I regularly listen to podcasts of my favourite ABC programs: Late Night Live, The Religion Report, The Spirit of Things, The Science Show, All in the Mind etc. Yesterday there was an interesting Religion Report show entitled Catholics and Condoms. The first interviewee was Dr Janet E. Smith, who holds the Fr. Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit. Dr Smith perpetrated the most illogical (and to my mind, morally bankrupt) argument I have heard in a long time. But first to a runner–up argument, also from Dr Smith: in defending the Catholic church's stance on the use of condoms, she made the comment that serious theologians were currently discussing whether the use of condoms was immoral, not because of their contraceptive effect but because the “unitive” act of intercourse was invalid because it was skin touching latex, rather than skin touching skin! Now I don't know about any of you but even when wearing a condom, I find it hard to have sex without a whole lot of touching going on. The image sprang to mind of 'serious Vatican theologians' careful studying a couple mid-coitus in order to ascertain what percentage of skin to skin contact there was or perhaps to determine whether the right bits were making any 'unitive' contact. My God! No wonder the vast majority of the community see us (Christians) as irrelevant.
Now with this comment I could have relaxed, my monthly quota of pseudo-academic inanity well and truly satified, but no... there was better to come! Dr Smith in full flight is a force to behold and her next foray concerned the specific case of married couples where one partner has aids, and (as the interviewer pointed out) in some cultures it is almost impossible for the wife to say no to the demand for intercourse with her husband (let alone the New Testament teaching that regular witholding is a moral evil). Dr Smith's tactic was masterful! Why (she asked) do we worry so much about condoms? Let us consider an analogy. If we had a problem with a bunch of men who went around beating women with sticks, why would we spend our time recommending that the women wear helmets? Wouldn't it be better to spend our time and energy stopping the men from doing it?
<Deep Sigh> Now here is the most perfect example imaginable of what Basil Mitchell (Nolloth Professor Emiritus of Philosophy of the Christian Religion, Oxford) calls “playing Theological Ping Pong”. Set up two options (ping and pong - telling women to wear helmets, stopping men beating them with sticks); imply without supporting argument that the two are mutually exclusive (which clearly they aren't), and then triumphantly declare that since it clearly isn't ping it must be pong! Let us dwell in Dr Smith's analogy for just a minute. Clearly it isn't right to ignore the reprehensible behaviour of the men. But nor is it right to ignore the actual plight of the women by insisting that it is morally wrong of them to wear helmets till their menfolk change! (Perhaps because it would disrupt the unitive nature of the club hitting her head!?) And part of the educative process with those men might well be empowering the women to say, “I can't stop you hitting me but I can wear a helmet so I won't be knocked out by your behaviour.” The logical paucity of this argument left me grinding my teeth in rage that the interviewer let it go through to the keeper without a blink.
Ok. Rant finished. Return to your normal life. I'm taking deep breaths...