From Politics to Theology: Responding to Roman Catholic Ecclesial Control of Reproductive Ethics

Shifts in U.S. health-care laws have put Roman Catholic teachings about contraception and abortion front and center in the public square, where the primary discussants are reporters, politicians, and Church leaders.¹ Reporters and politicians are often ill-equipped to address abortion or contraception as it relates to Roman Catholic theology. Thus the discussion lacks historical and theological nuance, leaving the Roman Catholic hierarchy’s position beyond scrutiny. Additionally, the hierarchy attempts to ensure they are the only theological voice by directly silencing dissenting opinions related to procreative freedom and responsibility. Simply put, the Church continues to systematically silence theological dialogue, its own history, and, consequently, future developments in moral theology related to contraception and abortion, and sexual ethics more broadly. This is not a new development, but one that calls for a renewed response.

Thirty years ago, Beverly Wildung Harrison’s foundational text Our Right to Choose addressed this specific issue, and yet the issue persists. In sketching the political and theological landscape of her time, Harrison compared the moral (characterized by a logical autonomy of reason based on a set of technical, philosophical assumptions) versus theological (characterized by the beliefs, teachings, and sacred texts of a particular religion) approach in debates for abortion access.² She argues that, while many in the Roman Catholic and various Protestant traditions adhere to the above-named separation of moral versus theological, they often maintain “an official unyielding stance on the morality of abortion.”³ Thus, specific to the Roman Catholic Church, Harrison noted, using the logical system (moral) they claim that both moral and theological arguments are closed. Such a conclusion allows little or no room for dissent and renders “a formal distinction between theological and moral teaching … without much force.” In conclusion, Harrison argued, “What is really at issue is the existential effect of various churches’ influence and massive mobilization in the abortion controversy and the empirical effects of their belief system on public debate.”⁴

The existential effect, I would argue, closes off moral discernment on the part of members of the Church and reinforces a harmful paternalism toward the very people the hierarchy claims to speak for—economically disadvantaged women and children. In response, moral theologians need to reopen and expand a space for discernment and dialogue on issues related to reproductive and sexual ethics. This essay seeks to illuminate the obvious in an effort to refocus the reproductive health debate on theological questions rather than political and legal rhetoric, which perpetuates a seemingly singular Roman Catholic voice on contraception and abortion. I situate my claim in the legacy of Beverly Harrison’s work, when she said, “[T]he ‘choice’ which receives moral defense in these pages is women’s right to the conditions for procreative choice, not merely the narrower option of elective abortion.”⁵ There are multiple ways in which these conditions are impaired in today’s society. I attend here to three ways the Roman Catholic hierarchy contributes to impaired conditions of pro-creative choice. First, the Church sets the parameters of the debate, arguing political and legal battles while covering up theological dissent. In the midst of this framing of the debate, the Church suggests they are advocating for the poor and vulnerable without connecting their arguments to the lives of real women in the United States. Third, the Church intimidates those who seek to critically engage current teachings on sexuality to prevent questioning.

Setting the Parameters of the Debate

The Church hierarchy, buoyed by media coverage, shapes the U.S. healthcare reform debate as one of religious liberty and protection of conscience.⁶ The political and legal rhetoric confuses theological issues of conscience (something only an individual possesses) and institutional rights to religious liberty.⁷

The response by some Roman Catholic hospitals to the Obama administration health-care mandate illustrates my point. In an exchange aired on an Illinois radio station, moral theologian Cristina Traina from Northwestern University and Patrick Cacchione, executive director of the Illinois Catholic Health Association, argued the point of conscience.⁸ Based on a...