Aliens and Condoms

Sorry to give into the temptation of a provocative title.

After the formal end of our discussion this evening, we hit on a couple interesting, maybe even important, topics. The first of these concerns was brought up by Shane concerning the existence of extraterrestrial life. I, brandishing my twin swords of sci-fi fan-dom and theological interest, have opinions. I have opinions about many things.

The second, on a perhaps more serious note, concerns the status of artificial contraception in the Church, brought up by Brendan. I will address each of these in turn.

First, then, is the issue of aliens; are we alone in the universe? If not, what does that mean theologically? Well with regard to the first question, the Church, to my knowledge, does not make any definitive statements one way or the other. Some might argue that humanity is the unique creation that was made in the image and likeness of God and the only one that God calls "very good," so there can be no other. But I do not find this conclusion to be a necessary position. God has, at least, created other intelligent beings, namely the angels. So in principle, Christianity can tolerate non-human sentient life. And, to quote Jodi Foster, "if it's just us... seems like an awful waste of space." Not that "Contact" hold definitive theological weight. In principle, then, the Church does not definitively rule out the possibility of aliens.

To indulge our imaginations for a moment, then, what happens if there ARE aliens? What happens if we encounter other intelligent, sentient life? What does, or what can, the Church say? I see two possibilities. The first is that the Church would rule that these aliens are not the descendants of Adam, and are therefore not meant to be saved by Christ - a sort of "limited atonement." This position would have support from Scripture in the Adam-Christ typology and from Christological thought in the affirmation of Christ's full "humanity" - note that it's NOT "conscious, sentient, partially material creature." If this position were taken, the Church would effectively rule out evangelization. The Church would say that God has taken to save this other species through a different means than that used for humanity's salvation (and this only assuming that the species was fallen and sinful). If this other species already had a Church or religion with a similar theological structure and with an incarnational God, this would be tricky. Perhaps the Church could make room for the possibility of multiple incarnations - insofar as the domain of these incarnations remains independent and exclusive. That is, both Churches would have to affirm that the Son took the form of their own nature, thus acknowledging that both human flesh and Zorgon exoskeletal-ectoplasm are hypostatically united to the second Person of the Trinity.

However, I do not like this position because it seems to contradict the uniqueness of Christ and the universality of His salvation. Christ is the savior of the cosmos, not only of humanity. He recapitulates in His person all of fallen creation. And as far as Christ's descent from Adam is concerned, the Church has means to respond to this as well. For one, we read in Genesis that Adam and Eve only had three children (Cain, Abel, and Seth), but yet Cain when he is exiled wanders off and encounters other peoples already cropping up. (Thinking about this evolutionarily, Adam and Eve were the first hominids to whom God granted consciousness, but other sentient hominids in their clan soon arose who were not direct biological descendants of these two.) Thus, though Adam and Eve were the first true humans and the ones in whom God chose to 'test' humanity's resolve and faithfulness to Him, a direct biological descent from them is not required for their inclusion in the purview of Christ's saving action. In addition, theological anthropology has often claimed that God's image and likeness is found particularly in the human reasoning faculties (memory, knowledge and will; or mind, love, and knowledge; see Augustine, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130109.htm). Thus, putting these together, an alien race could be redeemed through Christ because they have essentially the same image of God as humanity does, namely a rational mind. This would have the opposite evangelical effect; a whole new missionary field would be opened, and countless other ramifications for theological anthropology would have to be explored.

So much for aliens. On to contraception:

The question was raised as to whether the Church's teaching on contraception is not fundamentally outdated. It seems to imply a certain negative attitude toward human technological progress. However, this standard is not applied consistently. For instance, Catholics may licitly use extraordinary technological means to keep somebody on life support, but we cannot use technological means to regulate birth. It also seems to take a naive approach to human population growth (eg the Church unmitigatedly supports large families and thus reduces the standard of living for people everywhere). Before I answer these questions, I'm going to let a few of the Church's theological presuppositions come to light, which will in turn make sense of the Church's response to these challenges.

First and foremost in the Church's teaching on contraception is the idea that God alone is the ultimate "Author of life." In the Church Fathers, there was some of tension in understanding the origin of the human person. Certainly the building blocks of humanity are passed down from the parents; our 'fleshiness' comes from our parents. However, the origin of the soul was somewhat more contested. Certain fathers believed that the human parents, in addition to the physical form of the human, also contributed the soul to their child. Others, however, believed that God was the one who truly made the fetus human. To create a being destined for eternal glory is a task that God alone is fit and able to perform. Every human individual is a new act of creation on the part of God, somehow participating in the one act of God in creating the first human. The Church has tended to side with the latter argument, and this is especially the case in modern Church documents on the regulation of birth. The first important principle, then, is that God, although in cooperation with human will, is the primary author of human life, for God stamps each and every individual human with His own divine image and likeness.

The next principle is that the human subject is also fully engaged - in body, will, and reason - in marital decisions. This means that the decision to have or not have children is a three-way dialogue between the needs and desires of the husband, wife, and God. It is not a conversation in which God alone can authoritatively speak, as Humanae Vitae spells out:

"With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time."

Take special note of the latter clauses; within Catholic theology it can indeed be responsible (read: moral) parenting to decide not to have children for "serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts." Thus, humanity and its needs play a role in this conversation.

The argument of Humanae Vitae is that artificial contraception (almost) completely and intentionally leaves one of these conversation partners out, namely God. Thus, the Church does not oppose contraception as such, but rather only contraception that seeks to ignore God's say in the discussion. NFP (Natural Family Planning), the argument continues, while certainly contraceptive, by necessity requires conversation and discussion of a couple's plans, a discussion which will draw God into the conversation rather than leave Him out. Humanae Vitae acknowledges this:

"It cannot be denied that in [the case of both NFP and artificial contraception] the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result."

Finally, the document states that "The Church... teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." That is, it is not licit to use contraception in some acts, but not others. Within the argument that I have constructed, this is because it is hypocritical to allow God into the conversation in those acts expected to be infertile, but to shut Him out when fertility is expected.

This is my attempt at an exposition of the theological principles at stake in the Catholic position on contraceptives. In addition, however, Humanae Vitae also presents several "slippery slope" arguments for why a 'contraceptive culture' is immoral:

1) "Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law."

2) "Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection."

3) "Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

I need only mention China's oppressive birth-control laws to demonstrate how the third argument has indeed come to fruition. In addition, the Chinese policy has created a strange off-balance in live births; since they are usually only allowed one child, and since men are more desirable in that society (especially in rural areas), extreme measures (including abortion) are used to ensure that that "first" child is a male one. This will have very strange social consequences years from now when there are far more men in the society than women. (Sorry to cite Wikipedia, but look under the headings "Men/Women concern" and "Sex ratio" on this page for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China as well as the page on Sex-selective abortion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion)

The document does not deny that there are ways that governments can engage population concerns:

"For there are other ways by which a government can and should solve the population problem—that is to say by enacting laws which will assist families and by educating the people wisely so that the moral law and the freedom of the citizens are both safeguarded."

Also, from Populorum Progressio (promulgated by Pope Paul VI):
"There is no denying that the accelerated rate of population growth brings many added difficulties to the problems of development where the size of the population grows more rapidly than the quantity of available resources to such a degree that things seem to have reached an impasse. In such circumstances people are inclined to apply drastic remedies to reduce the birth rate.

"There is no doubt that public authorities can intervene in this matter, within the bounds of their competence. They can instruct citizens on this subject and adopt appropriate measures, so long as these are in conformity with the dictates of the moral law and the rightful freedom of married couples is preserved completely intact. When the inalienable right of marriage and of procreation is taken away, so is human dignity.

"Finally, it is for parents to take a thorough look at the matter and decide upon the number of their children. This is an obligation they take upon themselves, before their children already born, and before the community to which they belong—following the dictates of their own consciences informed by God's law authentically interpreted, and bolstered by their trust in Him."

Nor is the document intrinsically opposed to the application of human reason to the situation. Reason is a faculty that can be used for either good or ill, and the document explicitly promotes its use for the former:

"It is supremely desirable, and this was also the mind of Pius XII, that medical science should by the study of natural rhythms succeed in determining a sufficiently secure basis for the chaste limitation of offspring."

Is the Church's teaching on contraception irrational? I would say, only for certain values of rationality. Certainly from the standpoint of a non-theistic framework, it could be considered non-sense. Even many of our protestant brothers and sisters find it in some way intellectually offensive. But based on its own theological assumptions about the nature of God and humanity, it seems a rather coherent, well argued position. All of this, however, is far from saying it's an easy position, as many married couples can, I'm sure, attest.

Feel free to push back and ask questions on any of these reflections. It's a long one this week.