only strange or surprising part of this way of reasoning is why on earth the Vatican has not thought of saying this a long time ago. As observed, it seems to go well enough with established theory as well as past policies condoning much worse things than a roll in the hay, while the HIV pandemic is an extraordinary evil of seldom seen proportions. Seemingly, the Catholic church's curious fixation with the act of sexual intercourse has made them seriously loose track of much, much more serious matters - also judged by their own moral standards. But my mission here is not to rant about that. I'm quite pleased that they have seen the light (if that is indeed what they have done) - better late than never, however cruel that may sound in light of the many human lives that have been the victims of the delay.

But this is only half of what the Pope seems to be saying. The other part is that he seems to be introducing a rather novel element in Catholic ethical theory: right and wrong on a scale! The Pope's own formulations here are more than a little slippery. The use of condoms to prevent HIV, he says, is not "a real moral solution" but "a step" in the right direction. Mr. Ivereigh attempts to clarify this when he says that what the Pope means is that using condoms for preventing HIV transmission  is "of a different moral order" - presumably different than using condoms for just avoiding having sex resulting in pregnancy, and presumably not as wrong. Now, since the official teaching is that having sex with any other intention than that of procreation is a sin (unless you exploit the occurrence of so-called safe periods in the menstrual cycle - an exemption for which I have so far never seen an intelligible explanation), the Pope thus seems to be saying that having sex using a condom with the intention of preventing HIV is, in fact, not a sin. Now, in standard Catholic ethics, this would imply that such acts are morally right. This since traditional Catholic ethics is built on the structure of the Ten Commandments, according to which you act wrongly if you act against these rules, but permissible if you avoid doing so. In other words, there are only two moral categories as regards actions: either they are right or they are wrong. But what the Pope says does not seem to be this. What he says is that, while using condoms for preventing HIV is morally acceptable, morally speaking, it would be even better if..... Well, here it becomes a bit unclear, but let's be charitable, shall we! There is, according to the Pope, a something (not very well explained) that would be an even better approach to combining the facts of human sexuality and the HIV pandemic than using condoms. This something would be very or fully morally right, while using condoms is not. At the same time, however using condoms for preventing HIV is not wrong. In effect, the Pope seems to be saying that there is a moral category in between (very or fully) right and wrong. In fact, he seems to suggest some sort of continuous scale of moral elevation on which a person can travel some distance between wrongful action and morally (very and fully) right action!

Theoretically, this novelty (in the Catholic context) could be unpacked in many ways familiar to moral philosophers for the simple reason that secular ethical theory has been developing ideas of this sort for centuries. If the appearance of the Pope's statements hold up to scrutiny and becomes official teaching for real, this would imply quite a lot of work for catholic moral theologians. Nevertheless, should that be the case, I would be the first to welcome them out of the medieval hazes they have been inhabiting for quite some time!

Celibacy is not the problem: the core of Catholic ideology on the family is

Following the avalanche of revelations regarding sexual child abuse within the Roman Catholic Church, the suggestion has been recurring recently that the root of the problem is to be found in the – by all means silly, dated and inhuman – prescription of celibacy for priests and members of congregations. See, e.g., this, this, this and this. I believe that this idea is a side-track of a serious kind – averting attention from what is really the source of what we have seen revealed during the last few years. The Roman catholic child abuse scandal is, I conjecture, the effects of certain key elements in the core of the Roman Catholic ideology with regard to human reproduction and the family.

First, to my knowledge, there is no credible evidence whatsoever that sexual child abuse is more common within the Roman Catholic social context than in other comparably large social or institutional settings. In particular, there is no such evidence with regard to settings where celibacy is not proscribed practice. But this is hardly the issue! What is the issue is what has been pressed by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, among others recently: the fact that the institution of the Roman Catholic Church has (presumably for many centuries) embodied a conscious and organised cover-up of the cases of sexual child abuse occurring within the confines of this church, especially when perpetrated by priests. This may look as an analysis close to satire such as this one, but hang on a minute and you'll see it's more to it than that!

What is the issue is not that some Catholics, or even some professional Catholic representatives, are child abusers. Child abusers are to be found all around the human block! What is the issue is the way in which the Roman Catholic Church, condoned by their highest leaders, has systematically shielded the abusers to the detriment of the victims, and set the preservation of the institution before the interests of real human being. I've blogged before of what becomes of the Christian message of love when unchecked by secular rationality – this is another example. However, in this case, there is a sinister connection to some of the core ingredients of ideology on which the Roman Catholic Church builds its power over people, nations and ideas.

A recurring theme in Catholic teaching is the sanctity and impenetrable integrity of "the family" – a teaching that has been inherited from Judaism and preserved also in other versions of Christianity, as well as taken over within the Islamic faith. As a matter of fact, this dogma, as observed by feminist philosophers like Alison Jaggar and Susan Moller Okin, has been transported into sizable portions of secular liberal democratic societies, perhaps best evidenced on the theoretical side by the uncritical way in which John Rawls awarded  "the family" an unmotivated shielded position as an autonomous "sub-society" in his otherwise outstanding political thinking (said by a moral philosophical opponent, mind you).

A recurring theme in Catholic preaching is the notion of the dignified family, i.e. the heterosexual (properly) married couple who have sex only to glorify the master plan of the creator to have humans fill up the earth and who, accordingly, have hordes of children. This ideal reflects several central themes in catholic moral dogma: the sinfulness of all sorts of sex that lack procreative potential (hence, the alleged sinfulness of contraceptives, masturbation, oral sex, petting, homosexual sex....), the sinfulness of even potentially procreative sex outside the context of (Catholic) marriage, the sinfulness of procreation (even for a married couple) that is not the result of sex (hence the critical view on assisted reproductive technologies), the impossibility of dissolving marriage no matter what failures with regard to caring duties married partners engage in, etcetera. In this teaching, human beings are mere instruments for the institution allegedly installed merely for the sake of being obedient to a supposed supreme authority – what Catholic ethicists and propagandists usually refer to as human dignity. This is why, for the Roman Catholic Church, the family is not for society to meddle in, it is the business of the church. This is what explains what for non-Catholics like myself has always come out as the most superbly bizarre preoccupation with sex you might find among anti-sex extremists. Well, you know all about this, I reckon, so what's the connection to the child abuse you might ask?

Well, here you are. We already know that, regarding ordinary families, the official Roman Catholic attitude to sexual child abuse is to have the preservation of the family as the highest priority, not the well-being of the victim. Confession and atonement for the torturer is the prescribed medicine, not the rescue of victims of torture. This is not changed by the opaque rhetoric about children's best interest always being about not being separated from their family - this empty and cynical gesture is hardly believed by anyone nowadays besides the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (if you have some time, please study the teachings of this virtual central committee of the Roman Catholic Church) and a few fanatical followers. Now: the institutional attitude towards sexual child abuse within the Roman Catholic Church itself perfectly reflects this very attitude at a grander level. For, in Catholic ideology, the Church is more or less a perfect analogue of a family - it is God's family. Thus, the family has to be preserved whatever the cost to its members. Thus, the institution goes before the well-being of people. Thus, shielding the abusers even at the cost of facilitating further abuse is perfectly in line with core Roman Catholic teaching, and so is lying your head off in the face of allegations you know to be perfectly true. So much for human dignity.

Presumed Guilty Until Proven Innocent - Legal Security Out the Window in New Utah Law that Criminalises Miscarriage

Yes, indeed you read correctly! The US state of Utah has adopted a bill according to which women who suffer miscarriage are to be assumed guilty of murder, unless proven innocent. In reports from inside and outside the US, the flabbergasted reactions have taken up the themes of the so-called Pro Life movement now showing its true face ("so now we see, they're after women after all"), and the problematic or at least uncertain implications in relation to the classic Supreme Court ruling of Roe vs. Wade from 1974, that paved the way for legal abortion in the Unites States. But, in my view, the problematic aspects of this case go way deeper than that, and has little to do with the moral or legal status of abortion. This bill assaults basic principles of legal security that are a necessity for any country that wants to label itself minimally civilized, whatever regulation of abortion, pregnancy, etcetera, one then might want to adopt.

The bill originated in a case where a 17 year old pregnant woman that had passed the time limit for legal abortion allegedly hired some guy to assault her physically in the hope of thereby inducing a miscarriage. This did not happen, so the guy was convicted for something else than murder, presumably some form of attempt. The woman (technically rather a girl at the time of the event), however, turned out not to be possible to convict for anything. Horror!!! Hence the new bill.

I wonder if it is only us non-Utahits that find this reaction particularly twisted? First, the desperation of the 17-year old girl clearly says something quite salient of the situation that the authorities of Utah leave underage, involuntary pregnant females in. Perhaps doing something about that, huh?! But I presume that the morality underlying the bill would prevent anything in that vein - "Helping a slut? What's the matter with you?!", is the expected reaction. Another case of what becomes of the message of love when unattended to by secular reason - something I have commented on before. Second, an online-acquaintance's spontaneous reaction - as my mother's - to the news about the bill was a hands on analogy with the Taliban rule of Afghanistan, and this strikes me as dead right. This perverse obsession with punishment rather than prevention out of compassion is as clear a sign as anything of the supporters of the Utah bill sharing with the Talibans the same brutal idea of how to react to the plight of others. But this is not my main point.

Neither is my point about this case being another in a quite disturbing trend in developed nations to use the pregnancy as an excuse to treat women as instruments for one thing only: the population of the earth. This recent incident from Florida may remind readers about what I'm talking about. In my work in health care ethics, I have noticed a clear rise in enthusiasm among medical staff regarding the possibility of submitting pregnant women to treatments against their will for the sake of the fetus. Conclusion: women, when pregnant, are to be treated as means only and the worry about where to draw the line is of minor consequence. But let's do what philosophers often do: let us lend the supporters of such ideas the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume for the sake of argument, as the saying goes, that actions of women that endanger fetuses are indeed to be viewed as a potentially criminal offense.

On this assumption, my point is this: the Utah bill prescribes society to apply a principle of presuming all pregnant women undertaking any sort of action that may pose some danger to the health and well-being of the fetus they are carrying as guilty of an offense. It is not society that carries the burden of proof of demonstrating the actual occurrence of this offense, it is the accused. First of all, unless some rather vast changes (that will never pass even the first round of an appellate court and even less the supreme court) in the Utah criminal code are undertaken this implies that men and women are judged according to different basic legal principles. If that does not violate the US constitution, I wonder what does! But this is not all. The whole idea of presuming people guilty of crimes, in particular crimes that may be followed by harsh punishment, violates the most basic principle of a fair, just and sustainable legal system that is to be found. For, comically as it would be had it not been for the brutal stupidity of it all, as people like Stalin have proven beyond reasonable doubt, the only consistent application of this principle is the incarceration of the entire population. For, of course, men will have to be judged by the same standard, and as we know, one of the main threats to the health and well-being of women is the actions of men.

And here's the real irony of it all: the bill seems to imply that the entire population of political representatives that voted in favor of the bill, as the public servants that will be enforcing it, have to be prosecuted for exactly the crime described by the very same bill! One needs just a minimum of empathy and imagination to understand the effects of the Utah bill on the pregnant women of Utah. Whatever they do, they will risk having the police banging on the door, dragging them off on a presumed murder charge. For, as we know, anything a pregnant woman does may have effects (given the circumstances) that makes more probable some downside for the fetus. So, the main effect of this new policy will be the inducement of severe fear and stress on pregnant women - a factor well-documented to pose a serious health risk to both woman and fetus. So, come on you Utah law-makers, let's have it all out and see you in court!

Message of Love - if only you could eat it!

Christian institutionalized religious conviction or faith or strong sense of belonging has, as Nietzsche observed just before declaring the death of God, had an important part to play in the moral history of humanity. True, it has also been a source of unspeakable atrocities and regularly played the role as a default authorization of whatever scheme of brutality and oppression that worldly powers have embarked on. But it is hard to deny that the idea of people being worthy equal respect and consideration just for their own sake has made a lasting impact on (Western) ethical thought – also regarding ethical theories that have come to strongly contest mainstream versions of christian ethics, such as Kantian ethics, liberal theories of basic moral rights or the consequentialist tradition.

But what has become of this "message of love" - the idea that we are to love our 'neighbor' as ourselves, and do unto others as we would have them do to us - outside of the growing sophistication and influence of secularized ethics? For many of my friends who identify themselves as christian believers, the important thing seems not to be the supposed divine backing of this idea, but rather the other way around. Relieved they find in the faith that they find a need for in order to enjoy a sense of coherence, harmony, meaning - or what you might like to call it - what their reason prescribes anyway. Simply put, they are morally decent people that also happen to have certain needs that a christian faith seems to meet. Fine by me!

Besides that, one powerful and influential branch of christianity is not that preoccupied with this side of the gospel, but rather focus on the very core of all the monotheistic religions: awe and obedience in the face of an alleged supreme authority. And, as we know, one of the commands of the christian God is to spread the gospel. So is this what it is about when the US christian organization Faith Comes by Hearing decides to react to the current almost indescribable misery and agony of the Haitian people by sending over an audio bible gadget called "The Proclaimer" capable of relaying the message to 300 people at a time, reportedly intended for "individuals and nations who hunger to hear". 600 of them are already on the way, reports ABC News, and more will be coming. And it's certainly not a tiny gift that the christian faith in this case has inspired: the little darlings are rumored to cost $157 each and to be sophisticated enough to actually work even on the moon (where, as an aside, PZ Myers suggest they may just as well be sent instead).

The utter moral perversity of the action should be obvious to anyone being just mildly drawn to the basic content of the message of love, be it in a religious or a secularized version. Not only will the very transportation and distribution of "The Proclaimer" add to the severe logistical problems faced by aid personnel, just imagine the insult being spitted right in the face of the victims of the Haitian disaster when their hunger and thirst is responded to with this particular version of food for thought. But, of course, the worst of it all is to imagine what the money spent on this mission could have been used for instead. Well, this just has to be another of those prime examples of the cynicism that so often result from the missionary ambitions of christian believers, hasn't it?

Well, actually, reading what a representative of FCBH says to the ABC News, missionary activity is the last thing that this action is about! On the contrary, according to ABC News, "the Albuquerque-based organisation says it is responding to the Haitian crisis by 'providing faith, hope and love through God's word in audio'". So, this is what the message of love is about nowadays when none of those advances that have been made with the help of secular reasoning through the history of ethics are informing it: the pure pastoral version! Considering that what people in Haiti are primarily hungering for is hardly "to hear", they might just as well have sent over a few crates of this: