Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
The Stupidest Thing I Have Ever Read

The Stupidest Thing I Have Ever Read

Last updated on: June 10, 2014 at 3:43 pm by Fred Clark

The Stupidest Thing I Have Ever Read 2014-06-10T15:43:30-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

It’s from the year I was born, in something called the “Minority Report of the Papal Commission for the Study of Problems of the Family, Population, and Birth Rate.”

And this is so epically, superlatively stupid that it qualifies not just as the Stupidest Thing I Have Ever Read* but also as a graduate-level course in How to Be Stupid. This is advanced agnotology — the kind of stupidity that can only be embraced and chosen by men who are otherwise apparently not this mind-bogglingly mind-boggled.

First a bit of background to set the stage and to explain how it was that I came to read the Stupidest Thing I Have Ever Read. This is from Religion Dispatches, an article by Patricia Miller titled, “The Story Behind the Catholic Church’s Stunning Reversal on Contraception” wherein Miller quotes a small portion of the Stupidest Thing I Have Ever Read.

Miller’s subject here is the papal commission which was purportedly assigned to evaluate the reform of the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception. That commission’s report provided a resounding call for reform, and was thus overruled. Here’s Miller:

The commission voted overwhelmingly to recommend that the ban against artificial means of birth control be lifted. After all, the church had accepted the idea of birth control, so why not give couples a better way to practice it if it would strengthen marriages and families?

Unhappy with the direction of the commission, the Vatican packed the last commission meetings with fifteen bishops to formulate the final recommendation to the pope. But even the bishops voted nine to three (three abstained from voting) to change the teaching, concluding that the popes’ previous teaching on birth control were not infallible and that the traditional theological basis for the prohibition of contraception was invalid. They declared that responsible parenthood was an essential part of modern marriage and that the morality of sexual acts between married couples was not dependent “upon the direct fecundity of each and every particular act” but must be viewed within the totality of the marriage relationship.

Despite the commission’s years of work and theologically unassailable conclusion that the church’s teaching on birth control was neither infallible nor irreversible, Pope Paul VI stunned the world on July 29, 1968, when he reaffirmed the church’s ban on modern contraceptives in Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life). He declared that “each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.”

The pope had deferred to a dissenting minority report prepared by four conservative theologian priests on the commission that maintained contraception was a “sin against nature” and a “shameful and intrinsically vicious act.” These theologians said that church could not change its teaching on birth control because admitting the church had been wrong about the issue for centuries would raise questions about the moral authority of the pope, especially on matters of sexuality, and the belief that the Holy Spirit guided his pronouncements. “The Church cannot change her answer because this answer is true. … It is true because the Catholic Church, instituted by Christ … could not have so wrongly erred during all those centuries of its history,” they wrote.

As one of the conservative theologians famously asked one of the female members of the commission, what would happen to “the millions we have sent to hell” for using contraception if the teaching were suddenly changed?

[Sound of phonograph needle skriiitching across a vinyl record.]

Wait. No. Not possible. Surely the minority report didn’t really say something so utterly circular and foolish as that? We know we’re right because it’s impossible that we should have been wrong? That’s not an argument. It’s not even an assertion — just a self-negating bit of nonsense that swallows itself whole. It’s like something out of Lewis Carroll or Douglas Adams, not something any sapient being might ever have actually said in all sincerity.

So I looked it up. I had to see if Miller’s ellipses there were uncharitably hiding some larger context, something meaningful or logical that would render this senselessness sensible.

But no. The full context only makes this worse. Here, in full, is the Stupidest Thing I Have Ever Read:

The Church cannot change her answer because this answer is true. Whatever may pertain to a more perfect formulation of the teaching or its possible genuine development, the teaching itself cannot be substantially true. It is true because the Catholic Church, instituted by Christ to show men a secure way to eternal life, could not have so wrongly erred during all those centuries of its history. The Church cannot substantially err in teaching doctrine which is most serious in its import for faith and morals, throughout all centuries or even one century, if it has been constantly and forcefully proposed as necessarily to be followed in order to obtain eternal salvation. The Church could not have erred through so many centuries, even though one century, by imposing under serious obligation very grave burdens in the name of Jesus Christ, if Jesus Christ did not actually impose those burdens. The Catholic Church could not have furnished in the name of Jesus Christ to so many of the faithful everywhere in the world, throughout so many centuries, the occasion for formal sin and spiritual ruin, because of a false doctrine promulgated in the name of Jesus Christ.

If the Church could err in such a way, the authority of the ordinary magisterium in moral matters would be thrown into question. The faithful could not put their trust in the magisterium’s presentation of moral teaching, especially in sexual matters.

Some are born ignorant, some achieve ignorance, and some have ignorance thrust upon them. If achieving ignorance is your chief ambition, then study this hacktacular bit of unreason. Here is the key — the surest path to ensuring that nothing can ever be learned, that no mistake can ever be admitted and therefore no error can ever be corrected, no wrong ever righted, no harm ever ended, no injustice ever overturned.

Alas, the phrase “invincible ignorance” has already been claimed for another aspect of Catholic theology, because that perfectly describes the attitude and the “argument” being presented here. The minority report is a lesson in ensuring that one’s ignorance is invincible — invulnerable to learning, to inspiration, to doctrine, reproof, correction or instruction in righteousness.

But what are we to make of the STIHER if we have any ambition other than such eternal, invincible ignorance? Well, first and more generally, we can learn from the mistakes of those who refuse to learn because they can admit no mistakes. We can have the courage and the wisdom to admit that all of us — individually and corporately — have been, will be, and presently are, wrong about many things. (And we don’t know which things we are wrong about.) Acknowledging and admitting that will allow us to attempt to learn and to grow and to become wiser

Second, and more specifically, we should heed the “if … then” logic of the second paragraph above from the STIHER:

If the Church could err in such a way, the authority of the ordinary magisterium in moral matters would be thrown into question. The faithful could not put their trust in the magisterium’s presentation of moral teaching, especially in sexual matters.

Well, yeah. Verily, verily, amen and amen.

The Church did, in fact, err in such a way. The Church is, in fact, still erring in such a way. And that does, in fact, throw into question the authority of the ordinary magisterium in moral matters. It means — inescapably proves — that the faithful cannot blindly put their trust in the magisterium’s presentation of moral teaching, especially in sexual matters.

The Church already knows this. Go ask them. I don’t mean the be-robed “magisterium,” I mean the Church itself. They know that the magisterium’s presentation of moral teaching is untrustworthy. “Especially in sexual matters.” And doubly especially with regard to the specific sexual matter discussed in the Stupidest Thing I Have Ever Read.

They also already know everything Miller suggests here:

But another reason lurked behind the official explanation about why the teaching could not be changed: maintaining the link between sex and procreation was essential to the maintenance of the traditional, subordinate role of women. Maintaining the traditional family, in which men were leaders in the world outside the home and women were confined to the domestic realm by the demands of young children and repeated pregnancies, was a key concern of the Catholic Church. In the mid-1950s the Catholic bishops made headlines when they condemned married working mothers for deserting their children and helping to destroy the home. Allowing women to regulate their fertility was dangerous to what the church considered the natural order of things: women as receptors of God’s will as expressed through the acceptance of pregnancy.

Yep. Men who are terrified of losing their sexual control over women really can’t be trusted for the “presentation of moral teaching … in sexual matters.” Their teaching on such matters will inevitably be shaped by that fear and that thirst for power over women — which is to say that such “moral” teaching will be not just untrustworthy, but actively immoral.

That such immorality has endured through one century, even through so many centuries, does not justify such injustice. It only compounds the sin.

And, yes, that is the necessary theological term for the teaching defended by the STIHER and the entire minority report: sin.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

* And, yes, that’s including the World’s Worst Books.

they are coming for your birth control

Previous Post

June 10, 2014

Conversion to what? Conversion from what? The unanswered questions of 'Great Commission Baptists'

Next Post

June 11, 2014 Participating in deception: 'Narrative can become fact'

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the Roman centurion who converted to Christianity in Acts 10?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Herod Felix Nicodemus Cornelius