Blaming the Church for its supposed stance on world issues is a popular and ageless pastime. And who can blame us? But that is not altogether fair. Catholic means universal and its Church is part of a political and spiritual tool on earth. It easily can be blamed for not allowing, by decree, certain acts which seem controversial and old-fashioned in contemporary terms, where individuality and freedoms rule.
To take the stance on contraception, it seems that we can blame the Church for the over-population we perceive, resulting in poverty and misery for want of a simple answer: contraception. But this assumes a logical process of thought whereby everything has a direct answer. In political and poverty terms it is argued that contraception is the answer. Seems simplistic does that.
The Church has a wider role than merely reacting to issues on a simplistic basis. The issue of “allowing” a ruling according to the needs of the political aspects on earth is not about the Church responding to the world view of the problem. It is about the wider issues of life in relation to the greater journey. If it were so simple as to get the Church to directly react to a world problem on the political stage, then its position as a wider body of contemplation in line with higher aspirations in the world spiritual sphere would change intrinsically. If the Church decreed that contraception was the answer to solving or containing world poverty, then that would imply that it was the proper answer for now and always complete in itself. If enlightenment and world peace are subject to simple decrees, then the Church merely becomes a tool for application of the perceived world answer to a perceived world problem.
Whether we agree or disagree with a stance is irrelevant; it is whether we can appreciate a wider view. The Church has a political role on earth as it is looked to to offer guidance in the way we live in relation to political governance. It could easily conform or change to whichever political views preside in any age. But its purpose is to provide a balance and to rise above narrow world political notions of what is right or wrong.
What if we perceive the argument to be more related to the way we treat each other, the level of respect we hold for each other in terms of equality of respect – do we really respect others as we respect ourselves? Then education and development is the answer, not a mechanical response to the symptom – which is what absolute promotion of contraception against poverty assumes.
Within any organisation, be it political or Church orientated, there will be corruption and narrow perceptions based on personal, national or international drivers. Where the Church has been found lacking in suppressing its own ills, as in the dreadful cases of abuse of children, it should be made known and exposed for what it is. This goes in inside as well as outside of the Church, as it might in any institution. And all corruption when it is exposed shows a successful development of being enlightened and facing the truth. If that happens within the Church then it shows that the Church is continuing to develop, that it is now enabled to expose the truth as it should – as within so without in the world. We can liken it to our own individual journeys whereby we come to terms with facets of ourselves instead of continuing to deny them, pretending that we are already totally good and in no need of development.
To view an entire institution and its ideals against all of the problems in the world, and how it affects them within the narrow confines of given decrees and without knowing anything else about its reason for being, is not appropriate. Within the Church, as within any family or organisation, there is conflict, disagreement, politics and strife; it is human and has failings. Its ideals will remain to be striven for and its conscience and understanding will continue to develop and evolve. The Church provides us with vehicles of attaining learning, discipleship and developing – ultimately to take responsibility for ourselves and to consider issues with pity, rather than follow an absolute rule book. Whatever we gain from a Church will be based on our own intent and seeking.
As an individual member of a Church, you might choose to agree or disagree with certain facets, according to your own point of view and your own development. You might choose for contraception at a personal level, which is allowed in your life according to your conscience and according to the freedoms you might enjoy in society, but it shouldn’t preclude you from being part of a Church whose ultimate stance on contraception appears to be directly against your choice. In a relatively developed society which embraces many facets outside of church thinking, we have many more choices than those where rules have to be adhered to for the sake of the rules. The development of societies is based on wider thinking and wider freedoms of choice, usually afforded us when the society is rich enough economically to support wider education and knowledge.
(© 2010 Eileen Baker)
