The Pope's Legacy

I recently found an editorial by Polly Toynbee, who's writing I admire though often disagree with, as a reaction to the international adulation being heaped on the Pope upon his passing away. The rest of the post will only make sense if you read the article, and it is quite thought provoking though presenting an extremely controversial point of view.

I want to concentrate on one particular aspect of the Pope's legacy, I'll come back to whether we ought to be analysing his legacy at all in a subsequent post. This would relate to the impact the Pope's insistence on the unacceptability of birth control had on AIDS cases in the developing world. As Toynbee has pointed out in the article, the Catholic church (hereinafter "Church") has maintained a rigidly conservative line on the church's acceptance of birth control. I am inclined to believe, along with Toynbee, that this has resulted in a lot of deaths from AIDS in developing states (and perhaps even developed ones). This article formed the basis for an extremely informative discussion with a group of friends recently, some of whom were progressive Catholics. The most important points of difference which came up were:-

I. The Actual Impact Argument. One of the main points of difference which arose was about the actual impact which the Church's insistence on the unacceptability of birth control had on instances of HIV in Catholics. My argument basically ran as follows - by insisting that birth control was contrary to the tenets of the Catholic faith, the Pope failed to prevent several deaths from AIDS which could arguably have been prevented where the Pope to have (a) encouraged or (b) not discouraged birth control (though there would be a variation in numbers depending on whether the Pope adopted method (a) or (b). The first rebuttal was that the Church also advocated abstinence prior to marriage, and if this rule were to be followed, there would be no need to take a different line on birth control, since the rule on abstinence would be sufficient to ensure that AIDS did not spread as rapidly. My counter to this argument is that it is not part of the human condition to abstain, and/or to participate in monogamous relationships. Monogamy and abstinence are to be enforced, either by the imposition of external norms or as a result of an internal moral code. This is not the case with the purchase of birth control devices - it is not natural for human beings to practice birth control or to purchase birth control devices. Besides, the stigma attached to birth control as a result of the Church's sanction on them attaches a social deterrent to the purchase and use of these devices, which is not present in the case of the Church's sanction on extra-marital relationships (at least most often not in cases where males indulge in extra-marital relationships).

II. The "You can't Teach an Old Dogma New Tricks" Argument. The second rebuttal to my original argument was that Roman Catholicism was an essentially faith based religion, which had certain dogmatic cardinal principles which were central to the faith. To expect the Pope to change one of the central tenets of the faith, one of the most respected and highly regarded tenets was to expect too much of him, for then it would mean a betrayal of the Church's beliefs which he is expected to uphold. I'm not sure how convinced I am by this argument. Protecting human life is also one of the most central tenets of the Catholic faith, and in cases of conflict which have arisen between this tenet and others, the Church has preferred to respect the right to life of the corporeal existing human being (as in the application of double effect to abortions). Why can't this be done in the case of birth control for persons facing a very high risk of AIDS?

III. The "Papal is Bull" Argument. The final rebuttal is that the Pope has limited influence over the decisions which people make in their reproductive lives. The choice of whether to use condoms or other AIDS-preventive devices is an expression of social relationships between partners, and there is little the Pope could have done to change that, even if he were to have declared contraception and birth control acceptable. I disagree with this argument because it denies the social impact which the Church has on procreative choice. By outlawing birth control, the Church denigrates condoms, and imposes a social cost on their use. This social cost then can easily translate into non-use in relationships of dominance (as between sexually active men and women, for example). If the Pope were to have encouraged the use of birth control, it would go a long way in reducing the social costs associated with condom use, and therefore perhaps have saved many more lives. An ancillary point in support of this rebuttal is that several Catholics, and some churches, use birth control anyway. While I agree with this, the fact remains that this is occurring in spite of the Church's stance. Those Catholics and churches, which allow for this are indeed deserving of praise, but does this excuse the Church for it's failure to preach what right-minded followers of its faith are practising?