An earlier article reviewed the treatment in Helen Alvaré’s 2022 book Religious Freedom after the Sexual Revolution of the legal challenges in maintaining Catholic social services (educational, charitable, or health services) in the wake of the sexual revolution. These challenges are the legal requirements from law or adjudication in many jurisdictions which require acceptance of sexual activity outside of opposite-sex marriage. The same challenges would face other religious social services adhering to a standard of opposite-sex monogamy. Alvaré argued that these social services are not merely concerned with providing the service they are specializing in, which secular social services could also provide, but are providing service as a religious exercise, in obedience to the divine command to love God and neighbor. They are also to some extent evangelistic, to draw people to the truth. For these reasons they must adhere to the opposite-sex monogamy taught in Scripture and Christian tradition.
While the religious nature of this social service activity is the basic legal argument, it is important in the court of public opinion, and therefore to some extent in law courts, to show that opposite-sex monogamy is not “unloving” or “unChristian,” as is claimed by critics. To do this, Alvaré addressed common accusations against religious institutions holding traditional sexual standards, showing these standards to be well-supported by empirical evidence.
Common Accusations against Traditional Sexual Morality, and Recommended Responses
Alvaré finds four arguments that are directed particularly at Catholic institutions, although again, they might be applicable to certain other religious institutions. The first is that Catholic organizations are in no position to require traditional sexual morality of their personnel due to the sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church. The second is that the Church is obsessed with sex and Catholic institutions are more focused on certain deviations from this morality (such as same-sex activity) than others (such as contraception). The third is that Catholic institutions treat deviations from sexual morality more severely than disagreement with other Catholic teachings, and fourth that the majority of Catholics disagree with the Church’s teachings about sex and therefore Catholic institutions should not enforce these teachings on their employees or incorporate them into their services.
Regarding the first, a Catholic institution should first acknowledge the gravity of the Church’s fault in covering up the widespread abuse. While the Church has taken “substantial steps” against abuse and provided for the restitution of victims, and “the overwhelming majority of clergy and religious still enjoy respect,” nevertheless thousands of people were abused, and the cover-ups by bishops and other church leaders were real. If the Catholic Church is indeed the true church founded by Jesus Christ “she has a long way to go before she can responsibly claim that all her employees and institutions are adequately manifesting the inbreaking of the Kingdom.”
With this being said, an institution should have its own strong policies against sex abuse and should be able to point to them. For some listening to such an institutional response there will be “an impenetrable barrier” to Catholic sexual teaching because of the crisis. But the institution still has an obligation to hold to Catholic morality because it is confident that if adhered to, traditional morality will lead “to greater happiness, freedom, dignity, and equality.” This writer would add that this consideration is in addition to the absolutely sufficient reason, which is that traditional morality must be adhered to by Christian institutions because the Church’s sexual teachings are divine precepts.
In response to the second objection, it should be pointed out that it is contemporary Western culture, not the Church, which is obsessed with sex. The church does not sell or profit from the numerous and ubiquitous “products, advertisements, programs and rhetoric feting certain sexual desires, images, identities, and behaviors over the past half century.” Nor did the Church “write the Supreme Court opinions characterizing sexual expression unlinked to marriage and children as being atop the pantheon of human rights,” nor “write and fund the sex-education programs encouraging even the youngest children to think of themselves as sexual actors,” nor develop and promote “sexually demeaning and violent videos, games, and music, or the mechanical sex doll.” Rather “today’s obsession with sex began with powerful secular voices, many of whom are now demanding entrance into religious institutions, while these institutions are struggling to retain their freedom to be what they are, including by fostering stable, loving family relationships.” The Church is being blamed for resisting pressure to impose acceptance of sexual immorality on all of society, thus obscuring her mission of “proclaiming the word of God … celebrating the sacraments … and exercising her ministry of charity.”
In replying to the third objection (lack of concern for non-sexual issues), it should be stated first that “the institution does not pry into people’s private lives” but concerns itself with sins that involve public relationships (cohabitation, same-sex marriage, transgender identification). These naturally present themselves as requiring an institutional decision more than private dissent on other matters (such as immigration or capital punishment). Also, certain sexual sins, such as contraception, abortion, or nonmarital intercourse are likely to be private acts, less likely to be known and subject to adverse action. There are also fewer clear rules, fewer bright lines to be crossed on non-sexual issues (“immigration, poverty, health care, the environment, labor,” etc.).
Regarding the fourth objection, that the majority of Catholics disagree with Church teaching, it can be pointed out that Catholics who are observant (regularly attend mass, etc.) are a very different population than those who simply are affiliated with the church (regular attenders at mass varying from 17 percent to 24 percent), and they are much more likely to agree with the Church’s teaching than those who don’t. Secondly, the Church has a prophetic function, proclaiming things that people may not want to hear. Additionally, the Church’s teachings on non-sexual “social justice” issues are commonly prudential judgments, based on the current place and circumstance, not a doctrinal matter, based on divine and natural law.
Evidential Support for Catholic Sexual Morality
Alvaré then turned to evidential support for Catholic sexual morality. For each issue she addressed criticisms that are made against the church’s teaching, and research in these areas and effective responses that can be made to them. (Many links cited in this section are to Institute of Family Studies articles, where there is no scroll bar, the scroll wheel of a computer mouse must be used).
First, she addressed a common deviation, cohabitation and premarital sex. Here, once cohabitation becomes public knowledge, an employee may be asked either to separate from the cohabiting partner, marry the partner, or leave employment. This is because of the church’s teaching about fornication, which is listed as a mortal sin. An employee against whom action has been taken may sue under marital status discrimination laws, although those laws were intended to protect against discrimination because of status, not conduct. Criticisms of Catholic doctrine are that cohabitation helps couples discern whether they should marry, and that action against cohabitation discriminates against women, because their status can be discerned (by pregnancy) sooner.
In answer Alvaré said that an institution should indicate that it treats men and women exactly the same on sexual issues. It cannot control the fact that a woman’s involvement because of pregnancy becomes apparent sooner. A man’s involvement will become visible through his health policy or through conversation. Regarding the first charge, cohabitation does not “communicate or engender” God’s love. This “is reflected in decades of empirical research.” It has been shown that “cohabitation fosters the acceptance of breakups.” Later marriage after cohabitation is undermined by serial cohabitation, and this “is becoming increasingly common.” Infidelity and violence are much more common with cohabiting couples. For men, there has been found to be 57 percent to 400 percent more infidelity in cohabitation versus marriage, while for women, the figure is 800 percent. Violence is “far more prevalent in cohabitation than in marriage.” Cohabiting individuals therefore very reasonably report that they are less happy than married individuals. She pointed out that over half of the 40 percent of children who are born out-of-wedlock in this country are born to cohabiting couples, and they “are dramatically more likely to see their parents’ relationship dissolve than children born into a marriage.’ This, she said, is also true in Europe, where there is “longer social acceptance of cohabitation.”
Alvaré suggested that a Catholic institution which is faced with a lawsuit regarding cohabitation can argue that God “made us for love, which is faithful, permanent, sacrificial, and able to welcome children with all the stability and security that their vulnerability requires. This is what adults and children deserve. Cohabitation doesn’t reflect God’s design for love, and instead regularly harms both adults and any children involved. These conclusions are based not only upon the words and life of Jesus, but also upon the robust consensus of empirical investigations performed in the US and around the world.”
On the subject of contraception, this is a practice used by most people (99 percent) who are sexually active, and also 99 percent of Americans, yet the legal situation protecting the church’s position has held up surprisingly well. It is important to remember, Alvaré said, that what is at issue legally is Catholic institutions’ right not to provide or facilitate the use of contraception, not prohibiting it in society. It is also important to be aware, she said, that some research indicates a link between the use of contraception and “troubled male-female relations,” and that hormonal contraception “has multiple negative consequences for women’s health.”
Regarding the claim that the Catholic institutions are being unloving by not providing contraception, when (it is claimed) it is vital to “women’s employment, educational attainment, and emotional well-being,” Alvaré proposed a three-part response. First, Catholic institutions will insure treatments that have a contraceptive effect that are needed for a serious medical condition (such as ovarian cysts). Secondly, the introduction of hormonal drugs or contraceptive devices for certain conditions where pregnancy is dangerous itself poses a health risk and is better addressed with barrier methods or natural family planning. Additionally, hormonal contraceptive themselves “pose health risks to ordinarily healthy women.” An HHS “request for proposal” even concedes the danger of hormonal contraceptives. Finally, a Catholic institution defending its right not to fund contraception should note that the World Health Organization has listed Fertility Awareness Based Methods (FABMs), a modern version of Natural Family Planning (NFP) as among those contraceptive methods with “a sound basis in reproductive biology, a precise protocol for correct use and the evidence for efficacy under various conditions based on appropriately designed studies.”
Alvaré then discussed evidential support for the Church’s teaching on abortion, same-sex relations, same-sex marriages, and transgender surgeries. This, and her final thoughts, will be reviewed in a subsequent article.
More from IRD:
The Challenge of Fidelity to Catholic Faith by Catholic Institutions – Part 1
Helen Alvaré archived articles
Mere Anglicanism in an Age of Expressive Individualism
No comments yet
Leave a Reply